Good Works in 1 Peter: Negotiating Social Conflict and Christian Identity in the Greco-Roman World (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161532511, 9783161532528

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford)  · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)  · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

337

Travis B. Williams

Good Works in 1 Peter Negotiating Social Conflict and Christian Identity in the Greco-Roman World

Mohr Siebeck

Travis B. Williams, Born 1980; 2011 PhD University of Exeter; since 2011 Visiting Assistant Professor and then Assistant Professor of Religion, Tusculum College, Greeneville, Tennessee.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153252-8 ISBN 978-3-16-153251-1   ISSN  0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibligraphic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

In Memory of George (“Frank”) and Bobbie Campbell Bob and Joanne Williams yt)d )ml(l yymdq Kl Nynqtm )yb+ Kydbw( rg)

(Tg. Neof. Gen 15:1)

Preface The present work grew out of my doctoral thesis (published as Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering [NovTSup 145; Leiden: Brill, 2012]), in which I attempted to challenge the modern consensus on the nature of persecution addressed by 1 Peter. In doing so, I discussed the various causes of conflict represented in the epistle. One of the causes, as I understand it, was the fact that the readers had been performing “good works” within their Anatolian communities. In this discussion, I mentioned that most modern interpreters have come to an agreement concerning the referent behind these good deeds (viz., that  “doing good” involved acts which were favorably recognized by Greco-Roman society and thus which should have received a positive response from outsiders), and then I briefly proposed a “new perspective” for understanding this important motif. Given the spatial limitations, however, this idea was left undeveloped, being suggested more than demonstrated. The present work is meant to serve as a full demonstration and extension of this earlier proposal. The reason why I feel that a full-length monograph on this subject is so important is because of how wide-ranging this consensus is among Petrine interpreters. In the introduction, I purposefully cite and quote a large number of interpreters as a way of showing just how deeply-ingrained this view has become within Petrine studies. Given how strongly the consensus opinion is held, it would take much more to refute it than the brief comments which were previously set forth. Yet, I feel that a challenge is necessary. The importance lies in its effect on the overall reading of 1 Peter: whereas my previous efforts were meant alter how interpreters approach the problem behind the epistle, this works attempts to reshape how we understand the author’s social strategy in addressing this problem. I would like to express my gratitude to the editors of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey (Editor) and Prof. James A. Kelhoffer (Associate Editor), for their willingness to accept my work into this prestigious series, and to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki (Editorial Director, Theology and Jewish Studies) and his excellent editorial staff for their able assistance. It has been a pleasure to work with everyone at Mohr Siebeck. Portions of this study have appeared elsewhere. Part of Chapter Four and Appendix One earlier appeared as “Benefiting the Community through Good Works? The Economic Feasibility of Civic Benefaction in 1 Peter,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 9 (2013) 147–195. I am grateful to Sheffield Phoenix Press

VIII

Preface

for permission to reproduce the material here. Likewise, a brief section in Chapter Seven appeared as “Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar: Reconciling the Difficulties of the Fourth-Class Condition in 1 Pet 3,14,” Filología Neotestamentaria 26 (2013) 119–160. I am grateful to Ediciones El Alemendro de Córdoba, S.L. for permission to reproduce the material here. Many people have contributed to my thinking about the theme of this book. Most of all, David G. Horrell has been a close friend and mentor as well as a constant source of encouragement. Having read an early draft of the work, he offered many valuable suggestions for its improvement, and he continues to be a wise sounding board off which I can bounce all of my ideas about 1 Peter. I would also like to thank David M. Shaw for proof-reading the entire Manuscript. I also wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere thanks to everyone at Tusculum College. Both the administration and the faculty have been extremely supportive of the project from the beginning. I am especially appreciative of the faculty and staff of the Thomas J. Garland Library for all of their assistance. Charles Tunstall (Reference/Instructional Service Librarian), in particular, has been an invaluable resource during the process of my research, chasing down obscure titles and processing a seemingly innumerable amount of inter-library loan requests. Finally, I want to thank my wife, Amy, and my sons, Bryce and Trent, for all of their support. While work on this project has occasionally taken away from our time together, their patience has been an encouragement throughout the whole process. I am truly grateful for their sacrifice. This work is dedicated in memory of my grandparents (George “Frank” and Bobbie Campbell; Bob and Joanne Williams), whose lives were marked by a devotion to God and a commitment to good works.

Travis B. Williams

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII



Part One A New Perspective on Good Works . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter One: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . Modern Consensus of Good Works in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A B. Problems and Unanswered Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Disconnect between Problem and Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Methodological Flaws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Lack of Specific Referent(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chapter Two: Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter . 16 . Modern Approaches to the Social Strategy of 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . 16 A 1. Acculturation: David L. Balch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2. Distinctiveness and Solidarity: John H. Elliott . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. New Perspectives on 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B. Constructing a Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1. Postcolonial Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 a. Defining Postcolonial Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 b. Applying Postcolonial Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2. Social-Psychology of Coping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31



Part Two Good Works in the Hellenistic World . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter Three: Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards . . . . 39 . The “Noble and Good Man” in Greek Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A 1. “Noble and Good” as an Indicator of Social Status . . . . . . . . . . 40 2. “Noble and Good” as an Indicator of Moral Excellence . . . . . . . . 46 B. Doing “Good” in the Hellenistic World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

X C.

Table of Contents

1. Good Deeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2. Noble Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3. Doing Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4. Emulators of the Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Chapter Four: Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

. Civic Benefaction in Roman Asia Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 A 1. Defining Civic Benefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2. The Nature of Civic Benefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 a. Examining the Types of Benefactions Performed . . . . . . . . . 71 b. Locating the Participants Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 (1) The Cost of Civic Benefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 (2) The Rewards of Civic Benefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 c. Analyzing the Process of Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 B. Examining the Benefaction Theory in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 1. Civic Benefaction and Social Conflict in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2. The Feasibility of Civic Benefaction in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 a) The Economic Feasibility of Civic Benefaction . . . . . . . . . . 84 (1) Civic Benefaction from Slaves? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 (2) Collective Benefaction in 1 Peter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 (3) Economic Conditions within the Petrine Churches . . . . . . 90 b) The Socio-Political Feasibility of Civic Benefaction . . . . . . . . 96 3. The Appropriateness of Civic Benefaction in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . 100 C. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103



Part Three Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity . . . 105

Chapter Five: Good Works in Ancient Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 . The Socio-Political Use of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 A B. The Theological Use of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 1. Diverse Emphases, Common Referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 a. Good Works as Universal Code of Morality . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 b. Good Works as Diaspora Piety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 c. Good Works as Ceremonial Jewish Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 d. Good Works as “Sectarian” Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 2. Diverse Outcomes, Common Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 C. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter Six: Good Works in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 . The Range of Usage in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 A 1. The Socio-Political Use of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 2. The Theological Use of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 B. Good Works in the Pastoral Epistles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 1. The Ethics of the Pastoral Epistles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 a. The Hellenistic Influence on the Ethics of the Pastorals . . . . . . 151 b. The Christian Influence on the Ethics of the Pastorals . . . . . . . 153 2. Appropriating the Language of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 a. Good Works and Christian Distinctiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 (1) The Theological Value of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 (2) The Christian Referent of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 b. Good Works and the Strategy of the Pastoral Epistles . . . . . . . 159 C. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161



Part Four Good Works in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Chapter Seven: Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter . . 165 . Good Works in 1 Peter and Comparative Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 A B. The Optimism of Good Works in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 1. (Dis)honorable Conduct among the Gentiles (1 Pet 2.11–12) . . . . . 168 2. The Silencing of Detractors (1 Pet 2.14–15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 3. Good Works as a Remedy for Social Conflict? (1 Pet 3.13–14) . . . . 180 C. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Chapter Eight: Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

. Establishing Levels of Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 A 1. High Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 2. Medium-High Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 3. Medium-Low Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 4. Low Accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 B. Subaltern Accommodation in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 1. Non-Retaliation against Abuse (1 Pet 2.18–20; 3.9) . . . . . . . . . . 202 2. Submission within the Household (1 Pet 2.18–3.6) . . . . . . . . . . 203 3. Honoring the Emperor (1 Pet 2.17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 C. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Chapter Nine: Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 . Situating Resistance within Social Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 A B. Defining Hegemony and Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

XII

Table of Contents

1. Hegemony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 2. Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 C. Diagnosing Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 1. Clarifying the Ontology of the Emperor (1 Pet 2.13) . . . . . . . . . 224 2. Devaluing Imperial Authority (1 Pet 2.17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 3. Renouncing Social Norms (1 Pet 4.3–4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 4. Embracing the Designation of Deviance (1 Pet 4.16) . . . . . . . . . 235 5. Resisting Satanically-Inspired Opposition (1 Pet 5.8–9) . . . . . . . 237 6. Labeling an Oppressive Power (1 Pet 5.13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 D. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Chapter Ten: Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter . . . . 245 . The Subversive Nature of Good Works in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 A 1. Theological Dimensions of Good Works in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . 246 a. Good Works and Scriptural Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 b. Good Works and the Connection with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . 249 c. Good Works and the Antonym of Bad Deeds . . . . . . . . . . . 250 d. Good Works and Eschatological Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 2. Good Works and Social Conflict in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 a. Suffering the Consequences of “Doing Good” . . . . . . . . . . . 255 b. Overlapping Social Standards and Social Conflict . . . . . . . . . 257 B. The Social Function of Good Works in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 1. Diagnosing the Social Strategy of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 a. External Function: Resisting from the Margins . . . . . . . . . . 260 (1) Identifying the Level of Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 (2) Identifying the Target(s) of Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 b. Internal Function: Disidentification through Symbolic Inversion . 268 2. Evaluating the Social Strategy of Good Works . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

. Expenses of a Middling Household in Roman Anatolia . . . . . . . . . 280 A B. Income of a Middling Household in Roman Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . 291

Appendix Two: The Partitioning of Good Works in 1 Peter . . . . . . . . 296 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

Abbreviations All references that fall within the sphere of biblical studies are abbreviated according to Patrick H. Alexander, et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). Materials that are not found in the SBL Handbook are listed below. AEG BCSNT BDAG

BDF

BE BECNT BGU BHGNT BM Bosch, Ankara CBNT CEB CEG I CID IV

Abingdon Essential Guides Biblischer Commentar über sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Edited by Frederick W. Danker, based on Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Edited by Kurt and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised from the 9th–10th German edition, incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Bulletin épigraphique Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 19 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895–2005. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Bibelwissenschaftliche Monographien Bosch, Emin. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum. Türk Tarih kurumu yayainlarindan, Series 7, no. 46. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1967. Commentaire biblique, Nouveau Testament Commentaire évangélique de la Bible Hansen, Peter A., ed. Carmina Epigraphica Graeca: Saeculorum VIII–V a.Chr.n. Text und Kommentare 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1983. Lefèvre, François, Didier Laroche, and Olivier Masson, eds. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes, Tome IV: Documents Amphictioniques. Paris: Ecole française d’Athènes/Diff. de Boccard, 2002.

XIV CIG CIJ

CIL CPJ CPL DCLS EC ECC ECM EDNT EUS F.Amyzon FCNT F.Delphes III,1 F.Delphes III,2 F.Delphes III,3 F.Delphes III,4 FiloNT FSBP GIBM GTJ HALOT

Abbreviations

Boeckh, Augustine, ed. Corpus inscriptionum graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1828–1877. Frey, Jean-Baptiste, ed. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum: recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère. 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di archeologia Cristiana, 1936–1952. Revision of vol. 1: Baruch Lifshitz, ed. Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. New York: KTAV, 1975. Mommsen, Theodor, et al., eds. Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. 17 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1853–. Tcherikover, Victor, et al., eds. Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957–1964. Cavenaile, Robert, ed. Corpus papyrorum Latinarum. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1956–58. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Epworth Commentaries Eerdmans Critical Commentary Aland, Barbara, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior IV Catholic Letters, Part 1: Text. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013. Balz, Horst R., and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. European University Studies Robert, Jeanne and Louis Robert, eds. Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, I. Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions. Paris: de Boccard, 1983. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings Bourguet, Émile, ed. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie, Fasc. 1, Inscriptions de l’entrée du sanctuaire au trésor des Athéniens. Paris: de Boccard, 1929. Colin, Gaston, ed. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie, Fasc. 2, Inscriptions du trésor des Athéniens. Paris: Fontemoing et Cie, 1909– 1913. Daux, Georges and Antoine Salac, eds. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épi­ graphie, Fasc. 3, Inscriptions depuis le trésor des Athéniens jusqu’aux bases de Gélon. 2 vols. Paris: de Boccard, 1932–1943. Colin, Gaston, et al, eds. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie, Fasc. 4, Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et la région nord du sanctuaire. 4 vols. Paris: de Boccard, 1930–1976. Filología Neotestamentaria Fontes et subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes Newton, C. T., ed. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1874–1916. Grace Theological Journal Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Stamm, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and ed-

Abbreviations

HCNT HCSB HSNT I.Ankara IAph2007 I.Apollonia

I.Asklepieion

I.Assos I.Byzantion I.Cos I.Délos I.Ephesos I.Erythrai IG II2 IG IV2,1 IG V,1 IG V,2 IG IX,1

XV

ited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament Holman Christian Standard Bible Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments Mitchell, Stephen, and David French, eds. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra), vol. 1: From Augustus to the End of the Third Century AD. Vestigia 62. Munich: Beck, 2012. Reynolds, Joyce, Charlotte Roueché, and Gabriel Bodard, eds. Inscriptions of Aphrodisias (2007), available . Cabanes, Pierre and Neritan Ceka. Corpus des inscriptions grecques d’Illyrie méridionale et d’Épire 1. Inscriptions d’Épidamne-Dyrrhachion et d’Apollonia, vol. 2: Inscriptions d’Apollonia d’Illyrie. Études épigraphiques 2. Athens: Fondation D. et E. Botsaris/Ecole française d’Athènes 1997. Peek, Werner, ed. Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Band 60, Heft 2. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1969. Merkelbach, Reinhold, ed. Die Inschriften von Assos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 4. Bonn: Habelt, 1976. Łajtar, Adam, ed. Die Inschriften von Byzantion. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 58. Bonn: Habelt, 2000. Paton, William R. and Edward L. Hicks, eds. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Repr. Hildesheim/New York: G. Olms, 1990. Durrbach, Félix, et al, eds. Inscriptions de Délos. 7 vols. Paris: Champion, 1926–1972. Wankel, Hermann, et al., eds. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11.1–17.4. 8 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979–84. Engelmann, Helmut and Reinhold Merkelbach, eds. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 1. Bonn: Habelt, 1972. Kirchner, Johannes, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Parts I–III, 2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1913–1940. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, IV. Inscriptiones Argolidis. Fasc. 1, Inscriptiones Epidauri. 2nd ed. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1929. Kolbe, Walter, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, V,1. Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1913. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, V,2. Inscriptiones Arcadiae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1913. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae IX,1. Inscriptiones Phocidis, Locridis, Aetoliae, Acarnaniae, insularum maris Ionii. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1897.

XVI IG IX,12.2

IG IX,12.4

IG IX,2 IG X,2.1 IG XI IG XII,3

IG XII,5 IG XII,7 IG XII,9 IG XII,Sup. IGBulg I2 IGLPalermo IGR IGUR I.Halicarnassus I.Heraclea I.Hierapolis

I.Iasos

Abbreviations

Klaffenbach, Günther, and Klaus Hallof, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae IX, Inscriptiones Graeciae septentrionalis voluminibus VII et VIII non comprehensae. Pars I, Inscriptiones Phocidis Locridis Aetoliae Acarnaniae insularum maris Ionii. Fasc. II: Inscriptiones Acarnaniae. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1957. Klaffenbach, Günther, and Klaus Hallof, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae IX, Inscriptiones Graeciae septentrionalis voluminibus VII et VIII non comprehensae. Pars I, Inscriptiones Phocidis Locridis Aetoliae Acarnaniae insularum maris Ionii. Fasc. IV: Inscriptiones insularum maris Ionii. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Kern, Otto, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, IX,2. Inscriptiones Thessaliae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1908. Edson, Charles F., ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, X. Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Pars II, fasc. 1: Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et Viciniae. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972. Dürrbach, Felix, and Pierre Roussel, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae XI. Inscriptiones Deli. 4 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1912–27. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, 3. Inscriptiones Symes, Teutlussae, Teli, Nisyri, Astypalaeae, Anaphes, Therae et Therasiae, Pholegandri, Meli, Cimoli. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1898. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII,5. Inscriptiones Cycladum. 2 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1903–1909. Delamarre, Jules, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII,7. Inscriptiones Amorgi et insularum vicinarum. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1908. Ziebarth, Erich, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII,9. Inscriptiones Euboeae insulae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1915. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII. Supplementum. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1939. Michajlov, Georgi I., ed. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, vol. 1: Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini. 2nd ed. Serdicae: Academiae Litterarum Bulgaricae, 1970. Manni Piraino, Maria T., ed. Iscrizioni greche lapidarie del Museo di Palermo. Sikelika, Serie Storica 6. Palermo: Flaccovio, 1973. Cagnat, René, et al., eds. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 4 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927. Moretti, Luigi, ed. Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae. 4 vols. in 5 parts. Rome: Istituto Italiano per la storia antica, 1968–1990. Cousin, Georges and Charles Diehl. “Inscriptions d’Halicarnasse,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 14 (1890) 90–121. Jonnes, Lloyd, ed. The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 47. Bonn: Habelt, 1994. Judeich, Walther, ed. “Inschriften.” Pages 67–202 in Altertümer von Hierapolis. Edited by Carl Humann, et al. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 4. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1898. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Iasos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 28.1–2. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1985.

Abbreviations

I.Ilion I.Keramos I.Kibyra I.Knidos I.KPolis I.Kremna

I.Kyme I.Labraunda ILAlg I I.Lampsakos I.Laod.Lyk. I.Leros I.Magnesia I.MagSip I.Milet I 3 I.Mylasa I.Nikaia I.Olympia IosPE I2

XVII

Frisch, Peter, ed. Die Inschriften von Ilion. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 3. Bonn: Habelt, 1975. Varinlioğlu, Ender, ed. Die Inschriften von Keramos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 20. Bonn: Habelt, 1986. Corsten, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Kibyra, I: Die Inschriften der Stadt und ihrer näheren Umgebung. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 60. Bonn: Habelt, 2002. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Knidos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 41. Bonn: Habelt, 1992. Becker-Bertau, Friedrich, ed. Die Inschriften von Klaudiu Polis. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 31. Bonn: Habelt, 1986. Horsley, G. H. R. and Stephen Mitchell, eds. The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia, including texts from Kremna, Ariassos, Keraia, Hyia, Panemoteichos, the Sanctuary of Apollo of the Perminoundeis, Sia, Kocaaliler, and the Döşeme Boğazi. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 57. Bonn: Habelt, 2000. Engelmann, Helmut, ed. Die Inschriften von Kyme. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 5. Bonn: Habelt, 1976. Crampa, Jonas, ed. Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches, III: Greek Inscriptions. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4–5. 2 vols. Lund/Stockholm: Svenska Institut i Athen, 1969–1972. Gsell, Stéphane, and Hans-Georg Pflaum, and Louis Leschi, eds. Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie, 1: Inscriptions de la proconsulaire. Paris: Champion, 1922. Frisch, Peter, ed. Die Inschriften von Lampsakos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 6. Bonn: Habelt, 1978. Corsten, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn: Habelt, 1997. Manganaro, Giacomo. “Le Iscrizioni delle isole Milesie.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 41–42 (1963–1964) 293–349. Kern, Otto, ed. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin: W. Spermann, 1900. Ihnken, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Sipylos, mit einem Kommentar zum Sympolitievertrag mit Smyrna. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 8. Bonn: Habelt, 1978. Rehm, Albert. Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, Bd. 1, Hft. 3: Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin: Reimer, 1914. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Mylasa. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 34–35. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1987–1988. Şahin, Sencer, ed. Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9–10.3. 4 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979–1987. Dittenberger, Willhelm, and Karl Purgold, eds. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Olympia 5. Berlin: Asher, 1896. Latyshev, Basilius [Vasilii], ed. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, vol. 1: Inscriptiones Tyriae, Ol-

XVIII

IPArk

I.Pergamon I.Perge I.Perge (EA) I.Pessinous I.Priene I.Prusa I.Prusias I.Sardis VII I.ScM I

I.ScM II

I.ScM III

Iscr.Cos I.Selge I.Sestos I.Sinope

Abbreviations

biae, Chersonesi Tauricae. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Iussu et Impensis Societatis Archaeologicae Imperii Russici 1916. Thür, Gerhard, and Hans Taeuber, ed. Prozessrechtliche Inschriften der griechischen Poleis: Arkadien (IPArk). Sitzungsberichte (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse) 607. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994. Fränkel, Max, ed. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. 2 vols. Altertümer von Pergamon 8.1–2. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1890–95. Şahin, Sencer, ed. Die Inschriften von Perge. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn: Habelt, 1999. Merkelbach, Reinhold and Sencer Şahin. “Die publizierten Inschriften von Perge.” Epigraphica Anatolica 11 (1988) 97–170. Strubbe, Johan H. M., ed. The Inscriptions of Pessinous. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66. Bonn: Habelt, 2005. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906. Corsten, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 39–40. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1991–1993. Ameling, Walter, ed. Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 27. Bonn: Habelt, 1985. Buckler, William Hepburn, and David Moore Robinson, eds. Sardis, VII. Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Part I. Leiden: Brill 1932. Pippidi, Dionisie M., ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. vol. 1. Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1983. Stoian, Iorgu, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae, vol. 2: Tomis et territorium. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1987. Avram, Alexandru, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae, vol. 3: Callatis et territorium. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 2000. Segre, Mario, ed. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, 6. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider 1993. Nollé, Johannes and Friedel Schindler, ed. Die Inschriften von Selge. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 37. Bonn: Habelt, 1991. Krauss, Johannes, ed. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 19. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. French, David H. The Inscriptions of Sinope. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 64. Bonn: Habelt, 2004.

Abbreviations

I.Smyrna

XIX

Petzl, Georg, ed. Die Inschriften von Smyrna. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 23–24,1–2. 3 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1982, 1987 & 1990. I.Stratonikeia Şahin, M. Çetin, ed. Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 21–22.1–2. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1982–90. I.Tralleis Poljakov, Fjodor B., ed. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36. Bonn: Habelt, 1989. I.Xanthos Balland, André, ed. Fouilles de Xanthos, VII: Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létôon. Paris: Klincksieck, 1981. JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism JIGRE Horbury, William, and David Noy, eds. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Johnson, Epitaphs Johnson, Gary J. Early-Christian Epitaphs from Anatolia. SBLTT 35. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. JRASup Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus JSHJ KEHNT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Library of Pauline Studies LPS LW Le Bas, Philippe, and William Henry Waddington, eds. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. fait par ordre du gouvernement français pendant les années 1843 et 1844, Tome III, 5ème partie: Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1870. Keil, Josef, et al., eds. Monumenta asiae minoris antiqua. Journal of MAMA Roman Studies Monographs. 10 vols. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1928–. Michel Michel, Charles, ed. Recueil d’inscriptions grecques. Paris: Brussels: Lamertin, 1900. MNTS McMaster New Testament Studies MTS Marburger theologische Studien National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, Special Studies NABPRSSS Series NET New English Translation NIDNTT Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–78. NRSV New Revised Standard Version NTM New Testament Message O.Berenike II Bagnall, Roger S., et al, eds. Documents from Berenike, vol. 2: Texts from the 1999–2001 Seasons. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 33. Bruxelles: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth 2005. Tait, John G. and Claire Préaux, eds. Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian O.Bodl. II Library at Oxford and Various Other Collections, vol. 2: Ostraca of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 33. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1955.

XX

Abbreviations

Binger, Jean, et al, eds. Mons Claudianus: Ostraca Graeca et Latina. 4 vols. Documents de Fouilles 29, 32, 38, 47. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1992–2009. OGIS Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae: Supplementum sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903–1905. Reprinted by Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960. O.Krok. Cuvigny, Hélèlne, ed. Ostraca de Krokodilô, vol. 1: La correspondance militaire et sa circulation. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 51. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 2005. OTM Oxford Theological Monographs O.WadiHamm. Kayer, F., ed. “Nouveaux textes grecs du Ouadi Hammamat.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 98 (1993) 111–156. P.Bad. II Bilabel, Friedrich, ed. Griechische papyri (urkunden, briefe, mumienetiketten). Veröffentlichungen aus den badischen Papyrus-Sammlungen 2. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1923. P.Berl.Salmen. Salmenkivi, Erja, ed. Cartonnage Papyri in Context: New Ptolemaic Documents from Abū Ṣīr al-Mala. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 119. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2002. Zilliacus, Henrik, ed. Vierzehn Berliner griechische Papyri. Societas P.Berl.Zill. Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum XI, 4. Helsingfors: Societas scientiarum Fennica, 1941. P.Bon. Montevecchi, Orsolina, ed. Papyri Bononienses. Pubblicazioni dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, n.s. 42. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1953. Collart, Paul, ed. Les Papyrus Bouriant. Paris: Champion, 1926. P.Bour. P.Coll.Youtie Hanson, Ann Ellis, ed. Collectanea Papyrologica: Texts Published in Honor of H. C. Youtie. Papyrologische Text und Abhandlungen 19–20. Bonn: Habelt, 1976. Petersen-Luschan, Petersen, Eugen A. H. and Felix von Luschan. Reisen im südwestlichen  RLMK Kleinasien, vol. 2: Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kiby­ratis. Vienna: Ge­ rold, 1889. Bataille, André, et al, eds. Les Papyrus Fouad. Textes et documents / P.Fouad Société royale égyptienne de papyrologie 3. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1939. P.Gen. Lat. Nicole, Jules and Charles Morel, eds. Archives militaires du 1er siècle: texte inédit du Papyrus latin de Genève no. 1. Genève: H. Kündig, 1900. P.Giss. Eger, Otto, Ernst Kornemann, and Paul M. Meyer, eds. Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen. Leipzig-Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1910–1912. PGM Preisendanz, Karl, et al., eds. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. 2nd ed. Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–1974. P.Grenf. II Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt, eds. New Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri. Greek Papyri 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. O.Claud.

Abbreviations

P.IFAO II P.Lond. P.Masada P.Mich. II P.Mich. V

PNTC P.Oxy. P.Princ. III P.Ross.Georg. I P.Ryl. II

P.Stras. P.Tebt. P.Vind.Worp RMR RSV SB SBG SEG SGDI SIG3

XXI

Wagner, Guy, ed. Papyrus grecs de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale II. Bibliothèque d’étude – Institut français d’archéologie 55. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1971. Kenyon, Frederic G., et al., eds. Greek Papyri in the British Museum. 7 vols. London: British Museum, 1893–1974. Cotton, Hannah M. and Joseph Geiger, eds. Masada II. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Report. The Latin and Greek Documents. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Winter, John G., ed. Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection, vol. 3: Miscellaneous Papyri. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 40. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1936. Husselman, Elinor M., et al, eds. Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection, vol. 5: Papyri from Tebtunis. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1944. Pillar New Testament Commentary Grenfell, Bernard P., et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 72 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1898–. Johnson, Allan C. and Sidney P. Goodrich, eds. Papyri in the Princeton University Collections. Princeton University Studies in Papyrology 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1942. Zereteli, Gregor, ed. Papyri russischer und georgischer Sammlungen, vol. 1: Literarische Texte. Tiflis: Universitätslithographie, 1925. Hunt, Arthur S. and Colin H. Roberts, eds. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, vol. 2: Documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1915. Preisigke, Friedrich, ed. Griechische Papyrus der Kaiserlichen Universitäts- und Landes-bibliothek zu Strassburg. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1912–1920. Grenfell, Bernard P., et al, eds. The Tebtunis Papyri. 5 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1902–2005. Worp, Klaas A., ed. Einige Wiener Papyri. Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 1. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1972. Fink, Robert O., ed., Roman Military Records on Papyrus. Philological Monographs 26. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 1971. Revised Standard Version Preisigke, Friedrich, et al, eds. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1915–. Studies in Biblical Greek Roussel, Pierre, et al., eds. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Lugduni Batanorum: Sijthoff, 1923–. Collitz, Hermann, et al, eds. Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften. 4 vols. in 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1884–1915. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Leipzig: Apud S. Hirzelium, 1915–1924. Reprinted by Hildesheim/ New York: G. Olms, 1982.

XXII SNTW Studia Pontica III TAM II TANZ TDNT Tit.Cal. Tit.Cam. TLNT TSR T.Vindon.

WAS WGRWSup WS

Abbreviations

Studies of the New Testament and Its World Anderson, J. G. C., Franz Cumont and Henri Grégoire, eds. Studia Pontica, III. Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie. Brussels: Lamertin 1910. Kalinka, Ernst, ed. Tituli Lyciae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. 3 vols. Vienna: Alfredi Hoelder, 1920–1944. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Segre, Mario. “Tituli Calymnii.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 22–23 (1944–45 [1952]) 1–248. Segre, Mario and Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. “Tituli Camirenses.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 27–29 (1949–51) 141–318. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Texts and Studies in Religion Speidel, M. Alexander, ed. Die römischen Schreibtafeln von Vindonissa: Lateinische Texte des militärischen Alltags und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung. Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 12. Brugg: Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, 1996. Wiener alttestamentliche Studien Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series Wuppertaler Studienbibel

Part One

A New Perspective on Good Works

Chapter One

Introduction One of the central themes in the epistle of 1 Peter is the notion of “good works”/“doing good.” The letter includes a number of passages which describe the conduct of the readers using the adjectives ἀγαθός or καλός or some derivative (nominal or verbal) form. On two separate occasions, the audience is told to maintain “good conduct” among the Gentiles (2.12 [τὴν ἀναστροφὴν . . . καλήν]; 3.16 [τὴν ἀγαθὴν . . . ἀναστροφήν]). They are similarly enjoined to practice “good works” (καλῶν ἔργων [2.12]) and to “do good” (ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν [3.11]). Throughout 1 Peter, the author repeatedly draws from the ἀγαθο-word group (ἀγαθοποιός [2.14]; ἀγαθοποιέω [2.15, 20; 3.6, 17]; ἀγαθοποιΐα [4.19]).1 The letter makes reference to this idea no less than eleven times in just five brief chapters, and it would appear that the author intends the strategy to be one of the primary responses to the conflict in which his readers are engaged.2 Because of its prominence in the overall message of 1 Peter, the good works motif plays an important role in modern reconstructions of the epistle’s social strategy. This means that a proper diagnosis of the author’s goals and objectives is largely determined by the accuracy with which this important theme is understood.

A. Modern Consensus of Good Works in 1 Peter What is striking – especially considering how divisive other interpretive questions have been – is the broad agreement which Petrine scholars have reached concerning the meaning and function of the good works motif. Within modern scholarship, the interpretation of this theme has remained nearly uniform for the past century. The modern consensus on good works in 1 Peter is grounded on the premise that “doing good” involved acts which were approved by Greco-Roman society. According to proponents of this popular opinion, the author of 1 Peter subscribes to the idea that the “Christian lifestyle should, to whatever extent possible, be characterized by a

1   Although there is variation in the specific terminology and forms employed, all of these references focus on a particular kind or quality of behavior, which the author labels as “good.” This concentration represents what we will describe as the letter’s good works motif/theme. 2   The nature of the conflict situation represented in 1 Peter is discussed in Travis B. Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering (NovTSup 145; Leiden: Brill, 2012).

4

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

way of life that even pagans could recognize as good.”3 As a result, he admonishes his readers to begin to undertake good works. Rather than simple pietistic deeds undertaken according to a Christian standard,4 these good works are thought to be acts that were favorably acknowledged by “pagan” society.5 The interpretive basis for this conclusion is twofold. First, the positive acknowledgement of these good deeds is grounded in the use of popular Hellenistic terminology. It is on this basis, for instance, that Earl J. Richard argues, [b]oth the terminology and style of [1 Pet 2.12] indicate that the conduct about which the author speaks is not only holy, reverent behavior but also deeds that are meant to be seen as honorable or beautiful. . . . [The author of 1 Peter] here twice employs the synonym kalos to insist that Christian behavior be both good and publicly acknowledged as such, specifically that it be deemed “beautiful or honorable” in the eyes of Gentile neighbors.6

The reason why such heavy stress is placed on the public recognition of these deeds is because, according to many commentators, “[t]he term kalos has an aesthetic as well as a moral connotation. It denotes conduct that is both morally just and aesthetically attractive, thus behavior that is in all senses worthy of honor.”7 As such, many   Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) 170. Cf. Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 96: “While good certainly does not stand over against holy in that Peter would never ask Christians to do that which was less than holy, [1 Pet] 2:14 shows that its focus is on virtues that the culture itself should approve.” 4   I recognize that calling the Petrine readers “Christians,” given their historical location, might be technically anachronistic (see John H. Elliott, “Jesus the Israelite was Neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5 [2007] 119­–54). This designation is nonetheless employed throughout the work due to the fact that I am unconvinced that there is a better alternative. We might note that the author himself was moving in this direction when he attempted to transform the stigmatized title Χριστιανός (1 Pet 4.16) into a badge of honor that would be embraced by early Jesus-followers (see pp.  235–37). 5   See John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 469: “The adjective kalos in both instances [i.e., 2.12a and 2.12c] describes behavior that is good, just, and honorable in the sight of both God (cf. 1:17) and society” (original emphasis). Cf. David L. Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,” in Perspectives on First Peter (ed. C. H. Talbert; NABPRSSS 9; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986) 79­– 101: “Contrary to a simple dualistic view, both Christians and pagans recognize good behavior (1 Pet. 2:12–15; 3:13–16)” (87; original emphasis). 6   Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000) 105–106. Cf. Pierre Prigent, Suivre le Christ: Commentaire de la première épître de Pierre (Lyon: Olivétan, 2006) 63: “on peut se demander si le choix de l’adjectif [καλός] n’est pas ici délibéré: les actions visées ne sont pas seulement bonnes, mais elles sont aussi reconnues commes telles.” 7  Elliott, 1 Peter, 466. Cf. Edward G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1947; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952) 170: “καλός and not ἀγαθός is the adjective used here [in 1 Pet 2.12], because it implies that the conduct in question not only is good, but also appears so. This point was of particular importance in a society which applied to the highest kind of human character the term καλός κἀγαθός, i.e. one whose intrinsic goodness is also beautiful in other’s eyes.” This classical distinction between καλός and ἀγαθός was pointed out by many older commentators, who noted that the former would have been recognized and respected (so, e.g., F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter I.1­– II.17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes [London: Macmil3

Chapter One:  Introduction

5

conclude that, “the choice of καλός (“good”) here links Christian ethics to the best of pagan culture to show that Christians are not a threat by reason of their standard of conduct.”8 The second piece of interpretive evidence used to support the notion that good works were favorably regarded by Greco-Roman society is the positive response which is expected from members of the general public. This interpretive deduction is most clearly seen in the treatment of Miroslav Volf. He begins by pointing out that “one of the central passages in 1 Peter entertains a lively hope that precisely the Christian difference – outwardly visible in their good deeds ­– will cause non-Christians to see the truth and eventually convert (2:12, 15; 3:1; 3:16).” On the basis of this favorable reaction, he concludes, “This expectation presupposes overlap between Christian and non-Christian constellations of values. The good works of Christians can be appreciated by non-Christians and look attractive to them.”9 Thus, a positive response from outsiders reveals an acceptable pattern of behavior. Given that these good deeds would have been favorably recognized by the wider civic community, most assume that the letter’s call to “do good” is therefore an admonition to behave in a manner which was consistent with popular, Hellenistic standards of conduct.10 For it only seems natural that, “pour être appréciée des païens, la lan, 1898] 134–35; Jean Monnier, La Première Épître de L’Apôtre Pierre [Macon: Protat Frères, 1900] 111; George W. Blenkin, The First Epistle General of Peter [Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914] 55; J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude [WC; London: Methuen & Co., 1934] 74). 8   Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 177. Cf. J. de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation (WUNT 2/209; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 132 n.  50: “The adjective καλός . . . points to recognizable goods in Greco-Roman culture.” 9   Miroslav Volf, “Soft Difference: Reflections on the Relation Between Church and Culture in 1 Peter,” ExAud 10 (1994) 15–30 (25). Cf. Steven R. Bechtler, Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter (SBLDS 162; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998) 100, who argues that “doing good” means, “to behave in a manner that issues in commendation [from society] rather than censure, in honor rather than dishonor.” 10   Some of the interpreters who have held to this view (since 1970) include: Max-Alain Chevallier, “Condition et vocation des chrétiens en diaspora. Remarques exégétiques sure la 1er épître de Pierre,” RSR 48 (1974) 387–98 (397); Fritz Neugebauer, “Zur Deutung und Bedeutung des 1. Petrusbriefes,” NTS 26 (1979) 61–86 (82–84); David L. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter (SBLMS 26; Atlanta: Scholars, 1981) 81–116; S. Légasse, “La Soumission aux Autorités d’après 1 Pierre 2.13–17: Version Spécifique d’une Parénèse Traditionelle,” NTS 34 (1988) 378–96 (387–88); J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Waco, TX: Word, 1988) 117–18, 126, 132; Karl H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief (6th ed.; HTKNT 13/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1988) 71–72; Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 96–98, 101; Ferdinand-Rupert Prostmeier, Handlungsmodelle im ersten Petrusbrief (FB 63; Würzburg: Echter, 1990) 389–92; Otto Knoch, Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1990) 73; Samuel Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre (2nd ed.; CEB; Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 1992) 188–90; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter (trans. J. E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 158–62, 177–79; Norbert Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief (4th ed.; EKKNT 21; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1993) 113–15, 120–21; Lauri Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis (JSNTSup 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,

6

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

conduite des chrétiens doit correspondre à une échelle des valeurs admise par les premiers.”11 So, one might say that “this ‘good conduct’ is in substance no different from pagan, political and social morality,”12 or one could describe the situation as “[t]he addressees . . . behav[ing] according to the Gentiles’ requirements.”13 Either way, many believe that “the ethic developed in 1 P[eter], despite its use of Jewish sources, is just as close to the ‘bürgerliche Ethik’ of the Greeks as it is to that of the Jews. That is to say, 1 P[eter] does not portray a special ‘Christian’ ethic but encourages a truly human code of conduct.”14 Explaining why the good works in 1 Peter are, in many ways, similar to the ethical standards of Hellenistic society is the point at which modern commentators diverge. Within the pertinent literature, two explanations of this phenomenon appear with some regularity. One attempt to explain these similarities is through an overlap in ethical standards. As interpreters regularly note, “[a]t some points Christian and secular valuations of behavior converge.”15 Or, to put it another way, “Peter recog1995) 135, 192–95; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 176–78, 184–85; M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 113–14; Elliott, 1 Peter, 466, 469; Richard, Reading 1 Peter, 105–108, 112–14; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2, Peter, Jude (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003) 121–23, 129; Donald P. Senior, “1 Peter,” in 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter (SP 15; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003) 65–67, 72; Karl O. Sandnes, “Revised Conventions in Early Paraenesis –­ ‘Working Good’ in 1 Peter as an Example,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (eds. J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004) 373–403; Jobes, 1 Peter, 174–76, 228; Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter, 131–32; Prigent, La première épître de Pierre, 63; Reinhard Feldmeier, The First Epistle of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (trans. P. H. Davids; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) 188 n.  124; Paul A. Holloway, Coping with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective (WUNT 244; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 174–91; Lewis R. Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010) 69–70; Jacques Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre (CBNT 21; Paris: Cerf, 2011) 147; Duane F. Watson, “First Peter,” in First and Second Peter (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012) 65; et al. 11   Légasse, “La Soumission aux Autorités,” 388. 12   Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 275. Cf. Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 113 n.  376: “Das in V 12 zweimal verwendete καλός (gut) ist in der Unwelt ein geläufiger Terminus für das sittlich Gute und kann hier im 1Petr geradezu als Signal für die vorausgesetzte Übereinstimmung mit den Heiden in der ethischen Idealvorstellung gewertet werden.” 13  Thurén, Argument and Theology, 135. Cf. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 92: “the ‘apology’ anticipated in 1 Pet 3:15 would assure outsiders that Christians would conform to the kind of behavior in the household demanded by society, i.e., demanded by masters, husbands, and governors.” 14   John H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Peter 2:4–10 and the Phrase Basileion Hierateuma (NovTSup 12; Leiden: Brill, 1966) 182. Cf. Kathleen E. Corley, “1 Peter,” in Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2: A Feminist Commentary (ed. E. Schüssler Fiorenza; New York: Crossroad, 1994) 349–60: “The author of 1 Peter strives to bring the image of Christianity into accord with a Greco-Roman ideal” (352). 15   John H. Elliott, “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch,” in Perspectives on First Peter (ed. C. H. Talbert; NABPRSSS 9; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986) 61–78 (66). Cf. Wilhelm Brandt, “Wandel als Zeugnis nach dem 1. Petrusbrief,” in Verbum dei manet in aeternum: Eine Festschrift für Prof. D. Otto Schmitz zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 16. Juni 1953 (ed. W. Foerster; Witten: Luther, 1953) 10–25: “Der Maßstab für das, was ‘gut’ ist, liegt

Chapter One:  Introduction

7

nizes that non-Christian values of his culture overlap in some ways with those of the Christian faith.”16 “The implication of this overlap,” according to Karen H. Jobes, “is that Peter does not seem to be thinking in binary categories that characterize society as evil and the Christian community as good. The apostle does not condemn all of the values and customs of first-century culture and society or advise complete withdrawal from it.”17 Despite the effort to bridge the gap between Christians and pagan society by focusing on the values which both shared in common, there were still certain limits which the author of 1 Peter was unwilling to cross. “The point the author impresses on his readers is that such authority and social orderings of relationships [i.e., the “good works” described in the household code] can be respected insofar as subordination to the will of God, the creator and ruler of all, is not compromised.”18 So one might say, “[w]here civic and Christian good intersect, the Christian is to perform it; where they diverge, the Christian is to follow God’s will, not the emperor’s decrees.”19 A second way of explaining the similarities in ethical standards between believers and “pagan” society is through the social conformity of the Anatolian congregations. That is, “Christians had to conform to the expectations of Hellenistic-Roman society so that society would cease criticizing the new cult.”20 Such a strategy, if it nicht im Menschen, nicht in der Beschaffenheit seiner Seel, nicht im Nutzen der πόλις oder der Menschenheit, er liegt im Willen Gottes, dargelegt in seinem Wort. Anderseits muß dieser ‘gute’ Wandel auch nach den Maßstaben der Heiden sich als solcher aufweisen” (12) 16  Jobes, 1 Peter, 170–71. Cf. Feldmeier, First Epistle of Peter, 188 n.  124, who notes that at 1 Pet 2.14–15, “it is indeed assumed that concerning that which is ‘good,’ a consensus is possible between Christians and pagans,” and Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre, 147: “Est donc requise des chrétiens, dans ce contexte, non pas une éthique de la radicalité évangélique, mais une éthique de l’honnête homme . . . , des vertus que les chrétiens ont en commun avec la culture environnante.” 17  Jobes, 1 Peter, 170. 18  Elliott, 1 Peter, 502 (original emphasis). Cf. Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 97: “the following list of virtues [1 Pet 2.13–3.6] can be largely paralleled in pagan lists and in general exhorts Christians to be good citizens as far as possible” (emphasis added). 19  Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 185. Cf. Elliott, “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy,” 73: “But where Christians adherence to pagan values, customs, and moral standards would violate the will of God, and obscure the distinction between the respect due the emperor and the fear reserved for God alone (2:17); where retaliation sanctioned in society would betray the solidarity Christians have with their nonretaliating Lord (2:18–25; 3:9, 15–16); where exploitation of role and rank would deny humility, love, and mutual service owed by all believers to one another (1:22, 2:17, 4:8–11, 5:2–5) as ‘good household stewards of god’s varied grace’ (4:10–11); where continued association with nonbelievers and their sinful desires and futile ways (1:18; 2:11; 4:2–4) would contradict the reality of their conversion, their holy union with God and Jesus Christ and their incorporation into a new family united by a distinctive faith and hope (1:3–2:10); then in such instances when the distinctive identity, cohesion, and commitments of the brotherhood are at stake, the household of God is to manifest its distinctiveness through behavior consonant with the will of God and through social disengagement, nonconformity, and resistance.” 20  Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 88. Cf. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983) 261: “for

8

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

accurately captures the author’s intentions, would not be that far removed from what some interpreters refer to as the “bourgeois ethic” of later Christians writings (e.g., Pastoral Epistles). In this literature, good Christian citizenship is thought to be equated with conformity to the ideals of society. Good works thus play an important role in this reconstruction of early Christian ethics. Analogous to the overlap position, the social conformity view acknowledges certain shared values between Christians and their Greco-Roman neighbors. However, unlike the overlap view, which maintains that the code of conduct encouraged in 1 Peter was congruent with previously held Christian standards, the conformity position suggests that the behaviors toward which the readers are admonished were contrary to prior Christian values: “Such acculturation means that Petrine Christianity accepted hellenistic social values in tension with important values in Jewish tradition (in the Torah) and even in tension with the early Jesus movement, changes that raise questions about continuity and identity in early Christianity.”21 But even here there is considerable agreement with the overlap position, because “where the author is explicitly calling his readers to patterns of conduct that represent a degree of conformity to the empire’s dominion and to established social (household) structures, here too a line at which conformity stops is clearly drawn: Caesar will be honoured, but not worshipped.”22 This notion of partial conformity has not satisfied every interpreter, however. In a provocative essay on the Christians’ responsibility to “honor the emperor,” Warren Carter proposes that the strategy of the author was to encourage his readers to “go all the way.” That is, he suggests that “doing good” meant complete conformity to the standards of society, including pagan sacrifice and worship. For, he maintains, “[i]t is difficult to imagine how the letter’s strategy to overcome negative reports about Christians and rehabilitate them socially (2.12; 3.16) can be accomplished if Christians refuse to participate in cultic sacrifices and feasting.”23 Furthermore, he notes, “Insisting that the commands to honor and submit imply exceptive clauses and propose selective (non-)submission means maintaining what the sake of the Christian mission, they should seek to reduce suffering and tensions as much as possible by a lifestyle that is totally conformed to the customs and ethos of their pagan household and state.” 21   Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,” 81. Cf. David G. Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate Towards a Postcolonial Reading of 1 Peter,” in Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter (eds. R. L. Webb and B. Bauman-Martin; LNTS 364; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 111–43: “the author’s desire [is] that the readers conform quietly and decently to the standards of the world” (134). 22   Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance,” 142. Cf. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 90: “Tragedy, slander, and suffering resulted nevertheless, for the submission [of slaves and wives] had one qualification which destroyed harmony: the Christian wives and slaves were not submissive in that they refused to worship the gods of their masters and husbands.” 23   Warren Carter, “Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13–3.6,” in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (ed. A.-J. Levine; FCNT 8; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 14–33 (25).

Chapter One:  Introduction

9

seems already to be practiced! Refusal to participate in the sacrificial ritual of associations and households would continue the status quo of suspicion, verbal animosity, and hostility.”24 Regardless of the explanation given for the corresponding ethical standards, most scholars tend to view the purpose of these good deeds in a similar manner. Interpreters normally propose a twofold aim for these injunctions. The first is a missionary objective.25 Commentators frequently claim that the author “impresses upon [his readers] the hopeful prospect that honorable behavior on their part will not only demonstrate their innocence but can even prompt the conversion of those who malign them.”26 The second aim is the reduction of hostility. It is not uncommon for interpreters to suggest that, “the domestic code, and more generally the practical instruction of the letter, represents a conformity to broader social expectations as part of the attempt to lessen hostility from outside.”27 Normally, proponents of the overlap view and the conformity theory recognize both of these objectives; yet the former tends to emphasize the missionary focus, while the latter usually stresses the silencing of detractors.   Carter, “Going All the Way?,” 26.   The missionary focus of 1 Peter (especially 2.12) has been a topic of much discussion, see, e.g., Werner Bieder, Grund und Kraft der Mission nach dem I. Petrusbrief (ThSt 29; Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer, 1950); Brandt, “Wandel als Zeugnis,”; Peter Lippert, “Leben als Zeugnis: Ein Beitrag des ersten Petrusbriefes zur pastoral-theologischen Problematik der Gegenwart,” Studia Moralia 3 (1965) 226–68; François Bovon, “Foi chrétienne et religion populaire dans la première Épitre de Pierre,” ETR 53 (1978) 25–41 (40); Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum (WUNT 2/9; Tübingen: Mohr, 1983) 123–26; Reinhard Feldmeier, “Die Außenseiter als Avantgarde. Gesellschaftliche Ausgrenzung als missionarische Chance nach dem 1. Petrusbrief,” in Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism (eds. P. W. van der Horst, et al.; CBET 33; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 161–78; Mark Boyley, “1 Peter – A Mission Document?,” RTR 63 (2004) 72–86; Armand Puig i Tàrrech, “The Mission According to the New Testament: Choice or Need?,” in Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament: Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24.–31. August 2005 (eds. A. A. Alexeev, et al.; WUNT 218; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 231–47 (237–46); Torrey Seland, “Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging Church of 1 Peter,” BBR 19 (2009) 565–89; Douglas Holm, “Holy Engagement: ‘Doing Good’ as a Missional Response in 1 Peter,” Leaven 20 (2012) 110–16. Yet, I would agree with Holloway that, “there is little emphasis on evangelism in 1 Peter” (Coping with Prejudice, 176; cf. Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 114, 157–60). Instead, it might be better to say that, “[w]hile [the author] hoped, no doubt, that some [outsiders] would believe and be saved, he tended to see in them enemies of the gospel awaiting judgment rather than potential brothers and sisters within the church” (William J. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6 [2nd ed.; AnBib 23; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989] 122). 26  Elliott, 1 Peter, 471. Cf. Boring, 1 Peter, 114: “The ‘doing good’ here called for [in 2.12] . . . is not mere personal piety, but an active missionary role (cf. 2:15) that will eventuate in their present detractors not only changing their minds about the Christians, but glorifying God.” 27   Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance,” 134. Cf. Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 81: “one primary purpose of proper household behavior was to reduce the social-political tension between society and the churches.” 24 25

10

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

B. Problems and Unanswered Questions Despite the overwhelming number of supporters who subscribe to this modern consensus, the position is not without (serious) problems. Most troubling is the fact that, in some cases, basic exegetical groundwork has yet to be laid. A major factor contributing to this confusion has been the familiarity of the terminology in both early Christianity and its modern developments. Because the meaning of the language is often derived more from general parlance (or church tradition?) than careful historical investigation, a number of important questions remain unanswered. 1. Disconnect between Problem and Solution One of the most problematic features of the modern consensus is the disconnect between the conflict in which the Petrine readers are involved and the “solution” which good works are said to provide. It is often suggested that doing good (primarily) involved a restricted form of subordination. According to the proponents of this popular opinion, 1 Peter’s recommendation to its readers is to conduct themselves in a way that would be perceived as “good” in the sight of both God and society. But, if these two value systems conflict, the will of God takes precedence over the will of humans. It is the concentration on shared values which, according to the consensus, the author hopes will bring resolution to the present conflict. Examples of this assumption are numerous. David L. Balch, for instance, recognizes that one of the major causes of friction was religious devotion. He notes that, “the submission [of slaves and wives] had one qualification which destroyed harmony: the Christian wives and slaves were not submissive in that they refused to worship the gods of their masters and husbands.”28 He nonetheless continues to maintain that selective (non-)submission was the strategy by which the readers might win over their neighbors, without demonstrating how this strategy might alleviate the problem. This same omission is found throughout the pertinent literature. John H. Elliott, despite his disagreement with Balch over the letter’s social strategy, likewise proposes that, “[t]he behavior of the Christians must be consistent with their distinctive identity as the elect and holy family of God while at the same time providing no actual basis for reproach on the part of their neighbors.”29 What he fails to address, however, is how this balance could be maintained in the world of first-century CE Roman Asia Minor, especially given that at a certain level the two are incompatible (at least, according to the Petrine author’s construction of the Christian experience).  Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 82–86 (quote 90).  Elliott, 1 Peter, 473. Cf. Sharyn Dowd, “1 Peter,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary (eds. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe; Louisvile: Westminster John Knox, 1992) 370­–72: “The recipients of 1 Peter are encouraged to walk the tightrope of being radically different from the surrounding culture because of their Christian identity but at the same time affirming the best values of that culture for the sake of acceptance and witness” (370). 28 29

Chapter One:  Introduction

11

This is one place where the conventional view is particularly vulnerable to the critique offered by Carter. The difficulty stems from a failure to adequately connect the readers’ problem(s) with the author’s proposed solution. What scholars have assumed is that the readers could continue the very things that caused the problem (e.g., not participating in the traditional pagan cultus), yet by being partially subject in other areas (e.g., maintaining an acceptable social hierarchy), the conflict would be resolved. In other words, scholars assume that Anatolian society would respond in the exact opposite manner (i.e., changing from hostility to acceptance) toward the very same Christian actions. Yet, as Carter has previously pointed out, in this reconstruction the original cause of conflict is never resolved, and the means by which the readers might seek to compensate (i.e., partial submission) is insufficient for producing a change in the negative perceptions of their opponents.30 In order for this form of exemptive subordination to be considered a viable interpretive solution, proponents of the consensus view must adequately explain how these good works could have alleviated the problem, given their recognized limitations. Or, to put it another way, the consensus must prove that selective (non-)submission would achieve a positive response from their pagan neighbors, when it had previously only created difficulty. Regrettably, this dilemma has not been resolved. 2. Methodological Flaws The modern consensus has also been hampered by an improper methodological approach whereby the various ancient contexts are assessed. Much of the confusion can be traced back to the seminal study of W. C. van Unnik. In his influential article entitled, “The Teaching of Good Works in 1 Peter,” van Unnik examined three possible sources of reference from which 1 Peter’s idea of good works might have been drawn: (a) the Greco-Roman world; (b) ancient Judaism; and (c) early Christianity. Given the topic of inquiry, these interpretive parameters seem quite natural. Where the problem arises is in the sources used to establish the meaning of good works in each context. After rejecting the Jewish and Christian backgrounds for this important theme, van Unnik reached the conclusion that good deeds in 1 Peter, despite a difference in foundation and aim, correspond to the highest ideals of Hellenistic society. The texts used to represent these alternative backgrounds, however, are far from representative of the ideological conditions during the time leading up to or the time immediately following 1 Peter’s composition.31 In his attempt to discern the “Jewish” per30   Carter, “Going All the Way?,” 26: “It is difficult to imagine how the conventional view of selective (non-)submission with exemption from cultic rituals would constitute ‘good conduct’ able to convert (2.12) and silence (2.15) those who speak ill of this community.” 31   Cf. Chu Luan Eileen Poh, “The Social World of 1 Peter: Socio-Historical and Exegetical Studies,” (Ph.D. diss., King’s College, London, 1998) 96: “van Unnik’s choice of sources for drawing up his ‘brief’ description of good works in early Christian, Greek and Jewish writings is high-

12

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

spective, for instance, van Unnik concentrated primarily on the evidence from rabbinic Judaism.32 What is glaringly absent is any discussion of how this concept was understood in Second Temple Judaism. Such a lacuna would have certainly been an unfortunate omission during the mid-twentieth century when van Unnik first published his study, but it is especially troubling now, given the reassessment of Second Temple Judaism within modern scholarship. When assessing the early Christian context, similar methodological flaws obstruct his conclusions. In a highly selective manner, van Unnik attempts to substantiate his claim that, according to the “Christian” conception, good works were deeds measured by the standards of the Church, which facilitated a right relationship with God through the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins. For support, he briefly produces three Christian writers from the third and fourth centuries CE: Cyprian, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem.33 Lacking is any attempt to connect the use of the good works theme in 1 Peter with other biblical literature such as the letters of Paul or the epistle of James. These considerations should lead us to wonder whether van Unnik’s dismissal of the Jewish and Christian contexts in favor of the Greco-Roman background can be considered valid. Nevertheless, most subsequent discussions continue to work within these same analytical boundaries, and many interpreters often concede van Unnik’s conclusions without considering the sources of his investigation.34 What is needed to remedy this situation is a more thorough investigation of the good works theme in both Jewish literature from the Second Temple period and early Christian literature from the New Testament. Only by revisiting these texts will we be able to judge their appropriateness for understanding 1 Peter.

ly selective, and gives an incomplete understanding of good works in these areas.” Unfortunately, Poh’s attempt to remedy this situation through her own discussion of the pertinent literature is only slightly less abbreviated and thus does little in the way of bringing resolution to the issue. 32   W. C. van Unnik, “The Teaching of Good Works in I Peter,” NTS 1 (1954–55) 92–110; repr. in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia (NovTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 83–105 (88–90). For much of his treatment of the Jewish material, van Unnik is dependent upon the work of Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922–28) 4:559–610. Other Petrine interpreters also tend to equate the Jewish notion of good works with the idea developed in later rabbinic literature without giving further attention to earlier sources (see, e.g., A. R. C. Leaney, The Letters of Peter and Jude: A Commentary on the First Letter of Peter, a Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967] 36–37; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1969] 106–107; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 197 n.  115; Christian Münch, “Geschwister in der Fremde. Zur Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes,” in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief [ed. T. Söding; SBS 216; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009] 130–64 [148–49]). 33   van Unnik, “Good Works in I Peter,” 87–88. 34   Note, for example, the approving comments which Légasse (“La Soumission aux Autorités,” 387) makes toward van Unnik’s treatment.

Chapter One:  Introduction

13

3. Lack of Specific Referent(s) Another problem which hampers the modern consensus is the absence of any specific referent(s) with which to connect these activities.35 Even though most interpreters insist that these were practices shared in common with Hellenistic society, rarely do scholars venture specific details. That is, it is uncommon to find the specific language of 1 Peter situated within any comparative ancient context or material. One of the few proposals to offer any specificity is the notion that good works refer to exceptional acts of civic responsibility which might be enough to overcome the negative perceptions, in spite of the Christians’ failure to fully conform. As far back as the early-twentieth century, scholars have associated these acts with a popular socio-political convention in the Hellenistic world: civic benefaction (euergetism). When understood in this manner, good works were thought to signify beneficent acts of municipal elites who contributed to the welfare of their civic communities. Commentators regularly started to draw this connection at the beginning of the 20th century. In the commentary of J. H. A. Hart, for instance, it was suggested that the praise bestowed by governors, which is mentioned in 1 Pet 2.14, “is exemplified in the crowns, decrees and panegyrics with which the Greek and Jewish States rewarded their benefactors if not mere well-doers.”36 For more than half of a century following this original proposal, interpreters continued to draw similar conclusions.37 It was not until the work of Bruce W. Winter, however, that a fully-articulated form of this theory took shape.38 In his initial treatment of the subject, Winter set 35   A statement by Pheme Perkins is symptomatic of this problem. He contends, “There is no need to specify what the ‘good works’ are in detail, since conventional lists of virtues and vices were generally agreed on in the culture” (First and Second Peter, James, and Jude [Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995] 47). 36   J. H. A. Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter (The Expositor’s Greek Testament 5; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961) 60. 37   See, e.g., Rudolf Knopf, Die Briefe Petri und Judä (KEK 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912) 107; Hermann Gunkel, Der erste Brief des Petrus (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917) 271; James Moffatt, The General Epistles: James, Peter and Judas (MNTC; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928) 122; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 170, 173; van Unnik, “Good Works in 1 Peter,” 92; C. Freeman Sleeper, “Political Responsibility according to 1 Peter,” NovT 10 (1968) 270–86 (282–83); Francis W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (3rd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 142–43. Cf. also Madelynn Jones-Haldeman, “The Function of Christ’s Suffering in First Peter 2:21,” (Th.D. diss., Andrews University, 1988) 141–76, who argues that the “good” in 1 Pet 2.14–15 refers to exceptional acts of civic responsibility, while the “good” in 2.20 refers to Christian acts. 38   Bruce W. Winter, “The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13.3–4 and 1 Peter 2.14–15,” JSNT 34 (1988) 87–103, the content of which is essentially reproduced and further elaborated on in idem, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 12–40. Those who have followed Winter’s benefaction proposal include: I. Howard Marshall, 1 Peter (IVP New Testament Commentary Series 17; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1991) 84–85; D. Edmond Hiebert, First Peter (2nd ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1992) 166–67; Barth L. Campbell, Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter (SBLDS 160; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998) 112–14; Poh, “The Social World of 1 Peter,” 130–34; Philip A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a

14

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

forth the specific procedures behind the convention of euergetism in the Hellenistic world and then applied his discoveries to the text of 1 Pet 2.14–15. Citing various parallels in the terminology of Greek honorific inscriptions and the text of 1 Peter, he argued that the “good” for which Christians would be praised and which would ultimately silence their detractors was nothing other than beneficent works that were performed on behalf of the larger citizen body. These benefactions, according to Winter, may have included acts such as supplying grain during times of famine, erecting, adorning, or refurbishing public buildings, constructing roads, or even embarking on embassies in order to gain privileges for the city. The benefaction position has not been well-received within Petrine scholarship, however. The theory is regularly dismissed on the basis of a handful of perceived problems. Yet, when euergetism is rejected as the referent behind good works in 1 Peter, rarely is a specific alternative offered in its place. This fact is troubling given that the civic context was a primary venue in which this concept appeared in the Greek world (see Ch. 3). Furthermore, benefaction would have been one of the few practices valued by popular society (and thus potentially being able to alleviate the hostility), yet still considered permissible by Christian standards. If civic responsibility is ruled out, interpreters must produce an adequate (and specific) alternative from the Hellenistic world as its replacement. To this point in the discussion, no other suggestions have been set forth. Given the state of the question, what is needed is a thorough and comprehensive investigation into the use of good works language in the Greco-Roman world, one which examines a variety of source materials (e.g., literary, epigraphic, papyrological, etc) across the periods of Hellenistic and Roman rule. In doing so, the discussion would be provided with much greater precision and specificity.

C. Purpose of the Study The present study is the first monograph-length treatment of the good works motif in 1 Peter. It is designed to challenge the modern consensus and to provide a fresh reading of this important theme. Our ultimate goal is to diagnose the social strategy39 of good works in 1 Peter by examining how this persistent admonition is intended to be an appropriate sociological response to the conflict in which the readers Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 234–35; Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007) 35, 144–45; Gary M. Burge, et al., The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Contexts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 400–401; Stephen Ayodeji A. Fagbemi, “Transformation, Proclamation and Mission in the New Testament: Examining the Case of 1 Peter,” Transformation 27 (2010) 209–23 (215–16, seems to support this position); Jennifer G. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives (LNTS 442; London: T&T Clark, 2011) 82. 39   In this study, “social strategy” will be used to describe the author’s calculated attempt to

Chapter One:  Introduction

15

were involved, and then to evaluate how well this strategy either subverts or accommodates the discourse of power and hegemony which pervaded Anatolian society. The means by which we will attempt to accomplish this aim is twofold. First, we need to understand how the language of good works, which is so prominently displayed in 1 Peter, is employed elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world. Thus, as a way of providing a more comprehensive assessment of this motif, we will explore the use of the same terminology across a range of ancient sources and within a variety of different contexts. What we will seek to uncover are the types of acts or deeds that are most commonly referred to when one performed “good works,” as well as the standard of reference by which good works were considered “good.” This information will then become an important conceptual background against which to read the paraenesis in 1 Peter. Second, we must understand how the letter’s admonition to “do good” fits into the author’s overall purposes. This will require exploration into the larger social strategy of 1 Peter. In particular, we will need to find some way to resolve the tension created by the letter’s accommodation on the one hand and resistance on the other. This will provide us with a much better idea of how the good works theme functions within the epistle. The conclusions that we will draw from this inquiry will not only shed much-needed light on a significant theme in 1 Peter, they will ultimately provide important insight into the negotiation of early Christian identity in the Greco-Roman world. Having been addressed to a very large group of Jesus-followers, 1 Peter reveals the interesting account of how one Christian author sought to create a more positive social identity for his readers after their experience in the Christian faith had left them in a marginalized and disadvantaged situation.

formulate his letter in such a way that it might achieve a particular social aim (e.g., reinforce group consciousness; construct social identity; etc).

Chapter Two

Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter Before we can determine the meaning and function of good works in 1 Peter, we must first set the methodological groundwork. Since the seminal work of John H. Elliott, interpreters within Petrine studies have been concerned with the social strategy of 1 Peter, and as a result of Elliott’s influence, the social sciences have loomed large in this effort. Up to this point, however, no one has focused (exclusively) on the topic of the good works from a social-scientific perspective. When the motif is assessed, it is usually only in passing, oftentimes as a way to demonstrate some level of similarity between the ethics of 1 Peter and those of Greco-Roman society. In this chapter, we will review some of the more influential contributions to the modern discussion on the social strategy in 1 Peter, focusing particular attention on how these studies have shaped popular notions of good works. Then, taking a cue from two recent treatments on the topic, we will suggest a way through the stalemate that has obstructed modern situational reconstructions.1 What we will propose is an eclectic method which both draws from a range of modern social-scientific ideas and also seeks to ground the theory in actual comparative evidence from the time of the letter.

A. Modern Approaches to the Social Strategy of 1 Peter For years, the debate between Balch and Elliott on the social strategy of 1 Peter set the agenda in Petrine studies. Even now, some three decades removed from its beginnings, it still plays a formative influence within scholarship. The disagreement of these two scholars was fueled by a number of factors, but key amongst them was their perspectives on and employment of social-scientific methods. In what follows, we will briefly review the salient points of the debate as a way of entry into the social-scientific discussion of 1 Peter. Our primary concern is to address some of the more recent responses to the Balch-Elliott debate and to explore the promise they

1  We recognize that even a proper diagnosis of the good works theme will not resolve the Balch-Elliott debate, because there is more to the author’s strategy than simply good works. Nevertheless, it would go a long way toward making this goal a reality. As we understand the various parts of the author’s strategy, in time and through further research, the overall aim will become clearer.

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

17

hold out for diagnosing the meaning and function of good works (and eventually breaking the impasse of the epistle’s social strategy). 1. Acculturation: David L. Balch In Let Wives Be Submissive, Balch provided scholarship with a detailed examination of the Petrine Haustafel (1 Pet 2.11–3.12).2 According to Balch’s reading of the epistle, the main problem which the author seeks to resolve is the social conflict experienced by the readers. Because “[t]he Christians refused to preserve the religious customs of their ancestors,” which included the performance of cultic rituals, they were exposed to slander and persecution from their “pagan” neighbors.3 In response to these difficulties, the author is said to prescribe certain patterns of behavior, which are most clearly evident in the household code. Thus, Balch reads the larger strategy of the letter through the lens of these domestic duties. The role of household management in Greco-Roman society is crucial for Balch’s reconstruction. For he argues that “the domestic or household code found in 1 Peter 2:11-3:12 has its historical and social source in the dominant Greco-Roman culture, as described specifically by the Greek social and political scientist Aristotle.”4 The structure which Aristotle sets down is a hierarchy in society whereby slaves are under the rule of masters, wives are under the authority of their husbands, and children are subject to their fathers. This domestic order, Aristotle proposed, would produce harmony and stability in the city-state. Many Roman authorities subsequently adopted this ethical structure due to the fact that such a hierarchical system naturally justified the social structure which they controlled. It is a modified form of this hierarchy, according to Balch, that is appropriated in 1 Peter.5 By adopting such a widely-recognized ethic of household management, Balch contends that outsiders would have been provided with the assurance that Christians were no threat to the established Roman order. In this way, “one primary purpose of proper household behavior was to reduce the social-political tensions between society and the churches.”6 As the Petrine readers conformed to the expectations of Greco-Roman society (without, of course, compromising their commitment to Christ), Balch suggests that the tensions between the Christians and their “pagan” neighbors would have thereby been reduced. The Haustafel was thus meant to perform an important apologetic function, demonstrating that Christian “customs 2  Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive. Although both works appeared contemporaneously (1981), Balch’s text was originally produced as a 1974 doctoral dissertation. In the first edition of Home for the Homeless, Elliott briefly interacts with the unpublished version of Balch’s work. 3  Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 86. 4   Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,” 81. 5   According to Balch, the changes that are made by the Petrine author include a greater focus on those in positions of subordination and the abrogation of requirements which necessitated the worship of the traditional gods (Let Wives Be Submissive, 109). 6  Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 81.

18

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

would not subvert the Roman constitution despite the fact that Christian slaves and wives refused to worship Roman gods.”7 In his earlier work, Balch approached the epistle primarily from a historical-critical perspective. But in response to criticisms from Elliott, his later efforts were carried out with a much closer eye on the social-scientific data. He nevertheless showed caution in his use of the social sciences, adopting the methodological skepticism of a social historian. It was on this basis that he was somewhat critical of Elliott’s use of the sociology of religion and conflict analysis. In contrast to Elliott’s approach, Balch argued that “[sociological theory] should suggest questions and possibilities, not determine what we do or do not see in our texts.”8 One sociological theory which Balch did find helpful, and which he employed in response to Elliott, was acculturation. In fact, he suggests that “sociological and anthropological theories of acculturation throw considerable light on the social situation reflected in 1 Peter, which stresses ‘doing good’ as praised by Roman governors and living harmoniously in Greco-Roman households.”9 The reason why acculturation is so valuable in the reconstruction of Balch is because it allows him to account for the tension between conformity and resistance. Drawing on modern anthropological studies of acculturation, he shows how an adopting culture may select certain traits from a donor culture, while at the same time rejecting others. This allows him to maintain that 1 Peter does reject certain patterns of behavior common within Greco-Roman society (e.g., sacrifice to the gods), while still maintaining that “1 Pet. 2:12–14 ‘enthusiastically accepts’ ethical ideas and patterns of conduct that the Roman emperor and his governors praise as ‘good.’”10 Despite the many valuable contributions which Balch’s work has made to the study of 1 Peter (and more generally to our understanding of early Christian Haustafeln), it is not without problems. One of the most significant drawbacks is Balch’s use of anthropological and sociological theories of acculturation to justify his reading of conformity in 1 Peter. What makes this strategy problematic is the fact that these (mostly) Gentile readers would have been, from birth, well integrated into the culture and practices of Greco-Roman society.11 This raises serious ques  Let Wives Be Submissive, 119.   Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,” 79. 9   Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,” 81 (original emphasis). Balch is not the only interpreter to draw on theories of acculturation and assimilation in order to understand early Christian existence (see also Harland, Associations, 195–200). 10   Balch, “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter,” 87, quoting from van Unnik, “Good Works in 1 Peter,” 93. 11   This insightful observation was first made by Torrey Seland, Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter (BIS 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 172–73, who pointed out, “The readers were . . . before they became Christians, most probably well integrated into the Graeco-Roman culture as they belonged to that culture by birth. It may sound like a play on words, but taking our point of departure in that observation, one should not proceed with questions about how much did the author intend his readers to be assimilated into that society, but reverse the question: How much did he, by his letter, intend his readers to retain of that culture? Were they as 7 8

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

19

tions about the appropriateness of employing a theory like acculturation – which by its very nature focuses on the changes brought about by contact between disparate cultures12 – to explain the situation of the Petrine audience. 2. Distinctiveness and Solidarity: John H. Elliott In the same year that Balch published Let Wives Be Submissive, another groundbreaking work appeared, which offered a somewhat different approach to the social strategy of 1 Peter. Elliott’s Home for the Homeless introduced scholarship to what he called “sociological exegesis” (later relabeled “social-scientific criticism”).13 At the heart of this study lies a reconstructed “social profile” of the letter’s recipients. Particular focus is placed on the terms πάροικοι and παρεπίδημοι. Of concern for Elliott is the fact that these designations are often colored by a cosmological perspective (or pilgrimage theology), which portrays the readers as awaiting their true home in heaven. Against this metaphorical reading, Elliott interprets πάροικοι and παρεπίδημοι as literal descriptions of the addressees’ political, legal, and social status, both before and after conversion.14 It is upon this basis that he reads both the problem which necessitates the epistle as well as the author’s strategic response. The unique contribution of Elliott’s study is the fact that it was guided by insights gleaned from the field of sociology. Drawing extensively from the analysis of Bryan R. Wilson on modern religious sects,15 Elliott proposed that the Petrine communities represent “conversionist sects”16 who were in conflict with outsiders. Becoming disillusioned that their estranged position in society had not improved following their conversion, the recipients “had raised basic questions concerning the identity, Christians to separate themselves from their former societal relations, perhaps even to the point of marginalization? Or were they to integrate, or assimilate?” On the (mostly) Gentile readership of 1 Peter, see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 91–95. 12   For recent treatments on acculturation, see Kevin M. Chun, et al., eds., Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research (Decade of Behavior; Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2003); David L. Sam and John W. Berry, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 13   John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), later reprinted with a new introduction as idem, A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, with a New Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). 14  Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 21–58. Although Elliott’s treatment has become the most popular version of this theory, it was not the first. Some years earlier, a similar suggestion was made by Marco Adinolfi, “Stato civile dei Cristiani ‘forestieri e pellegrini’ (1 Pt 2,11),” Anton 42 (1967) 420–34. 15   E.g., Bryan R. Wilson, “An Analysis of Sect Development,” American Sociological Review 24 (1959) 3–15; idem, Sects and Society: A Sociological Study of the Elim Tabernacle, Christian Science, and Christadelphians (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961); idem, Magic and the Millennium: A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest among Tribal and ThirdWorld Peoples (New York: Harper & Row, 1973). 16   Cf. Ernest Best, “A First Century Sect,” IBS 8 (1986) 115–21, who also describes the groups to whom 1 Peter is addressed as a “sect.”

20

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

the integrity and the ideology of the Christian sect.”17 In order to prevent members from leaving these groups, “the author(s) of 1 Peter saw it essential to console and exhort the Christian brothers and sisters in Asia Minor in terms that could effectively reinforce a sense of distinctive Christian identity and solidarity and provide a sustaining rationale for their experience and faith.”18 The letter’s solution to this problem, in Elliott’s reading, is to offer the readers a “home” where they can find a more valued identity. For this reason, a great deal of attention is placed on the οἶκος (of God) motif in 1 Peter.19 Elliott contends that this imagery plays a crucial role in the formation of communal identity in that it “served as an eloquent ideological expression of their true condition before God, their self-consciousness and their calling in society.”20 Bound up in this image of the household of God is a particular ethic: as members of God’s household, the readers are to distance themselves from Gentile behaviors and to subordinate themselves to the will of God. Thus, contrary to Balch’s contention, Elliott emphatically argues that, “nothing in 1 Peter . . . indicates an interest in promoting social assimilation.”21 In this way, Elliott describes his own position as “diametrically opposed” to the views of Balch.22 Despite the stress that Elliott lays on the distinctiveness of Christian conduct in 1 Peter, he nonetheless admits that, “there were patterns of behavior that the sectarian minority and the secular society commonly valued.” One of these shared values, according to Elliott, was the call to “do good.” He notes that, “[b]oth Christians and non-Christians placed a premium on agathopoiia,” and further that, “[t]he avoidance of evil and the doing of good is behavior consonant with both societal and divine norms.” In Elliott’s reconstruction, what separates the values in 1 Peter from those in secular society is “a distinctively Christian configuration of motivations and legitimations; namely, obedience to God’s will, solidarity with the rejected and yet exalted and vindicated Lord, and membership in a new community created by God’s mercy and marked by his holiness.”23 While we would agree with Elliott (over against Balch) that the formation of group identity plays a key role in the letter’s overall social strategy, there are still a few problems which prevent his treatment from being the final word on the subject.  Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 105.  Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 106. One of the ways that the Petrine author accomplishes this, according to Elliott, is by using the present conflict as a “tool” with which “to achieve a specific social effect” (113). Drawing on the social conflict theories of Georg Simmel and Lewis Coser, Elliott argues that “conflict and suffering could . . . be interpreted as a divine ‘testing’ of the Christian faith (1:6; 4:12) whose effect was to stimulate awareness of distinctive group identity and status in the sight of God, and to show the necessity of the maintenance of group boundaries and group cohesion” (117). 19  Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 165–237. 20  Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 227. 21   Elliott, “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy,” 72. 22   Elliott, “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy,” 65. 23   Elliott, “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy,” 73. 17

18

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

21

Over the years, Elliott’s “social profile” of the Petrine audience, particularly his socio-political reading of πάροικοι and παρεπίδημοι, has garnered only a handful of followers.24 Most remain unconvinced on a number of points.25 In this way, the foundation upon which his reading is built is somewhat unstable. But even more importantly for our purposes, the social-scientific materials employed in his study do not provide the most precise comparison with the situation in 1 Peter. As Horrell has pointed out (see below), the comparison with modern religious sects is problematic because it does not take into account the situation of empire. This consideration is crucial because, as a disadvantaged group with little recourse to open rebellion, the readers were constrained to accommodate societal norms on occasion. Only by accounting for the readers’ subaltern condition can we truly understand the author’s calculated response. 3. New Perspectives on 1 Peter Since the origins of the Balch-Elliott debate, interpreters have made various attempts at reconciling these two perspectives. In some cases, scholars have simply voiced their agreement with one side or the other. There have also been those who have tried to synthesize the positions, often attempting to bring resolution through alternative social-scientific approaches. Although many valuable insights have been gleaned from these studies, two recent contributions have moved the discussion forward by great strides. In an essay which attempts to navigate a middle-position between the opinions of Balch and Elliott, David G. Horrell proposes that the most natural lens through   E.g., Armand Puig i Tàrrech, “Le Milleu de la Première Épître de Pierre,” RCT5 (1980) 95– 129, 331–402 (esp. 101–16); J. H. L. Dijkman, “The Socio-Religious Condition of the Recipients of I Peter: An Attempt to Solve the Problem of Date, Authorship and Addressees of the Letter,” (Ph.D. diss., University of the Witwatersrand, 1984) 209–12; Scot McKnight, 1 Peter (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 24–26, 47–52; idem, “Aliens and Exiles: Social Location and Christian Vocation,” WW 24 (2004) 378–86; Fika J. van Rensburg, “Christians as ‘Resident and Visiting Aliens’: Implications of the Exhortations to the παροίκοι and παρεπιδήμοι in 1 Peter for the Church in South Africa,” Neot 32 (1998) 573–83; Witherington, 1–2 Peter, 23–24. 25  Various critiques of Elliott’s position have been offered, e.g., Moses Chin, “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless: Aliens and Strangers in 1 Peter,” TynBul 42 (1991) 96–112; Reinhard Feldmeier, Die Christen als Fremde: Die Metapher der Fremde in der antiken Welt, im Urchristentum und im 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 64; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) esp. 203­–10; Birger Olsson, “A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter,” in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (eds. T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995) 827–46; Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 64­– 83; Jason Jit-Fong Lim, The Trials of the Christians as Elect Resident Aliens and Visiting Strangers in 1 Peter, with an Emphasis on the Context of 1 Peter within the Graeco-Roman Milieu (Jian Dao Dissertation Series 11; Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2005); David G. Horrell, “Aliens and Strangers? The Socioeconomic Location of the Addressees of 1 Peter,” in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (eds. B. W. Longenecker and K. D. Liebengood; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 176–202 (187–90); Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 98–103. 24

22

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

which the social situation of 1 Peter might be read is postcolonial theory. As he notes, “the most relevant social-scientific resources for appreciating the community-world relationship in 1 Peter are likely to be those which concern themselves specifically with contexts of imperial/colonial domination and with ways in which subaltern groups produce and sustain their identity in such contexts.” This, according to Horrell, is “what is obviously missing” from the social-scientific approaches of Balch and Elliott, as well as “from most other attempts to move beyond the Balch-Elliott debate.”26 Drawing on ideas such as ambivalence and hybridity, and employing insights from James C. Scott’s work on “everyday” forms of peasant resistance, Horrell attempts a postcolonial reading of 1 Peter. From his examination of the letter, Horrell contends that the epistle navigates a middle ground between conformity and resistance. On the one hand, he argues that, “the author of 1 Peter calls his readers to conform as far as possible to the standards of goodness expected by the powerful.” This would include, “honouring the emperor, submitting to masters and husbands, [and] living such innocent lives as to negate all criticism.”27 On the other hand, Horrell suggests that, “it would be wrong to characterize the author of 1 Peter as someone who promotes a life of conformity and acquiescence to Rome among the converts in Asia Minor.”28 As he demonstrates, there are numerous instances where the Petrine author encourages a resistant stance towards the Empire. Examples include the fact that the readers are designated as “free” (ἐλεύθεροι) people, and the distinction made between honoring the emperor but fearing God (1 Pet 2.17). The strategic balance between conformity and resistance which Horrell sees at work in the epistle is labeled, “polite resistance.” The study of Horrell has greatly advanced the modern discussion on the social strategy of 1 Peter, revealing the problems with treating conformity and resistance in binary opposition and demonstrating that disadvantaged groups like the early Christians would carefully negotiate both responses within a given system of domination. This insight, however, is only one piece in a larger methodological puzzle that will inform our interpretation of good works. As important as postcolonial insights are for understanding the author’s response to the situation of dominance, we also need some way to interpret how the good works motif was intended to inform and shape the group identity of the readers themselves. For this, we turn to the next important contribution. 26   Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance,” 117. This essay has now been revised and included in David G. Horrell, Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity (LNTS 394; London: T&T Clark, 2013) 211–38. Cf. also Betsy Bauman-Martin, “Speaking Jewish: Postcolonial Aliens and Strangers in First Peter,” in Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter (eds. R. L. Webb and B. Bauman-Martin; LNTS 364; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 144–77, who seeks to read 1 Peter through the lens of postcolonial criticism. Her efforts focus on the letter’s appropriation of Jewish privileges, however. 27   Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance,” 141. 28   Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance,” 142.

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

23

Shortly after the publication of Horrell’s postcolonial reading of 1 Peter, another work appeared which would bring further clarity to the letter’s social strategy. In 2009, Paul A. Holloway provided scholarship with a fresh reading of 1 Peter which sought to explain the author’s response to the anti-Christian prejudice facing his readers and the subsequent persecution that it engendered.29 Social psychology provided the theoretical lens through which the study was carried out. What Holloway proposed was that, “[u]nlike later Apologists . . . who also wrote in response to anti-Christian prejudice, the author of 1 Peter does not seek to influence directly the thoughts and actions of those hostile to Christianity, but writes instead for his beleaguered coreligionists.”30 The letter’s purpose, according to Holloway, was to provide the readers with various strategies for coping with the prejudice they faced. After reviewing some of the recent social-psychological developments with regard to the practical strategies employed by targets of social prejudice, Holloway applies these insights to 1 Peter. He proposes that there are three main strategies at work in the consolatory aims of the epistle: disidentification (1 Pet 1.13–2.10), behavioral compensation (2.11–3.12), and attributional ambiguity (3.13–4.11). One of the particular insights which Holloway gleans from modern stress and coping theory is the fact that in responding to stress, persons often employ more than one strategy at a time. This consideration, he notes, “goes a long way toward explaining (and solving) the so-called Balch-Elliott debate.”31 According to Holloway, this provides an explanation of what seemed like two opposing positions. “From the perspective of stress and coping theory this alleged incompatibility [between the accommodation advocated by Balch and the resistance stressed by Elliott] is to be expected.” What is more, Holloway suggests that this long-standing debate “is properly re29  Holloway, Coping with Prejudice. This study builds off his earlier work on ancient theories and practices of consolation, both in Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions. See, e.g., Paul A. Holloway, “Bona Cogitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8–9,” HTR 91 (1998) 89–96; idem, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); idem, “Nihil inopinati accidisse – ‘Nothing unexpected has happened’: A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos in 1 Pet 4.12ff,” NTS 48 (2002) 433–48. 30  Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 2. Even more recently, Aaron Graser and Christoph Stenschke, “Coping with Discrimination in the First Epistle of Peter and in Modern Social Psychology,” International Journal for Religious Freedom 5 (2012) 101–12, have reached similar conclusions by employing insights from social psychology. 31  Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 116. Prior to Holloway’s work, there were others who argued that the letter contained complementary (or even contradictory) messages. Based on George C. Homans’ model of group behavior, Charles H. Talbert, “Once Again: The Plan of 1 Peter,” in Perspectives on First Peter (ed. C. H. Talbert; NABPRSSS 9; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986) 141–51, attempted to synthesize the views of Balch and Elliott, claiming that 1 Peter encourages its readers toward both social cohesion (Elliott) and social adaptation (Balch). Approaching the problem from a different angle, Lauri Thurén, The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, with Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions (Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, 1990), proposed that the epistle was addressing two groups within the Anatolian congregations (one that was tempted to conform and another which wanted to avenge the injustice) and that the author’s purpose was to (simultaneously) communicate a different message to each group.

24

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

solved by viewing these as practical coping strategies that serve the same concrete objective and can be pursued in tandem by someone seeking to cope with the stress of prejudice.”32 Where Holloway’s study is particularly helpful is in its focus on the social strategy of 1 Peter from the perspective of the targets of prejudice. His is one of the few works that explores how the letter is intended to affect the thoughts and actions of its audience. This approach will play an important role in our interpretation of the good works theme.33 Its combination with the postcolonial optic discussed above will help us to better understand not only how good works function in response to the conflict situation in which the readers are involved, but also how this motif might help the audience cope with their current disadvantaged situation.

B. Constructing a Methodological Approach It is clear from the previous survey that no single model is capable of diagnosing the social strategy of 1 Peter in its entirety. Nevertheless, scholars have made significant contributions to this question over the last three decades. Building on these works, our efforts will be informed by a methodological engagement with a variety of disciplines – most prominent among them being postcolonial criticism and social psychology – with each being used heuristically to provide a more complete and nuanced picture of the author’s strategy. Ultimately, our methodological approach is directed by two key considerations. First, the author’s call to “do good” is part of his larger strategy of conflict management. The letter provides its readers with a means of dealing with the hostility they face from outside antagonists. As we attempt to determine the social function of good works, therefore, we will seek to draw upon some of more important insights from modern conflict theory. But this will only be a small part of our ultimate solution. Because the recipients’ role in the conflict is that of a disadvantaged group, we will approach the situation through postcolonial lenses. Such a perspectival nuance will provide a way to better understand the nature of accommodation and resistance. Second, the “good” to which the readers are admonished is not simply other-focused. That is, the understanding and performance of these good deeds is meant to impact the identity of the Petrine communities just as much as society. As a result, we must examine how good works function within the Christian community. To do 32  Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 117. While Holloway’s observation regarding the use of multiple strategies is on target, the conclusion which he draws from it may be a little wide of the mark. The author of 1 Peter, as Holloway demonstrates, employs a variety of coping strategies, but the idea that he would suggest contradictory strategies in this brief correspondence is a little more difficult proposition to sustain. The tension that Holloway (and others) has observed might be better explained by the ambivalence and restraints of the postcolonial situation (see below). 33   Holloway would locate the good works theme within the strategy of conformity, or more specifically, as an example of behavioral compensation (Coping with Prejudice, 174–91).

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

25

so, we will employ recent social-psychological insights from the coping strategies utilized by targets of discrimination and prejudice. Both of these approaches (postcolonial optic and coping strategies) will faciliate a reading of the author’s social strategy “from the margins.” 1. Postcolonial Criticism An important part of diagnosing the social strategy of good works in 1 Peter involves a specific focus on the inequitable positions of negotiation inherent in the conflict situation of the readers.34 Crucial for reconstructing the author’s social aim(s) is the fact that the circumstances in question involved a marginalized group of Christians who were seeking to respond to their disadvantaged position in the context of the early Roman empire. To help us better understand this response “from below,” we will draw on recent insights from postcolonial criticism. a. Defining Postcolonial Criticism Postcolonial studies is a relatively new academic discipline, which traces its origins back to the 1980s.35 It began as a way of analyzing the effect(s) of European colonization from the sixteenth century to the present day. The development of the academic field of postcolonialism is commonly attributed to the works of three scholars, who are often referred to as the “Holy Trinity” of postcolonial theory: Edward Said,36 34   According to Morton Deutsch, The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973) 5–7, there are seven variables which affect social conflict: (1) the characteristics of the parties in conflict; (2) their prior relationship to one another; (3) the nature of the issue giving rise to the conflict; (4) the social environment within which the conflict occurs; (5) the interested audiences to the conflict; (6) the strategy and tactics employed by the parties in the conflict; and (7) the consequences of the conflict to each of the participants and to other interested parties. The first four of these variables are especially pertinent to the conflict represented in 1 Peter, and postcolonial criticism will help us better appreciate them. 35   This is not to say that postcolonial critique only began in the late 20th century. As R. S. Sugirtharajah has pointed out, “Anti-colonial reading is not new. It has gone on whenever a native put quill pen to paper to contest the production of knowledge by the invading power” (“A Brief Memorandum on Postcolonialism and Biblical Studies,” JSNT 73 [1999] 3–5 [3]). Some of the more notable works to which postcolonialism (as an academic discipline) traces its intellectural roots include: Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (trans. C. L. Markmann; New York: Grove, 1967 [1952]); Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism (trans. J. Pinkham; New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000 [1955]); Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized (trans. H. Greenfeld; New York: Orion, 1965 [1957]); Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart (New York: Anchor, 1994 [1958]); and C. L. R. James, Beyond a Boundary (London: Stanley Paul, 1963). On the development of postcolonial discourse, see Robert J. C. Young, Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001). 36   Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978). Although the book does not speak of “postcolonialism,” nor does it employ the term “postcolonial,” it is viewed by many as the charter document of postcolonial studies. In this work, Said examines how a concept of the “Orient” was constructed in the West. Through an imaginative portrayal of the “Other,” generations of Western intellectuals, writers, and politicians naturalized various assumptions and stereotypes

26

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak,37 and Homi Bhabha.38 Their efforts helped to shape the direction of future postcolonial endeavors.39 Because postcolonialism is still in its infancy compared to other interpretive approaches, there remains considerable disagreement over some of the most basic formulations. Questions like the definition of postcolonialism40 and even the name of the field have been contested.41 This problem is compounded by the fact that postcolonialism can take a multiplicity of meanings, depending on the context and location. Most would agree, however, that there are two main aspects behind postcoloabout the “Orient.” The ways of the “Orient” were set in opposition to the ideas and practices of the “Occident”: while the latter was understood to represent the center, the former was defined as the periphery. This discursive formation served as the foundation which legitimized colonial exploitation of these regions (on the impact of Said’s work across various disciplines, see Daniel Martin Varisco, Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid [Publications on the Near East; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007]). Said’s work has not escaped criticism, however. A few of the representative critiques include: Dennis Porter, “Orientalism and Its Problems,” in The Politics of Theory (eds. F. Barker, et al.; Colchester: University of Essex, 1983) 179–93; Robert J. C. Young, White Mythologies: Writing History and the West (London/New York: Routledge, 1990) 119–40; Ibn Warraq, Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007). 37   Although Spivak has a number of important publications to her credit, the one most influential in postcolonial studies has been her essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (eds. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg; Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988) 271–313 (an expanded version of the 1985 original). In this piece, she argues that the subaltern are unable to speak, not because they are without the ability to resist, but because they possess a constructed identity which has been appropriated from the dominant discourse. Ironically, Spivak now writes against the discipline with which her name is commonly associated (see Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999]; for a discussion of her complicated relationship with postcolonial studies, see Stephen D. Moore, “Situating Spivak,” in Planetary Loves: Spivak, Postcoloniality, and Theology [eds. S. D. Moore and M. Rivera; Transdisciplinary Theological Colloquia; New York: Fordham University Press, 2011] 15–30). 38   Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London/New York: Routledge, 1994). This work is a collection of Bhabha’s major essays, which epitomize postcolonial criticism. The contributions of Bhabha – especially his notions of ambivalence, mimicry, and hybridity – will be discussed further below. 39  On these important scholars and their contribution to postcolonial studies, see Bart Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics (London/New York: Verso, 1997). 40   See Stuart Hall, “When was ‘the Post-Colonial’? Thinking at the Limit,” in Postcolonialism: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies (ed. D. Brydon; vol. 1; London: Routledge, 2000) 237–57; cf. also Fernando F. Segovia, “Mapping the Postcolonial Optic in Biblical Criticism: Meaning and Scope,” in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections (eds. S. D. Moore and F. F. Segovia; The Bible and Postcolonialism; London: T&T Clark, 2005) 23–78. 41   The question surrounds whether post(-)colonialism should be hyphenated, see Anne McClintock, “The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term ‘Post-Colonialism’,” Social Text 31 (1992) 84– 98; Aijaz Ahmad, “Postcolonialism: What’s in a Name?,” in Late Imperial Culture (eds. R. de la Campa, et al.; London/New York: Verso, 1995) 11–32; Bill Ashcroft, “On the Hyphen in Post-Colonial,” New Literatures Review 32 (1996) 23–32. The unhyphenated form now seems to be preferred by the majority of scholars.

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

27

nial analysis.42 With the help of various theories of colonial discourse, postcolonial analysis from the perspective of the colonizer seeks to uncover the different social, political, and economic means by which colonizers maintained hegemonic control over colonized groups. This represents the perspective “from the center.” Conversely, postcolonial scholars also investigate the cultural and textual endeavors produced by societies exposed to the historical reality of colonialism for the purpose of explaining how colonized people were shaped by their exposure to the system of colonization. In this way, it also provides a perspective “from the margins.”43 Part of the effort of postcolonialism consists of a re-reading of texts produced within the context of colonialism.44 It is this type of literary postcolonial analysis that will be employed in the present study. We will seek to utilize postcolonial criticism as “a critical theory of interpretation, particularly interested in investigating the uneven and complex power relations that result from imperialism, colonialism, and other forms of marginalization.”45 What is important to recognize, as Stephen D. Moore has pointed out, is that, “[p]ostcolonial criticism is not a method of interpretation . . . so much as a critical sensibility acutely attuned to a specific range of interrelated historical and textual phenomena.”46 Or, as R. S. Sugirtharajah puts it, postcolonialism is “a mental attitude rather than a method, more a subversive stance towards the dominant knowledge than a school of thought.”47 In this way, a postcolonial optic will shape both the focus and purpose of our investigation. It provides the critical perspective from which the text will be approached, without necessarily providing a particular method by which to carry out 42   Cf. R. S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 11: “There are two aspects: first, to analyze the diverse strategies by which the colonizers constructed images of the colonized; and second, to study how the colonized themselves made use of and went beyond many of those strategies in order to articulate their identity, self-worth, and empowerment.” 43   Designations like the “margins” or the “periphery” obviously represent a construct, usually involving those at a central position as defined by colonial or imperial powers. We will nonetheless employ the terms, because they reflect not only the construction of identities within the ancient world but also the experience of many who were so designated. 44   On the key elements within postcolonialism, see John McLeod, Beginning Postcolonialism (2nd ed.; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010) 40. 45   Jeremy Punt, “Postcolonial Approaches: Negotiating Empires, Then and Now,” in Studying Paul’s Letters: Contemporary Perspectives and Methods (ed. J. A. Marchal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012) 191–208 (192). Cf. R. S. Sugirtharajah, “Biblical Studies after the Empire: From a Colonial to a Postcolonial Mode of Interpretation,” in The Postcolonial Bible (ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah; The Bible and Postcolonialism 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 12–22: “postcolonialism is roughly defined as scrutinizing and exposing colonial domination and power as these are embodied in biblical texts and in interpretations, and as searching for alternative hermeneutics while thus overturning and dismantling colonial perspectives” (16). 46   Stephen D. Moore, Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament (The Bible in the Modern World 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006) 7. 47   R. S. Sugirtharajah, “A Postcolonial Exploration of Collusion and Construction in Biblical Interpretation,” in The Postcolonial Bible (ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah; The Bible and Postcolonialism 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 91–116 (93).

28

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

this investigation.48 Thus, much of our study will be framed within the traditional contours of the historical-critical method. b. Applying Postcolonial Criticism Since postcolonial criticism was originally developed to examine the colonizing efforts of modern, Western powers undergirded by a capitalistic framework, one might naturally question its applicability and relevance to the ancient, biblical text.49 Admittedly, there are important differences between European colonization and the marginalized situation of early Christians in the Roman empire. One of the key dynamics that sets the Petrine readers apart is the fact that their experience was brought about through a voluntary rejection of the social customs into which most had been born and had formerly participated. At any time they could have chosen to integrate further into society, sought a network of social alliances, and negotiated a much better situation for their group. This is clearly not analogous to the situation of colonized peoples who were forced to adapt to the ways of their foreign colonizers. Nevertheless, postcolonialism is flexible enough to engage hegemony and domination in all of their diversity.50 It offers a number of strategies for recognizing and negotiating both discourses of oppression and subversion.51 When we combine this 48   By perspective we mean “a general approach to a specific question or text, using a basic hermeneutical key to guide the interpretation of said question or text.” Method, on the other hand, refers to “a consciously structured search for meaning in a text, using a specific set of questions as tools to solve a perceived problem” (see Anna Runesson, Exegesis in the Making: Postcolonialism and New Testament Studies [BIS 103; Leiden: Brill, 2011] 130; original emphasis). 49   Some of the first to apply postcolonial criticism to the biblical text include: Laura E. Donaldson, ed., Postcolonialism and Scriptural Reading (Semeia 75; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996); R. S. Sugirtharajah, “From Orientalist to Post-Colonial: Notes on Reading Practices,” AJT 10 (1996) 20–27; idem, Asian Biblical Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism: Contesting the Interpretations (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998). For a review of the application of postcolonial criticism within biblical studies, see Warren Carter, “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism,” in New Meanings for Ancient Texts: Recent Approaches to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications (eds. S. L. McKenzie and J. Kaltner; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013) 97–116; R. S. Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation (ed. S. L. McKenzie; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 2:123–32; cf. also Stephen D. Moore, “Paul after Empire,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes (ed. C. D. Stanley; Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011) 9–23 (12–21). 50   This is an issue recently addressed by John W. Marshall, “Postcolonialism and the Practice of History,” in Her Master’s Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse (eds. C. V. Stichele and T. Penner; Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005) 93–108. He points out that, “While modern and early modern empires undoubtedly provided the context for the literary fiction in which the impulse of postcolonial analysis first arose and to which the initial theoretical apparatus was applied, it should be clear that the narrative of the birth of postcolonial analysis does not set the limit on the theory’s application” (98). 51   As R. S. Sugirtharajah (Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice [Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012]) notes, “not all resistance is postcolonial.” Postcolonial resistance has a certain distinguishing quality: “The principal trait which sets apart and distinguishes

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

29

with the interrelated foci (e.g., imperialism, resistance, assimilation, diaspora, marginalization, hybridity, etc)52 and the deconstructive nature of postcolonialism which informs critical analysis,53 then postcolonial criticism seems especially pertinent to the situation in 1 Peter.54 Our efforts, therefore, will explore some of the recent developments within postcolonial studies in hopes that the modern experience of and resistance toward colonial hegemony might provide us with a more informed perspective on the operation and influence of ancient Roman rule, as well as the various forms of response available to the Petrine congregations as they attempted to navigate their Christian identity. What makes postcolonial criticism especially helpful in this instance is its flexibility. It is adaptable enough to provide insight into a situation where resistance is not specifically targeted at a colonial power, but represents an overflowing dissatisfaction with one’s disadvantaged situation, whether or not the person/group necessarily understands or can articulate all of the contributing factors. In 1 Peter, this happens to be the case. Resistance involves more than just a reaction to imperial domination; it represents a response to more basic structures of inequality and oppression which were supported by imperial rule. By thus addressing the conflict situation in 1 Peter from the perspective of a disadvantaged group, we will be able to narrow the parameters of our investigation and (hopefully) gain further precision as we attempt to diagnose the social function of good works in the epistle. Even though postcolonial criticism, unlike many forms of critical theory that exist within biblical studies, does not work from any clearly conceived and repeatable methodological strategies, scholars have developed a few analytic categories with which to read texts emerging from imperial settings. Included are the notions of ambivalence, mimicry, and hybridity, which were popularized in the work of Bhabha. The latter two concepts are particularly relevant to the interpretation of 1 Peter, especially as they relate to use of the good work motif. Therefore, we will briefly describe these postcolonial categories and how they might apply in the epistle. The concept of hybridity has come to be viewed as one of the more helpful, while at the same time, one of the more controversial, formulations in postcolonial criticism.55 It refers to the natural intermingling of two cultures that are in close contact postcolonial resistance is resentment against the uneven cultural equation and distorted representation” (24). 52   See Susan VanZanten Gallagher, “Mapping the Hybrid World: Three Postcolonial Motifs,” Semeia 75 (1996) 229–40 (230–33). 53   See Susan B. Abraham, “Critical Perspectives on Postcolonial Theory,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes (ed. C. D. Stanley; Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011) 24–33 (esp. 30–33). 54   As Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (“The First Letter of Peter,” in A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings [eds. F. F. Segovia and R. S. Sugirtharajah; London: T&T Clark, 2009] 380–403), notes, given that the letter “is addressed to ‘resident aliens’ who live in the Roman Province [sic] of Asia Minor and represents them as a marginalized group who experience harassment and suffering,” one might say that “1 Peter invites postcolonial interpretation” (380). 55   The charges which postcolonial scholars have leveled against Bhabha’s concept of hybridity

30

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

with one another. In each colonial experience, according to Bhabha, the indigenous elements of the precolonial past is integrated with features of the colonizer’s identity to create a hybrid “third space.”56 In this situation, the colonized are neither completely resistant to, nor completely complicit with, the colonial experience. They are both at the same time. This observation is crucial for understanding good works in 1 Peter. In the past, scholars have insisted on framing the social strategy of the epistle according to a binary opposition: either accommodation or resistance. As Horrell has already noted, postcolonialism provides an appropriate theoretical framework in which to articulate a more nuanced approach which accounts for the ambivalence created by the subaltern position of the readers. But even more than just avoiding this unhelpful dichotomy, our treatment will attempt to contextualize the situation by providing historical examples from the Greco-Roman world with which we might compare strategies of conformity and resistance.57 By doing so, it will force us to be further cognizant of the spectrum of negotiative responses between conformity and resistance, and it will thereby provide us with a more precise diagnosis of the good works motif. The second analytic category of postcolonial theory that will direct and inform our efforts is colonial mimicry. Mimicry occurs when a colonizer imposes its culture, institutions, and values on the colonized to the point that the latter is forced or persuaded to internalize and replicate them.58 Although mimicry had been addressed earlier in the debate of Frantz Fanon and V. S. Naipaul over literary servility,59 the topic has become an important part of postcolonial theory due to the work of Bhabha.60 It was his efforts that underlined the ambivalence of colonial mimicry. are based either on his presumption of a “pure” culture prior to colonial domination (see, e.g., John Hutnyk, “Hybridity,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 [2005] 79–102 [81–83]), or on the fact that the concept’s universality would make it useless as an analytic category (see, e.g., Floya Anthias, “New Hybridities, Old Concepts: The Limits of ‘Culture’,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 24 [2001] 619–41 [622, 637]). 56   For a fuller discussion of hybridity, see Robert J. C. Young, Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race (London/New York: Routledge, 1995). 57   Cf. Jean-François Bayart, “En finir avec les études postcoloniales,” Le Débat 154 (2009) 119–40, who addresses the methodological weakness of some postcolonial analysis, viz., the prioritizing discourse over empirical research. 58   A fuller description of mimicry can be found in Kanta Kochhar-Lindgren, “Mimicry,” in Encyclopedia of Postcolonial Studies (ed. J. C. Hawley; Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001) 297–98. 59  Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks; V. S. Naipaul, The Mimic Men (New York: Macmillan, 1967). 60   Homi Bhabha, “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,” October 28 (1984) 125–33; repr. in Bhabha, Location of Culture, 121–31. For more recent discussions of mimicry in postcolonial theory, see Graham Huggan, “A Tale of Two Parrots: Walcott, Rhys, and the Use of Colonial Mimicry,” Contemporary Literature 35 (1994) 643–60; Sara Castro-Klarén, “Mimicry Revisted: Latin America, Post-Colonial Theory and the Location of Knowledge,” in El debate de la postcolonialidad en Latinoamérica: una postmodernidad periférica o cambio de paradigma en el pensamiento latinoamericano (eds. A. de Toro and F. de Toro; Madrid: Iberoamericana, 1999) 137–64; Martin McQuillan, “Irish Eagleton: Of Ontological Imperialism and Colonial Mimicry,” Irish Studies Review 10 (2002) 29–38.

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

31

Colonial mimicry, as Bhabha points out, “is the desire for a reformed, recognizable Other.” The colonizer’s call for imitation involves an essential ideological distinction between model and copy: the inferior (colonized subject) is instructed to become like the superior (colonizer). Yet, it is at this very point that the foundations of the colonial enterprise are destabilized. Not only does mimicry undermine the discourse of inequality upon which colonial power rests, it is also susceptible to dissident forms of mockery and even parody. This subversive dimension of mimicry will provide a helpful lens through which to view the good works motif in 1 Peter. As the referent the behind the language becomes clearer, the author’s strategy of imitation and subversion will become more apparent. 2. Social-Psychology of Coping Postcolonial criticism is a helpful way of approaching the strategy of good works from the perspective of the opponents (or outgroup). Our general aim in employing this critical optic is to determine how this exhortation would have been viewed as a response to the conflict situation. But something more is still needed. A holistic understanding of this key theme also requires further investigation into the impact of good works on the readers themselves. To better diagnose this aspect of the motif, we will turn back to the field of social-psychology, where we will explore coping strategies employed by targets of discrimination and prejudice. Our goal will be to analyze the function of good works in the author’s effort to alleviate the negative outcomes experienced by his audience following their conversion. Over the past half century, the field of social psychology has seen major changes both in its research agenda and in the conclusions reached on the topic of social prejudice.61 One of the more important paradigm shifts has been in the approach towards the targets of prejudice. It was often assumed by earlier scholars that exposure to prejudice had a detrimental affect on those who were targeted.62 Few, if any, were thought to escape its negative and pervasive impact. Over the years, an abundance of evidence has been collected to show that being targeted by discrimination, 61   For an overview, see John Duckitt, “Reducing Prejudice: An Historical and Multi-Level Approach,” in Understanding Prejudice, Racism, and Social Conflict (eds. M. Augoustinos and K. J. Reynolds; London: SAGE Publications, 2001) 253–72; cf. also idem, The Social Psychology of Prejudice (New York: Praeger, 1992) 43–65. 62   Most famous among earlier researchers who held this view is Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954). He commented that, “[o]ne’s reputation, whether false or true, cannot be hammered, hammered, hammered into one’s head without doing something to one’s character” (142). Cf. Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963). Many of the sweeping statements made by earlier scholars were based on the conclusions reached by the doll studies conducted by Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie K. Clark, “The Development of Consciousness of Self and the Emergence of Racial Identification in Negro Preschool Children,” Journal of Social Psychology 10 (1939) 591–99.

32

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

prejudice, or stigma can have devastating effects63 on a person or group through a variety of different pathways.64 In recent years, however, the absolute nature of this traditional perspective has begun to be challenged.65 Contemporary studies have shown that stigmatization and prejudice are not quite as psychologically damaging as they were once thought to be. In many cases, in fact, the targets of prejudice exhibit levels of self-esteem which equal or even exceed that of non-stigmatized groups.66 This has led scholars to view the targets of prejudice not merely as passive victims without recourse to defensive strategies, but as active agents who willingly choose how they will confront the challenge of social prejudice. Modern perspectives on coping strategies have been refined as researchers have begun to interpret a target’s approach towards prejudice within a stress-and-coping framework. In this way, they “assume that the responses of stigmatized persons to prejudice and discrimination are similar to the types of coping strategies people use in attempting to manage other types of stressful life events.”67 When responding to prejudice and stigma, targets therefore have a variety of coping strategies at their

63   Prejudice and stigmatization have been linked to a number of detrimental life-situations, e.g., reduced access to housing and employment, poor mental health and physical illness, poverty and low social status, etc (see Jomills Henry Braddock and James M. McPartland, “How Minorities Continue to Be Excluded from Equal Employment Opportunities: Research on Labor Market and Institutional Barriers,” Journal of Social Issues 43 [1987] 5–39; Kevin W. Allison, “Stress and Oppressed Social Category Membership,” in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective [eds. J. K. Swim and C. Stangor; San Diego: Academic Press, 1998] 145–70; Rodney Clark, et al., “Racism as a Stressor for African Americans: A Biopsychosocial Model,” American Psychologist 54 [1999] 805–16). 64   On the various mechanisms by which stigma affects the stigmatized, see Brenda Major and Laurie T. O’Brien, “The Social Psychology of Stigma,” Annual Review of Psychology 56 (2005) 393–421. 65   For a review of this discussion, see Jennifer Crocker and Brenda Major, “The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma: Evolution of a Modern Classic,” Psychological Inquiry 14 (2003) 232–37. 66   This has been documented, e.g., by Judith R. Porter and Robert E. Washington, “Black Identity and Self-Esteem: A Review of Studies of Black Self-Concept,” Annual Review of Sociology 5 (1979) 53–74; Jennifer Crocker and Brenda Major, “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma,” Psychological Review 96 (1989) 608–30; Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson, “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (1995) 797–811; Jennifer Crocker and Jason S. Lawrence, “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Role of Contingencies of Worth,” in Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict (eds. D. A. Prentice and D. T. Miller; New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999) 364–92; et al. 67   Carol T. Miller and Brenda Major, “Coping with Stigma and Prejudice,” in The Social Psychology of Stigma (eds. T. F. Heatherton, et al.; New York: Guilford Press, 2000) 243–72 (250). Cf. also Carol T. Miller, “Social Psychological Perspectives on Coping with Stressors Related to Stigma,” in Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives (eds. S. Levin and C. van Laar; Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006) 21–44. The transactional model of stress and coping upon which many contemporary studies are based is that of Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman, Stress, Appraisal, and Coping (New York: Springer, 1984).

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

33

disposal, and in many cases, alternative methods are employed alongside one another.68 The large amount of data which can be brought to bear on the topic of coping strategies is just one of many benefits to the stress-and-coping framework. But with such great variety the discussion can become somewhat confusing, especially when – as often occurs – researchers use alternative labels to designate the same coping strategies.69 For instance, Allport listed fourteen different coping strategies (“ego-defenses”), dividing them into two categories: “extropunitive,” in which the target blames an outside cause for his/her difficulty, and “intropunitive,” in which the target takes responsibility to adjust his/her situation.70 This contrasts with the recent approach by Miller and Major, whose classification scheme is grouped into “problem-focused” strategies, which seek to eliminate the source of stress by changing the relationship between the person and the environment, and “emotionfocused” strategies, which are aimed at regulating the emotions affected by the stress.71 In comparing these classification schemes, there is both significant overlap and divergence.72   The stress-and-coping framework has been succinctly summarized by Brenda Major and Sarah S. M. Townsend, “Coping with Bias,” in The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (eds. J. F. Dovidio, et al.; London: SAGE Publications, 2010) 410–25: “A core premise of transactional models of stress and coping is that there is not a one-to-one relationship between exposure to a stressor and stress response. Rather, individuals vary widely in their response to stressful events, depending on how they appraise the event and how they cope with it” (413). See further Charles S. Carver, et al., “Assessing Coping Strategies: A Theoretically Based Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (1989) 267–83; James H. Amirkham, “Applying Attribution Theory to the Study of Stress and Coping,” in Attribution Theory: Applications to Achievement, Mental Health, and Interpersonal Conflict (eds. S. Graham and V. S. Folkes; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1990) 79–102. 69   As a way through the maze, Major and Townsend (“Coping with Bias,” 412, Table 25.2) have collected four of the standard works on coping strategies and have matched each phenomenon with the corresponding classification scheme. 70  Allport, Nature of Prejudice, 160–61. His classification follows the work of Saul Rosenzweig, “The Picture-Association Method and Its Application in a Study of Reaction to Frustration,” Journal of Personality 14 (1945) 3–23. 71   Miller and Major, “Coping with Stigma and Prejudice,” 243–72, whose twofold distinction between problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping follows the framework developed by Susan Folkman, et al., “Appraisal, Coping, Health Status, and Psychological Symptoms,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986) 571–79. 72   Other classification schemes include: behavioral versus psychological (J. Stacy Adams, “Inequity in Social Exchange,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology [ed. L. Berkowitz; vol. 2; New York: Academic Press, 1965] 267–98); individual mobility, social competition, and social creativity (Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations [eds. S. Worchel and W. G. Austin; 2nd ed.; Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986] 7–24); individual versus collective (Naomi Ellemers and Wendy Van Rijswijk, “Identity versus Social Opportunities: The Use of Group Level and Individual Level Management Strategies,” Social Psychology Quarterly 60 [1997] 52–65); assertive, nonassertive, and psychological responses (Janet K. Swim, et al., “Experiencing Everyday Prejudice and Discrimination,” in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective [eds. J. K. Swim and C. Stangor; San Diego: Academic Press, 1998] 37–60). 68

34

Part One:  A New Perspective on Good Works

Regardless of the categorical designation with which they are labeled, good works in 1 Peter are often understood as a form of compensation wherein the readers were expected to alter their behavior – in particular, by aligning it with dominant cultural values – in order to achieve greater social concord with outsiders, despite the prejudice held against them.73 This is the conclusion reached by Holloway in his recent study on the coping strategies of 1 Peter.74 We will not enter into a discussion of the problems with this approach here; instead, we will merely point out that what has not been considered to this point is the emotional and psychological impact of this strategy on the readers themselves. As we will demonstrate below,75 it is the crucial role of the good works motif in shaping the audience’s social identity that has been overlooked by modern interpreters. What our methodological construct must account for, consequently, are the various emotional or psychological ways that targets of prejudice adapt to stigma-related stressors, and how this relates to the readers’ performance of good works. Researchers have identified a number of coping strategies involving the internal regulation of the emotional and psychological affects of stigma.76 Of particular importance for our purposes are psychological disengagement and disidentification. These strategies refer to the selective devaluing of domains in which disadvantage (i.e., negative external feedback or outcomes) is experienced in order to maintain individual or collective self-esteem.77 Triggered by threats to personal or social identity, these strategies represent attempts at restructuring one’s self-concept. The former (disengagement) refers to the initial devaluing response which is temporary and situationally-specific, whereas the latter (disidentification) marks the long-term adaptation in which self-esteem is persistently (or permanently) detached from a domain. It is the latter that will be most important for our purposes. Scholars have long been aware of the fact that individuals differ in the value or level of importance they assign to performance in a given domain. This dates all the 73   On this particular coping strategy, see Carol T. Miller and Anna M. Myers, “Compensating for Prejudice: How Heavyweight People (and Others) Control Outcomes Despite Prejudice,” in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective (eds. J. K. Swim and C. Stangor; San Diego: Academic Press, 1998) 191–218; Cheryl R. Kaiser and Carol T. Miller, “Reacting to Impending Discrimination: Compensation for Prejudice and Attributions to Discrimination,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (2001) 1357–67. 74   See Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 119, 174–91. 75   See pp.  268–70. 76   A review of some of the more prominent emotion-focused strategies can be found in Jennifer Crocker, et al., “Social Stigma,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds. D. T. Gilbert, et al.; 4th ed.; Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998) 504–53 (521–30). 77   For a discussion of this strategy, see Jason W. Osborne, “Academics, Self-Esteem, and Race: A Look at the Underlying Assumptions of the Disidentification Hypothesis,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 (1995) 449–55; Brenda Major and Toni Schmader, “Coping with Stigma through Psychological Disengagement,” in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective (eds. J. K. Swim and C. Stangor; San Diego: Academic Press, 1998) 219–41; Brenda Major, et al., “Coping with Negative Stereotypes about Intellectual Performance: The Role of Psychological Disengagement,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (1998) 34–50.

Chapter Two:  Methodological Perspectives on Good Works in 1 Peter

35

way back to the work of William James.78 Building on this observation, the basic notion underlying the theory of psychological disidentification is that the extent to which an individual values a given domain moderates his/her level of self-esteem when experiencing the consequences of that domain. For example, persons who place a high value on academic success would experience a negative impact on their self-esteem if they performed poorly in that domain. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in field studies.79 Consequently, when failure is experienced (or even anticipated) in a given domain, individuals and groups often disengage from or disidentify with that particular domain, replacing it with a substitute value domain in which they encounter more positive outcomes and feedback. From this evidence, one might conclude that many values held by individuals or groups – particularly those who experience prejudice and stigmatization – are socially constructed. This observation will be important as we seek to identify the meaning and function of good works in 1 Peter. Later, we will argue that this motif can best be accounted for as an effort to disidentify with the popular value domain of Greco-Roman society and to replace it with a substitute domain in which the readers could experience the honor they desired.

78   William James, The Principles of Psychology (New York: Holt & Co., 1890). He writes, “I, who for the time have staked my all on being a psychologist, am mortified if others know much more psychology than I. But I am contented to wallow in the grossest ignorance of Greek. My deficiencies there give me no sense of personal humiliation at all. Had I ‘pretensions’ to be a linguist, it would have been just the reverse” (1:310). Modern evidence for this phenomenon is provided in Abraham Tesser and Jennifer Campbell, “Self-Definition and Self-Evaluation Maintenance,” in Psychological Perspectives on the Self (eds. J. Suls and A. G. Greenwald; vol. 2; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983) 1–31; and Brett W. Pelham and William B. Swann Jr., “From Self-Conceptions to Self-Worth: On the Sources and Structure of Global Self-Esteem,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1989) 672–80. 79   E.g., Abraham Tesser, et al., “Some Affective Consequences of Social Comparison and Reflection Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (1988) 49–61.

Part Two

Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Chapter Three

Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards Good works terminology is abundant in 1 Peter. The motif appears more frequently in this epistle than in any other New Testament document.1 Our task in this chapter will be to determine how this language would have been heard and understood by a first-century CE reader/hearer living in Asia Minor. What kinds of deeds or activities would have been involved if one sought to “do good” or to perform “good works” in the Greek East? To answer this question, we will examine the use of good works terminology across a range of Hellenistic source materials (e.g., literature, inscriptions, papyri), focusing particular attention on those persons or deeds which are ascribed the title “good” and exploring the range of meaning and the specific referents involved therein. Our examination will be guided, to a large extent, by the specific content of 1 Peter. Both the phraseology that appears in the letter as well as modern interpretations of the motif will direct our efforts.

A. The “Noble and Good Man” in Greek Thought We will seek to enter Greek thought on good works through a familiar topos, “the noble and good man” (ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός, and its cognates καλὸς κἀγαθός and καλοκἀγαθία). The reason why this designation is so instructive is because of its prevalence throughout the Hellenistic world, and (more importantly) because it illustrates two prominent uses of the good works language: (a) as a reference to elite social status, usually attained as the result of abundant wealth; and (b) as a reference to moral excellence, due to the virtuous quality of one’s life and character.2 Interestingly enough, modern interpreters of 1 Peter have been divided over which of these two uses best explains the language of the epistle. 1   There is a strong concentration of similar terminology in the Pastoral Epistles as well. The letter of 1 Timothy, in particular, is one document that rivals the concentration found in 1 Peter (cf. ἔργων ἀγαθῶν [2.10]; καλοῦ ἔργου [3.1]; ἔργοις καλοῖς [5.10]; ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ [5.10]; τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλά [5.25]; ἀγαθοεργεῖν [6.18]; ἔργοις καλοῖς [6.18]). But only when the Pastoral Epistles are viewed collectively, do they unseat 1 Peter from its top ranking. 2   On the two uses (social and ethical) of καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός/καλὸς κἀγαθός/καλοκἀγαθία, see Mischa Meier, “Kalokagathia,” in Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Das klassische Altertum und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte (eds. H. Cancik, et al.; vol. 6; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1999) 209– 10; cf. also G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London: Duckworth, 1972) 371–76.

40

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

1. “Noble and Good” as an Indicator of Social Status There has been considerable debate surrounding the origin and history of the epithet ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός,3 but it is clear that by the Roman period it was regularly employed to describe one who was able to make a claim on an elite status among the citizens of a particular community.4 Its function as an indicator of social status became one of the most prominent uses of the good works language in the Greek world. It is this usage that is emphasized in Winter’s theory of benefaction in 1 Peter. A “noble and good man” in Greek antiquity was one who had gained high acclaim among a particular group (usually a civic community) due to the benefits he provided them. This reputation could be achieved in a number of ways, including serving as a judge; successfully representing one’s community in sport or music or war; donating large sums of money in civic munificence; etc. In other words, the types of individuals who are commonly afforded this epithet are those who take on the role of public benefactor.5 For this reason, it was extremely common within the inscriptional record throughout the Hellenistic world (e.g., Mainland Greece;6 the

3   Throughout the years, scholars have proposed various reconstructions for the origin and development of καλὸς κἀγαθός (or καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός). On this question, see, e.g., Julius Jüthner, “Kalokagathia,” in Charisteria: Alois Rzach zum 80. Geburtstag dargebracht (Reichenberg: Gebrüder Stiepel, 1930) 99–119; J. Berlage, “De vi et usu vocum ΚΑΛΟΣ ΚΑΓΑΘΟΣ, ΚΑΛΟΚΑΓΑΘΙΑ,” Mnemosyne 60 (1932) 20–40; Hermann Wankel, “Kalos kai agathos,” (Ph.D. diss., Würzburg, 1961); Walter F. Donlan, “Agathos-Kakos: A Study of Social Attitudes in Archaic Greece,” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1968); idem, “The Origin of καλὸς κἀγαθός,” American Journal of Philology 94 (1973) 365–74; Félix Bourriot, Kalos Kagathos—Kalokagathia: D’un terme de propogande de sophistes à une notion sociale et philosophique. Étude d’histoire athénienne (Spudasmata 58; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1995). 4   There are also numerous references where prominent elites are simply designated as a ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός (“good man”), e.g., “The people (honor) Dionysius, son of Dionysius, who is a good man (ἄνδρα ἀγαθόν) with regard to the citizenry and a benefactor (εὐεργέτην) of the people” (I.Smyrna no. 616). For the inscriptional evidence, see Wilhelm Larfeld, Griechische epigraphik (3rd ed.; Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft; Munich: C.H. Beck, 1914) 1:493, and Eiliv Skard, Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe: Euergetes-Concordia (Oslo: Dybwad, 1932) 15–18. 5   It is for this reason that the designation καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός is often connected very closely with εὐεργέτης (or εὐεργετέω), e.g., “The people honor with godlike honors, Menelaus Menestheos, a noble and good man (ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν) and a benefactor (εὐεργέτην) of the people” (MAMA IV no. 151(2) [2nd cent. BCE]; cf. TAM II no. 768). 6   IG VII nos. 2711 (37 CE); 4132 (ca. 150–100 BCE); SEG 43 (1993) no. 371 (late 2nd – early 1st cent. BCE); F.Delphes III,1 nos. 227 (ca. 27 BCE); 457 (ca. 100 BCE); 487 = SIG 3 no. 770A = IG V,1 no. 1566 (30–25 BCE); F.Delphes III,4 nos. 45 (66 BCE); 431 = SEG 27 (1977) no. 96; 438 = SEG 1 (1951) no. 169 (ca. 19–14 BCE); 443; Georges Daux, “Inscriptions de Delphes,” BCH 63 (1939) 142–82 (168–69, no. 696); SEG 34 (1984) no. 553 (ca. 150 BCE); IG IX,2 no. 1; SEG 34 (1984) no. 558 (150–130 BCE); SIG 3 no. 700 (117 BCE); SEG 32 (1982) no. 613 (ca. 120–115 BCE); Yves Bégulgnon, “Études Thessaliennes, VII: Inscriptions de Thessalie,” BCH 59 (1935) 36–77 (64–70, no. 3); Peter Garnsey, et al., “Thessaly and the Grain Supply of Rome during the Second Century B.C.,” JRS 74 (1984) 30–44 (36–37); SEG 30 (1980) no. 533 (2nd cent. BCE); IG VII no. 527.

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

41

Aegean Islands;7 Thrace and Lower Danube8) and is well represented in Asia Minor.9 To illustrate how this designation was employed, we could mention the honoring of Hoplon, son of Xenon, from the city of Ariassos: The council and the people honored Hoplon, son of Xenon, a man descended from good and famous (ἀγαθῶν τε καὶ ἐνδόξων) forebearers, who showed himself a noble and good man (ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν) with regard to his own home city, having served as paraphylax and archon with distinction, and in the family tradition having shown much patriotic enthusiasm for the city, as a mark of their esteem and gratitude.10

Not only did Hoplon take on the financial responsibility of serving in some of the leading offices of the city, his son (also named Hoplon) left funds by which to establish a series of competitions, presumably to commemorate his death.11 It would thus appear that Hoplon and his family were some of the more prominent citizens in the community who displayed their high status through munificence.

7   IG XII, Suppl. no. 257 (2nd cent. BCE); IG XII,7 no. 11 (late 4th cent. – early 3rd cent. BCE); IG XII,3 no. 170; I.Délos no. 1520 (after 153/152 BCE); CIG no. 3067 = Michel no. 1015 = IG XI nos. 1136 + 1061 (2nd cent. BCE); Iscr.Cos no. 28/29 (250–200 BCE); Marcel Dubois and Amédée Hauvette-Besnault, “Inscriptions de l’île de Cos,” BCH 5 (1881) 201–40 (209–11, no. 5); Tit.Cal. no. 34 (ca. mid 3rd cent. BCE); SEG 11 (1961) no. 948 (1st cent. CE); IG XII,7 nos. 233; 234 (2nd – 1st cent. BCE); IG XII,Suppl. no. 354 (ca. 300 BCE). 8  Charles Picard and Charles Avezou, “Inscriptions de Macédoine et de Thrace,” BCH 37 (1913) 84–154 (124–25, decree 2) (ca. 2nd cent. BCE); IGBulg I2 nos. 38 (late 3rd – early 2nd cent. BCE); 308(2) (early 3rd cent. BCE); 308(6) (3rd cent. BCE); 316; 388 (260–250 BCE); I.ScM I nos. 9 = SEG 18 (1968) no. 289 (3rd cent. BCE); 15 = SEG 24 (1974) no. 1095; 23 = SEG 19 (1969) no. 465 (3rd – 2nd cent. BCE); 43 = SEG 27 (1977) no. 366 (2nd cent. BCE); 45 = SEG 47 (1997) no. 1125 (90/98 BCE); SEG 52 (2002) no. 724 (ca. 200 BCE); I.ScM II nos. 4 = SEG 9 (1959) no. 908 (late 2nd cent. BCE); 5 (early-1st cent. BCE?); I.ScM III no. 3 = SEG 24 (1974) no. 1023 (early 3rd cent. BCE). 9   F.Amyzon no. 35; I.Assos no. 11 = SEG 4 (1954) no. 656 (2nd cent. BCE); IGR III no. 473 (ca. 200–212 CE); I.Byzantion no. 2 (2nd cent. BCE); I.Halicarnassus no. 1 = SEG 32 (1982) no. 1111– 1112; I.Iasos nos. 50; 51 (2nd cent. BCE); 52; 54; 58 (300–250 BCE); 60; I.Ilion nos. 2 (3rd cent. BCE); 3 = SIG 3 no. 596 (3rd cent. BCE); 53 (2nd cent. BCE); 54 = IG II2 no. 1098 (2nd cent. BCE); I.Knidos no. 220; I.Labraunda no. 11 (ca. 250/225 BCE); I.Lampsakos no. 1 (ca. 300 BCE); I.Magnesia no. 94; I.Milet I 3 no. 154; I.Mylasa nos. 870 (Hellenistic); 871; 874; 911; 869 = SEG 2 (1952) no. 564; P. Jacobsthal, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1906–1907. I. Die Inschriften,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Athenische Abteilung 33 (1908) 375–420 (375–81, nos. 1–2 [138–133 BCE]); I.Perge no. 67 (1–50 CE); I.Perge (EA) nos. 7 (2nd – 1st cent. BCE); 14; I.Priene nos. 17 = OGIS no. 765 (3rd cent. BCE); 26; 50 = GIBM no. 418; 66 (ca. 190 BCE); 71; 82 (ca. 200 BCE); 107 (ca. 107 BCE?); 108 (129/100 BCE); 110; 114; TAM II no. 905; I.Sardis VII nos. 7 (100–50 BCE); 8 = IGR IV no. 1756 (5–1 BCE); Michel no. 459 + SEG 29 (1979) no. 1087 (2nd cent. CE); Louis Robert, Documents de l’Asie Mineure méridionale: inscriptions, monnaies et géographie (Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 2; Genève: Droz, 1966) 54–55 (ca. 258–256 BCE). 10   I.Kremna no. 121 (ca. 170–180 CE); trans. adapted from Horsley and Mitchell. 11   I.Kremna no. 122 (ca. 200 CE). For a discussion of local prize festivals (themides), see Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 225 (with references).

42

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

That a ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός was one who made an important contribution to his (or her)12 community is further illustrated from the Hellenistic period, where the appellation was commonly used to describe foreign judges sent to resolve conflicts between communities in dispute. A decree from the city of Iasos (Caria) in honor of Herokrates, a judge from the city of Priene, provides an example of this type of recognition: Whereas the People of Priene have in time past continually displayed their friendship and goodwill toward us; and recently, when we requested a judge, they sent us a fine and noble man (ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν), Herokrates, the son of Andrios, who upon his arrival resolved a number of suits by using his untiring efforts in assisting the litigants to effect an amicable settlement, and in others he himself rendered impartial verdicts; and in all other respects he spent his time among us in most exemplary fashion and in a way that speaks well for both cities; therefore, in order that our People may continue to be known for the gratitude (χάριν) they bestow on their benefactors (εὐεργετοῦσιν), and that those who come in [the] future to serve as judges in our city might seek to render verdicts worthy of commendation and recognition, knowing that our People commend (ἐπαινεῖ) and honor fine and noble men (τοὺς καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν), (be it resolved) to commend the People of Priene for their arete and for the goodwill they manifest toward our city and to award them a golden crown in the amount permitted by ordinance; for when we requested a judge, they sent us a man exceptionally qualified (ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν) to try cases; and (be it also resolved) to commend the judge who was sent, Herokrates, the son of Andrios, for his arete and for his unimpeachable conduct (καλοκάγαθίας) of the judicial proceedings and of (amicable) settlements, all of which he handled in equity and fairness; . . . and (be it further resolved) to choose envoys who are to go to Priene and deliver this decree, with encouragement that they continue their past policy toward our people; and they are furthermore to request that the awards be announced in the theater at the beginning of the Dionysia and that the decree be inscribed in a temple of their choice, to the end that all might know that the People of Iasos honor cities and good men (τοὺς ἄνδρας τοὺ[ς ἀγαθούς]).13 12   This language was not restricted to the male gender. Although benefaction was ordinarily carried out by wealthy men, there are a number of documented cases where women performed similar services and were rewarded accordingly (see, e.g., I.Kyme no. 13 [130 BCE]; I.Priene no. 208 [1st cent. BCE]; IG XII,7 no. 49; IG V,1 no. 1208 = SEG 13 [1963] no. 258 [Roman period]; François Salviat, “Décrets pour Épié, fille de Dionysios: déesses et sanctuaires thasiens,” BCH 83 [1959] 362–97 [1st cent. CE]; I.ScM I no. 57 = SEG 30 [1980] no. 796 [2nd cent. CE]). What is more, in some cases this same language is applied to female benefactors. In Corinth, Iunia Theodora, whose munificence won the acclaim of the people, was honored as γυνηὶ καλὴ καὶ ἀγαθήι, “a noble and good woman” (Demetrios I. Pallas, et al., “Inscriptions trouvées à Solômos, près de Corinthe,” BCH 83 [1959] 496–508, ll. 3, 48; cf. Jeanne Robert and Louis Robert, “Bulletin épigraphique,” REG 69 [1956] 104–91 [152–53, no. 213, ll. 11–12]; IG XII,7 no. 49, ll. 28–29). For more on female benefactors, see Guy M. Rogers, “The Constructions of Women at Ephesos,” ZPE 90 (1992) 215– 23; Riet Van Bremen, “Women and Wealth,” in Images of Women in Antiquity (eds. A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt; 2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 1993) 223–42; idem, The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 15; Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996); and Rosalinde A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul,” TynBul 50 (1999) 189–211. 13   I.Priene no. 53, ll. 6–22, 30–36 = I.Iasos no. 73, ll. 6–22, 30–36 = GIBM no. 420, ll. 6–22, 30–36 (150 BCE); trans. adapted from Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

43

The epithet could likewise be attributed to victorious athletes or musicians who represented their cities well.14 One such example is found on a stele erected at Delphi in honor of Marcus Tourranius Hermonikos, a citharist from Puteoli. Because of his victory at the Pythian games, Hermonikos was awarded citizenship, front row seating at the contests, and many other “honors that are accorded to noble and good men (καλοῖς κἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν).”15 As these examples illustrate, in the Hellenistic world it is often difficult to (completely) separate the language of morality from the language of socio-political engagement. The reason is because the language of virtue was often used to establish or confirm one’s claim to authority and power. From the earliest of times, ancient Greeks believed that the proper division of power and wealth was closely connected to moral excellence, so that those who possessed the right set of moral virtues could and should be in positions of wealth and power. For this reason, designations like “good” and “noble” were assigned to the most powerful individuals in the community.16 Beginning in the Homeric era, the term ἀγαθός (“good”) described a person Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982) 89–90. 14   Normally this language was reserved for civic contexts in which prominent residents made a lasting contribution to the larger citizen body. But, at times, the esteemed designation could be employed in a more restricted context, with reference to one who achieved a prominent position within a particular group. A first-century CE papyrus from Tebtynis records just such an instance. In an ordinance issued by an association of salt merchants, the group proclaims, “Year 7 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, imperator, 25th of the month Caesareus. Having met together, the undersigned men, salt-merchants resident at Tebtunis, have decided by general agreement to appoint a good man (ἄνδρα ἀγαθόν) from their number as both supervisor and collector of public taxes in the coming eighth year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, imperator, – Apynchis, son of Orseus, collecting all public taxes of the same trade in the same coming year” (P.Mich. V 245 [47 CE]; trans. David Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 BC – AD 68 [Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1985] no. 731; cf. BGU 2623 [10 BCE]: Λεύκιος ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ἀναπλέων εἰς τὸν Ἡρακλεοπολ(ίτην)). A similar designation, also found at Tebtynis, comes from an association of tenant farmers on an estate of the emperor Claudius. This group “voted unanimously to elect one of their number, Kronion, son of Herodes, a good and careful man (ἄνδρα ἀγαθώτατον καὶ ἐπιμελητήν), to be superintendent for one year” (P.Mich. V 244 [43 CE]; cf. P.Brem. 5 [117–119 CE]: Οὔλπιον Μάλχον βενεφικιάριον [῾Ραμ]μίου τοῦ κρατίστου ἡγεμόνος ἡμῶν ἐπιμελόμενον τῆς ὑπὸ σὲ περιμέτρου ἄνδρα ἀγαθώτατον συνείστημί σοι). What it is about these men that made them ἀγαθός is not disclosed. All we can say is that they were thought to have possessed the qualities necessary to serve in positions of leadership for their respective groups. 15   F.Delphes III,4 no. 34, ll. 2–7 = SIG 3 no. 817, ll. 2–7 (79 CE). Cf. I.Kremna no. 122 (ca. 200 CE), where Ken––, son of Tolliamoas, is honored as a noble and good man (ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν) after winning a victory in the first competition in a series of games founded by a certain Hoplon, son of Xenon. 16   It is not uncommon for the powerful to define the standards of virtue for their communities. Social psychologists have shown that powerful groups often develop rules and ideologies that legitimate existing structures of differential distributions of resources (see Ronald L. Cohen, “Power and Justice in Intergroup Relations,” in Justice in Social Relations [eds. H. W. Bierhoff, et al.; New York: Plenum Press, 1986] 65–84; cf. also Elaine Walster and G. William Walster, “Equity and Social Justice,” Journal of Social Issues 31 [1975] 21–43 [32–35]).

44

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

held in highest esteem within the Greek community. According to Arthur W. H. Adkins, an ἀγαθός was required to possess both military prowess and monetary affluence: “[t]o be agathos, one must be brave, skillful, and successful in war and in peace; and one must possess the wealth and (in peace) the leisure which are at once the necessary conditions for the development of these skills and the natural reward of their successful employment.”17 Because the line which divided “good” men from others was primarily an economic demarcation,18 positions of leadership and prominence within society were held by only a privileged few. This stipulation meant that a poor man without any material resources could not be “good,” because he did not possess the funds necessary to provide weaponry for battle or relief to the community in times of economic difficulty. In fact, during the Homeric period, nobles were essentially unrestrained as long as they protected and provided for their oikos; thus, good men could do bad things without forfeiting their virtuous titles. Important changes took place in the Archaic period, however, which would shake up established positions. One development that caused social valuations to be reconfigured was the introduction of coined money.19 Prior to this, “good” men were wealthy elites who owned property and who inherited their positions and titles. In this way, stations in life were fairly static; that is, rarely did one progress from a common man to a good man. But in a money economy, people without a noble heritage were able to gain wealth and make claims toward nobility; therefore, “good” men had to find new ways of proclaiming their distinction. Since numerous nobles were located in a single polis, the energy of the elites was redirected away from themselves and focused on what they could contribute to the community. From this,   Arthur W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960) 32–33. Cf. also idem, Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the End of the Fifth Century (Ancient Culture and Society; New York: Norton, 1972) 60–72. 18   This is not to say that financial holdings were the only determinant of exalted status. As pointed out by Adkins, early Greek culture was also very much result-oriented environment. An ἀγαθός (“good man”) was not one who bravely attempted to defend his dependents, but one who succeeded in his efforts, “for the most powerful words in the language are used to denigrate those who fail” (Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, 34). Therefore, material wealth did not necessarily guarantee a person’s recognition as a “good man.” The point is that affluence was the first and greatest hurdle that few were able to cross (cf. Ste. Croix, Origins of the Peloponnesian War, 373: “Of course not all the rich were necessarily members of the class of kaloi kagathoi; but only a rich man would be a likely candidate for that class, and no one who was not a man of some property would have a real chance of being included in it”). 19   See Arjan Zuiderhoek, “Oligarchie, democratie en publieke weldoeners in de antieke stad: Over de oorsprong van de publieke gift in de Grieks-Romeinse wereld,” Tetradio 18 (2009) 89–110; Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, 76. Other factors are listed by Joseph M. Bryant, Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: A Sociology of Greek Ethics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics (SUNY Series in the Sociology of Culture; Albany, NY: SUNY, 1996) 41–57: colonization and expansion led to the need for new ways of defending the city, and with the establishment of the hoplite forces, which included wealthy and non-wealthy alike, the glory that could be gained in war was spread out more broadly. 17

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

45

arose a system of gift-exchange which served to solidify positions of power and authority. Donations contributed by wealthy elites were used, “to compensate nonaristocrats for the privileges from which they were excluded, or even to create in them a feeling of indebtedness that could only be reciprocated through subordination.”20 The democratic atmosphere of classical Athens fought against gift-giving as a way for elites to establish dominion. But this did not stop elites from continuing to offer their financial services in other ways, viz., through liturgies (e.g., sponsoring choruses for festivals; equipping warships; etc). Only after the Peloponnesian War did financial contributions from wealthy elites become an accepted and valued part of civic life. It was at this time that the formal institution of euergetism was developed whereby the “good works” of civic elites were publically acknowledged and reciprocated on a communal level.21 This situation only confirmed the social divide between “noble and good men” and poorer members of society who held much lower social status.22 By the late Hellenistic period, the egalitarian notion of the polis as a community – the civic ideal of the classical period – had given way to an established hierarchy within urban society. An increasing disparity between the wealth and influence of a small group of citizens and the larger part of the citizen body would become more and more pronounced, and by the time the Romans took control of the Greek East, social antagonism was common. The mechanism which served to ease social tensions caused by the uneven distribution of wealth and power was civic benefaction.23 Furthermore, it was this convention that served to shape popular conceptions of virtue and morality. 20   Marc Domingo Gygax, “Gift-Giving and Power-Relationships in Greek Social Praxis and Public Discourse,” in The Gift in Antiquity (ed. M. L. Satlow; The Ancient World: Comparative Histories; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013) 45–60 (47). 21   On the evolution of euergetism from the Homeric world until the beginning of the Hellenistic period, see Marc Domingo Gygax, “Les origines de l’évergétisme. Échanges et identités sociales dans la cité grecque,” Mètis: anthropologie des mondes grecs anciens 4 (2006) 269–95. Cf. also idem, Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). 22   Regarding the use of the designation καλὸς κἀγαθός to represent differences among social “classes,” K. D. Dover (Greek Popular Morality In the Time of Plato and Aristotle [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974]) notes, “the poor Athenian was normally willing to apply the expression [καλὸς κἀγαθός] to any man who had what he himself would have liked to have (wealth, a great name, distinguished ancestors) and was what he himself would have liked to be (educated, cultured, well-dressed and well-groomed, with the physique and pose of a man trained in fighting, wrestling and dancing)” (45; cf. W. den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects [Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Classica Batava 57; Leiden: Brill, 1979] 161–62). 23   Cf. Arjan Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire: Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor (Greek Culture in the Roman World; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 118: “euergetism functioned to prevent, ease or overcome potential or actual social conflicts between elite and non-elite citizens resulting from increasing disparities of wealth and political power within the citizenry during the first two centuries AD.”

46

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

During the early Principate – particularly within the context of Roman Asia Minor – civic benefaction served as an antidote for social conflict by providing the poorer citizen body with all of the amenities necessary for what the Greco-Roman world commonly considered to be a “good life”: games, festivals, distributions, baths, theaters, etc. In exchange for these benefits, the rule of wealthy elites was accepted and legitimated through the acclamation of virtue. That is, benefactors were lauded with titles which ascribed merit and value to their conduct (which, again, had always been considered a prerequisite for rule and authority). Part and parcel to this exchange was an honorific discourse in which monuments extolled the moral excellence of the honorand by ascribing to him (or her) a variety of ethical or virtuous qualities.24 Within this honorific discourse, the terminology of good works plays a very important role. An example comes from the recognition given to one of the most prestigious citizens and benefactors recorded in the epigraphic record, Opramoas of Rhodiapolis, who donated millions of denarii to cities across the province of Lycia. The legacy of Opramoas has been preserved for us in thirty-two honorific decrees from the Lycian League.25 In one instance, Opramoas is described as “a man of great renown and magnanimity, endowed with all manner of virtues ([ἀνὴρ ε] ὐφανέστατος καὶ μεγαλό[φρων καὶ πάσ]ῃ [ἀ]ρετῇ κεκοσμημένος)” (IGR III 739, V lines 5–6). His euergetistic contributions are recast as an attempt “to better the good deeds (ἀγα[θοῖς]) of his forebearers,” which is closely connected in the inscription with his efforts to cultivate a lifestyle of “good judgment (σωφροσύνην), proper training (παιδείαν), and all manner of virtues (πᾶσαν [ἀ]ρετὴν)” (IGR III 739, V lines 21–22). This merging of the discourse of virtue –­ particularly that of doing “good works” – and the practice of civic benefaction is common within the inscriptional record of Roman Asia Minor (see further below). 2. “Noble and Good” as an Indicator of Moral Excellence In Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics, καλοκἀγαθία takes pride of place as the complete moral excellence. Even as early as the time of Xenophon, the expressions καλὸς 24   This vocabulary of moral excellence has been noted by a number of interpreters. See, e.g., Marie-Henriette Quet, “Remarques sur la place de la fête dans le discours de moralistes grecs et dans l’éloge des cités et des évergètes aux premiers siècles de l’Empire,” in La fête, pratique et discours: d’Alexandrie hellénistique à la Mission de Besançon (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 262; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981) 41–84; Friedemann Quaß, Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens: Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993) 19–79; Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence, 122–33; cf. also Elizabeth Forbis, Municipal Virtues in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Italian Honorary Inscriptions (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 79; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996). 25   For a full treatment on Opramoas’s role as benefactor to the cities of Lycia, see Christina Kokkinia, Die Operamoas-Inschrift von Rhodiapolis: Euergetismus uns Soziale Elite in Lykine (Antiquitas, Reihe 3, Band 40; Bonn: Habelt, 2000).

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

47

κἀγαθός and καλοκἀγαθία were used with moral connotations (cf. Symp. 3.4; 8.11; Mem. 1.2.18; 3.5.15). This marked an alternative usage from the language’s popular association with social and political realities. What must be recognized, however, is the close connection between elite social status and the possession of moral excellence. According to Aristotle, the pursuit of καλοκἀγαθία could not be undertaken by all people indiscriminately. This virtue could only be pursued and achieved by social elites who had time and leisure available to them. In this way, it is often difficult to completely separate the moral flavor from the social and political implications. The connection between the social and moral connotations of this language existed throughout the classical era and those periods that followed. Emphasis on one aspect or another was based on an author’s particular focus. A notable illustration comes from the works of Hellenistic moralists. Within later philosophic discourse, such stress came to be laid on the moral quality of behavior that the label “noble and good” was sometimes attributed to a person without considerations of wealth and social prestige. This marked an important development in the use of the terminology. To the extent that the social and political aspects were downplayed or even removed, the epithet could be appropriated by a much larger group. The first century CE Stoic philosopher Epictetus provides a clear glimpse into how this language came to be employed within moral discourse.26 According to Epictetus, becoming a “noble and good man” required considerable training (Diatr. 2.14.10; cf. 2.23.28). There are three fields of study in which such a person must be trained: desire, choice and assent (3.2). The goal of this training was fairly straightforward. In each and every circumstance, the aim was “to learn how the good and excellent man (ὁ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς) may find the appropriate course through it and the appropriate way of conducting himself in it” (1.7.2; trans. Oldfather [LCL]). This meant that a “noble and good man” was one who did not grieve, groan, or lament (2.13.16-17; cf. 3.24.19–20). Thus, unlike those whose good deeds brought praise and acclaim in the social and political arenas, a philosophic approach meant that “a good and excellent man (ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός) does nothing for the sake of appearances, but only for the sake of having acted right” (3.24.50; trans. Oldfather [LCL]). As one might imagine, many of the ideas of Epictetus are shared by his teacher and mentor, Gaius Musonius Rufus. According to Rufus, “the best life . . . is that of a good man (ὁ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνδρός)” (17; trans. Lutz). The reason, it would seem, is because Rufus assumes that a “good man” possesses certain virtues (9). Some of the virtuous qualities which he attributes to such a person include: intelligence, disci26   On the “good” in ancient moral philosophy, see Christoph Horn, “Der Güterbegriff der antiken Moralphilosophie,” in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend (eds. F. Horn, et al.; WUNT 313; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 61–72; cf. also Ruben Zimmermann, “Das ‘Gute’ als ethische Norm in Antike und Christentum: Gut, Güter Güterabwägung in philosophischen und christlichen Ethiken,” in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend (eds. F. Horn, et al.; WUNT 313; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 53–60.

48

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

pline, noble-mindedness, sound judgment, efficiency, endurance, courage, fearlessness, resoluteness, etc (8). These qualities are the same ones that, according to Rufus, are necessary for being a philosopher; thus the two are sometimes even equated. Given the similarity between the language of 1 Peter and the terminology typical in Greco-Roman moral discourse, some have been hesitant to connect the letter’s good works motif with the practice of civic benefaction (as Winter and others have proposed). In his review of Seek the Welfare of the City, James C. Walters argues that Winter’s efforts to demonstrate the participation of early Christians in the affairs of their communities through euergetistic practice are ultimately unsuccessful because “he [Winter] is not able to establish the foundational premise that the exhortations to ‘do good’ in 1 Peter and Romans refer to public benefactions.”27 According to Walters, the fact that “the vocabulary (ἀγαθός, ἔπαινος) is also typical of Greco-Roman moral exhortation,” means that something other than euergetistic practice is in view.28 For him, “limiting the usage to inscriptions honoring benefactors requires compelling reasons.” Yet, he does not find such evidence in 1 Peter. It is important to recognize that when Hellenistic philosophers like Epictetus or Musonius Rufus employed the language of the “noble and good man,” their usage only makes sense when read against the backdrop of the popular discourse which had held sway for many centuries. In this way, they are reformulating an established concept with a definition that runs counter to the prevailing notions. For years, wealthy citizens held tight control of social and political power, justifying their positions through the ascription of moral virtue. The claim of these moral philosophers is that what really counts is the actual practice of this moral virtue, and it is to this task that they have devoted their efforts. This is a competing vision of power and authority. It is no surprise then that Musonius Rufus thinks that a king should be a philosopher (8). This close connection between moral excellence and social status should caution us against forcing 1 Peter’s language of good works into one particular category – as though it either refers to civic benefaction or to moral virtue. In this regard, a suggestion by Walters seems worth pursuing. At the end of his review, he mentions the possibility that the benefaction language so popular in the Hellenistic world, might have been appropriated for use in moral exhortation.29 We believe that this proposal has considerable merit, and in later chapters we will seek to develop it further. For now, it is important to specify the connection that we see between the good works 27   James C. Walters, “Review of Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens by Bruce W. Winter,” JBL 115 (1996) 536–385 (537). 28   Walters is not the only scholar who has connected the good works terminology of 1 Peter with ancient moral exhortation. The Stoic influence of this language was earlier suggested by Walter Grundmann (“καλός,” TDNT 4:550). Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 105–16, 198–201, discusses the connection between 1 Peter and ancient Stoicism, but he does not draw a connection between good works and the language of Stoicism. 29   See Walters, “Review of Seek the Welfare of the City,” 538.

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

49

motif in 1 Peter and the popular convention of euergetism. What we will argue is that the language of good works in 1 Peter echoes the terminology commonly displayed in the honorary discourse associated with civic benefaction. It is important to note that we are not claiming that the Petrine author is calling his readers to participate in public munificience, nor are we saying that the letter’s strategy consists in an attempt to “seek the welfare of the city.”30 Rather, we are merely commenting on the semantic domain from which 1 Peter’s good works language is drawn. In this regard, there are a couple of important pieces of evidence that seem to support our contention. First, in the Greco-Roman world, one of the primary mediums through which recognition and approval were communicated within society was through the public honoring of civic benefactors. Yet, the Petrine readers were part of a stigmatized group who had not been afforded the kind of honor they had expected.31 The situation thus lends itself to a competitive or even subversive dynamic in which an alternative form of commendation might be sought. For anyone familiar with the Hellenistic ideal, the most natural way of communicating this form of approved and praiseworthy conduct would have through the language of good works. Second, as we will demonstrate below, the terminology used in 1 Peter is most commonly employed within the honorary discourse of the Greek benefaction tradition, and in some cases, the specific language may even be unique to a euergetistic setting. Thus, while there are some similarities with philosophic discussions, the concentrated use of this language in 1 Peter combined with the focus on the praiseworthy nature of this behavior, suggests some type of connection with the beneficent practices of wealthy elites (see further below). The question that will demand our attention therefore will be how this connection is understood. Is civic benfaction the literal referent behind the good works terminology in 1 Peter, or simply the conceptual referent? Before this question can be answered, however, it is necessary to first establish the connection between the language of good works and euergetism. In the section that follows, we will do just that.

B. Doing “Good” in the Hellenistic World One of the foundational pillars upon which Winter’s benefaction theory rests is the fact that 1 Peter contains a variety of terms that are commonly employed in Greek honorific inscriptions. This terminological overlap, according to Winter, demonstrates that the referent behind the good works language of 1 Peter should be sought 30   In the next chapter, we will discuss whether or not civic benefaction might be a potential option for the Petrine readers. 31   Note the author’s assurance that honor could be attained through their Christian faith. On the important role of honor in the strategy of 1 Peter, see John H. Elliott, “Disgraced yet Graced: The Gospel according to 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and Shame,” BTB 25 (1995) 166–78; cf. also Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter.

50

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

in connection with the popular institution in which it was regularly employed, viz., civic benefaction.32 Despite the strength which these parallels seem to exhibit, most Petrine interpreters have remained unconvinced of such a connection. What is lacking, some argue, is an explicit reference to euergetism. Torrey Seland, for instance, notes, “if these admonitions were related to benefactors and benefactions, one might have expected that some use of words from the important εὐεργετέω group would have been applied to 1 Peter.”33 Along a similar line of reasoning, Karen H. Jobes contends that “Winter’s epigraphic evidence establishes the practice of publicly honoring benefactors of the city, but his claim that agathopoieō refers specifically to acts of public benefaction is not convincing.” For support, she draws attention to the fact that Frederick W. Danker’s work on this semantic field “does not list the cognate verb among those used specifically to refer to benefaction.”34 Of course, the question which these objections raise is, how closely would someone in the Greco-Roman world associate “good works”/“doing good” and civic benefaction? Would the mention of the former be sufficient to indicate a reference to the latter? Using the good works language of 1 Peter as our guide, we will now examine where and how this same terminology was employed in the Hellenistic world. Although our treatment will not be exhaustive, we will provide numerous examples from a variety of sources in order to determine what “doing good” would have looked like in the Greek East. In the process, we will be casting our net fairly wide by drawing on evidence from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods.35 Once we  Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 35–36.   Seland, “Resident Aliens in Mission,” 578. 34  Jobes, 1 Peter, 175. It is true that Danker does not directly discuss the verb ἀγαθοποιέω in connection with the convention of benefaction. But this is not to say that he ignores the good works language or its presence in 1 Peter. In his discussion on the profile of benefactors, Danker treats the notion of the ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός, “good and noble man” (Benefactor, 318–20) and lists a number of instances where benefactors are praised for “doing good” (pp. 323, 325, 327, 339). Concerning the former, he specifically states, “When this term [ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός] appears in the semantic field under discussion it functions as a dynamic equivalent of euergetēs (benefactor)” (318). Later he contends, “At 1 Peter 2:11–12 the writer relies on the acquaintance of his public with the theme of exemplary benefactors, who, like the judges from Priene, comport themselves with admirable decorum (tēn anastrophēn . . . echontes kalēn, 1 Peter 2:12)” (359). Interestingly enough, BDAG (p. 3) cites the use of ἀγαθοποιός in 1 Pet 2.14 as a reference to a benefactor. This rendering apparently represents the judgment of Danker, for the earlier editions (BAG and BAGD) do not include this description. 35   The justification for this strategy lies in stability of the good works language: throughout both the Hellenistic and Roman periods the referent behind good deeds remained fairly consistent within honorary discourse. To preview our later discussion somewhat, the good works language most commonly appears in connection with the merited service of elite citizens on behalf of their communities (i.e., civic benefaction). When Roman rule was established what changed for the Anatolian elites was the manner in which this service was carried out. No longer, for example, was it necessary for elite citizens to “do good” for their community by winning noble victories over foreign armies. Since military conflict was no longer a threat for most of the Anatolian cities (due to the Pax Romana), other methods of benefitting the people had to be sought (e.g., public building, 32 33

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

51

have established the range of usage for each of the Petrine words and phrases, we will be able to better predict how the language of the epistle would have been received by a first-century CE Anatolian reader/hearer. 1. Good Deeds In 1 Pet 2.12, the Petrine author begins to specify the type of behavior expected from his Anatolian audience. After instructing his readers to maintain honorable conduct among their Gentile neighbors, he finally discloses the purpose behind his exhortation: “so that on account of the very thing for which they slander you, they will glorify God on the day of visitation because they will have seen (your conduct) from your good works (ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων)” (1 Pet 2.12). This represents the only specific reference to “good deeds” in the epistle. But based on the connection drawn in this verse, it would appear that good works are the acts or behaviors which make one’s conduct honorable. The question that we will seek to answer is, how (and where) are “good deeds” referred to elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world? Although the mention of good works is rare in the papyrological evidence, it is common in the inscriptions. The designation appears in a variety of different forms. At times, ἀγαθός is used as a substantive without any further modifier.36 On other occasions, it is connected – either in attributive or predicate position – with ἔργον.37 Most often, however, this idea is expressed through the connection of καλός and ἔργον.38 All appear to be used interchangeably without any noticeable divergence in meaning. In the epigraphic record, this language most often appears in honorary inscriptions which recognize the beneficent practices of civic elites. One example comes from the city of Kyme, where the noble efforts of Kleanax, one of the city’s benefactors, is acknowledged by way of decree:

festivals and games, etc). In this way, the language of good works continued to be attached to the same convention even though the convention itself underwent an important transformation (see further pp. 70–71). 36   So, e.g., OGIS nos. 4 = IG XII,2 no. 645 (319/317 BCE); 6 (311/310 BCE); I.Erythrai no. 28 (ca. 275–265 BCE); I.Milet I 3 no. 139C (ca. 262–260 BCE); I.Stratonikeia no. 1206 = CIG no. 2725 (2nd – 1st cent. BCE); IG VII no. 2712, ll. 87–100 = CIG no. 1625, ll. 87–100 (after 37 CE); I.Ephesos no. 211 = OGIS no. 4931 (138 CE); I.Laod.Lyk. no. 52 = CIG no. 3943 = MAMA VI no. 14 (3rd cent. CE); IAph2007 no. 5.121 (385/388 CE); et al. 37   So, e.g., IG VII no. 1794 = CEG I no. 332 (ca. 450–400 BCE?); IG IV2,1 no. 237 (early 4th cent. BCE); IG XII,3 no. 1271 (2nd cent. BCE); F.Delphes III,4 no. 59 (1–17 CE); I.Stratonikeia no. 1327 = SEG 38 (1988) no. 1102; IG XII,3 no. 212; IG IV no. 800. 38   So, e.g., IG XII, Suppl. no. 178 = SEG 27 (1977) no. 527 (6th cent. BCE); I.Délos no. 1518 (ca. 154 BCE); IG V,2 nos. 304 + 370 (after 146 BCE); OGIS no. 257 = GIBM IV,2 no. 970 (109 BCE); IG XII,3 no. 249 (1st cent. BCE); SEG 47 (1997) no. 737 (Roman Imperial period); Studia Pontica III no. 85; I.Olympia nos. 449–450 (after 130 CE). Mention is also made of τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν ἔργων (I.Halicarnassus no. 4).

52

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

The strategoi made the motion and it was recorded by three (of them) chosen by lot: Asklapon (son) of Dionysios, Hegesandros (son) of Herakleides, Athenagoras (son) of Dionysios and by the secretary of the people, Heraios (son) of Antipatros. Whereas Kleanax (son) of Sarapion and natural (son) of Philodemos, the prytanis, on both sides of his family having nobility of birth from his ancestors and an agreeableness unsurpassable in love of honour for his country, has provided many great benefits for his city continuously throughout his lifetime, giving way to no opportunity in which he left aside care for the people, administering the best things (τὰ κράτιστα) for the city in both word and deed (λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ), on account of which (not only) in the present circumstances of his prytanaic love of honour, praise has been ascribed (to him) by the people at this time, and his many actions also through his (service) of former votes meet with the thanks of the people, as much as he, as priest of Dionysos Pandemos, accomplished for the mysteries founded by the city, and for as much as he expended on the penteteric performance of the mysteries, when the opportunity of the expense showed his impressive love of honour and his piety, having alone and as the first to do so undertaken the duty and summoning by written proclamation the citizens and Romans and nearby residents and foreigners have gave a banquet in the sanctuary of Dionysos and feasted them sumptuously – he arranged the feast year after year; and, summoning a crowd of people to the wedding of his daughter, he held a banquet. For these reasons, the people, having mind of these good deeds (τῶν ἀγαθῶν) also, forgot none of his other activities to which they had grown accustomed . . . 39

From this inscription, it is evident that the “good works” of Kleanax were very impressive: as priest of Dionysos Pandemos, he oversaw the mysteries associated with the cult, donating a considerable sum of money to the penteteric performances and arranging a yearly feast in the sanctuary of the god. Aside from this, he also treated the community to a banquet during the wedding of his daughter. The second half of the inscription (ll. 21–28) even describes Kleanax’s efforts to train and encourage his son (Sarapion) towards civic benefaction. This decree also shows that good deeds were primarily civic focused: what makes them “good” is the benefit they bring to the community.40 Given the nature of these good deeds, it is not surprising to find that they are specifically designated as the cause of public praise and recognition, evidenced in the common formula ἀντὶ καλῶν/ἀγαθῶν ἔργων (“because of his good works”).41 In the city of Olympia, the name Titus Flavius Polybius appears on two extant statue 39   René Hodot, “Décret de Kymè en l’honneur du Prytane Kléanax,” The J Paul Getty Museum Journal 10 (1982) 165–80 (166, ll. 1–24) (late 1st cent. BCE – early 1st cent. CE); trans. Rosalinde A. Kearsley, “A Civic Benefactor of the First Century in Asia Minor,” in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 7: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1982–83 (ed. S. R. Llewelyn; North Ryde: Macquarie University, 1994) 233–41. 40   In many cases, the good deeds of benefactors are simply referred to as ἔργα or (another popular phrase) πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα ἔργα. For instance, in Ephesus P. Vedius Antoninus is honored for πολλοῖς καὶ μεγάλοις ἔργοις κεκοσμηκότα τὴν πόλιν, “the many great deeds he has performed on behalf of the city” (I.Ephesos no. 728; cf. IAph2007 nos. 12.909; 14.18; I.Ephesos nos. 425; 621; 633; 712B; 833; 892; 1545; 2951F; 3063; William M. Ramsay, “Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor,” BCH 7 [1883] 297–328 [270–72, no. 14]). 41   So, e.g., IG VII no. 1794 = CEG I no. 332 (ca. 450–400 BCE?); IG IV2,1 no. 237 (4th cent. BCE); I.Laod.Lyk. no. 52 = CIG no. 3943 = MAMA VI no. 14 (3rd cent. CE); IAph2007 no. 5.121

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

53

bases, one erected by the city of Messene (I.Olympia no. 449) and the other erected by the koinon of Achaea (I.Olympia no. 450). The latter records the following inscription issued in honor of Polybius: The koinon of the Achaeans (honors) T(itus) Fl(avius) Polybius of Messene, strategos of the Achaeans and agonothetes of the games in honor of the Antinoos, who served as agoranomos with purity and diligence. Lykorta, the city of his youth, erected this beautiful statue of Polybius because of his good works (ἀν[τὶ] καλῶν ἔργω[ν]).42

Here it would appear that the “good works” of Polybius are connected with his service in various positions of civic and provincial leadership. As agoranomos he may have sold grain below market price during times of food shortage, paying the difference out of his own pocket, or as agonothetes he may have funded the games for the entire koinon.43 Whatever the specifics, his descendants would carry on this legacy of good deeds after his death.44 It is natural to assume that the “good works” praised in honorary inscriptions would refer to munificence performed on behalf of the community, but what about in the secular literature? Outside the genre where civic benefaction is the norm, to what might good deeds refer? Fortunately, there are numerous references which bring further clarity to the nature and characteristics of good deeds in the Greco-Roman world. In the literature of the Greek world, good deeds were thought to be performed by good men (Pindar, Ol. 2.97), and were often practiced from a young age (Plutarch, Ag. Cleom. 2.1; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.5.11). These noble actions were viewed as something to take pride in, since they were expected to generate praise, emulation, and even memorialization.45 Often, good works were portrayed as being carried out in a spirit of competition (Plutarch, Pel. 19); in fact, Demosthenes specifically refers to the ἀθληταὶ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων, “rivalry of noble deeds” (1 Aristog. 97). Very often, good deeds consisted of noble acts performed in war.46 As the following example mentioned by Dionysius Halicarnassus reveals, military success and (385/388 CE); IG VII no. 95 = SEG 13 (1963) no. 299 (3rd – 4th cent. CE); IG XII,3 no. 212; IG V,2 nos. 304 + 370; MDAI(A) 56 (1931) 124 no. 8; I.Stratonikeia no. 1327 = SEG 38 (1988) no. 1102. 42   I.Olympia no. 450 (after 130 CE); cf. I.Olympia no. 449 (for a discussion of this inscription, see Gustave Fougères, “Inscriptions de Mantinée,” BCH 20 [1896] 119–66 [145–49]). 43   Agoranomos: I.Laod.Lyk no. 132; I.Pessinous no. 13. Agonothetes: Anthony D. Macro, “The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Part II, Principat 7.2; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980) 658–97 (680). 44   I.Olympia nos. 486–487, which mentions a Titus Flavius Polybius, who is honored as priest of the goddess Roma and winner of the aristopoliteia. See further Nino Luraghi, The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 303–306, 314–315. 45  Pindar, Nem. 7.14; Euripides, Phoen. 526; Xenophon, Mem. 2.6.35; Polybius, Hist. 18.53.1; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 31.3.2; Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.6.5. 46  Polybius, Hist. 2.68; 3.69.13; Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.27.2; 6.9.5; 7.32.1; 8.29.2; 9.3.3; 9.70.3; 10.27.4; 14.9.5; Arrian, Anab. 5.26.1, 4; Plutarch, Thes. 7.2.

54

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

wartime achievement were considered good works worthy of the proper recognition: Servilius, however, looking upon himself as insulted by the senate, behaved with an arrogance unusual to the Romans. For having assembled the people in the field before the city, he enumerated his achievements in the war, told them of the envy of his colleague and the contumelious treatment he had received from the senate, and declared that from his own deeds and from the army which had shared in the struggle he derived the authority to celebrate a triumph in honor of glorious and fortunate achievements (καλοῖς τε καὶ εὐτυχέσιν ἔργοις).47

Given this referent, it is not surprising to find some authors describing the training that was necessary if one wanted to excel in good deeds (Xenophon, Cyr. 8.1.39; Mem. 8.2.26).48 In most cases, good works were undertaken for the benefit of the community, and as such, they often resulted in praise and adulation from the citizen body. This is true of both civic munificence and military victory. Good deeds might include anything from establishing the Olympic games by Hercules (Lysias, Olym. 1) to Dionysius’ instructing the Indians in proper civic life (Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 2.38.5). It is interesting that in some cases communities are negatively disposed toward a person, but it is the appeal to good deeds that brings reconciliation or deliverance; this is either because the person promises to do good works or because he reminds the people of the good works that he has performed in the past. Diodorus Siculus provides an example of the former: When a pitched battle was imminent, the generals conducted negotiations with each other and agreed upon a cessation of hostilities for four months. But when the armies returned to their homes without accomplishing anything, both cities were angry with the generals who had agreed upon the truce. Consequently the Argives hurled stones at their commanders and began to menace them with death; only reluctantly and after much supplication their lives were spared, but their property was confiscated and their homes razed to the ground. The Lacedaemonians took steps to punish Agis, but when he promised to atone for his error by worthy deeds (καλῶν ἔργων), they reluctantly let him off, and for the future they chose ten of their wisest men, whom they appointed his advisers, and they ordered him to do nothing without learning their opinion.49

  Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.30.2 (trans. Cary [LCL]).   More than just success on the battlefield, good works could also refer to compassionate displays performed in victory, such as the mercy shown by Alexander the Great to the wife of Darius (Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 17.38.1–4). 49   Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 12.78.4–6 (trans. Oldfather [LCL]). For an example of deliverance being brought through one’s past good deeds, see Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.54.2: “And even if the tribunes should believe it to be necessary by all means to carry the case through to its lawful conclusion and the populace should thus be empowered to give their votes concerning him, they would acquit him of the charge, partly out of respect for the defendant himself, whose many brave deeds (καλὰ ἔργα) they had cause to remember, and partly by way of making this return to the senate for the favour it had granted by giving them this power and by opposing them in nothing that was reasonable” (cf. 8.58.2; 11.12.2). 47

48

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

55

From this, the high value of good deeds is readily apparent: due to the benefit which good works provide to the community, they were able to appease even the most hostile crowds. Many of these characteristics sound very much like the munificent practices of civic benefactors. In fact, this connection is made even more explicitly in texts from the early Imperial period. The first, which comes from Plutarch, describes the benefactions performed by the emperor Titus on behalf of the Achaeans. When these actions are later defined, they are specifically referred to as good deeds: The Achaeans voted Titus many honours, none of which seemed commensurate with his benefactions (εὐεργεσίας) except one gift, and this caused him as much satisfaction as all the rest put together. And this was the gift: The Romans who were unhappily taken prisoners in the war with Hannibal had been sold about hither and thither, and were serving as slaves. In Greece there were as many as twelve hundred of them. The change in their lot made them pitiful objects always, but then even more than ever, naturally, when they fell in with sons, or brothers, or familiar friends, as the case might be, slaves with freemen and captives with victors. These men Titus would not take away from their owners, although he was distressed at their condition, but the Achaeans ransomed them all at five minas the man, collected them together, and made a present of them to Titus just as he was about to embark, so that he sailed for home with a glad heart; his noble deeds (καλῶν ἔργων) had brought him a noble recompense, and one befitting a great man who loved his fellow citizens.50

Another example of how benefaction and good works could be closely (or even directly) equated comes from Dio Chrysostom. In a speech directed to the people of Alexandria, the great orator attempts to sway the crowd with the hope that the emperor (Trajan?) might perform more good deeds for the city, if they prove themselves worthy of such benefactions: In heaven’s name, do you not see how great is the consideration that your emperor has displayed toward your city? Well then, you also must match the zeal he shows and make your country better, not, by Zeus, through constructing fountains or stately portals – for you have not the wealth to squander on things like that, nor could you ever, methinks, surpass the emperor’s magnificence (μεγαλοψυχίαν) – but rather by means of good behaviour (εὐταξία), by decorum, by showing yourselves to be sane and steady. For in that case not only would he not regret his generosity because of what has happened, but he might even confer on you still further benefactions (πλείονα ὑμᾶς ἀγαθὰ ἐργάσεται). And perhaps you might even make him long to visit you.51

From this statement, it would appear that the emperor’s munificence (μεγαλοψυχίαν) was connected with his generous contributions towards the city. These likely included the types of gifts specifically mention by Dio, viz., fountains and stately portals.

 Plutarch, Flam. 13. (trans. Perrin [get LCL]).   Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.95 (trans. Crosby [LCL]).

50 51

56

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

2. Noble Conduct The term ἀναστροφή (“conduct,” “behavior”) is a favorite of the Petrine author.52 In particular, he encourages his audience toward ἀναστροφή that is ἅγιος (“holy,” 1.15) and ἁγνός (“pure,” 3.2), since they have been “ransomed from the futile lifestyle (ἀναστροφῆς) inherited from [their] ancestors” (1.18). A key usage, as it relates to the good works motif, is found in 1 Pet 2.12. Here he admonishes his Anatolian readers, “[Abstain from the desires of the flesh] with the result that you keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable (τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἔχοντες καλήν), so that on account of the very thing for which they slander you, they will glorify God on the day of visitation because they will have seen (your conduct) from your good works.”53 Later he employs a similar construction, still recommending conduct that is “good”: ὑμῶν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν (“your good conduct in Christ,” 3.16). What is noteworthy is the presence (and absence) of this same construction in other source materials. Although ἀναστροφή (and its verbal form ἀναστρέφω) is used in a variety of contexts in secular literature, carrying a number of different meanings,54 an electronic search (using TLG and the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri) of known occurrences from the Koine period produced no other examples of the noun ἀναστροφή connected with καλός (or ἀγαθός) in either a noun-adjective (i.e., “noble conduct”) or an object-compliment (i.e., “he made his conduct noble”) relationship.55 One place where this construction is found with noticeable frequency, however, is in the epigraphic record. Here one commonly finds references to “living well” and to “noble conduct,”56 and just as in 1 Peter the terms frequently appear in an object-compliment relationship.57 An example from Epidauria reads,   For more on the use of ἀναστροφή in 1 Peter, see Brandt, “Wandel als Zeugnis.”   On the translation and interpretation of this passage, see below. 54   TDNT 7:715–17; TLNT 1:111–14; BDAG, 72–73. 55   The closest parallel to the terminology of 1 Peter in the secular literature comes from Epictetus, Diatr. 1.7.2: “For our aim in every matter of inquiry is to learn how the good and excellent man (ὁ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός) may find the appropriate course through it and the appropriate way of conducting (ἀναστοφήν) himself in it” (trans. Oldfather [LCL]). Within the papyrological evidence, ἀναστροφή only appears in a handful of instances during the Koine period (e.g., P.Giss. 40 [215 BCE]; P.Lond. 2116 [275–226 BCE]; P.Tebt. III.1 703 [210 BCE]). The closest example to the Petrine language is a formulaic usage with the comparative form of ἀγαθός: οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ βελτίστου ἀναστρεφομένου (BGU 1756 [58 BCE]; cf. BGU 1769 [47 BCE]; P.Fay. 12 [104/103 BCE]; P.Tebt. III.1 786 [138 BCE]; P.Tebt. III.2 904 [115 BCE]). 56   So, e.g., F.Delphes III,4 no. 175 = SIG 3 no. 553 (late 3rd cent. BCE); SIG 3 no. 534 (218/217 BCE); SIG 3 no. 534B = SGDI no. 2672 (224–220 BCE); SEG 40 (1994) no. 141 (212–211 BCE); F. Delphes III,1 no. 451 (200/199 BCE); Tit.Cam. no. 110 (after 182 BCE); IG VII no. 2850 (after 168 BCE); IG IX,12.2 no. 209 (mid 2nd cent. BCE); I.Délos no. 1502 (148/147 BCE); I.Asklepieion no. 21 (74 BCE); IGBulg I2 no. 13 (ca. 48 BCE); CID IV no. 135 (27–31 CE?); IG II2 no. 1023 (2nd cent. CE); SEG 13 (1963) no. 361; Georges Daux, “Inscriptions de Delphes inédites ou revues,” BCH 73 (1949) 248–93 (276–77, no. 27). 57   Frequently, the third-person form of ποιέω is modified by the direct object ἀναστροφήν along 52 53

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

57

Whereas Archilochus Aristophantos, a noble and good man (ἀνὴρ καλὸς κἀγαθός), having made his conduct and citizenship noble and honorable (τάν τε ἀναστροφὰν καὶ πολιτείαν πεπο̣ ίηται καλῶς καὶ ἐνδόξω[ς]), and having been appointed ambassador to Rome in order to achieve friendship and alliance, he patiently carried out the task with all diligence and care, successfully establishing a friendship and alliance between the Romans and the Epidaurians.58

Beyond this linguistic parallel, there is one further connection between the language of 1 Peter and the inscriptional evidence: although the observers of this praiseworthy conduct are often left unstated in honorary inscriptions, in some instances the audience is explicitly mentioned using a similar formula to that found in 1 Pet 2.12 (viz., ἐν + dative). At Delphi, the noble conduct of those sent by King Attalos is said to have been carried out ἐν τᾶι πόλει (“before the city”); whereas in Syros, Bernice Nicomachus displayed her virtuous lifestyle ἐν πᾶσιν (“before everyone”).59 The language of 1 Peter is slightly more restrictive, yet still encompassing virtually all in a given community. The noble conduct of the Anatolian Christians was meant to be lived out ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (“among the Gentiles”). The types of activities to which this noble conduct might allude are variegated. In many cases, it is used in a general way of referring to the overall lifestyle of one who has generously contributed to the welfare of a community (especially civic benefactors). At other times, the language refers more specifically to the duties of one commissioned for a particular task, often involving some type of expedition. This would include delegates who were sent to foreign territories in order to carry out important with the compliment καλῶς (or sometimes the accusative form of καλός), e.g., F.Delphes III,4 no. 362 = SIG 3 no. 538 = SGDI no. 2673 (end 3rd cent. BCE); F.Delphes III,4 nos. 133 (208 BCE); 135 (208 BCE); IScM I no. 32 = SEG 24 (1974) no. 1100 (2nd cent. BCE); SIG 3 no. 608 = SEG 2 (1952) no. 316 (191/190 BCE); SEG 2 (1952) no. 184 (ca. 171–146 BCE); IG V,2 no. 367 = IPArk no. 19 (168–146 BCE); IG XII,5 no. 829 (166–46 BCE); IG IX,12.2 no. 209 (mid 2nd cent. BCE); F.Delphes III,2 no. 92 = SIG 3 no. 654B (ca. 151 BCE); I.Délos nos. 1500 (ca. 150 BCE); 1503 (148–146 BCE); SIG 3 no. 682 (140/139 BCE); IG IX,2 no. 69 = SGDI no. 1447 (ca. 130 BCE); F.Delphes III,2 no. 249 (128/127 BCE); IG II2 nos. 1008 (118/117 BCE); 1011 (106/105 BCE); Louis Robert, “Notes d’épigraphie hellénistique,” BCH 52 (1928) 158–78 (174–76) = SEG 13 (1963) no. 361 (100–50 BCE); IG II2 no. 1039 (83–78 BCE); SIG 3 no. 740 (58 BCE); IG II2 no. 1043 (38/37 BCE); SEG 2 (1952) no. 332 (29–27 BCE); F.Delphes III,2 no. 164 (1st cent. BCE – 1st cent. CE); IG XII,Sup no. 139A–B = SEG 4 (1954) no. 428 (after 167 CE). Some variation in this phraseology does occur. For instance, an alternate verb might occasionally be substituted for ποιέω: τήν τε ἀναστροφὴν παρείσχηται εὐσχήμονα καὶ καλὴν καὶ στοιχοῦσαν τῶι ἐπιτηδεύματι (I.Perge no. 12), or καλῶς (or καλός) might be replaced by ἀγαθός: ἀγαθήν τε καὶ εὐσχήμοναν τὴν ἀναστροφὴν πεπόηται ἐν πᾶσιν (IG XII,5 no. 655 [2nd – 3rd cent. CE]). This same connection was made some years ago by E. L. Hicks, “On Some Political Terms Employed in the New Testament,” Classical Review 1 (1887) 4–8 (6). 58   IG IV2,1 no. 63, ll. 1–6 (115/114 BCE). 59   ἐν τᾶι πόλει: F.Delphes III,4 no. 135 (208 BCE); ἐν πᾶσιν: IG XII,5 no. 655 (2nd – 3rd cent. CE). Cf. also ἐν τᾶι πόλει: SIG 3 no. 608 = SEG 2 (1952) no. 316 (191/190 BCE); ἐν τῶι ἀρχείωι: I.Délos no. 1500 (ca. 150 BCE); ἐν πᾶσιν τ[ο]ῖ[ς] κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν: IG II2 no. 1008 (118/117 BCE); [ἐν π]ᾶσιν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν: IG II2 no. 1011 (106/105 BCE); ἐν Δελφοὺς: Robert, “Notes d’épigraphie hellénistique,” 174–76 = SEG 13 (1963) no. 361 (100–50 BCE).

58

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

tasks for the city (e.g., judge). It is even used to extol the responsibilities performed by priests or priestesses who led ritual processions in cultic ceremonies.60 3. Doing Good In 1 Peter, the author makes multiple references to “doing good.” There are different formulas through which this exhortation is made, but by far his favorites are the combination forms ἀγαθοποιέω (1 Pet 2.15, 20; 3.6, 17), ἀγαθοποιΐα (4.19), and ἀγαθοποιός (2.14). Elsewhere, he does make use of an alternative construction (ποιησάτω ἀγαθόν, 3.11); but in this case, the usage is found within a quotation from Ps 33.15 (LXX). When this terminology appears, it is often a way of differentiating appropriate conduct (good) from that which is inappropriate (bad). Thus, he tells the slaves within the community, “if you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong (ἁμαρτάνοντες), what credit is that? But if you endure when suffering for doing good (ἀγαθοποιοῦντες), this finds favor with God” (2.20), and to the readers in general, he contends, “it is better to suffer for doing good (ἀγαθοποιοῦντας), if it be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil (κακοποιοῦντας)” (3.17). In Koine Greek, there were various constructions by which someone could describe the act of “doing good” (e.g. εὖ ποιεῖν; ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖν; καλὸν ποιεῖν; καλῶς ποιεῖν). While the combined forms which appear in 1 Peter are found on occasion in earlier literature,61 it is during the Koine period that the terms begin to be employed with much more frequency. When they are used, the words are “part of the semantic field relating to the esteem in which [Greco-Roman] persons of exceptional merit were held.”62 This sense is found in a number of contexts. In some cases, they refer to the beneficent practices of the gods. A fourth-century CE magical papyrus, for instance, petitions Hermes with the words, “Come to me, lord Hermes so-and-so; do good to me (εὐεργέτησον), benefactor (ἀγαθοποιέ) of the land.”63 Other magical papyri use the adjective in connection with various rituals and spells intending to bring benefit or to achieve a positive response (PGM 4.2675, 2678, 2872). The over60   One such example is recorded in the city of Athens: “Whereas the people of Athens led a Pythian procession to Pythian Apollo in a grand manner worthy of the god and their particular excellence: the priestess of Athena, Chrysis daughter of Nicetes, also was present with the procession; she made the journey out and the return well, appropriately, and worthy (τά[ν] τε ἐπιδαμίαν καὶ ἀναστροφὰν ἐποιήσατο καλὰν καὶ εὐσχήμονα καὶ ἀξίαν) of the people of Athens and of our own city” (IG II 2 no. 1136, ll. 2–10 = SIG 3 no. 711K, ll. 2–10 [106/105 BCE]; trans. slightly adapted from Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation [3rd ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005] 282). 61  Aesop, Fab. 101 [Chambry 2], 284 [Chambry 61]; Democritus, Frag. 166. 62   BDAG, 3. 63   PGM 8.16 = P.Lond. 122.16. Cf. Plutarch, Is. Os. 42 [368B]: “Osiris is beneficent (ἀγαθοποιός), and his name means many things, but not least of all, an active and beneficent (ἀγαθοποιόν) power, as they put it. The other name of the god, Omphis, Hermaeus says means ‘benefactor’ (εὐεργέτην) when interpreted” (trans. Babbitt [LCL]). According to Walter Grundmann, “It is not unlikely that the use of the words in 1 Pt. is influenced by this application” (“ἀγαθός, κτλ,” TDNT 1:17).

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

59

whelming majority of occurrences, however, appear in an astrological context. Here they commonly refer to stars or planets which exert a favorable influence (PGM 4.48; cf. 13.1028, 1033). For instance, Claudius Ptolemy notes, “the ancients accepted two of the planets, Jupiter and Venus, together with the moon, as beneficent (ἀγαθοποιούς) because of their tempered nature and because they abound in the hot and the moist, and Saturn and Mars as producing effects of the opposite nature, one because of his excessive cold and the other for his excessive dryness.”64 Surprisingly, given the use of these terms to refer to persons and actions of exceptional merit, the combined forms rarely appear in the epigraphic record. One of the few examples is the use of the adjective ἀγαθοποιός in a funerary inscription from Selymbria. The stele, which commemorates the death of a Roman soldier, reads, “Marcus Cincius Nigrinus, soldier of the Eleventh Urban Cohort, a beneficent dead man (ἥρως ἀγαθοποιός)” (I.Byzantion no. S31 = IGR I no. 779 [98–117 CE]). However, it is difficult to know whether this is a reference to Nigrinus’ role in public munificence. The possibility seems unlikely. In ancient epitaphs from this period, ἥρως is not an honorific title related to demigod status (“hero”); instead it is simply a way of referring to a dead person.65 Furthermore, it is regularly employed in funerary inscriptions in connection with terms of virtue.66 For this reason, it may be nothing more than a traditional way of memoralizing the dead.67 Much more frequently, “doing good” is communicated in the inscriptional evidence through alternative formula.68 In honorary decrees, reference is commonly 64   Claudius Ptolemy, Tetra. 1.5.1; trans. Robbins (LCL). The number of examples could be multiplied ad infinitum. Authors who make use of these terms in an astrological context include: Critodemus (3rd BCE); Serapion of Alexander (1st CE?); Anubion (1st CE); Balbillus (1st CE); Dorotheus of Sidon (1st CE); Antiochus of Athens (2nd CE); Claudius Ptolemy (2nd CE); Antiginos of Nicaea (2nd CE); Vettius Valens (2nd CE); Maximus (2nd/4th CE?); et al. 65   See H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the “Rijksmuseum van Oudheden” at Leyden (Leiden: Brill, 1958) 28–31; and Louis Robert, Hellenica: Recueil d’épigraphie de numismatique et d’antiquitiés grecques, vol. 13: D’Aphrodisias à la Lyocanie, Compte Rendu du Volume VIII des Monuments Asiae Minoris Antiqua (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1965) 207. This usage is demonstrated by numerous examples throughout the epigraphic record. 66   So, e.g., χρηστός: I.Smyrna no. 491 (Roman); I.Laod.Lyk. no. 88 (1st – 2nd cent. CE); I.Tralleis no. 177 (Roman); I.Ephesos no. 2253; I.Leros no. 12; IGR IV nos. 796; 801. ἀγαθός: I.Sinope no. 141 (1st – 3rd cent. CE); I.Kibyra no. 288 (1st – 2nd cent. CE); IG XIV nos. 223; 225; 229; IGLPalermo nos. 19 (1st cent. BCE – 1st cent. CE); 21; 22; 24. 67   It is not uncommon to find gravestones which praise the life of the inhabitant. Often they are described as “one who lived well,” so, e.g., “Carina (erected this tomb) for Aquila from his own funds, in memory of 40 years lived well (ζήσαντι καλῶς)” (I.Prusa no. 1034 [2nd – 3rd cent. CE]); cf. I.Apollonia no. 241 = CIG no. 1829c (Roman period); IosPE I2 no. 484 (2nd – 3rd cent. CE?) IGUR II nos. 495; 498 = IG XIV no. 1566; 1033 = IG XIV no. 2087; 1082. 68   There are some instances in which the same formula is used but a very different sense is conveyed. For instance, a number of papyri and ostraca contain the phrase, καλῶς ποιήσεις (lit. “you will do well when/if . . . ”), e.g., BGU 596 (84 CE); 844bis (83 CE); 1078 (38 CE); 1097 (41–67 CE); 1195 (12/11 BCE); 1203 (29 CE); 1467 (1st cent. BCE); 1727 (1st cent. CE); 1786 (50 BCE); 1826 (51 BCE); 1827 (51 BCE); 1876 (64–44 BCE); 2421 (1st cent. BCE); 2606 (7 BCE); 2618 (7 BCE); 2621 (16 BCE); 2622 (21 BCE – 5 CE); 2650 (13–12 BCE); 2656 (21 BCE – 5 CE); 2660 (1 CE); 2736 (87–86 BCE); P.Bad. 15 (1st cent BCE); 16 (88 BCE); 35 (87 CE); P.Berl.Salmen. 3 (86 BCE);

60

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

made to one who “does whatever good he (or she) can.”69 A decree honoring Menelaus, a Pelagonian who joined and financially aided Athens in their wars to the north, is one example of this formula: Menelaus the Pelagonian, benefactor (εὐεργέτη[ς]). In the archonship of Chariclides; in the sixth prytany, of Oeneis. Resolved by the council and the people; Oeneis was the prytany; Nicostratus was secretary; Charicles of Leuconoe was chairman. Satyrus proposed: Since Timotheus the general demonstrates that Menelaus the Pelagonian is both joining in the war himself and providing money for the war against the Chalcidians and against Amphipolis, be it decreed by the council: Bring him forward to the people at the first assembly, and contribute the opinion of the council to the people, that the council resolves: Praise him because he is a good man (ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός) and does what good he can (ποιεῖ ὅτι δύνατα[ι ἀγ]αθόν) to the people of Athens. Also the generals who are in the region of Macedonia shall take care of him, so that if he needs anything he may obtain it; and it shall be possible for him to find from the people of Athens any other benefit if he can . . . 70

Another commonly employed formula, and one which at times overlaps with the previous example, is one who “speaks and does good.”71 From the city of Iasos, this construction is used to describe the efforts of Theophilos Iatragorou, a doctor from Hydisos, who had been living and working among the citizens of Iasos:

5 (86 BCE); P.Berl.Zill. 9 (68 CE); P.Bon. 43 (1st cent. CE); P.Bour. 10 (88 BCE); P.Coll.Youtie 17 (37 BCE); P.Fouad 75 (64 CE); P.Grenf. II 38 (80 BCE); P.IFAO II 24 (30–14 BCE); P.Lond. 356 (1st cent. CE); P.Mich 201 (99 CE); V 232 (36 CE); P.Oxy. 297 (54 CE); 299 (76–100 CE); 300 (76–100 CE); 745 (1 CE); 1672 (37–40 CE); 2844 (51–100 CE); 3061 (1st cent. CE); P.Princ. 160 (25–1 BCE); P.Ross.Georg. I 10 (88 BCE); P.Ryl. 231 (40 CE); P.Stras. 101 (1st cent. BCE); P.Vind.Worp 12 (1–25 CE); SB 1.5216 (1st cent. BCE); 3.6265 (76–100 CE); 6.9165 (1–50 CE); 14.12143 (41–54 CE); 16.12321 (97 CE); 18.13226 (1st cent. BCE); O.Berenike 193 (50–75 CE); O.Bodl. II 1704 (1st cent. CE); O.Claud. 359 (98–117 CE); 786 (98–117 CE); 824 (98–117 CE); 865 (98–117 CE); O.Krok. 18 (98–117 CE); 69 (98–117 CE); 70 (98–117 CE); 77 (98–138 CE); O.WadiHamm. 22 (1st cent. CE). Nevertheless, this formula normally represents a respectful way of introducing a request to the reader(s). It might be translated, “Please be so kind as to . . . ” Therefore, it would not be a relevant parallel to the good works terminology in 1 Peter. 69   So, e.g., IG XII,7 nos. 6 (4th cent. BCE); 7 (late 4th – early 3rd cent. BCE); 11 (late 4th – early 3rd cent. BCE); 36 (2nd cent. BCE); IG II2 nos. 207 (349/348 BCE); 429 (after 336/335 BCE); SEG 21 (1971) no. 310 (319/318 BCE); IG XII,5 no. 596 (3rd cent. BCE); IG XI,4 nos. 562 (300–250 BCE); 672 (250–200 BCE); 717 (late 3rd cent. ΒCE); 893 (300–250 BCE); SEG 36 (1986) no. 1048 (165/158 BCE); et al. 70   SIG 3 no. 174, ll. 1–17= IG II2 no. 110, ll. 1–17 (363/362 BCE); trans. adapted from P. J. Rhodes and Robin Osborne, eds., Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404–323 BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 193–95. Cf. Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.29.1: “To you, Minucius, and to all others who have been sent here with him by the senate I am a friend and am ready to do you any service in my power (εἴ τι δύναμαι, ποιεῖν ἀγαθόν)” (trans. Cary [LCL]). 71   IG II2 no. 1188 (4th cent. BCE); SEG 22 (1972) no. 116 (ca. 330 BCE); IGBulg I2 no. 308(6); IG XI,4 no. 1038 (ca. 280 BCE); Iscr.Cos nos. 28/29 (ca. 250–200 BCE); SEG 52 (2002) no. 724 (ca. 200 BCE); IScM I no. 15 = SEG 24 (1974) no. 1095; SEG 16 (1966) no. 931; IGR I 1024 = CIG 5361; I.Iasos nos. 50 (3rd – 4th cent. CE); 66; 153 (2nd cent. BCE); Christian Habicht, “Samische Volksbe­ schlüsse der Hellenistischen Zeit,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (Atheni­ sche Abtheilung) 72 (1957) 152–274 (196–197 no. 29 + 268).

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

61

Whereas Theophilos Iatragorou of Hydisos, a noble and good man (ἀνὴρ καλὸς κἀγαθός) on behalf of the city of Iasos, has constantly rendered aid privately to citizens who request his services and publicly to the people as a whole, speaking and doing whatever good he is able (λέγων καὶ πράσσων ἀγαθὸν ὅτι ἂν δύνηται), the people resolve to praise him for the goodwill which he has shown towards the city and to recognize him as patron and benefactor (εὐεργέτην) of the people of Iasos; and (they further resolve) to give to him all the rights of citizenship which are shared by the rest of the Iasosians along with front seating at all the contests, access in and out of the harbor, [refuge in peace and war . . . ]72

Within this formulaic usage, ἀγαθός is sometimes replaced by comparative or superlative forms, while the basic meaning is still maintained. Thus, one might be described as speaking and doing what is συμφέροντα or κάλλιστα or ἄριστα or βέλτιστα.73 What is noteworthy about each of the examples cited above is the object of the “good” which was performed: praise and rewards are bestowed because of the benefits brought to the community. This is fairly representative of the beneficent practices of the later Hellenistic and Roman periods. When one “speaks and does good,” or when one “does whatever good he/she can,” the good is normally performed on behalf of the city, its citizens, or a particular citizen group.74 The connection between doing good and public munificence evidenced in the epigraphic record is also reflected in the literary sources. Across a range of Greco-Roman literature, “doing good” consistently refers to the praiseworthy efforts of those who confer some type of benefit(s) upon others. Some of the more common beneficiaries of this good are said to be friends and family.75 More often than not, however, “doing good” takes on a civic focus. That is, the good which one performs is undertaken on behalf of a particular community or a group of citizens therein.76 Note, for instance, how the practice of civic benefaction is alternatively designated as “doing good” in the orations of Dio Chrysostom:

  I.Iasos no. 56 (Hellenistic?).   βέλτιστα: Louis Robert and Jeanne Robert, La Carie II. Le plateau de Tabai et ses environs (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1954) no. 167 = SEG 35 (1985) no. 1086 (ca. 100 BCE); I.ScM I nos. 15 = SEG 24 (1974) no. 1095 (ca. 200 BCE); 37 = SEG 27 (1977) no. 370 (late Hellenistic); SEG 52 (2002) no. 724 (ca. 200 BCE). συμφέροντα: CID IV no. 87 = F.Delphes III,3 no. 220 (212–205 BCE); SEG 23 (1973) no. 549 (2nd – 1st cent. BCE); I.Priene no. 99 (ca. 100 BCE). κάλλιστα: F.Delphes III,4 no. 56; I.Sestos no. 1 = OGIS no. 339 (133–120 BCE). ἄριστα: I.Knidos no. 81 (late Hellenistic); F.Delphes III,1 no. 152 = SGDI no. 2819 (ca. 150/149 BCE); I.Priene no. 107 (ca. 130 BCE?). 74   Often in honorary decrees this community focus is spelled out explicitly, where reference is made to “doing good (εὖ ποιεῖν) to the city” (so, e.g., IosPE I2 no. 78 [2nd cent. BCE?]; I.Ephesos no. 27A = SEG 15 [1965] no. 698 [104 CE]; I.Ankara no. 141 = Bosch, Ankara no. 128 = IGR III no. 209 [128/129 CE]). 75   Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.11.9; 8.29.1; 19.16.1; Plutarch, Inim. util. 9 [90F]; Lucian, Nav. 44; Alexander Numenius, De Fig. 2α; Porphyry, Abst. 4.22. 76   Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.9.5; 4.11.1; 4.72.2; 8.1.6; 8.70.4; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 12.56.5; 12.67.4; 14.107.3. 72 73

62

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Yet must we not concede that in the matter of honours the city’s magnanimity is surprising? For what mark of highest esteem have you not eagerly conferred? Have you not voted portraits, statues, embassies to the cities and to the Emperor? Have you not shown honour by public recognition; have you not shown honour by individual greeting? Therefore what man would not be pleased when these rewards are so distinguished? Or what man would not be eager to do you any good in his power (τι δύναιτο ποιεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀγαθόν)?77

What this means is that a precondition for doing good would be the possession of the means to do so.78 A willingness or desire, in this case, would not be sufficient. This is implicit in a statement by Dio Chrysostom: “What can give greater pleasure than a gentle and kindly ruler who desires to serve all (εὖ ποιεῖν) and has it in his power (δυναμένου) so to do?”79 Furthermore, with this greater advantage, comes more responsibility to do good. For as Dio Cassius asks, “who ought to confer more and greater benefits (πλείω καὶ μείζω τινὰς εὖ ποιεῖν) upon people than he who has the greatest power?”80 This connection between capability and responsibility is most clearly demonstrated in a speech delivered by Dio Chrysostom to the council of Prusa: To reasonable and cultivated men the holding of office is neither distasteful nor difficult. For they enjoy nothing more than doing good (εὖ ποιεῖν); and the ruler of a city, or of a tribe, or of 77   Dio Chrysostom, Or. 51.9 (trans. slightly adapted from Crosby (LCL]); cf. Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.12.2: “Tullius, seeing this, no longer let the occasion slip, but told them that he felt very grateful to them for remembering his services (εὐεργεσιῶν); and after promising to confer even more benefits (πλείονα . . . ἀγαθὰ ποιήσειν) if they should make him king, he appointed a day for the election, at which he ordered everybody to be present including those from the country” (trans. Cary [LCL]). 78   The same cannot be said for the use of καλῶς ποιεῖν in Greek literature. In this case, the adverb καλῶς seems to function somewhat differently than the parallel forms (ἀγαθός; καλός). When the adverb is used, the acts or activities which are being commended might include anything from obeying the will of the people to releasing men from military service (cf. Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.39.3; Plutarch, Ages. 9.4; Arrian, Anab. 5.27.5; Appian, Bell. civ. 3.10.75; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 41.3; Dio Cassius 46.28.2). As the following quote reveals, the use of καλῶς often signifies how one does something more so than what one is doing: “But he who understands this would from that moment be successful in all things, both those which are thought to be more important and those which are thought to be less; and whether he were to follow horse–racing or to devote himself to music or to agriculture, or if he should wish to be a general or to hold the other offices or to conduct the other public business in his city, he will do everything well (καλῶς ἄν πάντα ποιήσειε) and would make no mistakes in anything” (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 68.6; trans. Crosby [LCL]). 79   Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.34 (trans. Cohoon [LCL]); cf. Or. 1.65: “And when he saw that the lad wished to be a ruler, not through desire for pleasure and personal gain, which leads most men to love power, but that he might be able to do the greatest good (εὖ ποιεῖν) to the greatest number” (trans. Cohoon [LCL]). 80   Dio Cassius 43.16.2 (trans. Cary [LCL]); cf. Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.9.7: “If, however, you refuse to inhabit the same city with us, which is already large and will be larger, but are going to cling to your ancestral hearths, do this at least: appoint a single council to consider what shall be of advantage to each city, and give the supremacy to that one of the two cities which is the more powerful and is in a position to render the greater services (ποιεῖν ἀγαθά) to the weaker” (trans. Cary [LCL]).

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

63

still larger aggregations of mankind, not only has the fullest opportunity for doing good (ἐξουσία πλείστη τοῦ εὐεργετεῖν ἐστιν), but also is practically bound (ἀνάγκη) to do so.81

Although Dio graciously declines to serve in the office of archon for which he had been unknowingly nominated,82 he nonetheless acknowledges the reasonableness of this request. 4. Emulators of the Good Based on the use of ζηλωτής in Jewish literature from the Second Temple period, many Petrine interpreters have suggested that the phrase τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταί (“eager to do good,” or “emulators of the good”) in 1 Pet 3.13 derives from a Jewish background.83 It true that in the Second Temple period the term ζηλωτής was often used with reference to one’s ardent religious devotion, but the idea of one being “eager to do good” is not as common.84 Likewise, the position of Lauri Thurén, who claims that τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταί is part of Greek philosophical terminology,85 is slightly wide of the mark, for again the parallels that are drawn are those which only contain the word ζηλωτής. A much closer terminological connection to the language of 1 Peter can be found in Greek inscriptions honoring civic benefactors.86 Scattered throughout the epigraphic record are various references to those who “emulate the good (deeds)” of others. One example is found in an honorary decree recognizing the benevolent practices of a wealthy citizen from Acraephia named Epaminondas: . . . wherefore after such acts it is right that good men (τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν) of such magnanimity and patriotism receive recognition in the form of honors and grants. For all these reasons the archons, councilors and demos decided to praise (ἐπ̣ αινέσαι) the aforesaid man Epaminondas for the intense goodwill he has had for his ancestral city and magnanimity toward the Boeotian League, for with the embassy he was helping also his ancestral city; secondly, to honor him with a gold crown and a bronze portrait, to good fortune; and thirdly, that those who shall afterwards be appointed agonothetae at the games to be carried out by them   Dio Chrysostom, Or. 49.1 (trans. Crosby [LCL]).   The archonship was the highest ranking civic office in the urban communities of Asia Minor and one which required significant monetary contributions from its holder. 83   E.g., W. C. van Unnik, “The Redemption in 1 Peter I 18–19 and the Problem of the First Epistle of Peter,” in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia (NovTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 3–82 (65–66); Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (2nd ed.; AB 37; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964) 107; Troy W. Martin, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (SBLDS 131; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992) 285–88. 84   This is not to say that the idea is absent from Jewish texts from the Second Temple period. There are a couple of statements which come close to this language, e.g., ἐζήλωσα τὸ ἀγαθόν (Sir 51.18); bw+b yt)nq (11Q5 21.15). 85  Thurén, Argument and Theology, 194. 86   Frederick W. Danker, “First Peter in Sociological Perspective,” Int 37 (1983) 84–88, seems to recognize this connection. As a result, he argues that, “First Peter calls on the addressees to identify with the contemporary culture in ‘zeal for the good’” (86). 81

82

64

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

call him on each occasion to a front seat like the other benefactors (εὐεργέτας), so that with these things being so accomplished our city may appear grateful to its benefactors and many may become emulators of his good deeds when the previous good deeds for the city receive recognition (πολλοί τε ζηλ{ηλ}ωταὶ γείνων[τ]αι τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν μαρτυρουμένων τῶν πρώτων) . . . 87

The reason why the city was so hopeful that others might follow the munificent pattern set by Epaminondas was because of all the noble contributions which he had made to the citizens. His good deeds included the funding of numerous festivals and banquets, the performance of civic magistracies, the repair of a large dike which protected the city, and even an embassy to the emperor on behalf of the Boeotian League. In addition to the positive form of the adjective ἀγαθός being used in connection with ζηλωτής, variations in the inscriptional record also appear with some frequency. For instance, on a few occasions, ζηλωτής is employed with the superlative form of ἀγαθός (“emulate the noblest qualities/deeds”).88 It appears much more frequently, however, in connection with the superlative form of καλός.89 An example can be found on a stele from the city of Sestos: . . . therefore, in order that all might know that Sestos is hospitable to men of exceptional character and ability (τοὺς καλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν τιμῶν), especially those who from their earliest youth have shown themselves devoted to the common good and have given priority to the winning of a glorious reputation, and that the People might not appear remiss in their gratitude, and that also all others, as they see the People bestowing honors on exceptional men (τοῖς καλοῖς καὶ ἀγαθοῖς), might emulate the noblest qualities (ζηλωταὶ μὲν τῶν καλλίστων γίνωνται) and be moved to arête, to the end that the common good might be advanced as all aim ever to win a reputation for doing something beneficial (καλῶν) for our home city . . . 90

Using this same formula, reference is also made to the emulation of good deeds without specific mention of the ἀγαθός. In other words, rather than stating that the intention of an honorary decree was to encourage others to become emulators of 87   IG VII no. 2712, ll. 87–100 = CIG no. 1625, ll. 87–100 (after 37 CE); trans. adapted from James H. Oliver, “Epaminondas of Acraephia,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 12 (1971) 221–37 (235–36). For a commentary on the text, see Ulrich Kahrstedt, Das wirtschaftliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit: Kleinstadt, Villa und Domäne (Dissertationes Bernenses 1/7; Bernae: A. Francke, 1954) 83–85, and Louis Robert, “Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce centrale,” Archaiologike Ephemeris (1969) 1–58 (34–49). Cf. also SEG 19 (1969) no. 834 (2nd – 1st cent. BCE); IosPE I2 no. 53. 88   IG XII,7 no. 231 (2nd – 1st cent. BCE); Ramsay, “Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor,” 300– 302 (no. 24). 89   I.Ephesos no. 6 (2nd cent. BCE); IG XII,Sup nos. 249 (2nd cent. BCE); 553 (ca. 100 BCE); Georges Cousin and Charles Diehl, “Cibyra et Eriza,” BCH 13 (1889) 333–42 (334–40, no. 4) (115 BCE); Petersen-Luschan, RLMK no. 19; IG II2 no. 1028 (100/99 BCE); IG XII,7 nos. 232 (2nd cent. – 1st cent. BCE); 233; 234 (2nd cent. – 1st cent. BCE); IG XII,9 no. 236 (ca. 100 BCE); I.Mylasa no. 109 = LW no. 409 (ca. 76 BCE); I.Iasos no. 98 (1st cent. CE); I.Priene no. 110. 90   I.Sestos no. 1, ll. 86–92 = OGIS no. 339, ll. 86–92 = Michel no. 327, ll. 86–92 (133–120 BCE); trans. adapted from Danker, Benefactor, 95.

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

65

good deeds (πολλοί τῶν ἀγαθῶν ζηλωταὶ γίνωνται), inscriptions often make reference to good deeds indirectly: e.g., ἕτεροι ζηλωταὶ τῶν ὁμοίων γίνωνται (“so that others might emulate the same qualities/deeds”). From the city of Chalkis (on the island of Euboia) we read, . . . therefore, in order that all may know that the People show appropriate gratitude to noble and good men (τοῖς [καλοῖς κἀγαθοῖς τῶν ἀ]νδρῶν), so that others also, knowing the thanksgiving of the city towards its benefactors, might emulate the same (ζηλωταὶ [γίνωνται τῶν ὁμοίω] ν).91

What is interesting about this honorary inscription (and many like it) is that it explicitly reveals a motive of solicitation: such recognition is given so that others might follow these same beneficent patterns. The system was one of reciprocity. Good deeds were recognized by the city through public acclamation and praise, in hopes that others would seek the same recognition through the contribution of more good deeds. This strong emphasis on the emulation of good deeds was so prevalent, in fact, that it even shows up in the memorialization of the dead.92 A gravestone from the city of Stratonikeia summarizes the life of a certain Chrysaor and encourages onlookers to emulate his fine example: As Chrysaor lived an admirable life (βίον ἐ[σ]θλόν), he was especially loved for his many good deeds (ἀγαθ[ῶν] ἔργων)93 by all mortals, and now, since he is deceased, he has acquired a tomb like his parents and brothers who reared him. Therefore, travelers, look upon this, then

91   IG XII,9 no. 899, ll. 3–6 (2nd cent. BCE). Cf. also I.Délos no. 1521 (2nd cent. BCE); IG XII,9 no. 239 (2nd cent. BCE); I.Délos 1507 (2nd cent. BCE); I.Sardis VII no. 4 (ca. 155 BCE); IG VII no. 411 = SIG 3 no. 675 (154–150 BCE); I.Délos no. 1520 (after 153/152 BCE); I.Délos no. 1508 (ca. 150 BCE); IG II2 no. 1006 (122/121 BCE); IG IV 558 (114 BCE); TAM II no. 168 (2nd cent. – 1st cent. BCE); I.Perge no. 14 = SEG 38 (1988) no. 1396 (2nd cent. – 1st cent. BCE); IG XII,9 nos. 234 (ca. 100 BCE); 236 (ca. 100 BCE); IG X,2.1 no. 4 (95 BCE); IG II2 no. 1039 (83–78 BCE); IG II2 no. 1043 (38/37 BCE); IG II2 no. 1343 (37/36 BCE); A. Conze and C. Schuchhardt, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1886–1898,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (Athenische Abtheilung) 24 (1899) 97–240 (177, 485 no. 26 [Hellenistic]); I.Perge no. 23 (after 20 CE); I.Pergamon no. 253 (Roman?); I.Leros no. 3. There are even more which should probably be restored this way: I.Tralleis 29 (Hellenistic); IG II2 no. 1330 (163–130 BCE); IG II2 no. 1333 (mid-2nd cent. BCE); SEG 25 (1975) no. 112 (2nd cent. – 1st cent. BCE); IG XII Supp. no. 553 (ca. 100 BCE); IG X,2.1 no. 7 (1st cent BCE); Hugo Hepding, “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908–1909. II: Die Inschriften,” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (Athenische Abtheilung) 35 (1910) 401–93 (407 no. 2 [75– 50 BCE]). 92   Elsewhere, we find examples of the epithet ἀγαθός being used to describe the deceased (e.g., IG I2 nos. 1032, 1057; IG II2 nos. 11420, 12583; IG V,1 no. 762; IG V,2 nos. 221–235, 258, 491; IG VII nos. 1704, 2130, 2315; I.Byzantion no. 289; I.Tyana nos. 69, 84, 89). It seems, however, that χρηστός was the preferred designation on epitaphs (see Marcus N. Tod, “Epithets in Greek Epitaphs,” Annual of the British School at Athens 46 [1951] 182–90 [185–86]). 93   Cf. the epigram which Aristippus is said to have written for Dion: “Tears from their birth the lot had been / Of Ilium’s daughters and their queen. / By thee, O Dion, great deeds (καλῶν . . . ἔργων) done / New hopes and larger promise won. / Now here thou liest gloriously, / How deeply loved, how mourned by me” (Diogenes Laertius 3.30; trans. Hicks [LCL]).

66

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

you will think good thoughts (χρηστά), recognizing that excellence (ἀρετάν) receives honor not wickedness.94

Given the limited description of this epitaph, we have no way of determining the exact referent behind these good deeds. But regardless of the nature of these acts, one point remains clear: the good works of Chrysaor were appreciated by everyone and meant to be an example for others to follow.

C. Conclusion In the ancient Greek world, good works (or doing good) might refer to a variety of activities depending on the period in which it is used; yet, in each era, it tends to relate to a person’s contribution(s) to the wider community. In the Dark Ages, the designation often referred to defending one’s family or city militarily, while in the Hellenistic era it was frequently used to describe the efforts of a foreign judge brought in to adjudicate a conflict between two communities. Thus, throughout the centuries, good deeds were characterized by a horizontal focus, wherein the “goodness” of one’s actions were defined according to their benefit towards others. In first-century CE Asia Minor, this terminology was most often used with reference to the activities of wealthy elites who contributed (monetarily) to a particular civic community.95 These euergetistic efforts, as we have previously shown, performed an important social function within the community. By providing citizens with the amenities necessary for the “good life” in the Greco-Roman world, these “good works” served as way of mitigating the (often) tumultuous relationship between a small group of wealthy elites who held most of the power and authority within a civic community and the larger citizen body who lacked institutional control. Similar language came be to employed within the framework of Hellenistic moral philosophy as a reference to the quality and character of one’s life, apart from the necessary precondition of material wealth. But, ultimately, this represented a competitive redefinition of virtue. It served as a challenge to the popular discourse – so commonly displayed in the practice of civic benefaction – which defined moral virtue and therefore established social approval and political authority. Thus, even when euergetism was not the literal referent behind this language, its presence, in terms of the larger social and political realities which it represented, was always 94   I.Stratonikeia no. 1327 = SEG 38 (1988) no. 1102 = Ender Varinlioğlu, “Inschriften von Stratonikeia in Karien,” Epigraphica Anatolica 12 (1988) 79–128 (101–102, no. 27). The date of this gravestone is undetermined, but it is possible that is dates to somewhere around the 1st or 2nd century CE, as suggested by Reinhold Merkelbach and Josef Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Band 1: Die Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1998) 223. 95   On the important shift with regard to the form and function of civic benefaction in the Roman imperial period, see pp. 70–71.

Chapter Three:  Good Works according to Hellenistic Standards

67

looming in the background. What this means is that if Petrine interpreters continue to insist on reading the good works terminology in the epistle against a Hellenistic background, then much greater attention needs to be focused on civic benefaction in the Greco-Roman world and its (potential) role in the author’s social strategy. What remains to be determined then is whether the terminology is only a conceptual referent which simply appropriates the language of civic elites to designate moral virtue, or whether it is a literal referent, calling for the readers to participate in the euergetistic practices of their communities. In the next chapter, we will explore this question more closely. Therein we will examine the form and function of civic benefaction in order to understand how munificence was carried out and how (the terminology surrounding) this convention relates to the good works language of 1 Peter.

Chapter Four

Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter The benefaction theory, as set forth by Winter (and others), has not been widely accepted among Petrine interpreters. This view nevertheless holds a unique place within the discussion of good works in 1 Peter. The benefaction position is the only variation within the modern consensus which postulates a specific referent for the prescribed good deeds (thus allowing its claims to be tested) and which might potentially be able to overcome the problem of partial conformity (i.e., how to ingratiate the public to the extent that they would overlook the Christians’ partial conformity to normal social customs). Furthermore, it alone has been able to account for the congruence between the language of 1 Peter and the terminology used by Greco-Roman society to honor civic benefactors. But in order to better understand how this language was employed in first-century CE Asia Minor, and thereby to determine whether euergetism is the background against which the good deeds in 1 Peter should be read, we need to know more about this popular convention. The purpose of this chapter will be to probe the historical depths of the benefaction theory in order to weigh its interpretive value and to determine whether the strategy of 1 Peter – represented by the call to “do good” – involves the readers’ engagment in the ancient convention of euergetism. To do so, we will focus considerable attention on the social, political, and economic aspects of benefaction in the Greco-Roman world. The specific question which we will attempt to answer is this: Based on what we know about civic benefaction in Roman Asia Minor, is it possible (or better yet, probable) that the “good works” toward which the author of 1 Peter admonishes his readers are euergetistic practices meant to ingratiate Anatolian society?

A. Civic Benefaction in Roman Asia Minor We will begin by exploring how civic benefaction was carried out in Roman Asia Minor. If the good deeds encouraged by the Petrine author denote euergetistic engagement, what kinds of activities would have been involved, and who would have been the primary participants? By answering these questions, we will be afforded a much clearer picture of what a “noble and good man (or woman)” would have looked like in Roman Anatolia. What is more, it will be from this reconstruction that we

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

69

will be able to evaluate whether the benefaction position offers a viable explanation for the good works motif in 1 Peter. 1. Defining Civic Benefaction Civic benefaction (or euergetism) in the Greco-Roman world was a type of gift-exchange1 in which a member of the local or provincial elite used his (or her) private wealth or power to benefit a city, its citizenry, or a group of citizens, and in return, received reciprocal recognition of the contribution as a benefaction. The word euergetism 2 comes from the Greek εὐεργέτης, which, in the epigraphic record, frequently refers to elite citizens who provide benefits for a city (or from εὐεργετέω, which describes the generous deeds that these benefactors performed).3 The very root of the term denotes “one who does good” or “one who does well.” This definition of benefaction is meant to differentiate it, however slightly, from similar forms of ancient gift-giving.4 One example of a closely connected form of reciprocity was patronage.5 The difference between the two – although the line was not always clearly demarcated – involved the relative frequency and the quantity of participants.6 That is, benefaction took place when “[a] durable corporate 1   On euergetism as a form of gift-exchange, see Marc Domingo Gygax, “Euergetismus und Gabentausch,” Mètis: anthropologie des mondes grecs anciens 1 (2003) 181–200. 2   The term “euergetism” was first coined by Andre Boulanger, Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IIe siècle de notre ère (Paris: De Boccard, 1923) 25, and was later adopted in works such as Henri-Irénée Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (Wisconsin Studies in Classics; Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956 [French 1948]) 112. But it was most prominently disseminated through the widely-received work of Paul Veyne, Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique (Paris: Seuil, 1976) esp. 20 n.  7 (Eng. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism [trans. B. Pearce; London: Penguin Press, 1990]). 3   See further TDNT 2:654–55; TLNT 2:107–13. 4   Other types of ancient gift-giving sometimes described as euergetism include: small donations to voluntary associations which were to be used for the performance of funerary rites at the donor’s gravesite (see Jean Andreau, “Fondations privées et rapports sociaux en Italie romaine (Ier–IIIe s. ap. J.-C.),” Ktèma 2 [1977] 157–209) and gifts to native village or country shrines (see Luuk de Ligt, Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic Trade in a Pre-Industrial Society [Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 11; Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1993] 176–78; Christof Schuler, Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien [Vestigia 50; Munich: Beck, 1998] 278–87). 5   The standard discussions on patronage in the Greco-Roman world can be found in Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, ed., Patronage in Ancient Society (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 1; London/New York: Routledge, 1989); cf. also Claude Eiler, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities (Oxford Classical Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) and Koenraad Verboven, The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic (Collection Latomus 269; Brussels: Latomus, 2002). 6   On the distinction between benefaction and patronage, see Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 2/124; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 17–69; idem, “One Form of Social Exchange or Two? ‘Euer-

70

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

group with fixed structural properties grant[ed] corporate honors and amenities to one who has benefited the group.” On the other hand, patronage was “a more individualized phenomenon in which one party [was] bound to another through specific transactions or the assumption of particular obligations.”7 In this section, it will be the former to which we devote our attention. 2. The Nature of Civic Benefaction Already during the Archaic period, cities honored foreign benefactors with titles and privileges for their service to the community.8 It was not until classical times, however, that citizens were recognized in this same manner. Despite strong democratic opposition towards public gift-exchange at the civic level, the struggle of wealthy elites to distinguish themselves from other noble citizens eventually evolved into the institution of euergetism. Thus, by the Hellenistic era, there was a clearly defined system of reciprocity in place whereby benefactors contributed to the welfare of their communities in exchange for positions of power and recognition. But with the transition from Hellenistic city-states to Roman provincial communities an important transformation took place. Most recognize that there was a significant change in the practice of euergetism between the Hellenistic and Roman periods, a change which began even in the late Hellenistic period, as the Roman imperial presence began to be felt.9 What happened, it seems, is that, “la nature des «bienfaits» et les conditions dans lesquelles ils sont exigés et accomplis, par conséquent le rôle des bienfaiteurs, présentent sous l’Empire des caractères nouveaux et spécifiques, qui en font quelque chose de difgetism,’ Patronage, and Testament Studies,” BTB 31 (2001) 17–25; and Alicia J. Batten, “God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor?,” NTS 50 (2004) 257–72, although note the cautionary corrections drawn by Zeba A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (BZNW 130; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004) 59–66. For a helpful review of the debate surrounding whether patronage and benefaction were identical or distinct conventions as Rome spread into the Greek East, see David E. Briones, Paul’s Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach (LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2013) 27–30. He notes, “These social practices, to be sure, shared general, structural similarities, such as reciprocal exchange, mutual obligations and honour, but they also retained their distinct institutional forms of exchange, regardless of the appearance of specific terminology. In fact, the stress on terminology is misleading. The same terms can cover a range of different forms/institutions, and different terms can be applied to the same forms/institutions” (30; original emphasis). 7   Holland Hendrix, “Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment: Evidence from Thessalonica,” Semeia 56 (1992) 39–58 (40). Cf. Veyne, Bread and Circuses, 75. 8   Examples from the 6th century BCE to the late 5th century BCE include: Herodotus, Hist. 1.54; 8. 136; SIG 3 no. 4; IG XII,Sup. no. 549. 9  Mitchell, Anatolia I, 210: “The role of city benefactors began to change noticeably in the Greek world in the later Hellenistic period, especially after the power of Rome began to be felt directly in the communities of Greece and Asia Minor.” Cf. Maurice Sartre, L’Orient Romain: Provinces et Sociétés Provinciales en Méditerranée Orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C. – 235 après J.-C.) (Paris: Seuil, 1991) 132.

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

71

férent de l’évergétisme hellénistique.”10 This “new and specific character” which civic benefaction exhibited was due in large part to the stability and peace brought about by Roman rule. In previous times, one of the most common methods for elites citizens to demonstrate their nobility and devotion to the community was by defending the city against foreign enemies. Under the Principate, however, this means of service was rarely available due to the Pax Romana. Therefore, during the Imperial period, elite citizens in the Greek East would be forced to seek out alternative ways to establish themselves as “noble and good men.” In what follows, we will explore the nature of civic benefaction in Roman Anatolia, focusing particular attention on the participants, their contributions, and the process of negotiation by which benefaction was performed. By thus working towards greater precision concerning the system and its operation, we will in turn be able to more accurately define the nature of good deeds in the Greek world and to identify those who were (and those who were not) able to perform them. a. Examining the Types of Benefactions Performed In Roman Anatolia, there was considerable fluidity in the kinds of acts that might be called “benefactions” (or good deeds). One who wanted to contribute to the welfare of his (or her) civic community could do anything from providing large banquets for the citizens to erecting/refurbishing public buildings. Surprisingly, however, this flexibility did not create great variety in munificent practice. A close look at the inscriptional evidence reveals that civic benefaction tended to take on a relatively limited number of forms. In a recent study of public munificence in Roman Asia Minor, Arjan Zuiderhoek attempts to chart the characteristics of elite donations during the early and high Empire. After surveying hundreds of recorded benefactions, he notes that certain types of gifts are much more common in the epigraphic record than others.11 By far the most frequent contribution was to public building (58%).12 Among these dona10   Philippe Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVer – Ier siècle avant J.-C.): contribution à l’histoire des institutions (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 12; Paris: De Boccard, 1985) 3. Cf. Edmond Frézouls, “L’hellénisme dans l’épigraphie de l’Asie mineure romaine,” in ῾ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ. Quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identité grecque. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 25–27 octobre 1989 (ed. S. Saïd; Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 11; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 125–47 (129). 11  Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence, esp. 71–112. 12   The preponderance of gifts directed toward the urban landscape of Anatolian cities seems natural, given the fact that during the Roman period a city’s status came to be measured by its amenities (Pausanias, Descr. 10.4.1; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 13.1.27; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 39.5; 48.9). There were certain buildings, according to A. H. M. Jones (The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian [Oxford: Clarendon, 1940]), that “every self-respecting city had to possess.” These included: “colonnaded streets and market squares, aqueducts and fountains, temples, gymnasia, baths, a stadium, a hippodrome, a theatre, an odium. To these may be added buildings to house the various administrative services – the office of the several boards of magistrates, the record office, the treasury, and the council chamber” (236). For the basic elements of an Anatolian city, see David

72

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

tions, munificent preference seems to have been given to religious structures. Nearly twenty-five percent of contributions – whether whole buildings or partial donations – were devoted to temples, shrines, sanctuaries, altars, or statues of the gods. Following closely behind in terms of popularity were benefactions directed toward structures that were essential for true citizen living, viz., baths/gymnasiums, stoas, and theaters. Far less popular were utilitarian buildings such as aqueducts, agoras, or macelli.13 Another common form of civic munificence, though appearing with far less frequency than public building (17%), were the distributions of wine, grain, oil, and money which were given to (privileged) citizen groups. Groups that are singled out for these handouts include councilors, members of the gerousia, and, at times, all citizens.14 Sometimes these public distributions took place at the next major form of munificence: games and festivals put on for the entertainment of the people (13%). Of these popular events, agonistic festivals (involving athletic, musical, and theatrical contests) are the most frequently attested. Also very popular were the gladiatorial games and wild animal hunts (venationes), which were adopted from the Romans. Rounding out these numbers are a small amount of miscellaneous donations (12%) that show up sporadically in the records (e.g., embassies to the emperor, holding and covering the expenses for certain civic offices, donating capital sums for foundations, monetary gifts which relieve the people from taxes or debts, and distributions of grain in times of need or famine).15 What is noteworthy about these donations is that they represent some of the only contributions that might improve the lot of the poor within the community. The vast majority of beneficent contributions were for decoration and entertainment, and even when distributions of grain and wine were made, the largest percentage was given to those on the top of the social hierarchy (not the bottom). What this shows is that even though benefaction could Parrish, “Introduction: The Urban Plan and Its Constituent Elements,” in Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge, and Xanthos (eds. D. Parrish and H. Abbasoğlu; Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 45; Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2001) 9–41. 13   For the full inscriptional evidence on munificence directed towards public building, see Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence, 160–64. 14  Councillors: IGR III nos. 492; 800–802; I.ScM I no. 57; SEG 38 (1988) no. 1462; Louis Robert, Études anatoliennes: recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie mineure (Paris: Boccard, 1937) 343–52 (no. 4); I.Stratonikeia nos. 237; 662; I.Xanthos no. 67; SEG 34 (1984) no. 1175; IGR IV nos. 1127; 1222; I.Tralleis no. 145; I.Ephesos no. 690. Gerousia: IGR III nos. 800–802; I.ScM I no. 57; I.Xanthos no. 67; I.Nikaia no. 61; I.Stratonikeia no. 237. Citizens: IGR III nos. 800–801; SEG 38 (1988) no. 1462; Robert, Études anatoliennes, 343–52 (no. 4); I.Stratonikeia nos. 527; 662; I.Xanthos no. 67; IGR IV no. 1127; I.Ephesos no. 2061 II; IGR III no. 493. 15   Embassy to emperor: I.Keramos no. 14. Office holders: I.Pergamon no. 260 = IGR IV no. 316; I.Prusias no. 6. Capital sums for foundations: I.Kibyra no. 42 = IGR IV no. 915; I.MagSip no. 20 = IGR IV no. 1342; LW no. 1006. Monetary gifts which relieve the people from taxes or debts: I.Assos no. 28 = IGR IV no. 259. Distributions of grain: I.Assos no. 25; IGR IV no. 941; I.Tralleis nos. 77 = CIG no. 2930; 80 = CIG no. 2927.

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

73

alleviate the needs of the community, relieving the conditions of the poor was not the primary purpose of the convention (see further below).16 b. Locating the Participants Involved Now that we have a better idea of what was being donated by civic benefactors, we can more accurately identify the participants involved. In the previous chapter, we introduced evidence that seemed to suggest that the performance of good deeds was reserved for certain individuals in the community, due to the fact that they were the only ones who possessed the material means to undertake them. In order to assess the validity of this contention, we will attempt to reconstruct the economic situation of one serving in the capacity of a civic benefactor, asking the question: Was “doing good” in any way restricted to certain individuals, or did all citizens have an equal opportunity to perform “good deeds”? (1) The Cost of Civic Benefaction17 The cost of civic benefaction is an extremely important matter, especially as it relates to the question of good works in 1 Peter. For despite the fact that benefaction is regularly declared to be an expensive undertaking – and thus out of the reach of average citizens – the prices involved have yet to be discussed in any Petrine literature. In what follows, therefore, we will provide a quantitative analysis which calculates the costs of various beneficent acts in the Greco-Roman world. Our examination will begin with some of the more expensive forms of civic benefaction and then work down to the cheaper undertakings. In the Roman Empire, there was no better way to leave a legacy of philanthropy towards one’s community than through public building. But, of course, an esteemed reputation was not cheap, and fortunately for the modern historian, these costs have been relatively well-preserved in the epigraphic record. The most expensive structure in a local community was usually the aqueduct system which transported fresh water into the city. The price tag on these structures was normally a few million denarii. Because of its exorbitant rate, an aqueduct was often funded by proceeds from the city treasury or, in some cases, by the Roman government. For instance, during the governorship of Pliny the Younger, the city of Nicomedia is said to have invested HS 3,329,000 (= 832,250 denarii) into a faulty system (Pliny, Ep. 10.37). On rare occasions, however, private citizens stepped forward to assume this large financial burden. One such prominent citizen was Titus Claudius Erymneus from the city   Pace Hendrik Bolkestein, Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum: Ein Beitrag zum Problem “Moral und Gesellschaft” (Utrecht: Oosthoek, 1939); A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life; Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1968). 17   This section is taken from a larger treatment of benefaction in 1 Peter: Travis B. Williams, “Benefiting the Community through Good Works? The Economic Feasibility of Good Works in 1 Peter,” JGRChJ 9 (2013) 147–95 (esp. 150–60). 16

74

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

of Aspendus. He spent 2 million denarii on an aqueduct for the city (IGR III no. 804). Another example comes from Alexandreia Troas, where the cost of an aqueduct was 7 million drachmae, which was 4 million drachmae over the original estimate. To free the community of this encumbrance, the prominent senator Herodes Atticus agreed to cover the unexpected expenses (Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.1). Although aqueducts performed an important utilitarian function in local communities, they rarely received the attention which benefactors paid to more popular undertakings such as Greek and Roman theaters. It was through the building of these massive structures that local citizens could ingratiate themselves to the masses. Alongside aqueducts, theaters were one of the most expensive structures in the civic community. During the time of Pliny, the city of Nicaea had spent HS 10 million on a theater which was poorly constructed and, at the time, still incomplete (Pliny, Ep. 10.39). But the Nicaean structure would not have even been considered one of the more expensive theaters in the ancient world. Frank Sear estimates that the theaters of Marcellus and Pompey would have cost HS 20,384,758 and HS 30,958,387 respectively.18 This high cost may have been the reason why theater-construction took so long to complete.19 It might also explain why collective benefactions were so common, especially in the Greek East. When it came to the building of the theater, benefactors usually only contributed to certain portions of the building’s construction, or in many cases, they gave towards its embellishment. In Tlos, for instance, many people donated to the building of the theater. The inscription which records the names of the contributors is incomplete, but the existing list includes over fifty benefactors who gave some 27,100 drachmae to the project, with the sums ranging between 100 and 3,000 drachmae (TAM II nos. 550–551).20

18   Frank Sear, Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 19–23. Other less expensive theaters, according to Sear, include: Madaurus (HS 375,000); Herculaneum (HS 1,544,713); Iguvium (HS 3,325,120); Leptis Magna (HS 7,992,939); Sabratha (HS 9,056,169). 19   The theater at Delos took 60 years to build (I.Délos nos. 157, 270, 290, 291 A, C, D), while the large theaters at Ephesus and Aphrodisias took over 150 years, a period over which many additions, repairs, and embellishments were made (see Sear, Roman Theatres, 16–17). On the other hand, in those instances where money was no object, a theater might be constructed relatively quickly. The theater of Herod at Caesarea Maritima, for instance, was begun in 19 BCE and completed ten years later (Josephus, Ant. 16.136). 20   Other examples of donations to the construction, repair, or embellishment of theaters include: Opramoas of Rhodiapolis gave 10,000 denarii for the theater at Limyra (TAM II no. 905 XIX C) and 60,000 drachmae for the theater at Tlos (IGR III no. 679 = TAM II no. 579). In the city of Myra (Lycia), 10,000 denarii was promised for the theater by Jason of Cyaneae (IGR III no. 704). M. Ulpius Carminius Claudianus donated 10,000 denarii to the theater at Aphrodisias to pay for the seating (IAph2007 no. 12.1111 = CIG no. 2782). In the city of Iasos, Sopater, son of Epicrates, dedicated the analemma, a kerkis, and the bema to Dionysos and the people (I.Iasos no. 249 = CIG no. 2681), while another inscription from the same city records the donations to the theater (ranging from 100 to 200 drachmae) which were given by six other men (I.Iasos no. 206). An inscription

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

75

But theaters were not the only buildings to which benefactors contributed. Most of the public structures in a city were funded by the private contributions of wealthy elites. What is more, it is not uncommon to find citizens donating entire buildings to a given community. This was the case with C. Iulius Demosthenes, a prominent benefactor from the city of Oenoanda, who constructed a food market for the city at a cost of 15,000 denarii (SEG 38 [1988] no. 1462). In Nais (Phrygia), C. Octavius donated a temple and porticoes, costing 100,000 drachmae(?) (IGR IV no. 1700). The emperor Hadrian donated 1,500,000 drachmae to the city of Smyrna for a grain market, temple and gymnasium along with many columns of Synnadic and Numidian marble and porphyry (IGR IV no. 1431, but cf. Philostratus, Vit. soph. 1.25, which lists the total at 1,000,000 drachmae). At Sagalassus, 13,000 denarii was given by P. Ael. Aquila for a macellum (IGR III no. 351). Due to the excessive cost of donating an entire structure, benefactors often limited themselves to certain portions of a building project. In the city of Aphrodisias, for example, M. Ulp. Carminius Claudianus and his wife donated 105,000 denarii as a foundation for public works, and from this, 10,000 denarii was reserved for seats in theater (IAph2007 no. 12.1111 = CIG no. 2782). Likewise, at Philadelphia, Aur. Hermippus provided 10,000 denarii for the awning of the theater (IGR IV no. 1632). A further consideration that served to shape the munificence of public building was the fact that existing civic structures were normally sufficient for the daily operation of community life. As such, contributions were usually limited to the decoration or repair of present structures. But even these restoration projects were not cheap. A sum of 264,174 denarii was given by Attalus as foundation to adorn the area of around the gymnasium and to create a perpetual gymnasiarch (IAph2007 no. 12.1007), and in Prusias ad Hypium, 50,000 denarii was contributed by M. Aur. Philippianus Jason to repair the agora (IGR III no. 66).21 from Philadelphia records a donation of 10,000 denarii given by Hernippus, the president of an athletic association, for equipping the theater with a petasos (IGR IV no. 1632). 21   Other examples of donations to public building in Asia Minor include: A priest Dionysius and his wife gave 9,000 drachmae to rebuild a storehouse (Georges Cousin, “Inscriptions du sanctuaire de Zeus Panamaros,” BCH 28 [1904] 20–53 [30–31, no. 12B]). At Sagalassus, 30,500 denarii was donated by Gbaimus, the priest, for repairing the temple of Apollo and for the Clareian and Vareian festivals along with their prizes (Karl Lanckoroński, ed., Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Unter Mitwirkung von G. Niemann und E. Petersen, Band 2: Pisidien [Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1892] no. 201). Aurelius Delitrianus contributed 1,750 denarii to the city of Poglae (Lycia) for public works (IGR III no. 407). In the city of Heraclea Pontica, 20,000 denarii or more was given to repair a public building (I.Heraclea no. 54). Opramoas of Rhodiapolis, among other donations, gave 18,000 denarii to Patara for double stoas, 30,000 denarii to Xanthos for the restoration of the theater, 5,000 denarii to Pinara for the restoration of buildings, 60,000 denarii to Tlos for public buildings, 35,000 denarii to Telmessus for a bath and exedra, 10,000 denarii to Oenoanda for a bath, 7,000 denarii to Choma for a stoa and Augusteum, over 100,000 denarii to Myra for public buildings, more than 20,000 denarii to Limyra for a theater, and 8,000 denarii to Gagae for a bath (IGR III no. 739). In Ephesus, the father of M. Aur. Metrodorianus donated 20,000 denarii to clean the harbor and to pave the square in front of the prytaneum (I.Ephesos no. 3071). From the same city, Celsus and his family paid for the construction of the library and provided the facility with

76

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

If public building was the marquee gift of civic benefaction, the donation of games and local festivals was only a small step behind. The popularity of these events meant that they were well worth their high price tag for any wealthy citizen looking to establish a reputation for munificence. Since these events were intended to be regular occurrences in the life of a community, benefactors often established capital foundations for the purpose of funding. On the annual (or biennial or quadrennial) occurrence of the games/festival, the interest from these foundations would go to cover the costs. If these capital sums were set at a 6–9 percent annual yield,22 then a local festival or civic contests would presumably require a few hundred to tens of thousands of denarii. From the ancient source record we find both extremes. On a small scale, C. Iulius Demosthenes donated 4,450 denarii for penteteric musical contests to the city of Oenoanda (SEG 38 [1988] no. 1462), while 3,000 denarii was given for a festival in Aspendus by Zeno, the architect of the theater (LW nos. 1381–83). Ordinarily, however, these capital sums tended to be quite large (often in the tens of thousands of denarii), since the events themselves were financed on accumulated interest.23 In Ephesus, for instance, 21,500 denarii was donated to a capital foundation by C. Vibius Salutaris in order to establish a festival (I.Ephesos no. 27). Similarly, in the city of Pergamum the son of Metrodorus contributed 70,000 drachmae for the Traianeia games.24 Grain supply was another munificent act that was sometimes performed by civic benefactors. But here too there is some cost fluctuation. Given the differing needs of civic communities, there was no standard amount that was universally assumed to cover the cost of grain. For this reason, we find even small contributions to the city’s grain supply. An inscription found outside the village of Kesme (Pisidia) records a 25,000 drachmae for books and fittings (I.Ephesos no. 5113). For the costs of buildings in the provinces of Africa and Italy, see Richard P. Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 90–93, 157–62. 22   In the late Hellenistic period, interest rates ranged from 16% in the city of Korfu (IG IX,12.4 no. 798 [2nd cent. BCE]) to 10% in Amorgos (IG XII,7 no. 515 [2nd cent. BCE]) all the way down to 6 and 2/3% in Delphi (Klaus Bringmann and Hans von Steuben, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, Teil 1: Zeugnisse und Kommentare [Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995] no. 94 [160 BCE]). In the Imperial period, these rates seem to have decreased slightly, and in Roman Anatolia the range appears to be in the neighborhood of 6–9 percent (for the evidence, see T. R. S. Broughton, “Roman Asia Minor,” in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4: Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor [ed. T. Frank; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938] 499–918 [900]). 23   In Aphrodisias, the capital sums donated by Flavius Lysimachus had to accrue to a minimum of 120,000 denarii before his designated musical games could be held (IAph2007 no. 12.538 = OGIS no. 509 = CIG no. 2741; cf. IAph2007 no. 11.21 = CIG no. 2759 = MAMA VIII no. 420). 24   I.Pergamon no. 270 = CIL III no. 7086 = IGR IV no. 337. Other examples of donations for festivals and games include: A capital sum of 30,000 denarii was contributed to an unknown city by Septicia (Dig. 50.12.10). An ecdicus from Kibyra named Veranius Philagrus donated 54,000 Rhodian drachmae to finance the Caesareian games for several years (I.Kibyra no. 40 = IGR IV no. 914 [mid–1st cent. CE]), and in Philadelphia, Heliodorus donated 10,000 denarii and 3,000 denarii for a public banquet (IGR IV no. 1637).

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

77

gift of 500 denarii donated to the grain supply by Cleon, the architect.25 Ordinarily, however, the gifts which appear most frequently in the epigraphic record are those of a much greater size. For example, in Philadelphia, Heliodorus(?) gave 550,000 denarii for grain supply (IGR IV no. 1632), and in Nacoleia, P. Ael. Onesimus contributed HS 200,000 (= 50,000 denarii) to the city, with the interest being used to purchase grain for three years and then subsequently to be used for a distribution to the citizens on the emperor’s birthday (CIL III no. 6998 = ILS no. 7196 = MAMA V no. 202).26 Contributions to public building, the establishment of games and festivals, and donations to the local grain supply are just a few of the many beneficent acts performed by prominent citizens. The ancient source record is filled with ways in which wealthy benefactors enriched their cities. For instance, it was not uncommon for local elites to donate oil for the gymnasium. In the city of Gytheion, Phaenia Aromation gave 8,000 denarii to provide free oil for the gymnasium in perpetuity (IG V,1 no. 1208 = SEG 13 [1963] no. 258; cf. IG V,1 no. 970); whereas a certain Theopompos, son of Archedemos, contributed an even greater amount of 40,000 drachmae to provide oil for the city of Eretria (Euboia) (IG XII,9 no. 236). Often benefactors would establish foundations for perpetual civic offices at their own expense. This was the case in Kibyra where Q. Veranius Philagrus donated 400,000 Rhodian drachmae to the city for a perpetual gymnasiarchy (I.Kibyra no. 42A = IGR IV no. 915).27 Another frequent occurrence in the epigraphic record are the monetary distributions given to various citizen groups. In Stratonikeia, for example, 10,000 denarii was given by Jason, son of T. Flavius Aeneas Theophanes, for distributions to citizens (I.Stratonikeia no. 205).28   Pierre Paris and Georges A. Radet, “Inscriptions de Pisidie, de Lycaonie et d’Isaurie,” BCH 10 (1886) 500–14 (500, no. 1). 26   Other examples of quantified amounts contributed to the grain supply include: In the city of Assos, someone donated 10,000 denarii for the purchase of grain (I.Assos no. 25). From the city of Chios, we learn that Apollonius gave 10,000 drachmae to the grain supply during his stephanephorate (IGR IV no. 941). A slightly smaller donation of 2,000 denarii was given to the grain supply in the city of Adada (Pisidia) by Aur. Hoplon (J. R. S. Sterrett, Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor [Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 3; Boston: Damrell and Upham, 1888] 293, no. 414). 27   Other examples of benefactors establishing perpetual offices include: A sum of 20,000 denarii was given to the city of Synaus (Mysia or the Troad) by Demosthenes and his wife in order to found a perpetual stephanephorate (LW no. 1006). In Magnesia under Sipylus, more than 10,000 denarii for perpetual stephanephorate by P. Aelius and his son (IGR IV no. 1342). 28   Other examples of monetary distributions to various civic groups include: In Myra (Lycia), Jason of Cyanea contributed 10,000 denarii for distributions to the citizens (IGR III no. 704). A doctor named Kyros donated 1,000 drachmae to the gerousia in Lampsakos (I.Lampsakos no. 12 = IGR IV no. 182 = CIG no. 3643). C. Stertinius Orpex, a freedman from Ephesus, provided annual distributions to the council, gerousia, and various others, with the amount totaling about 8,000 drachmae (I.Ephesos no. 4123). In the city of Aphrodisias, a number of distributions are recorded: 3,000 denarii was given to both the council and the gerousia for perpetual distribution (IAph2007 no. 12.317 = MAMA VIII no. 524), Zeno gave 5,000 denarii for perpetual distributions (IAph2007 no. 11.403 = CIG no. 2836b), Aur. Ammia donated 2,370 denarii to the council for perpetual dis25

78

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

When all of this evidence is examined, it is clear that the role of a civic benefactor was not cheap. In some cases, prominent citizens gained the reputation as a “noble and good man (or woman)” by donating millions of denarii to their local communities.29 Yet not every recorded benefaction consisted of hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of denarii. Many, if not most, gifts were relatively modest in scope. In fact, out of a collection of some 530 benefactions (all from Roman Asia Minor) in which the total donation was recorded, Arjan Zuiderhoek estimates that approximately 60% would qualify as “small” gifts (i.e., less than 1,000 denarii).30 But even at these prices, it seems appropriate to ask, how many individuals (or families) within a provincial community would have been able to make these kinds of contributions? In Roman Anatolia, relatively few families would have been ascribed an elite status by the wider civic community. The most prominent individuals normally served as members of the local civic council (βουλή). In order to gain entrance into this select group, one had to meet certain requirements such as a minimum age, a property qualification, or the prior performance of civic magistracies.31 The standard property qualification which each councilor (or decurion) had to meet was HS 100,000 (= 25,000 denarii).32 Although the size of councils varied from city to city, tribution (IAph2007 no. 12.534 = CIG no. 2774), and Aur. Myrtus contributed 2,545 denarii to the council for the same purpose (IAph2007 no. 15.333 = CIG no. 2817). 29   E.g., Ti. Claudius Erymneus of Aspendus donated 2 million denarii to the city for an aqueduct (IGR III no. 804), while Opramoas of Rhodiapolis (IGR III no. 739; TAM II nos. 578–579), Menodora of Sillyon (Pamphylia) (IGR III nos. 800–802; Karl Lanckoroński, ed., Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Unter Mitwirkung von G. Niemann und E. Petersen, Band 1: Pamphylien [Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1890] nos. 58–61), and Publia Plancia Aurelia Magniana Motoxaris of Selge (I.Selge no. 17 with van Bremen, The Limits of Participation, 100–103, 109) each donated approximately 1 million denarii to various communities around Asia Minor. 30  Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence, 29. 31   In Pontus-Bithynia the lex Pompeia stipulated that a man had to be at least thirty years old before entering the council. Yet this age was lowered to twenty-two by Augustus (Pliny, Ep. 10.79– 80). It would seem that the same qualification was also used in the provinces of Asia (Dio Cassius, 37.20.2) and Galatia (see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 86). On the performance of prior magistracies, see Pliny, Ep. 10.79–80. 32   See Quaß, Die Honoratiorenschicht, 343 n.  1464. The evidence for this figure derives primarily from the correspondence of Pliny. In a letter to Romanus Firmus (Ep. 1.19), Pliny describes the decurion requirements for the city of Comum as HS 100,000. Other sources are regularly drawn upon to substantiate the claim. Confirmation is often sought in a passing reference in Petronius’ Satyricon. After a freedman named Ganymede complains about a certain aedile’s corruption while in office, he hints that he may have acquired his census qualification illicitly: “iam scio unde acceperit denarios mille aureos” (Satyr. 44.14). Many have viewed this passage as a reference to a municipal census requirement (so, e.g., Philipp E. Huschke, Über den Census und die Steuerverfassung der frühern römischen Kaiserzeit ein Beitrag zur römischen Staatswissenschaft [Berlin: Gebauer, 1847] 94–95 n.  194, and Joachim Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung [2nd ed.; Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer 4–6; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1881–85; repr. New York: Arno, 1975] 1:180 n.  4, who also lists Catullus 23.26), but given that the reference is to an aedile, questions could be raised about its actual correspondence to decurion qualification. Another piece of evidence that is sometimes employed in this discussion is the fact that Domitian provided the philos-

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

79

an average decurion ordo during the late-first century CE was probably around 100 members.33 If we assume that the urban population in an Anatolian city would have been around 7,000 people,34 then on average decurions (or wealthy elites) would have made up about 1% of the population of a provincial city. But even among this group of prominent citizens, there were certain limitations on the types of benefactions that could be undertaken. For the councilor who only possessed the minimum census requirement (HS 100,000), the average annual income (on 5% interest from landed property) would have been approximately 1,250 denarii. So even a “small” donation of 1,000 denarii would require almost an entire year’s earnings. As such, even many of those considered to be elite members of the community would have been unable to perform frequent, large-scale munificence.35 These kinds of contributions, which included donating entire buildings or complete public festivals, were reserved for those who were exceptionally wealthy. It goes without saying then that these types of municipal elites were few and far between. (2) The Rewards of Civic Benefaction The cost of civic benefaction alone would suggest that “good deeds” were restricted to a small group of individuals in a given community. A further indication is the nature of rewards granted to benefactors. In recognition of their great services performed on behalf of the community, benefactors were showered with various forms of public recognition – from statues to golden crowns to bronze or silver busts to front-row seating at the spectacles.36 This process of reciprocity is referenced by Dio Chrysostom as he weighs-in on Prusa’s honoring of civic benefactors: opher Flavius Archippus with HS 100,000 in order to purchase a farm near his native town of Prusa (Pliny, Ep. 10.58). But again this evidence appears to be only circumstantial. A final piece of evidence that is sometimes brought into the discussion is P.Oxy. 3175, which lists a fee of 10,000 drachmae for entrance into the civic council. If the minimum qualification in the city were 100,000 drachmae, the argument goes, this entrance fee would be an understandably symmetrical 10%. But, again, this data cannot provide any firm basis for a standard census requirement. 33   The number of decurions in the average Anatolian city is difficult to determine with any degree of certainty. Some of the available numbers include: 50 as the interim limit for the city of Tymandus (CIL III no. 6866 = ILS no. 6090); 500–650 at Thyatira (IGR IV no. 1222); 100 at Prusa (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 45.7); 500 at Oenoanda (IGR III no. 492); 100 at Halicarnassus (I.Cos no. 13; cf. I.Halicarnassus no. 3); 450 at Ephesus (GIBM no. 481). For the numbers in other portions of the Roman Empire, see Wilhelm Liebenam, Städteverwaltung im Römischen kaiserreiche (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1900) 229–30 n.  5; Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 283–87; and J. Nicols, “On the Standard Size of the ordo decurionum,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 105 (1988) 712–19. 34  Mitchell, Anatolia I, 244 (following Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 259– 87), projects that the majority of Anatolian cities possessed a total population between 5,000 and 15,000, listing an average of approximately 7,000. 35   Cf. Arjan Zuiderhoek, “The Icing on the Cake: Benefactors, Economics, and Public Building in Roman Asia Minor,” in Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor (eds. S. Mitchell and C. Katsari; Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2005) 167–86 (170–71). 36  Statue: IAph2007 no. 12.1111 = CIG no. 2782 = SEG 29 (1979) no. 1068 = AE (1980) no. 865. Gold crowns: IGR III no. 628; IG VII no. 2712 = CIG no. 1625. Bronze or silver busts: IGR III no.

80

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Yet must we not concede that in the matter of honours the city’s magnanimity is surprising? For what mark of highest esteem have you not eagerly conferred? Have you not voted portraits, statues, embassies to the cities and to the Emperor? Have you not shown honour by public recognition; have you not shown honour by individual greeting? Therefore what man would not be pleased when these rewards are so distinguished? Or what man would not be eager to do you any service in his power?37

What is important to recognize about these honors is that they could not and would not be given to all citizens. It goes without saying that not everyone could have a statue of him/herself decorating the city, nor could the theater be arranged so that each citizen might be awarded front-row seating at the spectacles. Even if these things were possible, recognizing everyone in this way would, of course, cheapen the reward. What this means is that not only were there limitations on the types of good deeds that could be performed in Roman Anatolia, there were also a limited number of individuals who could perform them. c. Analyzing the Process of Negotiation One final consideration, which links the social strategy of 1 Peter to civic benefaction, is the process of negotiation whereby euergetism was performed. Over the years, scholars have explained the existence of benefaction in Hellenistic society by pointing to a variety of causes. Some focus on euergetism as a source of symbolic capital for elite citizens; others describe the convention as a safety net in times of food shortage or famine; still others view benefaction as a charitable means of contributing to the poor.38 One function that is crucial for our understanding of benefaction in Roman Anatolia is its role as a means of political legitimization in civic society.39 Establishing one’s moral excellence through euergetistic practice was a political struggle. Rather than simply distributing funds according to one’s personal whims, a wealthy benefactor had to carefully negotiate with other elite members of the community in order to determine whether his/her gifts would be accepted.40 Proof of 628; IG VII no. 2712 = CIG no. 1625. Front–row seating at spectacles: IGR III no. 628; IG VII no. 2712 = CIG no. 1625; SEG 11 [1961] no. 948. For more examples of honors given to benefactors, see Danker, Benefactor, 467–68. 37   Dio Chrysostom, Or. 51.9. 38   Symbolic capital: Onno van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17; Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1997) 116–20. Safety net: Peter Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 30, 82–86. Charity: Hands, Charities and Social Aid. 39   Unlike Veyne, Le pain et le cirque, 103, we do not feel it necessary (or appropriate) to draw a distinction between a more political form of euergetism and a kind of disinterested form of euergetism (cf. Jean Andreau, et al., “Paul Veyne et l’évergétisme,” Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations 33 [1978] 307–25 [312]). 40   For a fuller discussion of this process, see Guy M. Rogers, “Demosthenes of Oenoanda and Models of Euergetism,” JRS 81 (1991) 91–100; idem, The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

81

this negotiation process comes from an inscription found in the city of Oenoanda.41 The text records the proposal of C. Iulius Demonsthenes to establish a penteteric festival in the city of Oenoanda. But more importantly, it contains fascinating counter-proposals from the civic council and shows how Demonsthenes’ original proposition was reshaped and recommissioned to align with perspectives of other elite individuals. Similarly, in the city of Ariassos, an inscription records a proposal made by Diotimos, son of Samos, to the council regarding a foundation which would fund oil for the gymnasium in perpetuity, starting from the third year of his high-priesthood (I.Kremna no. 117). Later, the details of the foundation were renegotiated so that payment would be given during the first year of his high-priesthood. Again, this shows that inherent within the practice of euergetism was a process of negotiation. Based on the specifics of this process, an important conclusion naturally follows: not every proposed contribution turned into a benefaction, because not all proposals would have been accepted. What this means is that one’s economic standing was not the only obstacle that could impede euergetistic practice. This consideration has a particularly important bearing on the question of good works in 1 Peter. If, as some propose, benefaction is the referent behind the good deeds in the epistle, then the author’s strategy of conflict resolution involves not only economic factors but important socio-political aspects as well.

B. Examining the Benefaction Theory in 1 Peter Now that we have a better idea of how civic benefaction worked, we will turn our attention to the evidence in 1 Peter. What we will discover is that, despite an impressive number of verbal parallels with Greek honorific inscriptions, the civic benefaction position is insufficient to explain the various nuances – textual, historical, social, political, and economic – surrounding the use of the good works theme in the epistle. Overall, there are three significant problems which prevent the theory from being an acceptable solution: the hostility with which the good deeds are met, the lack of economic and socio-political feasibility, and the inappropriateness of munificent practices for the early Christians readers.

Myths of a Roman City (London/New York: Routledge, 1991). Cf. also Arjan Zuiderhoek, “The Ambiguity of Munificence,” Historia 56 (2007) 196–213. 41   SEG 38 (1988) no. 1462. For the full text and commentary, see Michael Wörrle, Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda (Vestigia 39; Munich: Beck, 1988), although note the corrections and further discussion by Stephen Mitchell, “Festivals, Games, and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor,” JRS 80 (1990) 183–93.

82

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

1. Civic Benefaction and Social Conflict in 1 Peter The most difficult hurdle for the benefaction position to overcome – a problem which hampers the entire consensus opinion – is that the Petrine author expects the good works of his readers to be met with further hostility (1 Pet 2.20; 3.6, 14, 16–17; 4.19). Since we will deal with this issue in much greater detail below,42 we will avoid entering into a lengthy discussion here. What we will do, however, is explore how proponents of the benefaction position, in particular, have attempted to reconcile this interpretive dilemma. Surprisingly, they are some of the only interpreters who have noticed the problem and ventured solutions. In an effort to assuage the threat of this formidable discrepancy, proponents of the benefaction position have offered two opposing solutions.43 Some have argued that the negative evaluation of good works in 1 Peter can be explained by the fact that the designation has multiple referents. In some cases it refers to benefaction, and as such, people respond positively (1 Pet 2.12, 15). In other instances, the author has in mind a standard of conduct regulated solely by the will of God, and thus it is often met with a negative response (2.20; 3.16–17).44 It is the term’s broad range of meaning, they argue, that provides it with such great flexibility. The problem with this solution, however, is that the good works concept is repeatedly used in the epistle, essentially taking on a technical status.45 What is more, there is nothing to signal to the reader that the referent has changed. Given that the author introduces the Haustafel with a call to good works (1 Pet 2.11–12), it is hard to imagine that the concept would be radically transformed before addressing the very first group on the list (2.18–25). Altering the referent according to the response of outsiders, therefore, does not adquately explain this difficulty. The treatment of Chu Luan Poh marks a second approach toward resolving this problematic issue. Poh seeks to interpret the negative responses described in 1 Peter in light of the social conflicts that sometimes impeded the performance of civic benefaction.46 She notes, Graeco-Roman people recognised that doing good was an honourable and commendable act. When one had done good, there was basically an obligation on the beneficiary to return the benefit. Failure to reciprocate brought disgrace upon the ungrateful beneficiary. But this fail-

  See pp. 255–57.   Another way of dealing with the negative response emanating from the performance of good works is to simply avoid the question by placing a much greater focus on the corresponding optimistic outlook (1 Pet 2.11–15; 3.13–14). This is by far the most common approach to the problem. For this reason, we have devoted an entire section to this issue (see pp. 167–83). 44   Jones-Haldeman, “The Function of Christ’s Suffering,” 141–76; Witherington, 1-2 Peter, 145 n.  263; cf. Sandnes, “Revised Conventions in Early Paraenesis,” 385–88. 45   François Refoulé, “Bible et éthique sociale: Lire aujourd’hui 1 Pierre,” Le Supplément 131 (1979) 457–82 (469); cf. Goppelt, I Peter, 177; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 185. 46   Poh, “Social World of 1 Peter,” 101–109. 42 43

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

83

ure need not deter the benefactor from continuing to do good towards the ungrateful recipient.47

In this same way, she claims, “Peter is also aware that there were people who fail to return a benefit.” Consequently, the Petrine author “encourages Christians to continue to do good to such people, even when they have to suffer for it.”48 The suggestion of Poh serves as a much more nuanced and commendable solution to the problem. From the few texts that are cited, Poh has admittedly shown that benefactors were not always treated with the honor and respect which they deserved and expected. In Dio Chrysostom’s criticism of the Rhodians, he chides them for committing “an outrage (ὑβρίζειν) against good men (ἄνδρας ἀγαθούς) who have been the benefactors (εὐεργέτας) of the state” (Or. 31.14; trans. Cohoon [LCL]). The actual transgression of the Rhodians was the fact that they had recycled commemorative monuments, removing the names of deceased benefactors from inscriptions and replacing them with the names of current benefactors (Or. 31.8–9). Another example of this type of ingratitude (not mentioned by Poh) is the treatment of Publius Vedius Antoninus, a prominent citizen from Ephesus.49 The following inscription, which records the correspondence between the emperor Antoninus Pius and the Ephesian council, documents exactly how the city responded to his attempts at euergetism: The munificence (φιλοτιμίαν) which Vedius Antoninus lavished upon you I learned of not so much from your letter as from his own. For, desiring to obtain assistance from me for the embellishment of the public works which he offered you, he made known to me how many and what great buildings he is adding to the city, but that you do not properly appreciate (ἀποδέχεσθε) him. I granted him all he requested and I welcome the fact that he prefers, not the usual method of those participating in public affairs, who for the sake of immediate popularity expend their munificence on spectacles (θέα[ς]) and distributions (διανομάς) and prizes for the games (τὰ τῶ[ν ἀγώνων θέματα ?δαπαν]ῶ[σιν?]), but means whereby he hopes to make the city more stately in the future.50   Poh, “Social World of 1 Peter,” 107.   Poh, “Social World of 1 Peter,” 108. 49   Another example that could be cited in this regard is Pseudo-Libanius, Epistolary Styles (4th – 6th cent. CE): “You did not act well (καλῶς) when you wronged those who did good (τοὺς εὖ ποιήσαντας) to you. For by insulting your benefactors (εὐεργέτας) you provided an example of evil to others” (53), and “You have received many favors (καλά) from us, and I am exceedingly amazed that you remember none of them but speak badly of us. That is characteristic of a person with an ungrateful disposition. For the ungrateful forget noble men (καλῶν), and in addition ill-treat their benefactors (εὐεργέτας) as though they were enemies” (64; trans. Abraham J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists [SBLSBS 19; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988] 75, 77). 50   I.Ephesos no. 1491, ll. 7–18 = SIG 3 no. 850, ll. 7–18 (145 CE); trans. adapted from Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, eds., Roman Civilization, Selected Readings, vol. 2: The Empire (3rd ed.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1990) 261. For more on the conflict between Vedius Antoninus and the Ephesians, see Martin J. Steskal, “Zu den Stiftungen des M. Claudius P. Vendius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus und ihrem Echo in Ephesos,” Tyche 16 (2001) 177–88, and Angela Kalinowski, “The Vedii Antonini: Aspects of Patronage and Benefaction in Second-Century Ephesos,” Phoenix 56 (2002) 109–49. 47

48

84

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Despite Antoninus’ persistent attempts to embellish the city with public works, his efforts were repeatedly met with a lack of appreciation. It is true that each of these examples marks an inappropriate response to civic benefactors. The problem is that ungratefulness is a far cry from the hostility and persecution experienced by the Petrine communities. The leap which Poh makes from ingratitude to persecution is not supported by the data which she offers. The situation of the readers involved the possibility of physical abuse (1 Pet 2.20) and thus was compared to the suffering undergone by Jesus (2.21–25). Their conflict also included the threat of spousal tensions, legal actions, and economic oppression;51 yet none of these were the lot of a spurned benefactor. What we must conclude, therefore, is that the benefaction theory cannot explain the hostile response to good deeds in 1 Peter. 2. The Feasibility of Civic Benefaction in 1 Peter A second difficulty facing the benefaction proposal is the matter of economic and socio-political feasibility. What we will show is that there were certain economic and socio-political factors which put the prospect of civic benefaction out of reach for the recipients of 1 Peter. a) The Economic Feasibility of Civic Benefaction One objection that is consistently raised against the benefaction theory is the applicability of the exhortation to undertake good works being directed at all members of the congregations. Most point out that Winter’s proposal “would presume that the author considered all the Christians to have the resources for such benefactions,” which would be problematic because “it was only members of the elite that could afford such duties.”52 But, of course, this objection begs the question: Was it economically feasible to ask members of the Anatolian congregations to contribute toward civic benefaction?53   See Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 299–326.  Seland, Strangers in the Light, 179. Cf. William L. Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter (WUNT 2/30; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1989) 16 n.  72; Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 89 n.  153; Elliott, 1 Peter, 491; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 129–30; Carter, “Going All the Way?,” 21 n.  42; Joel B. Green, 1 Peter (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 75. 53   In his defense, Winter does acknowledge the problem of varying economic statuses within the Christian community. His solution to the problem is to limit benefaction to a select few among the congregations: ‘The cost of a benefaction was very considerable and would be beyond the ability of some, if not most, members of the church’ (“The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors,” 94). In this way, the entire Christian group would (presumably) benefit from the civic actions of a handful of members. This is certainly a valid suggestion and one that has not received due consideration from opponents of the position. But it still leaves us to ask, would euergetism have been a feasible conflict management strategy even for the wealthiest members of the Christian congregations? 51

52

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

85

In what follows, we will attempt to test the validity of Winter’s proposal by answering this very question. Since we have already examined the cost of euergetism in the previous section, we will now look more closely at the economic conditions among the Christian communities of first-century CE Asia Minor in order to determine whether the beneficent acts prescribed by Winter’s theory were a realistic option. Our goal is to explore whether the financial situation of these Anatolian Christians would have allowed them to contribute any economic surplus towards civic benefaction (and if so, how much). (1) Civic Benefaction from Slaves? The epistle of 1 Peter affords us with only a few brief glimpses into the socio-economic status(es) represented in the Anatolian congregations. Nevertheless, when this information is read against the backdrop of the economic conditions which were prevalent across first-century CE Asia Minor, it is possible to produce a tentative reconstruction of the readers’ economic situation. This is something that I have already attempted in a previous study, and it will be from those results that the discussion will proceed.54 Many of the recipients of 1 Peter would have lived at or near subsistence level. They would have engaged in a daily struggle just to procure enough calories to maintain basic human existence. As such, they would have possessed no financial surplus by which to perform civic benefaction. Among this group would have been the οἰκέται (“slaves”) who are specifically addressed in the epistle (1 Pet 2.18–25). Yet, strangely enough, the author admonishes them with the following exhortation: “If you endure when suffering for doing good (ἀγαθοποιοῦντες), this finds favor with God” (2.20). This is one of the places where the benefaction position runs into problems. What the theory fails to adequately account for is the range of individuals who are specifically instructed to “do good.” If, as the theory proposes, we are to understand doing “good” to mean performing beneficent acts for the local civic community, then it is difficult to explain why this strategy is expected from “slaves” (οἰκέται) in 1 Pet 2.20.55 It is true that some οἰκέται may have been able to accumulate a small financial surplus.56 But evidence of this type of slave serving in the capacity of public benefactor is very rare.57 One example of munificent practice by a slave comes from   See Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 96–127 Cf. also Horrell, “Addressees of 1 Peter.”   Aside from the matter of financial capability, the more serious problem for the benefaction position is the fact that a master might respond to the “good deeds” with hostility: “If you endure when suffering (πάσχοντες) for doing good (ἀγαθοποιοῦντες), this finds favor with God” (1 Pet 2.20). See further, pp. 255–57. 56   One example is the group of οἰκέται who worked on the Appianus estate in the Fayum district of Roman Egypt (see Dominic Rathbone, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991] 106–16). 57  In Ben. 3.18–20, Seneca does argue that a slave can confer benefits upon his master (see 54 55

86

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

the town of Balboura (Lycia). It was here that during the middle of the second century CE, Onesimus, a δημόσιος (“public slave”), erected a temple of Nemesis, including the associated cult-images, and an exedra with statues of the demos and boule.58 What distinguishes this example from the situation in 1 Peter, however, is the nature of the Onesimus’ position. Ordinarily, the designation δημόσιος refered to a civic archivist, a post which drew a salary from the city.59 Yet in 1 Peter there is no indication of such a privileged position. Apart from the few examples involving those in the service of the civic community or high-ranking officials, there is little evidence that slaves (specifically οἰκέται) were financially capable of fulfilling the role of civic benefactor. This is understandable because euergetism was normally performed by wealthy elites, not those of a servile status. A passage from Lucian’s Navigium illustrates this well.60 Here one of the characters, Adimantus, who himself was not rich (22), describes what he would do if he were to receive a limitless fortune (12–25). Aside from that which would be spent on his own person, he notes, “For the city this would be my allocation: by way of doles, a hundred drachmas to every citizen per month, half of this to a resident alien; and for the general public theatres and baths to beautify the city; the sea brought up to the Dipylon and a harbour in that region with water brought up by a deep canal, so that my ship may anchor near by in full view of the Ceramicus” (Lucian, Nav. 24; trans. Kilburn [LCL]). What is important to recognize about this hypothetical scenario is that, for Adimantus, civic benefaction was something that he Philip H. Towner, “Can Slaves Be Their Masters’ Benefactors? 1 Timothy 6:1–2a in Literary, Cultural, and Theological Context,” Current Trends in Scripture Translation 182/183 [1997] 39–52), but what he does not suggest is that slaves (normally) functioned in the capacity of carrying out public benefactions in the sense described in this study. 58   A discussion of the archaeological evidence can be found in J. J. Coulton, et al., “Balboura Survey: Onesimos and Meleager, Part 1,” Anatolian Studies 38 (1988) 121–45. The inscription from the exedra reads, “Onesimos the public slave (δημόσιος) dedicated the Boule and Demos of Balboura his own masters, to whom he also made over towards the corn-dole 352 modii a year” (CIG no. 4380k 2 = LW no. 1228; trans. adapted from Milner). 59  Cf. Aeschines, Tim. 54, which describes Pittalacus, a public slave (δημόσιος οἰκέτης τῆς πόλεως) who is said to have plenty of money, and CIL XV no. 7247, which refers to a slave on the staff of a procurator aquarum making the pipe that goes into the Baths of Agrippina in Rome, a work which could be considered a benefaction (see Garrett G. Fagan, Bathing in Public in the Roman World [Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999] 315). 60   A similar chronological sequence is followed in a horoscope from Vettius Valens. The text describes the opportune fortunes of a man who stumbled into an inheritance and began to partake of munificence: “He had many ups and downs in his first period of life and lived in debt although the property of his parents was good. Then later, getting an inheritance and improving his means by shrewd enterprises, he became ambitious, dominant, and munificent (δωρηματικός) and popular and a friend of kings and governors, and he provided temples and (public) works (ἔργα), and gained perpetual remembrance” (Vettius Valens, 2.21; trans. adapted from Otto Neugebauer and Henry B. Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes [Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 48; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1959] 97). What stands out about this biographical summary is that munificence and public works did not begin until the man gained an inheritance and ambitiously sought to confirm his privileged status.

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

87

would practice only after gaining a fortune, not before.61 Slaves, of course, rarely found themselves in this position. (2) Collective Benefaction in 1 Peter? In light of the difficulties just discussed, some proponents of the benefaction position have suggested that the author of 1 Peter had something more in mind than the individual performance of public munificence. They seek, instead, to interpret this passage in accordance with a kind of corporate benefaction wherein members of the Anatolian congregations pooled their (meager) resources together in an effort to accumulate a much more sizeable donation. One advocate for this view argues that, “Peter might have envisaged the Christian community as a whole performing acts of public benefaction, rather than a few individual rich members.” Thus, “[i]n the same way that members of voluntary associations could perform acts of public benefaction corporately, so members of Christian communities could do good in a way that would secure the praise of the people.”62 This approach allows adherents of the benefaction position to sidestep the problem of a collective encouragement toward good works in 1 Peter. While this suggestion is only occasionally discussed in the secondary literature, on the surface, it appears to be a plausible solution. In the average Christian community, there were varying levels of economic prosperity (see below). The pecuniary situations of some members would have allowed for the accumulation and subsequent distribution of financial surplus. Furthermore, this suggestion does find support in the euergetistic practices of the Hellenistic world. On occasions, benefaction was performed not by an individual but by a group.63 A case in point is the associ  On a more prescriptive level, the poor were not even encouraged to serve as benefactors. As Aristotle put it, “the poor man cannot be magnificent (μεγαλοπρεπής), since he has not the means to make a great outlay suitably; the poor man who attempts Magnificence is foolish, for he spends out of proportion to his means, and beyond what he ought, whereas an act displays virtue only when it is done in the right way. But great public benefactions are suitable for those who have adequate resources derived from their own exertions or from their ancestors or connexions, and for the high-born and famous and the like, since birth, fame and so on all have an element of greatness and distinction” (Eth. nic. 4.2.13–14; trans. Rackham [LCL]). 62   Poh, “Social World of 1 Peter,” 134. 63   The epigraphic record from Roman Anatolia contains a number of instances where euergetism is performed through small donations from multiple individuals. For example, in Tlos, a theater was constructed through private donations, with the individual sums ranging from 3,000 drachmae down to 100 drachmae (TAM II nos. 550–551). Likewise, in the city of Cadyanda, a number of contributors gave for the construction of a public building, with the gifts ranging from 100 to 600 drachmae each (TAM II no. 650). In most cases, however, the contributors appear to only have a loose connection to one another. Further examples of this type of euergetistic scheme include: a temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias (Joyce M. Reynolds, “Inscriptions and the Building of the Temple of Aphrodite,” in Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture, including the Papers Given at the Second International Aphrodisias Colloquium held at King’s College London on 14 November, 1987 [eds. C. Roueché and K. T. Erim; Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 1; Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1990] 37–40); a building in Mostene from multiple contributors (Josef Keil, et al., Bericht über eine Reise in 61

88

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

ation of Ephesian fishermen and fish-dealers who dedicated a customs house for fishery toll, which they built at their own expense (I.Ephesos no. 20).64 The stele which marked the dedication provides an inscription of some 100(?) names of donors, with each being listed in descending order according to the level of contribution. The amounts range from four columns to 5 denarii.65 Compared with other benefaction projects in the ancient world, the donations involved in the Ephesian customs house – both individual and collective – seem rather meager. Yet this type of small-scale benefaction was not uncommon. On a stele from the city of Halicarnassus, which dates to the second or possibly the early-first century BCE, we find an illustration of corporate euergetism on an even smaller scale. The inscription engraved on the stele contains a list of nineteen (or twenty-six, if we count the names of those on whose behalf donations were given) men who contributed to the digging and monumentalization of a well (φρέαρ) connected to the sanctuary of Aphrodite.66 Of the sums that are listed, the largest monetary donation Lydien und der südlichen Aiolis, ausgeführt 1906 im auftrage der kaiserlichen Akademie der wissenschaften [Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 53/2; Vienna: A. Hölder, 1908] 7, no. 14); contributions to various public works in Smyrna donated by groups and individuals, ranging from 70,000 to 4,500 drachmae (IGR IV no. 1431); multiple contributors to a building in Iasos (I.Iasos no. 253); and at Hierapolis, multiple individuals gave to the building and decoration of the theater (I.Hierapolis no. 4 = IGR IV no. 808). 64   For a more complete discussion of this text, see G. H. R. Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 5: Linguistic Essays with Cumulative Indexes to Vols. 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 95–114. 65   This type of corporate benefaction is also evident in the construction a Jewish soup-kitchen in Aphrodisias. An inscription recording the group’s generosity reads: “God help us. Donors to the soup kitchen (πατέλλα). Below are listed the members of the decany of the students of the law, also known as those who fervently praise God, who erected, for the relief of suffering in the community, at their personal expense (ἐξ ἱδίων), this memorial (building)” (IAph2007 no. 11.55, ll. 1–8 = SEG 36 [1986] no. 970, ll. 1–8 [early 3rd cent. CE]; trans. Reynolds and Tannenbaum). This is followed by a list of donors, but without reference to the amount of each individual gift (for a discussion of this text, see Joyce M. Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and God-fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary. Texts from the Excavations at Aphrodisias Conducted by Kenan T. Erim [Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987]; Angelos Chaniotis, “The Jews of Aphrodisias: New Evidence and Old Problems,” Scripta Classica Israelica 21 [2002] 209–42). Similarly, an inscription from the city of Ilion lists a number of agonothetes who contributed varying amounts of silver (presumably) to the games (I.Ilion no. 103 = IGR IV no. 210). Finally, on the Imperial estates at Pisidian Antioch, the members of an anti-Christian group called the Tekmoreian Guest–friends (3rd cent. CE) gave varying sums for different religious purposes associated with the worship of and service to the emperor (see William M. Ramsay, “The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends: An Anti-Christian Society on the Imperial Estates at Pisidian Antioch,” in Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire [ed. W. M. Ramsay; Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1906] 303–77). 66   Adolf Wilhelm, “Inschriften aus Halikarnassos und Theangela,” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 11 (1908) 53–82 (61–63, no. 4). In the editio princeps, Wilhelm maintained that the stele originated from the city of Theangela, a proposal which most subsequent scholars have tended to adopt. Nevertheless, serious problems prevent this suggestion from being a viable option. The more natural provenance of the stele is the city of Halicarnassus

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

89

amounted to 10 drachmae, with the lowest being 2 drachmae. Along with this, various numbers of workmen and craftsmen were given to carry out the construction. The total sum of all contributions (including the monetary value of the workmen and craftsmen) would have only been somewhere around 150 drachmae.67 Of course, evidence like this still begs the question of whether even small-scale, corporate benefaction would have been economically feasible for the early Christian communities of Asia Minor,68 especially since most commentators have concluded that the Petrine communities consisted (primarily) of the poorer members of Anatolian society.69 If the Christians in these congregations wanted to donate to public works, how much could they afford to contribute?70 To answer this question, we (see G. E. Bean and J. M. Cook, “The Halikarnassian Peninsula,” Annual of the British School at Athens 50 [1955] 85–171 [115]; followed by Signe Isager, “Halikarnassos and the Well of Aphrodite: On EM 199, Text and Provenance,” in Ancient History Matters: Studies Presented to Jens Erik Skydsgaard on His Seventieth Birthday [eds. K. Ascani, et al.; Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 30; Rome: “L’erma” di Bretschneider, 2002] 153–58). 67   The sum of all monetary amounts, including those for which the reading must be restored, is 97 drachmae. Added to this total, there are 5 craftsmen and 30 workmen, with another quantity of workmen missing (see further Léopold Migeotte, Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques [Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 17; Genève: Droz, 1992] 251–53). 68   We must recognize that there is (presumably) an important distinction between this example of small-scale euergetism and the type of benefaction which would be practiced by the Petrine congregations in Roman Anatolia. When we find examples of small contributions in the Greek inscriptional record, this is not necessarily an indication of a lack of disposable income. Simply because a person donates 10 denarii to a building project, does not mean that he or she was not capable of giving much more. On the other hand, most Christians (as we will demonstrate below) would not have possessed the financial resources to contribute large amounts to beneficent activities. So the varying levels of contribution would be indicative of the donors’ economic situations. 69   See, e.g., Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, 73; Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 5; Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 63, 67–73; Puig i Tàrrech, “Le Milleu,” 395–97; P. Duane Warden, “Alienation and Community in 1 Peter,” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1986) 161–99; Marie-Louise Lamau, Des chrétiens dans le monde: Communautés pétriniennes au 1er siècle (LD 134; Paris: Cerf, 1988) 97–99; Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition, 11; McKnight, 1 Peter, 24–26, 47–52; Fika J. van Rensburg, “Constructing the Economic-Historic Context of 1 Peter: Exploring a Methodology,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 (2011) 1–11. 70   One of the most natural points of comparison is Paul’s collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem (1 Cor 16.1–4; 2 Cor 8–9; cf. Acts 24.17). This act of benevolence reveals that Christian communities throughout Greece and Asia Minor could generate some amount of financial surplus. This was true of even the poorer congregations (2 Cor 8.1–5). Two points make using this collection as a point of comparison extremely problematic, however. First, we are never given any specific amounts contributed by the Pauline congregations. This fact alone would seem to rule out its applicability. Second, it is difficult to reconstruct the situation based on the need alone (i.e., the number of poor members of the Jerusalem church and the amount of funds required to alleviate the problem), because there is disagreement over the accuracy of the figures provided in the book of Acts (e.g., 3,000 people baptized [Acts 2.41]; 5,000 members [4.4]). Furthermore, even if the poverty totals in the Jerusalem church could be ascertained with a high degree of certainty, it would still be difficult to judge the appropriateness of a financial gift. For instance, did Paul hope to provide the church with enough funds to alleviate the problem for a week? a month? a year? It is impossible to determine which of these would have been an acceptable gift, and, of course, each would produce drastically different calculations.

90

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

will need to reconstruct the approximate amount of financial surplus which could be generated by the average first-century CE Christian community. This will involve an investigation into areas such as living expenses and wages in the Greco-Roman world, the economic stratum represented in the congregations of 1 Peter, and even more basic questions like the number of Christians in each Anatolian city. (3) Economic Conditions within the Petrine Churches The average number of Christians in a given Greco-Roman city is difficult to calculate given the scarcity of the evidence. This might explain why so few historians have attempted to quantify the earliest Christian movement. But despite the hesitancy of some, informed hypotheses are possible and quite necessary if we are to determine the economic feasibility of civic benefaction in 1 Peter. If we were to assume that a house church71 comfortably accommodated some 30 to 40 people,72 and if there were only a handful of these groups per city,73 then we might conjecture that within the cities in which late-first century CE Christianity had taken root, the total

71  If Edward Adams (The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? [LNTS 450; London: T&T Clark, 2013]) is correct that early Christians gathered in a number of different venues (not merely in houses), then it is possible that our calculations could be reconsidered. 72  Most scholars tend to place the capacity of early house churches at somewhere between 20–40 people, with an uncomfortable maximum being 50 (see Vincent P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul [Zacchaeus Studies; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989] 30–40; Robert J. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting [2nd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994] 35; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Text and Archaeology [3rd ed.; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002] 182; Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004] 290). Some have argued for a much greater capacity based on a few of the larger homes which have been uncovered (so, e.g., Bradley Blue, “Acts and the House Church,” in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 2: The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting [eds. D. W. J. Gill and C. Gempf; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994] 119–222 [175, cf. 142–43]; Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997] 32–35, 201–203). But while it is true that some houses were very large and able to accommodate hundreds of people, these types of mansions were owned by the highest echelon elites whose wealth far surpassed that of even the lower level decurion. So it is problematic to use these residences as a standard by which to measure the average Christian meeting-place. 73   In the city of Corinth, there may have been six or more house churches during the time of Paul (cf. L. Michael White, Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians [ASOR Library of Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990] 105–106). But the entire church (ὅλης τῆς ἐκκλησίας) at Corinth is said to have been able to fit in the home of Gaius (Rom 16.23; cf. 1 Cor 14.23; see James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 [WBC 38B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988] 910–11). Therefore, taking into account those Corinthians who are specifically named in the New Testament and allowing for members that are unmentioned (e.g., spouses, children, slaves, etc.), Murphy-O’Connor (St. Paul’s Corinth, 182) estimates some 40 to 50 Christians in the city of Corinth during the mid-first century CE.

91

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

number of believers may have ranged from anywhere between 10 to 200 members,74 with the average tending to be somewhere on the lower end of this spectrum.75 In a previous study, building on the works of Steven J. Friesen and Bruce W. Longenecker,76 I attempted to evaluate the socio-economic status(es) of the Petrine audience using a reconstructed economic scale of urban centers across first-century CE Asia Minor (see Table 1). Using this same data (with a few slight alterations), I will now seek to determine the economic feasibility of collective benefaction by quantifying the levels of financial surplus which could be contributed among the Anatolian congregations. 77

Table 1: Economic Scale for Urban Areas of First-Century CE Anatolia Scale ES1

Description Unlimited Surplus

Contents provincial elite (senators[?]; equestrians; a few decurions)

% 177

ES2

Substantial Surplus

municipal elite (most decurions, which may include: some veterans, a few “high-yield” artisans, and a few traders; a few others who possibly did not serve on the βουλή)

4

74   In the city of Ephesus, Mikael Tellbe (Christ-Believers in Ephesus: A Textual Analysis of Early Christian Identity Formation in a Local Perspective [WUNT 242; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009] 47) proposes a total of 500–2,000 Christ-followers by end of first century CE. This figure, however, seems incredibly high (cf. Paul R. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius [WUNT 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004] 73, who only postulates a total of about 60 members during the time of Paul). 75   The reason why the average would be low is because the gospel would have only recently penetrated some of the areas listed in the prescript of 1 Peter; thus, we might assume an average of 20–30 Anatolian Christians per city during the late-first century CE. Such figures would be slightly higher than those proposed by Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996) 6–7. In his calculations, Stark conjectures that in the year 40 CE, there were approximately 1,000 Christians in the Roman Empire. With an average growth rate of 40% per decade (or 3.42% per year), the group would have amassed a total of 3,842 members by the year 80 CE. In other words, Christians would have made up 0.0064% of the Empire’s population (assuming a total population of 60 million). According to Stark’s figures, in large city like Ephesus, whose population was approximately 200,000, the number of Christians in the year 80 CE would be approximately 13. Of course, this projection reveals the limitations of Stark’s proposal. Since he seeks the percentage of Christians across the Empire (and thus his calculations are unable to account for the fact that some cities may have had a large concentration of Christians, while others may have been without any at all), they are slightly less useful for determining the average number of Christians in a given community. 76  Steven J. Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus,” JSNT 26 (2004) 323–61; Walter Scheidel and Steven J. Friesen, “The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire,” JRS 99 (2009) 61–91; Bruce W. Longenecker, “Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity,” JSNT 31 (2009) 243–78. 77   The figure would have likely been lower than this, but for the sake of maintaining whole numbers, we have rounded up the percentage of provincial elites to 1%.

92

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Scale ES3

Description Moderate Surplus

ES4

Small, Stable Surplus

ES5

Meager, Unstable Surplus

ES6

No Surplus

Contents many veterans, most “high-yield” artisans, a few traders, those connected to the elite (e.g., apparitores) some “high-yield” artisans, some “low-yield” artisans (esp. large business owners), some traders, regular wage earners some traders (esp. those employed by others), many “low-yield” artisans (small business owners, those who are employed by others), skilled/unskilled laborers unattached widows, orphans, beggars, disabled, unskilled day laborers

% 10

27

33

25

As we move from the economic scale of Anatolian urban centers to the composition of Christian communities, it is important to recognize that economic levels among Christian communities (more or less) mirrored the structure/percentages of the wider urban context. One key difference, however, would have been the lack of provincial elites (E1) among the earliest Christian groups. Moreover, one might also debate whether municipal elites (E2) should be numbered among the Christian congregations as well. Given these reservations, we might do well to purposefully exclude any potential contributions from elite members of Christian churches (E1, E2). What makes this strategy attractive is that it would afford us the opportunity to test the collective benefaction proposal discussed above. In doing so, we would be able to determine whether the benefaction position can be sustained apart from the assumption that each congregation contained at least one member who possessed substantial wealth. With these considerations in mind, we offer the following calculations. In a city where the Christian population numbered some 50 members (or 10 households), the (approximate) economic levels represented therein might be as follows:78 Table 2: Economic Levels of Early Christian Households Percentages 25% 33% 30% 12%

Description No Surplus Meager, Unstable Surplus Small, Stable Surplus Moderate Surplus

Number of Households 3 3 3 1

78   I have changed the percentages from the previous study slightly due to fact that (in my opinion) most Christian congregations would not have contained provincial elites, and only very rarely would they have contained those with a substantial financial surplus.

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

93

But these percentages still do not tell us how much each household could contribute. The key will be whether or not we are able to quantify designations like “meager” surplus and “moderate” surplus. In Appendix 1 (Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians), we have sketched a detailed portrait of the financial situation of a household located within the middle strata of the ancient economy. When all of the expenditures are calculated, a mid-level Anatolian household of five might spend somewhere around 557 to 744 denarii per year on items such as food, clothing, taxes, and rent. When compared to the salary of a skilled professional, we found that there was only a slight differential between annual income and annual expenditure. We estimated that someone in the profession of carpentry might earn approximately 450 denarii per year, while a wall painter might bring home an annual salary of 675 denarii. These figures give us some indication of the amount of disposable income available to Christians along the mid-level economic stratum. Based on this reconstruction, we can draw some general conclusions and offer a tentative projection concerning the amount of disposable income possessed by the readers of 1 Peter. First, it is important to recognize that the amount of surplus which any given household might accumulate would depend on the level of lifestyle depreciation which they were willing to undergo. Just because one was employed in a high-yield profession does not mean that a large surplus would necessarily be attained. In some cases, a household might only earn just enough to cover the cost of their middle strata lifestyle. In order to accumulate a financial surplus, a household would have to make a concentrated effort to limit all unnecessary expenses. However, there is no indication in the epistle that the author is calling his readers to this type of financial strategy.79 Secondly, even among those with mid-level earning capabilities who decided to make dramatic cuts to their regular expenses, the economic surplus that could be accumulated was far from the totals donated by elite benefactors. If, for example, a wall painter chose to limit all unnecessary expenses and was thus able to lower the budget of his household to 400 denarii per year, his annual net profit would still only be around 275 denarii. What is more, this figure would represent an entire year’s worth of disposal income. Therefore, it is unlikely that the whole sum would be donated.

79   The warning against “wearing gold and fine clothes” in 1 Pet 3.3 would not qualify as a strategy of financial frugality. Being a standard topos within ancient moral exhortation, the statement is certainly meant to disparage opulence and excess, but it is hardly a call for the whole community to practice deprivation and miserliness.

94

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Table 3: Financial Contributions of an Average Anatolian Congregation Percentage of Congregation 25 33 30 12

Description No surplus Meager, unstable surplus Small, stable surplus Moderate surplus

Contribution per household 0 denarii 5 denarii 25 denarii 50 denarii

Total Contributions 0 denarii 15 denarii 75 denarii 50 denarii Total = 140 denarii

With these considerations in mind, we offer the following projection on the financial contributions of the average Anatolian congregation. For more than half of the congregation, accumulating excess financial surplus would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Many of these Anatolian Christians would have survived on a meager and unstable economic surplus. Included in this group would have been those whose earnings were equivalent to a common day-laborer (1 denarius/day). On an annual salary of 225–250 denarii, the opportunity to set aside financial excess would have been rare, and any savings would have been very small. Nevertheless, we have assumed a generous contribution of 5 denarii per household from this group. Moving up the economic ladder, we come to those whose earnings put them slightly above the previous group and into a more stable position. An illustration of someone in this group might be a carpenter with an annual salary of 450 denarii. These increased wages result in both a higher standard of living and a greater amount of disposable income. Therefore, from this group we have apportioned a total of 25 denarii per household. The largest contribution comes from a skilled artisan in a high-yield profession (e.g., a wall painter). With a salary of 675 denarii per year, this household is able to donate 50 denarii to the collection. Altogether, apart from the assistance of any wealthy elites, this average Anatolian church might therefore collect a total of 140 denarii in a given year (see Table 3).80 Based on these quantified projections, we are in a better position to assess the economic feasibility of benefaction in 1 Peter. As a point of concession, we must   Admittedly, each of the figures that factor into this equation (e.g., size of congregations, percentages in each stratum, etc.) are (inevitably) somewhat speculative; nevertheless, some such reasoned assumptions are necessary to pursue this analysis. What is important to recognize, however, is that the picture which emerges would not be altogether different, even if the numbers and percentages were significantly altered. For instance, a large congregation that pooled its resources might be able to accumulate a more substantial amount. In a church containing 200 members, the following financial contributions might be possible: No surplus (0 denarii); Meager unstable surplus (65 denarii); Small, stable surplus (300 denarii); Moderate surplus (200 denarii). The total contribution of this congregation would be 565 denarii. This would obviously be a much more respectable sum. But even here, we run into the same problems: (a) this amount would still be well short of the sums necessary for large–scaled benefaction projects, and (b) this type of giving could not be reproduced with any degree of frequency. 80

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

95

state up front that collective benefaction would have always remained a possible option for the Christian congregations of first-century CE Asia Minor. Due to the fact that small-scale benefaction projects did occur in the ancient world, we cannot rule out the possibility completely. With that said, however, it is doubtful that the type of euergetism available to Christian congregations would have produced the outcome anticipated by proponents of the benefaction position. Even if all the Christian households in a given community combined their financial resources, it is highly unlikely that they could have accumulated a large enough donation to perform the types of services that would have ingratiated the populace (e.g., erecting public buildings, establishing festivals and games, etc). Aside from this lack of euergetistic magnitude, the collective benefaction of Christian communities would have also been hampered by a lack of frequency. These projected contributions (140 denarii) consist of the financial surplus of Anatolian households over the span of an entire year. Since many would be making sacrificial contributions by giving above and beyond their means, we would assume that an extended period of financial recuperation would be necessary after only one act of collective benefaction; hence, even this small-scale euergetism could have only been carried out at very distant intervals.81 To this point we have purposefully excluded contributions from any potentially wealthy members of the Anatolian churches in order to show that, despite attempts to spread around the costs through collective benefaction, without at least one elite family in the congregation any attempt at civic benefaction would have been woefully deficient.82 Ultimately, the benefaction position can only be sustained on the assumption that each congregation contained at least one member who possessed substantial wealth. But even then, how much wealth would have been necessary in order to accomplish the social aims involved in the benefaction position, and how likely is it that these types of families would have been included in a local Anatolian congregation? Based on previous calculations regarding the cost of benefaction and the number of those who might be able to perform such acts (see above), we would have to conclude that it is unlikely that a Christian congregation contained a super-wealthy, 81   In order for Christians in a given city to accumulate a lump sum for benefaction purposes, each house-church would have to agree to the strategy of benefaction as a relief for suffering and would have to agree on how the money would be spent. This might be a problem if there were strong divisions among these groups (cf. 1 Cor 1.10–17). What would happen, for instance, if one house-group wanted to donate to the construction of a theater, while another was offended by the theater and thus refused? Admittedly, this is by no means an insurmountable obstacle, but it is an obstacle nonetheless. 82   Since civic benefaction was (almost solely) dependent upon the initiatives of the wealthy members of the congregations, one wonders why the author of 1 Peter would not have simply exhorted the rich to perform benefaction. Elsewhere, wealthy members of congregations are specifically addressed (cf. 1 Tim 6.17–19), and the author of 1 Peter seems to have no problems with singling out particular groups within the communities for specific instructions (e.g., 1 Pet 2.18; 3.1, 7; 5.1, 5).

96

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

provincial elite. In an average Anatolian city, there were approximately 100 local decurions, and from this group there may have only been a couple families capable of frequent, large-scale donations. So based on statistics alone, the chances are very slim that any of these individuals belonged to Christian congregations. The chances that a Christian community may have included a city councilor is slightly greater; but even this was no guarantee that they could produce munificence on a scale that might attract public acclamation or civic praise. With just the minimum property qualification, a councilor might only have an income (on 5% interest from landed property) of 1,250 denarii per year, of which 250 denarii would be a very generous donation. Added to the collective total (140 denarii), this would take the potential donation up to 390 denarii. This amount would, of course, be sufficient for smallscale benefaction, but still far short of large-scale projects. In conclusion, then, there are two points that weigh against the economic feasibility of benefaction in 1 Peter. First, there are instances in the epistle where the benefaction theory simply does not seem applicable. Given that slaves (οἰκέται), who ranked at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, are specifically admonished to “do good,” it would appear that good deeds refer to something other than beneficent activities. Second, in most cities where Christianity had taken root, even the collective contribution of the entire Christian population (ca. 50 members per city) would not have been enough to accumulate a recognizable donation. The costs of the beneficent acts proposed by Winter (e.g., erecting/adorning public buildings, constructing roads, etc) would have been outside the financial reach of most communities. What is more, even if the Christian communities were large enough to contribute a sizeable amount (ca. 1,000 denarii), these donations could not have been made with any degree of frequency. The only way for the apologetic strategy of the benefaction position to work would have been through the financial assistance of at least one super-wealthy family, a prospect that could be assumed but never demonstrated. b) The Socio-Political Feasibility of Civic Benefaction A second question that is pertinent to the validity of Winter’s proposal is whether civic benefaction would have been socially and politically feasible for the readers of 1 Peter. The underlying assumption upon which Winter’s entire theory rests is that the citizens of these Anatolian communities would have gladly received any and all beneficent contributions – even from a group as despised as the Christians – because without such donations civic communities could not operate successfully. Yet this is where an accurate understanding of the nature and purpose of euergetism is especially valuable. What it is able to offer is a helpful corrective for both aspects of this spurious assumption (viz., indiscriminate acceptance and indispensability of munificence). The first mistaken assumption undergirding Winter’s proposal is the notion that euergetism was an indispensible part of civic life in the Greco-Roman world. In one

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

97

sense, this assumption does contain validity. Civic benefaction played an indispensible role in the political dynamic of Anatolian cities. But the same could not be said for its economic role in a city’s operation. It would be a mistake to assume that without beneficent acts from wealthy elites, local communities could not generate the financial revenue necessary to function at a regular capacity. While there were instances in which euergetism provided essential support for the economic needs of a city, the requirement of such acts only developed at periodic intervals in the life of a community. The notion that provincial cities, due to economic shortage, were dependent on the financial generosity of elite citizens to absorb much of the costs of public amenities is a view that is widely held among ancient historians.83 Recently, however, the foundations on which this assumption is built have been seriously challenged and thoroughly refuted by Hertha Schwarz.84 In her study on the public finances of civic communities in Roman Anatolia, Schwarz overturns the (erroneous) notion that Rome’s tightening control over civic tax revenues led to a financial crisis within the provinces. Then, through a detailed treatment of a variety of source materials, Schwarz demonstrates that local governments in the eastern provinces were more than capable of generating public revenues (mostly as a result of various taxes) and financing civic necessities. What this means is that even though euergetism may have served an important socio-political purpose in the Greco-Roman world, it was not economically essential for the function and survival of provincial cities. Consequently, what benefactors provided was “the icing on the richly decorated cake of civic life in Roman Asia Minor.”85 A few examples should suffice to demonstrate the superfluous nature of benefactors’ contributions. We will begin with one of the more utilitarian contributions: grain supply during a time of food shortage. In his discussion of the subject, Winter 83   As noted by Werner Eck, “Der Euergetismus im Funktionszusammenhang der kaiserzeitlichen Städte,” in Actes du Xe Congrès international d’épigraphie grecque et latine. Nîmes, 4–9 octobre 1992 (eds. M. Christol and O. Masson; Histoire ancienne et médiévale 42; Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1997) 305–31 (305). Examples of scholars who hold this position include: Liebenam, Städteverwaltung im Römischen kaiserreiche, 21; Broughton, “Roman Asia Minor,” 802; Jones, The Greek City, 237; Michael Stahl, Imperiale Herrschaft und provinziale Stadt: Strukturprobleme der römischen Reichsorganisation im 1.–3. Jh. der Kaiserzeit (Hypomnemata 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 111–25; Sartre, L’Orient Romain, 133 n.  1; Mitchell, Anatolia I, 210–11. 84   Hertha Schwarz, Soll oder Haben? Die Finanzwirtschaft kleinasiatischer Städte in der römischen Kaiserzeit am Beispiel von Bithynien, Lykien und Ephesos (29 v. Chr. – 284 n. Chr.) (Bonn: Habelt, 2001). See also Anne-Valérie Pont, Orner la cité: enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie gréco-romaine (Scripta antiqua 24; Paris: Boccard, 2010). With regard to this issue, an important point of consideration is made by Léopold Migeotte, “Finances et constructions publiques,” in Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus: Kolloquium, München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993 (eds. M. Wörrle and P. Zanker; Vestigia 47; Munich: Beck, 1995) 79–86, who points out that evidence for public finance and construction can be misleading because of its focus on euergetism, especially that of kings. 85   Zuiderhoek, “The Icing on the Cake,” 178. Cf. idem, The Politics of Munificence, 37–52.

98

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

correctly notes that “[b]enefactions included supplying grain in times of necessity by diverting the grain-carrying ships to the city, forcing down the price by selling it in the market below the asking rate.”86 What must be taken into account, however, is the extreme nature of such cases. It is true that benefactors sometimes contributed to the food supply of a city on the rare occasion when a community was hit by consecutively bad harvests (and hence a true famine).87 Nevertheless, in most instances, there was little need for wealthy citizens to alleviate the problem of food shortage through financial donations. Provincial cities normally possessed a grain fund (sitonia) to compensate for turbulent yields in food supply,88 and in some cases, each citizen with excess grain might be forced to sell his or her surplus for the sake of the community.89 For this reason, grain distribution is a comparatively rare benefaction within the epigraphic record.90 Public building is another example which demonstrates that euergetism was not economically essential for civic finance in Roman provinces.91 Winter suggests that as part of “seeking the welfare of the city” Christians might erect, refurbish, or embellish public buildings.92 What must not be overlooked is the fact that the need for  Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 37.   Whereas food crises (i.e., a shortage in the food supply that caused a cut-back in consumption and an alternative approach toward purchasing) occurred relatively frequently in the Greco-Roman world, according to Garnsey (Famine and Food Supply, 8–39), genuine famines (i.e., a catastrophic food shortage which caused a significant rise in the mortality rate) were much more rare. 88   Arjan Zuiderhoek, “Feeding the Citizens: Municipal Grain Funds and Civic Benefactors in the Roman East,” in Feeding the Ancient City (eds. R. Alston and O. van Nijf; Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age 1; Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 159–80. In the Roman Empire, the municipal grain funds consisted primarily of money (not stored grain), which was at times loaned to individuals at high interest rates (Dig. 50.8.2.2–4; for the epigraphic evidence, see Johan H. M. Strubbe, “The sitonia in the Cities of Asia Minor under the Principate: I,” Epigraphica Anatolica 10 [1987] 45–82; idem, “The sitonia in the Cities of Asia Minor under the Principate: II,” Epigraphica Anatolica 13 [1989] 99–121). These funds, which were kept in reserve in case of a food shortage, were generated primarily from the public revenues of the city rather than from the private beneficence of local elites (pace Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 15, 43, 267). 89   AE (1925) no. 126. See Hans-Ulrich Wiemer, “Das Edikt des L. Antistius Rusticus. Eine Preisregulierung als Antwort auf eine überregionale Versorgungskrise?,” Anatolian Studies 47 (1997) 195–215. 90   Examples include: IGR III no. 796; IGR IV nos. 941, 1632; I.Tralleis no. 80 = CIG no. 2927; I.Stratonikeia no. 667; I.Sardis VII no. 47 = IGR IV no. 1523; Paris and Radet, “Inscriptions de Pisidie,” 500–501 (no. 1); I.Assos no. 25; William M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1, pt. 1: The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1895) 333 (no. 146). In his collection of approximately 530 benefactions from Roman Asia Minor, Zuiderhoek (“Feeding the Citizens,” 172) only found a total of fifteen (or 3%) contributions to the urban food supply. For the list of inscriptions, see idem, The Politics of Munificence, 164–65. 91   Arjan Zuiderhoek, “Cities, Buildings and Benefactors in the Roman East,” in Public Space in the Post-Classical City (eds. C. P. Dickenson and O. van Nijf; Caeculus. Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology and Greek and Roman Studies 7; Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 173–92. 92  Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 37. This strategy seems reasonable considering the quantity of inscriptions from the Hellenistic and Roman periods which honor benefactors for these 86 87

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

99

new public buildings would have only arisen at occasional intervals within the life of a community,93 and when it did cities were perfectly capable of covering the expenses. Based on various attested building costs from across the Roman Empire, Ramsay MacMullen estimates that it would have taken around HS 5–10 million to equip a large city the size of Pompeii with all its public buildings and amenities.94 For a medium-sized provincial community this figure would have been even lower (e.g., HS 3–5 million). When we compare this figure with the amount of revenue that an average city could expect to generate, it is clear that provincial towns were not desperately dependent upon wealthy benefactors for providing the infrastructure and basic amenities. An example of this situation comes from a text cited earlier. During the early-second century CE, the city of Nicaea spent HS 10 million on a theater which was neither complete nor properly constructed (Pliny, Ep. 10.39). With these kinds of funds at their disposal, local communities could have easily provided the architectural infrastructure necessary for civic life. The second dubious notion under which the benefaction theory works is that provincial communities would have indiscriminately accepted any and all beneficent contributions, regardless of their source. The problem with this assumption is that it fails to take into account two important factors in the process of euergetism. First, because resources often outstripped need (see above), there were considerable tensions over who would give what and how the donations of one wealthy citizen might outdo those of another civic elite. This struggle is clearly captured in an exert from Justinian’s Digest: “A private individual may undertake a new project even without the permission of the emperor, except if it is to outdo another citizen or causes sedition (materiam seditionis praebeat) or is a circus, theater, or amphitheater.”95 very acts. The prevalence of public building in the epigraphic record can be misleading, however. It must be remembered that these inscriptions document the beneficent acts from thousands of communities over a period of nearly half a millennium. 93   For example, as time went along, a local theater might have been repaired and embellished by private benefactors; nevertheless, this civic structure normally lasted many years, barring natural disaster. The theater at Tegea had stood for 200 years before Antiochus began to build a new marble theater to replace it (Livy 41.20; cf. René Vallois, “Le théâtre de Tégée,” BCH 50 [1926] 135–73). Likewise, Eumenes II of Pergamum began to restore the theater at Delphi after more than 200 years of existence (SIG 3 no. 671B). 94   Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974) 142–45. His list of public edifices includes the following: theater (HS 400,000); curia (HS 100,000); basilica (HS 120,000); macellum (HS 100,000); library (HS 500,000); three bath buildings (HS 400,000 × 3); large temple (HS 100,000); three small temples (HS 60,000 × 3); three large decorated fountains (HS 50,000 × 3); and gymnasium (HS 150,000) = HS 3 million. However, to this list, he notes that the following could be added: arches (HS 75,000 each, including statues with which to decorate them); honorific statues erected in public areas (HS 7,500 each); porticoes and paving (cost according to extent); aqueduct (no price given, but the cost could be ca. HS 4–8 million); and amphitheater (no price given). Therefore, a range of HS 5–10 million seems appropriate. 95   Dig. 50.10.3; trans. Watson; cf. Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. 19 [814F–815A]. For more on

100

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Because of these tensions, a second factor in the benefaction process comes into play, viz., the political negotiation involved in munificent contributions. In order for benefaction to be successfully performed, it had to be approved by those in positions of power (see pp. 80–81). When we consider the situation in 1 Peter in light of this negotiation process, it is difficult to imagine that Anatolian Christians who wished to perform beneficent acts for their city would have received a warm welcome from local civic elites. If the prominent citizens refused to be upstaged by one another, why would they allow the Christians – a group which many found to be detestable – to upstage them? On the surface, it would appear that the benefaction strategy of Winter (and others) would actually lead to further conflict between Christians and non-Christians rather than to greater acceptance. 3. The Appropriateness of Civic Benefaction in 1 Peter The final consideration in our assessment of the benefaction proposal is its appropriateness. In the preceding section, we sought to determine whether it was (economically and socio-politically) feasible for the author of 1 Peter to ask his readers to perform beneficent acts in order to ease the tension with outsiders (i.e., could he have encouraged them towards this end?). Now, given what we know about the views of the author from the letter, we will seek to determine whether euergetism would have been an appropriate strategy (i.e., would he have encouraged them towards this end?). Admittedly, arguments based on the likelihood of certain actions can be quite tenuous, especially given the limited amount of evidence with which we have to work. For this reason, we have saved the consideration for the very end, hoping that it might serve to confirm previous arguments. Nevertheless, as we attempt to read the epistle of 1 Peter in light of Hellenistic euergetistic practices, there are certain red flags that appear, and it is these concerns that could serve as indirect evidence against the benefaction position. First, we might question the financial appropriateness of the benefaction strategy in light of the economic conditions that existing within the Anatolian congregations. By encouraging members of the Christians communities – many of whom lived somewhere near the level of abject poverty – to seek acceptance from society through euergetistic donation, might the author have been leading his congregations from social conflict to economic ruin? Even for provincial elites the temptation to give beyond their means remained a legitimate threat. Only a century prior to the composition of 1 Peter, for example, a wealthy benefactor from Epidauros spent so much money on his city that he endangered his own livelihood (IG IV2,1 no. 65), and during this same period, the grandfather of Dio Chrysostom was said to have spent this type of intra-elite conflict in Asia Minor, H. W. Pleket, “Political Culture and Political Practice in the Cities of Asia Minor in the Roman Empire,” in Politische Theorie und Praxis im Altertum (ed. W. Schuller; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998) 204–16 (esp. 206–208).

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

101

his entire family inheritance on civic benefaction to the point where “he had nothing left at all.”96 One wonders therefore whether civic benefaction would have been the most appropriate strategy by which these Anatolian Christian communities might have resolved their present conflict with outsiders. Second, it is important to ask whether civic benefaction would have been an appropriate social strategy in light of the theological disposition of the author. If the strategy of the author was to secure the favor of the populace, the kinds of benefactions that would have been required were the very things of which the author seems to have disapproved. In the Greco-Roman world, it was very clear which types of munificence swayed the masses. As Plutarch noted, the honor of prominent individuals “derived from giving theatrical performances, making distributions of money, or offering gladiatorial shows,” for “the masses always smile upon him who gives to them and does them favours.”97 Even the emperor Antoninus Pius recognized that “many who participate in public affairs expend their munificence on spectacles and distributions and prizes for the games,” and they do so purely “for the sake of immediate popularity ([παρ]αχρῆμ[α ?εὐδοκιμ]εῖν χά[ρ]ιν).”98 For many early Christians, these types of popular spectacles were the very things to which they objected and from which they had withdrawn. In fact, it is this very convention that John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407 CE) would rail against only a few centuries later: The theater is filling up, and all the people are sitting aloft presenting a splendid sight and composed of numberless faces, so that many times the very rafters and roof above are hidden by human bodies. You can see neither tiles nor stones, but all is men’s bodies and faces. Then, as the ambitious (φιλοτίμου) man who has brought them together enters in the sight of all, they stand up and as from a single mouth cry out. All with one voice call him protector (κηδεμόνα) and ruler (προστάτην) of their common city and stretch out their hands in salutation. Next, betweenwhiles they liken him to the greatest of rivers, comparing his grand and lavish munificence (φιλοτιμίας) to the copious waters of the Nile; and they call him the Nile of gifts. Others, flattering him still more and thinking the smile of the Nile too mean, reject

96   Dio Chrysostom, Or. 46.3; cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.77 (Julius Piso). Other examples of wealthy citizens being driven by competition for status, even to the point of their own financial detriment, are common in the epigraphic record. Very often public munificence was promised to a community when a local elite was elected to a particular civic office. However, numerous inscriptions reveal that the fulfillment of these promises were frequently delayed, and in some cases, the promises even proved to be empty (see, e.g., ILAlg I no. 2035; CIL VIII nos. 4193, 12058, 12067, 15572, 23107; AE [1949] no. 40; IGR IV no. 636 = CIG no. 3861; SEG 6 [1956] no. 612; William M. Ramsay, “Antiquities of Southern Phrygia and the Border Lands, II,” AJA 4 [1888] 6–21 [15, no. 7], where the promises are fulfilled one or more generation later). “Such delays must often have been the result not so much of bad faith as of miscalculation on the part of the donor about what sum of money he could easily part with; and only in competitive circumstances would men be led to fix the amount of their promises higher than they could afford” (Richard P. Duncan-Jones, “Wealth and Munificence in Roman Africa,” Papers of the British School at Rome 31 [1963] 159–77 [161]). 97   Praec. ger. rei publ. 29 [821F]; trans. Fowler (LCL); cf. Pliny, Ep. 1.8; Cicero, Off. 2.16. 98   I.Ephesos no. 1491 (145 CE).

102

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

rivers and seas; and they instance the Ocean and say that he in his lavish gifts is what Ocean is among the waters, and they leave not a word of praise unsaid . . . What next? The great man bows to the crowd and in this way shows his regard. Then he sits down amid the congratulations of all his admirers, each of whom prays that he himself may attain to the same eminence and then die. But after a huge expenditure on gold, silver, horses, costumes, slaves, and the rest, and the waste of many fortunes, they greet his departure with the same eulogies, though there are no longer so many in the crowd; for, as the theater is ended, each man hastens to his own home. Then in his house there are costly luncheons and much feasting and the brilliance of daylight. In the afternoon the events of the morning are repeated, and this continues for two or three days. And so, when he has expended all, even to the value of ten thousand talents of gold, these words of praise are seen to be nought but embers, ashes, and dust.99

The question to which this quotation brings us is whether the author of 1 Peter would have embraced civic benefaction as a means of easing social conflict, or whether he, like John Chrysostom, would have viewed the convention as a hollow effort to gain short-lived applause.100 Most recognize that the Petrine author did not advocate the kind of staunch separation called for by the author of Revelation. But there is some evidence from the epistle which might indicate he would have been inclined to oppose the spectacles by which benefactors ingratiated the crowds. Part of the reason why the Anatolian Christians were experiencing conflict with their pagan neighbors was because they had withdrawn from certain social activities in which they had previous been involved (1 Pet 4.3–4).101 Although the author does not specify any particular activities in the letter, these would have undoubtedly included the types of events associated with public munificence. As such, it is instructive to note the author’s response to the situation. Rather than encouraging them to recommit to their former practices, he confirms their decision and provides them with a strategy to cope with the tension which has been created. One wonders whether this could be indirect evidence for the author’s opposition to the more spectacular forms of euergetism. Of course, even if this were the case, the possibility of other forms of civic benefaction is not completely ruled out. But, when combined with the other considerations above, it does raise doubts about its appropriateness in 1 Peter.

  John Chrysostom, De inani Gloria 4–5; trans. adapted from M. L. W. Laistner, Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire, Together with an English Translation of John Chrysostom’s Address on Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up Their Children (James W. Richard Lectures in History; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1951) 87–88. 100   For more on the extent to which 1 Peter accommodates Greco-Roman social norms, see pp. 185–210. 101  Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 240–58. 99

Chapter Four:  Civic Benefaction and 1 Peter

103

C. Conclusion In this chapter, we have sought to challenge the claims set forth by the benefaction proposal, questioning whether euergetism is the literal referent behind 1 Peter’s admonition toward good works. What we have shown is that it is unlikely that the author is encouraging his readers to become involved in euergetistic practices when he admonished them to “do good.” There were a couple of problems, in particular, which prevented civic benefaction from being a viable solution. First, the benefaction theory is neither economically nor socio-politically feasible. Not only did the readers (even as a group) lack the financial surplus necessary to make the kinds of frequent, large-scaled contributions which won the favor of the populace, even if they did, it was no guarantee that their social strategy would have worked. Since euergetistic practice was a matter of negotiation between wealthy elites vying for status within local communities, it is highly unlikely that a group as despised as the Christians would have been afforded the opportunity to participate in this type of communal gift-giving. Second, there are certain considerations which would appear to make munificent practices by the Anatolian recipients an inappropriate social strategy (e.g., its possibility of leading the readers into economic ruin; the author’s encouragement toward social separation). Aside from these considerations, as we will later demonstrate,102 in a number of verses the good deeds to which the readers are called appear to be met with hostility from their pagan neighbors. While occasionally benefactors were not shown appropriate gratitude for their efforts, there is no evidence to suggest that euergetism was a cause of the type of persecution envisioned by the author of 1 Peter. The reason why these problems are so important for our understanding of good works in 1 Peter is because of the critical role of the benefaction position in the wider discussion. As we noted above, the benefaction theory is the only variation within the modern consensus which postulates a specific referent behind these good deeds (thus allowing its claims to be tested) and which is able to potentially overcome the problem of partial conformity (i.e., how to ingratiate the public to the extent that they would allow Christians to only partially conform to the expectations of society). What is more, this theory is grounded in a strong connection between civic benefaction and the language of good works in the Greco-Roman world; hence if one were going to interpret the good works terminology of 1 Peter against a Hellenistic background, euergetism would be the most natural context in which the terms would be understood. At this point in our study, it is important to take stock of where the data has taken us. There are two conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence uncovered thus far. First, as we have just shown, the Petrine author’s exhortation to practice “good works” is not a call to participate in the Hellenistic convention of civic benefaction. 102

  See pp. 255–57.

104

Part Two:  Good Works in the Hellenistic World

Numerous obstacles prevent the benefaction proposal of Winter (and others) from being a viable interpretative option in 1 Peter. Nevertheless, this consideration does not require that we sever all ties between the good works language of the epistle and the ancient practice of euergetism. The reason lies in a second conclusion, namely, that the language of good works used in 1 Peter closely resembles the discourse of praise used within inscriptions honoring benefactors across the Greek East. How these two conclusions relate to one another is an important piece of the larger puzzle that we must reconstruct. If this matter is resolved, it will lead us much closer towards diagnosing the function of good works in 1 Peter. What will be of greatest help in this regard is an examination of one of the important developments in the semantic domain of the good works terminology. As we discussed above, during the Hellenistic period a moral use of the language came to be employed within philosophic discourse. In this way, competing claims of “goodness” were made by Hellenistic moralists through the reappropriation of the traditional language of virtue. The question that we will consider, therefore, is this: Even though euergetism might not be the actual aim toward which the readers are to strive, could the language of (and the social hierarchy associated with) civic benefaction be in the purview of the author as a conceptual referent? In the next section, we will explore the evidence from ancient Judaism and early Christianity in order to consider this question further.

Part Three

Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

Chapter Five

Good Works in Ancient Judaism The reappropriation of the good works terminology so popular in the Greek world first occurred within philosophic discourse of the Hellenistic era. Traditional language was redefined by Greek moralists, who applied the terms in the context of a person’s character and moral excellence (see pp. 46–48). This redeployment represented a small but important shift in how the language was understood. The concept of “doing good” had heretofore been applied, along with other virture language, to the actions of prominent citizens, thereby justifying their power and authority. But with its appropriation in Hellenistic philosophy, an alternative claim to virtue would be made. In this context, one could now ascribe to someone the illustrious title of a “noble and good man,” apart from the possession of abundant wealth. This was due in large part to the fact that, among some users, the social aspect of good deeds came to be replaced with an individual focus. Among the Jewish authors of the Second Temple period, a similar redefinition also occurred. The language of good works is not a prominent motif in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, there are no examples of the specific phrase, Mybw+ My#(m (“good works”), in the Hebrew Scriptures.1 While ( h) bw+ h#( (“to do good”) shows up on a number of occasions, it normally appears in the stock expression, “to do what seems good/right in someone’s eyes.”2 There are a few instances, however, where the language departs from this formality. At times, ( h) bw+ h#( describes the way in which one party benefits another (Exod 18.9; Judg 8.35; 2 Sam 2.6; 1 Kgs 8.66; Jer 29.32; 33.9; Ps 119.65; 2 Chr 7.10; 24.16). Elsewhere, it is set in contrast with doing evil or committing abominable deeds (Num 24.13; 1 Sam 24.18 [ET = 24.17]; Ps 14.1, 3; 34.14; 37.27; 53.1, 3; Eccl 7.20). The expression even holds out the promise of reward in some cases (Ps 34.14; 37.3).3 1   One similar expression is found in Neh 6.19: “They also told me about his good deeds ( wytbw+) and reported my words back to him.” 2   E.g., Gen 16.6; 19.8; 26.29; Deut 6.18; 12.28; Josh 9.25; Judg 10.15; 19.24; 1 Sam 1.23; 3.18; 11.10; 14.36, 40; 2 Sam 10.12; 15.26; 19.19 [ET = 19.18], 28 [ET = 27], 38–39 [ET = 37–38]; 2 Kgs 10.5; 20.3; Isa 38.3; Jer 26.14; Esth 3.11; 1 Chr 19.13; 21.23; 2 Chr 14.1 [ET = 14.2); 31.20. 3   A somewhat more ambiguous (and debatable) example appears in Eccl 3.12: “I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and to do good ( bw+ tw#(lw) as long as they live.” Some translations render this expression more idiomatically as, “to enjoy themselves” (e.g., RSV; NRSV; NET; HCSB). This is the meaning proposed in HALOT (p. 371) and among various interpreters (e.g., Antoon Schoor, “The Word ṭwb in the Book of Qoheleth,” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vol-

108

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

The paucity of good works terminology in the Hebrew Bible would suggest that much of the language found in Second Temple sources (and in the New Testament) has been influenced by Hellenistic discourse.4 The question then becomes, what type of influence did Hellenistic terminology have on this Jewish usage? Or, to put it another way, when a Jewish author employed good works language during the Second Temple period, was he/she using it in the same way as a Greek writer? Did they share the same assumptions regarding the various forms that good deeds might take or the primary motivation for such conduct? The purpose of this chapter is to explore these questions. What we hope to demonstrate is that even though the language of good works in Second Temple literature was dependent upon Hellenistic usage, many Jewish authors invested the terminology with a distinctively Jewish meaning. By assigning a theological value to this motif, they significantly relocated both the types of behavior which could be classified as “good” and the role this conduct played within the wider community.

A. The Socio-Political Use of Good Works With all that has been written on Jewish exposure to the ideas and practices of Hellenism, it goes without saying that most Jews during the Greco-Roman period would have known how the language of good works was used in Hellenistic discourse. In both the literary and epigraphic materials, there is evidence that some – or possibly even many – Jews adopted the traditional language of the Greeks and employed it in a manner very similar to the popular tendency. In this way, the terminology carries a socio-political nuance in which “doing good” relates to the value judgments of the larger community which result from a person’s contribution to the group. The use of prominent Hellenistic epithets like “noble and good man” is one way to illustrate this fact (cf. 4 Macc 4.1; Let. Aris. 46). Another example comes from the work of the Jewish philosopher Philo, who describes the profit in acquaintance with the “ancient records of good works (ἀρχαίαν ἀκοὴν ἔργων καλῶν), which historians and the whole class of poets have delivered to their contemporaries and to lendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen [eds. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper; AOAT 250; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998] 685–700 [694–95]). It seems better, however, to maintain a more literal rendering (“to do good”), while at the same time recognizing the ethical content of the statement: “For Qohelet, the way to do good is to rejoice, eat and drink, and enjoy the fruit of one’s labor” (Craig G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes [Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009] 159 n.  12). 4   The classic treatment by Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. (WUNT 10; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1969); trans. as Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), served to overturn any divide between Judaism and Hellenism, showing that all ancient Jews – even those in Palestine – had come under Hellenistic influence.

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

109

subsequent generations” (Sacr. 78). By referring to the achievements of previous generations as “good works,” Philo’s usage is consistent with other Greek writers who employed the designation as a summary of accomplishments meant to be memorialized.5 Reflecting similar Greek sensibilities, there were some Jews who employed the language with reference to acts benefaction. One example of the Hellenistic use of good works comes from the city of Berenice (Cyrenaika), where the Jewish politeuma honors Decimus Valerius Dionysius for his recent renovations to the “amphitheater.” The inscription, which dates to 8–6 BCE,6 reads: . . . Whereas Decimus Valerius Dionysius son of Gaius . . . remains a noble and good man (ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός) in word and deed and by inclination, doing whatever good (ποιῶν ἀγαθόν) he can, both in a public capacity and as a private individual to each one of the citizens, and in particular plastering the floor of the amphitheater and painting its walls, the archons and the politeuma of the Jews at Berenice resolved to register him in the . . . of the . . . and (resolved) that he be exempted from liturgies of every kind; and likewise (they resolved) to crown him with an olive crown and a woolen fillet, naming him at each assembly and at the new moon. After engraving this resolution on a stele of Parian marble the archons are to set it in the most visible place in the amphitheater.7

The act of benefaction which is recorded here and the reciprocal recognition it receives seems to be confined to the Jewish community. Valerius, who was likely a Roman citizen, appears to be a Jewish member of the politeuma.8 This group rep5   Cf. Isocrates, Panath. 260; Aeschines, Ctes. 186. The closest analogy of this type of usage from the Hebrew Bible is found in 2 Sam 23.20 [// 1 Chr 11.22]. Here Benaiah, son of Jehoiada is described as “a valiant warrior from Kabzeel, one who did many/great deeds ( Myl(p br [LXX = πολλοστὸς ἔργοις]).” His résumé of “great deeds” included striking down two sons of Ariel of Moab, killing a lion, and defeating an armed Egyptian with only his staff (2 Sam 23.20–21). See also 1 Macc 2.51. 6   This was the date proposed by J. Roux and G. Roux, “Un décret du politeuma des Juifs de Bérénikè en Cyrénaique au Museé Lapidaire de Carpentras,” REG 62 (1949) 281–96 (288–89). 7   Joyce M. Reynolds, “Inscriptions,” in Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), vol. 1: Buildings, Coins, Inscriptions, Architectural Decoration (ed. J. A. Lloyd; Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5; Tripoli: Department of Antiquities of the Arab Libyan Jamahiriya, 1977) 233–54 (no. 18) = Gert Lüderitz, Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 53; Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1983) 148–51 (no. 70); trans. adapted from G. H. R. Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 4: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979 (North Ryde: Macquarie University, 1987) 203. 8   L. Michael White, “Capitalizing on the Imperial Cult: Some Jewish Perspectives,” in Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult (eds. J. Brodd and J. L. Reed; WGRWSup 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011) 173–214, has recently put forth the suggestion that Valerius may not have been Jewish. He proposes instead that he may have been “the civic or provincial magistrate who liaised with the Jewish politeuma and sat in their public meetings” (182). This is based in part on his reconstruction of the reading πρηπο(σί)της in line 6, which is thought to represent a broader civic function (182 n.  42). But the fact that one of Valerius’ honors is exemption from liturgies within the group (lines 14–15) and the fact that the stele is displayed in the Jewish meeting place (lines 18–20) rather than within the larger civic community, speaks against this suggestion.

110

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

resents not simply a small ruling body among the Jews, but the whole Jewish community.9 There is some debate over whether the “amphitheater” (ἀνφιθεάτρον) was a civic building in which all citizens of the community would gather for sporting events, entertainment, or assembly,10 or whether it was the Jewish synagogue.11 Certainty is impossible in this instance, but information from the inscription suggests the latter. Therefore, the situation is one in which the Jews of Berenice recognized one of their prominent members for his contribution to the local Jewish place of meeting. What is noteworthy is that the Jewish community at Berenice was Hellenized to a considerable extent. As a result, they knew and employed the language of good works in a way that was identical to popular Hellenistic usage, referring to the beneficent acts of social elites who contributed to the welfare of the group. Valerius was recognized as a “noble and good man” (ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός) because of the “good” (ἀγαθός) which he did for the politeuma. The good deeds, in this case, consisted of plastering the floor and painting the walls of “amphitheater.”12 Such language would have undoubtedly been used by other Jews who also practiced a more accommodating stance toward Hellenistic society.13 Also to be mentioned in this regard are the synagogue dedicatory inscriptions, which contain the phrase “remembered for good” (Hebrew: bw+l rwkz; Aramaic: b+l rykd).14 Used in connection with the system of benefaction operative in Pales9   Pace Gert Lüderitz, “What is the Politeuma?,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (eds. J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst; AGJU 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 183–225. 10   As suggested, e.g., by Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C – A.D. 135) (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987) 3:104; Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 2: The Archaeological Evidence from the Diaspora (Bollingen Series 37; New York: Pantheon, 1953) 143–44; Giacomo Caputo, “Note sugli edifici teatrali della Cirenaica,” in Anthemon. Scritti di archeologia e di antichità classiche in onore di Carlo Anti (Firenze: G.C. Sansoni, 1955) 281–91 (283–85); Constantine Zuckerman, “Hellenistic Politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration,” Scripta Classica Israelica 8–9 (1985–88) 171–85 (179). 11   As suggested, e.g., by so Shimon Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (SJLA 28; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 164–67; Tessa Rajak, “Jews as Benefactors,” in Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (eds. B. H. Isaac and A. Oppenheimer; Te’uda: The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies Research Series 12; Tel Aviv: Ramot, 1996) 17–38 (28–30); Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (2nd ed.; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005) 99–100; Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 104–105. 12   The term used for painting (ζωγραφέω) could mean either painting in general or the decoration with painted figures (human or animal). Despite the conservative nature of some Jews who strictly enforced the biblical injunctions against graven images (Exod 20.4–5; Deut 5.8–9; cf. Josephus, Ant. 15.272–281), there are numerous examples of animal, human, or semi-divine representations attested in ancient Jewish synagogues (see Marilyn J. S. Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture [BJS 29; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982]). 13   For more examples of Diaspora Jews honoring “pagan” benefactors in a Greek way, see Rajak, “Jews as Benefactors.” 14   For a full treatment of this inscriptional formula, see Susan Sorek, Remembered for Good:

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

111

tine,15 this formula was either a way of recognizing the good deeds of a living benefactor or a means of memorializing the (beneficent) deceased. One example comes from Kefar Kana: Remembered for good ( b+l rykd), Jose, son of Tanhum, son of Boutah and his sons who made this mosaic. May it be a blessing for them. Amen.16

Thus, even among the Jews of Palestine, the language of good works could be used in a way that sounded very similar to the Greek model, viz., in recognition of commendable deeds. A closer look at this formula, however, reveals that the similarity might be more apparent than real. Even though the above-mentioned inscriptions are meant to recognize noble deeds using the designation “good” ( bw+/ b+), it is unlikely that they are dependent upon or attempting to model the Hellenistic language of good works. Instead, the language was probably adapted from Semitic dedicatory inscriptions which were meant to communicate with the divine realm. A common feature in a number of Semitic inscriptions where donations have been made to a deity is the formula “for good remembrance” or “to be remembered for good,” which marks the request of the worshipper to (consequently) be remembered positively.17

A Jewish Benefaction System in Ancient Palestine (Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010). 15   The nature of the Jewish system of benefaction differed somewhat from the traditional Hellenistic convention. Various marks of dissimilarity have been pointed out. For instance, Seth Schwartz (“Euergetism in Josephus and the Epigraphic Culture of First-Century Jerusalem,” in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East [eds. H. M. Cotton, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009] 75–92) argues that the paucity of honorific evidence from Jerusalem suggests that, like ancient Crete (see Angelos Chaniotis, “From Communal Spirit to Individuality: The Epigraphic Habit in Hellenistic and Roman Crete,” in Creta romana e protobizantina: Atti del congresso internazionale (Iraklion, 23–30 settembre 2000) [ed. M. Livadiotti; Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo, 2004] 75–87), Jerusalem often honored its benefactors orally rather than through inscribed monuments. 16   CIJ no. 987 (third or fourth century CE) = Frowald Hüttenmeister and Gottfried Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen in Israel, 1: Die jüdischen Synagogen, Lehrhäuser und Gerichtshöfe (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients/Beihefte/B 12,1; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977) 246–49. The pavement was apparently constructed as a memorial for Jose from his sons (see Michael Avi-Yonah, “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 2 [1933] 136–81 [178–79]). 17   See John F. Healey, “‘May He Be Remembered for Good’: Aramaic Formula,” in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (eds. K. J. Cathcart and M. Maher; JSOTSup 230; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 177–87; cf. also Willy Schottroff, ‘Gedenken’ im alten Orient und im Alten Testament: Die Wurzel zākar im semitischen Sprachkreis (WMANT 15; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1964) 58–89.

112

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

B. The Theological Use of Good Works The theological use of the good works language is somewhat different from the socio-political usage. What sets the two apart is their designated standard of measurement. When the terminology was employed in a Hellenistic context, the focus was normally on the horizontal relationship between members of a community, with the “goodness” of one’s actions being defined according to their benefit towards others. On the other hand, when Jewish authors assigned a theological value to good works, the focus was on the vertical relationship between God and his people. Here the standard of “goodness” is measured by how closely the conduct aligned with the law of God – which ultimately impacted one’s standing either in the present life or at the eschaton. Within this theological usage, there is commonality amidst diversity. Below we will explore various texts from the Second Temple period which employ the good works language in different ways. What we will note is that despite the variety with which this language is used, all of the texts share two important features in common: a common referent, wherein “doing good” means fulfilling the Mosaic Law (however the community defines this task) and a common function, wherein “doing good” affects one’s relationship with God (however the community understands this result). 1. Diverse Emphases, Common Referent There was a range of acts which could be described using the good works label. Different authors apply the terminology to a variety of commendable behaviors. The key, however, is that in most Jewish literature the good works motif focuses on the adherence to the Mosaic Law. Thus, the variegated nature of this theme is explained by the breadth of the law’s coverage. Perspectives on how a person fulfills the law differs from source to source, as does the aspect of the law (ethical or ceremonial) on which the writers focus. Yet, the law, as a reflection of the will of God, remains the standard by which the “goodness” of good works is measured. We will discuss four different uses of the good works language to illustrate the commonality in diversity. Each author employs the terminology of good works to represent adherence to the Mosaic Law; yet how the law is defined takes on new meaning in each case. a. Good Works as Universal Code of Morality In some Jewish works from the Second Temple period, the Mosaic Law comes to be treated as a universal code of morality. Attempts are made to shape the commands in a way that the law might be more appealing to a wider audience, especially to enlightened Gentiles. Herein focus is placed particularly on the ethical portion of

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

113

the law. In this vein, it is portrayed as a universal philosophy containing certain moral principles, with many of its ceremonial laws being allegorized. Read from this perspective, good works take the form of a common ethic. One example of this usage is found in Books 1–2 of the Sibylline Oracles.18 The Jewish(-Christian) corpus of Sibylline Oracles19 places itself in the long-established sibylline tradition from the ancient world. Characteristic of these oracles are the descriptions of calamity and judgment which an aged and inspired sibyl predicts will come upon humanity. The oracles give the appearance of a missionary apologetic meant to reach sympathetic Gentiles; however, their more primary role seems to have been solidifying intra-group identity.20 The eschatological focus of the Sibylline Oracles normally provides a framework for moral exhortation. It is within this context that the language of good works becomes apparent. Books 1–2 of the Sibylline Oracles appear together in the manuscript tradition, and consequently most view them as a unit. Written somewhere between 30 BCE and 70 CE in Phrygia,21 they give evidence of an original Jewish composition which 18   A similar use of good works terminology is found in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. Sim. 3.2; 4.4; T. Dan 4.3; T. Ash. 1.9; 3.2; 4.1; T. Benj. 4.1, 3; 5.2–3; 6.1; 11.1; T. Reu. 4.1; T. Naph. 8.4–6; T. Jos. 18.2). But, like books 1–2 of the Sibylline Oracles, we run into the same problem, viz., determining whether the work represents a Jewish or Christian composition. The question of the work’s history of composition has been vigorously debated (for a review, see Robert A. Kugler, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs [Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001] 31–38). The closest example might be from the Letter of Aristeas (3, 18, 43, 46, 195, 207, 231, 242, 272, 285). On the use of the good works language in this work, see Eric Ottenheijm, “The Phrase ‘Good Works’ in Early Judaism: A Universal Code for the Jewish Law?,” in Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (eds. A. Houtman, et al.; AJEC 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 485–506 (491–94). 19  The critical edition used is that of Johannes Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina (GCS 8; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902), in comparison with Jörg-Dieter Gauger, Sibyllinische Weissagungen: Griechisch-Deutsch (Sammlung Tusculum; Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler, 1998). The English translation used here is that of John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 317–472. 20   There has been considerable debate over whether the “apologetic” literature of the Hellenistic Jewish Diaspora was meant (primarily) for Jews or Gentiles. (This debate was fueled in large part by Victor Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48 [1956] 169–93.) But, as John J. Collins (Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in Hellenistic Diaspora [2nd ed.; Biblical Resources Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 14–16; cf. idem, “The Sibyl and the Potter: Political Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi [eds. L. Bormann, et al.; NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 57–69) has shown, this literature was probably meant for both insiders and outsiders, regardless of whether the latter were willing to listen. 21   Some have posited an even more precise provenance, claiming that it derives from the Jewish community in Apamea (so, e.g., Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor [SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991] 95–99; cf. James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians [WUNT 84; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995] 35–36; and Dean Philip Bechard, Paul Outside the Walls: A Study of Luke’s Socio-Geographical Universalism in Acts 14:8–20 [AnBib 143; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2000] 308–319).

114

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

has undergone later Christian interpolation.22 Within the oracles, the good works language is employed in a dualistic fashion, distinguishing good men from bad. For instance, the sibyl (drawing on material from Pseudo-Phocylides) states, “The zeal of good men (ἀγαθῶν) is noble, but that of the bad men is bad. The boldness of the wicked is destructive, but that of the good men (ἀγαθῶν) brings glory” (Sib. Or. 2.137–138; trans. mine). Much more attention is given to the actual conduct of good men, which is occasionally described as “good works.” Of Adam, it is said that God “bade him live in an ambrosial garden, so that he might be concerned with beautiful works (καλὰ ἔργα)” (Sib. Or. 1.24–25).23 Comparable to this, the sibyl describes Noah as “most upright and true, a most trustworthy man, concerned for noble deeds (καλοῖς . . . ἔργοισι)” (1.125–126). Finally, the righteous who are spared in the eschatological judgment are those who “were concerned with justice and noble deeds (καλά . . . ἔργα), and piety and most righteous thoughts” (2.313–314). Books 1–2 also contain similar descriptions where the good works terminology is replaced with a synonymous expression: “lovely works and noble toils” (1.90) and “fair deeds” (1.296). These are contrasted with evil deeds of which God does not approve. The acts are variously described as “unjust” (2.70, 272), “shameless” (2.145), and “wicked” (2.296). The question then is, to what do good works refer? It is clear that good deeds in books 1–2 of the Sibylline Oracles do not refer to practices that were determinative for Jewish national identity. The temple is not prominent in the Jewish portions of the books,24 nor is Torah-observance proleptically advanced in the lives of those who perform good deeds (cf. Sib. Or. 1.25, 126). Moreover, the ethical practices to which good works apply are virtuous behavior shared in common with the wider Hellenistic world (cf. 2.56–148). Even in these instances, however, there is something fundamentally different about the use of this popular terminology: this con22   The Jewish portion of the oracle includes an account of the first seven generations of humanity (Sib. Or. 1.1–323), which is interrupted by Christian interpolation (1.324–400) and then resumed (without the eighth and ninth generations) in Sib. Or. 2.6–33. The remaining portion of the oracle (2.34–347) describes an eschatological scene of divine reward and punishment, which appears to be an original Jewish composition with clear signs of Christian redaction (e.g., 2.45–55, 177–183, 190–192, 238–251, 311–312, 264). Inserted into the ψ group of manuscripts is a lengthy section from Pseudo-Phocylides (Sib. Or. 2.56–148; see Alfons Kurfess, “Das Mahngedicht des sogenannten Phokylides im zweiten Buch der Oracula Sibyllina,” ZNW 38 [1939] 171–81). 23   It has been suggested that this might be a spiritualization of God’s commission to Adam in Gen 2.15 (see William R. G. Loader, The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature [Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011] 70). On the use of the good works theme in Sib. Or. 1–2, see Olaf Waßmuth, Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2: Studien und Kommentar (AJEC 76; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 100–101, 106, 222, 453. 24   See Michael Tuval, “Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (eds. D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss; AJEC 78; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 181–239 (221–222).

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

115

duct takes on a Jewish identity.25 Good works are read into the story of Israelite history. They are part of the commands given to God’s people as a way of living according to his standards. In this way, they are set in contrast to evil deeds. Breaking these commands or failure to live up to this standard procures the judgment of God. This perspective stands apart from all Hellenistic notions of good deeds. Despite these conclusions, it is important to make one qualification regarding the composition of books 1–2. Our discussion has worked from the assumption that books 1–2 represent a Jewish oracle from around the turn of the era, which has undergone significant Christian interpolation.26 Recently, this opinion has been challenged by J. L. Lightfoot, who has presented a strong case for the view that books 1–2 are a unified Christian composition from the second century CE.27 Her position is based in large part on the revival and expansion of M. R. James’ earlier thesis that books 1–2 (esp. 2) borrowed heavily from the Apocalypse of Peter.28 While Lightfoot’s efforts have not overturned the consensus on this issue,29 it would be wise to proceed with caution when drawing on the examples of the good works motif in books 1–2. This evidence is nonetheless valuable on either reading: if the books represent an early Jewish stratum appended by later Christian efforts, then we are provided with first-century BCE evidence of the good works language being used to refer to a common standard of virtue. If, on the other hand, the work is a later Christian composition, then we are still provided with evidence of a similar terminology transfer, only from a work that slightly post-dates 1 Peter.

25   Cf. James W. Thompson, Moral Formation according to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011) 41: “While the ethical instructions of Hellenistic Judaism frequently intersect with the Greek ethical tradition, Jewish writers insist that the commandments derive from the will of God. Obedience to the commandments expresses their fundamental Jewish identity.” 26   This has been the majority opinion as set forth by Alfons Kurfess, “Oracula Sibyllina I/II,” ZNW 40 (1941) 151–65 and John J. Collins, “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Part II, Principat 20.1; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1987) 421–59 (441–46). Johannes Geffcken (Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula sibyllina [TUGAL 8/1; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902] 49) also divides the work according to its Jewish and Christian stages; nevertheless he locates both in the 3rd century CE. 27   J. L. Lightfoot, The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 94–106, 131–43, 148–52. Cf. Helmut Merkel, Sibyllinen (JSHRZ 5/8; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998) 1070. 28   M. R. James, “A New Text of the Apocalypse of Peter,” JTS 12 (1911) 36–54, followed by J. K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 613, and Richard J. Bauckham, The Jewish World around the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010) 321 n.  134. 29   Note the recent work by Gordon L. Watley, “Sibylline Identities: The Jewish and Christian Editions of Sibylline Oracles 1–2,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 2010).

116

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

b. Good Works as Diaspora Piety A second use of the good works terminology in ancient Judaism is in reference to practices associated with the Mosaic Law, but not formally specified therein. These might include almsgiving, burial of the dead, releasing prisoners, or comforting mourners. Such practices were especially important for Jewish life in the Diaspora. Although separated from the temple and its ritual, Jews in this environment could maintain covenant faithfulness through the types of good works which represented God’s will. The deuterocanonical work of Tobit contains a helpful example of this usage.30 In the book of Tobit, the text form dictates the prevalence and emphasis of good works language.31 For this reason, our first task must be to determine the original language and priority of various recensions. The book has been preserved in a number of ancient languages (e.g., Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Sahidic, Armenian, and Arabic),32 and throughout the years, there has been much debate over which language represents the original form of composition. Despite Origen’s (Ep. Afr. 13) denial that the Jews read the book of Tobit in Hebrew, a number of early commentators postulated a Semitic original.33 This was due not only to the Semitisms which were identified in the early Greek versions, but also to the 30   A similar use of good works arose in rabbinic circles following the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. The rabbinic sources contain various references to good works (e.g., m. Ketub. 12.4; m. ‘Abot. 3.11; 4.11, 17; b. Ber. 60b; et al). The theme of good works in rabbinic Judaism is treated as part of a larger excursus (“Die altjüdischen Liebeswerke”) in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 4:559–610, although for a proper reading of this material, see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 33–238. 31   The importance of textual criticism in isolating the theological tendencies of particular recensions has begun to be noted and applied within recent Tobit studies (see, e.g., Beate Ego, “Textual Variants as a Result of Enculturation: The Banishment of the Demon in Tobit,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures [eds. W. Kraus and R. G. Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006] 371–78; Mark Bredin, “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach [ed. M. Bredin; LSTS 55; London: T&T Clark, 2006] 43–58). 32   This evidence has been conveniently collected in two recent synopses: Christian J. Wagner, ed., Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse: Griechisch, Lateinisch, Syrisch, Hebräisch, Aramäisch, mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse Dritte Folge, Band 258. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XXVIII; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), and Stuart Weeks, et al., eds., The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac (FSBP 3; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004). 33   Early proponents of a Semitic original include: G. Bickell, “Der chaldäische Text des Buches Tobias,” ZKT 2 (1878) 216–22 (Hebrew); J. Rendel Harris, “The Double Text of Tobit: Contribution Toward a Critical Inquiry,” AJT 2 (1899) 541–54 (Aramaic); J. H. Moulton, “The Iranian Background of Tobit,” ExpTim 11 (1900) 257–60 (Aramaic); Israël Lévi, “La langue originale de Tobit,” REJ 44 (1902) 288–91 (Hebrew); Paul Joüon, “Quelques hébraïsmes du Codex Sinaiticus de Tobie,” Bib 4 (1923) 168–74 (Hebrew); H. Bévenot, “The Primitive Book of Tobit: An Essay in Textual Reconstruction,” BSac 82 (1926) 55–84 (esp. 57) (Hebrew); et al.

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

117

Aramaic texts which were known both from antiquity and in more recent times.34 This opinion gained further solidity with the discovery of the fragments from Qumran.35 These texts mark the earliest attestation of the book of Tobit, closing the gap considerably between copy and original. As a result, much of the debate surrounding the original language of the text appears to have been answered. Scholarship is now in general agreement that the book of Tobit was first composed in a Semitic form (whether Aramaic or Hebrew).36 Regardless of its early attestation, however, the fragmentary nature of the Qumran evidence proves inadequate for reconstructing a complete text for the book of Tobit.37 For this reason, we must look to other versional witnesses for support. Throughout the centuries, the primary witnesses for the book have been the Greek and Latin translations, with precedence tending to be given to the former in more   In his letter to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, which later became the preface to his Latin translation of Tobit, Jerome explains the means by which his translation was completed, and in doing so, provides early testimony to the existence of an Aramaic version: “Because the language of the Chaldeans [i.e., Aramaic] is related to the Hebrew tongue, and since I had found someone who was an expert speaker in both languages, I devoted the work of one day (to the translation); whatever he rendered for me in Hebrew, I would express in Latin for an engaged secretary” (Aidano Gasquet, Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem iussu Pii PP. XI, vol. VIII: Libri Ezrae, Tobiae, Iudith, ex interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi cum praefationibus et variis capitulorum seriebus [Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950] 155–56; trans. Fitzmyer). Along with this testimony, early commentators were further persuaded in their quest for the original language of Tobit by the publication of medieval Hebrew and Aramaic forms of the text (see, e.g., Adolph Neubauer, The Book of Tobit: A Chaldee Text from a Unique Ms. in the Bodleian Library, with other Rabbinic Texts, English Translations, and the Itala [Oxford: Clarendon, 1878]; Moses Gaster, “Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of the Tobit Legend,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 18 [1896] 208–22, 59–71; idem, “Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of the Tobit Legend,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 19 [1897] 27–38). However, this evidence was subsequently dismissed when it became apparent that these were simply late translations of the Greek and Latin forms. 35  The editio princeps of the Tobit fragments from Qumran is Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Tobit,” in Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (eds. M. Broshi, et al.; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995) 1–76. For an analysis of the evidence from Qumran, see idem, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4,” CBQ 57 (1995) 655–75, and Armin Schmitt, “Die hebräischen Textfunde zum Buch Tobit aus Qumran. 4QTobe (4Q200),” ZAW 113 (2001) 566–82; Michaela Hallermayer, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS 3; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) esp. 33–165. 36   On the modern consensus, see Richard A. Spencer, “The Book of Tobit in Recent Research,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 7 (1999) 147–80 (171–72). There are, nevertheless, a handful of interpreters who remain unconvinced and continue to persist in maintaining a Greek original (e.g., Paul Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit: Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie [OBO 43; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982] 19, 335, 342–43). 37   The standard edition of Robert Hanhart, ed., Tobit (Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 8/5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), lists a total of 245 verses for the G2 (Sinaiticus) recension of the book of Tobit. The Aramaic copies (4QToba–d) discovered at Qumran, however, only include 103 verses (or 42% of the book), and in many cases, this evidence merely represents words or portions of words rather than the entire verse. The lone Hebrew MS (4QTobe) represents even less, accounting for parts of only 32 verses (or 13% of the book). 34

118

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

recent times. The text has been preserved in two38 primary Greek recensions: the “longer recension” (designated as GII, G2, RS, or S) and the “shorter recension” (designated as GI, G1, RV, or BA).39 Prior to the discovery of Sinaiticus most did not give much heed to the former, preferring instead to prioritize the latter. But now the longer version is preferred by majority of scholars.40 Nevertheless, some caution is required in this instance. Recent questions have been raised concerning the validity of these forms, forcing scholarship to reconsider the textual diversity represented in our evidence.41 In the various Greek editions, there are a number of references to an idealized standard of conduct described as “good.” In Raphael’s final exhortation to Tobit and Tobias, the two are directly charged to “do good” (Tob 12.7),42 while in the “shorter” recension this is the specific designation given to Tobit’s effort to bury the dead (12.13, ἀγαθοποιῶν). Even the Hellenistic ideal of a “noble and good man” is present in the Greek text (7.6; cf. 5.14; 6.12). From this evidence, one could argue that good works was a familiar motif employed by the author to depict (or, in this case, to summarize) proper behavior.43 The problem which arises, however, is that none of these examples contain an (early) extant Semitic parallel against which to compare them. So it may be that each simply represents the revised language of a later Hellenistic editor. The question then is, how much of this terminology is original to Tobit, and how much is a product of the Hellenizing tendencies of later translators/editors? When we look closer, it would appear that much of the good works language stems not from a Semitic version but from later Greek recensions. The clearest example of this tendency is found in Tob 6.12. While approaching the city of Ecbatana, 38   There is also a third Greek recension (designated as GIII, G3, or RC), which has received much less attention. In Tob 6.8–13.2, this edition is represented in minuscules 106 and 107, while the Syriac version translates the latter half of the book according to this recension (see Jürgen Lebram, “Die Peschitta zu Tobit 7,11–14,15,” ZAW 69 [1957] 185–211). Although GIII contains a small amount of material peculiar to itself, it appears to belong firmly within the tradition of GII, while sharing a handful of readings with GI (Stuart Weeks, “Some Neglected Texts of Tobit: The Third Greek Version,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach [ed. M. Bredin; LSTS 55; London: T&T Clark, 2006] 12–42). 39  GI is represented by Vaticanus (B), Alexandrinus (A), and Venetus (V), along with a host of Greek minuscules; first half of Syriac; Ethiopic; Fagius’ Hebrew version; Sahidic; and Armenian. GII is represented by Sinaiticus ( )) and minuscules 319 and 910; Old Latin; Neubauer’s Aramaic version; Münster and London Hebrew versions; and Qumran MSS. 40   For a discussion of the issues related to the priority of GII, see D. C. Simpson, “The Chief Recensions of the Book of Tobit,” JTS 14 (1913) 516–30; J. D. Thomas, “The Greek Text of Tobit,” JBL 91 (1972) 463–71; Robert Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse Dritte Folge, Band 139. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XVII; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) esp. 21–48. 41   Tobias Nicklas and Christian Wagner, “Thesen zur textlichen Vielfalt im Tobitbuch,” JSJ 34 (2003) 141–59. 42  GI: ἀγαθὸν ποιήσατε; GII: τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖτε; GIII: omit. 43   As argued, for example, by Ottenheijm, “The Phrase ‘Good Works’ in Early Judaism,” 488– 91.

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

119

Azariah (Raphael) reveals to Tobias that they must spend the night with Raguel, a kinsman (6.10). Furthermore, he proceeds by explaining that Tobias is the nearest relative in-line to marry Raguel’s only daughter, Sarah, and therefore to inherit all of Raguel’s estate (6.11). Finally, as a way of enhancing the allure of this opportunity, Azariah further details the character of both the girl and her father: “Moreover, the girl is sensible, brave and very beautiful, and her father is an honorable man (ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς καλός)” (6.12b [ )]). The reading of Sinaiticus is somewhat different from that which is found in 4Q197 4 ii 1, however. The Qumran text reads: )yh] [ hl] Mxr hwb)w )dxl )ryp#w )[ pyqtw )mykx (“[She is wise, strong] and very beautiful, and her father loves [her]”). Initially, it might appear that Sinanticus has preserved the original reading. If Joseph A. Fitzmyer is correct in suggesting that the final clause of 4Q197 4 ii 1 is “a detail that echoes the love of Jacob for his son, Benjamin (Gen 44:20),”44 then the Aramaic may simply be a later corruption brought into conformity with earlier biblical material. Of course, such an echo could have conceivably been produced by the original author rather than a later copiest. In fact, this seems to be the case given that the remainder of the textual evidence weighs heavily in favor of the Aramaic version. The authenticity of 4Q197 4 ii 1 is demonstrated by the correspondence between the evidence from Qumran and the readings of MSS 106 (a representative of GIII) and 319 (a representative of GII): καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς ἀγαπᾷ αὐτήν. Additional support is offered by the Old Latin (et pater ipsius diligit illam).45 As such, it appears that Sinaiticus has moved away from the Semitic version and closer to the language of Greek noblemen. A similar alteration has taken place at Tob 7.7. Upon entering Ecbatana, Azariah and Tobias proceed directly to the house of Raguel (7.1). The two are greeted by Raguel and his wife Edna, who question the travelers concerning their place of residence (7.3–4). When Raguel learns that Tobias is the son of his kinsman Tobit, he blesses Tobias and extols the character of Tobit (7.7–8). Apart from a few minor lexical and syntactical variations, each Greek recension is in agreement on Raguel’s describes his kinsman as καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός (“noble and good”): GI: καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“And he blessed him and said, ‘(You are) the son of a noble and good man’”) GII: καὶ ἐλάλησεν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ εὐλογία σοι γένοιτο παιδίον ὁ τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ πατρός (“And he responded to him and said, ‘May you be blessed, my child, son of a noble and good father’”)   Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003) 212.   Further support for this reading is offered by Carey A. Moore, Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 40A; New York: Doubleday, 1996). He argues that in the immediate context this particular reading “offers to Tobiah the best reason for Raguel’s doing right by his daughter” (204). Yet one might question whether Raguel’s love for his daughter would give Tobias more confidence than his reputation for being an “honorable” (καλός) man. Both seem to be equally convincing. 44 45

120

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

GIII: καὶ εἶπεν εὐλογία σοι γένοιτο υἱὲ ἀνδρὸς καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ (“And he said, ‘May you be blessed, son of a noble and good man’”)

In this instance, the Greek is supported by the Latin, and for this reason, the good works language commonly appears in the translation of this text.46 Yet this is another place where the Aramaic and the Greek diverge. Although the passage requires some restoration, it is possible to make out the following reading: Ky]l(G )b+ )]+y#q )rbgG[ r]bG [htn) yrb (“Blessings be upon [you, my son; you are the] so[n of] a righteo[us] man,” 4Q197 4 iii 9). Such a reading appears to predate that of the Greek recension. Given the popularity of the title “noble and good man” in the Hellenistic world,47 it seems likely to assume that the Semitic reading (“righteous man”) was later transformed into a Hellenistic ideal when translated into Greek. Otherwise, one is left to explain not only the presence of a common Hellenistic designation in the Hebrew/Aramaic original but also the fact that it was changed to “righteous man” (a more common Semitic title) in later copies. Despite the changes which later Greek recensions made in conforming their language to popular Hellenistic notions of good men/deeds, what is most important to note is that the referent behind this terminology remains distinctly Jewish. In the Greek version of the book of Tobit, good works (or doing good) describe adherence to Jewish legal requirements. Throughout the story certain deeds are marked out as noble, with special emphasis being placed on Torah-faithfulness in a Diaspora setting.48 One text where good deeds are specifically equated with law observance is Tob 12.13. Here Tobit’s burial of the dead is specifically referred to as “doing good” (ἀγαθοποιῶν, GI). Proper burial was an important custom in ancient Israel, as well as in other Mesopotamian cultures. The fear of being left unburied is commonly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 28.26; 1 Kgs 14.11; 21.24; Jer 7.33; Ps 79.3). During the first century CE, proper burial was regarded by Josephus, and probably many other Jews, as one of the things which God had previously instructed (προλέγω) his people to do for all who asked (Ag. Ap. 2.211). Another instance where the good works language is used to describe Jewish practice is in 12.7, where Raphael tells Tobit and Tobias to “do good” (ἀγαθὸν ποιήσατε [GI]; τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖτε [GII]). He then goes on to define the nature of this “good,” revealing that it consists of prayer with fasting and almsgiving with righteousness (12.8). All of these requirements are viewed as key components for faithful Jewish 46   E.g., NRSV; NAB; cf. Moore, Tobit, 215, 219; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 228 (who nonetheless draws attention to the Hellenistic description). 47   See pp. 39–49. 48   Cf. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Tora ohne Tempel: Paulus und der Jakobusbrief im Zusammenhang frühjüdischer Torarezeption für die Diaspora,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (eds. B. Ego, et al.; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 427–60 (438–39). Cf. idem, Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur (WUNT 2/28; Tübingen: Mohr, 1987) 201–206.

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

121

life in the Diaspora.49 The practices of prayer and fasting are coupled together elsewhere in biblical and extra-biblical literature (e.g., Jer 14.12; Joel 1.14; Neh 1.4; T. Jos. 10.1) and mark key expressions of Jewish piety. Almsgiving was thought to play an equally important role during the postexilic period.50 According to Sirach, “almsgiving atones (ἐξιλάσεται) for sin” (Sir 3.30; cf. 12.3).51 These good works therefore represent ideal Jewish conduct in the Diaspora. c. Good Works as Ceremonial Jewish Law Another Jewish use of the good works theme focuses on a person’s fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, including both its ethical and ceremonial requirements. Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles provides one illustration of how the terminology could be used in this way. Written from Egypt,52 the third book of Sibylline Oracles is a composite work which can be divided up into three sections: (a) the main corpus (vv. 97–349 and 489–829), which consists of five oracles mostly relating the theme of sin and disaster remedied by a king(dom); (b) oracles against the nations (vv. 350– 488); and (c) portions of another book (vv. 1–96).53 Given the prominence of the Romans (vv. 175–190) and considering the strong relations between the Jews and the Ptolemaic kings,54 it is best to locate the main corpus in the mid-second century   Amy-Jill Levine, “Tobit: Teaching Jews How to Live in the Diaspora,” BRev 8 (1992) 42–51.   In the book of Sirach, the language of good works is also used to describe almsgiving. There are three elements to his usage which point in this direction. First, good works/doing good are/is associated with gift-giving. In Sir 12.5 (LXX), he says, “Do good (εὖ ποίησον) to the humble, and do not give (δῷς) to the impious person” (cf. 18.15). Second, the gift of good deeds which one contributes is bread. According to Sir 20.16 (LXX), “The foolish person says, ‘I do not have a friend, and I receive no thanks for my good deeds (ἀγαθοῖς). Those who eat his bread (ἄρτον) are eviltongued” (cf. 12.5). Third, in response to the performance of good works, there is an expectation that thanksgiving will be received. In Sir 12.1, he observes, “If you do good (εὖ ποιῇς), realize to whom you do it, and you will be thanked for your good works (ἀγαθοῖς)” (cf. 20.16). 51   For more on almsgiving in Sirach, see Bradley C. Gregory, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach (DCLS 2; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010) 171–290. 52   See John J. Collins, “The Provenance of the Third Sibylline Oracle,” Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies 2 (1974) 1–18. This position has been challenged by Rieuwerd Buitenwerf (Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting: With an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary [SVTP 17; Leiden: Brill, 2003] 124–34), who proposes an Asian provenance (and a date of ca. 80–40 BCE). The case he sets forth, however, is not altogether convincing (see the response by John J. Collins, “The Third Sibyl Revisited,” in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone [eds. E. G. Chazon, et al.; JSJSup 89; Leiden: Brill, 2004] 3–19 [esp. 17–18]). 53   Following Collins, “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition,” 430–36. 54   The “seventh king” of Egypt (Sib. Or. 3.192–193, 318, 608–609) and the “king from the sun” (3.652–656) probably refer to a king in the Ptolemaic line (most likely Philometor) who acts as God’s agent to bring peace on the earth (see Anders Hultgård, “Figures messianiques d’Orient comme sauveurs universels dans le monde gréco-romain,” in La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero romano: atti del Colloquio internazionale su la soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero romano, Roma, 24–28 Settembre 1979 [eds. U. Bianchi and M. J. Vermaseren; EPRO 92; Leiden: Brill, 1982] 734–52 [738]). Elsewhere we read of, what seems to be, a cordial relationship between Philometor and the Jews. Josephus says that, “Philometor and his wife Cleopatra entrust49

50

122

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

BCE with the oracles against the nations (vv. 350–488) being a later first-century BCE addition.55 The work is a piece of Jewish56 propaganda designed to call Gentiles away from idolatry and into the worship of the one true God. For its (mostly) Jewish readership, national identity is reinforced and strengthened through repeated praise of the Jewish people and their way of life. In the denunciation of Gentile vice and the commendation of Jewish virtue, certain types of conduct are singled out. The sins that are castigated are fairly standard: hatred (3.191), deceit (3.191), love of money (3.189, 235), astrological speculations (3.221–233), and homosexual acts (3.185, 596–601, 764). Most egregious, it seems, is idolatry (3.273–279, 547–555, 584–590, 601–607). As a result of these deplorable acts, Gentiles await impending destruction (3.669– 701). Setting up the Jewish people and Jewish lifestyle in contradistinction to the Gentile nations, the sibyl clearly demarcates the values and practices which lead to blessing and peace before God. As she extols these virtues, there are a number of places were she employs the language of good works. For instance, the Jewish people whose blood was shed by the Babylonians are referred to as “good and righteous men” (ἀνδρῶν τ᾿ ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν τε δικαίων, 3.312).57 Similarly, the Jews are included in this designation when the author depicts the eschatological kingdom: “All the paths of the plain and rugged cliffs, lofty mountains, and wild waves of the sea will be easy to climb or sail in those days, for all peace will come upon the land of the good (ἀγαθῶν)” (3.777–780). The sibyl reverts to a more popular usage in 3.469, ed their entire kingdom to the Jews” (Ag. Ap. 2.49), and the Jewish philosopher Aristrobulus is said to have been “the teacher of King Ptolemy (Philometor)” (2 Macc 1.10). 55   See John J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBLDS 13; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974) 28–33; John R. Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200 1.1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 38–39; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 194–95. This view has not gone unchallenged. Due to the prominence of Rome (3.175–190), Valentin Nikiprowetzky (La Troisième Sibylle [Etudes juives 9; Paris: Mouton, 1970] 209–212) located the composition of the Third Sibylline in 42 BCE. A slightly earlier date is posited by John Nolland (“Sib. Or. III.265–94, An Early Maccabean Messianic Oracle,” JTS 30 [1979] 158–67), who places the work during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Erich S. Gruen (“Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the Third Sibylline Oracle,” in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World [ed. M. Goodman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998] 15–36) criticizes all attempts to locate the text in a specific historical and geographical context, arguing that the book is made up of a conglomeration of sources from diverse periods (cf. Martin Goodman, “The Sibylline Oracles,” in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C–A.D. 135) [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987] III.1:618–53 [631]). However, Gruen’s objections have been adequately answered by Collins (“The Third Sibyl Revisited,” 8–15). 56   See James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (JSJSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 181–86. 57  Cf. Sib. Or. 3.665: “But again the kings of the peoples will launch an attack together against this land, bringing doom upon themselves, for they will want to destroy the Temple of the great God and most excellent men (ἀρίστους) when they enter the land.”

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

123

where she predicts the catastrophic destruction awaiting Italy: “You will not be mother of good people (ἀγαθῶν), but nurse of wild beasts.” In this case, “good men” are viewed from the perspective of the Gentiles. The reason why the Jews are a “race of most righteous men” is because “they are always concerned with good counsel and noble works (καλά ἔργα)” (Sib. Or. 3.219– 220). These good deeds, which appear to be synonymous with “righteous deeds” (ἔργα δίκαια, 3.233), are set up in contrast to the evil works of the nations. The specific referent behind these good works appears to be the observance of the Jewish law. For example, they use accurate measurements (3.237; cf. Lev 19.35; Deut 25.15), neighbors do not move the boundaries of neighbors (3.240; cf. Deut 19.14; 27.17), and they provide the appropriate share of the harvest for the poor (3.241–245; cf. Lev 19.9–10; 23.22; Deut 24.19). These acts of law-keeping are placed in a Deuteronomic framework: it is through covenant faithfulness (i.e., good works) that the Jewish people will experience blessing, while the nations will face the wrath of God due to their lawlessness. Over the years, questions have been raised concerning the meaning of “the law” in the Third Sibylline. Given the work’s apologetic focus, many have noted that the sibyl often “treats the law in practice as if it were natural law,” seeking to establish a “common ethic which the Diaspora Jews hoped to share with enlightened Gentiles.”58 Taking this a step further, however, Klaus Berger has claimed that the third book of Sibylline Oracles was one of many Hellenistic Jewish sources which evidence an antinomian perspective (cf. Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Letter of Aristeas, etc), reducing the law to the worship of God and certain social virtues.59 In this reconstruction, the good works of the Jewish author would be very similar to his Gentile neighbors (especially Hellenistic moralists). Recently, Heikki Räisänen has exposed the weakness of this proposal, demonstrating that the oracle views the law – not only the ethical requirements but the ritual and ceremonial portions as well – in a positive light and in a particularistic manner.60 The relevance of the ritual precepts of the law, though concealed, is evident on a close reading of the text. First, the Jewish temple is portrayed in a very positive light throughout the oracle (3.266–267, 280–281, 573–575, 718). In fact, temple worship is said to continue in the utopian state. According to the sibyl, “the sons of the great God will all live peacefully around the Temple” (3.702–703) and 58   John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 123. 59   Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament, Teil 1: Markus und Paraellelen (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972) 1, 38–55. Cf. Moriz Friedländer, Geschichte der jüdischen apologetik als vorgeschichte des christenthums (Zürich: Schmidt, 1903) 48–49. 60   Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (2nd ed.; WUNT 29; Tübingen: Mohr [Sibeck], 1987) 39, followed by C. Marvin Pate, The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law (WUNT 2/114; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 60–61. Cf. also H. Maldwyn Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature (London: Culley, 1910) 62–63.

124

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

“from every land [the nations] will bring incense and gifts to the house of the great God” (3.772–773). The means by which pious men “fully honor the temple of the great God” is through “drink offering and burnt offering and sacred hecatombs, sacrifices of well-fed bulls, unblemished rams, and firstborn sheep, offering,” as well as “fat flocks of lambs” offered as holocausts “on a great altar, in a holy manner” (3.575–579). Another indication that ritual requirements are included in the oracle’s view of the law is the fact that when describing the Babylonian exile, the sibyl explicitly states (concerning the Jews), “Everyone will be offended at your customs (ἐθίμοισιν)” (Sib. Or. 3.272). The offence taken at Jewish practice could hardly be thought to derive from shared ethical standards.61 Instead, this is likely a reference to the derision fueled by certain ceremonial observances (e.g. circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc). Despite these negative sentiments from outsiders, the sibyl assures her readers that when the kingdom of God arrives, the Gentiles, who are now judged by the moral law of God, will convert to the whole law (3.719).62 In this book, therefore, good works have a more particularistic focus, referring not just to the moral virtues shared with the Gentiles, but to a more complete fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. d. Good Works as “Sectarian” Requirements The Dead Sea Scrolls are another Jewish source which provides evidence of the good works terminology. From the materials that were discovered in the caves around Qumran, the language appears in both “sectarian” and “non-sectarian” documents.63 The former will be our primary concern in this section, as it will reveal 61  Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, 365, suggests that, “The author probably believed that his ideas were in agreement with what cultured and educated people in the Graeco-Roman world generally thought in the matter of religion and ethics.” The difference between Jews and pagans, in the mind of the author, was that “the Jews did, whereas the non-Jews did not, put into practice the requirements of the ethical and religious theory shared by both groups.” The problem according to the sibyl, however, is not a lack of religious practice by the pagans, but a lack of appropriate religious practice which accords with the standards of God. 62   One passage that might be thought to contradict this is Sib. Or. 3.756–759: “King will be friend to king to the end of the age. The Immortal in the starry heaven will put in effect a common law (κοινόν . . . νόμον) for men throughout the whole earth for all that is done among wretched mortals.” Given that this “common law” will be put into effect throughout the whole world, one might conclude that the sibyl is describing a general ethical code devoid of ritual precepts. But this is unlikely to be the meaning of “common law.” Since the law originally given by God to the Jewish people was holy (Sib. Or. 3.768), there is no reason why the nature or content of the law should change at the eschaton. (There is nothing in the oracle to suggest that it was or is deficient in any way.) What would be put into effect at the eschaton is the observance of the Jewish law by all people (thus making it a “common law”). 63  Various guidelines have been constructed in an effort to differentiate “sectarian” from “non-sectarian” literature within the Dead Sea Scrolls (see, e.g., Carol A. Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters [eds. W. H. Propp, et al.; Biblical and Judaic Studies 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990] 167–87; Devorah Dimant,

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

125

the manner in which good works could be extended to include not just the Mosaic Law, but more fully, a “sectarian” group’s interpretation of the Law. We will begin with two “non-sectarian” texts as a way of introducing the discussion: 4QNon-Canonical Psalm A (4Q380) and Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521). Even though these works were probably not composed within the community, they were part of the literature in use among the yaḥad communities. In this way, they were likely read according to a particular understanding of good works and possibly even served to inform their own “sectarian” views on the topic. The first text which makes brief use of good works terminology is 4QNon-Canonical Psalm A (4Q380). Paleographically, 4Q380 dates from the middle to late Hasmonean period (100–75 BCE), but it appears to have originated sometime earlier, either in the late Persian or early Hellenistic era.64 Aside from its date, the character of the work also suggests that it was composed outside of Qumran.65 The psalm extols God’s choice of Jerusalem as the place of his dwelling (4Q380 1 i 1–6) and describes the joy of those who participate in his worship (4Q380 1 i 7–12). It is in the second column – which records the ending of the psalm – that the language of good works appears. As part of the psalmist’s description of God’s reward for obedience “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 [eds. D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman; STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995] 23–58 [esp. 27–30]). Some of these approaches have been met with serious reservations in more recent scholarship, suggesting that alternative methods may be in order (see Philip R. Davies, “Sects from Texts: On the Problems of Doing a Sociology of the Qumran Literature,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 [eds. J. G. Campbell, et al.; LSTS 52; London: T&T Clark, 2005] 69–82 [71–73]; Henry W. Morisada Rietz, “Identifying Compositions and Traditions of the Qumran Community: The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a Test Case,” in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions [eds. M. T. Davis and B. A. Strawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007] 29–52; Jutta Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement [STDJ 105; Leiden: Brill, 2013] 42–49). The character of each of the “sectarian” documents with which we will be working are fairly well established, regardless of the method(s) of identification. 64   For the evidence of this dating, see Eileen M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (HSS 28; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 21–25. A further consideration for the dating of 4Q380 is the textual relationship between frg. 1 i 7–11 and MT Ps 106.2–5. If 4Q380 psalm has influenced Psalm 106 (as argued by George J. Brooke, “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran,” RevQ 54 [1989] 267–92, and Mika S. Pajunen, “The Textual Connection between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls [eds. D. Nóra, et al.; FRLANT 239; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012] 186–202), then it would help to situate the date even more firmly. 65   See Eileen M. Schuller, “4Q380 and 4Q381: Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (eds. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 90–99 (97). The non-sectarian origins of 4Q380 are deduced from the fact that it does not contain distinctive sectarian theology and the frequency of the tetragrammaton, which most sectarian compositions tend to avoid (on this tendency among sectarian works, see Hartmut Stegemann, “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten,” in Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu [ed. M. Delcor; BETL 46; Paris: Duculot, 1978] 195–217).

126

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

and punishment for disobedience, he writes, “For he indeed kept it ‘m[ . . . ] which are to all the children of Israel [ . . . ] Your hand will [not] save you. For strength is to [him . . . ] the one66 who does good ( [h]bw+ h#w() and haters of the wicked. How [ long] will you delight to do evil lest injus[tice] perish” (4Q380 1 ii 2–6).67 The psalm is addressed to “his chosen ones” and “the people of his inheritance” (4Q380 1 i 11-12), a reference to the people of Israel (cf. Deut 4.20, 37; 9.26, 29; 10.15; 14.2). It is the nation that is expected to “do good,” an expression which seems to be equivalent to observing God’s words (4Q380 1 ii 2, 5). What is interesting, however, is that despite the fact that the author works from a deuteronomic framework where good is rewarded and evil is punished, his understanding of God’s recompense is carried out on an individual level: “It is clearly the expectation of the psalmist that the disobedient people will be punished for their deeds but the judgment is restricted to them, in other words, their actions will not draw a calamity upon the whole nation, only themselves.”68 Thus, similar to the “sectarian” ideology present at Qumran, good works in 4Q380 serve as a way of demarcating the true people of God (from among the nation of Israel) who will be spared at the final judgment. A second text where the good works language appears is 4Q521, often referred to as the Messianic Apocalypse.69 This composition probably dates to the first half of the first century BCE,70 but its provenance has left scholars divided. There is con  Some understand the text to be describing the activities of God: “your hand will [not] save you, for the strength of [your] God does good. And those (filled with) wicked hatred, how long will you delight to do evil?” (so, e.g., Géza Vermès, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English [Rev. ed; London: Penguin, 2004] 320). Such a reading is only achieved, however, through a strong imposition onto the Hebrew text. It seems better to view this as a reference to human action (“the one who does good”, with Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 2: 4Q274–11Q31 [Leiden: Brill, 1999] 753). 67   The text and translation is from Eileen M. Schuller, “Non-Canonical Psalms,” in Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (eds. E. Eshel, et al.; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997) 75–172 (78–81); cf. also idem, “Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms (4Q380 and 4Q381),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 1997) 1–39 (4–5). 68   Mika S. Pajunen, “The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (eds. H. von Weissenberg, et al.; BZAW 419; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011) 347–67 (357–58). 69   The name is actually a misnomer. In terms of genre, most recognize that 4Q521 is an eschatological psalm (see Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “4Q521 2 II—Ein eschatologischer Psalm,” in Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Aleksy Klawek [ed. Z. J. Kapera; Qumranica Mogilanensia 15; Kraków: Enigma Press, 1998] 151–68; although see the defense of this designation by Émile Puech, “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues [eds. D. W. Parry and E. C. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999] 545–65 [551–52]). 70   On paleographic considerations, the work has been dated to 100–80 BCE (see Émile Puech, 66

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

127

siderable debate over whether it represents a sectarian,71 pre-sectarian,72 or non-sectarian73 work. For our purposes, we will treat it as non-sectarian in origin. Since its publication in 1992, much has been written about 4Q521, particularly because of its connection with New Testament ideas. Most noteworthy is its description of the messiah(s) and its explicit reference to the resurrection of the dead. Our concern here, however, is with its use of good works terminology. There are two places where the good works language appears in the Messianic Apocalypse. The first, which is located in fragment 2, is part of a very difficult textual reconstruction. Using the Hebrew text reconstructed by Puech, the text could be translated, “And for[ev]er I will cleave [to those who] hope, and in his kindness […] and the fru[it of a] good [wor]k ( bGwG+ hG[#(mG)74 will not be delayed for anyone and the glorious things which have not been done, the Lord will do just as he s[aid]” (4Q521 2 ii 9–11).75 Such a rendering suggests that there might be some connection between “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521),” RevQ 15 [1992] 475–522 [480]), but the radiocarbon analysis dated the text to 39 BCE – 66 CE (see Gregory L. Doudna, “Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment [eds. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998] 430–71 [460, 470]). This evidence only provides a terminus ante quem, however, since the text is clearly a copy of an earlier exemplar (note the supralinear words in fragment 8, which suggest scribal corrections). 71  E.g., Puech, “Une apocalypse messianique,” 515–19; Frank Moore Cross, “Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran and the Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246),” in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (eds. D. W. Parry and S. D. Ricks; STDJ 20; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 1–13 (4); cf. also Craig A. Evans, “Qumran’s Messiah: How Important Is He?,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 135–49 (137 n.  17). 72  E.g., Johannes Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran (WUNT 2/104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 379, 388; Torleif Elgvin, “Wisdom With and Without Apocalyptic,” in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo, 1998 (eds. D. K. Falk, et al.; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 15–38 (18); cf. George J. Brooke, “From Jesus to the Early Christian Communities: Modes of Sectarianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008) (eds. A. D. Roitman, et al.; STDJ 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 413–34 (428–29), who uses the designation, “nascent sectarianism.” 73   E.g., Géza Vermès, “Qumran Forum Miscellanea I,” JJS 43 (1992) 299–305 (303–304); Roland Bergmeier, “Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 f2, II, 1–13,” ZDMG 145 (1995) 38–48 (44–45); Géza G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library (STDJ 47; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 99–100; cf. Årstein Justnes, The Time of Salvation: An Analysis of 4QApocryphon of Daniel ar (4Q246), 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521 2), and 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a) (EUS 23, Theology, vol. 893; New York: Peter Lang, 2009) 273–77 (“extra-sectarian”). 74   Given the lacuna, it may be possible to reconstruct the plural ( bw+ y#(m), see Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (2nd ed.; Leiden/ Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1996) 394: “fruit [of] good [deeds].” 75   The Hebrew text is from Émile Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521– 4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) (DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997) 1–38 (10). In his explanation of this reconstruction, Puech notes, “Après le pe, trace d’un jambage, ensuite lamed (pied), ‘aleph et yod

128

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

good works and divine recompense. This is evident by the reference to good work(s) producing (note the use of “fruit,” [ y]rGp) some kind of personal ( #y)l) and undelayed action of God.76 On the other hand, the text is too fragmentary to make any firm conclusions. It could just as easily be reconstructed in another way.77 The second reference to good works in 4Q521 comes from fragment 7. Somewhat more certainty exists concerning the reading of good works in this section, although the text as a whole is still fragmented. It reads, [ . . . ] look at all t[hat the Lord has made, the eart]h and all that is in it, the seas [and all that is in them,] and all of the ponds of water and rivers. vacat [… al]l [of you] who do good ( bw+h tG) My#w(hG) before the Lor[d, who are blessed and no]t like those who are curse[d]. They are destined to die, [when] the Reviver [rai]ses the dead of his people (4Q521 7 ii 1-6).

What remains uncertain about these good works is their point of reference. The fragmentary nature of the text leaves us only to offer conjectures. But given its presence in the Qumran collection, it would not be a stretch to think that community members would have understood these good works as referring to the “sectarian” practices regulated by the group’s interpretation of the Law. Moving from “non-sectarian” to “sectarian” literature, there are a few references to the good works language within the documents composed among the community.78 The phrase “to do what is good (and right) in the eyes of YHWH” is a common expression that appears in a number of “sectarian” writings. Probably the best known of these occurrences is from the preamble of the Community Rule. The texts begins, “To the [ . . . ]šym79 for his life [the Book of the Rul]e of the Community. In certains. Juste auparavant, il était possible de voir sur l’original des traces de base de lettre (haute sous la ligne) précédée d’une haste et de deux traits à angle droit; une lecture bw+ rend compte de ces traces et paraît recommandée par le contexte” (11). Because of the difficulty in reconstructing the text, some translations simply leave a lacuna (so, e.g., García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls, 1045; Michael O. Wise, et al., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (2nd ed.; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) 421; Vermès, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 413). 76   Similar language is found in Jer 32.19: “rewarding all according to their ways and according to the fruit of their deeds ( wyll(m yrpk),” and Tg. Neof. Gen 4.8: “Cain responded and answered Abel, ‘I think that the world was not created in mercy, and it is not guided by the fruits of good works ( Nyb+ Nydbw( yryp).” Cf. also Isa 3.10; Jer 17.10; 21.14; Mic 7.13; Wis 3.15. 77   See Justnes, Time of Salvation, 232 who proposes something closer to Isa 46.13 (cf. 1QpHab 7.10), which reads, “my salvation will not tarry” (rx)t )l yt(w#t). 78   pace Martin McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible. A Light on the New Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 15: “Qumran does not have the phraseology of the Gospel, such as merit, good works, this world, world to come, Father in heaven” (emphasis added). 79   Both 1QS and the parallel version in 4Q255 have a lacuna at this point. Various attempts at reconstructing the original have been made, e.g., Yigael Yadin, “Three Notes on the Dead Sea Scrolls,” IEJ 6 (1956) 158–62; Jean Carmignac, “Conjecture sur la première ligne de la Règle de la Communauté,” RevQ 2 (1959–60) 85–87; Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 111–12; Philip S. Alexander and Géza Vermès, Qumran Cave 4.XIX: Serekh ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts (DJD 26; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 32.

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

129

order to seek God with [all the heart and soul] doing what is good ( bw+h tw#(lG) and right before him, as he commanded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets” (1QS 1.1-3).80 The phrase “to do what is good and right in his eyes” is drawn from the Deuteronomic history.81 The more common expression for approved behavior in this literature is “to do what is right (r#y) in the eyes of YHWH.”82 This stands in contrast to behavior that is not approved, which is described with the phrase “to do what is evil ( (r) in the eyes of YHWH.”83 In some places, however, both “right” and “good” appear together (Deut 6.18; 12.28; 13.19 [LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch]; cf. 2 Chr 14.1 [ET = 14.2]; 31.20), where the expression is reversed and means adherence to the Deuteronomic law (cf. 1 Sam 12.23; Jer 26.14; Psa 25.8; 2 Chr 31.20). Weinfeld notes that in such instances bw+ has been added “for stylistic reasons, in order to create measure for measure,” pointing out that “[i]n the Second Temple period there was a tendency for pleonasms in these expressions.”84 In 1QS, what is “good and right” in the eyes of God is defined as that which “he commanded through Moses and through his servants the prophets” (1.3).85 It is   The Hebrew text and translation is that of Elisha Qimron and James H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community (1QS),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/ Westminster John Knox, 1994) 1–51 (6–7). 81   As noted by William H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline: Translation and Notes (BASORSup 10/12; New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951) 7; Preben Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction (STDJ 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957) 44–45. Rather than a direct citation from Deuteronomy or even a free use of a biblical idiom, this appears to represent an allusion to the language and framework of the deuteronomist: “1QS does not allude to a specific biblical text but reflects broad Deuteronomistic influence.” Thus, “in order to fully appreciate the passage in which the Deuteronomistic language is employed, the reader must recognize the source text(s) and bring an understanding of the original context and meaning to bear upon the passage in 1QS” (Shani Tzoref, “The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism [ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012] 203–34 [225 n.  85]). 82  Deut 12.25; 13.19 [ET = 13.18]; 21.9; 1 Kgs 11.33, 38; 14.8; 15.5, 11; 22.43; 2 Kgs 12.3 [ET = 12.2]; 14.3; 15.3, 34; 16.2; 18.3; 22.2. The only other occurrence of this phrase outside of deuteronomic literature (and the works that were dependent upon it, viz., 1–2 Chronicles) is Exod 15.26: “If you listen carefully to the voice of YHWH your God, and do what is right in his eyes ( h#(t wyny(b r#yhw), and pay attention to his commandments, and keep all of his statutes, then I will not bring any of the diseases upon you which I brought upon the Egyptians.” Moshe Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972]) suggested that this might be a “Deuteronomic reworking” (335). 83   Deut 4.25; 9.18; 17.2; 31.29; Judg 2.11; 3.7, 12; 4.1; 6.1; 10.6; 13.1; 1 Sam 15.19; 2 Sam 12.9; 1 Kgs 11.6; 14.22; 15.26, 34; 16.19, 25, 30; 21.20, 25; 22.53 [ET 22.52]; 2 Kgs 3.2; 8.18, 27; 13.2, 11; 14.24; 15.9, 18, 24, 28; 17.2, 17; 21.2, 6, 15, 16, 20; 23.32, 37; 24.9, 19. 84   Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 347. Cf. 2 Chr 14.1 with the parallel in 1 Kgs 15.11, which only has r#y. 85   Some have argued that the reference to Moses and the Prophets is a reference to a dual canon (so, e.g., Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the 80

130

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

noteworthy that what is commanded is not sent to Moses and the prophets but through (dyb) them; they are God’s mediators. The nature of these commands would appear to be God’s law. This is suggested not only from the use of hwc (“[God] commanded”), but also the fact that in some later texts of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 2 Kgs 17.13b; Ezra 9.10–11; Dan 9.10; 2 Chr 29.25), “the prepositional phrase [dyb] has the specialized meaning of mediating divine law.”86 This is confirmed by the similar language of Pesher Hosea (4Q166), in which the pesherist interprets Hosea 2.10 [ET = 2.8] to mean that the prophets were mediators of God’s commands ( hwcm). He notes that the people “ate [and] were satisfied, and they forgot God, who had f[ed them, . . . ] his ordinances ( wytwwcm) they cast behind them, which he had sent to them [by the hand of (dyb)]87 his servants the prophets” (4Q166 ii 3–5).88 So “to do what is good (and right) in the eyes of God” means to observe the commands which were mediated through Moses and the prophets. But there is more to “doing good (and right)” than just obeying God’s law. It is the particular type of obedience that accords with the community’s interpretation of the law that is at issue. This is clear not only from the narrow understanding of “good”

Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995] 165; Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Die Qumrantexte und das biblische Kanonproblem,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament – Gestalt und Wirkung. Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag [eds. S. Beyerle, et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999] 251–71 [256]; Peter W. Flint, “Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Evidence from Qumran,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov [eds. S. M. Paul, et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003] 269–304 [290]). But, as Armin Lange (“‘The Law, the Prophets, and the Other Books of the Fathers’ (Sir, Prologue): Canonical Lists in Ben Sira and Elsewhere,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006 [eds. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2008] 55–80) points out, “the pairing of Moses and the prophets does not designate two different literary entities which could be construed as a dual canon, but one chain of halakhic authorities which follow each other” (61–62). 86   Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 44. For more on this particular expression in prophetic literature, see Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 926–27. 87   Although there is a lacuna at this point, we can be fairly confident about its reading. A few scholars have posed alternative restorations, e.g., ypb (John M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158– 4Q186) [DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968] 31), or lwq ypb (John Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’,” RevQ 7 [1970] 163–276 [200]), but most prefer dyb (so Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books [CBQMS 8; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979] 141; Jassen, Mediating the Divine, 44–45 n.  20). 88   The text and translation is that of Maurya P. Horgan, “Hosea Pesher 1 (4Q166 – 4QpHosa),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 2002) 113–18 (116–17).

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

131

within 1QS, but also from an examination of other occurrences of this phrase at Qumran.89 One such example is found in the Hodayot (1QHa), which states, And I kno[w that you are a God ]gracious and compassionate, patient and abounding in kindness and faithfulness, one who forgives transgression and unfaithful[ness  ], moved to pity concerning a[ll the iniquity of those who love] you and keep [your] commandments, [those] who have returned to you in steadfastness and (with) a perfect heart [. . .] to serve you [in truth and to do what is] good ( bw+[h tw#(l]) in your sight.90

In this passage, “[to do what is] good” ( bw+[h tw#(l]91) is equated with returning to God. Such language is the key to understanding the meaning of “doing good.” Within the community/ies of the yaḥad, entrance into group membership was equivalent to entrance into the “covenant” ( tyrb). This experience was described as a “return ( bw#) to the law of Moses” (1QS 5.8; CD 15.9, 12; 16.1, 5; cf. 4Q171 ii 2-3 “returnees to the Torah”). What this meant for the community was fulfillment of the Mosaic Law according to “sectarian” standards. As 1QS 5.9 specifies, the concern involved not just Torah but “all that has been revealed from it [i.e., Torah] to the Sons of Zadok,92 priests who preserve the covenant and seek his will, and to the multitude of the men of their covenant.” So “what is required is obedience to the law as understood and interpreted by the community.”93 89   There are a few other occurrences of this expression in the literature from Qumran (e.g., 11Q19 55.14; 59.16–17; cf. 4Q502 136 2), but they do not provide us with much clear evidence about the content of the “good.” 90  1QHa viii 34–36. The Hebrew text and translation is adapted from Hartmut Stegemann, et al., Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota with incorporation of 1QHodayot b and 4QHodayota–f (DJD 40; Oxford: Clarendon, 2009) 108–17. Cf. 1QHa iv 35–36: “Strengthen [his] loi[ns that he may sta] nd against spirits [ . . . and that he may w]alk in everything that you love and despise everything that [you] hate, [and do] what is good ( bw+GhG [tw#(lw]) in your eyes.” 91   The lacuna at line 36 is difficult to reconstruct. Stegemann and Schuller (1QHodayota [DJD 40], 116) note that, “Between Kdbw(l and bw+ . . . about 14 letters are destroyed.” They suggest that the original may have read either bw+h tw#(l hbh)b Kdbw(l or bw+h tw#(l hwg(b Kdbw(l. We have chosen to restore the text as bw+h tw#(lw tm)b Kdbw(l, in accordance with similar language in line 25. Regardless of the solution adopted, most recognize that bw+h tw#(l (“to do what is good”) was contained in the original reading. 92   The reference to “the Sons of Zadok, priests who preserve the covenant and seek his will” is absent from the parallel fragments from Cave 4 (4Q256, 4Q258), which read: “all that has been revealed from the law in accordance with the opinion of the council of the men of the Yaḥad (dxyh y#n) tc().” 93   Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 109. A further example of this found in 4QMMT. The situation behind 4QMMT is that the writer(s) want(s) to convince the recipients of the correctness of the community’s halakhic observance (which flows out of their interpretation of the law). In this vein, he/they conclude(s) the composition by stating, “We have (indeed) sent you some of the precepts of the Torah according to our decision, for your welfare and the welfare of your people. For we have seen (that) you have wisdom and knowledge of the Torah. Consider all these things and ask Him that He strengthen your will and remove from you the plans of evil and the device of Belial so that you may rejoice at the end of time, finding that some of our practices are correct. And this will be counted as a virtuous deed of yours, since you will be doing what is righteous and good ( Ktw#(b bw+hw r#yh) in His eyes, for your own

132

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

Another reference to the language of good works also comes out of the preamble in 1QS. The text reads, To the [ . . . ]šym for his life [the Book of the Rul]e of the Community. In order to seek God with [all the heart and soul] doing what is good and right before him, as he commanded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets, and in order to love all that he has chosen, and to hate all that he has rejected, keeping away from all evil and adhering to all good works ( bw+ y#(m).94

This marks the only place in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the specific phrase “good works” actually appears.95 The general concept, however, is quite pervasive, especially within “sectarian” literature. According to 1QS, before entrance into the yaḥad each person is examined “according to his insight and his works ( wy#(mw) in the Torah” (1QS 5.21; cf. 6.14–18; CD 13.11). Furthermore, subsequent promotion within the group is evaluated on the basis of a person’s deeds (1QS 5.23–24). Presumably, this refers to “good deeds,” which are the opposite of the “wicked deeds” ( (#r y#(m) that lead to damnation (1QS 2.5–7). In fact, a similar dualism is set up in the preamble of 1QS: “keeping away from all evil ( (r) and adhering to all good works ( bw+ y#(m).” In this passage, “ bw+ is,” as Tukasi notes, “whatever Moses and the Prophets disclosed as the will of God; (r is whatever is in sharp contrast to the disclosure.” But more than that, in the Community Rule, “[t]he meaning of bw+ is stretched to include the community’s interpretations of the Mosaic and prophetic revelations with the approval of the authoritative figures within the community.”96 2. Diverse Outcomes, Common Function In the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible, it is uncommon to find a person’s “deeds” ( My#(m or some equivalent) being referred to in a moral or ethical sense.97 This tendency did not become prominent in Jewish literature until the Hellenistic era.98 During the Second Temple period, this language – often communicated through a welfare and for the welfare of Israel” (4Q398 2 ii 2–8; trans. Qimron and Strugnell). From this it is clear that doing what is “right and good” in 4QMMT is the same as following the group’s interpretation of the law. 94   1QS 1.1–5. The Hebrew text and translation is that of Qimron and Charlesworth, Rule of the Community, 6–7. 95   Unless, of course, the reconstruction of 4Q521 2 ii 10 (see above) is correct. 96   Emmanuel O. Tukasi, “Dualism and Penitential Prayer in the Rule of the Community (1QS),” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. G. Xeravits; LSTS 76; London: T&T Clark, 2010) 166–87 (175). Further, Tukasi notes, “The dualism is an ideological construct by which the Rule legitimized (through its paradigm of bw+) the existence of its community and displayed contempt (by its disapproval of (r) for those outside of its community” (177). 97   This usage is found primarily in the later portions of the Hebrew scriptures. Examples include: Isa 29.15; 59.6; Jer 50.29; Amos 8.7; Mic 8.16; Jon 3.10; Ps 28.4; 33.15; 62.13 [ET = 62.12]; Prov 24.12. 98   Among a number of instances in the LXX and Pseudepigrapha, the following could be listed: 1 Esd 1.21; 4.37, 39; 8.86; Tob 4.14; Wis 9.12; Sir 11.21; 16.12; 35.24; Pss. Sol. 2.16, 34; 1 En. 1.9;

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

133

dualism which marked out “good” and “bad” deeds – is frequently used in relation to the vertical relationship between humans and the divine. The outcome of good works might change depending upon the theological commitments represented by the author and his/her community, but in each case the role or function of good works remained fairly consistent: by “doing good” or by performing “good works” (which usually referred to one’s adherence to the Mosaic Law, however it was defined), one’s standing before God was in some way affected ­– whether in the achievement of a blessed life or in the final vindication and entrance into eschatological salvation. In what follows, we will return to the texts discussed above, noting how they display diverse outcomes with a common function. The book of Tobit focuses on the present value of good deeds in the life of a Diaspora Jew. Most noteworthy in this regard is the way that Raphael extols the value of almsgiving (one form of “doing good,” cf. Tob 12.7–8). He states that the reason why almsgiving is so important is because it “rescues (one) from death and purges away every sin” (Tob 12.9; cf. 4.10; Sir 3.30; Dan 4.27 [LXX]). It must be recognized that life after death is not envisioned by the author of Tobit. For this reason, the task of good deeds in rescuing a person from death and expiating sin has nothing to do with post-mortem judgment.99 Instead, these acts directly affect the quality of one’s present life (cf. 12.9). This fact, however, should not lead us to overemphasize the (individual) salvific role of good deeds in the theology of Tobit.100 The soteriology of the book is far-removed from a mechanistic system where good deeds automatically procure reward, and righteous conduct is not the only basis upon which blessings are bestowed.101 Clearly, the early struggles of Tobit – who is nonetheless continually portrayed as a righteous man – are an indication that (individual) righteousness does not always receive a prompt reward.102 Likewise, 98.6; 100.7; 101.3; 102.6; T. Ab. (recension B) 9.8; Jos. Asen. 28.3; L.A.B. 3.10; 4 Ezra 7.35; 8.33, 36; 2 Bar. 14.7, 12; 51.7. 99   Cf. Moore, Tobit, 33: “Consistent with the book’s deuteronomistic perspective, any rewards for being or doing good must be given in this life. Therefore, it is dying rather than death, that creates problems in Tobit; that is, it is Tobit’s and Sarah’s ‘quality of life,’ not their nonexistence after death, that poses the problems.” 100   Charles L. Quarles, “The New Perspective and Means of Atonement in Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period,” CTR 2 (2005) 39–56 (47), comes very close to this as he states: “Tobit affirms a soteriology in which individuals can evade divine punishment for sin in this life through good works, particularly almsgiving.” Adding further, “Even if quality of life in the present existence and a comfortable and dignified death are all that is sought through salvation, almsgiving remains the means of that salvation. Whatever the ultimate promise of salvation might have been for the author of Tobit, righteous deeds were clearly the basis and prerequisite for it.” 101   See Micah D. Kiel, The “Whole Truth”: Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit (LSTS 82; London: T&T Clark, 2012). 102   So while it is common for scholars to take the basic theological emphasis of Tobit as being that of the Deuteronomic theology of retribution (so, e.g., A. A. Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3–11,” CBQ 41 [1979] 380–89; Will Soll, “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology,” CBQ 51 [1989] 209–31), the question of the origins of individual misfortunes is not address in Tobit

134

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

while the story does evidence personal reward for individual obedience,103 there is also a national aspect that cannot be overlooked. The obedience of Tobit is first and foremost covenant faithfulness: every good deed that Tobit performs is as an observant Israelite who is in covenant with God and whose conduct is (ultimately) facilitating national restoration for those Jews who remain in exile (cf. Tob 13.3–6).104 So good deeds in the book of Tobit facilitate (and are a prerequisite for) a life of blessing, but they are performed as part of an individual’s responsibility to the covenant. What we can conclude from the evidence in Tobit – particularly the additions that appear in the Greek recensions – is that at least some Jews were influenced by the popular Hellenistic language of good works and were comfortable employing the terminology for religious and ethical purposes related to the service of God and his people. In fact, the book provides a clear example of how the Jewish standard of good deeds might depart radically from that of the wider society: whereas Tobit (and God) viewed the burial of the dead as a good deed (Tob 12.13 [GI]), the act had been outlawed by pagan society (1.16–20).105 The book of Tobit is thus an important witness to the good works language being adopted and imbued with a meaning that was markedly different from those outside the Jewish community. Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles offers a similar picture of the benefit good works play in the present life. Rather than a resurrection or post-mortem judgment, the sibyl envisions salvation in this world.106 Much of the oracle has a nationalistic focus, with the final golden age being a time of the universal acknowledgement and worship of God and the vindication of his people, Israel. As such, the individual aspect of salvation is minimal, yet not altogether absent. Similar to the book of Tobit, the good works of a Jewish individual cannot be separated from his/her covenant relationship. Through obedience and fidelity to God’s commands (i.e., good works), a person (along with the rest of the Jewish people) will experience well-be(Anathea Portier-Young, “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit: Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings,” CBQ 63 [2001] 35–54 [36–37]). 103   As pointed out by Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 40. 104   Cf. Philip R. Davies, “Didactic Stories,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (eds. D. A. Carson, et al.; WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 99–133 (112–13). 105   An incident recorded by Josephus also reveals how good works could simultaneously receive both a positive and negative assessment. When Judas and Matthias contemplated tearing down the golden eagle which Herod erected above the temple gate (which they considered the preservation or observation of the Jewish law), they realized that such actions would result in death; nevertheless, the threat of death was alleviated somewhat by the fact that their death would come “as a result of good works (καλοῖς ἔργοις)” (Josephus, Ant. 17.154). 106   Pace Martin Hengel, “Messianische Hoffnung und politischer ‘Radikalismus’ in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen Aufstandes unter Trajan 115–117 n. Chr.,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979 (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr, 1983) 655–86 (656 n.  2), who cites Sib. Or. 3.705ff (and 4.178–190) as an example of just such a belief.

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

135

ing in this world.107 Thus, much like Tobit, the work provides a clear example of a recognizably Jewish usage of the good works terminology. Despite the fact that this type of apologetic literature is designed to seek common ground between Jews and Gentiles by focusing on shared values, there is a clear distinction in the usage of this language. Rather than a communal focus in which the standard of the “good” is evaluated by its benefit to society, good works in the Jewish Sibylline oracles are theologically oriented; that is, the reason why they are designated as “good” is because they are in accord with God’s standards of covenant faithfulness. An alternative model, where good works factor into one’s future life, is evident in books 1–2 of the Sibylline Oracles. Here the terminology does carry important theological weight pertaining to final vindication. In the first two Sibylline books, the good works language is used to describe the conduct of those who will ultimately experience eschatological salvation before God. Obedience to the requirements of God receives a much greater emphasis in the discussion of eschatological salvation than does the elect status of the people of Israel.108 According to the sibyl, “all will pass through the blazing river and the unquenchable flame,” where “the righteous will be saved, but the impious will then be destroyed for all ages” (Sib. Or. 2.252– 255). What determines the eternal destinies of individuals is the manner in which one has conducted his or her life: the wicked “will repay threefold what evil deed they committed” (2.304; cf. 2.214–219), “but as for the others, as many as were concerned with justice and noble deeds (καλὰ ἔργα), and piety and most righteous thoughts, angels will lift them through the blazing river and bring them to light and to life without care” (2.313–316).109 Hence, good works play an indispensible role in attaining eschatological salvation. In the “sectarian” literature from Qumran, good works play an important role both in the present and future lives of individuals.110 As we have already discussed, 107   Richard J. Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (eds. D. A. Carson, et al.; WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 135–87 (186–87). Cf. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 123, who describes the religious stance of the third Sibylline oracle as “covenantal nomism.” 108   Cf. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? 87–89. 109   Similarly, in Apoc. Ezek. 2.10–11 good (and bad) deeds are the basis of judgment following the resurrection of the dead: “In the same way the body is connected to the soul and the soul to the body, to convict (them) of (their) common deeds. And the judgment becomes final for both body and soul, for the works (ἔργων) they have done whether good or bad (εἴτε ἀγαθῶν εἴτε φαύλων)” (Greek text: James R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocyphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study [JSPSup 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994]; translation: James R. Mueller and Stephen E. Robinson, “Apocryphon of Ezekiel,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments [ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983] 487–95). 110   The interchange between the benefit of good works in this life versus their reward in the world to come is also illustrated in the Jewish Targums (on good works in the Palestinian Targums, see Martin McNamara, “Some Targum Themes,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism [eds. D. A. Carson, et al.; WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001] 303–56 [332–36]). Dating after the composition of 1 Peter, these Aramaic translations indicate some variation regarding whether good works would generate reward in this

136

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

not only is entrance into the yaḥad dependent upon one’s deeds (1QS 5.21; cf. 6.14– 18; CD 13.11), subsequent promotion (or demotion) within the group was based on how a person lived (1QS 5.23–24). On the other hand, good works are just as important at the end of days. This is evident in the Messianic Apocalypse, where good works are said to be the key to attaining the final resurrection for the righteous (4Q521 7 ii 1-6). In this passage, both blessing and punishment are meted out at the resurrection. The key is that resurrection appears to be the reward granted to the righteous.111 Good works thus play an important role in the final judgment (cf. 4Q385 2 1–10). This dual function of good works comes together most clearly in the concluding portion of 4QMMT. The author(s) encourages the reader to consider the deeds ( My#(m) of the kings of Israel. It is said that “whoever among them feared [the To] rah was delivered from troubles” (4Q398 11–13.23–24). David is held up as the epitome of this propositional scheme, for he was “a man of righteous deeds,” who was consequently “delivered from many troubles and was forgiven” (4Q398 14–17 ii 25–26).112 But it was not just benefit in this life that was received by those who were devoted to good works. The paraenetic prescriptions at Qumran are also crucial at the eschatological judgment. The author hopes that his addressee might follow his instructions, for in doing so the reader is told, it “will be counted to you as righteousness, in that you will have done what is right and good before him” (4Q398 14–17.31). This language of being “counted (or reckoned) as righteousness” finds parallels in biblical literature (e.g., Gen 15.6; Ps 106.31 [LXX 105.31]; cf. Jub 14.6; 1 Macc 2.52). But unlike these earlier texts, 4QMMT considers the prospect with reference to an eschatological judgment. For this righteousness will lead the reader to “rejoice at the end of time” (4Q398 14–17.30).113 world (Tg. Neof. Gen 48.22; Tg. Onq. Deut 7.10; Tg. Neb. Isa 26.20; 57.9) or in the world to come (Tg. Ket. Eccl 2.11; 9.10; cf. Tg. Neof. Num 23.23; 24.23). Sometimes these ideas were brought together so that good works produce both earthly blessing and eternal reward. A good example is Abram’s consternation over the requital of his good deeds as recorded in the Palestinian Targum of Genesis 15. After defeating four kings and capturing nine encampments, Abram registers a sense of concern: “Woe, now, is me! Perhaps I have received the reward of the precepts in this world and there is no portion for me in the world to come.” In response, God sends a word of prophecy to the patriarch, with the following message: “Do not fear, Abram, for although many legions are allied and come against you to kill (you), my Memra will be a shield for you; and it will be a protection for you in this world and although I delivered up your enemies before you in this world, the reward of your good works ( )yb+ Kydbw() is prepared for you before me in the world to come” (Tg. Neof. Gen 15.1; trans. Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis [ArBib 1A; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992] 93–94. Cf. Tg. Neof. Gen 4.8; Tg. Ket. Ruth 2.12. 111   Cf. Benjamin Wold, “Agency and Raising the Dead in 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and 4Q521 2 ii,” ZNW 103 (2012) 1–19 (12). 112   The Hebrew text and translation is that of Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʻaśe ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 60–63. 113   Similar language is used by Paul in Romans 4. After citing the example of Abraham in Gen 15, he states, “Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteous-

Chapter Five:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism

137

C. Conclusion Our survey of good works language in ancient Judaism has led to a number of important observations. First, we discovered that, like most inhabitants of the Greek East, ancient Jews were familiar with and sometimes employed the terminology of good works in a socio-political manner; that is to say, they understood the phrase “doing good” as a reference to the act of contributing to the benefit of the larger civic community (usually through monetary donations). In this way, there is some consistency in the use of this language. However, it is the Jewish departure from this traditional usage that is of most interest. In literature from the Second Temple period, the language of good works was commonly assigned a theological meaning. This innovation, which was similar to the reappopriation of the terminology within Hellenistic moral philosophy, meant that both the point of reference and the standard of goodness was redefined. Departing from the traditional focus on the social aspect of good deeds, wherein conduct was defined according to its benefit to the community, Jewish authors began to understand “doing good” as a reference to the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law (however the community defined this task), an act which in some way was thought to affect one’s relationship with God. In this way, the horizontal focus of good works was supplemented with a new vertical dimension. How this trend of appropriating and redefining the language of good works was carried on in literature from the New Testament will be the topic of our next chapter.

ness (λογίζεται . . . εἰς δικαιοσύνην)” (Rom 4.4–5; NRSV). On the eschatological nature of both Paul’s and 4QMMT’s view of justification, see N. T. Wright, “Justification and Eschatology in Paul and Qumran: Romans and 4QMMT,” in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday (ed. S.-W. Son; London: T&T Clark, 2006) 104–32.

Chapter Six

Good Works in the New Testament By the time that the New Testament was written, the precedent for redefining the traditional language of good works had already been established. As we have shown, the terminology was taken over by Hellenistic moralists and by Jewish authors of the Second Temple period in an effort to legitimize their prescribed conduct. What we find in the New Testament is that this same practice was prevalent among early Jesus-followers as well. Like their Jewish counterparts, many Christians had begun to employ the language of good works in a theological manner. The one new dimension which they added to the good works language was the paradigmatic feature of the life of Christ. For many Christ-followers, the standard of good deeds tended to be defined according to their master’s example. This Christian usage marks another variation in the wider spectrum of theological usage. Since the task of explaining the theological function of good works was carried out in the previous chapter, it is unnecessary to spend too much time rehearsing similar uses within the early Christian material. Therefore, our engagement with some of the more popular sources on this subject (viz., the letters of Paul and James) will be relatively brief. The goal of the first half of this chapter will simply be to survey the range of usage represented in the New Testament.1 This discussion will set the stage for our ultimate purpose, which is to explore the use of good works terminology in the Pastoral Epistles. The Pastorals share a unique affinity with 1 Peter, both in the predominance of good works language and in the function commonly assigned to its usage. Much as in the case of 1 Peter, interpreters of the Pastoral Epistles have proposed that this Hellenistic topos plays an important role in the letters’ social strategy. Traditionally, scholars have understood the good works motif as part of a larger apologetic purpose, wherein the author hoped to ease the tensions with outsiders by encouraging his readers to adopt a more traditional social ethic. In this way, 1 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles are thought to represent two very similar approaches toward social   Given that our treatment is meant to (briefly) survey the range of usage in the New Testament, we will not be able to examine every author or every related issue. In this way, we will not be addressing matters such as the controversy between the use of (good) works in Paul and James, nor will we be able to explore the role of law in New Testament ethics when dealing with the relation of good works to the Torah. These issues represent well-worn ground in New Testament studies, and the brevity with which we must treat them would not add much to the dicussion. Furthermore, issues like these would only divert attention away from the main purpose of the chapter. 1

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

139

conflict. Our aim therefore will be to determine how the good works motif functions in the Pastorals. This information will provide a point of comparison by which we will be able to assess the use of the good works motif in 1 Peter.

A. The Range of Usage in the New Testament We will begin by first exploring the various ways in which the good works terminology is employed within the New Testament. This will include an examination of traditional socio-political uses similar to those found in the Hellenistic world as well as the new dimensions which early Jesus-followers added to the growing theological usage. 1. The Socio-Political Use of Good Works In the Hellenistic world the socio-political use of the good works language was a common occurrence. At times, the New Testament authors pick up on this tendency and employ the motif in similar ways. One example comes from Rom 5.7. It is here that Paul writes, “Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person (δικαίου)— though perhaps for a good person (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ) someone might actually dare to die” (NRSV). Over the years, the meaning of ἀγαθός has been interpreted in various ways. Some see no distinction between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός.2 However, the progress denoted by μόλις . . . τάχα (“rarely . . . perhaps”) suggests that Paul is distinguishing the likelihood of personal sacrifice. Among the early church fathers, “the good” was thought to refer either to God or Christ, and thus the verse was taken as a description of martyrdom on their behalf.3 This interpretation has recently been revived by Troy W. Martin, who attempts to argue that articular substantive adjective (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ) in Rom 5.7 is used to refer to God, while δικαίου is seen as a designation of any righteous person.4

2   Various scholars make outright statements in this regard, claiming that the two terms are used synonymously (so, e.g., John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968] 167–68; Fredrik Wisse, “The Righteous Man and the Good Man in Romans v.7,” NTS 19 [1972–73] 91–93; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011] 210). Related to this, there are those who argue that v. 7b conveys a hasty withdrawal and correction of v. 7a, thus making the two indistinct (so, e.g., Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains [Ebib; Paris: Gabalda, 1950] 103; Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief: Kommentar [HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977] 153). 3   See Caroline P. Bammel, “Patristic Exegesis of Romans 5:7,” JTS 47 (1996) 532–42. 4   Troy W. Martin, “The Good as God (Romans 5.7),” JSNT 25 (2002) 55–70. The lynchpin of Martin’s argument is the presence of the article before ἀγαθός (which is absent before δίκαιος). However, if the article – as it commonly functions with adjectives – is understood as a substantiver (see below), then it does not necessitate the interpretation set forth by Martin.

140

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

A closer look at this passage seems to suggest that the progression (μόλις . . . τάχα) of Paul’s argument is grounded in the quality or value of the object of sacrifice. In other words, sacrificing one’s life for a “good man” is seen as more plausible than simply for a “righteous man.” The idea of sacrificing one’s life on behalf of another was a possibility discussed in the literature of the ancient world (cf. T. Ash. 2.3; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.7.3; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 7.12; John 15.13). Often there was some (justifiable) reason for this type of sacrifice. Usually the object of sacrifice was in a close or intimate relationship with the sacrificer (e.g., friend, relative, patron/ benefactor).5 Based on these considerations, we would argue that the article before ἀγαθοῦ is meant to denote a familiar class or category of persons.6 As such, it refers to an elite member of society (commonly referred to as a “good man”) who performed civic benefaction.7 Paul therefore uses the good works language in a way that was common in the ancient world.8 5   An example of this latter relationship (viz., patron/benefactor) is found in Pseudo-Demetrius, Epistolary Types, 21: “For I know that what I am doing for you is less than I should, for even if I gave my life for you, I should still not be giving adequate thanks for the benefits I have received” (trans. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 41; cf. Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, 4.7.5). 6   Cf. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 111; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 233. Although James D. G. Dunn (Romans 1–8 [WBC 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988]) recognizes that the articular substantive expresses a category, he states, “It is not necessary to press for a more restricted sense,” such as a benefactor (1:256). But if this is a well-known category of persons, then should we not ask what types of people were referred to as “good” men in the Greco-Roman world? If so, we would soon discover that this was a common designation for a benefactor (see Ch. 3). 7   This view was commonly held among older (especially German) commentators, and it is still well represented among more recent interpreters, e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79) 264–65; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT 6; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 262; N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes (ed. L. E. Keck; vol. 10; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002) 393– 770 (519); Grant R. Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary Series 6; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 133; Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 137; James R. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology (WUNT 273; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 190–95. For a full defense of this view, see Andrew D. Clarke, “The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7,” TynBul 41 (1990) 128–42. 8  Certain objections have been raised against this interpretation. For instance, Bernhard Weiss (Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief des Paulus an die Römer [KEK 4/6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1881] 244) asks why Paul would not have employed the more specific designation εὐεργέτης if a benefactor had been in view. Yet, this does not present much of a problem, since the designation “good man” was used synonymously with εὐεργέτης (cf. I.Smyrna no. 616). More recently, Robert Jewett (Romans: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007] 360) admits that “the most plausible distinction [between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός] is that ὁ ἀγαθός in Greek society refers to the benefactor”; yet he seems to question this proposal contending that, “this raises the question about why Paul would insert a social concept in the midst of a discussion of the atonement.” However, this objection carries little weight. Since this statement is merely an analogy, Paul is free to bring in any type of material to illustrate his point.

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

141

Another passage that is sometimes read in this way is Romans 13.3, where Paul assures his Roman audience that, “rulers are not a terror to good conduct (τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ), but to bad.” He then continues, “Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good (τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει), and you will receive its approval” (NRSV). The question is whether “good works” and “doing good” refer specifically to participation in civic benefaction, or whether Paul has a more general Christian morality in mind. The former has been popular among interpreters for a number of years.9 Even those who would not limit the referent (solely) to this popular convention concede that benefaction could be included within Paul’s larger sphere of meaning.10 The evidence in support of the benefaction proposal has been summarized by Winter.11 The primary (and most forceful) evidence set forth in this regard is the overlap in the semantic domain between the language of euergetism and the Pauline paraenesis: in both, “good works” were expected to generate “praise” from governing officials. This fact is also supplemented by considerations such as use of the second person singular in Rom 13.3–4 (θέλεις, ποίει, ἕξεις, σοί), which is thought to indicate the direct address to a small group within the Roman congregation who were financially capable of performing munificence.12 Despite these considerations, a reference to civic benefaction in Rom 13.3 is somewhat more nuanced than is commonly recognized. A key factor in this discussion is that Rom 13.3–4 reflects a different situation from 1 Pet 2.14–15, and therefore the two should not (necessarily) be used to interpret one another, as Winter attempts to do.13 We will list a few of the most notable distinctions. Whereas there were important factors potentially limiting the performance of munificence in 1 Peter (see Ch. 4), the same limitations are not always present in Romans 13. First,   A few of the interpreters who have reached this conclusion include: Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer (3rd ed.; HNT 8a; Tübingen: Mohr, 1974) 341; W. C. van Unnik, “Lob und Strafe durch die Obrigkeit: Hellenistisches zu Röm. 13,3–4,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag (eds. E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 334–43; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3. Teilband: Röm 12–16 (EKKNT 6/3; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1982) 34; Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen, 104–110. 10   The conclusion of Douglas Moo (The Epistle to the Romans [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996] 801 n.  50) is representative of the approach of many Pauline scholars: “While public benefaction should not be eliminated from the reference, the broader context of Rom. 12–13 suggests that it cannot be limited to this either.” Cf. Osborne, Romans, 345; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 313–14. 11  Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 26–40. 12   The problem with evidence like this is that “Paul moves easily, and even quite arbitrarily, between the second person singular and plural when giving counsel aimed at the whole church (see, for example, Rom. 14:15 and 16)” (Justin Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival [SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998] 127 n.  261; original emphasis). 13   The difference between Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 has recently been pointed out by James A. Kelhoffer, “Improvising Two Different Responses to Persecution: First Peter’s Innovations and Relationship to the Corpus Paulinum,” in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes (ed. D. S. du Toit; BZNW 200; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013) 263–80 (esp. 266–71). 9

142

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

there appears to have been some disposable funds available within the Roman church (as least, as Paul perceived it), as evidenced by Paul’s hope of gaining Roman support for his missionary trip to Spain (Rom 15.23–24). In this way, benefaction may have been a more plausible option in Rome than in the Petrine communities. Nevertheless, money would still be an issue, since major benefaction projects which ingratiated the populace were far beyond the economic reach of most citizens. Second, Paul may have been more open to various types of munificence projects than would the author of 1 Peter, since he attempted to be “all things to all people” (1 Cor 9.22). Third, the socio-political struggle involved in contributing to one’s community – which would have certainly been a problem for the readers of 1 Peter14 – may not have been as difficult of an issue for Jesus-followers during the time of Paul, since the persecution of Nero (and the concomitant down-turning of the Christian legal status) is still some years in the future (64 CE). Finally, in Rom 13.3–4, the specific details regarding the “praise” of governing authorities create fewer problems than those in 1 Peter. In the former, it is the “authorities” (ἄρχοντες) who will praise the good works of the readers, while in the latter it is the “provincial governor” (ἡγεμών). Whereas civic officials (ἄρχοντες) played an important role in the recognition of benefactors, the provincial governor did not.15 Even with the differences between Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 spelled out, it is still not clear that civic benefaction is the primary activity toward which Paul is encouraging his readers.16 Rather, we would suggest that the issue under consideration is simply (secular) law observance. To say that ἔπαινος is used in a formal way in Rom 13.3, meaning the public recognition one receives for outstanding service (“praise”), is to press the language too far in the present context. Of course, the word can and often does carry such a meaning elsewhere,17 and those who posit benefaction as the primary referent in Rom 13.3–4 are correct in pointing out that ἔπαινος frequently appears in honorary inscriptions in connection with the good deeds of benefactors. Nevertheless, in this case, the point seems to be about how one comports him/ herself with regard to civic and imperial law.18 As such, ἔπαινος refers not to the

  On the socio-political struggle of performing benefaction, see pp. 80–81.   See Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 262–63. 16   Others have been critical of the benefaction theory in the past (e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 665 n.  1; Bruno Blumenfeld, The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework [JSNTSup 210; London: T&T Clark, 2003] 396; Leander E. Keck, Romans [ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005] 315–16). Yet few have put together any kind of sustained argument against this position. 17  See EDNT 2:16–17; TDNT 2:586–88. 18   There are two reasons for such a conclusion. First, this is clear from the fact that Paul contrasts doing good (τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει – v. 3) with doing evil (τὸ κακὸν ποιῇς – v. 4). The one who should fear governmental authorities is the “wrongdoer” (τὸ κακόν – v. 4), because his/her misconduct will incur governmental punishment. “Doing good” therefore represents the opposite of misconduct, viz., an attempt at avoiding governmental sanction through proper law observance. Second, Paul later provides an example of “good” conduct in vv. 6–7, where he encourages his readers to 14

15

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

143

public acclaim one achieves through euergetistic efforts, but the approved standing of a person whose conduct aligns with governmental regulations.19 However, this is not to say that benefaction is completely absent from Paul’s thought in this passage. It is very likely that Paul’s exhortation to “do good” represents an appropriation of the language of euergetism. As suggested by Philip H. Towner, “It is in the imperative ‘to do good’ that Paul ‘co-opts’ the cultural convention known as benefaction in order to empower the church for the transformation of society.”20 Thus, even though participation in civic benefaction is probably not the primary thrust of Paul’s directives, he still seems to be drawing from a socio-political meaning of the good works language. This is what gives the transformation of the euergetistic language its intended impact. So whether or not any New Testament writer used the language of good works to encourage his readers to participate in the convention of civic benefaction remains to be seen; but what we can say with somewhat more certainty is that the early Jesus-followers did know and draw from this semantic domain on occasion. In the next section, we will discuss how some New Testament authors used this language in a way that marked a departure from its traditional meaning. 2. The Theological Use of Good Works No one would dispute the fact that the earliest Christians knew how to use the language of good works in a socio-political manner. For many communities this may have been the most natural usage, given their gentilic origins. Nevertheless, we have demonstrated that by the first century CE the Hellenistic language of good works had already penetrated the vocabulary of ancient Judaism, and that in many cases the terminology was stripped of its classical meaning and imbued with a distinctively theological flavor. This means that when the language appears in early Christian literature, we need not (automatically) assume that it carries a socio-political function.21 “pay taxes” (φόρους τελεῖτε). This represents an attempt to gain the approval of authorities through the fulfillment of basic civic requirements. 19   This less formal usage (“approval”) is found in a passage like Sophocles, Ant. 663–665, where ἔπαινος represents the commended appraisal of king Creon: “But if anyone oversteps and does violence to the laws, or thinks to dictate to those in power, such a one will never win praise (ἐπαίνου) from me” (cf. Sophocles, Ant. 817; Aj. 527). 20   Philip H. Towner, “Romans 13:1–7 and Paul’s Missiological Perspective: A Call to Political Quietism or Transformation?,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (eds. S. Soderlund and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 149–69 (165). The proposal of Towner is very close to the strategy of good works which I will attempt to posit in 1 Peter. Although I did not come across his views until after the present work was nearly complete, they have served to confirm my original premise. 21   One example of the importance of this consideration is found in the Lukan expression “with a noble and good heart” (ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ) in his parable of the sower (Luke 8.15). Many interpreters have viewed this simply as a Hellenistic topos without considering the possibility that

144

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

The use of good works language represents an attempt of early Jesus-followers to navigate Christian practice in light of two defining realities: the Torah and the Christ-event. When Christian writers assigned a theological value to good works, these realities directed both the standard and content of the terminology. It is clear that for early Jesus-followers the Christ-event served to shape the nature of their prescribed conduct. For some, this meant a departure from Jewish rituals; for others, the practical outworkings of the Christ-event differed very little from traditional Jewish observance. In this way, the good works of early Christians – much as was the case in Second Temple Judaism – would extend across a wide spectrum, with referents including everything from Torah-observance to a more general Christ-centered moral virtue. On one side of the spectrum were those early Jesus-followers who saw no necessary contradiction between following Christ and continued Torah-observance. There are no New Testament sources which strictly equate doing good with keeping the law, as we find in many ancient Jewish sources. But, in certain instances, the concept of good works is definitely shaped by obedience to the Torah. One example comes from the gospel of Matthew. As Jesus explains the function of the Torah within the kingdom of God, he draws a close association with good works.22 In Matt 5.16, he commands his disciples, “let you light shine before others so that they might see your good works (καλὰ ἔργα) and glorify your father in heaven.” But how should we understand the content of the “good works” mentioned in Matt 5.16? This marks the only time that the exact phrase, καλὰ ἔργα, appears in the gospel. Outside this context, it is not found anywhere else in the Synoptics. Interpreters often draw from the Jewish (especially rabbinic) background of Mybw+ My#(m to interpret the concept here.23 In rabbinic literature, good deeds are closely associated with Torah observance (cf. b. Ber. 17a). In fact, as Walter Beltz notes, “Die BefolLuke could instill a new meaning into traditional language (see, e.g., François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002] 311). But, as I. Howard Marshall (“Tradition and Theology in Luke,” TynBul 20 [1969] 56–75 [73]) had earlier pointed out, the phrase καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός had “already penetrated Hellenistic Judaism with no trace of its characteristic Classical Greek meaning.” For more on this expression in Luke 8.15, see John B. Weaver, “The Noble and Good Heart: Καλοκὰγαθία in Luke’s Parable of the Sower,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay (eds. P. Gray and G. R. O’Day; NovTSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 151–71. 22   For a full treatment of “good works” in Matt 5.16, see Roland Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie (WUNT 177; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 237–54. 23   Commentators who interpret the “good works” of Matt 5.16 through Jewish lenses include: Adolf von Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus, seine Sprache, sein Ziel, siene Selbständigkeit: ein Kommentar zm ersten Evangelium (6th ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963) 150; Barclay M. Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992) 125; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 78; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 175.

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

145

gung der 613 Gebote entspricht intentional dem Begriff g.[ute] W.[erke]”24 But while the gospel of Matthew evidences a strong affinity for the Torah, good works cannot simply equated with the performance of the Jewish law.25 The situation is somewhat more nuanced. To understand the referent behind these good deeds, it is important to situate Jesus’ words within the broader context of the Sermon on the Mount. According to some interpreters, the nature of these works are specified in the material that follows (Matt 5.17–7.27); but for others the good deeds point back to the beatitudes that preceded, interpreting v. 16 as the application of vv. 13-15.26 Deciding between the two is unnecessary, however. In this case, both seem to be correct. That is, “[t]he content of the good works are to be determined in terms of the preceding beatitudes and the following antitheses.”27 Read within this setting, good works would include everything from meekness to loving one’s enemy. But what Matthew has in mind is not merely a continuation of traditional law-observance. In the first gospel, the Torah is neither abrogated nor simply maintained in the kingdom of the Messiah; rather, it is transformed and then applied to the lives of the disciples. A further hint regarding the content of good works is provided later in the gospel, where the evangelist employs the singular form, ἔργον καλόν, to describe Jesus’ anointing by a woman at Bethany (Matt 26.10). After the disciples objected that the ointment could have been sold and the money donated to the poor, Jesus defends the woman, stating, “She has performed a good work (ἔργον καλόν) for me.” Jesus’ use of this designation is not meant to categorize the woman’s deed, as though he were comparing her “good work” of love with the “good work” of almsgiving.28 Rather, 24   Walter Beltz, “Gute Werke I. Religionsgeschichtlich,” in vol. 3 of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft (eds. H. D. Betz, et al.; 4th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 1343–44 (1344). 25   This is a fact that Rudolf Schnackenburg (The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002] 51) is quick to point out. See further, Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora, 237–54. However, the distinction made by H. Benedict Green (The Gospel according to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version: Introduction and Commentary [New Clarendon Bible: New Testament; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975] 80: “For the Jew a certain category of works was ‘good’; for [Matthew] the disciple’s whole behaviour is ‘good’”) is not as helpful in this regard. 26   Pointing forward: John P. Meier, Matthew (NTM 3; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1980) 45; W. 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; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988) 479; Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Bible & Liberation; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000) 139. Pointing backward: Georg Strecker, Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985) 54–55; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 177. 27   Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary (trans. J. E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 208. Cf. also Hans Dieter 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: Fortress, 1995) 164. 28   Regarding the parallel passage in Mark 14.6, a few interpreters have suggested that while the disciples were concerned with the duty of almsgiving, Jesus had prioritized love (so, e.g., Joachim Jeremias, “Die Salbungsgeschichte Mc 14,3–9,” ZNW 35 [1936] 75–82, followed by Joachim Gnil-

146

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

with this usage, “Matthew probably intends an echo of the ‘good deeds’ of 5:16 which draw others to glorify God.”29 Thus, the woman’s good deed, like the good works described earlier in Matthew’s gospel, appears to represent the conduct of Christ-followers, whose transformed Torah-observance is meant to reflect the glory of God.30 Among those early believers whose new identity in Christ was not as closely associated with Torah-observance, good works tended to be defined along the lines of moral virtue. From this perspective, “‘to do good’ designates, as an ethical summation, the behavior appropriate to faith.”31 In most cases, these good deeds are not narrowly constrained to any specific kinds of activities. Instead, they tend to represent a wide variety of deeds and actions.32 In the New Testament, “doing good” or performing “good works” might include anything from the miraculous healing of a paralyzed hand (Mark 3.1–5; cf. John 10.32–33) to the obedience which a slave renders to his/her master (Eph 6.8). Sometimes the early Christian use of good works is contrasted with the later rabbinic usage, which is thought to primarily denote acts of benevolence and lovingkindness. But while it is true that the range of usage represented among New Testament authors was somewhat more flexible than later Jewish usage, early Christian writers also tended to associate good deeds with one particular action: the alleviaka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2. Teilband: Mk 8,27–16,20 [EKKNT 2,2; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1979] 224). But this is to misunderstand the temporal contrast that Jesus makes in these passages (vv. 6–7). Neither “good work” is better than the other; one is just more expedient given the circumstances. From a different angle, David Daube (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [JLCRS 2; London: University of London, 1956]) argues that ἔργον καλόν is “a technical term,” reflecting rabbinic focus on “almsgiving, putting up strangers, visiting the sick, burying the dead or the like.” In this way, “Jesus affirms that the woman’s action is ‘a good work’ just as much as almsgiving” (315). The problem is that the technical use of this phrase had probably not yet developed when Matthew was written. 29   John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 1054. Matthew frequently uses the related expression “good fruit” (3.10; 7.17–19; 12.33). 30   Cf. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A; Dallas: Word, 1993) 102: “the good deeds referred to by the evangelist “are shown to be nothing other than the faithful living out of the commandments, the righteousness of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus.” A similar interpretation of good works in the epistle of James is provided by Scot McKnight. He argues that good deeds in this letter refer to Torah-observance, but understood “through the lens of the Jesus Creed.” By this he means that James “generalizes ‘works’ into a life shaped by following Jesus’ teaching about doing Torah through love of God and others” (The Letter of James [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011] 228). 31   EDNT 1:4. 32   There are many places in the New Testament, in fact, where it is difficult to assess the precise referent behind the author’s use of the good works designation. For instance, in Heb 10.24, the author writes, “Let us consider how to encourage one another toward love and good works (καλῶν ἔργων).” One might naturally conclude that the “good works” referenced here would apply to the paraensis set forth throughout the epistle to the Hebrews. But the general nature of this description – particularly with its close connection to a broad term like ἀγάπη – suggests that it could represent any number of actions (cf. 2 Cor 13.7).

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

147

tion of poverty. In Acts 9.36, for instance, it states that Tabitha (also known as Dorcas) “continually performed good works (ἔργων ἀγαθῶν) and acts of charity (ἐλεημοσυνῶν).” Likewise, Jesus’ instructions in Luke 6.35 (“love your enemies, do good [ἀγαθοποιεῖτε], and lend expecting nothing in return”) seem to involve a monetary donation which cannot or will not be reciprocated. In a similar manner, the author of Ephesians taught his readers that, “thieves must no longer steal”; rather they are expected “to labor diligently, working the good (ἐργαζόμενος . . . τὸ ἀγαθόν) with their own hand, so as to have something to share with the needy” (Eph 4.28).33 And finally, although the description need not be restricted to almsgiving, the apostle Paul no doubt includes the collection for the needy saints of Jerusalem as a “good work” (ἔργον ἀγαθόν) in which his readers should participate (2 Cor 9.8).34 Thus, the connection between good works and almsgiving is not merely a later Jewish tendency. In the literature of the New Testament, the theological function of good works extends the meaning of the motif beyond its traditional use. As we have seen, good works can apply to a variety of different acts or behaviors. But, as with the ancient Jewish reappropriation of this language, what sets the early Christian evidence apart from the traditional Hellenistic motif is the way in which the evaluative standard is transferred from the human realm (where society judges the “goodness” of an action) to the divine realm (where God renders the final verdict). There are two ways in which this shift is evident. First, many authors emphasize the lack of recognition which good works would receive from outsiders; instead, they attempt to comfort their readers with the hope that the final reward would come from God. One exam33   In this passage, Göran Agrell (Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in Old Testament, Intertestamental, and Early Rabbinic Writings [Lund; Ohlsson, 1976] 129) suggests that since “working” is carried out “with one’s own hands” (ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσίν), the phrase ἐργαζόμενος . . . τὸ ἀγαθόν means “by making a good product” (cf. also the related proposal of Paul Joüon, “Notes philologiques sur quelques versets de l’Épître aux Éphésiens,” RSR 26 [1936] 454–64 [460]). However, it seems better to interpret τὸ ἀγαθόν as the direct object of ἐργαζόμενος (cf. Gal 6.10) and to allow the term to carry a more general meaning, denoting any way in which one might benefit another (see Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians [WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990] 304; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians [PNCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999] 343). 34   We must be careful not to fall into the trap that has overtaken some Pauline interpreters, who draw significant interpretive conclusions based on the use of the singular (ἔργον) over against the plural (ἔργα). For instance, C. Crowther (“Works, Work and Good Works,” ExpTim 81 [1970] 166– 71) states that in Pauline literature, there is a “consistent differentiation of meaning—‘works’ always in a bad sense, ‘work’ always in a good sense” (169; cf. also Lieselotte Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus [ATANT 47; Zürich: Zwingli, 1966] 141–51; J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980] 247–48). The problem with the conclusion drawn by Crowther is that prior to making this claim, he admits that the singular (ἔργον) is also used both in a neutral (1 Cor 3.12–15) and in a negative sense (1 Cor 5.2). Furthermore, the plural (ἔργα) can be used a more neutral sense (cf. Rom 2.6). It is better, therefore, to say that the inherent quality of a person’s ἔργον/ἔργα is determined not on whether the singular or plural is employed, but on the context in which it is employed and especially on the basis of any immediate modifier with which the term is connected (e.g., νόμος, ἀγαθός, etc).

148

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

ple is found in Gal 6.9, where Paul exhorts his readers, “Let us not become discouraged in doing good (τὸ . . . καλὸν ποιοῦντες), for in due time we will reap if we do not give up.” For most who practiced good works in the Hellenistic world, the rewards from their civic communities were normally swift and satisfying. But for the Galatian believers, the “good” which they sowed would not be recompensed until they reaped “eternal life from the Spirit” (Gal 6.8).35 Second, these good works are acts in which God is thought to play a prominent role – both as originator and ultimate evaluator. As the originator of good works, God is instrumental in preparing and equipping believers to carry them out. Such an idea is proposed in Eph 2.10, where the author states, “We are his [i.e., God’s] creation, having been made in Christ Jesus for good works (ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς), which he prepared beforehand that we might walk in them.” As the evaluator of good deeds, God – not society – is the one who ultimately assesses their merit. This is clear in Rom 2.6–8, where Paul argues that “[God] will recompense each person according to his works, to those who seek glory and honor and immortality by perseverance in good work (ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ), he will give eternal life; but to those are self-seeking and who follow unrighteousness rather than the truth, he will give wrath and sorrow.” This connection between good deeds and God’s judgment/evaluation is common in the New Testament (cf. 2 Cor 5.10; Gal 6.7–10; Col 1.10). Much like the Jewish authors of the Second Temple period, the good works of early Christians were thought to have some type of affect on one’s relationship with God. With the basic parameters of the theological usage now covered, we will narrow our focus considerably. In the remaining portion of this chapter, we will explore how one particular Christian author adopted the good works motif and employed it within the larger social strategy of his correspondence.

35   A similar situation is envisioned in Eph 6.8: “Serve with enthusiasm as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatever good a person does (ποιήσῃ ἀγαθόν), whether he be slave or free, this he will receive back from the Lord.” There are two important observations that should be drawn from this text. The first is that the author assumes that slaves are able to “do good,” which was not a common or expected occurrence within Hellenistic system of benefaction. The second is that the author assumes that there might be situations where a slave might not receive proper recognition for his/her good deeds. Regarding this latter point, various commentators allow for the possibility that the good works of slaves might not be acknowledged by their masters. Normally, this is thought to be due merely to the latter’s oversight. Note, for example, the statement of Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 811–12: “No doubt, many slaves had done good deeds that went unnoticed by their masters who excluded them from the credit they deserved. This is not the case with God, for he will notice good deeds of every slave.” But what few actually consider is that the good works might not be recognized because of differing standards of “goodness” between the Christian slaves and “pagan” masters. Either of these would be a valid interpretation of this verse.

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

149

B. Good Works in the Pastoral Epistles Within modern critical scholarship, it has been common to read the literature of second generation Christians as encouraging believers to conform to “pagan” standards of conduct, evidenced in part by the Hellenistic language of good works. One place where this has been suggested is in the Pastoral Epistles. Here the good works terminology appears more frequently than anywhere else in the New Testament.36 This strong emphasis, combined with a number of other factors, has led interpreters to read the motif as illustrative of the author’s accommodation to the expectations of Greco-Roman society. Ultimately, this accords with what is understood as one of the epistles’ primary intentions, viz., “that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed [by outsiders]” (1 Tim 6.1). Given the similarity of this proposal with the social strategy that is often sketched in 1 Peter, it would be helpful to explore what many consider to be a comparative usage. If it is true that the Pastor used the language of good works in an effort to conform the conduct of his readers to the social norms of popular society (in hopes of alleviating the hostility with outsiders), then it might be suggestive for our reading of 1 Peter. The Pastoral Epistles would thus provide a point of reference by which to test the strategy of good works in 1 Peter. In what follows, we will examine the use of the good works motif in the Pastoral Epistles seeking to understand how the frequent application of this language functions within the overall strategy of the letters. What we will argue is that the theme does not represent an attempt to shape the conduct of the readers around the accepted behavioral standards of Greco-Roman society, as though the author were asking his audience to disassociate from their distinctively Christian practices and to conform more closely to “pagan” behaviors. Instead, the language of good works is meant to project a bridging of the gap between Christians and outsiders. The motif allows the author to stress the continuity between the virtues of his community and the values of non-believers, thereby creating a sense of solidarity and undergirding his social conservatism. But before we enter too far into a discussion of good works in the Pastoral Epistles, it is important to address two issues that affect the interpretation of this key theme. Critical scholars have long recognized the pseudepigraphical nature of the Pastoral Epistles. But in recent years, there has been a conservative push to defend the authenticity of this corpus.37 Our treatment will work from the assumption that 36   For a numeric comparison between the good works terminology in 1 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles, see p. 39 n. 1. 37   Recent defenders of authenticity include: Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (2nd ed.; TNTC 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 17–62; Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (NAC 34; Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 23–40; George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 4–52; Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 55–90; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles

150

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

these letters are pseudepigraphical documents which were composed some time in the late first century CE (or possibly even the early second century CE).38 The second consideration is the unity of the letters. Although there is much to be said for reading the Pastoral Epistles as a unified corpus,39 scholars have begun to make significant strides toward reading and appreciating each letter individually. In fact, a strong case has been made for viewing the Pastorals as distinct compositions written by different authors at varying times.40 We will work from the assumption that the letters were composed by the same pseudonymous author, but that each was written for a different purpose.41 Therefore, our focus will primarily be on 1 Timo(WBC 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000) xlvi–cxxix; Philip H. Towner, The Letters of Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 9–89. 38   This position has a long history (and defense) within critical scholarship. For some of the more recent treatments from this perspective, see Jürgen Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT 15; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1988) 23–39; Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe (HTKNT 11/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1994–1996); Jouette M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1996) 17–21; Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 1–23; Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002) 1–14; Alfons Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT 16/1; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 2003) 51– 59. 39   This would be particularly so if the letters (as a whole) were meant to be read in relation to the Corpus Paulinum (as suggested by Peter Trummer, “Corpus Paulinum-Corpus Pastorale. Zur Erörterung der Paulustradition in den Pastoralbriefen,” in Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: Zur Paulusrezeption im Neuen Testament [ed. K. Kertelge; QD 89; Freiburg: Herder, 1981] 122–45; cf. Gerd Häfner, “Das Corpus Pastorale als literarisches Konstrukt,” TQ 187 [2007] 258–73). Alongside the growing collection of Pauline letters, this collection of epistles “would have been received and read not as individual letters from the Paul of history but as a ‘characterization’ of the great apostle and his teaching for the new generation” (Quinn and Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 20). 40   See, e.g., William A. Richards, Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals (SBL 44; New York: Peter Lang, 2002); Rüdiger Fuchs, Unerwartete Unterschiede: Müssen wir unsere Ansichten über “die” Pastoralbriefe revidieren? (BM 12; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2003); James W. Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (LPS; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008); Jens Herzer, “Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A New Perspective on the Pastoral Epistles,” in Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (eds. A. Houtman, et al.; AJEC 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 547–66; Michaela Engelmann, Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen zum literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe (BZNW 192; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012). This position has roots all the way back to the works of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Über den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos an den Timotheos: Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an J. C. Gass, Consistorialassessor und Feldprediger zu Stettin (Berlin: Realbuchhandlung, 1808), and W. M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen Bücher des Neuen Testaments (6th ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1860) 243–44, who understood 1 Timothy to be a later work which was dependent upon Titus and 2 Timothy. 41   Cf. Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-Forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 191–217, who suggests that 1 Timothy and Titus were meant to address opponents that were teachers of the Law, while 2 Timothy was written to refute the idea (apparently current in Pauline communities; cf. Col 2.12) that the resurrection was a spiritual event that had already occurred. His efforts follow (to some extent) the work

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

151

thy and Titus, which share many similarities including the largest concentration of good works language; whereas 2 Timothy will only be mentioned occasionally, since it seems to address an alternative situation using a slightly different message (with only an occasional reference to good works). 1. The Ethics of the Pastoral Epistles We will begin our study of good works in the Pastoral Epistles by casting a wide net and exploring the nature of ethics in the letters. The reason for this approach is because good works seem to “embrace all the qualities and moral standards approved in these letters.”42 If so, good works could be viewed as a kind of summary of the Pastorals’ ethical content. The question then would be, what is the nature and function of ethics in these epistles? a. The Hellenistic Influence on the Ethics of the Pastorals After an investigation into the message of the letters, one commentator declared, “the author of the Pastorals had no theology of his own. He is a purveyor of other men’s theology.”43 This sentiment is frequently echoed with regard to the ethical guidelines that are set forth in the epistles. According to Allen Verhey, “the ethic of the Pastorals is settling into the world, establishing itself over against the world-denial of the heretics, whether in the form of asceticism or libertinism. The ethic is moderate, not heroic. The key to ‘godliness’ and to the ethic of the Pastorals is moderation and sober good sense, avoiding enthusiastic foolishness.”44 As such, the Pastorals are thought to mark an important shift from the ethical constructs of the earlier Jesus followers. The basis for such a deduction is the strong connection between the language of the Pastorals and popular Hellenistic morality.45 Not only do the epistles adopt of Jerry L. Sumney, “Servants of Satan”, “False Brothers” and the Other Opponents of Paul (JSNTSup 188; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 253–302, who is careful to distinguish the opponents and occasion of each epistle. 42   Frances M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 31. Cf. Roland Schwarz, Bürgerliches Christentum im Neuen Testament? Eine Studie zu Ethik, Amt und Recht in den Pastoralbriefen (ÖBS 4; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983) 144–45, who compares good works with spiritual gifts in the (genuine) Pauline letters, arguing that good works represent the fruit of the Christian life in a manner that is very similar to what Paul says about χαρίσματα. 43   A. T. Hanson, Studies in the Pastoral Epistles (London: S.P.C.K., 1968) 110. Cf. also idem, The Pastoral Epistles (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 38. 44   Allen Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 129. He notes further, “the determination of what is good and right depends more on the common moral assumptions of his readers than on any ‘new discernment’” (128). If this were the case, then good works would be one example of such conformity. 45   For a helpful overview of the similarities between the Pastorals and Hellenistic writings, see Margaret Davies, The Pastoral Epistles (NTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 19–25.

152

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

much of the familiar language of Greek ethical discourse (e.g., εὐσέβεια, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη, etc), even the social hierarchy that is espoused reflects Hellenstic influence. The similarity is particularly strong when the Pastorals are compared to various philosophic schools.46 What should be pointed out is that this resemblance is more than just a passing acquaintance. “The author’s knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, especially Stoicism and Platonism, proves deep and extensive. It involves not only single points of details but crucial philosophical conceptions and whole theories, which are consciously employed in the Epistle’s paranetic discourse.”47 What then should we conclude from this observation? One of the most influential interpretations of this evidence came from the commentary of Martin Dibelius, who coined the term christliche Bürgerlichkeit (“(good) Christian citizenship”) to depict the ethical construct of the Pastorals.48 By this, he meant that the letters replace the earlier apocalyptic notion of Christian existence with a more traditional morality designed to accommodate Hellenistic values. For Dibelius, the respectable social ethic encouraged in the epistles marks the domestication of Christianity. As expectations of an imminent parousia began to wane, the church was forced to construct a set of ethical guidelines to direct their prolonged and settled stay in the world. According to Dibelius, the Pastorals, along with Luke-Acts, represent this shift. For many years, the christliche Bürgerlichkeit interpretation shaped the way scholars approached the Pastoral Epistles.49 Serious challenges have been leveled   On some of the philosophic ideas found in the Pastorals, see, e.g., Stephen Charles Mott, “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Background of Titus II.10–14 and III.3–7,” NovT 20 (1978) 22–48; Abraham J. Malherbe, “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers: A Volume in Honor of Stuart Dickson Currie (ed. W. E. March; San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980) 19–35; idem, “‘In Season and Out of Season’: 2 Timothy 4:2,” JBL 103 (1984) 235–43. 47   Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “The Pastoral Epistles and Hellenistic Philosophy: 1 Timothy 5:1–2, Hierocles, and the ‘Contraction of Circles’,” CBQ 73 (2011) 562–81 (581), with reference to 1 Timothy. 48   Martin Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (2nd ed.; HNT 13; Tübingen: Mohr, 1931) 24–25. This idea was repeated in the editions with Conzelmann. In the English translation by Buttolph and Yarbro (Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [trans. P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972]) the expression is translated “the ideal of good Christian citizenship” (40). 49  Later proponents of this view include: Franz J. Schierse, “Eschatologische Existenz und christliche Bürgerlichkeit,” Geist und Leben 32 (1959) 280–91; Richard Völkl, Christ und Welt nach dem Neuen Testament (Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1961) 330, 333–34, 339; Peter Stuhlmacher, “Christliche Verantwortung bei Paulus und seinen Schülern,” EvT 28 (1968) 165–86 (181–84); Hans von Campenhausen, Tradition and Life in the Church: Essays and Lecturers in Church History (trans. A. V. Littledale; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) 157–59; Herbert Preisker, Das Ethos des Urchristentums (3rd ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968) 195–219; Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (4th ed.; RNT 7,2; Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1969) 52, 124–25, 196; Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of Early Christianity (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 57–59; Heinz D. Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.; NTD: Ergänzungsreihe, 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 95–101; Otto Merk, “Glaube und Tat in den Pastoralbriefen,” ZNW 66 (1975) 91– 102 (100–102); Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadel46

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

153

against the theory in recent years, however. Concentrated studies like those of Schwarz, Towner, and Kidd have worked to overturn many of the theory’s underlying assumptions.50 As a result, the basis or motivation behind the letter’s ethical stance has received fresh and variegated appraisals. Schwarz, for instance, proposes that the letter’s social conformity was intended to counter the influence of the “false teachers”; whereas Towner argues that the traditional ethical stance is part of the author’s missional approach.51 While discussions on this issue still continue, the one aspect of Dibelius’s theory which has endured the scrutiny is the fact that the letters display a much more conservative morality than earlier New Testament documents. b. The Christian Influence on the Ethics of the Pastorals One might argue that it is to be expected that much of the language and ideas of the Pastoral Epistles would be shared with the dominant culture. These moral codes were, after all, part of the environment into which the readers were born and with which they had been raised. It should be noted that, “[e]arly Christianity did not consistently set up a ‘unique’ message against their pagan context. They often affirmed their pagan contexts, especially in terms of certain ideals that they found affirmed their own.”52 Furthermore, given the outside hostility shown against the Christian movement during this time, along with the marginal status of many Christian groups, direct opposition to “pagan” standards would have been difficult. Therefore, it is not enough simply to say that the letters display evidence of accommodation and conformity. Instead, interpreters must focus on whether and to what extent this set of ethical values is appropriated and even reinscribed according to Christian distinctives. There are, of course, some aspects of the Christian religion that would have been viewed as counter-cultural. For instance, the worship of Jesus as κύριος and σωτήρ stood in opposition to the similar epithets of Caesar. But even beyond this, some scholars have proposed more specific examples of resistance in which the Pastorals (purportedly) subvert popular ideas and values. One place where this has been sugphia: Fortress, 1975) 87–90; Stephen G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: S.P.C.K., 1979) 36–52; Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament (trans. D. E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 257–68; cf. EDNT 2:245; NIDNTT 2:104. 50   E.g., Schwarz, Bürgerliches Christentum; Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); Reggie M. Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles: A Bourgeois Form of Early Christianity? (SBLDS 122; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990). 51   Cf. also Jeffrey S. Lamp, “Friendship with the World: Social Accommodation and the Evangelistic Imperative in 1 Timothy,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 42 (2007) 87–102. 52   Pieter G. R. de Villiers, “Heroes at Home: Identity, Ethos, and Ethics in 1 Timothy within the Context of the Pastoral Epistles,” in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (eds. J. G. van der Watt and F. S. Malan; BZNW 141; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006) 357–86 (359); cf. Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (LEC 6; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 13.

154

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

gested is at 1 Tim 6.13. Here Jesus is set up as an example for the readers to follow. But what is noteworthy is the fact that the focus is placed on his “good confession before Pontius Pilate,” after which he was condemned and killed as a Roman criminal.53 Offering prayers for rulers rather than to them (1 Tim 2.1–2) has also been said to contain a hint of subversiveness.54 Then there is what some consider to be the problematizing of the accepted social order. Contrary to the paternalistic social ethos where the younger were subordinate to the older, Timothy and Titus – both younger men – are encouraged to exercise authority within their congregations (1 Tim 4.12; Tit 2.7).55 However, it is difficult to view these examples as intentional acts of subversion on behalf of the author. In most cases, the proposed resistance is so faint that one could question its existence. An alternative approach would be to examine how the epistles reappropriate Hellenistic values. One example might be the way that “godliness” (εὐσέβεια) – which is one of the key virtues in the epistles – is transformed. Philip H. Towner argues that the term was not uncritically employed in a Christian context, but was rather reinscribed with a distinctively new meaning which was contrary to accepted norms.56 But even if the author redefines important Hellenistic vocabulary, he seems to do so with the intent of making the Christian message more palatable to his “pagan” environment. Like some Jewish philosophers (e.g., Philo) who placed Hellenistic traditions into a Jewish framework, the Pastor shows that there is congruence between traditional values and the Christian message. Lacking 53   See Mary R. D’Angelo, “Εὐσέβεια: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals,” BibInt 11 (2003) 139–65 (163–64). In 2 Timothy, there are instances where suffering for righteousness is expected and encouraged (1.8; 2.3, 11; 4.5). But, as we have mentioned (see above), our concern here is primarily with 1 Timothy and Titus, which seem to have been written for a different occasion. 54   See Johnson, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 196: “Such prayer is actually subversive of any claim to ultimate authority on the part of human rulers, for it turns to a still higher power with the request to bless the king. Indeed, by asking God to extend benefaction to the emperor, the human potentate’s true status as creature is most sharply revealed.” Cf. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 53. 55   Cf. Davies, Pastoral Epistles, 65. Others could be added to this. David C. Verner suggests that the letters propose a single sexual standard for husbands and wives (cf. 1 Tim 3.2, 12; 5.9; Tit 1.6), which improve the wife’s position in the marriage (The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles [SBLDS 71; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983] 131, 145). Gary G. Hoag contends that the instructions regarding women’s attire and commitment to God (1 Tim 2.8–15) is meant to be contrasted with the devotion of “pagans” to the cult of Artemis in Ephesus (see “Decorum and Deeds in 1 Timothy 2:9–10 in Light of Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus,” ExAud 27 [2011] 134–60). 56   See Towner, Letters of Timothy and Titus, 171–74. Against those who would argue that the term was a catchword from the opponents’ vocabulary (so, e.g., Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus ([2nd ed.; NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988] 63), Towner contends that “the extensive use of the concept in these letters (not just in polemical passages) and the currency of the concept in the Ephesian Artemis cult look less like a heretical catchword and more like one of the many features of the cultural story that Paul sought to subvert by penetration of the gospel” (Letters of Timothy and Titus, 174).

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

155

in the author’s message, however, is any kind of (explicit) critical stance against traditional values. Without any type of “sectarian” quality, which is found in other Christian writings, the ethical construct of the Pastor would have to be considered very conservative (the Christian re-definition of Hellenistic terminology notwithstanding). 2. Appropriating the Language of Good Works The conservative nature of the Pastor’s ethic is reflected in his use of the good works theme. This language serves to mask the distinctiveness of Christian behavior through an appropriation of Hellenistic language. While there was overlap in what was considered “good” by both Christians and non-Christians, with the result that certain behaviors encouraged in the epistles would have been approvingly recognized by the wider society, in a few cases both the standard and content of good works are distinct from popular modes of conduct. That is, certain good deeds were valued only within the Christian community itself and not necessarily by those outside of it. Thus, the use of the motif reflects a Christian transformation of popular Hellenistic terminology.57 Despite this fact, the author does not seek to clearly differentiate his audience from their “pagan” neighbors. Instead, he uses this popular terminology to focus on the similarity between Christian and non-Christian conduct. a. Good Works and Christian Distinctiveness Within the Pastorals, the good works language displays Christian distinctiveness in two ways: it is sometimes put into service as a reference to (distinctively) Christian acts, and it is assigned a theological value, playing an important role the believer’s future salvation. (1) The Theological Value of Good Works We will begin with the author’s theological perspective on good works. As noted by Young, “The ethics of the Pastorals are fundamentally theological.”58 It is not surprising, then, to find that the Pastor attaches a theological meaning and salvific outcome to good works. There are two ways in which this is apparent. The first is that good works are the expected outcome of one who has experienced the salvation of Jesus Christ. According to 1 Tim 2.10, good works represent appropriate conduct by those who profess godliness,59 and in Tit 2.14 it is clear that they “flow from the 57   Yet, as we will see in sections that follow, even this reconstructed usage did not stray far from conservative standards of Hellenistic society. 58  Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 31. 59   There are some who want to connect δι᾿ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν (“through good works”) with ἐπαγγελλομέναις (so, e.g., Heinrich J. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt [Leipzig: Engelmann, 1880] 313–14; J. E. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles

156

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

experience of conversion and form an essential part of the new Christian existence.”60 The second reason is the contrast which the epistles make between good works and sinful acts. Whereas the latter are said to lead to judgment, the former play a significant role in the achievement of eternal life (1 Tim 5.24–25). The instrumental role of good deeds in the salvation process comes through most clearly in 1 Tim 6.17–19. Here those who are rich are encouraged “to do good” (ἀγαθοεργεῖν) and “to be rich in good works” (πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς). The outcome of such actions (ἀποθησαυρίζοντας being a participle of result) is the accumulation of “a good foundation in the world to come,” an idea which is common in the Gospels and contains roots that run into earlier Jewish literature.61 By investing their resources in the needs of others, the rich are simultaneously benefiting themselves (ἑαυτοῖς).62 Their good works are an important key in helping them lay hold of the eternal life which awaits (v. 19).63 So while we might say that salvation is ultimately dependent upon the grace and mercy of God shown through the redemption of Christ (rather than on human works), good deeds do serve a crucial purpose in the author’s theological scheme.64 of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus [trans. D. Hunter; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1881] 128). Such a construal would suggest that good works were the means of demonstrating “godliness” (θεοσέβεια). It seems better, with the majority of commentators, to attach the prepositional phrase with κοσμεῖν and to treat ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν as a parenthesis (so, e.g., J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles [BNTC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1960] 67; I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999] 451–52). 60  Towner, Goal of Our Instruction, 154. 61   Matt 6.19–20; 19.21; Luke 12.21, 33–34; cf. Prov 8.21; 13.22; Tob 4.9; Sir 29.11; m. Peah 1.1; b. Shab. 156b; b. Rosh Hash. 16b; b. Gittin 7a–b. 62   See Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 368–69. 63   On the surface, this language sounds very close to what we find in some Jewish sources which are much closer to a quid pro quo view of salvation. In 4 Ezra, for instance, it is said that “the righteous, who have many works laid up with you, shall receive their reward in consequence of their own deeds (ex propriis operibus recipient mercedem)” (8.33; NRSV), and in 2 Baruch, we find that “the righteous justly have good hope for the end and go away from this habitation without fear because they possess with you a store of good works which is preserved in treasuries” (14.12; trans. A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments [ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983] 615–52 [626]). But there is evidence elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles that weighs against such an interpretation. In 2 Tim 1.9, the author states, “[God] saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works (οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν), but according to his own purpose and grace” (cf. 1 Tim 1.12–17; Tit 3.5; see Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 149). 64   In the Pastorals, good works play no role in the achievement of past salvation. The author holds a very pessimistic view of human ability, which requires God to initiate the process and instruct people on how to live (see Abraham J. Malherbe, “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology [ed. J. G. van der Watt; NovTSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2005] 331–58). In such state of ignorance, one could not have performed good deeds. Yet, once this “education” had occurred, the good works which God requires seem to play a determinative role in the future salvation which awaits believers.

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

157

(2) The Christian Referent of Good Works An identified theology of good works does not necessarily translate to Christian distinctiveness. It is possible that the Pastor is merely assigning a theological value to socially acceptable conduct, in which case it only represents another example of accommodation. The question that must be addressed then is, to what do good works refer? One passage where interpreters have sought an answer for this question is 1 Tim 6.17-19. It is in these verses that the rich are instructed to use their wealth “to do good” and “to be rich in good works.”65 According to Korinna Zamfir, with this language “[t]he wealthy are confronted with the common civic ideal of the noble and generous elites who use their assets for benefactions. By encouraging the liberality of the well-to-do, 1 Timothy reflects the contemporary valuation of euergetism, but it also presupposes that the better-off aspire to social recognition in return.”66 But, just as in 1 Peter, an encouragement toward participation in the Hellenistic convention of benefaction – and thus, accommodation of traditional social values – is difficult to sustain in this instance. As Kidd has noted, even though the language and ideas used in the Pastorals were very similar to those which appear in euergetistic contexts, the underlying reality behind them was very different. In fact, he contends that, “the conclusion that the Pastorals’ approach is but an uncritical accepting of contemporary bürgerlich or even ‘aristocratic’ values is vacuous.”67 This judgment finds support through a closer examination of 1 Tim 6.17–19. The instructions to “do good” in this passage undoubtedly include sharing with others in the believing community,68 particularly the material support which would be given to members of one’s own family (cf. 1 Tim 5.4, 8, 16). This would represent a different focus than euergetism, which was rarely for utilitarian purposes.69 65   We need not assume that the digressive nature of this section indicates a later addition to the text when wealthy Christians were more common in the church (pace Robert Falconer, The Pastoral Epistles [Oxford: Clarendon, 1937] 158, and Burton S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles: Introduction, Translation, Commentary, and Word Studies [New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1947] 170). Elsewhere, the letter provides evidence that the community contained some wealthy members (see Otto Knoch, 1. und 2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief [NEchtB 14; Würzburg: Echter, 1988] 47). 66   Korinna Zamfir, Men and Women in the Household of God: A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles (NTOA 103; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013) 157. Cf. Trebilco, Early Christians in Ephesus, 415–21, who makes the case that “doing good” refers to wealthy Christians using their money for the benefit of outsiders in an effort to help the reputation of the Christian community, although he does not refer to this as “benefaction.” What seems to prevent this association is his recognition that the expectations of reciprocal praise and adulation which were part and parcel to euergetism are absent in the Pastorals (381–82). 67  Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence, 111–58 (quote 157). 68   Pace Victor Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Pastoralbriefe) (ZBK 12; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978) 52, and Hanson, Pastoral Epistles, 114. 69   In Tit 3.14, the exhortation handed down is to, “let people learn to devote themselves to good works (καλῶν ἔργων).” The goal or purpose (εἰς) of this instruction is so that “urgent needs” might be met (on the distinctive focus of charity in early Christianity, see Bruce W. Longenecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010]).

158

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

Moreover, the author’s preference for the pursuit of righteousness over the pursuit of wealth (1 Tim 6.6–11) suggests that he would be adverse to the type of rivalry and pomp that were part and parcel to the convention of civic benefaction. In this very passage, in fact, doing good and being rich in good deeds is contrasted with haughtiness and setting one’s hope in the uncertainty of riches (6.17–18). Given that he appears to be working from a common Jewish and Christian topos against wealth, it is difficult to envision this as an encouragement to participate in the Hellenistic system of benefaction, which would build on very different (almost diametrically opposed, in fact) philosophical foundations.70 The Pastor’s description of the rich (1 Tim 6.17) provides further confirmation that euergetism is not in view. The plural (τοῖς πλουσίοις) is used to describe a particular group or class of people, viz., those who have an abundance of material wealth.71 Noteworthy is how the author qualifies these riches: ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι (“[those who are rich] in this present world”), which stands in contrast to τὸ μέλλον (“the [world] to come”) in v. 19.72 What this suggests is that he is setting up two different standards: popular society and God’s economy. When defined by the standards of this world, the rich might have an abundance of resources, but this means little in the world to come. Therefore, he seems to be setting God’s economy of good works over against that of Greco-Roman society. To contribute toward civic benefaction meant furthering one’s reputation within the community (i.e., self-aggrandizement) by performing services which did little for the material needs of the poor, a group about which the Pastor is especially concerned. If this is the case, we cannot simply assume that the command “to do good, to be rich in good works, and to be generous and willing to share” (v. 18) necessarily refers to the practice of civic benefaction. So if participation in the Hellenistic convention of euergetism is not being encouraged in the Pastorals, to what do good works refer? While it would be difficult to deny that there is some overlap between the good deeds of Christians and the While the good works of euergetism could alleviate food shortages, this utilitarian function was not the primary function of the convention (see Ch. 4). 70   On this topos, see Mark D. Mathews, Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John (SNTSMS 154; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Hellenistic philosophical tradition had its own warnings against the dangers of riches. Extensive documentation of these can be found in Abraham J. Malherbe, “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth: 1 Timothy 6:3–19 (Part II),” NovT 53 (2011) 73–96. 71   Cf. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 671. As a variation, Paul H. Furfey (“ΠΛΟΥΣΙΟΣ and Cognates in the New Testament,” CBQ 5 [1943] 241–63) views the designation as a reference to those who had large incomes (e.g., farmers, merchants, etc). 72   There also seems to be a contrast between τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι (“those who are rich in this world”) and πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς (“to be rich in good works”) (see J. T. August Wiesinger, Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus und Philemon [BCSNT 5,1; Königsberg: A.W. Unzer, 1850] 556; Bernhard Weiss, Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus [5th ed.; KEK 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1886] 243).

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

159

types of behaviors that were approved within the larger society, there are strong reasons to believe that the good works of the Pastoral Epistles are shaped just as much by the particulars of the Christian faith than by social standards. This is evident most clearly in the fact that some of the good works mentioned in the Pastorals are distinctively Christian acts which were not highly regarded by the wider society. For instance, 1 Tim 3.1 describes the office of overseer as a “good work” (καλὸν ἔργον). This may have been the assessment of leadership positions among Christian communities, but the same value would not have been assigned by outsiders. Likewise, the hospitable act of “washing the feet of the saints” was one of many good works which Christians expected from widows (1 Tim 5.10); yet this estimation would not have been shared outside of the church. It would thus appear that some (or many?) of these good works do not represent acts which Christians performed in an effort to gain societal approval. This means that, “[f]ar from being another alleged indication that the author of these letters endorsed a secular, respectable social ethic as an end in itself,” the good works theme seeks “to position authentic Christian existence within the world as that manner of life determined by faith in Christ that is in accordance with the values and aims of God.”73 b. Good Works and the Strategy of the Pastoral Epistles Understanding how the good works motif fits into the wider social strategy of the Pastoral Epistles begins with a look at the opponents to which the author is responding. So who were the opponents in the Pastorals, and how might this affect the author’s use of the good works motif? Some have suggested that the polemic of the Pastorals is merely a literary device in which a set of opponents is constructed by the author as a hypothetical antithesis against which to provide his positive message.74 Most, however, recognize that the polemic is directed at actual opponents who stand in conflict with the writer. Greater division surrounds the question of whether these opponents were wealthy, influential members of the congregation, or members from the lower strata of society who were seeking to ascend to the affluent level of the author.75 Either way, the conflict appears to represent a social (rather than a theolog73  Towner, Letters of Timothy and Titus, 212. Cf. Lea and Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, 316, who argue that “[t]he life of Jesus . . . provides a pattern for attitude and behavior that is truly ‘good’.” 74   So, e.g., Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986); Davies, Pastoral Epistles, 89–99. It is possible, however, to maintain this same antithesis without viewing the opponents as hypothetical (cf. Luke Timothy Johnson, “II Timothy and the Polemic against False Teachers: A Re-Examination,” JRS 6–7 [1978–79] 1–26, who argues that the polemical language against real opponents is used as a “negative foil to the ideal, so that the hearers will know what to avoid as well as what to follow” [20]). 75  Verner, Household of God, 174–75, argues that the author is one of the wealthy members of the congregation, since “[e]stablished wealth receives the tacit approval of leadership, while attempts to break into the circle of the wealthy from below meet with condemnation” (175). Most, however, understand the opponents as the wealthier members of the community (so, e.g., Louis W.

160

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

ical) struggle.76 This fact, combined with the stereotypical nature of the letters’ polemic, makes the specifics of the dispute difficult to reconstruct with any degree of certainty.77 The one thing that is clear is that the opponents are members of the Christian community.78 In response to this inter-group conflict, the author of the Pastorals encourages his readers to adopt a more conservative social ethic (see above). His advice, it seems, was intended to combat the behavior (and teachings?) of his Christian opponents, whose conduct was viewed as a threat to the reputation of the believing community.79 With the opponents being fellow believers, it is important to note that the strong critique in the epistles is not directed towards outsiders. Absent from the letter is any stress on the sinfulness of “pagans” or their impending judgment. Neither do the Pastorals envision (or, at least, do not portray) any kind of eschatological reversal wherein the Gentile oppressors are overthrown.80 Countryman, The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accommodations [TSR 7; New York: Mellen, 1980] 152–54, 166–73; Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence, 75– 77, 97–100; and Lloyd K. Pietersen, “Despicable Deviants: Labelling Theory and the Polemic of the Pastorals,” Sociology of Religion 58 [1997] 343–52). 76   Cf. David G. Horrell, “Converging Ideologies: Berger and Luckmann and the Pastoral Epistles,” JSNT 50 (1993) 85–103 (97–98). This consideration is not given enough attention by Egbert Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre: Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe (MTS 28; Marburg: N.G. Elwert Verlag, 1990), who focuses too much on the “false teaching” of the opponents. 77   Note Hanson’s summary of this puzzling situation: “we have in the Pastorals the paradoxical situation that false teachers are fiercely attacked, but we are left without any very clear picture of their doctrine; and the true teaching is to be carefully guarded, though we are never told precisely what it is” (Pastoral Epistles, 26). 78   Robert J. Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” JBL 92 (1973) 549–64, claims that, despite the stereotypical polemic, we can know something about the opponents from the places where the author departs from the stock critique. According to his approach, “[t]he opponents are Jewish Christians who are teachers of the law (1 Tim 1:7; Tit 3:9; cf. Tit 1:14). They teach Jewish myths (Tit 1:14; cf. 1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4) and genealogies (1 Tim 1:4; Tit 3:9). They forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from food (1 Tim 4:3–5). They teach that the resurrection has already occurred (2 Tim 2:18). They may have had significant success among the womanfolk, especially because their teaching about emancipation (2 Tim 3:6–7); cf. 1 Tim 2:11–15; 5:13; Tit 2:5)” (562–63). This reconstruction of the combined witness of the Pastoral opponents is somewhat problematic, however, because Karris does not consider the possibility that the epistles could be addressing different situations (and thus different opponents). 79   See, e.g., Lilian Portefaix, “‘Good Citizenship’ in the Household of God: Women’s Position in the Pastorals Reconsidered in the Light of Roman Rule,” in A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (ed. A.-J. Levine; FCNT 7; London: T&T Clark, 2003) 147–58: “in a period of danger to the church, aggravated by the activity of Gnosticizing heretical teachers, not only women but also slaves and leaders of the church on various levels were encouraged to adapt themselves to the social pattern of Roman society in order to escape persecution” (157). 80   For some time, interpreters have minimized the role which apocalypticism plays in the ethic of the Pastorals, downplaying the letters’ anticipation of the eschaton and failing to recognize the motivational force of the eschatological judgment on the ethics of the readers (see, e.g., J. L. Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament [London: Mowbrays, 1975] 64–65; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity [2nd ed.; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995] 305). This is in accordance with Dibelius’s proposal concerning the fading expectation of the parousia (for an important correction to the traditional reading of apoc-

Chapter Six:  Good Works in the New Testament

161

Along these same lines, the Pastor does not emphasize the distinctiveness of Christian behavior. When discussing the matter of good works, his instructions do not stress the need to maintain a clear separation from the conduct of outsiders, nor does he address the possibility that the pecularity of Christian conduct might be socially disruptive (or, at least, that it might be viewed this way by outsiders). Moreover, the letters’ focus on positively affecting the opinions of outsiders through a conservative social ethic (cf. 1 Tim 3.7; 6.1–2; Tit 2.5),81 result in a greater emphasis being placed on the overlapping standards of conduct. This aligns with the Pastor’s ultimate aim of social harmony. By not focusing on how the distinctiveness of Christianity leads to social conflict, he is better able to instruct his readers toward conformity. Therefore, even though the Pastoral Epistles often employ the good works motif in a theological manner, with the standards of God being the focus of their efforts, the language is not used with any subversive undertones, nor does the author intend to stir up a sense of resistance among his readers. His purpose is to stress the commonality between his Christian ethic and moral standards of the wider society. Although some of their Christian values may have caused problems (due to their negative appraisal among outsiders), the Pastor tends to downplay any sense of distinctiveness, and the language of good works is one of the means of doing so.

C. Conclusion From our brief review of good works in the New Testament, it is clear that Hellenistic moralists were not the only group who appropriated the language of good works for their own purposes. Early Christian writers – like many Jews from the Second Temple period – adopted and then reinscribed the terminology with a unique theological dimension. In New Testament literature, the theological function of these good deeds resemble ancient Jewish usage in that they seem to contribute (in some way) to a person’s relationship to God. Nevertheless, the referent extends across a

alypticism in the Pastoral Epistles, see David J. Downs, “‘Early Catholicism’ and Apocalypticism in the Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ 67 [2005] 641–61). But while it is true that “the expectation of a future judgment becomes a major warrant in the letters” (Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles [HUT 22; Tübingen: Mohr, 1986] 148; see further Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence, 191–94), in his description of the eschatological judgment, the author’s focus is placed on believers, not unbelievers. 81   Cf. Trebilco, Early Christians in Ephesus, 372: “Because it seems to matter a great deal that the behaviour adopted by the members of the community should be acceptable in the eyes of outsiders, the Pastor advocates society-sanctioned behaviour that will lead to acceptability.” Trebilco provides a helpful discussion of accommodation in the Pastoral Epistles (see p. 354–84), but he uses the problematic labels “acculturation” and “assimilation.” On problems with these designations, see pp. 18–19.

162

Part Three:  Good Works in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

somewhat wider spectrum, being connected not only with Torah-observance, but also with a more general moral virtue which patterned itself after the life of Christ. The strongest concentration of the good works language in the New Testament is found in the Pastoral Epistles. Our purpose in this chapter was to assess the “apologetic” function which interpreters commonly assign this motif. Upon a close reading of the letters, we found that the popular understanding of good works in the Pastorals needed a slight adjustment. While the author’s conservative social ethic cannot be denied, the admonition to “do good” does not represent the wholesale adoption of and conformity to Hellenistic values. The good works of the Pastorals are often distinctive Christian practices which would have had no social value within the wider Greco-Roman world. Instead, the author’s use of this language allows him to stress the continuity between the values of his community and those of outsiders, creating a sense of solidarity between the two. By thus leaving behind any “sectarian” notions of distinctive Christian conduct, he hopes to alleviate existing social tensions. The question that remains, therefore, is how this compares with 1 Peter’s usage. For some, this might appear to be a simple matter of deduction. Given that in previous chapters we ruled out the possibility that 1 Peter might be calling its audience to participate in civic benefaction, and considering that early Christian writers followed the trend of Hellenistic moralists, who used the language to represent the moral excellence of a person’s life, one might be tempted to (prematurely) conclude that good works in 1 Peter serves merely as a description of ethical virtue. But this assessment would be inadequate to fully capture the function of good works in the epistle. There is something more to 1 Peter’s usage that requires further refinement. The key to uncovering the meaning and purpose of good works in 1 Peter lies in the tension between conformity and resistance. In the chapters that follow, we will explore the way that the author negotiates the two, and then attempt to situate the call to “do good” within the wider framework of the letter’s social strategy.

Part Four

Good Works in 1 Peter

Chapter Seven

Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter This chapter serves as an important prerequisite to the following discussion on the function of good works within the larger social strategy of 1 Peter. Before we can address questions of how the Petrine author navigates accommodation and resistance in his prescribed ethic, we must begin by addressing two popular misconceptions which shape the way that many interpreters understand the theme. The first relates to the comparative use of this language elsewhere in the New Testament. In the Pastoral Epistles – the only other place where such a concentrated use of good works terminology appears – it is clear that the motif is employed as part of the author’s conservative social ethic which imitates the Hellenistic language of moral virtue. Based on this fact, it is not uncommon for scholars to read the good works motif of 1 Peter in a similar light, viewing it as the author’s attempt to conform to popular expectations. The second derives from the epistle itself. In 1 Peter, the honorable conduct of Christians is said to have the power to silence the foolish talk of detractors (1 Pet 2.14–15; cf. 3.13–14) and to convert unbelievers to the Christian faith (2.12; 3.1). Of course, to generate this kind of acceptance, good deeds would have to represent conduct that was commendable in the eyes of the wider Greco-Roman society. Drawing this logic to its ultimate conclusion, then, many scholars propose that the good works of 1 Peter must play a part in the author’s larger strategy of accommodation. Our goal in this chapter is to expose some of the problems behind these interpretive deductions and to offer a few alternative readings in their stead. We will address each of these misconceptions in turn.

A. Good Works in 1 Peter and Comparative Uses When evaluating the good works terminology in 1 Peter, it is natural for interpreters to seek comparative uses. In order to understand how the Petrine author negotiates the tension between accommodating certain societal expectations while resisting others, it is helpful to have some point of comparison by which to assess the epistle’s stategy of good works. In this way, the use of the good works language in the Pastoral Epistles makes for a valuable resource. The concentration of good works terminology in both the Pastorals and 1 Peter is striking and must be accounted for – particularly since this language only finds occasional usage elsewhere in ancient Jewish

166

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

and early Christian writings. Both assign the conduct a particular value so that their respective audiences might be convinced to undertake it. In each, good works are portrayed as a necessary prerequisite for future salvation. One might even argue that many of the behaviors that are represented therein are probably very similar. What is more, the situation represented in the Pastoral Epistles, in many ways, mirrors that of 1 Peter. In both cases, the authors appear to be responding to a conflict situation, regarding which they hope to provide their readers with a particular course of action. Part of the strategy of each author includes various admonitions to accommodate certain societal expectations. These similiarities naturally lead us to ask whether each author’s use of the good works theme should be understood in the same light. Due to these connections, 1 Peter’s use of good works terminology often gets lumped together with that of the Pastoral Epistles when the topic is addressed. This is an unfortunate – although not completely surprising – result. What is generally precluded thereby is any consideration regarding whether the two authors might have different purposes for employing similar terminology. This is an important consideration, for we suggest that, despite these connections, the documents contain important, underlying differences which prevent the two motifs from being read in exactly the same manner. A closer look reveals a key distinction: while both reflect a certain degree of social conformity, their underlying perspectives on the situation, as reflected in the portrayal of the outside world and in the way they encourage their readers to carry out the instructions, are markedly different.1 It is their divergence at this point that ultimately results in two different construals of the good works theme. On the surface, the social ethic prescribed in 1 Peter is both traditional and conservative. Yet, one will find that many of the popular values that are endorsed by the Petrine author are also subtly undermined. This is in accordance with the epistle’s cautious resistance (see Ch. 9). While forced to accommodate certain patterns of behavior that were expected within Greco-Roman society, the author nonetheless distances himself and his community from outsiders by constructing a distinctive (Christian) identity.2 The same is cannot be said of the Pastoral Epistles, however. In this corpus, the Pastor attempts to dowplay any distinctions between Christians and their non-Christian neighbors to the point that believers are (almost) indistinguishable from society. The difference between the Pastorals and 1 Peter is most clearly apparent in their eschatological perspectives. The latter indicates a firm expectation that “the end of all things is near” (1 Pet 4.7), and when it arrives, those outside of the Christian community will “have to give an account to the one who is ready to judge the living 1   In many ways, this is fueled by the two different situations giving rise to the correspondences. The “enemies” to which the Pastor is responding are members of the Christian community; whereas in 1 Peter the opponents are non-believing outsiders. 2   Cf. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 101–64.

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

167

and the dead” (4.5). The punishment of non-believers is thought to be deserved, as their lives were marked by darkness, depravity, and a complete “flood of debauchery” (4.4). Although there is a modest hope that an unbeliever might escape this fate through conversion (3.1–2), the prospective future of most non-Christians seems grim (cf. 4.17–18). In this way, there is a clear separation between the Petrine community and “the world.” When good works are mentioned, consequently, stress is often laid on their role in provoking the conflict with outsiders.3 All of this informs our understanding of the good works theme in 1 Peter and the Pastorals. Even though many of the characteristic behaviors which the Petrine communities would have described as “good deeds” would have looked very similar to those of the Pastor’s community, each work represents an alternate way of portraying the same motif. This, of course, is due to the fact that 1 Peter and the Pastorals represent different social strategies. These differences will become more pronounced as we seek to understand how the Petrine author balances accommodation and resistance and where good works fit into his larger strategy (see Chs. 8–9). What we will show in the chapters that follow is that, unlike in the Pastoral Epistles, the good works theme in 1 Peter is part of the author’s larger strategy of cautious resistance. This sense of intentional subversiveness is entirely absent in the Pastorals, and it would appear to be counterintuitive for the author’s purposes. Thus, even though good works share very close affinities in the Pastorals and 1 Peter (even to the extent of sharing many of the same referents), their distinction lies in the ultimate aims of the authors: whereas the Petrine author uses the motif for the purpose of resistance, the Pastor employs the same theme for an accommodative aim. In conclusion, then, the Pastorals’ use of the good works language to further accommodate Greco-Roman society cannot simply be transposed onto the motif in 1 Peter. The latter must be read on its own terms.

B. The Optimism of Good Works in 1 Peter The comparative use of good works terminology appears, to many, to indicate that the behavioral patterns encouraged in 1 Peter were similar to, if not identical with, the standards of conduct approved by Anatolian society. But the evidence most commonly used to equate good works with social conformity is the perceived optimism on behalf of the Petrine author.4 Not only will the “ignorance of the foolish” be silenced by the good works of the readers (1 Pet 2.14–15; cf. 3.13–14), “doing   See pp. 255–57.   Many interpreters, therefore, propose a tension between the author’s call to solidarity with the standards of society and identification with the will of God. In fact, one earlier Petrine scholar concluded that this was “eine Spannung, für welche der Verfasser von 1. Pt. keine abschließende Lösung kennt” (Theophil Spörri, Der Gemeindegedanke im ersten Petrusbrief: Ein Beitrag zur Struktur des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs [NTF 2,2; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1925] 245). 3 4

168

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

good” has the power to turn detractors into fellow-converts (2.12; cf. 3.1). This confident expectation regarding the impact of good deeds has led many to conclude that the strategy must be one of accommodation. What we would like to suggest, however, is that the perceived optimism in 1 Peter is an idea that has been inflated by modern interpreters, and consequently, it has served to confuse the discussion of good works. Where it has caused the most trouble is in effectively masking the fact that on a number of occasions the author clearly states that the good deeds of Christians will be met with a negative response from their present detractors,5 a fact that has not received adequate attention from the modern consensus. In what follows, we will try to show that an optimistic outlook is not as prevalent in 1 Peter as many have assumed and that when it is displayed it hardly necessitates the conclusion that good works represent a popularly-approved social ethic. 1. (Dis)honorable Conduct among the Gentiles (1 Pet 2.11–12) In the minds of many interpreters, 1 Pet 2.12 seems to provide the readers with a fairly straightforward strategy by which to combat false accusations. Even though the Petrine communities are frequently vilified by their Anatolian neighbors, when they begin to undertake the kinds of good deeds that will be recognized and approved by society, then the repudiation of Christians will be turned into the glorification of God. Therefore, a socially-approved ethic is thought to be the antidote for intergroup conflict. As much as we might like to imagine that this interpretation flows directly out of 1 Peter, it would seem that a major influence on this popular reading comes from the parallel Jesus tradition found in the Gospel of Matthew. In Matt 5.16, the evangelist records the following exhortation: “let your light shine before people, so that they might see your good works and glorify your father in heaven (ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς).” Here the strategy is unmistakably clear: good deeds are to be performed in an effort to lead others toward the praise and glory of God. Where questions arise, however, is the extent to which the Matthean version should influence the interpretation of the Petrine tradition. Often overlooked in this discussion are three important differences in the way each author represents the shared tradition. When these dissimilarities are explored, they lead us away from interpreting 1 Pet 2.12b according to the simple strategy of Matt 5.16b and thus contrary to the reading posed above.6

  See pp. 255–57.   A comparison between the two passages is not meant to imply anything more than shared tradition; hence we would reject the theory of literary dependence posed by Rainer Metzner, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangelium im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluss des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 2/74; Tübingen: Mohr 5 6

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

169

Table 4: Comparing the Jesus Tradition in Matt 5.16b and 1 Pet 2.12b Matthew 5.16b

1 Peter 2.12b ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν

ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα

ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων ἐποπτεύοντες

καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

δοξάσωσιν τὸν θεὸν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς

The first of these important differences is the way in which 1 Peter extends the temporal fulfillment of God’s glorification. According to 1 Pet 2.12b, God is said to be specifically honored ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς (“on the day of visitation”). Within Petrine scholarship, there has been some debate over the precise timing of this event. According to some, the ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς (“day of visitation”) refers to “God’s visitation of individual nonbelievers as an occasion of testing when they are confronted with the winsome behavior of the believers and are thereby motivated to join the Christians in their glorification of God.”7 For support, proponents of this view point to the fact that within Jewish thought, God could visit (ἐπισκοπή) his people in order to bring blessing in this life (Gen 50.24–25; Exod 3.16; 13.19; Isa 23.17; Pss. Sol. 11.1, 6). However, a fact that is too often neglected is that when ἐπισκοπή is used with a temporal designation (e.g., ὥρα, ἡμέρα, καιρός), it refers almost invariably to a decisive and corporate eschatological event wherein God brings either blessing (Wis 3.7; Sir 18.20; Luke 19.44) or punishment (Isa 10.3; Jer 6.15; 8.12; 10.15). Therefore, since our author refers to the ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς (“day of visitation”), an eschatological event should be envisioned.8 Siebeck, 1995) esp. 49–68. What we are trying to do is simply to facilitate a reading of 1 Pet 2.12 on its own terms, without the influence from the Matthean tradition. 7  Elliott, 1 Peter, 471 (original emphasis); cf. also Knopf, Die Briefe Petri, 103–104; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 171; Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, 94; Ceslas Spicq, Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre (SB 4; Paris: Gabalda, 1966) 99; Georg Schückler, “Wandel im Glauben als missionarisches Zeugnis,” Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 51 (1967) 289–99 (292–94); Heinz Giesen, “Lebenszeugnis in der Fremde: Zum Verhalten der Christen in der paganen Gesellschaft (1 Petr. 2.11–17),” SNTSU 23 (1998) 113–52 (128–31); Seland, “Resident Aliens in Mission,” 576–77. 8   Some have viewed the anarthrous character of ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς as an indication that the phrase is meant to be read in an indefinite sense (thus, not ‘the day of visitation’) (so, e.g., Heinz Giesen, Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche: Studien zur Eschatologie und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptikern und im ersten Petrusbrief [BETL; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2004] 380; Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre, 148–49). However, as the object of a preposition, the phrase does not require the article in order to be definite (see BDF §255; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples [trans. J. Smith; Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 114; Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1963] §182); in fact, when the object of a preposition is used with an accompanying genitive modifier, both are commonly anarthrous (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1934] 792–93).

170

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

The question is thus whether these detractors will glorify God on the day of judgment because they will be genuinely converted through the lifestyle of the Anatolian believers or because they will be forced to recognize what they did not account for during their lives, viz., that the actions of the Christians were performed with the approval of God. The difficulty is that the only substantial evidence for choosing between the two options is the parallel reference in 1 Pet 3.16.9 There the accusers are said to be put to shame (καταισχυνθῶσιν) for slandering the good deeds of Christians.10 Consequently, it is probably best to understand ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς as a reference to the accusers’ ultimate confession of their error at the day of God’s final judgment. The second way that 1 Pet 2.12b distinguishes itself from Matt 5.16b is through a variation in syntactical arrangement. Whereas the Matthean text contains two finite verbs in paratactic coordination (ἴδωσιν . . . καὶ δοξάσωσιν) with τὰ καλὰ ἔργα serving as a direct object, the Petrine version is construed with a finite verb and an adverbial participle along with the prepositional phrase ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. The participle ἐποπτεύοντες11 (“seeing”) most likely functions causally, modifying δοξάσωσιν. Since it relates to the subjunctive, however, it carries a futuristic force, although still slightly prior to the main verb (“will have observed”). As such, it conveys the unbelievers’ future remembrance of the readers’ past conduct.12 The prepositional phrase ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων is related to this participle13 not as a direct   Evidence such as the presence of δοξάζω (“to glorify”) in this context is of little value in determining a solution, for God is able to receive glory through either salvation or judgment (see van Unnik, “Good Works in I Peter,” 99–100). 10   Mark Dubis (1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text [BHGNT; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010]) argues against interpreting καταισχυνθῶσιν in an eschatological light, reading the form instead as a middle voice (“might be ashamed”). This conclusion is based on the assumption that “the exhortation to maintain a clear conscience is much more likely to be grounded in a missiological motive, introduced by ἵνα (‘in order that they might be shamed in the here and how and, as a result, come to Christ’), than a motive rooted in the hope that God will deal unbelievers eschatological shame and condemnation” (113–114). Yet, such a reading forces a missional focus on the text where none exists. This passage is rather concerned with eschatological reversal and judgment (see Elliott, 1 Peter, 632–33). 11   Possibly to clarify the fact that the “observing” preceded the “glorifying,” some ancient witnesses contain the aorist form of the participle (ἐποπτεύσαντες) rather than the present (e.g., A P Ψ 33. Byz Clement). But the weight of the evidence is clearly on the side of the latter (e.g., P72 ) B C 69. 614. 630. 945. 1241. 1505. 1739. al syh co). For the full textual record, see ECM, 136. 12   Cf. Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 136–37. This interpretation is opposed by Dubis (1 Peter, 63–64) on the basis that “the ‘seeing’ in Matt 5:16 is best understood as a ‘seeing’ (and resulting conversion) that takes place in this present life.” This objection, however, carries little weight. First, contrary to the assertion of Dubis, this interpretation – like Matt 5.16– posits a “seeing” that takes place in this life (hence “will have seen”). It is the resultant outcome (e.g., conversion) that is temporally separate. Secondly, 1 Peter contains an additional temporal marker (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς), not found in the Matthean tradition, which places it outside the parameters discussed in Matt 5.16. Therefore, one cannot argue that the two texts are conceptual parallels. 13  Many older commentators claimed that ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων modifies δοξάσωσιν with ἐποπτεύοντες functioning absolutely (so, e.g., J. T. August Wiesinger, Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus [BCSNT 6/2; Königsberg: A.W. Unzer, 1856] 169–170; G. F. C. Fronmüller, The Epistles 9

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

171

object but as a modifier of an understood τὴν καλὴν ἀναστροφήν, denoting source (“observing (your noble conduct) from your good works”).14 Therefore, the passage states that on the final day of God’s judgment, the opponents of the Christian faith will glorify God as they recall the noble conduct of believers which consisted in their good deeds. A final difference between the two Jesus traditions is the reference to prior conflict in 1 Pet 2.12b. Whereas the Petrine version mentions the slander of outsiders (ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν), which is in some way connected to the good deeds and the glorification of God, the Matthean tradition contains no indication of previous hostility. This departure is another indication that the author of 1 Peter has not indiscriminately adopted a popular saying but has carefully applied a preexisting tradition to the present situation of his readers. To understand what he is trying to communicate, we must examine the clause more closely. Part of the reason why scholars have understood the good works in 1 Peter as a means of extinguishing popular hostility is because of the temporal force ascribed to the prepositional phrase ἐν ᾧ.15 This exegetical conclusion serves to separate the cause of the slander (which is left unstated) from the remedy (which is good works).16 The scholar responsible for popularizing this view is Bo Reicke. In his (published) doctoral dissertation The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter III.19 and Its Context, Reicke undertook the most detailed examination of the General of Peter and the Epistle General of Jude [trans. J. I. Mombert; A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 9; New York: Charles Scribner, 1867] 39; Johann M. Usteri, Wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Commentar über den ersten Petrusbrief, Erster Theil: Die Auslegung [Zürich: Höhr, 1887] 102; Huther, The General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 125; Ernst Kühl, Die Briefe Petri und Judae [6th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897] 158). Two problems make this an unsustainable option, however: (a) positing an absolute function for the participle leaves an awkward sense that could be alleviated if it were assigned an adverbial function; and (b) the word order of the sentence (i.e., ἐποπτεύοντες being placed between ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων and δοξάσωσιν) would make it difficult to argue that ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων modifies δοξάσωσιν. 14   See H. G. Meecham, “A Note on 1 Peter ii.12,” ExpTim 65 (1953–54) 93; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 114 n.  378; Goppelt, I Peter, 155; Jobes, 1 Peter, 167. Within Petrine literature, a number of other interpretations of ἐκ has been posed: (a) causal, modifying δοξάσωσιν (“glorify God because of your good works”) (Dubis, 1 Peter, 63); (b) result, modifying ἐποπτεύοντες (“by having their eyes opened as a result of the recollection of your good works”) (Monnier, La Première Èpître de L’Apôtre Pierre, 113; Blenkin, The First Epistle General of Peter, 55; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 171); and (c) partitive, modifying ἐποπτεύοντες (“by observing some of your good works”) (John T. Demarest, A Translation and Exposition of the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter [New York: John Moffet, 1851] 118; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 178). Aside from these options, many simply translate the prepositional phrase as though it were the direct object of ἐποπτεύοντες. 15   As noted over a century ago by Theodor Schott (Der erste Brief Petri [Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1861] 128) this prepositional phrase holds the key to the entire verse’s interpretation: “Die Entwirrung der grammatisch und logisch etwas schwierigen Construction hängt in diesem Saß nicht wenig von der richtigen Fassung des ἐν ᾧ ab.” 16   The same separation is also created by a concessive meaning (“although they slander you as evildoers . . .”), a view which is represented in NRSV; NET; NIV; TNIV; NLT; Jobes, 1 Peter, 167; Prigent, La première épître de Pierre, 60; Green, 1 Peter, 66 n.  5.

172

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

usage of ἐν ᾧ in 1 Peter.17 From his analysis, he concluded that the construction’s function at 2.12 is distinct from all other uses, except for that found in 3.16. According to Reicke, what these two share in common is the lack a specific antecedent and a function similar to a temporal conjunction (“whenever,” “during which time”). Although he was not the first to espouse such a view, Reicke’s treatment has become very influential in subsequent scholarship. When modern interpreters adopt similar conclusions, it is normally his work that is being followed.18 There are two important points to consider when it comes to assessing Reicke’s proposal. First, his treatment of ἐν ᾧ in 1 Pet 2.12 is principally an attempt to refute what, at that time, was the more popular understanding (viz., that it effectively implied the presence ἐν τούτῳ, “in that in which”). Unfortunately, he fails to provide any substantial evidence to support his own theory. Secondly, part of his defensive strategy is to reconcile the chronological discrepancy that exists for a temporal reading of ἐν ᾧ in 2.12. That is, the prepositional phrase ἐν ᾧ must be construed with both καταλαλοῦσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν (an event which is taking place at the present time) and δοξάσωσιν τὸν θεὸν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς (an event which will take place in the eschatological future). As such, a temporal function is difficult to sustain. To avoid this disparity, Reicke defines ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς, “not [as] the Last Day but [as] the day in earthly life when the person in question is converted by reason of his [sic] realization of the blamelessness of the Christians.”19 The significance of this fact has not been properly recognized by those who follow Reicke in interpreting ἐν ᾧ as a temporal conjunction. What commentators often overlook is that unless Reicke’s understanding of ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς is also adopted – which is the most problematic aspect of his theory (see above) – the temporal meaning of ἐν ᾧ is unsustainable. Based on these considerations, an alternative solution must be pursued. A more promising method of interpreting this prepositional phrase begins with establishing the antecedent of ᾧ. Very often, ἐν + the relative pronoun has no stated antecedent and thus requires one to be supplied.20 As others have pointed out, ἐν τούτῳ seems to be implied in this particular instance (“in that in which”).21 This just leaves us to 17   Bo Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter III.19 and Its Context (ASNU 13; Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1946) 110–15. 18   Others who have espoused a temporal function for ἐν ᾧ include: ESV; NKJV; Christian G. Hensler, Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus übersetzt und mit einem Kommentar versehen (Sulzbach: Seidel, 1813) 100; Schott, Der erste Brief Petri, 128; Hans Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe (3rd ed.; HNT 15; ed. H. Preisker; Tübingen: Mohr, 1951) 62; Paul R. Fink, “The Use and Significance of en hōi in 1 Peter,” GTJ 8 (1967) 33–39 (34); Schelkle, Der Petrusbriefe, 68; Michaels, 1 Peter, 117; Prostmeier, Handlungsmodelle im ersten Petrusbrief, 142; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 114; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 177; Elliott, 1 Peter, 467; Senior, “1 Peter,” 64–65; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 122 n.  15; Donelson, I & II Peter, 68. 19  Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 110–11. 20   See Robertson, Grammar, 719–21 (on the usage in 1 Pet 2.12, see p. 721); BDF §294(4); Moule, Idiom Book, 130. 21   Those who espouse a similar function for (ἐν τούτῳ) ἐν ᾧ include: NASB; Johann C. K. von Hofmann, Der erste Brief Petri (HSNT 7/1; Nördlingen: Nördlingen Beck, 1875) 79; Huther, The

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

173

determine the function of ἐν. Following Wilhelm Steiger, we would suggest that the preposition most likely denotes “the cause (Ursache) or the occasion (Veranlassung), for the sake of which any thing is done.”22 Thus, the verse might be rendered: “[abstain from the desires of the flesh] with the result that you keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that on account of the very thing for which they slander you, they will glorify God on the day of visitation because they will have seen (your conduct) from your good works.” So although the syntax of this verse is difficult, “[w]hat it indicates is that they [i.e., non-Christians] will give glory to God then [i.e., the eschatological judgment] about the same things for which they slander Christians now.”23 The only question that remains then is, what is it that causes both the current slander of Christians and the future praise of God? To avoid the conclusion that the good works actually caused the Christians’ present suffering, some have attributed this function to more general factors.24 However, considering that elsewhere in the epistle good works are clearly said to result in conflict (1 Pet 2.20; 3.14, 16–17; 4.19), there should be no objection to the same interpretation here.25 According to this verse, the author envisions the following sequence of events: observance of good deeds / slander / reappraisal of good deeds on the Day of the Lord / glorification of

General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 125; Blenkin, The First Epistle General of Peter, 55; Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902) 136–37; Spicq, Épîtres de Pierre, 98–99; Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 105; Uwe Holmer and Werner de Boor, Die Briefe des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (5th ed.; WS; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986) 86, 90 n.  100; Knoch, Der Erste und Zweite Petrusbrief, 71; Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 97 n.  10; Hiebert, First Peter, 157–58; Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 146; Goppelt, I Peter, 159 n.  18; McKnight, 1 Peter, 127 n.  8; Paul Bony, La Première épître de Pierre: Chrétiens en diaspora (Lire la Bible 137; Paris: Cerf, 2004) 97; Feldmeier, First Epistle of Peter, 145. 22   Wilhelm Steiger, Exposition of the First Epistle of Peter, Considered in Reference to the Whole System of Divine Truth (trans. P. Fairbairn; Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1836) 72. Cf. G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; trans. W. F. Moulton; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882) 484 n.  1. 23  Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 97 n.  10 (emphasis added). Cf. Dieter Zeller, “Nominal unbestimmtes ἐν ᾧ im Neuen Testament,” ZNW 104 (2013) 268–76: “Was der Grund für die Schmähung ist, ist auch der Grund dafür, dass die Heiden »am Tag der Heimsuchung« Gott verherrlichen” (272). 24   E.g., der ganzen Lebensrichtung (so, e.g., W. M. L. de Wette, Kurze Erklärung der Briefe des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus [3rd ed.; KEHNT 3/1; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1865] 56; Wiesinger, Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus, 169–70); ihrem Christenstand (so, e.g., von Hofmann, Der erste Brief Petri, 79–80; Huther, The General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 125–26); ihrem Christennamen (so, e.g., Usteri, Commentar über den ersten Petrusbrief, 101). 25   The causal connection between the good works of Christians and the persecution of the Gentiles was drawn by a number of older commentators, e.g., Steiger, First Epistle of Peter, 2:73; Fronmüller, The Epistles General of Peter, 39; Kühl, Die Briefe Petri, 158–59; Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 135; Monnier, La Première Èpître de L’Apôtre Pierre, 111–12; Bigg, Epistles of St. Peter, 136–37; Knopf, Die Briefe Petri, 103. However, it is not as readily acknowledged by recent interpreters.

174

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

God.26 So whereas most understand the good works in 1 Pet 2.12 only as the appropriate means of responding to the present conflict, the grammar suggests that they are both the appropriate response as well as the antecedent cause of the conflict. Good works are the source of ridicule as well as its solution – a conclusion that would naturally correspond to the fact that the readers are admonished to conceive of themselves as παροίκοι (“resident foreigners”) and παρεπιδήμοι (“visiting strangers,” 2.11).27 The conclusion that can be drawn from this comparison is that the author’s use of the Jesus tradition in 1 Pet 2.12b is much different from this same tradition recorded in Matt 5.16b. Rather than admonishing his readers with an optimistic and apologetic strategy of good works,28 the author of 1 Peter is resigned to the reality of the present conflict. But even though the good deeds of Christians might not assuage the antagonism of their detractors, ultimately the unbelieving world will recognize its error on the day of God’s judgment. Moreover, what this means for the present discussion is that this verse cannot be used to support the notion that doing good in 1 Peter involved commendable social practices.

  Pace Elliott, 1 Peter, 468, who reverses the first two: slander / observance of good deeds / glorification of God (cf. also Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 171). 27   One key to properly understanding this passage is recognizing the close connection between 1 Pet 2.11 and 2.12. Contrary to the opinions of some, the participle (ἔχοντες) in v. 12 functions adverbially not imperativally (see Scot Snyder, “Participles and Imperatives in 1 Peter: A Re-Examination in the Light of Recent Scholarly Trends,” FiloNT 8 [1995] 187–98 [193–94]; cf. Travis B. Williams, “Reconsidering the Imperatival Participle in 1 Peter,” WTJ 73 [2011] 59–78), and as such, is dependent on the main verbal element in v. 11. With this being the case, the call to “good works” (v. 12) must be read through the lens of the designations πάροικοι and παρεπίδημοι (v. 11). If the recipients were being admonished to undertake the kinds of activities toward which society would have favorably responded and toward which they [i.e., members of society] themselves would have all strived, why would the author depict his reader using such a contemptuous analogy? From this, it would seem that the author expects that his audience will experience further hostility rather than popular acceptance. On the πάροικοι and παρεπίδημοι imagery in 1 Peter, see Feldmeier, Christen als Fremde; cf. Chin, “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless.” 28   Aside from the Hellenistic language of the passage, Richard also adduces two further pieces of evidence from 1 Pet 2.12, which “insist that Christian behavior be both good and publicly acknowledged as such, specifically that it be deemed ‘beautiful or honorable’ in the eyes of Gentile neighbors” (Reading 1 Peter, 105–106): (a) the predicate position of the adjective καλός, and (b) the use of the verb ἐποπτεύω, which stresses the observability of the actions. However, neither of these facts necessarily requires the conduct to be interpreted as “good” by the wider Anatolian society. While the author may be stressing the quality of the actions (a) and their need to be observed (b), this could just as easily be said about distinctively Christian acts which were repudiated by the local populace. If such works were performed with an eye toward the judgment of God, then they would naturally want them to be “good” rather than bad. And if they served as an eschatological testimony to the Gentiles, vindicating the actions of the Christians before their pagan neighbors, then they would also need to be observed. 26

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

175

2. The Silencing of Detractors (1 Pet 2.14–15) A second passage that is often used to support the theory of popular acceptance through praiseworthy social ethics is 1 Pet 2.14–15. The key is the (seemingly) optimistic manner in which the author connects “doing good” with the praise of the governor and the silencing of opponents. Again, the method of argumentation is fairly straightforward: if good works are used to silence detractors (v. 15) and to achieve the praise of the governor (v. 14), then there must be something about them that can be approvingly accepted by society. From this logical equation, commentators subsequently conclude that good works are acts performed according to the standards of popular society. Thus, according to some scholars, the point of this passage is that “Christians had to conform to the expectations of Hellenistic-Roman society so that society would cease criticizing the new cult.”29 To determine the validity of this conclusion, we will examine each verse in order. If taken at face value, the logic behind the consensus treatment of 1 Pet 2.14 seems to make sense. If Roman governors praised those who did good, one might naturally conclude that the standards used to evaluate an individual’s conduct would be the values of Greco-Roman society. There are nevertheless significant problems with the manner in which this verse has been interpreted by Petrine scholars. The passage has been prone to both over- and under-interpretation. That is, some commentators tend to press the language of the verse too far, while others err through the lack of specificity – and very often these mistakes occur in the same treatment. First, let us examine the problem of under-interpretation. Common in the treatment of 1 Pet 2.14 is the tendency to confuse the function of the provincial governor with that of local, civic officials – a problem which results in the task(s) of the latter being assigned to the former. This confusion can be seen in the commentary of D. Edmond Hiebert. After discussing the governor and his responsibility both to punish and to praise provincial inhabitants, Hiebert notes, “Peter’s double statement indicates that civil government is responsible not only for the security of its citizens, but should also foster their moral well-being.”30 This statement represents a leap from provincial to civic authorities, with the latter taking on the responsibilities which 1 Pet 2.14 prescribes to the former.31  Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 88.  Hiebert, First Peter, 167 (emphasis added). 31   One possible explanation for why this type of exchange is made is because interpreters are often very loose with the meaning and translation of ἡγεμών (“governor”). The term is frequently rendered with designations such as “ruler” or “magistrate” (see, e.g., Spicq, Épîtres de Pierre, 103; Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 38; Hiebert, First Peter, 166). In some cases, the word ἡγεμών can take on a more general meaning, representing one who holds a preeminent position (cf. Matt 2.6). In this particular case, however, it must refer to the chief administrative official in a Roman province. This is evident from the fact that the ἡγεμών is sent by the emperor (2.14), something that would not be true of local civic authorities. On the different functions of the provincial governor and local civic officials, see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 156–76. 29

30

176

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

Such confusion over the roles of provincial and civic officials has led some to draw a connection between the governor and civic benefaction, a move which is symptomatic of the tendency to over-interpret the verse.32 The problem is that many interpreters feel compelled to establish a specific referent for the punishment and praise of the governor. As a result, they press the language too far by assigning the governor the duty of rewarding prominent citizens with crowns, statues, and honorific inscriptions.33 Ordinarily gubernatorial acclaim was not the normal method by which benefactors were recognized in the Greek world. The cities – and, in particular, the βουλή (“council”) and the δῆμος (“people”) – were the ones who issued praise in the form of monuments and inscriptions, because they were the ones who experienced the benefit. In fact, some 1,287 references to gubernatorial activities within the Roman provinces (31 BCE to 235 CE) were collected in a study by Fred K. Drogula (references which were drawn from available literary, epigraphic, and papyrological sources), and not a single example shows a governor praising individual citizens for civic benefaction.34 Normally, if any type of gubernatorial recognition did take place, it was more often directed to the governor from the citizens (e.g., CIL III no. 6817; IGR III no. 125; Bosch, Ankara, no. 71). There was some relationship between governors and wealthy citizens, but this resulted more in personal favors than in public praise. Because of this compulsion to assign a specific referent to the punishment and praise mentioned in 1 Pet 2.14, many interpreters have failed to see that the verse represents a common topos on the appropriate administration of governing authorities.35 By adopting the social and political propaganda of the dominant Roman 32   Another example of over-interpreting this verse is the treatment by Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive, 82: “The author shows an awareness that these pagan slanders about the Christians’ household behavior might be brought to the attention of the governor, who would punish those whose household behavior was insubordinate but who would also praise those who accepted their place in the hierarchical framework of the Roman state (2:14).” The problem with this reconstruction is that cases of domestic insubordination would have never reached the governor’s tribunal. The annual assize tour of the governor was extremely busy, with hundreds and possibly thousands of disputes to be heard at each conventus stop (cf. P.Oxy. 2131; P.Yale 61). Consequently, governors normally handled only the more pressing matters and at times refused to hear cases that could be settled on the local level (IGR III no. 582; cf. P.Yale 1606). While charging Christians as Christians (and thus as criminals) would have certainly required the governor’s attention, domestic insubordination seems to be a problem that would have been handled on the civic level, or more likely, within the household itself. 33   So, e.g., Knopf, Die Briefe Petri, 107; Gunkel, Der erste Brief des Petrus, 271; Spicq, Épîtres de Pierre, 103; W. C. van Unnik, “A Classical Parallel to I Peter ii 14 and 20,” in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia (NovTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 106–10 (107, 109); Knoch, Der Erste und Zweite Petrusbrief, 75; Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 112; cf. Schutter, Hermeneutic and Composition, 16 n.  72. 34   Fred K. Drogula, “The Office of the Provincial Governor under the Roman Republic and Empire (to AD 235): Conception and Tradition,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 2005) 447– 93. The closest parallel is found in CIL XIII no. 31662, but even this is related more to personal favors than to public recognition. 35  Lysias, Or. 31.30; Xenophon, Mem. 3.4.8; Cyr. 1.6.20; Oec. 9.14; Diodorus Siculus, Bib.

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

177

empire, the author is able to shape this portion of the “public transcript” for his own purposes.36 The statement shows that good works should be rewarded not punished, and therefore the audience should be able to expect protection from doing good. But, as shown by the readers’ own experience, a great distance often separates expectation (or the ideal) from reality. The key for the author is that despite the difficulties that would arise, the addressees must continue to practice good works and thus place themselves within the auspices of praise under which the governor should be working. Therefore, rather than viewing this text as an indicator of the author’s optimistic expectation of a cordial relationship between the church and the Roman State,37 it is best to understand this passage as a strategic attempt to undergird the ethic toward which the author is admonishing his readers, an ethic which need not be shared by Anatolian society. This now leaves us to deal with the silencing of detractors mentioned in 1 Pet 2.15. As in v. 14, many commentators have pointed out that, “[l]e texte respire un certain optimisme: en ayant une bonne conduite, c’est-à-dire en agissant selon la volonté de Dieu, les chrétiens convaincront leurs détracteurs qu’ils doivent rectifier leur jugement.”38 Therefore, the question is a similar one: if doing good was expected to “silence the foolish talk of ignorant people,” then should we not assume that these good deeds represent behavior that was congruent with the standards which the detractors approved?39 What we find is that this verse reveals little about whether the good conduct of Christians was approved by their Anatolian neighbors, and what little the author does disclose seems to suggest that the actions of Christians were expected to be met with further hostility, not acceptance. To properly understand this text, there are two exegetical problems that must be resolved. The first is the function of οὕτως. At issue is whether the adverb, which is used as a predicate adjective in this particular instance,40 refers to what precedes or what follows. Some believe that οὕτως is retrospective (i.e., anaphoric), referring to what has preceded: “submit to every human creature . . . because this [submission] is 1.70.6; 5.71.1; 11.46.1; 15.1.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 39.2; cf. Philo, Legat. 7; Spec. 4.77; Mos. 1.154; Virt. 227; Josephus, J.W. 6.134; Ant. 6.267. 36   Cf. Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 180–81. See also Feldmeier, First Epistle of Peter, 160; Donelson, I & II Peter, 73. 37   As suggested by Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 110; Elliott, 1 Peter, 494; Jobes, 1 Peter, 176. 38  Prigent, La première épître de Pierre, 69. Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 132. 39   Aside from the response given below, a word needs to be added concerning the assumption upon which this question rests. At its most basic level, this question assumes that the practice of shared values should serve to lessen the tensions with outsiders. Yet, we would ask, even if Christians began to completely adopt the standards of Anatolian society, would this be enough to quell the stigma and end the conflict after the group had been marked off as social deviants? In some cases it might. But this still leaves us to explain how Christians could be tried and killed simply for being Christians, even when their innocence on all other charges had been disproven (Pliny, Ep. 10.96; see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 200–207). 40  On the adjectival function of οὕτως, see BDF §434(1); cf. also Herman Ljungvik, “Zum Gebrauch einiger Adverbien im Neuen Testament,” Eranos 62 (1964) 26–39 (26–31).

178

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

the will of God, with the result that you will silence the foolish talk of ignorant people by doing good.”41 In this case, the infinitive φιμοῦν (“to silence”) denotes the result of submission, with the participle ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (“doing good”) providing the means by which this silencing is accomplished. Others, however, contend that οὕτως must be understood as prospective (i.e., cataphoric), referring to what follows: “submit to every human creature . . . because this is the will of God, namely, to silence the foolish talk of ignorant people by doing good.”42 In this interpretation, the infinitive φιμοῦν (“to silence”) is epexegetical to οὕτως, and ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (“doing good”) is a participle of means, referring back to the implied subject of the infinitive (ὑμᾶς). The most substantial treatment of this issue is found in the commentary of F. J. A. Hort. Arguing on behalf of an anaphoric function, Hort places the focus on the common use of this form. In doing so, he points out, “As regards general usage, οὕτως is habitually retrospective.” This consideration, combined with the fact that elsewhere in 1 Peter οὕτως refers to what precedes (3.5), might seem to make the retrospective function the natural choice. Yet what is noteworthy is that Hort immediately qualifies his statement on the “general usage” of the form, admitting, The only exceptions are where it (a) is followed immediately or almost immediately by a correlative particle, ὡς ([John vii.46 v.l.;] James ii.12; 1 Cor. iii.15; iv.1; ix.26bis; 2 Cor. ix.5; [? Eph. v.28, 33]), καθώς (Phil. iii.17), ὥστε (John iii.16; Acts xiv.1), [καθ᾽] ὅν τρόπον (Acts i.11; xxvii.25), –but not with ἵνα 1 Cor. ix.24 . . . ; or (b) introduces spoken or written words (Mt. vi.9; Lc. xix.31; Acts vii.6; xiii.34, 47; Rom. x.6; 1 Cor. xv.45; Heb. iv.4); or (c) lastly introduces a complete narrative headed by a single descriptive phrase (Mt. i.18; John xxi.1).43

Rather than strengthening his own case, this list of “exceptions” actually calls into question the validity of Hort’s notion of a “general usage.” From this list, one might naturally wonder whether οὕτως followed by an infinitive could be another exception to this “rule.”44 What we discover is that elsewhere this same construction results in a prospective function for the adverb οὕτως, Gen 29.26 (LXX): εἶπεν δὲ Λαβαν οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτως ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ἡμῶν δοῦναι τὴν νεωτέραν πρὶν ἢ τὴν πρεσβυτέραν (“And Laban said, This is not possible in our locality, namely, to give the younger before the older”). What is more, this function might be expected given that οὗτος   So, e.g., Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 143; Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter, 60; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 172; Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 143; Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 110; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 185; Elliott, 1 Peter, 494; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 130. 42   So, e.g., Knopf, Die Briefe Petri, 108; Spicq, Épîtres de Pierre, 103; Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC 17; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 121; Michaels, 1 Peter, 127; Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 151; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 115–16; Goppelt, I Peter, 186 n.  37; McKnight, 1 Peter, 146 n.  13; Jobes, 1 Peter, 174; Witherington, 1–2 Peter, 142–44; Dubis, 1 Peter, 67. 43  Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 143. 44   The fact that the only other usage of οὕτως in 1 Peter functions retrospectively (3.5) actually reveals little about its usage in 2.15. This is due to the fact that the syntax of the two verses is not the same. The presence of the infinitive in 2.15 contributes an additional element that is not present in 3.5. 41

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

179

regularly occurs in apposition to an infinitive.45 Therefore, we propose that in 1 Pet 2.15 οὕτως should be understood as functioning prospectively, referring to what follows. The main thought of 1 Pet 2.13–15, then, is for the readers to be subordinate to the emperor and his governors, because God wants to silence the foolish speech of detractors through the good deeds of Christians. For the author it would therefore appear that proper subordination was one form of “doing good.” In this respect, the consensus view has accurately diagnosed one particular aspect of these good deeds: both pagans and Christians shared the view that proper subordination was “good.” Nevertheless, the optimism which this consideration might be expected to generate ­– an optimism which most assume in this passage – is surprisingly absent. Contrary to the opinions of many interpreters, the author holds out little hope that this particular good work would actually assuage the conflict in the present life. The key question upon which the interpretation of this verse hinges is, when and how would the silencing of detractors take place? Would these slanderous accusations be brought to an end during the present age as the opponents of Christianity observed the good deeds of the Anatolian believers and began to approvingly acknowledge their merit, or would this hostility only be alleviated with the intervention of God’s eschatological judgment? Most scholars acknowledge the possibility of the latter, yet their view of good works is usually constructed on the basis of the former. We would argue that the silencing mentioned in v. 15 occurs together with the glorifying referred to in 2.12. This consideration, when recognized, helps to shape our perception of good works and the strategy through which the author encourages his readers to undertake them. The eschatological silencing of opponents is supported by both the near and wider contexts of the letter. Elsewhere in the epistle, the author recognizes that good works will cause further conflict rather than solve it (1 Pet 2.20; 3.6, 13–14, 16–17; 4.19). For this reason, we should be hesitant about viewing this particular passage as an optimistic reflection about the positive impact of doing good. It is true that the conversion of unbelievers may take place (3.1–2), but in these instances other important factors are involved.46 Furthermore, there are no other instances in the epistle where detractors approvingly acknowledge the behavior of Christians without 45   See Robertson, Grammar, 700, who lists 1 Pet 2.15 as an example. Cf. G. B. Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, Theil 1: Einleitung und Formenlehre (8th ed.; ed. P. W. Schmiedel; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894) 217, who also lists 1 Pet 2.15 as an example, while providing many other examples from the classical and Koine periods. 46  The consensus view proposes that shared values between Christians and non-Christians would lead to the conversion of the latter. But, according to the author, there is much more at work than social acceptability. Unbelievers are destined to disbelief (1 Pet 2.8), and one’s conversion to the Christian faith is ultimately dependent upon the election (1.1; 2.9) and the call of God (2.9), which allows a person to view Christ as precious (2.7) and the Lord as good (2.3). On the idea of election in 1 Peter, see Martin Williams, The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter (SNTSMS 149; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 43–80.

180

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

being converted. These considerations tend to suggest that the silencing of opponents takes place in the eschatological future rather than the immediate present. When we move to the nearer context, the evidence points in this same direction. The preceding verses, which introduce this section, stress the eschatological judgment of unbelievers, not their present approval of Christian conduct (1 Pet 2.11–12; cf. 4.5–6, 17–18). Moreover, in the specific applications that follow (2.18–3.7), submission, the specific good deed to which the readers are called in this section, does not alleviate the conflict. Even if slaves are obedient (ὑποτασσόμενοι) to their harsh masters, the author still expects them to suffer for doing good (2.20). Likewise, the obedience (ὑποτασσόμεναι) of wives to their unbelieving husbands does not necessarily create a conflict-free marriage (3.1). Although some husbands might be converted (3.2), the text also assumes that further hostility would continue, because the women are encouraged to do good and not to fear the consequences (3.6). What this means is that good works are no guarantee that the hostility will end. “Christian good behavior does not mitigate, transform, or undo their mistreatment. Until the day of the Lord, foolish people will remain ignorant of the goodness of Christian behavior.”47 This evidence seems sufficient to conclude that the good deeds of Christians are not expected to silence the “foolish talk of ignorant people” in the present age. Only through God’s eschatological intervention will the slander cease and will the conflict be brought to an end. What this means is that the author’s admonition to “do good” is not viewed as a remedy for the present conflict but a future indictment against unbelievers. 3. Good Works as a Remedy for Social Conflict? (1 Pet 3.13–14)48 A final passage that is commonly cited in support of an optimistic outlook is 1 Pet 3.13–14. In v. 13, the author, drawing a conclusion from the previous scriptural quotation (3.10–12), begins with a rhetorical question: καὶ τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ γένησθε (“and who will harm you, if you are zealous for the good”).49 Of course, the assumed response to this question would be, “no one.” What this verse seems to communicate, therefore, is that in the mind of the author, Anatolian society would (presumably) respond to the good deeds of Christians with acceptance, not scorn. This connection between good works and social approval is then further affirmed by the next verse. In v. 14a, the author qualifies his statement:  Donelson, I & II Peter, 74. Cf. Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 151–52; Goppelt, I Peter, 187. 48   This section is a small portion of a larger treatment on the grammar of Pet 3.14: Travis B. Williams, “Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar: Reconciling the Difficulties of the Fourth-Class Condition in 1 Pet 3.14,” FiloNT 26 (2013) 119–60. 49   Or, an alternate translation might be, “and who will harm you, if you are/become emulators of good deeds.” On this phrase, see pp. 63–66. 47

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

181

“But even if you should have to suffer for righteousness sake . . . ” While, on the surface, such a qualification might seem to discredit the notion that good deeds create social tranquility, the sense of improbability is maintained by an unusual grammatical form. Through the use of the fourth-class condition (εἰ + πάσχοιτε),50 the likelihood of suffering for righteousness sake appears to be located in the realm of remote contingency. Taken together, all of these factors combine to form what appears to be a fairly strong statement on the unlikelihood of good works producing conflict, and as such, it could serve as a strong indicator that doing good was approvingly recognized within society. The question then is whether there is any other way of interpreting this passage. To understand the qualification being made in v. 14, as well as the claim from which it derives (v. 13), the key is the function of the fourth-class condition within the larger context of the author’s admonition. In 1 Pet 3.13–17, the Petrine author attempts to move his readers away from the moral decay that could result from fear of mistreatment and death and into a life that is directed by the lordship of Christ, a life of indisputable righteousness and good works. The problem, of course, lies in the conflict that this type of lifestyle generates. The readers essentially find themselves in the midst of a catch-22. If they cease from doing good, much of the conflict they experience with outsiders will likely come to an end; however, God will be displeased. If they continue to do good, they will be pleasing to God; yet they will continue to face hostility from their neighbors. Verses 13–14a are a response to this issue, and the solution they provide serves as the basis for the exhortations to follow (3.14b–17). The letter’s response to this problem flows directly out of the previous section and, in particular, out of a quotation from Ps 33 LXX (34 Eng). This text exerted considerable impact on the theology of 1 Peter,51 possibly because it is one whose “words of encouragement are uncannily appropriate for the historical situation faced by the first-century Christians of Asia Minor.”52 In the present context, the psalm serves double-duty. It is used both as the scriptural basis for the exhortation found in 1 Pet 3.9 as well as the point of departure from which a new topic is taken up in 3.13. The rhetorical question with which the discussion opens (“Who will harm you if you are zealous for the good?”) gains validity in that it flows out of a scriptural quotation relating God’s economy of reward and punishment, viz., doing good = blessing, doing evil = punishment (3.10–12). 50  There are actually no complete fourth-class conditions (i.e., εἰ + optative in the protasis along with ἄν + optative in the apodosis) in the New Testament due to the decreasing use of the optative in the Hellenistic period. Instead, only incomplete conditions (either protasis or apodosis) appear. This language will be employed in order to maintain continuity with the terminology found in modern grammatical studies. 51   See pp. 247–49. 52   Karen H. Jobes, “Got Milk? Septuagint Psalm 33 and the Interpretation of 1 Peter 2:1–3,” WTJ 63 (2002) 1–14 (9). Cf. Eric James Gréaux, “The Lord Delivers Us: An Examination of the Function of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter,” RevExp 106 (2009) 603–13.

182

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

This much is fairly easy to discern. The difficulty comes in explaining why the Petrine author chooses to draw this particular conclusion from the psalm. He is certainly not forced into it by the text. In fact, the optimism with which he seems to approach the topic of unjust suffering goes even beyond that of the psalmist. For while the psalmist expects deliverance from the suffering that overtakes him (ῥύομαι + ἐκ),53 the Petrine author claims that righteous suffering will not be experienced. By thus drawing out an unstated and underlying implication and then applying it to the current situation, it would seem that he has purposefully moved the discussion in this direction. The question then is, why does he make such a deduction? Does he actually believe that divine protection will prevent any and all affliction from touching these Christians? In order to understand this perceived optimism and, ultimately the function of the fourth-class condition, we must realize how this positive sentiment is tied to the letter’s ethic. Throughout the epistle, the author goes to great lengths to demonstrate the need for good works in the life of the believer. The ultimate purpose behind this initiative is to lead the audience toward the kind of behavior that is pleasing to God. This is why the rhetorical question in 3.13 is so all-encompassing and (seemingly) without exception. By doing so, he is able to assign a greater value to the prospect of good works. If he had said, “you are going to suffer regardless of whether you do good or evil,” the scriptural citation in 3.10–12 would have been clearly contradicted, and the nerve of his ethic would have thereby been severed. This is where v. 14a comes into play (and in particular the fourth-class condition). The purpose of the condition is to allow the Petrine author to maintain the idea that suffering for righteousness is more of a remote prospect and to thereby establish the need for righteous behavior. In essence, this statement serves to draw out the implications of v. 13’s contradiction, showing that the author has not turned a blind eye to their situation. According to the optimistic rhetorical situation which has been constructed, it is unlikely that God’s economy of retribution will be disrupted (v. 13). But if it does occur, things still turn out positively (v. 14a). As such, the verse provides a worst-case scenario that is actually not so bad. This is a very important part of the author’s paraenetic strategy. Such a technique is designed to lead the readers to embrace the lifestyle to which they have being called, viz., a life of good works.54 But the effects are much more far-reaching. By removing the sting of persecution, he also eliminates the one thing standing between his audience and a Christ-like existence: fear of persecution and death (3.14b). This is the intended outcome which the argument has been driving toward all along. If the Christian life – whether lived out in suffering or in peace – is comprehensive53   While this construction (ῥύομαι + ἐκ) can denote removal from something before it becomes an experience reality (cf. 2 Tim 4.17), in Ps 33.20 (LXX) it denotes a deliverance or separation from something that was a present experience or reality at the time of removal (cf. Rom 7.24; Col 1.13). This is evident from the first half of the verse (“many are the afflictions of the righteous”). 54   Cf. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, 144–47, and Michaels, 1 Peter, 184–86.

Chapter Seven:  Good Works and Popular Misconceptions in 1 Peter

183

ly more rewarding than a life lived in sin, then there is no reason to fear those who wish to do believers harm. Regardless of their experience, Christians find themselves in a privileged position. Knowing this, the readers are free to live out their lives under the lordship of Christ, despite the trials that may result (3.15–16). What then does this mean for the question of whether good works represent approved social behavior? In one sense, 1 Pet 3.14a does place righteous suffering on the level of improbability. However, this passage does not indicate the kind of optimism that many assume. The author does not naïvely view good works as the solution to the audience’s social troubles, as though doing good would alleviate the conflict. Rather, the passage is simply a way of helping the readers properly respond to the gruesome reality of their current experience.55 The purpose of v. 14a is to help uphold the ethic that is encouraged throughout the epistle (viz., doing good/good works) by maintaining the optimism of v. 13 (thereby preserving the necessity of good works as spelled out in vv. 10–12) and by establishing the value of righteous suffering (and thus the need for righteousness). This strategy is intended to persuade the readers to embrace a life of good works at all costs and in the face of any opposition. For this reason, the optimistic outlook that appears on the surface of this passage cannot be used to support the theory of an approved social ethic.

C. Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to deal with two important misconceptions that have shaped the way that many scholars understand the good works motif in 1 Peter. The first concerned the use of comparative materials to interpret good works in 1 Peter. As we mentioned, it has become common to read the social strategy of the Pastoral Epistles onto 1 Peter, due in large part to the fact that both share a unique concentration of good works terminology. But, as we have shown, while comparative uses of the good works language can provide helpful insights into how the terminology is employed in 1 Peter, the function of this motif must be sought within the epistle itself. This means that interpreters must allow the distinct purpose(s) of 55   Pace James A. Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion, and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament (WUNT 270; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 118–19, who proposes that the good deeds of the Christians are actually thought to be a viable solution to the conflict: “At the time of the letter’s composition, the addressees had not yet taken the author’s advice of persisting in doing good and by such a faithful witness trying to win over their oppressors. By following this advice, the author opines that there is only a minimal chance of facing further hardship” (119). In this way, the author’s strategy of good works is described as “an audacious, if not naïve, optimism” (110; cf. David G. Horrell, The Epistles of Peter and Jude [EC; Peterborough: Epworth, 1998] 47–48). In light of the pessimism which the author displays throughout the epistle (see pp. 255–57), it would be a mistake to charge him with such naivety. Moreover, even if these statements are meant to project a sense of radical optimism, they do not reflect a naïve understanding of the situation. Rather, they are part of the author’s strategy of shaping thoughts and actions of his readers.

184

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

the Petrine author to come to the surface. When they do so, it becomes clear that 1 Peter uses the language of good works in a way that is markedly different from the Pastoral Epistles. While the latter employs the motif within a conservative social ethic designed to accommodate Greco-Roman society by bridging the gap between Christians and non-Christians, the former cautiously attempts to subvert this socio-political system, using the language of good works as part of his ammunition. For this reason, comparative uses of good works must be kept in their proper perspective. The second misconception that was addressed was the idea that the Petrine author is optimistic that “doing good” would in some way abrogate the tensions with outsiders and would therefore result in a more positive interaction with non-believers. From this, interpreters have concluded that the admonition to undertake good works must be part of a larger strategy of accommodation and social conformity. Examining the three passages with which this perceived optimism is most commonly associated (1 Pet 2.11–12, 14–15; 3.13–14), we have carefully exposed the weakness of this interpretation. In each case, we have shown that the optimistic outlook of the author only appears on a surface-level reading of the text. When one looks closer at the evidence, the sanguine disposition that many perceive tends to be replaced by a stern resignation that good works would produce further suffering. With the clarity that has been reached in this chapter, we can now launch into a fuller discussion of accommodation and resistance in the letter’s social strategy. In the next two chapters, we will address each of these issues in turn. Our intention is to better understand how the good works motif functions in 1 Peter by situating the theme within the author’s wider strategic purposes.

Chapter Eight

Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter The good works motif in 1 Peter is commonly read as part of a strategy of compliance in which the author seeks to align Christian practice with the standards of Greco-Roman society. Unfortunately, there has been a considerable lack of clarity regarding the nature of this process. One of the major shortcomings of previous treatments has been the failure to account for the subaltern position of the Petrine audience. Because the letter is addressed to a socially marginalized group with little recourse to insubordinate behavior, all assessments of accommodation must be properly weighed, taking into account the reason behind the conformity (e.g., survival; social elevation; etc) and the manner in which it is authorized (e.g., approving acceptance; reserved critique; etc). Along with this, the modern discussion has also lacked a standard of comparison by which to measure the level(s) of conformity advocated by the Petrine author.1 A proper judgment regarding an accommodative strategy in 1 Peter can only be made by first evaluating the different levels of social integration within the Greco-Roman world, and then attempting to situate the nature of compliance prescribed in the epistle. In this chapter, we will seek to remedy this situation by focusing on the nature of accommodation itself. The question fueling our efforts will be whether the level of accommodation advocated in 1 Peter involved conforming to the standards and practices of others in Greco-Roman society as a result of real or perceived pressure, when they would not have otherwise thought or acted as such.2 What we hope to demonstrate is that despite the fact that, at times, the Petrine author encourages his readers – commensurate with their disadvantaged social position – to conform to the traditional standards of popular culture, he simultaneously resists existing structures and accepted norms by undercutting the source of their authority and by asserting the priority of the readers’ faith commitments.

  One exception is the treatment of Seland, Strangers in the Light, 147–89. Seland is (rightly) critical of previous approaches which have employed anthropological and sociological theories of acculturation to the situation of 1 Peter without consideration for the fact that the readers already shared the same culture with their pagan neighbors. The problem, however, is that he continues to use models of acculturation/assimilation to assess the levels of accommodation in 1 Peter. 2   For a comparable definition of accommodation/conformity, see Charles A. Kiesler and Sara Kiesler, Conformity (Topics in Social Psychology; Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969). 1

186

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

A. Establishing Levels of Accommodation The first step in evaluating whether good works are acts of conformity will be to set up a categorical hierarchy which measures levels of accommodation. This will allow us to detail exactly what conformity might have looked like for the Anatolian readers, taking into consideration the different variations that existed therein. To illuminate the broad spectrum of accommodation we will bring in examples from ancient Judaism and early Christianity, groups who, in some way, either resisted or conformed to the ancient culture(s) with which they were surrounded.3 As we seek to understand the response of the Petrine author, these will be used as points of comparison. Furthermore, they will be interpreted in light of recent studies on social influence and conformity.4 In responding to their disadvantaged position, there is an entire spectrum of accommodating perspectives and responses which could have been sought by the recipients of 1 Peter, ranging anywhere from complete and total integration to open resistance. We will divide the range of options into four potential positions.5 1. High Accommodation If 1 Peter’s strategy were simply to end the conflict with outsiders, complete and total conformity to the practices of Anatolian society would have been the easiest 3   I recognize that there are some drawbacks to measuring levels of conformity to Greco-Roman societal norms based on the experiences of ancient Jews. Since the Jewish people had their own distinct culture, which was separate from that of the Greeks and the Romans, it would be appropriate to employ models of acculturation. This marks an important difference from early Christianity, which contained Gentile members who were (by birth) part of Greco-Roman culture. An admittedly better strategy would have been to examine the experiences of the Dionysus or Isis cults, which were made up primarily of Gentiles who adopted practices that were criticized by society, and as such, they were forced to make a choice between remaining social deviants or conforming to societal expectations. The problem is that there is much more information concerning the experiences of individual Jews; whereas similar information on the practitioners of the Dionysus and Isis cults are not as readily available. One level at which the Jewish-Christian experience is comparable is their disavowal of “pagan” religious practices. In fact, it is this shared experience that makes the comparison beneficial. 4   On social influence and conformity from a social-psychological perspective, see Serge Moscovici, “Social Influence and Conformity,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds. G. Lindsey and E. Aronson; 3rd ed.; New York: Random House, 1985) 347–412; John C. Turner, Social Influence (Mapping Social Psychology; Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1991); Robert B. Cialdini and Melanie R. Trost, “Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity, and Compliance,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds. D. T. Gilbert, et al.; 4th ed.; Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998) 151–92; Robin Martin and Miles Hewstone, “Conformity and Independence in Groups: Majorities and Minorities,” in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (eds. M. A. Hogg and R. S. Tindale; Oxford: Blackwell, 2001) 209–34. 5   This is not to suggest that social integration was a static process whereby one’s level of accommodation, once determined, remained fixed. A person’s social integration could and probably did fluctuate. Each day and with each new experience he/she would have to negotiate Christian existence in the Greco-Roman world afresh.

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

187

and most natural solution. Given that we can draw reasonably firm conclusions regarding the key divisive factors in the conflict (viz., worshipping the gods/emperor, communal meals, (non-)participation in social events, etc),6 the tension could have been abrogated by simply asking the readers to re-establish their devotion to the traditional gods/emperor and to renew their participation in the social activities from which they had separated. In other words, high accommodation would have (essentially) meant returning to their former pagan lifestyles to such an extent that their Christian identity was threatened or at least strained to a considerable degree. Examples of this level of accommodation are quite common among Jews of the Second Temple period.7 One of the most distinguishing characteristics of this form of accommodation is the full integration into the religious practices of the Gentiles. A well-known instance of such religious conformity is the case of Dositheos, son of Drimylos,8 who, aside from functioning as memorandum-writer for Ptolemy Euergetes I, served as the eponymous priest of the apotheosized Alexander and the deified Ptolemaic kings (CPJ no. 127a–e).9 Because of his full integration into the “pagan” cultus, Dositheos was labeled an apostate by those Jews who were less accommodating.10 An even more striking example is that of Antiochus, the son of a   See Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 240–58.  While our information on these highly-accommodating Jews is sparse, deriving mainly from the commentary of those who were antagonistic toward them, there were likely many more examples which were never recorded (see John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996] 104). For more on Jewish participation in Greco-Roman religion, see Karl-Gustav Sandelin, “Jews and Aliens Religious Practices during the Hellenistic Age,” in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective: Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman (eds. J. Neusner, et al.; Studies in Judaism; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006) 365–92. 8   For more on Dositheos, including a defense of the claim that the Dositheos mentioned in various Greek papyri (and who was apparently prominent in the Ptolemaic court) is the same as the one mentioned in 3 Macc 1.3, see Alexander Fuks, “Dositheos son of Drimylos: A Prosopographical Note,” JJP 7–8 (1953–54) 205–09; cf. also Joseph Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (trans. R. Cornman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995) 56–61. 9   Jews also associated with “pagan” religion in other ways (apart from service in an official capacity). For instance, there is evidence of Jewish soldiers participating in the dedication of a religious monument to Greek and Egyptian gods (JIGRE nos. 154–156). Some Jews were known to have contributed in Dionysiac festivals (I.Iasos no. 193). In one instance, a Jew named Moschos claimed to have received a dream from the gods Amphiaraos and Hygieia in regard to the manumission of a slave (CIJ no. 711b). The fact that he erected an inscription in the temple of Amphiaraos suggests some kind of association with (or devotion to?) the god. Those Jews who advanced to political prominence in the Greco-Roman world almost certainly would have abandoned their distinctly Jewish customs and adopted those of the Gentiles. Tiberius Julius Alexander, who was the nephew of Philo (Josephus, Ant. 18.259), rose through the ranks of imperial power, eventually being appointed as prefect of Egypt (Josephus, J.W. 2.309; cf. Ant. 20.100–103; Tacitus, Ann. 15.28). In this capacity, he appears supportive of both the deity of the emperors as well as the providence of the traditional gods (OGIS no. 669; CPJ no. 418a; cf. OGIS no. 663). 10   The author of 3 Maccabees refers to Dositheos as “one of Jewish ancestry” (τὸ γένος Ἰουδαῖος), but he clearly believes him to be a defector, noting that Dositheos “has changed his customs and has excluded himself him from his ancestral beliefs” (3 Macc 1.3). The abandonment of Judaism 6 7

188

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

local Jewish magistrate in the city of Syrian Antioch.11 With the threat of the Jewish War looming (ca. 66 CE), Antiochus is said to have given “evidence of his own conversion [to the ways of the pagans] and of his hatred for the Jewish customs by sacrificing after the manner of the Gentiles (ὡσπερ νόμος ἐστὶ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν).” What was more appalling to some, however, is the fact that “he forced others to do the same” (Josephus, J.W. 7.50–51). Religious practice was an important indicator of an ancient Jew’s level of accommodation toward popular culture (cf. 1 Macc 2.15–26; 3 Macc 2.25–33). There were also other signs that provide similar diagnoses – particularly those relating to the core elements of Jewish identity and practice.12 One Jewish custom that was sometimes abandoned (or hidden) was circumcision. While some tried to conceal the mark of their Jewish origins for economic reasons (see, e.g., Suetonius, Dom. 12.2), many attempted to conform due to social pressures, hoping to gain acceptance from their Gentile neighbors (see, e.g., Martial, Ep. 7.82).13 Sabbath observance is anothwas made much more explicit by some. An inscription from Smyrna contains a list of citizens who donated different amounts to build and adorn various structures across the city (I.Smyrna no. 697 = CIG no. 3148 = IGR IV no. 1431). One group included in this list are οἵ ποτε Ἰουδαῖοι (“those who were formerly Jews”), an indication of some who had renounced their Jewish heritage. Some have challenged what seems to be the clear interpretation of this text, assigning it instead a geographical meaning, i.e., “former inhabitants of Judaea (so, e.g., A. T. Kraabel, “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions,” JJS 33 [1982] 445–64 [445]; Heikki Solin, “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt [eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Part II, Principat 29.2; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1983] 587– 789 [647–49]; Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 175; Harland, Associations, 202). However, the inscription appears to mark an unambiguous example of Jewish apostasy (for a defense of this position, see Stephen G. Wilson, Leaving the Fold: Apostates and Defectors in Antiquity [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004] 53–56). 11   For the evidence relating to the life of Tiberius Julius Alexander, see E. G. Turner, “Tiberius Julius Alexander,” JRS 44 (1954) 54–64; Viktor Burr, Tiberius Iulius Alexander (Antiquitas 1,1; Bonn: Habelt, 1955); Alberto Barzanò, “Tiberio Giulio Alessandro, Preffetto d’Egitto (66/70),” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Part II, Principat 10.1; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988) 518–80. On his “apostasy” from Judaism, see Stéphanie Etienne, “Réflexion sur l’apostasie de Tibérius Julius Alexander,” Studia Philonica Annual 12 (2000) 122–42; Gottfried Schimanowski, “Die Jüdische Integration in die Oberschicht Alexandriens und die angebliche Apostasie des Tiberius Julius Alexander,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World (eds. J. Frey, et al.; AJEC 71; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 111–35; and Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (London/New York: Routledge, 2003) 75–80, 117–21. 12   E. P. Sanders, “Common Judaism and the Synagogue in the First Century,” in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period (ed. S. Fine; London: Routledge, 1999) 1–17 (3–4), lists the following practices as common within Judaism around the turn of the common era: (a) monotheism and refusal to worship statues; (b) circumcision of males; (c) observance of the Sabbath rest; (d) food laws; (e) assembly; and (f) study and general observance of the laws of Moses. 13   An example of the Jewish neglect of circumcision would include Timothy, a travel companion of the apostle Paul. According to Acts 16.1–3, Timothy, whose father was Greek, had been left uncircumcised by his Jewish mother. The reason for this neglect is unstated, however. The motives behind the abandonment of circumcision are much clearer in 1 Maccabees. Here the author de-

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

189

er distinctively Jewish practice that was sometimes set aside in an effort to align one’s lifestyle with that of the wider culture.14 Such a form of accommodation appears to have been more prominent among Jews of the upper social strata.15 This tendency is evident in Philo’s rebuke of those who allegorize the Jewish law with the effect that the literal observance of certain customs (including Sabbath observance) is not preserved (Migr. 89–93).16 For early Christians, a life highly accommodating to Greco-Roman society was dependent upon one factor: whether a Jesus-follower was willing to actively participate in the sacrificial worship of “pagan” gods. This was the line of demarcation between high accommodation and all other types of conformity. Many Christians turned to this level of accommodation only in times of intense persecution, when lack of conformity would have resulted in death. There are numerous examples of Christians who chose to sacrifice to the gods rather than to sacrifice their lives.17 scribes those Jews who, during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, “built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant” (1 Macc 1.14–15; NRSV). Apparently the practice was widespread around the time of the Bar Kohkba revolt (132–136 BCE), so that some rabbis came to associate the reversal of circumcision with the forfeiture of salvation. Rabbi Eleazar of Modiim, for instance, is said to have issued the following statement on the matter: “If a man profanes the Hallowed Things and despises the set feasts and puts his fellow to shame publicly and makes void the covenant of Abraham our father [i.e., reverses his circumcision through surgical procedures], and discloses meanings in the Law which are not according to the Halakah, even though a knowledge of the Law and good works are his, he has no share in the world to come” (m. ’Abot 3.12; trans. Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933] 451). 14   On Gentile responses to Jewish Sabbath-observance during the Greco-Roman period, see Lutz Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und-praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 285–88. 15   Aside from Philo’s mention of the allegorists (who most likely came from an educated and therefore, fairly privileged background), evidence of this trend among the higher social ranks is provided by the satires of Horace (Sat. 1.9.60–78). In this story, Horace is desperately trying to escape an obnoxious flatterer and would-be poet when he comes upon a good friend, Aristius Fuscus. Hoping that Fuscus can rescue him, Horace asks Fuscus whether he had something that he needed to speak about in private. With a sly wit, Fuscus declines, stating that the reason for his inability to converse is the Jewish Sabbath: “Today is the thirtieth Sabbath. Would you affront the circumcised Jews?” When Horace states that he has no such scruples, Fuscus responds in jest by saying, “But I have. I’m a somewhat weaker brother, one of the many (sum Paulo infirmior, unus multorum)” (Sat. 1.9.71–72; trans. Fairclough [LCL]). 16   Against these allegorizers, Philo argues, “It is quite true that the Seventh day is meant to teach (δίδαγμά) the power of the Unoriginate and the non-action of created beings. But let us not for this reason abrogate the laws laid down for its observance, and light fires or till the ground or carry loads or institute proceedings in court or act as jurors or demand the restoration of deposits or recover loans, or do all else that we are permitted to do as well on days that are not festival seasons” (Migr. 91; trans. Colson and Whitaker [LCL]). 17   In the persecution of Pliny, there were some Christians who renounced their faith, offering worship to statues of the emperor and the gods as well as uttering imprecations against the name of Christ (Pliny, Ep. 10.96.6). Similarly, the Shepherd of Hermas refers to the “double-minded” who “worship idols because of their cowardice and are ashamed of the name of their Lord whenever they hear about a persecution” (Herm. Sim. 9.21.3; trans. Holmes). The same types of behavior

190

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

From the perspective of some, this decision amounted to an abandonment of the faith.18 Others made important concessions which allowed for moments of conformity under situations of duress. It is reported that Basilides, one of the earliest Alexandrian Gnostics, thought that, “there was no harm (ἀδιαφορεῖν) in eating things offered to idols, or in light-heartedly denying the faith in times of persecution” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.7.7; trans. Lake [LCL]). There were other Christians for whom the threat of persecution was not as severe but who still chose to live a life which was highly accommodating to Greco-Roman society due to other factors. Some adopted this lifestyle for philosophical reasons. For example, the ancient philosopher, Porphyry (in his work Against the Christians), mentions a man by the name of Ammonius Saccus who “was a Christian, brought up in Christian doctrine by his parents, yet, when he began to think and study philosophy, he immediately changed his way of life conformably to the laws (πρὸς τὴν κατὰ νόμους πολιτείαν μετεβάλετο)” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.19.7; trans. Oulton [LCL]).19 On other occasions it was wealth, not philosophy, that led Christians down the path of conformity.20 In the Shepherd of Hermas, we hear of a group of

appear to be representative of Christians throughout the first few centuries (see, e.g., Acta Pionii 4.3; 10.5–6; 12.2; 20.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.11, 25, 32–35, 45–48; Cyprian, De Lapsis). 18  The early Christian martyrdom account Martyrdom of Polycarp records the tumultuous situation of Christians in the city of Smyrna during the mid-second century CE. Aside from the gruesome murder of the aged bishop Polycarp, the epistle also mentions the story of one who conceded under the threat of death: “Now there was one man, Quintus by name, a Phrygian recently arrived from Phrygia, who, when he saw the wild beasts, turned coward. This was the man who had forced himself and some others to come forward voluntarily. The proconsul, after many appeals, finally persuaded him to swear the oath and to offer the sacrifice” (Mart. Pol. 4; trans. Holmes). Later commenting on this situation, Eusebius declares that Quintus “forfeited the attainment of salvation” (τέλος τῆς σωτηρίας ἐνδοῦναι; Hist. eccl. 4.15.7). 19   Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.19.9, followed by Jerome, Vir. ill. 55) contests this claim, arguing that Ammonius remained a Christian throughout his life. This confusion has led some to describe these as two different men: Ammonius Saccus (the Neoplatonist) and Ammonius of Alexandria (the Christian). Most, however, attribute the confusion to an error on the part of Eusebius. Others question whether Ammonius Saccus was ever a Christian at all. For instance, Henry F. Clinton, Fasti Romani: The Civil and Literary Chronology of Rome and Constantinople, vol. 2: Appendix, From the Death of Augustus to the Death of Heraclius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1850) 296 n.  194, argues, “Ammonius never was a Christian. Porphyry represents him as originally such in order to cast a reproach upon Christianity.” 20   In some cases, conformity appears to have been fueled by the desire to revive one’s former religious devotion. Sometime during the fourth century, we hear of a senator who was converted to Christianity only to turn back to the worship of Cybele and Isis, and in fact, had since become a priest of the latter (Pseudo-Cyprian, Carmen ad quendam senatorem). For the text and discussion, see Ronald B. Begley, “The Carmen ad quendam senatorem: Date, Milieu, and Tradition,” (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1984); Wolfgang Wischmeyer, “Bemerkungen und Beobachtungen zu Ps. Cyprian. Carmen ad quendam senatorem ex Christiana religione ad idolorum servitutem conversum,” in Vielseitigkeit des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Georg Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag (eds. J. A. Loader and H. V. Kieweler; WAS 1; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999) 335–43.

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

191

Christians who had completely accommodated to societal norms, for what the author claims are economic reasons: The ones who returned their sticks two-thirds withered and one-third green are those who had been faithful, but became rich and acquired a reputation among the pagans. They clothed themselves with great pride and became arrogant and abandoned the truth and did not associate with the righteous, but lived with and according to the standards of pagans (μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνέζησαν), and this life-style was more pleasant to them.21

Nonetheless, what is interesting is that, according to the author, “they did not fall away from God, but continued in the faith, though they did not do the works of faith” (Herm. Sim. 8.9.1; trans. Holmes).22 2. Medium-High Accommodation Many Petrine interpreters understand the use of the good works theme as a step toward the values of Anatolian society, while still maintaining the distinctives that made the Christ-followers a recognizably distinct group. The thought, according to this popular reading, is that even though the audience might not be able to “go all the way” by sacrificing to the gods, they could nonetheless appease their conflict partners by re-integrating into the practices and ideological perspectives of society. In other words, their lives would have exhibited partial conformity, with significant ties to the non-Christian world while still preserving their Christianity identity. For the recipients of 1 Peter this would have meant involvement in all forms of Greco-Roman life (e.g., theater attendance, meals at temples, association memberships, etc.), apart from the active participation in pagan sacrifice. Our sources record several examples of Jews who had significant ties to the non-Jewish world, yet were still able to maintain their Jewish identity (mainly by avoiding pagan sacrifice).23 Many of those who might be placed in a medium-high level of accommodation served in positions of rank within the social and political structures of Greco-Roman society. At Acmonia, for instance, Jews occasionally held local, civic magistracies.24 The possibility of a Jew serving in public office  Herm. Sim. 8.9.1 (trans. Holmes).   Similar concerns about those who had conformed to the standards of the “pagans” are found elsewhere in the Shepherd of Hermas (cf. Vis. 3.6.5; Man. 10.1.4–5; Sim. 8.8.1; 9.20.2). Based on texts like these, many associate the problems of wealth and apostasy, so that apostasy resulted from a desire not to have to give up their wealth (see Harry O. Maier, The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius [Dissertations, Studies in Religion 1; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991] 66–67; Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries [trans. M. Steinhauser; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003] 90–99; although see James S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 171–172, who separates the two). 23   Note the degree to which sacrifice to the gods was a point of contention between Jews living in urban communities across the Greco-Roman world (Josephus, Ant. 4.137–138; 12.125–126; Ag. Ap. 2.66). 24   MAMA VI 335a = CIJ II 760. There is also evidence of Jews serving as council members in 21

22

192

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

without compromising many of his/her Jewish distinctives seems difficult to imagine. However, considering that Severus and Caracalla allowed Jews to serve in this capacity without partaking in activities that conflicted with their observance of the law (Dig. 50.2.3.3; cf. Cod. theod. 16.8.2, 4), it may very well have been possible.25 In Egypt, there appear to have been a number of Jews who walked the line between high conformity and the preservation of Jewish identity. The Jewish philosopher Philo, who appears to have received a gymnasium education with its emphasis on sports (Spec. 2.229–230),26 was strongly connected in the civic life of Alexandria. Like many other Jews, he occasionally partook of popular forms of entertainment (e.g., horse-races, theater, pankration).27 But in spite of this social integration, his loyalty to his Jewish roots never wavered.28 First and foremost, he warned his fellows Jews of the dangers of idolatry, championing the cause of monotheism (Spec. 1.315–316; cf. Legat. 115–118, 162–164).29 He also encouraged them toward the literal observance of Jewish law, including circumcision and Sabbath rest (Migr. 89– 92). What is more, he even led an embassy to the emperor Gaius in order to improve the city of Sardis (see John H. Kroll, “The Greek Inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue,” HTR 94 [2001] 5–127 [nos. 3, 13, 16/17, 24, 25/26, 31, 34, 37, 67]). 25   Those enlisted for military service provide another example of Jews who were highly integrated into society. During the Ptolemaic period, there is evidence of Jews serving in all ranks of infantry and cavalry (CPJ nos. 18–32). During the Imperial era, however, it would appear that Jews were much more reluctant to join the army. Despite the allowances that were made (cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.223–232), a Jew who served in Roman military service had to be more accommodating by working on the Sabbath and partaking of non-kosher foods. On Jews in the Roman army, see Shimon Applebaum, “Jews and Service in the Roman Army,” in Roman Frontier Studies, 1967: The Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress Held at Tel Aviv (ed. S. Applebaum; Tel-Aviv: Students’ Organization of Tel Aviv University, 1971) 181–84; A’haron Oppenheimer, Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society (TSAJ 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 183–91; Andrew J. Schoenfeld, “Sons of Israel in Caesar’s Service: Jewish Soldiers in the Roman Military,” Shofar 24 (2006) 115–26. 26   See Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (HUCM 7; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982); cf. H. A. Harris, Greek Athletics and the Jews (Trivium: Special Publications 3; Cardiff: University of Wales Press for St. David’s University College, 1976) 90–91; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:70–74. 27   Prob. 26, 141; Ebr. 177; Prov. 2.58. Other evidence of Jewish attendance at various games and spectacles is marked by their reserved-seating. See, e.g., seats reserved for Jews at the theater in Miletus (CIJ no. 748); seats reserved for Jews at the Odeon in Aphrodisias (IAph2007 nos. 2.6, 18); seats reserved for Jews at the hippodrome in Tyre (J.-P. Rey-Coquais, “Tyr, fouilles récentes, ville, hippodrome et nécropole: L’apport des inscriptions,” RAr [1979] 166–68). 28   Compare Onias and his sons Chelkias and Ananias, who were military leaders in Ptolemaic Egypt (see Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 35–41). Despite their involvement in Alexandrian politics, they nonetheless safeguarded their Jewish identity, evidenced by the fact that Onias constructed a temple in Leontopolis, which became a cultic center for Jews in the area (Josephus, Ant. 13.62–73), and by their commitment to prioritize their (ultimate) loyalty to their Jewish homeland rather than to Egypt (Ant. 13.352–355). 29  See Karl-Gustav Sandelin, “The Danger of Idolatry according to Philo of Alexandria,” Temenos 27 (1991) 109–50; cf. Alan Mendelson, Philo’s Jewish Identity (BJS 161; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 29–38.

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

193

the treatment of Jewish citizens in Alexandria and to address the desecration of the Jewish temple (Legat.). With the early Christians, as with the ancient Jews, it is not always easy to discern between high levels of accommodation and medium-high levels. Nevertheless, it appears to have been possible to conform very closely to the expectations of Greco-Roman society without participating in pagan sacrifice.30 From our evidence, it is clearly possible for Christians to hold important political positions, while still maintaining some measure of Christian identity.31 We find examples of Christians serving as local civic leaders (chief archon), as well as imperial bodyguards (protectores).32 Some are even said to have participated in agonistic festivals, which were closely associated with the imperial cult (Johnson, Epitaphs nos. 3.1; 3.4).33 Within the Pauline communities, there were some who apparently dined in the banquet hall of “pagan” temples (1 Cor 8–10).34 In such cases, their consumption of sacrificial food and their communion with “pagan” gods evidence considerable social integration.35   For a discussion of early Christian participation in the social conventions of Greco-Roman society, see Despina Iosif, “‘The Present and Future Worlds Are Enemies to Each Other’: Early Christian Aloofness and Participation in the Pagan World,” in Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age (eds. R. Alston, et al.; Groningen- Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age 3; Peeters: Leuven, 2013) 289–308. 31   Note, however, the protest given by Tertullian (Idol. 27). 32   Chief archon: I.KPolis no. 44 = Johnson, Epitaphs, 3.1. Protectores: I.Nikaia no. 557 = Johnson, Epitaphs, 3.10. There were also a number of Christians who served on local civic councils, see William M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1, pt. 2: West and West-Central Phrygia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897) 519 (no. 359), 522 (no. 364), 525 (no. 368), 526 (no. 371), 560 (no. 451). 33   An epitaph from Phrygia records the strong conformity of some Christians to the pursuits of the Greeks (for the inscription, see A. R. R. Sheppard, “R.E.C.A.M. Notes and Studies No. 6: Jews, Christians and Heretics in Acmonia and Eumeneia,” AnSt 29 [1979] 169–80 [180]). The stele marks the tomb of Aurelius Charidemus, who describes himself as “a lover of hunting” (φιλοκύνηγος). Elsewhere, the cognate terms κυνηγέσιον and κυνήγιον are used to refer to “wild beast hunts/fights” (cf. Mart. Pol. 12.2; I.Sinope no. 103 = CIG no. 4157; I.Ankara no. 2 = Bosch, Ankara, no. 51 = OGIS no. 533), and in this instance, φιλοκύνηγος probably refers to a fondness for wild beast hunts in the arena (see Louis Robert, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec [Paris: Champion, 1940; repr. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1971] 86, 321–23). 34   On the complexity of the issue of pagan worship in 1 Cor 8–10, see Peder Borgen, “‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults,” in Paul in His Hellenistic Context (ed. T. Engber-Pedersen; SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994) 30–59. 35   In Roman Corinth, one of the possible locations at which Christian banqueters may have dined with friends, family, and the pagan deity is the Asklepieion, which contained three dining rooms (see John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 [WUNT 2/151; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003] 49–70). A statuary plaque in the Museum of Ancient Corinth shows how Asklepios was thought to be present with the banqueters during the meal. The relief depicts the god seated at the table with sacrificial offerings being made to him (see Mabel L. Lang, Cure and Cult in Ancient Corinth: A Guide to the Asklepieion [Corinth Notes 1; Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1977] 28). 30

194

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

Examples like these are important for demonstrating how far some Christians accommodated Greco-Roman customs. Where they are silent, however, is in revealing whether these Christians fully conformed to popular standards by actively participating in “pagan” sacrifice. In some cases, it seems difficult to imagine how one could legitimately walk the line between thorough conformity and ritual abstinence. It would be hard to argue, for instance, that a Christian agonothetes (I.KPolis no. 44 = Johnson, Epitaphs, no. 3.1) could refrain from “pagan” worship. Nevertheless, it appears to have been possible to be incorporated into the fabric of Greco-Roman society without completely compromising on cultic ritual. One example of the types of Christians who were able to navigate this kind of existence is the Christian soldier.36 In his case, social integration could be made without religious conformity.37 Abstinence from religious ritual nonetheless made it difficult to integrate completely. A case in point is Markus Julius Eugenius. Aside from being a citizen of Kouessos and a member of the civic council, Eugenius was a soldier in the officium of the governor of Pisidia. Such a position would have required a considerable level of social integration. Yet any accommodations which Eugenius made stopped short of participation in traditional cultic activities. On his sarcophagus, it is recorded that “after having served honorably, an order circulated during the reign of Maximinos (Daia) for Christians to offer sacrifice (τοὺς Χρ[ε] ιστιανοὺς θύειν) to the gods and not to be discharged from military service.”38 Fortunately for Eugenius, he was able to secure a release from the army after suffering great tortures under Diogenes (the governor of Pisidia), and by doing so he succeeded in “guarding the faith of Christians” (τὴν τῶν Χρειστιανῶν πίστιν φυλάσσων), a boast which seems to describe his avoidance of “pagan” sacrifice.39   On Christians in the Roman military, see John Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Part II, Principat 23.1; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979); John Helgeland, et al., Christians and the Military: The Early Experience (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). 37   According to Tertullian (Idol. 19), there was no official sanction which required rank and file soldiers to sacrifice to the gods on behalf of the emperor. However, public refusal to do so, if required, was not tolerated. The story of Marinus, a Christian martyr in Caesarea, reveals the type of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy operative in the Roman military (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.15). Just before he was promoted to the rank of centurion, another claimant approached the tribunal and objected to Marinus’ advancement. His objection was based on the fact that Marinus was a Christian who could not sacrifice to the emperors (7.15.2). After being given three hours to consider his fate, Marinus was led away to execution because he refused to sacrifice (7.15.5). On other “military martyrs” from this period, see Timothy D. Barnes, Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History (Tria corda 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 106–10. 38   MAMA I no. 170 = Johnson, Epitaphs, no. 3.5 (340 CE). On Julius Eugenius, see William M. Ramsay, Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908) 339–51; W. M. Calder, “Studies in Early Christian Epigraphy,” JRS 10 (1920) 42–59 (42–47). 39   This is not the only example of a soldier leaving his military service due to his Christian commitment. A few years earlier, one Aurelius Gaius (a member of the 1st legio Italica of Moesia, 8th legio Augusta Germanicia, and 1st legio Iovia Scythica) was forced out of the Roman army by the anti-Christian decrees of Diocletian (I.Pessinous no. T81 = SEG 31 [1981] no. 1116 = AE [1981] 36

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

195

3. Medium-Low Accommodation For many Jews and Christians, life in the Greco-Roman world was lived out within the social and political structures of society, yet without participating in many of most popular social conventions (particularly those associated with cultic ritual). This type of existence would have meant avoiding some of the more common social practices (e.g., attending agonistic festivals, joining voluntary associations, etc). Certain public activities would nonetheless still be permitted (e.g., working normal jobs, attending the marketplace, etc). In this way, there was only a partial withdrawal from society. Given the limitations of our sources, those who fall into this category are sometimes difficult to distinguish from those in the medium-high level, and so the divisions that we make will be inexact. One piece of evidence that might suggest a certain level of accommodation among ancient Jews (especially those of the Diaspora) is their willingness to work with and for Gentiles.40 Of course, it is nearly impossible to draw any firm conclusions regarding a person’s level of conformity based on this evidence alone. At most, we can conclude that those employed in these positions were open to some degree of social interaction simply on the basis of their association with non-Jews. Nevertheless, in some instances there may be enough evidence to suggest either higher or lower levels of conformity. One such example comes from a papyrus of the Fayûm district in Egypt (CPJ no. 10). The text contains an account of a week’s worth of bricks received by a Jewish bricklayer (or possibly an overseer responsible for building) on the estate of Apollonius. What is noteworthy is the fact that the bricks were not delivered on the 7th of Epeiph because it was a Sabbath. Thus, it appears that the Jewish recipient of these bricks was able to maintain a key feature of his Jewish identity by being allowed to observe the Sabbath, while still working for a Gentile employer.41 If Jewish occupations are not always a clear indicator of the level to which individuals conformed to societal expectations, accommodation to Greco-Roman cus-

no. 777; cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 8.4.3). For a full discussion of the epitaph and Aurelius’ travels, see Thomas Drew-Bear, “Les voyages d’Aurélius Gaius, soldat de Dioclétien,” in La Géographie administrative et politique d’Alexandre à Mahomet: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 14–16 juin 1979 (Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 6; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 93–141. 40   There were a variety of professions in which Jews intermingled with Gentiles. In an agricultural capacity, there were numerous shepherds (CPJ nos. 9, 39, 412), farmers (CPJ nos. 13, 29, 42, 44), field-hands (CPJ no. 133), and vineyard workers (CPJ nos. 14–15). Jews were also employed as artisans (CPJ no. 405) and service providers, such as guards (CPJ no. 12), donkey-owners (CPJ nos. 282, 362), and boatmen (CPJ nos. 404, 422). Each of these professions would have required some interaction with non-Jews in the confines of the wider Hellenistic society. 41   A possible example of a Jew whose employment may have placed him on the medium-high or even high level of accommodation is one Idellas son of Sabathois, who was employed by the Temple of Pan as a shepherd or superintendent of flocks (CPJ no. 39).

196

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

toms such as attendance at the baths42 or the games and spectacles that took place in the theater/arena might prove to be a more reliable clue. Concerning the latter, it is clear that much of the rabbinic literature condemned the various forms of Roman sport and entertainment and encouraged the Jewish people not to attend.43 Beyond this, they even forbid selling dangerous animals to “pagans” because they might be used for injurious purposes like those that took place in the arena (y. ‘Avod. Zar. 1.7–8). Of course, these regulations were only necessary because many Jews frequented the popular entertainment venues (and so would be assigned to a level of accommodation somewhat higher).44 For those who made such restrictions, their lives, while lived within the social and political structures of the Greco-Roman world, were clearly separated from many of the common forms of social interaction. A prime example of a Christian who practiced medium-low accommodation is the early apologist, Tertullian.45 It is clear from his writings that Tertullian attempted to avoid any kind of direct association with what he considered to be sinful activ42   The conversation between Proklos ben Philosophos and R. Gamliel concerning the latter’s visit to the bathhouse of Aphrodite (m. ‘Avod. Zar. 3.4) shows that Jews were not closed-off to all forms of sociability and leisure in the Greco-Roman world. On this text, see Abraham Wasserstein, “Rabban Gamliel and Proclus the Philosopher (Mishna Avoda Zara 3,4),” Zion 45 (1980) 257–67 (Hebrew); Seth Schwartz, “The Rabbi in Aphrodite’s Bath: Palestinian Society and Jewish identity in the High Roman Empire,” in Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire (ed. S. Goldhill; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 335–61; Azzan Yadin, “Rabban Gamliel, Aphrodite’s Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism,” JQR 96 (2006) 149–79. 43   t. ‘Avod. Zar. 2.5–7: “‘He who goes up into the gentiles’ amphitheaters—it is forbidden on grounds of idolatry,’ the words of R. Meir. . . . He who goes to a stadium or to a camp to see the performances of sorcerers and enchanters or of various kinds of clowns, mimics, buffoons, and the life—lo this is a seat of the scoffers . . . He who sits in an amphitheater [e.g., where gladiators are fighting], lo, this one is guilty of bloodshed” (trans. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta, Fourth Division: Neziqin (The Order of Damages) [New York: Ktav, 1981] 316–17). Despite its condemnation of the Roman games and spectacles, rabbinic literature shows considerable familiarity with these events (see Ze’ev Weiss, “Games and Spectacles in Roman Palestine and their Reflection in Talmudic Literature,” [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994] (Hebrew); Martin Jacobs, “Theatres and Performances as Reflected in the Talmud Yerushalmi,” in Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture [ed. P. Schäfer; TSAJ 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998] 327–47). 44  Many have assumed that the rabbinic prohibitions against the games/spectacles deterred Jewish attendance (so, e.g., Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: leur condition juridique, économique et sociale [Paris: Geuthner, 1914] 239–40; Martin Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212 [2nd ed.; Parkes-Wiener Series on Jewish Studies; London/Portland: Vallentine Mitchell, 2000] 81–84). But it appears that Jewish attendance at (and even participation in) these popular events was quite common (see Ze’ev Weiss, “Roman Leisure Culture and its Influence upon the Jewish Population in the Land of Israel,” Qad 28 [1995] 2–19 (Hebrew); idem, “Adopting a Novelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine,” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East, vol. 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research [ed. J. H. Humphrey; JRASup 31; Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1999] 23–50; Loren Roberts Spielman, “Sitting with Scorners: Jewish Attitudes toward Roman Spectacle Entertainment from the Herodian Period through the Muslim Conquest,” [Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010]). 45   For a comparison between Tertullian’s response to many of the idolatrous practices of Greco-Roman society and the responses of some rabbinic Jews, see Stéphanie E. Binder, “Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Second and Third Centuries C.E.? The Case of Carthage: Tertullian

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

197

ities. Within this perspective, he adamantly opposed forms of social entertainment such as gladiatorial contests because they involved what he contended was unlawful murder (Spect. 1–30; Apol. 15.5).46 But more than that, he also warned against all indirect participation in such “sinful” practices. This meant that even the occupation of training gladiators – despite all abstention from direct participation in the contests themselves – was unacceptable (Idol. 11.5).47 In this same vein, it was not enough (in the eyes of Tertullian) to abstain from sacrificing to the gods; simply handing the wine to a patron or master would, in the context of a ritual ceremony, also constitute participation in idol worship (Idol. 17.1). Based on this reasoning, it seems safe to conclude that Tertullian would have avoided dining in “pagan” temples.48 There is a clear separation between Tertullian and those Christians who might be placed in a high or medium-high level of social conformity. Yet even Tertullian was not completely detached from society. He does admit to being somewhat integrated into societal patterns and structures. Addressing the charge that Christians are an impediment to business, Tertullian objects, How so – when we are human beings and live alongside of you – men with the same ways, the same dress and furniture, the same necessities, if we are to live? For we are not Brahmans, naked sages of India, forest-dwellers, exiles from life. We remember that we owe gratitude to God, the Lord, the Creator. We reject no fruit of His labours. We are of course temperate – not to use His gifts to excess or amiss. So, not without your forum, not without your meat-market, not without your baths, shops, factories, your inns and market-days, and the rest of life of buying and selling, we live with you – in this world. We sail ships, we as well as you, and along with you; we go to the wars, to the country, to market with you. Our arts and yours work together; our labour is openly at your service. How can we can seem unprofitable to your and the Mishnah’s Views on Idolatry,” in Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: Text and Context (ed. D. Jaffé; AJEC 74; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 187–230. 46   For other Christian responses to the games and spectacles that took place in the arena/theater, see Timothy D. Barnes, “Christians and the Theater,” in Roman Theater and Society: E. Togo Salmon Papers 1 (ed. W. J. Slater; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996) 161–81; Richard F. DeVoe, Christianity and the Roman Games: The Pagnization of Christians by Gladiator, Charioteers, Actors and Actresses from the First through the Fifth Centuries A.D. (Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2002). 47   In early Christian epitaphs from Asia Minor, we find a number of different occupations, which required varying levels of association with pagan society, e.g., shoemaker (Johnson, Epitaphs, no. 2.19), merchant (no. 3.13), wood carver (no. 3.14), baker (no. 3.15), goldsmith (no. 3.16), orchard keeper (no. 3.17), butcher (no. 3.18), and lawyer (no. 4.12). 48   Tertullian does make allowance for Christians to enter into pagan temples (as well as the arena), but not when pagan ceremonies and events are taking place: “What, say you, suppose that at some other time I approach the circus, shall I be in danger of pollution? There is no law laid down for us as to places. For not merely those places where men gather for the shows, but even temples, the servant of God may approach without risk to his Christian loyalty, if there be cause sufficient and simple, to be sure, unconnected with the business or character of the place.” On the other hand, he notes, “if, as a sacrificer and worshipper, I enter the Capitol or the temple of Serapis, I shall fall from God – just as I should if a spectator in circus or theatre” (Spect. 8; trans. Glover [LCL]). Thus, dining with the gods seems to be excluded.

198

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

business, when we live with you and our living depends on you (cum quibus et de quibus vivimus), I do not know.49

So, for Tertullian, gladiatorial contests may have been off limits, but the public baths were an acceptable social gathering place for early Christians.50 This type of medium-low accommodation appears to be representative of level of conformity practiced by other Christians as well.51 4. Low Accommodation The least accommodating groups within antiquity might be those who carry out acts of revolt or resistance against systems of domination and hegemony. One might think of the numerous “bandits” that opposed Roman interests.52 Nevertheless, forms of social protest and military revolts are not our primary concern.53 Not only is this type of resistance foreign to 1 Peter, a militant approach might not represent a consistent social strategy. Those who engage in violent assaults are participating in temporary acts of resistance, despite the fact that participants could (in theory) align their lifestyles with cultural norms on a more regular basis.

49  Tertullian, Apol. 42.1–3; trans. Glover (LCL). Cf. Diogn. 5.1–2, 4–5: “For Christians are not distinguished (διακεκριμένοι) from the rest of humanity by country, language, or custom. For nowhere do they live in cities of their own, nor do they speak some unusual dialect, nor do they practice an eccentric lifestyle. . . . But while they live in both Greek and barbarian cities, as each one’s lot was cast, and follow the local customs in dress and food and other aspects of life, at the same time they demonstrate the remarkable and admittedly unusual character of their own citizenship. They live in their own countries, but only as aliens (πάροικοι); they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners (ξένοι)” (trans. Holmes). 50   Early Christians seemed fairly ambivalent about the Roman baths, barring that proper modesty was maintained. Eusebius, for instance, recounts a story of the apostle John attempting to enter the baths, only to be repelled by the presence of the heretic Cerinthus (Hist. eccl. 3.28). In his narrating of the account, he nowhere implies that John was doing anything wrong or out of the ordinary (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.5, 9, who states that bathing can be performed for health purposes if lustful thoughts are not present). For more on early Christians and the baths, see Esti Dvorjetski, Leisure, Pleasure and Healing: Spa Culture and Medicine in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean (JSJSup 116; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 404–17. 51   E.g., unlike those Christians whose lives exhibit a high to medium-high level of accommodation, Origen (Cels. 8.75) disparages all attempts by Christians to hold municipal office, and Tatian (Or. 22–24) rails against the vulgarity of the theater and public spectacles. 52   See Thomas Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Realty (trans. J. Drinkwater; London/New York: Routledge, 2004); cf. also Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985). 53   On this form of resistance in the Roman empire, see Stephen L. Dyson, “Native Revolts in the Roman Empire,” Historia 20 (1971) 239–74; idem, “Native Revolt Patterns in the Roman Empire,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Part II, Principat 3; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975) 138–75; Greg Woolf, “Provincial Revolts in the Early Roman Empire,” in The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. M. Popović; JSJSup 154; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 27–44.

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

199

What we are more concerned with here are those who removed themselves from society to the extent that they only conformed to traditional expectations to a very limited extent. In these cases, contact with the “pagan” world would be minimal. One example that is sometimes posited here are the Jewish residential districts within given cities.54 These communities provide evidence of a close communal life marked by some degree of separation from outsiders.55 In Sardis, for instance, the Jews were awarded considerable religious and legal rights (Josephus, Ant. 14.259– 61). These extended even to the provision of appropriate foods in the local agora. But despite the clear lines that were drawn, this did not remove inhabitants from the influence of the larger society. Living within the confines of an urban environment, they were still exposed to and participated in many aspects of social life. In this case, they still had to visit the local agora and interact with those who sold there. Fortunately, our evidence provides us with a better example of a group who practiced even further separation and who rejected many of the cultural values present in the Greco-Roman world. From the evidence provided in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as from the archaeology of the Qumran site,56 it appears that the Jewish community located at Khirbet Qumran displayed a number of distinctively “sectarian”

  See Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 117–18, 331–32.   Before the pogrom of 38 CE, Jews in the city of Alexandria were free to take up residence wherever they chose. In fact, Philo states that there were “houses of prayer” (προσευχαί) in every section of the city (Philo, Legat. 132). Nevertheless, they appear to have been primarily concentrated in two of the five districts (Philo, Flacc. 55; on the Jewish districts in Egypt, see Richard Alston, The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt [London/New York: Routledge, 2002] 157–59). One of these, according to Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.33–34; J.W. 2.495) was the Delta quarter, which was by the seaside near the palace. The purpose of this residential proximity was “that they might observe a purer way of life, mixing less with foreigners” (Josephus, J.W. 2.488). Cf. the situation in Cyrene (Josephus, Ant. 14.115–116). 56   There has been considerable debate concerning the relationship between the Essenes mentioned by Josephus, those who lived at Khirbet Qumran, and the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some have argued that the Essenes were a separate movement without any ties to Qumran (so, e.g., Albert I. Baumgarten, “The Rule of the Martian as Applied to Qumran’ “ IOS 14 [1994] 179–200; Martin Goodman, “A Note on the Qumran Sectarians, the Essenes and Josephus,” JJS 46 [1995] 161–66). But the long-standing consensus has been that all three represent the same group (see J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea [trans. J. Strugnell; SBT 26; London: SCM Press, 1959] 44–98; Phillip R. Callaway, The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation [JSPSup 3; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988]; Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran [3rd ed.; Biblical Seminar 30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995] 55–120; for a review, see Ian Hutchesson, “The Essene Hypothesis After Fifty Years: An Assessment,” QC 9 [2000] 17–34). More recently, efforts have been made to nuance this position considerably. Studies have shown that multiple groups are represented in the scrolls, and that even the yaḥad (mentioned in the “Rule of the Community”) consisted of several groups. These communities, along with (presumably) the inhabitants of Qumran, belonged to the larger Essene movement described by Josephus and Philo (see Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule [STDJ 77; Leiden: Brill, 2009]; John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010]). Therefore, various levels of “sectarian” practice would have existed among these groups. 54 55

200

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

features.57 Living separately from urban society, they had removed themselves from all of the social and political institutions whereby others sought status and prestige and created own social hierarchy within the group.58 Their unique clothing, both in its simplicity and color, also separated them from the larger population.59 Even their burial practices appear to be deviations from the standard Jewish custom. Rather than placing the dead in wooden coffins or ossuaries inside a rockhewn loculi tomb alongside other family members, the Qumran community carefully arranged their dead in single burial shafts representing their unified communal identity.60 What must be recognized, however, is that even among those most stringently opposed to “pagan” culture, there was never a complete break from this outside influence. As postcolonial theory has shown us, intrusive foreign powers are both hated by colonists while at the same time mimicked. Even at Qumran, this appears to be the case.61 One example is the use of the Greek language. Despite the predom57   There have been a number of works produced recently on “sectarianism” at Qumran (see, e.g., Eyal Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective [RelSoc 45; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007]; Cecilia Wassen and Jutta Jokiranta, “Groups in Tension: Sectarianism in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule,” in Sectarianism in Early Judaism: Sociological Advances [ed. D. J. Chalcraft; London: Equinox, 2007] 205–45; Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism). For important qualifications regarding the use of this designation, see Jutta Jokiranta, “‘Sectarianism’ of the Qumran ‘Sect’: Sociological Notes,” RevQ 78 (2001) 223–39. 58   The spatial organization and architecture at Khribet Qumran reveals sectarian social organization and ideology (see Eyal Regev, “Access Analysis of Kh. Qumran: Reading Spatial Organization and Social Boundaries,” BASOR 355 [2009] 85–99; idem, “The Archaeology of Sectarianism: Ritual, Resistance and Hierarchy in Kh. Qumran,” RevQ 94 [2009] 175–214). 59  According to Josephus, the Essenes always clothed themselves in white garments (J.W. 2.123, 137). They were also very frugal in their dress. Philo notes that they shared clothing (Prob. 86; Hypoth. 11.12), while Josephus says that they did not exchange their garments until the old ones were completely worn out (J.W. 2.126). Both the simplicity and the color suggest that the inhabitants wanted to differentiate themselves by their dress (see further Orit Shamir and Naama Sukenik, “Qumran Textiles and the Garments of Qumran’s Inhabitants,” DSD 18 [2011] 206–25; cf. also Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls [Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002] 193–202). 60   On the burial practices at Qumran, see Rachel Hachlili, “Burial Practices at Qumran,” RevQ 62 (1993) 247–64. These types of shaft burials are uncommon outside of Qumran, although there are a few documented examples (see Boaz Zissu, “‘Qumran Type’ Graves in Jerusalem: Archaeological Evidence of an Essene Community?,” DSD 5 [1998] 158–71; cf. also Rachel Hachlili, “The Qumran Cemetery: A Reconsideration,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery 1947–1997: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 [eds. L. H. Schiffman, et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & The Shrine of the Book, 2000] 661–67). 61   This is a point made by Martin Hengel, “Qumran and Hellenism,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 46–56, who concludes that, “The Essenes were . . . probably the sharpest enemies of the new Greek wisdom in Eretz Israel. But even they could not escape the penetrating Zeitgeist of the new era. It is a law of the history of thought that the enemy is often influenced by the opinions against which he is fighting” (55). A more nuanced explanation of this phenomenon, drawing on postcolonial studies, is provided by Andy M. Reimer, “Probing the Possibilities and Pitfalls of Post-Colonial Approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies (eds. J. G. Campbell, et al.; LSTS 52; London: T&T Clark, 2005) 182–209.

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

201

inance and proclivity for Hebrew (and Aramaic) at Qumran,62 the language of the colonizers (Greek) was still known and employed, particularly when in contact with outsiders.63 The apocalyptic views represented in the scrolls provide another example of this phenomenon. Among the later “sectarian” materials, a very firm boundary between outsiders and those within the community is created. It was thought that God’s eschatological judgment would overtake not only the Gentiles but also any Jews (including the priestly establishment in Jerusalem) who were not part of the community.64 Interestingly enough, however, we find that the military models used for this great war (as depicted in the War Scroll) reflect the influence from Greek and Roman military strategy.65 So although the “sectarians” had distinguished themselves from most members of Greco-Roman society, they could not help but to share some of the same ideological perspectives.

B. Subaltern Accommodation in 1 Peter With a better understanding of the various degrees to which an ancient Christian group might accommodate social norms, we will now turn to the evidence from 1 Peter. Our aim will be to gain a sense of the overall level of accommodation towards which the Petrine author encourages his readers. On one level, a postcolonial optic helps us to better understand the nature of the readers’ accommodation by allowing us to view the situation from the perspective of the oppressed. Only by interpreting conformity in light of the readers’ disadvantaged position can we properly diagnose the letter’s prescriptive ethic. On another level, a postcolonial perspective also allows us to assess and (if necessary) to problematize the behavioral model outlined in the author’s response. 62   It appears, in fact, that the covenanters attempted to create a distinct Hebrew dialect for use at the site (see Abraham Wasserstein, “Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East,” Scripta Classica Israelica 14 [1995] 111–37, and William M. Schniedewind, “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage,” JBL 118 [1999] 235–52). 63   See Matthew Richey, “The Use of Greek at Qumran: Manuscript and Epigraphic Evidence for a Marginalized Language,” DSD 19 (2012) 177–97. 64   For a general overview of the apocalyptic views present within the Dead Sea Scrolls, see John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Literature on the Dead Sea Scrolls; London/New York: Routledge, 2002). 65   See Jean Duhaime, “The War Scroll from Qumran and the Greco-Roman Tactical Treatises,” RevQ 49–52 (1988) 133–51. Based on the military equipment, organization, and strategy, Yigael Yadin (The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962] 114–197) argued that the document displays a Roman influence sometime after 63 BCE. Others have wanted to push this influence back further. For instance, Russel Gmirkin (“The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” DSD 3 [1996] 89–129) claims that this description was inspired by the Roman army of the second century BCE. Choosing between these options is not important for our purposes. We simply want to point out how the larger (military) culture had influenced the sectarians.

202

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

What we will attempt to show is that the paraenesis in the letter represents a form of subaltern accommodation. This means that in prescribing the duties of his underprivileged congregations, the author clothes his instructions in the language of compliance – particularly in places where many of the readers were most vulnerable (e.g., household structure) – as a way of preserving the basic safety of the most atrisk readers.66 What is not to be missed, however, is the fact that in those sections in which interpreters regularly posit high levels of social conformity, the author simultaneously issues a cautious challenge which undercuts the source of existing powers and asserts the priority of the readers’ faith commitments.67 1. Non-Retaliation against Abuse (1 Pet 2.18–20; 3.9) If the Petrine author wanted to overthrow the oppressive institutions of the GrecoRoman world through open rebellion, one place to start would have been with the mistreatment and abuse of slaves in his communities. Yet when addressing their disadvantaged situation, he maintains that what is pleasing before God is their continued perseverance under unjust suffering (1 Pet 2.18–20). There is no better example of how the letter (at times) promotes compliance with the standards and values of the larger culture. The plea for the Anatolian readers to avoid retaliating against their agitators plays a prominent role in the epistle.68 The author forbids them to “repay evil with evil or abuse with abuse” (3.9). In this way, they would be following the example of Christ, “who was abused, but did not return abuse” (2.23). Given the circular nature of 1 Peter, it is impossible to know whether the paraenesis represents an actual problem to which the author was responding or a preemptive exhortation to avoid certain dangerous practices.69 What we can say with more certainly is that the threat was 66   It seems unwarranted to say, “the majority of [the community] members were slaves of pagan masters and wives of pagan husbands” (Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 261). We simply do not possess enough information to make this kind of claim. Instead, we could say that the author focuses special attention on these groups, because they were most at-risk. 67   In this way, it is all about the perspective of the actions. As James C. Scott, (Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990]) points out, “What may look from above like the extraction of a required performance can easily look from below like the artful manipulation of deference and flattery to achieve its own ends” (34). 68   On the theme of non-retaliation in 1 Peter, see Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 270–91, and Mary H. Schertz, “Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln [sic] in 1 Peter,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament (ed. W. M. Swartley; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992) 258– 86. 69   According to Gene L. Green (“The Use of the Old Testament for Christian Ethics in 1 Peter,” TynBul 41 [1993] 276–89 [278]), the paraenesis represents a response to an actual problem. He argues, “They had begun to be ashamed of their faith (4:6 [sic]). They were tempted to retaliate, (3:9; cf. 2:23), and to conform to a more socially acceptable lifestyle, (4:2, 3; 1:14).” Unfortunately, he bases this assumption on the use of the aorist imperative with μή, which (following Moulton) he understands as negating an action that is already in progress. Such a view of prohibitions in Koine Greek has been overturned in recent years (see Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 713–25).

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

203

real,70 for these instructions are in accordance with the nature of established systems of domination and subordinates’ reaction to it. In such cases, subordinates are forced to suppress the natural impulse of rage, insult, and violence prompted by the cruelty of their oppressors. The situation in 1 Peter would have been no different. But while the submissiveness of non-retaliation is an unmistakable example of social conformity, there is more to these instructions than many have recognized. Appearing right alongside this accommodation is a message of resistance situated very delicately in the “hidden transcript.” These subversive undertones become clear when we consider the means by which he motivates non-retaliation. Like much of the fantasy life documented in the “hidden transcripts” of dominated groups,71 the compliance of his readers is undergirded by the hope of negative reciprocity. Although 1 Peter is more reserved in its portrayal of the agitators’ fate, even holding out the possibility of their conversion (1 Pet 3.1–2), the recipients are informed that their suffering is only temporary (1.6; cf. 4.7) and that one day – just like Christ, who conquered his enemies (cf. 3.18–22) through the endurance of suffering (2.21–25) – their abusers will face eschatological judgment (2.12; 3.12, 16; 4.17–18). The message of this “hidden transcript” thus demonstrates that the non-retaliatory efforts of the readers are not an agreeable form of social conformity, but an act forced upon them by their position under a dominant power. More importantly, it reveals a suppressed desire to overthrow and transform the system of domination. But even if the author’s ultimate desires cannot be acted upon, there is another sense in which he works to (actively) undercut the system of domination. This is evident merely by the fact that he admonished his readers to choose non-retaliation over revenge. By affording his readers a decision in this matter, their position is elevated from a passive object of abuse to an active agent of choice. In this way, the letter’s encouragement not to retalitate might be looked upon as an exercise of power. 2. Submission within the Household (1 Pet 2.18–3.6) All discussions of conformity in 1 Peter must eventually turn to the Petrine Haustafel, and in particular, to the instructions given to slaves and wives. It is in the “household code” that accommodation is most readily apparent. As mentioned above,72 the most thorough treatment of this section is Balch’s Let Wives Be Submissive. After a survey of the household management tradition in Greek literature (particularly that of Plato and Aristotle), Balch concludes that 1 Peter was encouraging its readers to seek a more accommodating stance towards the beliefs and practices 70   Cf. Watson, “First Peter,” 43–44: “The recipients are victims of slander by their non-Christian neighbors and may have been tempted to respond in kind rather than to leave such slander without foundation.” 71   See Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 36–44 (esp. 41–43). 72   See pp. 17–19.

204

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

of popular society; more specifically, the Petrine author is said to be encouraging behavior that conformed to the culturally-expected duties in a Greco-Roman household. The key for Balch’s proposal is the fact that slaves and wives – who may have converted to Christianity against the wishes of their masters/husbands – are instructed toward obedience and submission as a way of bringing harmony to the household (1 Pet 2.18–20; 3.1–6; cf. 3.8).73 It is difficult to completely discount this assessment, because on one level it is correct: the instructions given to slaves and wives would constitute a considerable degree of accommodation. But this is one place where precision demands that we focus our attention more closely on the historical context. In doing so, we must ask what types of responses would have been realistic options for a subaltern group navigating social conflict within an imperial setting. A slave, for instance, had recourse to a number of subversive options when faced with a brutal master. He/she could have chosen to run away, to steal from the owner’s resources, to become insolent in the face of the master’s demands, or even to encourage others toward open rebellion.74 But each of these strategies would have eventually resulted in further, escalated abuse. In realistic terms, then, open resistance (hence low accommodation) was not an option. Slaves and wives submitted to those in positions of authority because they found themselves in a disadvantaged social location.75 In this way, as James W. Aageson notes, “the church . . . relates to Greco-Roman society as an inferior relates to a superior and so adopts a position of deference.” With this in mind, despite modern sensibilities which make it difficult to reinscribe the same ethic today, “1 Peter arguably offers a rational and calculated strategy for persecuted people.”76   Balch is not alone in his assessment of this section. Many who have approached the epistle from a feminist perspective have concluded that the author only compounds the problem of inequality and oppression by encouraging an ethic of submission to the kyriarchal structures of the Greco-Roman world. The evaluation of Cynthia Briggs-Kittredge (“1 Peter,” in Women’s Bible Commentary [eds. C. A. Newsom, et al.; 3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012] 616–19) is typical of how feminist interpreters have understood the directives. She contends that the instructions in 1 Pet 2.18–3.6, “commend not resistance, but accommodation to the system of domination and subordination typical of the Roman Empire” (618). Cf. also Corley, “1 Peter,” 352–54; Robin Hawley Gorsline, “1 and 2 Peter,” in The Queer Bible Commentary (eds. D. Guest, et al.; London: SCM, 2006) 724–36 (727–29); Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 86–109. 74   See Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 149–50, against Osiek and Balch, who claim that in the first century “slaves are in the vulnerable position of having no recourse when abused” (Families in the New Testament World, 190). 75   Cf. Irene Foulkes, “1 Peter,” in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature (eds. L. Schottroff and M.-T. Wacker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) 878–85, who recognizes that “the strategy is twofold: submission is recommended as a survival tactic, but reference to Christ’s suffering authorizes victims of patriarchy to condemn it as evil.” What this means, according to Foulkes, is that “[i]nstead of passive capitulation to the prevailing power system, we can perceive here an active opposition to evil” (882). 76   James W. Aageson, “1 Peter 2.11–3.7: Slaves, Wives and the Complexities of Interpretation,” in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (ed. A.-J. Levine; FCNT 8; Lon73

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

205

But even if we account for the necessity of accommodation, the larger implications of these instructions have still yet to be determined. The key in this regard is not so much what the author asks from his readers. That slaves and wives would be complicit, given their situations, seems expected. It is what he fails to ask that should direct our approach to the text. Nowhere does the Petrine author invite these socially vulnerable groups to surrender their freedom of religious choice, an act which was prescribed within the traditional values of Greco-Roman society.77 Such partial compliance, regardless of the extent to which their obedience was taken in other areas, would have been viewed as anything but conformity by those to whom submission was due.78 The numerous examples of marital strife caused by a wife’s conversion to Christianity suggest that independent religious initiative was viewed as an act of rebellion (cf. Justin, 2 Apol. 2; Tertullian, Scap. 3.4; Apol. 3.4; Ux 2.5.4; Augustine, Conf. 9.9.19; Passion of Anastasia; To Gregoria).79 Thus, at the very point where accommodation is most explicit, there is resistance. Taking this one step further, the subversive intentions of the author are even more pronounced in his hope that the husbands might be “won over” (κερδαίνω) by their wives’ behavior (1 Pet 3.1). Such a desire represents a missionary aim,80 which challenges the prevailing social custom, viz., the husband’s influence on the religion of his wife.81 “This,” as Catherine Clark Kroeger has pointed out, “is not only subversion, but the most radical sort of rebellion.”82 Even the order in which the parties don: T&T Clark, 2004) 34–49 (46). It is unfair then to judge the author for not instituting a more radicalized form of rebellion when, in all likelihood, it would have resulted in further abuse and possibly even death for his readers. 77   On a slave’s adoption of his/her master’s religion, see Franz Bömer, Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom, Vierter Teil: Epilegomena (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10; Mainz: Franz Steiner, 1963) 247. On the wife following her husband’s religion, see Plutarch, Conj. praec. 19 (Mor. 140D). 78   On the destabilizing affects of inter-religious marriage in the Greco-Roman world and its application to 1 Peter, see Aliyah El Mansy, “Interreligiöse Ehen im literarischen Diskurs des 1./2. Jahrhunderts. Plutarch und der Erste Petrusbrief im Vergleich,” in Doing Gender – Doing Religion: Fallstudien zur Intersektionalität im frühen Judentum, Christentum und Islam (eds. U. E. Eisen, et al.; WUNT 302; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 155–78. 79   What is interesting is that Balch recognizes that this kind of partial conformity would not alleviate the social troubles: “The author was clearly aware, however, that even if his readers conformed socially and politically, their new and different religious attitudes might remain unacceptable to society” (Let Wives Be Submissive, 88; original emphasis; cf. 89–90). 80   See David Daube, “κερδαίνω as a Missionary Term,” HTR 40 (1947) 109–20. 81   Cf. Edgar Krentz, “Order in the ‘House’ of God: The Haustafel in 1 Peter 2:11–3:12,” in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon Snyder (eds. J. V. Hills and R. B. Gardner; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998) 279–85 (284). 82   Catherine Clark Kroeger, “Towards a Pastoral Understanding of 1 Peter 3.1–6 and Related Texts,” in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (ed. A.-J. Levine; FCNT 8; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 82–88 (84). Even though Cynthia Long Westfall (“Running the Gamut: The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish Christianity,” in Empire in the New Testament [eds. S. E. Porter and C. L. Westfall; MNTS 10; Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011] 230–58) found it difficult to assign an “anti-imperial” label to 1 Peter (“It is difficult to ascertain from the text if

206

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

are addressed contains a hint of value re-orientation.83 Slaves and wives are addressed first, while husbands receive their instructions last. This represents a reversal of the conventional order (cf. Col 3.18–4.1; Eph 5.21–6.9). So despite the fact that obedience to traditional social hierarchies in the Petrine Haustafel is often employed as evidence of high accommodation and conformity, a much more nuanced conclusion is required. While this submission is an example of a complicit acquiescence to (normative) social expectations, it is the minimum level of compliance required for a powerless social group in the Roman empire. And given its uncompromising commitment to the religious independence of slaves and wives, these instructions present themselves more as an example of feigned deference which cautiously undercuts the power-base of the standard hierarchy of household management. Thus, where there is accommodation in 1 Peter, there is also resistance. 3. Honoring the Emperor (1 Pet 2.17) Included in the Petrine Haustafel is a section in which the author admonishes his readers towards honorable conduct through a series of brief exhortations (1 Pet 2.13–17). One of the areas in which the audience’s good deeds are meant to be displayed is the municipal realm. In particular, they are called to “honor (τιμᾶτε) the emperor” (2.17). The means by which this might be accomplished, however, is an important and disputed question. When this topic is addressed, most scholars demarcate a clear boundary between acceptable and non-acceptable expressions of honoring the emperor, with the latter being defined as any action which compromises one’s subordination to the will of God.84 Recently, this notion has been challenged by Carter, who points out that there were only a limited number of ways that one could honor to the emperor in the Imperial era, the most fundamental being through sacrifice.85 From this perspeceither Peter or the readers saw his directions as subversive of the empire”), she, nevertheless, notes that “the Christian practice of Christian women having an intention to convert the husband and subsequent children would have been decried as subversive wherever detected” (243–44). 83   Cf. Meghan Henning, “In Sickness and in Health: Ancient ‘Rituals of Truth’ in the Greco-Roman World and 1 Peter,” in Disability Studies in Biblical Literature (eds. C. R. Moss and J. Schipper; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) 185–203: “On one level, the use of the Greco-roman [sic] household code . . . represents early Christians assimilating to the dominant culture. On another level, this particular iteration of the household code begins with slaves, equating the behavior of slaves with the suffering of Jesus and subverting the dominant order” (196–97). 84   W. H. Bennett, The General Epistles: James, Peter, John, and Jude (The Century Bible; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1901) 218: “if claims to obedience conflicted, the fear due to God would override the honour due to the emperor.” Cf. Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 104; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 184–88; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 127. 85   See Carter, “Going All the Way?,” 17–33; followed by Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 81–83, and William R. G. Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapis: Eerdmans, 2012) 413.

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

207

tive, Carter proceeds to argue that when 1 Peter encourages its readers to “do good,” it is actually a call to “go all the way,” including active participation in the imperial cult, all the while regarding Christ as Lord in their hearts. What this means is that the strategy of the epistle is one of high accommodation – at least in terms of appearances. Such full integration into the religious practices of the Gentiles would have, no doubt, been looked upon with suspicion by other Christian groups (see above), even causing some to question whether a line of apostasy had been crossed. The theory of Carter is a commendable attempt to remedy the problem which the consensus opinion leaves unresolved, viz., how partial conformity could abrogate the conflict with non-Christians. It also accords well with the fact that many of the readers found themselves in socially subordinate positions without the privilege of personal volition. One could easily imagine that the situation of Christian wives with un-believing husbands described by Tertullian (Ux. 2.6) might have naturally resulted in the former being led to participate in the activities and festivals associated with the imperial cult, if not in actual sacrifice itself. Nevertheless, there are significant problems with the view that the good works in 1 Peter refer to full participation in the imperial cult – even if it is just an outward response unreflective of an inward reality. The most substantial exegetical difficulty for the position to overcome is the fact that good works are viewed as a cause of social conflict.86 If Carter’s proposal were correct, it would mean that the author expected his readers to be persecuted further because of the acts of cultic sacrifice and veneration which they performed on behalf of the emperor; this expectation would be difficult to sustain.87 Aside from this problem, Carter’s treatment also fails to recognize the letter’s call to maintain a distinctive Christian commitment. Throughout the epistle, the author commends his readers’ non-participation in certain social activities and counsels them to continue in their separation (1 Pet 1.14, 18; 4.3–4).88 Moreover, to argue, as Carter does, that the readers could honor the emperor through cultic observance while still maintaining reverence for Christ is to set up a false dualism which is created by systems of domination. An effective strategy of hegemonic discourse is the construction of what appears to be areas of autonomous action. By setting up a dualism between mind and body (or in Carter’s case, belief and practice), a dominant system can create the impression that one’s mind/spirit/ will can remain free from coercion. This serves both to mask the extent to which persons/groups are subjugated and to represent the institutional requirements of the   See pp. 255–57.  After a close examination of three Pauline congregations, Craig S. de Vos (Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities [SBLDS 168; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999] 297) concludes that “where there is a pattern of ethnic integration or assimilation there will be a lower incidence of conflict” (emphasis removed). 88   For a further critique of Carter’s position, see Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance,” 134–37. 86 87

208

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

empire (which are carried out by the body) as unassailable.89 Working from an apocalyptic framework, however, the goal of 1 Peter is to deconstruct these hegemonic assumptions and to replace them with an alternative perspective on reality. Thus, the reason why Carter has such trouble with non-cultic forms of honoring the emperor is because he approaches the question from the wrong perspective. Rather than reading the text “from below” and asking how a beleaguered group like the Christians might honor the emperor, he insists that the text be read “from above,” where he finds the hegemonic perspective of imperial power.90 It is true that from the latter point of view, it would be impossible to honor the emperor without cultic participation. But that is not the perspective of the Petrine author. To demonstrate this, one only needs to look at the household code (1 Pet 2.11–3.12). There he commands slaves and wives to submit to their masters and husbands respectfully. However, he does not ask them to end their devotion to Christ and to renew their commitment to the gods of their masters/husbands.91 In the eyes of Greco-Roman society, only this would have constituted real submission (see above). So given the fact that his exhortation to slaves/wives would require them to seek alternative means of submission which did not require pagan worship, it is not difficult to imagine that honoring the emperor would demand alternative means of demonstrating one’s loyalty which did not include participation in cultic ceremonies.92 The question we should ask then is, how might Christians, who were unwilling to participate in pagan sacrifice, display honor toward the emperor in a way that recog89   Cf. Timothy Mitchell, “Everyday Metaphors of Power,” Theory and Society 19 (1990) 545– 77, who gives a similar critique to James C. Scott’s work. 90   This is surprising because elsewhere Carter’s approach seems to be right on track. He insists on interpreting the author’s response through the lens of “relatively powerless groups [who] perform many anonymous acts of resistance that ‘deny or mitigate’ elite claims” (“Going All the Way?” 32). Cf. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 82, who also fails to make this distinction. 91   This point is contested by Carter, who argues that both wives and slaves are admonished toward complete conformity to the will of their husbands and masters, including in religious ritual. His interpretation focuses on submissive behavior expressed through the fear of God. He suggests, “In both 2.18 and 3.2 the phrase [ἐν φόβῳ] serves not to qualify the slaves’ and wives’ submission, but to frame and legitimate their unqualified submission (including honoring the emperor in household rituals) as part of fearing God” (“Going All the Way?” 27). The problem is that Carter’s interpretation overlooks the hierarchy of fear which the author constructs in the epistle: whereas the readers are encouraged to fear God (1 Pet 1.17; 2.17), they are not to fear their persecutors nor the persecution which they might face as a result of their commitment to Christ (cf. 3.6, 14). When addressing slaves and wives, he therefore commands that they fear God more than masters/husbands. The temptation for wives, for instance, would have been to conform to the wishes of their “pagan” husbands regarding idolatrous forms of worship, thus avoiding potential scorn and abuse (on the possible threats facing Christian women in “mixed” marriages, see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 317–22). Otherwise, the author’s demand that they not give in to fear (μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν, 3.6) is inexplicable. It would thus appear that these wives had been asked (1.14, 18; 4.3–4) and were continuing to be asked to renounce the practice of pagan sacrifice (cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 194–95, on the qualified submission of slaves). 92   Further confirmation that the author is adopting this perspective is the manner in which he relativizes the honor afforded to the emperor in 1 Pet 2.13, 17 (see below).

Chapter Eight:  Calculated Conformity in 1 Peter

209

nizes his position and yet shows ultimate deference to God? As others have previously done, we must look at how early Christians navigated this issue. We know that, following the example of the Jews (cf. Ezra 6.10; 1 Macc 7.33; m. Ἀbot 3.2), some Christians were willing to offer prayers for the emperor (1 Tim 2.2; 1 Clem 60.4–61.2; Tertullian, Apol. 30–32).93 Beyond this, as Philip A. Harland has shown, there were also a number of other ways that Christians might demonstrate their loyalty, including erecting an inscription to the emperor or even dedicating a public structure on his behalf.94 Regardless of how this might occur, the key is that many early Christians (and Jews) found ways to honor the emperor which did not involve sacrifice. Given that these instructions involve an active obedience toward imperial authority, the epistle’s command to “honor the emperor” would certainly constitute a form of accommodation. This is not surprising since imperial contexts provide subordinate groups few opportunities of refusal, especially when it comes to showing proper respect toward those in positions of power. What must not be missed, however, is the fact that these instructions also represent a measure of resistance. As we will demonstrate below,95 the true impact of the call to “honor the emperor” can only be understood when read against its wider context. For within 1 Pet 2.13–17, the power and prestige of the emperor is relativized both by the fact that he is described as a “human creature” (2.13) and because his authority falls somewhere below that of God (2.17). Thus, the exhortation represents an exercise in resistance just as much as marks a plea for conformity.

C. Conclusion In the past, interpreters have read 1 Peter’s encouragement towards compliance with the structures of Greco-Roman society as a strategy of conformity. The good works motif is most often understood in this same way. Given this understanding of the text, feminist scholars have rightly criticized the strategy of 1 Peter because it both confirms and legitimates the subaltern position of women and slaves in the Anatolian communities. They have correctly pointed out that modern readers must recognize and problematize the way that the author exchanges one form of oppression (persecution) for another (social hierarchy). At the same time, these problems should

  Cf. Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 104; Elliott, 1 Peter, 500–501; Horrell, “Between Conformity and Resistance,” 137 n.  95; Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre, 159. 94   See Philip A. Harland, “Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypse of John,” JSNT 77 (2000) 99–121 (115). An important factor which Harland fails to consider, however, is the economic feasibility of some of the activities he suggests. 95   See pp. 228–33. 93

210

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

not prevent us from acknowledging or even appreciating the positive aspects of the author’s strategy. What many modern interpretations do not adequately account for is the subaltern position of the readers. Like any disadvantaged group living under the conditions of imperial control, the Petrine readers had little recourse to independent and unrestrained action. For this reason, an accurate description of the author’s strategy requires further nuancing beyond the traditional categories of conformity and accommodation. This is best accomplished through a postcolonial optic. When the letter is read “from below,” we discover that even in compliance to the constraining influence of empire, the author significantly undermines existing systems of domination and hegemony. From our survey above, there are two things about the letter’s accommodation that stands out. First, all of the texts that were discussed reveal that it was expected that the Petrine audience would accommodate Anatolian society to some extent by fulfilling many of the traditional obligations prescribed for members of the Greco-Roman household. Given their social position, it would have been dangerous to do otherwise. But each time that compliance is maintained, it is relativized by (seemingly) small qualifications which amount to subaltern resistance. In this way, it seems that “subordination and non-retaliation are weapons of resistance” in the strategy of 1 Peter.96 A second consideration when assessing the level of conformity in 1 Peter is the fact that the author does not attempt to bring the readers back into greater conformity with regard to the social practices from which they had previously withdrawn (cf. 1 Pet 1.14, 18; 4.3–4). This is an important point that is often overlooked. What it reveals is that any effort to accommodate social norms is reserved for situations in which the readers have little recourse to resist (e.g., traditional hierarchy within the household); otherwise, separation is affirmed. With a better understanding of how 1 Peter accommodates certain societal expectations, we will now turn our attention to the ways in which the letter resists. We have already exposed an underlying current of subversion situated within the epistle’s call to conform. Further consideration will now be given to those points at which the author’s message advocates cautious resistance to the dominant powers and structures operative in the Greco-Roman world.

  Annag Asumang, “‘Resist him’ (1 Pet 5:9): Holiness and Non-Retaliatory Responses to Unjust Suffering as ‘Holy War’ in 1 Peter,” Conspectus 11 (2011) 7–46 (27). 96

Chapter Nine

Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter In discussions of resistance and anti-imperialism in the New Testament, the contribution of 1 Peter is commonly overlooked.1 Aside from the general neglect of the epistle within the larger field,2 it seems that there are two reasons for this omission. First, the outlook of 1 Peter is commonly compared with that of John’s Apocalypse, which was written to congregations in the same general area who shared many of the same experiences as the Petrine audience. Since the resistance found in the book of Revelation is so boldly defiant, 1 Peter seems, by comparison, to be more cordial (see below). Second, in some places the Petrine author calls for a level of compliance with existing social structures in an effort to avoid exacerbating the problem and creating a conflict spiral (see Ch. 8). Without taking into account the subaltern position of the readers, many find in these instructions a harmonious relationship between the church and Roman State.3 What some scholars have begun to recognize, however, is that despite instances where existing powers necessitate forms of compliance within certain social structures, the instructions of 1 Peter are underwritten by a strategy of cautious resistance. One example of a recent interpreter who has reached this conclusion is Larry Miller. Using the concept of “implicit social protest” developed by French sociologist Jean Séguy, Miller has argued that the structures of social authority were implicitly undermined by an ethic which radically transformed established social order.4 As we have previously discussed, David G. Horrell has also uncovered a 1  Of three recent surveys which have explored the place of empire among New Testament authors (viz., Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013]; Judy Diehl, “Empire and Epistles: Anti-Roman Rhetoric in the New Testament Epistles,” CBR 10 [2012] 217–63; Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia L. Westfall, eds., Empire in the New Testament [MNTS 10; Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011]), only the latter considers the contribution of 1 Peter, and even then, many of the elements of resistance are overlooked (see Westfall, “Running the Gamut,” 237–44). 2   In many ways, the relative neglect of 1 Peter which was bemoaned by John H. Elliott, (“The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research,” JBL 95 [1976] 243–54), nearly four decades ago, has not changed all that much. 3   See, e.g., Lauri Thurén, “Jeremiah 27 and Civil Obedience in 1 Peter,” in Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und römische Herrschaft. Vorträge auf der ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies (eds. M. Labahn and J. Zangenberg; TANZ 36; Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 2002) 215–28. 4   Larry Miller, “La protestation sociale dans la première lettre de Pierre,” Social Compass 46 (1999) 521–43, with a fuller treatment given in idem, “Christianisme et societé dans la première

212

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

similar undercurrent of resistance by employing the insights developed by political scientist James C. Scott, whose work focused on modern peasant rebellion.5 What we would like to do in this chapter is to extend the discussion somewhat further. After establishing a theoretical framework in which the nature of subaltern resistance can be understood, we will turn to 1 Peter, where we will search for any signs that the author might be encouraging his readers towards a more resistant stance against the restraints of existing forms of hegemony and domination. This will provide a backdrop against which to interpret the good work theme in the next chapter.

A. Situating Resistance within Social Conflict An important step in accurately diagnosing the Petrine author’s social strategy of resistance is to first recognize the circumstances under which the epistle was written. In 1 Peter, it is clear that social conflict 6 has emerged because the Petrine readers feel deprived of important outcomes associated with their relationship to Anatolian society (attributing that state of deprivation to the actions of their neighbors), and they are poised to respond to that deprivation through some type of strategic action. This means that the author’s call to good works is part of his larger strategy of conflict management. Understanding the nature of this exhortation requires a closer examination of strategic action from a social-scientific perspective.

lettre de Pierre: histoire de l’interprétation, interprétation de l’histoire,” (Ph.D. diss., Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, 1995). 5   See pp. 21–22. Horrell refers to the letter’s strategy as “polite resistance.” But while it is that, it is also more than that. We have chosen the designation “cautious resistance” (following James C. Scott) to indicate that the resistance is intentional in its pursuit and informed in its substance: it wishes to go further, but due to the given circumstances it is necessarily restrained. In a recent study on the social strategy of 1 Peter, Wai Lan Joyce Sun (“This is True Grace of God: The Shaping of Social Behavioural Instructions by Theology in 1 Peter,” [Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2012]) uses the designation “differentiated resistance.” 6   In our definition, “social conflict” is the strategic interaction between individuals or groups which results from a (perceived) deprivation by an interdependent other. This definition is an attempt to combine two of the basic approaches toward social conflict, viz., defining conflict in terms of incompatible behaviors, with one party engaging in acts which impede or oppose those of another party (so, e.g., Lewis A. Coser, Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict [New York: Free Press, 1967] 232; Deutsch, Resolution of Conflict, 10) and focusing on antecedent conditions and thus defining conflict according to the source of conflict behaviors (so, e.g., Louis Kriesberg, Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution [3rd ed.; Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007] 2).

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

213

In general, there are three different classes of procedures for dealing with social conflict: third-party decision-making,7 separate action strategies,8 and joint decision-making. Of most interest to us will be the third option.9 Joint decision-making involves the process of negotiation10 between two opposing parties that are seeking to resolve divergent interests. Within this process, there are a countless numbers of negotiation strategies and operative tactics11 which one could adopt. But, over the past several decades, as a result of work done in the laboratory and in the field, researchers have converged on what is sometimes described as the strategic repertoire principle.12 This taxonomy of joint decision-making categorizes all negotiation be7   In third-party decision-making a party who is not directly involved in the conflict serves as an intermediary in an attempt to bring resolution (see Jacob Bercovitch, Social Conflicts and Third Parties: Strategies of Conflict Resolution [Boulder, CO: Westview, 1984]; Kenneth Kressel and Dean G. Pruitt, eds., Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention [Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989]). The actual setup of this procedure may vary depending on the specific role adopted by the third party. The mediator might serve in the role of an autocratic decision-maker (i.e., one who makes an authoritative ruling without hearing both sides), an arbitrator (i.e., one who makes an authoritative ruling after hearing both sides), or a mediator (i.e., one who assists both parties in the negotiation of their own settlement). Because third-party mediation does not appear to be an option for Christians (as a whole) over against the wider Anatolian society, we have excluded its discussion here. 8   In a separate action strategy, one might respond to a conflict situation in one of three ways: (1) retreat (i.e., one party in the dispute concedes to the demands of the other); (2) struggle (i.e., seeking to persuade the opposing party to concede through verbal or physical contentious measures); or (3) tacit coordination (i.e., the accommodation of both parties without discussion). On this form of conflict management, see Dean G. Pruitt and Peter J. Carnevale, Negotiation in Social Conflict (Mapping Social Psychology; Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1993) 4–5. 9   Much of the social-scientific data that we will survey has been collected from coordinated negotiations where two conflicting parties are engaged in joint decision-making. While it is possible that certain individual Christians may have found themselves in situations where they were forced to employ formal negotiative strategies, it is unlikely that the Christian group (as a whole) would have participated in this type of coordinated action. The epistle of 1 Peter assumes this much in that the strategy of collective action which it prescribes focuses primarily on the responsibility of the readers, regardless of the response from their non-Christian neighbors. In this way, the conflict management approach from which the author works is that of a separate action strategy (i.e., both disputing parties making independent decisions). Fortunately, separate action strategies mirror joint decision-making in both form and function. For this reason, it seems safe to the allow evidence for the latter to inform our examination of the former. 10   In social conflict theory, “negotiation” is an attempt by two (or more) parties to resolve a conflict of interests through some form of communication. On this form of conflict behavior, see Jeffrey Z. Rubin and Bert R. Brown, The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation (New York: Academic Press, 1975); Dean G. Pruitt, Negotiation Behavior (Organizational and Occupational Psychology; New York: Academic Press, 1981); Pruitt and Carnevale, Negotiation in Social Conflict. 11   In this discussion, we will be distinguishing between “strategies” and “tactics.” The former refers to the four (or five) distinct courses of actions by which one might approach a conflict situation. The latter, on the other hand, refers to the maneuvers or class of movements through which strategies are carried out. Thus, for instance, one might attempt to enact a contending strategy through tactical threats to the opposing party. 12   See Carsten K. W. De Dreu, et al., “The Psychology of Negotiation: Principles and Basic Processes,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (eds. A. W. Kruglanski and E. T.

214

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

havior into four (or sometimes, five) basic forms: contending, conceding, problem solving, and inaction.13 In what follows, we will attempt to provide a theoretical justification for the assumption that resistance (or contending) would have served as the most natural response of the Petrine author. This assumption finds support in the factors contributing to strategic choice. When dealing with a conflict situation, most parties tend to employ a variety of tactics and alternate their approaches when a particular strategy proves unsuccessful in achieving an intended aim.14 Before choosing one strategy over another, however, certain antecedent factors tend to shape the strategic choice of conflicting parties. In social-psychological discussion, there are four (theoretical) conditions that are frequently posed as such: self- and other-concern, perceived feasibility, direction of blame, and culture. The first condition which could affect a party’s choice of strategic action in a conflict situation is concern about one’s own outcomes (called “self-concern”) and how they relate to an opponent’s outcomes (called “other-concern”). Self-concern refers to the extent to which conflicting parties place importance on their own interests; whereas other-concern refers to the interest one party shows toward the opposing side in the matter under dispute. Each of these concerns is independent of the other and ranges from low to high (or weak to strong). According to the dual concern model,15 both motives are essential for strategic choice: when divergent inter-

Higgins; 2nd ed.; New York: Guilford Press, 2007) 608–29 (612–13). A similar, though somewhat more reductionistic, taxonomy of negotiation strategies is suggested by W. A. Donohue, “Analyzing Negotiation Tactics: Development of a Negotiation Interact System,” Human Communication Research 7 (1981) 273–87. In his system (which he labels “negotiation interact system”), Donohue divides the negotiation alternatives into three “tactics”: attacking, defending, and regressing. 13   Support for these categories has been derived both from videotaped interaction of parties employing these strategies (so, e.g., Peter J. Carnevale and Edward J. Lawler, “Time Pressure and the Development of Integrative Agreements in Bilateral Negotiations,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30 [1986] 636–59; Laurie R. Weingart, et al., “Knowledge Matters: The Effect of Tactical Descriptions on Negotiation Behavior and Outcome,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 [1996] 1205–17) and the psychometric analyses of questionnaires related to conflict management (so, e.g., M. Afzalur Rahim and Nace R. Magner, “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict: First-Order Factor Model and Its Invariance across Groups,” Journal of Applied Psychology 80 [1995] 122–32; Carsten K. W. De Dreu, et al., “A Theory-Based Measure of Conflict Management Strategies in the Workplace,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 [2001] 645–68). 14   See Evert van de Vliert, Complex Interpersonal Conflict Behaviour: Theoretical Frontiers (Essays in Social Psychology; East Sussex: Psychology Press, 1997) 137; cf. Mark L. Knapp, et al., “Measuring Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations: Where Do We Go from Here?,” Management Communication Quarterly 1 (1988) 414–29. 15   On the dual concern model, see Peter J. Carnevale and Dean G. Pruitt, “Negotiation and Mediation,” Annual Review of Psychology 43 (1992) 531–82 (539–43); Pruitt and Carnevale, Negotiation in Social Conflict, 104–18; Carsten K. W. De Dreu, “Social Conflict: The Emergence and Consequences of Struggle and Negotiation,” in Handbook of Social Psychology (eds. S. T. Fiske, et al.; 5th ed.; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2010) 983–1023 (995–97).

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

215

ests are perceived, conflicting parties must decide on a plan of action based not only on their own interests but also on the interests of the opposing side.16 The dual concern model allows certain predictions to be made regarding strategic choice in a conflict situation. On the one hand, the model is able to predict tendencies in the choice of conflict strategies based on differences in individual conflict styles. More important for our purposes, however, is the fact that the dual concern model amply explains the impact of various conditions on strategic choice. Since self-concern and other-concern will vary depending on conflict situation, strategic choice is largely a matter of circumstances. While in one case, for example, a party might combine high self-concern with low other-concern and consequently seek a strategy of contending, in another situation the party’s motives might change, necessitating a new strategic choice. The question thus becomes, which conditions affect self- and other-concern? There are a number of important variants that play a role in establishing one’s self-concern in a conflict situation. In some instances, self-concern might be determined by something as simple as the manner in which a situation is framed. If a party takes a negative view toward its own outcomes (i.e., seeing outcomes in terms of degrees of loss instead of degrees of gain), then self-concern will be much higher.17 Self-concern is also increased when the party has important interests at stake,

  An alternative explanation of the motivational antecedents of strategic choice is the theory of cooperation and competition (see Deutsch, Resolution of Conflict, 20–32). According to this model, strategic choice is dependent upon the perceived goals of the interdependent other. So when one party interprets the situation as a zero-sum dilemma (i.e., a situation in which one party’s gain results from opposing party’s equivalent loss), struggle is the most likely option. In other words, disputants tend to match non-cooperative moves of opponents; thus struggle begets more struggle. This phenomenon has been repeatedly demonstrated in the prisoner’s dilemma and the resource dilemma (see Stuart Oskamp, “Effects of Programmed Strategies on Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and Other Mixed-Motive Games,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 15 [1971] 225–59; Norbert L. Kerr, “Motivation Losses in Small Groups: A Social Dilemma Analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 [1983] 819–28; for a summary of research, see Dean Tjosvold, “Cooperative and Competitive Approach to Conflict: Accomplishments and Challenges,” Applied Psychology: An International Review 47 [1998] 285–342). Recently, however, work on the prisoner’s dilemma (and the resultant theories) have slowed because the laboratory test did not always translate to actual conflict situations (see Dean G. Pruitt, “A History of Social Conflict and Negotiation Research,” in Handbook of the History of Social Psychology [eds. A. W. Kruglanski and W. Stroebe; New York: Psychology Press, 2012] 431–52 [435–37]). 17  See Margaret A. Neale and Max H. Bazerman, “The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes,” Academy of Management Journal 28 (1985) 34–39; Maurice E. Schweitzer and Leslie A. DeChurch, “Linking Frames in Negotiations: Gains, Losses and Conflict Frame Adoption,” International Journal of Conflict Management 12 (2001) 100–13. 16

216

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

or when deeply-held principles of right and wrong are involved.18 Self-concern can be greatly diminished, however, when there is a fear of confrontation.19 When a conflicting party has a high concern for the opposing side, the chances are much greater that they will seek more passive strategies like yielding and problem-solving. In some cases, this other-concern may reflect a genuine interest in the welfare of the opposing party. When interpersonal bonds are involved (e.g., friendship/love, perceived similarity, common group identity), parties are often more empathetic towards their opposition resulting in more cooperative strategies.20 Genuine other-concern might also be fostered by something as simple succeeding in an important task or receiving a small gift or any other uplifting event which might create a positive mood.21 On the other hand, other-concern might be more instrumental than genuine, meaning that one conflicting party advances the cause of the other in hopes that their own self-interests will be benefitted. This is particularly evident when the party recognizes that they will be involved in a dependent relationship with the other party sometime in the future. In such cases, concession and problem-solving are much more likely.22 The dual concern model provides a helpful way of diagnosing the response of 1 Peter. It is clear that the Petrine author takes a negative view of the situation with regard to the outcomes of his audience: the threat, as he perceives it, is one of the opponents attempting to encourage his readers toward a lifestyle that leads away from God and toward destruction. Hence, the conflict represents a potential depri18   On important interests at stake, see Daniel Druckman, et al., “Value Differences and Conflict Resolution: Facilitating or Delinking?,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32 (1988) 489–510; Daniel Druckman, “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38 (1994) 507–56. On deeply-held principles of right and wrong, see Dean G. Pruitt, “Process and Outcome in Community Mediation,” Negotiation Journal 11 (1995) 365–77. 19   See William R. Fry, et al., “Negotiation Process and Outcome of Stranger Dyads and Dating Couples: Do Lovers Lose?,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 4 (1983) 1–16, who found that the romantic involvement of couples decreased their use of bargaining tactics and thus prevented them from reaching high joint outcomes. 20   Marilynn B. Brewer and Roderick M. Kramer, “Choice Behavior in Social Dilemmas: Effects of Social Identity, Group Size, and Decision Framing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986) 543–49; Josephine M. Zubek, et al., “Disputant and Mediator Behaviors Affecting Short Term Success in Mediation,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (1992) 546–72; C. Daniel Batson and Tecia Moran, “Empathy-Induced Altruism in a Prisoner’s Dilemma,” European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (1999) 909–24. 21   Peter J. Carnevale and Alice M. Isen, “The Influence of Positive Affect and Visual Access on the Discovery of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (1986) 1–13; Robert A. Baron, “Environmentally Induced Positive Affect: Its Impact on Self-Efficacy, Task Performance, Negotiation, and Conflict,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20 (1990) 368–84. 22   Charles L. Gruder, “Relationships with Opponent and Partner in Mixed-Motive Bargaining,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 15 (1971) 403–16; Orly Ben-Yoav and Dean G. Pruitt, “Resistance to Yielding and the Expectation of Cooperative Future Interaction in Negotiation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20 (1984) 323–53.

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

217

vation for his Anatolian readers. Likewise, his portrayal of the conflict represents a dualistic approach in which one party is right (his readers) and one is wrong (outsiders). This naturally lends itself to a high degree of self-concern. With this in mind, it is easy to predict that the author’s natural inclination would have been towards contention and resistance. Another condition which might affect strategic choice is the perceived feasibility of each option. According to the perceived feasibility perspective, the discernable effectiveness of a strategy to accomplish a party’s goals at an acceptable cost and risk affects the likelihood that it will be adopted.23 The effectiveness of this approach, of course, is dependent upon the accuracy with which one evaluates the capabilities of oneself or one’s group and the weaknesses of one’s opponent(s). For instance, contending is normally more feasible (and thus advantageous) for one who is in a position of power over against a weaker opponent. But if the opponent is extremely resolute in their position, contention might only lead to more severe forms of conflict escalation. This consideration is especially relevant to the strategy of the Petrine author. Given the imperial setting of 1 Peter and the minority status of his readers, certain strategies might have been preferred, but simply could not have been adopted because of their lack of feasibility. For this reason, our assessment of the good works motif will have to take into account questions of achievability. A final determinant of strategic choice is the direction of blame which a party attributes to the conflict situation. When conflict arises, questions of causality naturally follow, and disputants have the choice to attribute the blame in one of three directions: toward the other party (other-blame), toward themselves (self-blame), or toward both parties (mutual-blame). Each of these attributions has important affects on the party’s choice of conflict strategies. For those who blame the opposing party, there is a greater inclination to opt for a strategy of contending.24 Conversely, those who blame themselves for the situation are more likely to take up a strategy of yield  On the perceived feasibility perspective, see Pruitt and Carnevale, Negotiation in Social Conflict, 114–16; Dean G. Pruitt, “Social Conflict,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds. D. T. Gilbert, et al.; 4th ed.; Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998) 470–503 (483); Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim, Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement (3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill Series in Social Psychology; Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004) 47–53. 24   Three reasons have been identified to explain why attributing blame to an opponent inclines a party toward contending. First, other-blame often causes the party to adopt a zero-sum perspective, i.e., perceiving the situation to be one in which one party’s gain results from opposing party’s equivalent loss (Robin L. Pinkley, “Dimensions of Conflict Frame: Disputant Interpretations of Conflict,” Journal of Applied Psychology 75 [1990] 117–26), which is known to cause contention (see Leigh Thompson and Dennis Hrebec, “Lose-Lose Agreements in Interdependent Decision Making,” Psychological Bulletin 120 [1996] 396–409). Second, blaming an opposing party serves to generate notions of unfair treatment, which can be used to justify contentious behavior (see Dale T. Miller, “Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice,” Annual Review of Psychology 52 [2001] 527–53). Finally, contending is the natural outcome of other-blame because of the anger it produces it the spurned party (see James R. Averill, “Studies on Anger and Aggression: Implications for Theories of Emotion,” American Psychologist 38 [1983] 1145–60). 23

218

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ing due to feelings of guilt and the need to atone for one’s mistakes.25 However, self-blame normally occurs only in mild levels of conflict. When the conflict escalates, parties tend to shift the blame from themselves to the opponent.26 In those situations in which both parties acknowledge their liability for the conflict, problem-solving tends to be the natural strategic choice. The importance of these considerations lies in the fact that the Petrine author blames Anatolian society for the conflict in which his readers are involved (1 Pet 2.12; 3.13–17; 4.3–4).27 What this evidence suggests is that a strategy of resistance in 1 Peter would fit well with basic patterns of social conflict. Given the various factors that are involved in the situation, it seems appropriate to explore the letter further in search of any potentially contentious tactics. Before venturing into the text, however, it is just as important to consider the matter of feasibility. This leads us directly into questions of how resistance is defined and what forms it could potentially take.

B. Defining Hegemony and Resistance To add precision to our discussion of resistance in 1 Peter, we will seek to delineate the way in which certain terms will be employed. Surprisingly, this preliminary task has too often gone unfulfilled in treatments of the social strategy of 1 Peter, and as a result, certain (key) points in the discussion have been somewhat obscured. 1. Hegemony The term hegemony was employed by Russian Marxists of the 1890s to refer to the power of leadership over exploited classes. But it was later (famously) adapted by Antonio Gramsci to indicate the power exercised by the dominant in establishing the consent of their rule among subordinate groups.28 In this construction, “[d]omi  See Paula Konoske, et al., “Compliant Reactions to Guilt: Self-Esteem or Self-Punishment,” Journal of Social Psychology 108 (1979) 207–21; Stuart C. Freedman, “Threats, Promises, and Coalitions: A Study of Compliance and Retaliation in a Simulated Organizational Setting,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 11 (1981) 114–36. 26   Cf. A. L. Sillars, “Attributions and Interpersonal Conflict Resolution,” in New Directions in Attribution Research (eds. J. H. Harvey, et al.; vol. 3; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981) 279–305, who has shown that when a conflict appears to be escalating or ongoing for a prolonged period, it is normally seen to be the fault of the other person. 27   Another potential condition which could affect a party’s strategic choice is the cultural context in which the conflict occurs. In particular, an important determinant of people’s actions can be whether their culture is individualist or collectivist. For a general overview of culture’s impact on negotiation, see Guy O. Faure and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, eds., Culture and Negotiation: The Resolution of Water Disputes (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 1993); Raymond Cohen, Negotiating across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World (2nd ed.; Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997); Kevin Avruch, Culture and Conflict Resolution (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1998). 28   Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks (trans. J. A. Buttigieg and A. Callari; New York: Co25

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

219

nation is thus exerted not by force, nor even necessarily by active persuasion, but by a more subtle and inclusive power over the economy, and over state apparatuses such as education and the media, by which the ruling class’s interests is presented as the common interest and thus comes to be taken for granted.”29 For our purposes, we will distinguish hegemony from domination (or dominance), which refers to the direct, coercive force which claims sovereignty over the lives of subordinates, both in terms of whether they should live and the structures in which they must live.30 One of the important dimensions of hegemony is the construction of a normative and universal cosmological reality.31 By shaping the way that subordinates perceive their place in the material universe, dominant groups are able to legitimate the truth and morality claims upon which their authority rests. When these claims gain solidity through a long period of reaffirmation, they become difficult for subordinates to question and even more difficult for them to deconstruct. Nevertheless, even in the most rigid hegemonies, resistance is always possible, for inherent within the dominant discourse lies the potential for inverting the very categories used to oppress subordinates. This understanding of hegemony is important for two reasons. First, it helps us to better define the target/object of resistance in 1 Peter. As we will show, even though the good works motif is occasioned by social conflict, it is targeted not so much at the perpetrators themselves, but at the cultural hegemony which deprive the readers of status and honor and which gives rise to the prejudice. Second, it also informs our reading of the good works motif as a counter-hegemonic discourse. Given that hegemony lends itself to inversion, we will explore how the good works language inverts existing social structures and replaces them with a powerful counter-discourse in which God, not social elites (or even Roman imperial powers) define the standards of approval. 2. Resistance One of the reasons why resistance has gone (relatively) unnoticed in 1 Peter is because the phenomenon has been conceived too narrowly, without consideration belumbia University Press, 1992). See further Joseph V. Femia, Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981); Benedetto Fontana, “Hegemony and Power in Gramsci,” in Hegemony: Studies in Consensus and Coercion (eds. R. Howson and K. Smith; Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought 56; New York: Routledge, 2008) 80–106. 29   Bill Ashcroft, et al., Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts (2nd ed.; London/New York: Routledge, 2007) 106–107. 30   For an approach to hegemony which differentiates it from domination, see the recent collection of essays by Richard Howson and Kylie Smith, eds., Hegemony: Studies in Consensus and Coercion (Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought 56; New York: Routledge, 2008). 31   Daniel Miller, “The Limits of Domination,” in Domination and Resistance (eds. D. Miller, et al.; One World Archaeology 3; London/Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989) 63–79 (64, 66).

220

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ing given to all of its permutations. The tendency among many political scientists and social historians (including Petrine interpreters) who have worked on the topic has been to focus on more open forms of resistance such as organized protests movements or militant revolts. More recently, scholarship has begun to consider the variety that exists within the phenomenon, focusing particular attention on the “everyday” forms of resistance which are more enduring and which consist of the persistent thoughts and actions of subordinate groups.32 For our purposes, this appears to be a much better approach. Rather than constructing a universal definition of resistance which fits a broad range of times and locations,33 our focus will be more situationally specific, examining how a subaltern group might seek to oppose the systems of domination and hegemony operative in the Greco-Roman world. In constructing a useful definition of this type of resistance, there are a few elements or characteristics that must be considered. The first is the structural relationship between power and resistance. It is this connection which specifies both the conditions under which resistance takes place as well as objects (or targets) of opposition. As Foucault has argued, rather than viewing power and resistance as opposite extremes, it is best to approach the two as distinct but correlative concepts which possess an essential link within power relations.34 Hence, “[w]here there is power, there is resistance.”35 A key role of resistance within this power relationship is to limit the exercise of power. Despite the capacities and resources of power which an agent may be able to mobilize, outcomes will rarely be achieved at full capacity 32   One work that was influential in motivating the shift away from extraordinary forms of organized protest to more “everyday” forms resistance is James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985). Even though Scott’s study was not the first to consider resistance from this angle (for an earlier example, see Allen Isaacman and Barbara Isaacman, “Resistance and Collaboration in Southern and Central Africa, c. 1850–1920,” International Journal of African Historical Studies 10 [1977] 31–62), it has been one of the most influential. For a helpful collection of essays on this subject, see Forrest D. Colburn, ed., Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1989). 33   Such a definition would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct (see Daniel Miller, et al., “Introduction,” in Domination and Resistance [eds. D. Miller, et al.; One World Archaeology 3; London/Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989] 1–26 [3]). 34   Michel Foucault, “The Subject and Power,” Critical Inquiry 8 (1982) 777–95, reprinted as an Afterword in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rainbow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, with an Afterword by and Interview with Michel Foucault (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). According to Foucault, “The relationship between power and freedom’s refusal to submit cannot, therefore, be separated. . . . At the very heart of the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance of the will and the intransigence of freedom. Rather than speaking of an essential freedom, it would be better to speak of an ‘agonism’ – of a relationship which is at the same time reciprocal incitation and struggle, less of a face-to-face confrontation which paralyzes both sides than a permanent provocation” (790). 35  Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: An Introduction (New York: Vintage, 1990) 95. See further Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, “Can the (sub)altern resist? A dialogue between Foucault and Said,” in Orientalism Revisited: Art, Land and Voyage (ed. I. R. Netton; Culture and Civilisation in the Middle East 35; New York: Routledge, 2013) 33–54; David Knights and Theodore Vurdubakis, “Foucault, Power, and Resistance and All That,” in Resistance and Power in Organizations (eds. J. M. Jermier, et al.; London/New York: Routledge, 1994) 167–98.

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

221

(according to the intentions or expectations of the agent) because of the influence of resistant agents. Hence, one important aspect of resistance is the “efficacious influence of those subordinate to power.”36 A second element within our definition of resistance is intentionality. There is some question in scholarship regarding whether consciousness is an integral part of resistance. A recent definition by Haynes and Prakash describes resistance as, “those behaviours and cultural practices by subordinate group that contest hegemonic social formations, that threaten to unravel the strategies of domination.” As a follow-up, they clarify by stating that, “‘consciousness’ need not be essential to its constitution.”37 It would be difficult to deny, as Haynes and Prakash point out, that, “Seemingly innocuous behaviours can have unintended yet profound consequences for the objectives of the dominant or the shape of a social order.”38 But is this actually resistance or simply a matter of happenstance? In the present study, we are concerned with the intentional acts designed to challenge the systems domination and hegemony in the Greco-Roman world. Closer to our purposes, therefore, is the definition of van Walraven and Abbink: “intentions and concrete actions taken to oppose others and refuse to accept their ideas, actions, or positions for a variety of reasons, the most common being the perception of the position, claims, or actions taken by others as unjust, illegitimate, or intolerable attempts at domination.”39 Considerations regarding form(s) and aim(s) also serve as key ingredients in the formulation of a definition of resistance. In the struggle to secure or maintain certain rights and privileges, resistance may take on a variety of forms – from more aggressive acts such as violent revolts aimed at overthrowing governmental structures to less dramatic, “everyday” forms like foot dragging or feigned ignorance. Regardless of the form which resistance takes, most tend to share a common aim:

36   Jack M. Barbalet, “Power and Resistance,” British Journal of Sociology 36 (1985) 531–48 (542). Barbalet further elaborates on this description, portraying resistance (in structural terms) as “those factors which in limiting the exercise of power contribute to the outcome of the power relation” (539). Although we agree with Barbalet that resistance has a limiting influence, we must be careful not to put too much emphasis on its effectiveness. The reason is because we also have to account for the power of hegemonic systems. As Scott observes, “The parameters of resistance are . . . set, in part, by the institutions of repression. To the extent that such institutions do their work effectively, they may all but preclude any forms of resistance other than the individual, the informal, and the clandestine” (Weapons of the Weak, 299). In these cases, subversive intentions and even insurgent efforts – key ingredients for resistance – may be present, without guaranteeing desired outcomes. 37   Douglas Haynes and Gyan Prakash, “Introduction: The Entanglement of Power and Resistance,” in Contesting Power: Resistance and Everyday Social Relations in South Asia (eds. D. Haynes and G. Prakash; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 1–22 (3). 38   Haynes and Gyan Prakash, “Introduction,” 3. 39   Klaas van Walraven and Jon Abbink, “Rethinking Resistance in African History: An Introduction,” in Rethinking Resistance: Revolt and Violence in African history (eds. J. Abbink, et al.; African Dynamics 2; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 1–40 (8).

222

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

“Acts of resistance proceed from the intention to limit, oppose, reject, or transform hegemonic institutions . . . as well as systems, strategies, and acts of domination.”40 Even though we will broaden the category of resistance to include a variety of forms which were carried out by subaltern groups, there is inherent danger in such an approach which must be avoided.41 A potential pitfall is that certain acts, which the perpetrators conceived as forms of resistance on one level, can be interpreted as a challenge to an entire political order which lies on a completely different level. In this way, political action becomes very broad. The key, therefore, is to clearly demarcate the intended aim(s) of resistance. An example might be the differentiation some make between the prepolitical (or apolitical) response of slaves to the conditions of slavery through lying or theft and more political acts such as organized rebellion which is targeted at the institution of slavery.42 In the case of early Christian resistance, this type of danger can (and often does) lead to identifying challenges to the Roman empire where more immediate targets were intended. This consideration will be important when we attempt to identify the object of 1 Peter’s resistant stance. Based on the different elements or characteristics sketched above, we offer the following definition of resistance from which our study will proceed. The type of resistance which will be examined in 1 Peter is any intention or concrete action within a power relationship which opposes a hegemonic institution or system of domination or which seeks to challenge conditions within such an environment. A final step will be to situate this type of opposition in its Greco-Roman context. As in the modern world, resistance in the Roman empire could take a variety of forms.43 Some might have a distinctively “religious” dimension.44 The seeds of this 40   Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) 11. 41   Note, e.g., Leroy Vail and Landeg White, “Forms of Resistance: Song and Perceptions of Power in Colonial Mozambique,” American Historical Review 88 (1983) 883–919 (885–86); cf. also Peter Geschiere, “Le politique ‘par le bas’: Les vicissitudes d’une approche,” in Trajectoires de libération en Afrique contemporaine: Hommage à Robert Buijtenhuijs (eds. P. Konings, et al.; Paris/Leiden: Karthala/Afrika-Studiecentrum, 2000) 93–107 (97). For more problems with the recent “resistance” model of social history, see Eric Allina-Pisano, “Resistance and the Social History of Africa,” Journal of Social History 37 (2003) 187–98. 42   See Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (New York: Pantheon, 1974) 598: “Strictly speaking, only insurrection represented political action, which some choose to define as the only genuine resistance since it alone directly challenged the power of the regime. From that point of view, those activities which others call ‘day-to-day resistance to slavery’—stealing, lying, dissembling, shirking, murder, infanticide, suicide, arson—qualify at best as prepolitical and at worst as apolitical.” Cf. Gerald W. Mullin, Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) 35. 43   For a fuller treatment of this subject, two of the classical studies on resistance toward Roman hegemony are Harald Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1964), and Ramsay MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966). More recent contributions to the discussion include: Kurt A. Raaflaub, et al., eds., Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan: neuf exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœuvres-Genève, 25–30 août 1986 (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33; Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1987), and

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

223

type of subversiveness were often sown at local temples.45 Because of their influence over the general populous, local priests held great power, which was sometimes used to oppose Roman interests.46 Another form of opposition that has been discussed is “cultural” resistance to Roman influence.47 In Roman Sardinia, one way that locals attempted to preserve the Punic culture was by avoiding Roman imports from the Italian mainland.48 Similar efforts were made in Roman Britain, where inhabitants sought to preserve pre-conquest roundhouses as a way of subverting (or retarding) cultural change.49 Finally, we could mention resistance which took the form of evasion. During the time of the Republic, many peasants sought various 44

Toru Yuge and Masaoki Doi, eds., Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity (Tokyo/ Leiden: Society for Studies on Resistance Movements in Antiquity/Brill, 1988). 44   It is difficult, if not impossible, to clearly separate the motives or even the forms which resistance may have taken in the Roman world, because the social, political, economic, and religious aspects of life were all intertwined. 45   See Glen W. Bowersock, “The Mechanics of Subversion in the Roman Provinces,” in Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan: neuf exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœuvres-Genève, 25–30 août 1986 (eds. K. A. Raaflaub, et al.; Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33; Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1987) 291–317. A similar phenomenon is noted by Samuel K. Eddy, The King is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334–31 B.C. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, 1961), who explored the response to Hellenism in places like Persia, Judaea, Egypt, etc. 46   Another example that might be adduced is the ancient Druids from Britain and Gaul (see Arnaldo Momigliano, “Some Preliminary Remarks on the ‘Religious Opposition’ to the Roman Empire,” in Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan: neuf exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœuvres-Genève, 25–30 août 1986 [eds. K. A. Raaflaub, et al.; Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33; Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1987] 103–33 [107–110]). Because of their resistance to Roman rule, they were eventually suppressed on charges of (reportedly) committing human sacrifice (Suetonius, Claud. 25; Pliny, Nat. 30.4). 47   See especially Marcel Bénabou, La résistance africaine à la romanisation (Paris: Maspero, 1976); idem, “Résistance et Romanisation en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire,” in Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien: travaux du VIe Congrès international d’études classiques (Madrid, septembre 1974) (ed. D. M. Pippidi; Bucarest: Editura Academiei, 1976) 367–75. Even among Greek intellectuals there was a concern about forgetting their past and losing their Hellenistic identity (see Jesper Majbom Madsen, “Intellectual Resistance to Roman Hegemony and its Representativity,” in Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation, Resistance [ed. T. Bekker-Nielsen; Black Sea Studies 5; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2006] 63–83). 48  Peter van Dommelen, “Punic Persistance: Colonialism and Cultural Identities in Roman Sardinia,” in Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire (eds. R. Laurence and J. Berry; London/New York: Routledge, 1998) 25–48. Cf. Attilio Mastino, “Le relazioni tra Africa e Sardegna in età romana: inventario preliminare,” in L’Africa romana. 2, Atti del II convegno di studio, Sassari, 14–16 dicembre 1984 (ed. A. Mastino; Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Sassari 5; Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi, 1985) 27–92 (48–50). 49   Richard Hingley, “Resistance and Domination: Social Change in Roman Britain,” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire (ed. D. J. Mattingly; JRASup 23; Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997) 81– 102.

224

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ways to avoid military service,50 a practice which undoubtedley continued during the Imperial period. Unfortunately, the evidence for “everyday” forms of opposition to Roman imperial rule is sparse. This is due in large part to the fact that voices of dissent had to be concealed from the hegemonic overlords. Despite this fact, we are not left in the dark about resistance in the Greco-Roman world. It goes without saying that persons/groups most opposed to the imperial systems of domination and control would have been the subordinates whose experience was marked by oppression. Along with this, we might note that the types of resistance for which evidence does exist are relatively flexible, meaning that they could be carried out at different levels (which meant that they could be performed by elites and non-elites alike) and to different degrees (which meant that they could be performed inconspicuously). Therefore, regardless of the sparsity of evidence pertaining to subaltern resistance, we can conclude that there were plenty of (subtle) ways that disadvantaged groups might challenge the cultural influences which were introduced by Greek and Roman hegemony. When combined with the insights gleaned from modern studies of domination and resistance, this consideration can better inform our understanding of the Petrine conflict.

C. Diagnosing Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter The studies of Miller and Horrell provide a helpful starting point for a discussion of resistance in 1 Peter. Building on their efforts, we will rehearse some of the commonly recognized forms of subversion within the epistle, and then seek to extend the discussion further through the introduction of additional evidence. This will provide an important context within which to read the good works motif. 1. Clarifying the Ontology of the Emperor (1 Pet 2.13)51 The epistle of 1 Peter contains two statements regarding the responsibility of the Anatolian readers toward the Roman emperor. They are instructed to “submit (ὑποτάγητε) to every human creature,” which, the author goes on to say, means the emperor and his governors (1 Pet 2.13), and they are told to “honor (τιμᾶτε) the emperor” (2.17). Οn the surface, these instructions appear to reflect a cordial relation  John K. Evans, “Resistance at Home: The Evasion of Military Service in Italy during the Second Century B.C.,” in Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity (eds. T. Yuge and M. Doi; Tokyo/Leiden: Society for Studies on Resistance Movements in Antiquity/Brill, 1988) 121– 40. 51   For a fuller treatment of this issue, see Travis B. Williams, “The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar in 1Peter 2,13: Early Christian Resistance to the Emperor and His Cult,” ZNW 105 (2014) 131–47. This section represents a summary of materials set forth in the article. 50

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

225

ship between Christians and the Empire. In fact, many have used these verses as an indication that the government had not yet become involved in the persecution of the Petrine audience.52 But if we look at these directives from a postcolonial perspective, we get a different picture entirely. Under the veneer of compliant submission, the message which the author communicates to his readers implies a subtle critique of hegemonic claims. The key is the disparaging appellation which is ascribed to the emperor: ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις. The word κτίσις is sometimes translated “institution,” referring to a “system of established authority that is the result of founding action.”53 According to this reading, the author is admonishing submission toward the institutional hierarchy of the Roman government. This was the consensus among older commentators,54 and it is still quite popular within more recent treatments.55 The major reason why scholars feel led to adopt such a reading is because of the extent to which this submission is to be taken: “submit to every human κτίσις” (v. 13). Proponents contend that the al52   So, e.g., Bernhard Weiss, Das Neue Testament Handausgabe, vol. 3: Apostelgeschichte Katholische Briefe, Apokalypse (2nd ed.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902) 310; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 59–60; Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 10–11; Michaels, 1 Peter, lxvi; Hiebert, First Peter, 28; Bechtler, Following in His Steps, 50; Boring, 1 Peter, 44; Elliott, 1 Peter, 100, 494; Michele Mazzeo, Lettere di Pietro, Lettera di Giuda (Libri biblici, Nuovo Testamento 18; Milan: Paoline, 2002) 45–46; Jobes, 1 Peter, 176. The problem with using this evidence to support such a view of persecution is addressed in Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 304–305. 53   BDAG, 573. 54   So, e.g., Henry Alford, “ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α,” in The Greek Testament (London: Rivingtons, 1849– 60) 350–51; Wiesinger, Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus, 173–74; Schott, Der erste Brief Petri, 136; von Hofmann, Der erste Brief Petri, 81–82; E. H. Plumptre, The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude, with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1879) 113–14; Carl F. Keil, Commentar über die Briefe des Petrus und Judas (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1883) 93–94; Huther, The General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 128; J. T. Beck, Erklärung der Briefe Petri (Güttersloh: Bertelsmann, 1896) 156–57; Kühl, Die Briefe Petri, 160; Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 139; Hans von Soden, Hebräerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas (3rd ed.; HCNT 3/2; Leipzig/Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1899) 145; Monnier, La Première Èpître de L’Apôtre Pierre, 115; J. Howard B. Masterman, The First Epistle of S. Peter (Greek Text), with Introduction and Notes (London: Macmillan & Co., 1900) 106–107; Bennett, The General Epistles, 216; Bigg, Epistles of St. Peter, 139; Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter, 59; Blenkin, The First Epistle General of Peter, 57; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 172; Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 141; et al. One of the few early interpreters who adopted an alternative position was de Wette, Erklärung der Briefe des Petrus, 57, who argued that πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει refers to “jeglicher menschlichen Einsetzung”; that is, “aller von Menschen eingesetzten Obrigkeit oder aller von und für Menschen gemachten Ordnung.” 55   RSV; NRSV; NIV; NASB; NET; Johannes B. Bauer, Der erste Petrusbrief (Die Welt der Bibel 14; Düsseldoft: Patmos Verlag, 1971) 31; Ernest Best, 1 Peter (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 113; Grudem, 1 Peter, 119; Schelkle, Der Petrusbriefe, 73; Knoch, Der Erste und Zweite Petrusbrief, 74; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 119; McKnight, 1 Peter, 144–45; Jens Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition (WUNT 103; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 229–31; Boring, 1 Peter, 114–15; Giorgio Jossa, “La sottomissione alle autorita politiche in 1 Pt 2,13–17,” RivB 44 (1996) 205–11 (208 n.  23); Senior, “1 Peter,” 68; Jobes, 1 Peter, 174; Prigent, La première épître de Pierre, 67; Feldmeier, First Epistle of Peter, 158; Watson, “First Peter,” 64.

226

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ternative view (viz., submitting to every human being/creature) would result in significant problems both contextually and pragmatically.56 The difficulty surrounding the “institution” view, however, is the lack of any comparative usage. In BDAG, three possible meanings are listed for the entry κτίσις: (1) an act of creation (“creation”); (2) the result of a creative act (“that which is created”); and (3) a system of established authority that is the result of some founding action (“governance system,” “authority system”).57 Yet the only example that is produced to support the final usage is 1 Pet 2.13, a fact that seems highly problematic. A further illustration of how some interpreters are content to argue their case apart from any evidential support can be found in the commentary of F. W. Beare. He admits that, “No useful parallel can be cited for the meaning of κτίσις that we have here [viz., ‘institution’].” But instead of adopting an alternative reading which is supported by the evidence, Beare proceeds to (conveniently) suggest that, “in all probability, [the author] is employing a common expression for which we happen to have no example in extant documents.”58 This type of argumentation surely represents a case of special pleading. Apart from the lexical difficulties associated with interpreting κτίσις as “institution,” there is also a significant contextual hurdle. If the author’s intention were to enjoin obedience to governmental authorities, why would he employ such an ambiguous phrase? When Paul encourages his Roman audience toward a similar ethic, the designation he chooses is much more clear: “let every person be subject to governing authorities (ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις)” (Rom 13.1). As it is, the Petrine author is forced to explain what he means by κτίσις in the following verses (1 Pet 2.13b–14); whereas it would have been more economical (and less confusing?) to say, “submit to governing authorities [v. 13a], because the will of God is to silence the foolish talk of ignorant people by doing good [v. 15].” The strain of these lexical and contextual difficulties can be alleviated if we assign κτίσις the meaning that it normally carries in biblical literature, viz., “creature” or “created being” (cf. Tob 8.5, 13; Rom 8.39; Col 1.23; Heb 4.13).59 For this reason,

56   There are two points to consider when assessing this objection. First, even if κτίσις refers to an “institution,” a similar problem still remains. Does this mean that the readers are to submit to every human institution, even one, for instance, that is created by someone with no authority and is designed to oppose the will of God? Second, a broader referent finds support from the inclusio which is formed in 1 Pet 2.13 and 17 (cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, 485, 497). In both cases, the term πᾶς is meant to be expansive. 57   BDAG, 572–73. 58  Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 141. Interestingly enough, others who hold to the “institution” view also concede the lack of a meaningful parallel (see Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe, 63; Bauer, Der erste Petrusbrief, 31). 59   Along with this, we must also recognize that the Petrine author is not calling for an indiscriminate form of submission (as some have assumed). The purpose of his statement is to demarcate two specific office holders toward whom obedience should be directed: the emperor and the governor. This is indicated by his use of parallel disjunctive particles (εἴτε . . . εἴτε).

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

227

a number of modern interpreters have moved in this direction.60 Aside from common usage, support for this reading is further derived from the following qualification, which refers to persons (βασιλεύς and ἡγεμών) rather than institutions. These designations, one might argue, could also refer to offices. But in this case the pronoun in 1 Pet 2.14 (δι᾿ αὐτοῦ) implies that a personal agent is in view, as does the wider context of the Petrine Haustafel which enjoins “subjection” (ὑποτάσσω) to other persons – whether masters (2.18) or husbands (3.1). Moreover, the rendition “creature” accords better with the adjectival modifier ἀνθρώπινος.61 As evidence of this fact, we might point to the alterations by a few early copyists who changed κτίσει to φύσει.62 Elsewhere, this combination of ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις also carries the meaning “human creature” (cf. Pseudo-Callisthenes, Historia Alexandri Magni 1.10.1). In this case, however, the variant may be an attempt to place a greater emphasis on the human nature of the emperor, as ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις is often contrasted with θεία φύσις.63 Either way, the combination with ἀνθρώπινος – regardless of the term (κτίσις/φύσις) employed – is intended to denote a human creature. Such a rendering appears to be the appropriate interpretation in this instance. The Petrine author’s use of the designation ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις appears to be an attempt to challenge popular claims regarding the divinity of the emperor. Even though divinity was understood by most Roman subjects as a claim to social status, not ontology, the Petrine author, like many Christian authors that would follow, draws an ontological distinction between the humanity (or creatureliness) and divinity of Caesar (cf. Tertullian, Scorp. 14.3; Nat. 1.17.8; Acts of Phocas 3; Acts of Pionius 8; Theophilus, Autol. 1.11). Rather than being a supernatural or divine being as the propaganda suggested, the emperor, according to 1 Peter, was merely one of many human creatures who owed his existence to God.64 Thus, as Elliott has so 60   So, e.g., Horst Teichert, “1 Petr 2,13—eine crux interpretum?,” TL 74 (1949) 303–04; C. E. B. Cranfield, I & II Peter and Jude (TBC; London: SCM, 1960) 73–74; Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 108; Holmer and de Boor, Die Briefe des Petrus, 91–92; Michaels, 1 Peter, 124; Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 98–99; Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 149–50; Goppelt, I Peter, 182–83; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 182; Martin Evang, “‘Jedes menschliche Geschöpf’ und ‘treuer Schöpfer’. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte in 1 Petr 2,13; 4, 19,” in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift für Erich Grässer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (eds. M. Evang, et al.; BZNW 89; Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1997) 53–67 (57–59); Eduard Schweizer, Der erste Petrusbrief (4th ed.; ZBK 15; Zürich: Theologischer, 1998) 51; Elliott, 1 Peter, 489; Richard, Reading 1 Peter, 111; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 128; Ervin R. Starwalt, “A Discourse Analysis of 1 Peter,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 2005) 85–88; Bony, La Première épître de Pierre, 109, Donelson, I & II Peter, 71–72, Dubis, 1 Peter, 65; Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre, 154–55. 61   Pace Warden, “Alienation and Community,” 213, who argues in the opposite direction, claiming that if κτίσις carries the meaning “creature,” then “the adjective ἀνθρώπινος seems strangely out of place.” 62   Support for this reading is found in C, 104, 459, 996, 1661, 1838, 1842 (see ECM, 136). 63  See TDNT 9:254–5. 64   The authority of the emperor is further relativized in this verse by the motivational justification διὰ τὸν κύριον (“because of the Lord”), which “removes from the βασιλεύς, the ‘king,’ the sacral and ideological splendor with which both the continuation of the ancient oriental cult of the

228

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

eloquently pointed out, “With this expression, imperial power is subtly but decisively demystified, desacralized, and relativized . . . In contrast to devotees of the imperial cult who render obeisance to the emperor as ‘Lord and God’ . . . Christians respect the emperor and his representatives only as human creatures, due only the deference owed to all human beings.”65 2. Devaluing Imperial Authority (1 Pet 2.17) Following closely on the heels of the instructions to “submit” to the emperor as a “human creature” (1 Pet 2.13) is another faint critique of imperial power which can be easily overlooked. In 1 Pet 2.17, the audience is instructed to “honor the emperor.” Within this verse there are two pieces of evidence which suggest that the author is engaged in a cunning attempt to defy the imposing Roman domination. The first can be seen in the general structures with which he frames his exhortation. When the Petrine author commands his readers to “honor the emperor” (1 Pet 2.17d), the grammatical tense-forms chosen to communicate the message of compliance are noteworthy. What they indicate is that the responsibility to honor Caesar is not marked out as a duty of exceptional importance, as though it eclipsed all other forms of allegiance; instead the injunction flows out of a larger effort to “show due honor to all people” (v. 17a), which means that the emperor is afforded no more privileged loyalty than his position demands. The verse in question concludes a larger section detailing the responsibility of Christians in various civil and domestic realms. Before turning to address specific groups within the Anatolian congregation, the author concludes the present section (2.13–17) with four imperatival forms connected by asyndeton, giving the verse a kind of staccato effect: πάντας τιμήσατε, τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε, τὸν θεὸν φοβεῖσθε, τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε (2.17).66 The question that has long been debated is: how do the commands relate to one another? What makes this question difficult is the fact that the first command is an aorist imperative, while the subsequent forms are all present tense. After surveying this problem, some interpreters have concluded that there is no meaningful (or recognizable) difference between the aorist and present imperatives in 1 Pet 2.17.67 Working from this assumption, a large number of scholars have ruler and political philosophy and poetry had surrounded him” (Goppelt, I Peter, 184–85). By this statement the Petrine author reveals exactly where the Christians’ true authority lies. It is God’s authority, not the emperor’s, that motivates submission. 65  Elliott, 1 Peter, 489. 66   For more on this verse, see David G. Horrell, “‘Honor everyone …’ (1 Pet 2.17): The Social Strategy of 1 Peter and its Significance for the Development of Christianity,” in To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and its Social World in Honor of John H. Elliott (ed. S. K. Black; Sheffield: Phoenix, 2014) 192–212. 67   Those who have (explicitly) argued against a meaningful distinction between the tenses in this verse include: Schelkle, Der Petrusbriefe, 77 n.  1; Grudem, 1 Peter, 122–23; Schreiner, 1, 2

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

229

shifted the focus away from the syntax of the verse and onto its structure. What has developed from this approach is the claim that the four injunctions in 2.17 form a chiasmus (i.e., an inverted pattern of a-b-b´-a´).68 Support for this contention derives from the fact that v. 17a and v. 17d contain forms of the same verb (τιμάω), constituting a kind of inclusio pattern. The problem that few have recognized, however, is that the middle portion of this proposed chiasmus (v. 17b [τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε] and v. 17c [τὸν θεὸν φοβεῖσθε]) is not actually parallel.69 Beyond this, the larger difficulty for the chiasmus position is the fact that the tense variation in this passage appears to represent intentionality on the part of the Petrine author (see below). This is a crucial consideration for which proponents of the view have not adequately accounted.70 In the New Testament, contrary to earlier periods in Greek literature, the aorist imperative appears quite frequently. What grammarians have discovered with regard to this corpus is that tense-usage is often the result of personal style and idiolect among individual authors. “In the imperative,” A. T. Robertson notes, “different writers will prefer a different tense. One writer is more fond of the aorist, another of the present.”71 Noteworthy is the fact that the aorist imperative is the preferred choice for author of 1 Peter; he employs it – rather than the present tense imperative, which is more common in New Testament epistolary literature – approximately eighty percent of the time.72 The question then is not so much why he uses the aorPeter, 132–33; cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 21; G. C. Neal, “In the Original Greek,” TynBul 12 (1963) 12–16 (12–13). Others have attributed these differences either to the erosion of the classical distinction between aorist and present tenses (Bigg, Epistles of St. Peter, 116, 142; Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 112; Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 103 n.  14), or to an accidental mistake by the author (Huther, The General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 134), or even to the author’s literary ineptitude (Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 4: Style [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976] 128). 68   Argued most cogently by E. Bammel, “The Commands in I Peter II.17,” NTS 11 (1964–65) 279–81, and subsequently adopted by many others, e.g., H. J. B. Combrink, “The Structure of 1 Peter,” Neot 9 (1975) 34–63 (40–41, 56); Friedrich Schröger, Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief: Untersuchungen zum Selbstverstandnis einer christlichen Gemeinde an der Wende vom 1. zum 2. Jahrhundert (Passan: Passavia Universitätsverlag, 1981) 131–37; Légasse, “La Soumission aux Autorités,” 384; Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 153; Elliott, 1 Peter, 497; Witherington, 1–2 Peter, 146; Dubis, 1 Peter, 69–70; Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre, 158. 69   See Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 120 n.  71. 70   Bammel attempts to explain the tense variations in 1 Pet 2.17 by stating that, “the imperative aorist is used as a synecdoche to stress the effectiveness of the expected acts” (“The Commands in I Peter II.17,” 280). He then cites other instances where a string of commands is begun with one tense form and then is carried on by another (cf. 2 Tim 4.5; Herm. Mand. 8.2ff). Where Bammel’s treatment falls short is in the fact that he does not give consideration to the aspectual differences between the aorist and present tense forms of the imperative, nor does he consider the individual tense-preferences of the Petrine author. 71  Robertson, Grammar, 856. 72   The author of 1 Peter employs the aorist imperative 20 times, not including the five subjunctives found in the quotation from Ps 33 LXX (1 Pet 1.13, 15, 17, 22; 2.2, 13, 17; 3.15; 4.1, 7bis; 5.2, 5bis, 6, 8bis, 9, 12, 14); whereas the present imperative is found only 5 times (2.17ter; 4.12, 13), not including the five subjunctives. Grammarians have longed noted the unusual pattern of aspectual usage with regard to the imperatives in 1 Peter (see Robertson, Grammar, 856; James H. Moulton,

230

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ist imperative in 1 Pet 2.17, but why he shifts immediately to three present tense imperatives in a set of closely-connected injunctions. It is this question that the chiastic interpretation fails to answer, and it is here that we must focus closer attention.73 When treating this important issue, Petrine interpreters have been guilty of a variety of grammatical fallacies.74 One of the most common has been the tendency to distinguish between the aorist and present imperatives on the basis of Aktionsart (i.e., kind of action). According to this view, the present tense (in its very essence) expresses durative or iterative action (“continue doing”), while the aorist (in its very essence) represents punctiliar or instantaneous action (“do” or “begin to do”).75 When the imperatives in 1 Pet 2.17 are approached from this perspective, commentators are led to believe that the tense shift represents alternative types of action, e.g., “Take up once for all (aorist imperative) as a permanent stance the attitude of respect for all. In practice this works out as continuously (present imperative) loving the brotherhood of believers, fearing God, and honoring the king.”76 The problem with this approach becomes evident when we recognize that grammarians have now A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1: Prolegomena [3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908] 174; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 79; Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963] 77). 73   As a way of alleviating this grammatical difficulty, James P. Wilson (“In the Text of I Peter II.17 is πάντας τιμήσατε a Primitive Error for πάντας ποιήσατε,” ExpTim 54 [1942–43] 193–94) has proposed amending πάντας τιμήσατε to πάντας ποιήσατε and connecting the reading with latter half of v. 16 (ὡς θεοῦ δοῦλοι); hence “do all things as slaves of God.” As ingenious as this solution is, its basis in conjecture rather than any actual evidence from the textual record rules it out as a possible option. 74   For example, it was common for older commentators to claim that the aorist imperative in 1 Pet 2.17 (τιμήσατε) made the command more emphatic or more forceful (so, e.g., Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 146; Masterman, The First Epistle of S. Peter, 109–10). 75   This distinction represents much older scholarship on the subject (found, e.g., in works such as Ernest de Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek [3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898] 75; Johann M. Stahl, Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit [Indogermanische Bibliothek, Abt. 1: Sammlung indogermnischer Lehr- und Handbücher. Reihe 1, Grammatiken IV; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1907] 74; Moulton, Grammar, 122–26; Ludwig Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache [2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1925] 154; BDF §335; Turner, Syntax, 74–78). 76   Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992) 80. Cf. Keil, Commentar über die Briefe des Petrus und Judas, 95; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 174; Horst Goldstein, “Die politischen Paränesen in 1 Petr 2 und Röm 13,” BibLeb 14 (1973) 88–104 (100); Michaels, 1 Peter, 130. Another example of this type of grammatical mistake can be found in the treatment of Achtemeier. Concerning the relationship between the aorist and present imperatives, he suggests, “Perhaps the first imperative was attracted to the aorist tense of v. 13, while the remaining three indicate the author’s intention that such activity become a regular and repeated part of the Christian life” (1 Peter, 187–88). Aside from the problem of attributing intentionality to last three imperatival tense-forms but not the first, Achtemeier falls into the trap of interpreting these commands on the basis of Aktionsart, and thus he assumes that the present imperatives must express durative or iterative action. Concerning this assumption, we might ask: was ascribing honor to all people (v. 17a) not also intended to be a regular part of the Christian life? Did the author seek

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

231

shown that the difference between the two tense-forms is best explained by verbal aspect, not Aktionsart.77 For this reason, a proper perspective on the present and aorist tense imperatives found in 1 Pet 2.17 begins with an accurate understanding of their aspectual distinction. Present and aorist imperatives, as noted by Buist M. Fanning, are “viewpoint aspects.” That is, they “picture the occurrence either from an internal perspective, focusing on the course of internal details of the occurrence but with no focus on the end-points (present), or from an external perspective, seeing the occurrence as a whole from beginning to end without focus on the internal details which may be involved (aorist).”78 Within these broad parameters, each tense can function in a number of (overlapping) ways.79 Therefore, contextual factors (among other considerations) are important for judging a command’s specific usage.80 In 1 Pet 2.17, two contextual factors are determinative. First, the sudden shift from an aorist imperative to three present tense imperatives in an asyndetic construction suggests that the initial command may, in some way, be distinct from those that follow. This inference is confirmed by the second consideration, viz., the specificity of the objects. Given the fact that the aorist imperative is modified by a general object (πάντας), whereas the objects of the three present imperatives are more specific (ἀδελφότητα, θεόν, βασιλέα), it would appear that the author is making a distinction between the aorist imperative and the following present imperatives. The most natural conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the initial command, based on the unmarked tense-form of the aorist, is a more general, overarching injunction which is further specified by the three following directives, each containto minimize the frequency or regularity of this practice by employing the aorist tense? Such a problem exposes the weakness of this type of approach. 77   See Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989) 335–63. 78   Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (OTM; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 326. Cf. K. L. McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek,” NovT 27 (1985) 201–26: “In the imperative the essential difference between the aorist and the imperfective [i.e., present] is that the former urges an activity as whole action and the latter urges it as ongoing process” (206–207). 79   Over the years a number of scholars have demonstrated that the aorist and present imperatives can be employed in identical contexts and can carry a wide variety of overlapping meanings; thus, for instance, it would be possible for an aorist imperative to describe a durative action, while a present imperative could just as easily express a punctiliar notion. On this evidence, see J. Dono­ van, “Greek Jussives,” Classical Review 9 (1895) 145–49; H. D. Naylor, “Prohibitions in Greek,” Classical Review 19 (1905) 26–30; Albertus Poutsma, Over de tempora van de imperativus en de conjunctivus hortativus-prohibitivus in het Grieks (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks, Deel 27, no 2; Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van wetenschappen, 1928) 30–41. 80   Cf. James W. Voelz, “The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1977) 49–54. On the verbal aspect of present and aorist imperatives, see Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (SBG 15; New York: Peter Lang, 2008) 79–95.

232

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ing the more heavily marked present tense-form specifying particular instances of how this should be carried out; thus, “give due honor to all: love to the brotherhood, reverence to God, honor to the emperor” (cf. NEB; NIV).81 The implications of this grammatical discussion are important. It would appear, based on the tense-forms employed in 1 Pet 2.17, that the author was attempting a subtle devaluation of imperial power. If honoring the emperor is only part of a larger strategy to honor all people, making the reverence shown to Caesar no different than that afforded to anyone else, then all exceptional acts of devotion which were regularly shown to the emperor are negated. Christians, according to 1 Peter, would neither afford him special privileges nor divine honors. A second illustration of the author’s subtle but calculated critique of Roman authority in 1 Pet 2.17 comes from the intertextual echo of Prov 24.21 (LXX): φοβοῦ τὸν θεόν υἱέ καὶ βασιλέα. The key here is the change which the Petrine author makes to the text. While the injunction to “fear God” (τὸν θεὸν φοβεῖσθε) is maintained, the king (or, in this case, emperor) is not afforded the same disposition. He, instead, is to receive honor (τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε, 1 Pet 2.17). The addition of this verbal element marks a deliberate change intended to differentiate between one’s (contrasting) responsibilities toward God and the emperor: ultimate authority lies not with Rome but with God.82 For some, this slight distinction might not appear all that significant. But, as Joel Green notes, “It is hard to imagine a more devastating critique of the Roman way, for with the pairing of these directives [i.e., honoring all people and honoring the emperor] Peter has flattened the status pyramid of the Roman world. He has just made one’s response to the slave next door no less than one’s response to the emperor.”83 Most notable is the restriction this placed on the adulation shown to the em-

81   As previously argued by others, e.g., Blenkin, The First Epistle General of Peter, 58; Hiebert, First Peter, 170; Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 204; McKnight, 1 Peter, 149 n.  24; Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 120 n.  71; Jan Lambrecht, “Christian Freedom in 1 Pet 2,16: A Grammatical and Exegetical Note,” in Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on the Book of Revelation (AnBib 147; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001) 319–25 (321). There are a few common objections raised against this position, all of which have been adequately addressed by Scot Snyder, “1 Peter 2:17: A Reconsideration,” FiloNT 4 (1991) 211–15 (esp. 213–15). 82   Cf. Karl Philipps, Kirche in der Gesellschaft nach dem 1. Petrusbrief (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971) 33, and Édouard Cothenet, “Le réalisme de l’espérance chrétienne selon 1 Pierre,” NTS 27 (1980–81) 564–72 (569). One of the few to posit a different reason for this change was Ernest Best (“1 Peter II, 4–10 –­ A Reconsideration,” NovT 11 [1969] 270–93), who maintained that the author “joined βασιλέα to a new verb to preserve the rhythm of his sentence” (274; cf. Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 175). Later, in his commentary, however, he admits that “[t]he amendment serves to distinguish the attitude of the Christian to God from that to the emperor” (Best, 1 Peter, 116). 83  Green, 1 Peter, 76. A much more cautious approach is taken by Brox (Der erste Petrusbrief, 123), who contends, “Gezielte ideologiekritische Tendenz gegen damaliges kaiserliches Selbstverständnis ist trotzdem nicht gewiß. Weil diesbezüglich unterstellte Absichten m. E. in den VV13f nicht erkennbar sind, möchte ich sie auch hier nicht annehmen und die verbale Unterscheidung also

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

233

peror (see above).84 To understand how threatening this partial submission would have been in the eyes of Roman authorities, one needs to look no further than the second- and third-century Christian apologists or the early Christian martyrdom accounts.85 The message of this passage then is not one of open rebellion. But with ultimate allegiance being afforded to God alone, imperial power is indirectly challenged and subtly devalued.86 In this way, the instructions bear the marks of a relatively powerless group whose feigned deference is actually a sly defiance of their oppressors. 3. Renouncing Social Norms (1 Pet 4.3–4) In 1 Pet 4.3–4, we find a somewhat less subtle critique of the cultural norms operative in the Greco-Roman world. The author explains to his audience, “You have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry. They are surprised that you no longer join them in the same excesses of dissipation, and so they blaspheme” (NRSV). We must be careful not to misinterpret the disparaging description of these vices by assuming the audience was formerly involved in conduct which Greco-Roman society disapproved or considered to be illegal. This is the mistake made by Reicke, who states, “It is apparent that prior to their conversion the Christians had participated regularly in the activities of certain organizations in Asia Minor, where excessive drinking and unlawful worship of Oriental or Greek deities took place and hostility to the Roman state was aroused.”87 What this statenicht dermaßen bedeutungsschwer sehen.” The problem is that Brox does not account for the intentionality of the author in the subtle distinctions he draws between God and the emperor. 84   Using the same logic as Carter (see above), Randy Hall (“For to This You Have Been Called: The Cross and Suffering in 1 Peter,” ResQ 19 [1976] 137–47 [139–40 n.  4]) has argued, “If this letter is dated during the time of Emperor worship, Peter could hardly admonish his readers to ‘honor’ the Emperor without further explanation lest he be understood to condone compromise.” What Hall (and Carter) overlooks are the subtle distinctions that are drawn in these verses. 85   When later Christians were forced to express proper devotion to the emperor through sacrifice (even if only to his genius), the consequence of abstention was death (cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96; Mart. Pol. 10–12; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.15). In fact, Tertullian states that the reason why Christians were considered public enemies is “because they will not give the Emperors vain, false and rash honours” (Apol. 35.1 [trans. Glover, LCL]; cf. Origen, Cels. 65). Some might want to draw a line of distinction between 1 Peter and these examples from the second and third centuries, as though the latter represent a more desperate situation for Christians. But as I have shown elsewhere, the legal situation of Christians was the same in 1 Peter as it was throughout the first few centuries (see Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 179–236, 275–95). Hence, the author is calling for nothing less than for his readers to continue their defiance of Greco-Roman norms, a strategy which could expect to exacerbate the conflict with non-Christians. 86  Lamau, Des chrétiens dans le monde, 240–42; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 188; Elliott, 1 Peter, 501; David G. Horrell, 1 Peter (NTG; London: T&T Clark, 2008) 86–88; Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre, 159–61. 87  Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, 118. Cf. Jean-Claude Margot, Les Épîtres de Pierre: Commentaire (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1960) 69: “Il semble probable que chacun de ses

234

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ment overlooks is that the negative perception of these activities is the result of the author’s Christian viewpoint.88 It is true that some of the vices represent activities that were censured by Greek and Roman moralists as well, but the last vice – “lawless idolatry” (1 Pet 4.3) – suggests that the entire list represents a common Jewish-Christian characterization of Gentile behavior which stereotypes (and exaggerates) common social and religious practices.89 The conflict likely arose then from the readers’ failure to participate in many of the traditional activities associated with popular culture. The author’s response to this social withdrawal and the conflict which ensued is significant. Noteworthy is the fact that he begins by painting cultural norms in a very negative light. This type of conduct is referred to as “debauchery” (ἀσωτία, 1 Pet 4.4) and is set in opposition to the will of God (4.2). Furthermore, such behavior is not something that the readers should desire, because it is said to mark the pursuits of outsiders, namely, the “Gentiles” (4.3). Even more important to recognize, however, is the manner in which he encourages his readers to respond to this situation. Rather than urging them to ease the tensions by resuming some of the less egregious cultural practices, he instructs them to maintain their (social) distance. The continued renunciation of these practices is supported in the author’s rhetoric by two considerations. First, by way of the rhetorical technique of irony, the author constructs a rule that is used to assess the need for such behavior.90 Based on the premise that one who has participated in something long enough does not have any more need to do so, he attempts to persuade them that the time spent living out their “Gentile” lifestyle was more than sufficient or perhaps even too much. As Achtemeier points out, The presence of ἀρκετός [in 1 Pet 4.3] may . . . answer an implied question on the part of the readers, namely, whether they must always forego, as Christians, participation in their former culture, or whether, for special occasions, an exception could be made. The author’s reply is that they participated in such culture more than enough before they became Christians.91 termes soit en rapport avec les désordres qui accompagnaient le célébration de certain cultes syncrétistes dans le Proche-Orient.” 88   Compare the earlier description of the audience’s previous way of life. The epistle declares that the former lifestyle of his readers – which was presumably in accordance with popular standards – was “empty” (1 Pet 1.18) and marked as a time of “ignorance” (1.14). Fortunately, they had been called out of this period of “darkness” (2.9). 89   Vice (and offender) lists were common within ancient Jewish and early Christian literature, e.g., Wis 14.25–27; 2 En. 34.1–2; 2 Bar. 73.4; 1QS 4.9–11; T. Jud. 16.1; Philo, Sacr. 32; Rom 1.29– 30; 13.13; 1 Cor 6.9–10; Eph 5.3–5; 1 Tim 1.9–10; 6.4–5; 2 Tim 3.2–5; Tit 3.3; Rev 21.8; Did. 5.1–2; Herm. Mand. 8.3. See further Anton Vögtle, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament: exegetisch, religions- und formgeschichtlich untersucht (NTAbh 16,4/5; Münster: Achendorff, 1936). 90   Cf. Thurén, Argument and Theology, 167 n.  247. On the rhetorical technique of irony, see Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1969) 207–209. 91  Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 281.

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

235

The second reason he gives to deter the recommencement of their former lifestyles is God’s eschatological judgment. According to the author, those who blaspheme the readers’ social abstinence “will have to give an accounting to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Pet 4.5; NRSV). This observation is meant to generate persistence in the face of slander, ridicule, and even the threat of more serious repercussions. The point, then, is not so much that the Petrine author disparages social behavior that is commonly accepted in the Greco-Roman world. This alone was a challenge to the discourse of hegemony which shaped both social thought and action. The key is that he tries to convince the readers to maintain a recalcitrant stance toward social norms, despite the fact that this advice would further prolong their suffering. This may serve as the most defiant form of resistance in the epistle. 4. Embracing the Designation of Deviance (1 Pet 4.16) Although there are a number of subtle insinuations and veiled critiques located within the transcript of 1 Peter, one of the more nuanced forms of calculated resistance can be found in 1 Pet 4.15–16: “By all means let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a mischievous meddler. But if anyone suffers as a Christian (ὡς Χριστιανός), let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God because of this name.” It is the author’s adoption and recommissioning of the designation Χριστιανός that marks an innovation in the epistle’s social strategy. Contrary to the opinions of some earlier interpreters,92 the name Χριστιανός more than likely did not originate within the Christian movement itself. Instead, most scholars now recognize that the designation probably arose from the Christian interaction with outsiders. This is supported by the fact that the title is a Latinism (with the Latin ending –ianus being rendered by the Greek –ιανός), rather than a form of Greek or Aramaic. Further support of a non-Christian origin comes from the Lukan description. In Acts 11.26, it is said that, “it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called (χρηματίσαι) Christians.” Despite the fact that χρηματίζω is in the active voice, it is regularly used in the naming or identifying of others (hence “they were called Christians [by others]”).93 This consideration, of course, does not necessitate a non-Christian origin, but when combined with underlying Latin formation, it would appear to be the most plausible solution. 92   E.g., Elias J. Bickerman, “The Name of Christians,” HTR 42 (1949) 109–24; Jacques Moreau, “Le nom des Chrétiens,” La Nouvelle Clio 4 (1949–50) 190–92; Ceslas Spicq, “Ce que signifie le titre de Chrétien,” ST 15 (1961) 68–78; Baruch Lifshitz, “L’origine du nom des chretiens,” VC 16 (1962) 65–70. 93   Cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.157: “And the Roman emperors also, who from their birth are called by (χρηματίσαντες) other names, are called Caesars, receiving this title from their princely office and rank, and do not keep the names by which their fathers called them” (trans. slightly adapted from Thackeray [LCL]). See also Philo, Deus 121; Plutarch, Mulier. virt. 9 [Mor. 248D]; P.Oxy. 505; et al.

236

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

Over the years some scholars have gone beyond this specification to assign the designation an even more precise origin. They have insisted that the name Χριστιανός originated within the circles of Roman administrative officials.94 This certainly accords with what we know of the term. From its earliest origins, the appellation, along with the name Χριστός, was commonly associated with public disorder (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.64).95 By the second and third centuries CE, Christians were executed in Roman courtrooms simply for bearing the name Χριστιανός.96 Even as early as the composition of 1 Peter, simply being a Christian was looked upon as a punishable offense by Roman authorities, with the label Χριστιανός serving as an indicator of one’s guilt.97 Therefore, from the beginning, the title was not just a term of derision, but a label of deviance which authorities soon began to hold in punishable contempt. It is striking, given this consideration, that the passage represents an attempt on behalf of the author to convince his reader to embrace this stigmatized title. He encourages them, “if anyone suffers as a Christian (ὡς Χριστιανός), let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God because of this name” (1 Pet 4.16). As Horrell has demonstrated, this strategy is an exercise in social creativity.98 By adopting and 94   As suggested by Roberto Paribeni, “Sull’ origine del nome cristiano,” Nuovo Bollettino di Archeologia Cristiana 19 (1913) 37–41; Erik Peterson, “Christianus,” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. 1: Bibbia, Letteratura cristiana antica (Studi e testi 121; Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1946) 355–72; Justin Taylor, “Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26),” RevBib 101 (1994) 75–94. 95   We would place the date of the term’s origin sometime around 57–60 CE (cf. Harold B. Mattingly, “The Origin of the Name Christiani,” JTS 9 [1958] 26–37 [ca. 59–60 CE]; Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1 Jahrhundert [Hermes Einzelschriften 71; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996] 171–77 [ca. 57–59 CE]). On the basis of Acts 11.26, many have assumed that the name originated a decade earlier, ca. 40–45 CE (e.g., Adolf von Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries [trans. J. Moffatt; London: Williams & Norgate, 1905] 18; Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament [2nd ed.; trans. J. M. Trout, et al.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917] 192). Further support for this thesis is found in the original reading of Codex Bezae: “then [i.e., after Paul came from Tarsus and the church of Antioch was meeting together] the disciples first called (themselves) Christians at Antioch (καὶ τότε πρῶτον ἐχρημάτισεν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ οἱ μαθηταὶ Χρειστιανοί).” Nevertheless, this contention lacks sufficient basis. To begin with, the reading from Codex Bezae is extremely suspect and thus provides no real support. In the original statement from Luke, no chronological claims are made. Rather than being concerned with the time of origin, the purpose of the statement is to simply mark off the place of origin. Moreover, there is no evidence within the earliest source record (i.e., prior to Nero) that Χριστιανός was a designation used by Christians or by outsiders. 96  Pliny, Ep. 10.96; Mart. Pol. 10.1; 12.1; Justin, 2 Apol. 2; Acts of Justin and his Companions; Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs; Pass. Pert. 6. 97   See Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, esp. 281–95. 98   David G. Horrell, “The Label Χριστιανός: 1 Pet 4.16 and the Formation of Christian Identity,” JBL 126 (2007) 361–81 (esp. 376–80). A similar suggestion was made earlier by Paul R. Trebilco, “What Shall We Call Each Other? Part One: The Issue of Self-Designation in the Pastoral Epistles,” TynBul 53 (2002) 239–58, although without the explanatory basis of the social sciences. He states, “It may be that the name ‘Christian’ is accepted by the author of 1 Peter, and that its pejorative overtones in the minds of outsiders are taken as affirming a fundamental link between

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

237

then reinterpreting the maligned label which outsiders used to derogate believers, the author sought to turn shame (αἰσχυνέσθω) into glory (δοξαζέτω). In doing so, he was attempting to create a more positive sense of group identity among his readers. What is sometimes overlooked in this discussion, however, is the impact of the author’s strategy of self-identity on his overall approach towards conformity and resistance. Most recognize that ostracized groups commonly reappropriate stigmatized labels as an act of social creativity.99 But in this case, Χριστιανός is more than a label of social deviance. As we have demonstrated, the name served as a dangerous appellation of one’s legal guilt, and its embrace could potentially bring with it a significant penalty. By thus appropriating a label which the Empire condemned, the author challenges the ruling authority. 5. Resisting Satanically-Inspired Opposition (1 Pet 5.8–9) Another example of cautious resistance against the oppression of the Empire is the attribution of the present conflict to satanic forces, which 1 Peter encourages its readers to resist.100 To see how this interpretation of the Petrine author represents subversion, we must look closer at the attribution itself. The key to understanding this passage lies in the symbolism. By resisting the devil, the readers are actually resisting all efforts to conform them to communally-accepted and imperially-inspired social norms. With a vivid and visual depiction of the devil, 1 Pet 5.8 sets the scene for the important instructions that follow. In this verse, the devil is portrayed as a “roaring lion” who is “seeking someone to devour.” To explain the author’s source of reference for this leonine imagery, most look toward the Hebrew Bible.101 While this is ‘Christian’ identity and suffering (see 1 Pet. 2:19–25). Thus, we could be seeing in 1 Peter the way by which a pejorative term becomes accepted as a self-designation” (244 n.  22). 99   For instance, modern labels such as “queer” or “nigger,” which began as derogatory slurs, have been revalued by gays and African-Americans, respectively, in order to defuse the impact of their original derisiveness (see Adam D. Galinsky, et al., “The Reappropriation of Stigmatizing Labels: Implications for Social Identity,” in Identity Issues in Groups [ed. J. T. Polzer; Research on Managing Groups and Teams 5; Amsterdam/Boston: JAI, 2003] 221–56; cf. Tajfel and Turner, “Social Identity Theory,” 20). 100   Among the many “cryptograms” which Norman A. Beck (Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Hidden Transcripts of Hope and Liberation [2nd ed.; SBL 127; New York: Peter Lang, 2010] 151) identifies in the New Testament, this is the only example he finds in 1 Peter (cf. also Gerhard Krodel, “1 Peter,” in The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 1–2–3 John [2nd ed.; Proclamation Commentaries; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995] 69). 101   So, e.g., Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 209–10; Michaels, 1 Peter, 298; Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 276–77; Goppelt, I Peter, 360; Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 238; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 341; Elliott, 1 Peter, 856–58; Feldmeier, First Epistle of Peter, 249–50. Recently, a very strong case for this position was made by Troy W. Martin, “Roaring Lions among Diaspora Metaphors: First Peter 5:8 in Its Metaphorical Context,” in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes (ed. D. S. du Toit; BZNW 200; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013) 167–79.

238

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

possible, especially considering the reference in Ps 22.13 (21.14 LXX) to the psalmist’s enemy as being like a “ravening and roaring lion” (λέων ὁ ἁρπάζων καὶ ὠρυόμενος), a more likely solution commends itself from the Greco-Roman world in which the readers lived. As we have argued elsewhere, the leonine reference in 1 Pet 5.8 would have most naturally been connected with the spectacles that took place in the Roman arena/theater. This is evident from “the pervasiveness of lion imagery across a variety of visual media in the ancient world, the most popular being the wild animal hunts/fights and ad bestias executions which took place in the arena.”102 The description (“roaring,” “prowling,” and “seeking someone to devour”) suggests that the author is using the ancient rhetorical technique of ἔκφρασις, “a descriptive speech which vividly brings the subject shown before the eyes” (Theon, Prog. 118.6; trans. Webb).103 Furthermore, the strategic placement of this visual image in the closing section of the letter-body can be seen to encapsulate an important and central aspect of the letter’s overall message. In this metaphorical depiction, it is clear that the target domain, the devil, is being compared to and understood in terms of the source domain, a roaring lion. But beyond this comparison, there is still an even more important association being drawn by the Petrine author. The devil is not physically persecuting the believers himself; instead, most understand this verse as a reference to the devil’s influence and empowerment of intermediate agents who perform the acts of persecution against Christians. But this still leaves us to determine the agents who are carrying out this intermediary task. Is this a reference to members of Greco-Roman society in general, or does the author have in mind, more specifically, representatives of the Roman empire?

102   David G. Horrell, et al., “Visuality, Vivid Description, and the Message of 1 Peter: The Significance of the Roaring Lion (1 Peter 5:8),” JBL 132 (2013) 697–716 (705). Previous interpreters had arrived at similar conclusions, connecting the “roaring lion” imagery with ad bestias executions, see Roger M. Raymer, “1 Peter,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (eds. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983) 837–58 (856); Boris A. Paschke, “The Roman ad bestias Execution as a Possible Historical Background for 1 Peter 5.8,” JSNT 28 (2006) 489–500; Witherington, 1–2 Peter, 235. 103   See further Ruth Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice (Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, 2009); cf. Beth Innocenti, “Towards a Theory of Vivid Description as Practiced in Cicero’s Verrine Orations,” Rhetorica 12 (1994) 355–81. The syntactical arrangement of 1 Pet 5.8 adds further to this suggestion, introducing the thought with “terseness and swiftness of movement,” the asyndeton (viz., the juxtaposition of the verbs νήψατε and γρηγορήσατε without a coordinating conjunction) and the lack of a causal particle (e.g., ὅτι) before ὁ ἀντίδικος rendering the style “lively and forcible” (Winer, Grammar, 674; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 428). Some MSS contain the addition of ὅτι in an attempt to make the causal connection more explicit (so â72 ‫א‬2 Ψ 5. 33. 442. 1175. 1243. 1448. 1611. 1739. 1852 Byz pt latt sy co). But the lack of any connecting particle, as Alford (“ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α,” 4:385) has pointed out, “makes the appeal livelier and more forcible, leaving the obvious connexion [sic] to be filled up by the reader” (cf. Wiesinger, Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus, 325, and Huther, The General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 239, who claim that the sentence is written “in nerviger Kürze”).

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

239

Some have sought to distance the passage from any notions of this latter option. Achtemeier, for instance, is quick to assert, “Our author avoids any direct identification of the devil with the power of Rome, such as found in Rev 17:3-14; the threat remains social, not governmental.”104 Nevertheless, it is a false dichotomy to claim that the conflict in which the readers were involved was social, not governmental. Even though Christianity was not officially outlawed through imperial edicts or senatus consulta at the time of 1 Peter’s composition, Christians could still be taken before a Roman court and sentenced to death by a Roman governor due in large part to the earlier precedent established by the Roman emperor (Nero).105 In the eyes of Christians, then, Roman authorities were just as much to blame for accepting the case and ruling against the early Christ-followers as the general populace who brought the charges in the first place. Evidence from the letter suggests that the author blames the imperial system for the readers’ troubles just as much as he does the general populace. First, the subtle resistance to the dominant Empire evidenced throughout the epistle (see above) suggests that Rome is a major problem. Second, the threat to which the author refers in 1 Pet 5.9 (viz., being devoured by the “roaring lion”) seems to have involved both imperial agents and private citizens.106 At issue is the turning aside from the Christian faith amidst pressure to conform to the expectations of Greco-Roman society.107 But it is not just friends and neighbors that would be pressuring the readers to apostatize. On a larger level, the Empire is also responsible, since it facilitated many of the institutions that were causing the social conflict (e.g., emperor worship, Roman court system, entertainment, etc). Thus, it is doubtful that the author would have differentiated between the people in general and the Empire more specifically. 104  Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 341 n.  79. Cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, 860, who denies that the reference to the devil is an allusion to Rome, claiming that “[i]n contrast to the seer in Revelation, who associates Rome with the Devil/Satan (Rev 12–13, 17–18), our author makes no such equation and in fact urges respect for Roman authority (2:13–17).” Instead, he argues that the imagery “labels and demonizes hostile outsiders who attack the Christians for separating from them (4:2–4) and not conforming to their modes of behavior (1:14–17; 4:2–4) as agents of the Devil” (860; see also Bauer, Der erste Petrusbrief, 61). 105   See Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter, 179–236. 106   Lauri Thurén, “1 Peter and the Lion,” in Evil and the Devil (eds. E. Koskenniemi and I. Frölich; LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2013) 142–55, seeks to disassociate the antagonistic nature of the leonine imagery from any human adversaries. However, he is unsuccessful in this attempt, for he lets a perceived missionary purpose overrule any notions of resistance. 107   Cf. B. J. Oropeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation (Apostasy in the New Testament Communities 3; Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012) 127–29, although he creates a false dichotomy between a literal background of ad bestias executions, on the one hand, and a metaphorical reference to the devil as threat to the readers’ faith, on the other. The threat of damnatio ad bestias was not merely a physical threat; the whole point was to force Christians to apostatize. Note, for instance, Mart. Pol. 11.1: “The proconsul said, ‘I have wild beasts (θηρία), and I will cast you to them if you do not repent (μετανοήσῃς)’” (LCL [Ehrman]); or Tertullian, Apol. 2.10: “If the other criminals plead Not guilty, you torture them to make them confess; the Christians alone you torture to make them deny” (LCL [Glover]).

240

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

With this in mind, his instructions for handling this threat are enlightening. The audience is instructed to “resist” (ἀντίστητε) the devil (1 Pet 5.9; cf. Jas 4.7; Eph 6.11–13). Regardless of the precise function of the adjective στερεός,108 the relationship between v. 9a and v. 9b is clear: being “firm in the faith” (v. 9b) is the means by which the readers are to “resist [the devil]” (v. 9a). Thus, resistance to the devil and his agents of persecution involved the continued abstinence from social, political, and religious activities of popular society and a continued faithfulness to the will of God.109 What is important to recognize, however, is that such a refusal to accommodate accepted social norms was not just anti-social behavior. It is also a subversive maneuver against the institutions of Rome. Refusal to attend the gladiatorial contests, for instance, might reflect on the sociability of Christians, but more than that, it would also reflect a subtle undermining of Roman cultural values which received visual expression in these contests.110 The same could be said about any number of other social/political/religious institutions in Roman Asia Minor (e.g., refusal to participate in the imperial cult). 6. Labeling an Oppressive Power (1 Pet 5.13) The reference to the author’s location “in Babylon” (1 Pet 5.13) has led to considerable debate among interpreters. At issue has been whether a literal or metaphorical setting is intended. Many older commentators thought that the “Babylon” referred to in verse 13 was the Mesopotamian city which bore the same name.111 What makes this suggestion problematic is that there is evidence to suggest that during the late first century CE, when the letter is thought to have been composed, the city was (relatively) desolate. Diodorus Siculus reports, “of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture” (Bib. 2.9.9; trans. Oldfather [LCL]). Likewise, Dio Cassius claims that Trajan had anticipated visiting the famed city, but when he arrived he found “nothing but mounds and stones and ruins” (68.30.1; trans. Cary [LCL]). This situation of barrenness is supported by other contemporary reports.112 Thus, while it is possible that the city was inhabited by a small group of Jews (cf. Acts 2.1; Philo, Legat. 216; Jose108   The adjective may function imperativally, “resist [the devil]; stand firm in the faith.” This same usage is found elsewhere in the epistle (cf. 1 Pet 3.8). 109   Cf. Elliott, 1 Peter, 860; Watson, “First Peter,” 121. 110   On the expression of Roman cultural values through gladiatorial contests in the Greek East, see Michael J. D. Carter, “The Presentation of Gladiatorial Spectacles in the Greek East: Roman Culture and Greek Identity,” (Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 1999). 111   So, e.g., Steiger, First Epistle of Peter, 29–33; de Wette, Erklärung der Briefe des Petrus, 98–99; Fronmüller, The Epistles General of Peter, 95; Huther, The General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 247–48; Robert Johnstone, The First Epistle of Peter: Revised Text, with Intoduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888) 22–28; Kühl, Die Briefe Petri, 287–88. 112  Strabo, Geogr. 16.1.5: “the greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say with one of the comic poets said in reference to the Megalopolitans in Arcadia: “The Great City is a great desert’” (trans. Jones [LCL]). Pliny, Nat. 6.122: “in all other respects the place [i.e.,

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

241

phus, Ant. 18.371–79), significant doubt surrounds the suggestion that the letter was composed from this location, particularly since there is no tradition linking Peter with Mesopotamia.113 Since the designation does not appear to be functioning as the literal name of an ancient city, a better way to understand “Babylon” in 1 Pet 5.13 may be as a metaphorical reference. But to which city could it refer? Modern scholars have generally read the designation as a symbolic reference to the city of Rome. This solution was already being postulated in the writings of the early church fathers, and it even finds support in some MSS evidence.114 After the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587/86 BCE, the name “Babylon” came to symbolize arrogance and immorality which would be destroyed by God (Isa 13; 43.14; Jer 50.29; 51.1–58). With the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the connection between Rome and Babylon was naturally adduced. Following this event, Jewish and Christian authors alike applied the label “Babylon” to Rome in an effort to signify the abominable character of Roman domination, which opposed God and mistreated his people.115 As we turn to explore the author’s purpose in adopting this particular metaphor, it is important that we not mistake the use of a cipher for an attempt to conceal his location. “Babylon” is not a codename or pseudonym adopted to ensure the safety of the Petrine author on the chance that the letter fell into “pagan” hands.116 Rather as a sobriquet it is meant to communicate a particular message about Rome. By their very nature, sobriquets are subjective labels used to convey either positive or negative connotations concerning the person or thing so designated.117 Among those Babylon] has gone back to a desert, having been drained of its population by the proximity of Seleucia” (trans. Rackham [LCL]). 113   Another possibility that has been suggested is that the “Babylon” referred to is the military stronghold in the Nile Delta, which bore the same name and which was home to one of three Roman legions (Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.30; Josephus, Ant. 2.315; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 1.56.3). This connection has only been posited by a few interpreters (e.g., G. T. Manley, “Babylon on the Nile,” EvQ 16 [1944] 138–46; Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973] 2:298; Giorgio Fedalto, “Il toponimo di 1 Petr. 5,13 nella esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea,” Vetera Christianorum 20 [1983] 461–66), and for good reason. There is no church tradition which connects Peter with Babylon on the Nile, nor is there evidence that this location was anything more than a garrison post during the first century. 114   According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.15.2), both Papias and Clement of Alexandria testify to the fact that the letter was written (by Peter) in Rome. Although the MSS evidence is late, there are a few minuscules which replace Βαβυλῶνι with Ῥώμῃ (1611c. 1890. 2138; see ECM, 200). 115   2 Bar. 11.1; 67.7; 77.12, 17, 19; 79.1; 80.4; 4 Ezra 3.1–5.20; 10.19–48; 11.1–12.51; 15.43–63; 16.1–34; Sib. Or. 3.63–74, 303–13; 5.137–78; Rev 14.8; 16.19; 18.2, 10, 21. See further Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes,” in Gottes Wort und Gottesland. Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburstag (ed. H. G. Reventlow; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 67–77. 116   As suggested, e.g., by A. J. Mason, “The First Epistle General of Peter,” in A New Testament Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers (ed. C. J. Ellicott; vol. 3; London: Cassell, 1884) 436; Hart, The First Epistle General of Peter, 80; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 243; Schelkle, Der Petrusbriefe, 135. 117   Recently, significant attention has been devoted to the use of sobriquets within the Dead Sea

242

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

who use the label, the meaning is both valid and transparent; however, it may seem obscure and unfounded in the eyes of outsiders. But what does this label seek to convey among the inner circle of the author and his readers? There is a tendency among some commentators to view the reference to “Babylon” as a way of echoing the diaspora motif in 1 Pet 1.1–2, thus forming an inclusio. This observation appears to be on target. But the conclusion that is often drawn from it is not, viz., that the designation represents the author’s experience of alienation without communicating any negative sentiments about Rome. What often drives these assessments is the (perceived) positive depiction of Roman interest earlier in the epistle. According to Michaels, “Peter’s earlier admonitions to defer to the Roman emperor and his appointed representatives (2:13–17) preclude any deep-seated critique of the empire or imperial authority.”118 This statement fails to recognize that a veiled critique of Roman domination and hegemony has been set forth throughout the letter. Combined with the strong, negative connotations attached to the label in other Jewish and Christian literature, this fact suggests that the author must be employing the sobriquet to describe the oppressive, Roman dominance which facilitates the alienation of the Christian community.119 It is at this point that the author’s efforts can be viewed through the lens of the sociology of deviance, more particularly, in connection with what is known as “labeling theory.” Labeling (or interactionist) theory “analyzes how social groups create and apply definitions for deviant behavior.”120 The basic tenet of the theory is that

Scrolls. See, e.g., Håkan Bengtsson, What’s in a Name? A Study of Sobriquets in the Pesharim (Uppsala: Uppsala Univeristy, 2000), and Matthew A. Collins, The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls (LSTS 67; London: T&T Clark, 2009). 118  Michaels, 1 Peter, 311; cf. also Kelly, Epistles of Peter, 219; McKnight, 1 Peter, 280; Elliott, 1 Peter, 132–33; Senior, “1 Peter,” 155; Jobes, 1 Peter, 323. A similar conclusion is reached by Carsten Peter Thiede, “Babylon, der andere Ort: Anmerkungen zu 1 Petr 5,13 und Apg 12,17,” Bib 67 (1986) 532–38 (533–35), who argues that it was possible to portray Babylon in positive terms, with the focus especially being placed on its power and splendor (cf. Petronius, Satyr. 55), and attempts to prove that the reference in 1 Pet 5.13 is meant to sing the praises of Rome. 119   In his careful study of the typical attributes associated with Babylon in Jewish and Christian literature, Armin D. Baum (“‘Babylon’ als Ortsnamenmetapher in 1 Petr 5,13 auf dem Hintergrund der antiken Literatur und im Kontext des Briefes,” in Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte [ed. S. Heid; Freiburg: Herder, 2011] 180–220) concludes that the metaphor is primarily used to denote a sense of exile and alienation. But he nonetheless allows for the possibility that more negative connotations could be present. We would argue that these derogatory notions are in fact present (cf. Siegbert Uhlig, “Die typologische Bedeutung des Begriffs Babylon,” AUSS 12 [1974] 112–25 [121]). 120   David Shulman, “Labeling Theory,” in Encyclopedia of Social Theory (ed. G. Ritzer; vol. 1; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2005) 427–28 (427). For more on labeling theory, see Howard S. Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (London: Free Press, 1963); idem, “Labelling Theory Reconsidered,” in Deviance and Social Control (eds. P. E. Rock and M. McIntosh; Explorations in Sociology 3; London: Tavistock Publications, 1974) 41–66; Edwin M. Schur, Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications (Harper & Row Monograph Series in Sociology; New York: Harper & Row, 1971).

Chapter Nine:  Cautious Resistance in 1 Peter

243

deviance is a social product, not a particular quality inherent in a person or act.121 Focus is therefore placed on the reaction to a person or act within the social environment. In this case, the one who applies the label of deviance is the Petrine author. But he is not the first to do so. He is merely entering into the process by which the status of deviance is created.122 By adopting a sobriquet that had been (and would be) used by others who shared similar perspectives, the goal of the Petrine author is to confirm the deviant status of Rome within the minds of his readers, and thus to challenge the dominant hegemonic discourse to which they had been exposed. In this way, he turns the tables on those who had earlier been involved in the labeling of his community (cf. 1 Pet 4.16).

D. Conclusion Locating evidence of resistance in 1 Peter is a task to which few interpreters have devoted much attention. It has been more common to simply read the epistle as an example of the harmonius relationship between church and State brought about by social conformity. But, as we have shown, lurking just below the surface and underlying much of the prescribed compliance is defiant subversion. Our investigation into this topic began with an inquiry into two considerations which helped to lay the groundwork for analyzing resistance in 1 Peter. The first involved reading the social strategy of the epistle as a response to social conflict. We suggested that, given the situation, resistance would have served as the most natural response of the Petrine author. With the Petrine communities feeling deprived of important outcomes associated with their relationship to Anatolian society, the author’s correspondence seeks to prescribe a plan of action by which to manage the conflict situation. Modern conflict theory provided us with the lenses through which to predict this strategy. The strong self-concern on the part of the Petrine author combined with the fact 121   The often-cited statement of Becker helps to unpack this proposition: “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label” (Outsiders, 9; original emphasis). Cf. also John Kitsuse, “Societal Reaction to Deviance: Problems of Theory and Method,” Social Problems 9 (1962) 247–56. 122   Drawing on the work of Harold Garfinkel (“Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies,” American Journal of Sociology 61 [1956] 420–24), Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey (“Conflict in Luke-Acts: Labelling and Deviance Theory,” in Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation [ed. J. H. Neyrey; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993] 97–122 [104–107]) provide a reconstruction of the suggested stages in the labeling process: (1) Denunciation: the perpetrator is marked out as a potential deviant; (2) Retrospective Interpretation: the perpetrator’s past actions are reinterpreted in light of his deviant status; and (3) Status Degradation Ritual: the perpetrator is publicly assigned a new moral character as a deviant.

244

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

that the blame for the conflict is placed on outsiders means that the situation contains the ingredients necessary for some type of contentious action. One factor that plays a key role in carrying out any type of subversive tactics is the perceived feasibility of a given action. This consideration overlaps with the second aim in this chapter, which was the accurate defining of resistance. If resistance is limited to open forms of struggle (e.g., militant revolts), then it would be advisable – in accordance with the tendency of many Petrine interpreters – to rule out the possibility in 1 Peter. However, if – as it should – our definition includes “everyday” forms of resistance, then we can say that the Petrine author had both the motive (see above) and the means by which to resist the the systems of domination and hegemony operative in the Greco-Roman world. These two considerations (viz., the ingredients of social conflict and a proper definition of resistance) served as the foundation upon which we read the subtle yet calculated indications of resistance in 1 Peter. With a postcolonial eye, we explored a number of instances in 1 Peter where the author cautiously resists the standards and structures of Greco-Roman society, even while maintaining feigned compliance. This survey fills out the picture of accommodation which was begun to be sketched in the previous chapter. As others have previously suggested, the social strategy of 1 Peter is marked by a tension between accommodation and resistance. But what we have demonstrated is that this tension is not the result of the Petrine author’s own choice. The letter is not marked by an intentional, voluntary decision to balance the two. Instead, the subaltern position of his readers requires conformity to certain societal expectations and provides little room for rebellion. Despite these confined conditions, however, 1 Peter works to subtly undercut the power-base of dominant social and political structures along with the prevailing hegemonic discourse which underlies them. When we first began our investigation, we noted that resolving the tension created by the letter’s accommodation, on the one hand, and resistance, on the other, would provide us with an important backdrop against which to read the good works motif in 1 Peter. Now that this has been accomplished, we will turn our attention to the ultimate task at hand. In what follows, we will seek to diagnose the social strategy of good works in the epistle, focusing particularly on how the persistent admonition to “do good” and to undertake “good works” is intended to be an appropriate sociological response to the conflict in which the readers were involved. Once this has been completed, we will then seek to evaluate how well this strategy either subverts or accommodates the discourse of domination and hegemony which pervaded Anatolian society.

Chapter Ten

Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter In Petrine scholarship, it is common to read the letter’s call to “do good” as an admonition to conduct oneself in a manner that is favorably acknowledged within Greco-Roman society. As we have already seen, this judgment represents the modern consensus on the subject. What is striking about this interpretation is the way that it relates to the social strategies postulated by Petrine scholars. This uniform reading of the good works motif is employed not only by interpreters who stress distinctiveness and resistance in the epistle, but also by those who posit accommodation and conformity. Thus, while commentators remain divided over the social strategy of 1 Peter, there is widespread agreement upon the role or function of good works within these various reconstructions. To this point, our study has exposed a number of problems with the consensus reading which prevent it from being a plausible interpretive option. We must now deal with the question of how the good works motif fits into the larger social purposes of the author. In this chapter, we will seek to diagnose and evaluate the social strategy of good works in relation to the conflict in which the readers were involved. To do so, we must first explore the subversive nature of good works in 1 Peter. The fact that the author’s compliance with the constraining influence of the Empire is frequently undermined by a clear and intentional sense of cautious resistance is just beginning to be acknowledged within Petrine scholarship. To this point, only a handful of scholars have discerned this pattern of defiance. What even fewer have considered is the possibility that the popular good works theme might function in a similar way.1 We must begin our investigation, therefore, by determining whether good works might potentially be considered another form of resistance. The subversive nature of good works will provide us with the final piece of evidence needed to properly diagnose the social function of this prominent theme. Once we recognize that good works were not intended to solve the problem, but instead represent acts of resistance, the strategic use of this motif will become clearer. This discovery will allow us to fully consider a suggestion that was mentioned earlier in our study. As we explored the use of good works language across the Hellenistic world, we found that the terminology was often concentrated around the so1   The letter’s good works theme (in relation to social protest) is explored by Miller (“Christianisme et societé,” 425–507). But what his treatment lacks is the consideration of Empire and its impact on the perception of good works. What is more, he does not consider the internal function of good works as a coping strategy for the readers of 1 Peter.

246

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

cial convention of benefaction. While ruling out the possibility of good works representing an admonition to participate in public munificence, we briefly considered the potential that the euergetistic language may have been appropriated by the Petrine author for other purposes. This consideration will be explored further as we will show how the author reinscribes traditional language of social and political elites to construct the social identity of his marginalized audience.

A. The Subversive Nature of Good Works in 1 Peter Before attempting to diagnose the function of good works within the social strategy of 1 Peter, it is crucial to specify the subversive nature of this prominent theme. What we suggest is that rather than portraying good works as acts by which the readers could accommodate Greco-Roman society, the Petrine author seems to depict this conduct in such a way that it would be perceived as a means of subverting the powers by which the readers were oppressed. Much of the support for this thesis has already been discussed. We have already shown that the optimism which many interpreters assign to the good deeds is not supported in the text, and we have demonstrated that the letter’s call to “do good” cannot represent a specific strategy (e.g., civic benefaction) designed to ingratiate hostile neighbors. This would seem to rule out any notion that good works were part of the author’s prescriptive efforts to comply with the traditional standards of Greco-Roman society. Nevertheless, there are two points that have yet to be considered. Each supports the notion that the author’s depiction of good works is intended to facilitate resistance not accommodation. 1. Theological Dimensions of Good Works in 1 Peter One indication that the good works of 1 Peter function in a subversive manner is the way in which the referent and standard of “goodness” is reinscribed according to the theological perspective of the author. Like other Jewish and Christian writers of the time, the Petrine author assigns a theological value to good deeds which departs significantly from the traditional understanding. In 1 Peter, the good works motif (or the call to “do good”) becomes a summarized form of all conduct patterned after the life of Christ and regulated by the will of God,2 which serves to facilitate a believer’s 2   Cf. Jörg Röder, “Was ist ‘gut’ im Neuen Testament? Funktionale Bedeutungsmöglichkeiten des ἀγαθός-Begriffs in der ethischen Argumentation,” in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend (eds. F. Horn, et al.; WUNT 313; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) 93–129, whose treatment of the ἀγαθός concept in 1 Peter (120–28) summarizes the usage in the following way: “Der Richtwert, der Dreh- und Angelpunkt der guten Lebensführung ist Gott, dessen Wille das Gute befördert und nicht das Schlechte. Der Wille Gottes ist eine weitere Voraussetzung – die entscheidende ­–, damit wir das Leben lieben und schließlich gute Tage sehen können” (128).

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

247

eschatological judgment.3 While some of the specific deeds may have also been valued or approved by popular society, their inherent value (or “goodness”) derives not from their congruence with the wider culture but from the fact that such behavior is instrumental in attaining God’s eschatological salvation.4 Below we will list a few of the key theological components of good works and show how each serves as a form of resistance against the dominant discourse of power. a. Good Works and Scriptural Foundations An important foundation upon which the Petrine author builds his theology of good works is the poetic remarks on righteous suffering found in Psalm 33 LXX (34 Eng). Few would dispute that the psalm played a formative role during 1 Peter’s composition.5 Apart from the direct quotation which appears in 1 Pet 3.10–12, a number of echoes have been proposed throughout the letter. Even the good works motif (as a whole) has been attributed to the psalm’s influence. According to Elliott, “It is not unlikely that Peter’s formulations, formations, and compounds to express the idea of well-doing are adaptations of the thetical statement which was quoted in altered form in 3:11, namely ψ 33:15.”6 The question, however, is whether the Petrine author’s reflection on this psalm shaped more than just his vocabulary. Did this influ  Pace van Unnik, “Good Works in I Peter,” 102, who states that, “No special ‘Christian’, but truly human, ethics are demanded.” On the contrary, it would appear that in 1 Peter, “special ‘Christian’ ethics” are in fact being encouraged (cf. Green, “Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter,” 270–84). 4   In his discussion of good works in 1 Peter, Stephen Ayodeji A. Fagbemi (Who Are the Elect in 1 Peter? A Study in Biblical Exegesis and Its Application to the Anglican Church of Nigeria [SBL 104; New York: Peter Lang, 2007] 118) distinguishes between “good actions” and “good works”; the latter, according to Fagbemi, “are in the [sic] rabbinic Judaism unusual acts of benevolence and intercession that goes [sic] beyond what the law requires,” and as a result, “[t]hey are not a reflection of new birth or conversion.” The former, on the other hand, do “relate to conversion,” and consequently, may be defined as “conduct required by Jesus, described in terms of eschatological repentance.” Although Fagbemi is correct to differentiate between the referent of “good works” in rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, his terminological labels (“good actions” versus “good works”) do not find support in the ancient texts. 5   Although the influence of Ps 33 (LXX) may not have been as overwhelming as proposed by Wilhelm Bornemann (“Der erste Petrusbrief—eine Taufrede des Silvanus?,” ZNW 19 [1919–20] 143–65), this text was nonetheless very formative on the thought of our author. On this subject, a number of helpful studies have been produced recently, see, e.g., LarsOlov Eriksson, “Come, Children, Listen to Me!” Psalm 34 in the Hebrew Bible and in Early Christian Writings (ConBOT 32; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1991) 111–20; Jacomien Zwemstra and Elma M. Cornelius, “Die kommunikatiewe funksie(s) van die gebruik van Psalm 34 in 1 Petrus,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 14 (2003) 325–44; Susan A. Woan, “The Psalms in 1 Peter,” in The Psalms in the New Testament (eds. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 213–29; idem, “The Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter, with especial focus on the role of Psalm 34,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Exeter, 2008); Eirin Hoel Hauge, “Turn Away from Evil and Do Good!: Reading 1 Peter in Light of Psalm 34,” (Ph.D. diss., Det teologiske Menighetsfakultete (Oslo), 2008). 6  Elliott, Elect and Holy, 181. 3

248

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ence extend any deeper, possibly to the point of shaping his theology of good works and directing the strategic function of this important theme? In other words, does the author share the psalmist’s understanding of the standard and nature of good works, or has he merely adopted the language of the psalm and imbued it with a Hellenistic meaning? Composed during the post-exilic period, Psalm 34 (33 LXX) is an acrostic psalm,7 which was written in the style of an individual’s prayer, although it was meant to address a particular community. The purpose of this “wisdom poem,” according to Phil J. Botha, is “to encourage a particular group of followers of YHWH to remain true to their principles since they were the true righteous, the followers of YHWH who would be protected and blessed by him.”8 This message appears to flow out of a situation of marginalization and deprivation, one in which the readers were experiencing various hardships.9 Influenced by Jewish sapiental tradition, the psalm encourages its audience with the admonition to “turn away from evil and do good” (Ps 34.15 [33.15 LXX]). It is difficult to locate with any certainty the referent of these “good” deeds. Later, when the rabbis read the psalm, they understood “doing good” as a reference to Torah observance (see b. ‘Abod. Zar. 19b). It is possible that the psalmist shared a similar perspective, although he could have had a more narrow definition in mind. Either way, good works have been assigned a theological meaning, as deeds which facilitate one’s relationship with God. The Petrine author’s perspective on “doing good” would differ slightly from that of the psalmist (and rabbis), as the referent behind good works in 1 Peter would not be restricted to Torah observance. Yet, the theological framework from which the Petrine author works is very similar to that of the psalmist (and the rabbis). Both understand God to be the one who sets the standard of goodness, which the evil (outsiders) refuse to follow. The connection between the two is so strong, in fact, that Birger Olsson describes the author as “living in” the psalm and its expression of piety.10 The pervasiveness of this influence was recently examined by Eirin Hoel Hauge.11 Her study reveals that the wisdom tradition of Psalm 34 (33 LXX) shapes not merely the notion of “doing good” and “doing evil” in 1 Pet 3.10–12, but the 7   On the structure of the psalm, see Anthony R. Ceresko, “The ABC’s of Wisdom in Psalm XXXIV,” VT 35 (1985) 99–104; Pierre Auffret, “‘Allez, fils, entendez-moi!’ Étude structurelle de psaume 34 et son rapport au psaume 33,” EgT 19 (1988) 5–31; Paul W. Gaebelein, “Psalm 34 and Other Biblical Acrostics: Evidence from the Aleppo Codex,” Maarav 5–6 (1990) 127–43. 8   Phil J. Botha, “Psalm 34 and the Ethics of the Editors of the Psalter,” in Psalmody and Poetry in Old Testament Ethics (ed. D. J. Human; LHBOTS 572; London: T&T Clark, 2012) 56–75 (66). 9   On the social setting of the psalm, see Phil J. Botha, “The Social Setting and Strategy of Psalm 34,” OTE 10 (1997) 178–97; cf. also Kent H. Richards, “Psalm 34,” Int 40 (1986) 175–80; Phil J. Botha, “Annotated History: The Implications of Reading Psalm 34 in Conjunction with 1 Samuel 21–26 and Vice Versa,” OTE 21 (2008) 593–617. 10  Birger Olsson, Första Petrusbrevet (Kommentar till Nya testamentet 17; Stockholm: EFS-förlaget, 1982) 78: “Författaren tycks snarast leva i Ps 34 och den fromhet som där kommer till uttryck, när han vil trösta och vägleda de kristna i Mindre Asien i deras ‘främlingskaper’.” 11   Hauge, “Reading 1 Peter in Light of Psalm 34.”

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

249

letter’s instruction more generally. Even the “household code” is permeated by the influence of the psalm.12 In this way, we must consider the theological influence on the psalmist, rather than simply connecting the language of good works to its Hellenistic equivalent. If the good works motif is grounded in and flows out of the Hebrew scriptures, then we should be hesitant about too quickly connecting the theme with Hellenistic social norms. This consideration is also useful in revealing how the good works motif functions as a form of resistance. It shifts the foundation and influence from the traditions that had existed in the Hellenistic world and which had been confirmed through hegemonic discourse and opts instead for an alternative template in which actions are given a new meaning. b. Good Works and the Connection with Christ A second theological characteristic of the good works theme is the fact that this type of conduct is to be carried out in close connection with and in imitation of Christ. As a result of their conversion, the readers find that they have been transferred into a new metaphorical environment, where they must live out their Christian identities. According to 1 Pet 3.16, the “good conduct”13 of the Anatolian audience is carried out “in Christ” (cf. 5.10, 14). This phrase, which suggests some influence of Pauline tradition, is used in a manner that is distinct from the letters of Paul.14 The function of the metaphor becomes important for our purposes when viewed through postcolonial lenses. As is common in a postcolonial setting, the readers’ situation was one of (social) dislocation which had left them searching for a place of belonging. According to Bonnie Howe, where this “at-homeness” is found is “in Christ.”15 This is a place where they can find a new identity. But, more importantly, this is where their actions are defined, and this is where the standards are set. The original construction in 1 Pet 3.16 makes it clear that there is a strong connection between the type of behavior and the locale in which it is performed: it is “good12   Hauge, “Reading 1 Peter in Light of Psalm 34,” 166: “Doing good and doing evil are then terms provided by the psalm, which are illustrated, contrasted with other anytonyms and grounded in the different examples of the household instruction, before they are eventually supported in the quotation of 3:10–12.” 13   The fact that the author uses ἀγαθός (3.16) and καλός (2.12) interchangeably when referring to Christian conduct suggests that the distinction that is often made between the two words (with καλός thought to be that which is appealing/acceptable to outsiders, see pp. 4–5 n. 7) is not upheld in 1 Peter. 14   See Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus? 84–106; cf. David G. Horrell, “The Product of a Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of 1 Peter,” JSNT 86 (2002) 29–60 (34). 15   Bonnie Howe, Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter (BIS 81; Leiden: Brill, 2006) esp. 233–48. The further elaboration of this conceptual metaphor in postcolonial terms is suggested by Halvor Moxnes, “Because of ‘The Name of Christ’: Baptism and the Location of Identity in 1 Peter,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (eds. D. Hellholm, et al.; BZNW 176; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011) 605–28.

250

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

in-Christ-conduct” (τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφήν).16 Howe contends that, “[t] his metaphor cluster [ἐν Χριστῷ] constitutes a certain kind of ‘living space’ wherein moral (and immoral) behavior is displayed and constrained.”17 What is important to recognize is how these spatial restraints shape the audience’s understanding of good works. “The moral character the reader associates with Χριστός,” according to Howe, “becomes a landmark that aids (or prompts for) recognition of Χριστός-like behavior on the readers’ own part.”18 In other words, good works receive their definition and form based on Christ, not social customs.19 This statement marks a challenge to traditional values. Rather than living out their lives according to the norms of Anatolian culture, the readers are asked to envision themselves in a new environment where alternative social paradigms exist. The model whose conduct they are called to emulate is Christ (1 Pet 2.21–25), a criminal who was sentenced to death by Roman authorities because his life and message threatened to upset accepted standards. c. Good Works and the Antonym of Bad Deeds A third characteristic of good works in 1 Peter is their antonymic relationship with bad/evil deeds. On different occasions in the letter, “doing good” is set in opposition to “doing evil.” For instance, in 3.17 the author states that, “it is better to suffer for doing good (ἀγαθοποιοῦντας) than for doing evil (κακοποιοῦντας)” (cf. 2.14; 3.11; see also 2.12, 20). But what does this contrast reveal about the theological character of good works? On the surface, the contrasting nature of good and bad deeds appears to tell us very little about how good works are understood. This is especially the case given that the same type of dichotomy (good set in opposition to bad) is often drawn in secular literature as well.20 But there is something about the use of this language that points us away from a Hellenistic ideal and toward a more Judeo-Christian perspective. In 1 Peter, the term κακός (“evil,” “bad”) can be used to denote something which is contrary to the customs or laws of the Greco-Roman world. The author’s manip  Cf. 1 Pet 3.2: τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν.  Howe, Because Your Bear This Name, 233. This is explained further: “When the graphemes ἐν Χριστῷ prompt for these conceptual operations, everything the reader associates with Χριστός— stories of his life, his sayings, his character, even his manner of death—is potentially put into a conceptual container” (239). 18  Howe, Because Your Bear This Name, 239 (original emphasis). 19   Others have recognized this fact as well. Achtemeier (1 Peter, 236) states that, “‘good’ is here defined not by cultural norms but by the Christian faith.” Likewise, Bechtler contends that, “the behavior in question is deemed good by virtue of its orientation to Christ and is only recognizable as good by those who are themselves in Christ” (Following in His Steps, 195) See also Lippert, “Leben als Zeugnis,” 255; Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 166. 20   See Teresa Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 191–200, who notes that at the popular level of Roman society (i.e., proverbs, fables, exemplary stories, gnomic quotations), “[a]gathos and kakos as contrasting pair are common” (192). Cf. TDNT 3:469–75. 16 17

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

251

ulation of the “public transcript” in 2.14 is one example (cf. 4.15). It calls for the Roman governor to carry out his duties justly, by praising those who do good (ἀγαθοποιός) and punishing those who do bad (κακοποιός). But even here, the word is not merely employed in opposition to legal standards. The use of κακός and its derivatives elsewhere in the epistle suggests that the author and his communities might define an “evildoer” somewhat differently than a Roman governor. To see how the author understands κακός we must examine its other occurrences. The letter contains a few clues which suggest that κακός and its related terms are (primarily) ethical concepts which mark a departure from the standards of God. One such clue is found in 1 Pet 2.20. Here the author once again contrasts two types of suffering: unjust suffering which God looks upon with favor and retributive suffering which does not win his approval. The key is the terminology that is adopted. Rather than setting ἀγαθός (or related terms) in opposition to κακός (or related terms), the contrast is between “doing good” (ἀγαθοποιέω) and “sinning” (ἁμαρτάνω), suggesting a possible connection between “evil” (κακός) and “sin” (ἁμαρτία). Another hint in this direction comes from the use of δόλος (“deceit”). In 2.1 and 3.10 δόλος and κακία/κακός are placed in conjunction as vices that should be avoided, but in 2.22 δόλος is combined with ἁμαρτία. This may be another indication that the author is working primarily from a Judeo-Christian perspective of “good” and “bad.” If this is the case, then we need only to look at the types of behaviors that are derided in 1 Peter to understand the kind of conduct that is opposed to the standards of God. In the epistle, there is a strong critique of the lifestyle of the “Gentiles,” in which the readers themselves had once lived (1 Pet 1.14, 18; 4.1–6). The types of behavior characteristic of this lifestyle are what the author would describe as “evil/ bad deeds.” Standing in opposition to this, the readers find themselves in a new (metaphorical) environment where their conduct is to be marked by a devotion to God. The types of behavior characteristic of this lifestyle are what the author would describe as “good deeds.” The key is that by identifying many of the behaviors which were accepted or even valued within the larger society and then denigrating them with the label “evil/bad,” the author turns social custom on its head. Ultimately, the construction of a new value domain marks a challenge to the existing hegemonic discourse. d. Good Works and Eschatological Judgment Finally, in the theology of 1 Peter, good works play an integral part in the eschatological judgment of believers. For the author of the epistle, “doing good” is a standard of conduct which should be strived for primarily because of its effect on one’s standing before God, both now and at the final judgment. One place where the importance of good works is felt is 1 Pet 1.17, which states that God “judges each person according to his work.” Although some have tried to argue that the phrase refers

252

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

“primarily or even exclusively to present judgment and discipline in this life,”21 most recognize this as an eschatological setting where God’s final verdict will be rendered. This is supported in part by the use of the singular ἔργον. Often in the New Testament the plural form (ἔργα) marks the source of judgment (Rom 2.6; 2 Tim 4.14; Rev 2.23; 20.12-13). The use of the singular in this instance is commonly regarded as a reference to the entirety of one’s conduct or a person’s life work as a whole (cf. 1 Cor 3.13-15; Gal 6.4; Rev 22.12).22 If so, the end marks a time of reckoning, when all give an account (cf. 1 Pet 4.5–6). But how should we understand the nature of this judgment? What role do good works play in the believer’s eschatological salvation? The idea of God judging according to the work(s) of individuals is not uncommon in either the Hebrew Bible or the literature from Second Temple Judaism.23 A close parallel is found in Ps 62.12 (61.13 LXX), where the psalmist declares, “you (Lord) will repay each according to his works” (σὺ [κύριε] ἀποδώσεις ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ).24 This type of language, however, was a cause for concern among earlier interpreters. Some, in fact, were very adamant about defending the author against a works-based view of salvation. One notable example was van Unnik, who stated quite emphatically, “These good works have no place in the process of salvation. The work Christ has done is the unshakable basis in the relation with God. . . . It is nowhere said that good works count as righteousness with God, that they bring atonement or special reward.”25 But, as Piper has noted, by adopting such a position, “van Unnik has minimized, if not denied, a crucial aspect of the motivation of Christian behaviour in I Peter, namely, the promise of resulting blessing or reward.”26 21  Grudem, 1 Peter, 81. Cf. also Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 74; Hiebert, First Peter, 98–99. The two reasons that Grudem mashals to support his contention are: (a) the present aspect of participle κρίνοντα (“the one who judges”), and (b) the fact that believers need not fear the final judgment. The first is grounded in the fallacious notion that a present tense verb must represent present action (on the verbal aspect of substantival participles, see Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, 37–47), while the second represents a case of frontloading one’s interpretation with a prior theological commitment. 22   This may be an accurate demarcation, but the New Testament does not seem to make any major theological distinction between judgment according to ἔργον and judgment according to ἔργα. On the meaning of the singular (ἔργον) compared with the plural (ἔργα) in the New Testament, see pp. 147 n. 34. 23   See, e.g., Prov 24.12; Ps 27[28].4; Jer 17.10; Ezk 36.19; Sir 11.26; 16.12, 14; 17.23; 35.22; 1 En. 95.5; 100.7; Jub. 5.15; Pss. Sol. 2.7, 16, 25, 34–35; 17.8–9; Jos. Asen. 28.3; L.A.B. 3.10; 4 Ezra 7.35. For more on the idea of judgment according to work(s), see Kent L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 24   Kyoung-Shik Kim, God Will Judge Each One according to Works: Judgment according to Works and Psalm 62 in Early Judaism and the New Testament (BZNW 178; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010) 212–15, contends that the language of 1 Pet 1.17 is dependent upon Ps 61.13 (LXX). Although he recognizes that terminological links between the two texts are relatively weak, the various supplemental details he adduces to sustain his contention are not convincing. 25   van Unnik, “Good Works in I Peter,” 102–103. 26   John Piper, “Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9–12,” NTS 26 (1980) 221–31 (229 n.  71).

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

253

The key role of good works in the process of salvation can be seen in 1 Pet 3.8–12, where the inheritance of one’s final reward appears to be bound up in appropriate conduct. Again there are some who are hesitant about attributing too much to good works in this passage. Grudem, for instance, is careful to stress that, “[v]erses 8 to 12 as a whole should not be taken as evidence for final salvation by good works, for they are addressed to those who are already Christians and already have an imperishable ‘inheritance’ kept for them in heaven (1:4).”27 However, if we are to accurately capture the theological perspective of the Petrine author, such a statement will require further refinement. What is needed is a balance between the indispensability of good works at the eschatological judgment and their function as a single constituent element in the larger process of salvation. On the one hand, we need not go to the extreme and say that 1 Peter supports an atomistic view of good deeds wherein one’s individual acts of obedience are weighed against one’s bad deeds in an effort to merit the reward of salvation. In the theology of the epistle, good works are only one aspect of the salvation process. Other factors are equally important in contributing to a person’s standing before God. The death of Christ plays a key role in the atonement for sin (cf. 1.18–19; 2.24; 3.18),28 and God’s gracious work in the lives of the readers precludes any notions of earning one’s place into his kingdom (cf. 1.2–3; 2.10; 5.10).29 In this respect, good deeds might be thought to reflect a person’s (current) position within the people of God. On the other hand, there is also a sense in which good works serve to facilitate one’s final, eschatological salvation. In 1 Pet 3.9, the reward that is promised is in some way contingent upon proper conduct.30 Even though God has provided the 27  Grudem, 1 Peter, 150; cf. also Edmumd P. Clowney, The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross (The Bible Speaks Today; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988) 142, who has similar concerns. One question that might be posed to Grudem’s argument is this: if being addressed to Christians rules out the possibility that this passage might reflect a final salvation by works, then (according to Grudem’s logic) how could any author communicate that message to a Christian audience? While stress is placed on the current standing of believers (e.g., 1 Pet 1.9, “you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls”), there is also a future aspect to salvation which this argument neglects (cf. 1.5, “salvation ready to be revealed at the last time”; cf. 2.2). 28   On the atonement of Christ in 1 Peter, see Vernon S. Olson, “The Atonement in 1 Peter,” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary (Virginia), 1979); Frederic R. Howe, “The Cross of Christ in Peter’s Theology,” BSac 157 (2000) 190–99; Dan G. McCartney, “Atonement in James, Peter and Jude: “Because Christ Suffered for You”,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Roger Nicole (eds. C. E. Hill and F. A. James III; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) 176–89 (180–88); Paul W. Felix, “Penal Substitution in the New Testament: A Focused Look at First Peter,” MSJ 20 (2009) 171–97; Williams, Doctrine of Salvation, 81–126. 29   On God’s role in salvation, see Alexander Weihs, “Teilhabe an den Leiden Christi. Zur Soteriologie des Ersten Petrusbriefes,” in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief (ed. T. Söding; SBS 216; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009) 46–88 (48–57). 30  The crux of this passage is whether the relative pronoun τοῦτο is anaphoric, referring to the preceding εὐλογοῦντες (meaning that Christians are called to repay insult with blessing so that they might inherit a blessing) or cataphoric, referring to the following ἵνα-clause (meaning that Christians should repay insult with blessing because they have been called to inherit a blessing for

254

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

necessary prerequisites of salvation, and despite the fact that the readers have experienced (or are experiencing) certain elements of that salvation (cf. 1.9, 22–23; 2.10, 24), the obedience by which the Christian life is lived out plays an important role at the final judgment. This is because ultimate salvation still lies in the future (1.5; 2.2), when the genuineness of each person’s faith will be discovered (1.7). At that time, demonstrating that one has lived a life of good works will be crucial for avoiding the wrath of God and achieving eternal life. Consequently, in the soteriology of 1 Peter it would appear that the grace of God and the efforts of humans are held together in dynamic tension – both are necessary requirements for eschatological salvation, but neither is sufficient to achieve final salvation by itself.31 Regardless of whether this tension can be reconciled by modern interpreters, the more important point for our purposes is how this theology of good works relates to the question of resistance. At issue is the relativization of both the definitions of acceptable social conduct and the assessment of how well one lives up to these standards. Whereas these standards were commonly defined and enforced by the elites of Greco-Roman society, the author relocates these tasks to a heavenly realm where both are God’s responsibility. The eschatological judgment, therefore, becomes a much greater point of focus than the achievement of social status. 2. Good Works and Social Conflict in 1 Peter From a theological perspective, it is clear that the author relocates the standard of goodness and the source of the audience’s approval in God, thereby creating a competitive situation. The readers are encouraged towards a perspective of resistance through the performance of good works, particularly because they believe that their conduct is affecting a greater reality (viz., their eschatological salvation) and because their allegiance has been secured by a more powerful master. That he wanted his readers to understand good works in this counter-cultural way is confirmed by the second consideration: that good works were portrayed as a cause of conflict, with their performance expected to generate further hostility from their current agitators. All interpreters tend to recognize that the recipients of 1 Peter were experiencing unjust suffering. Few, however, actually consider whether good works might be conthemselves). While some interpreters argue for the latter (so, e.g., Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 195; Goppelt, I Peter, 234 n.  15; Feldmeier, First Epistle of Peter, 186), the former seems to provide a better solution (so, e.g., Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 224–25; Elliott, 1 Peter, 609; Jobes, 1 Peter, 218–19; Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre, 195). For a fuller treatment of this issue and a defense of the position adopted here, see Piper, “Hope as the Motivation of Love.” 31  Cf. Albert Vanhoye, “1 Pierre au carrefour des Théologies du Nouveau Testament,” in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979 (ed. C. Perrot; LD 102; Paris: Cerf, 1980) 96–129 (114–115), who argues that 1 Peter holds the initiative of God and the actions of human in balance, falling somewhere in between and agreeing with both Paul on the one hand and James on the other.

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

255

tributing to the conflict. What we will demonstrate in this section is that good works were not viewed as a remedy for persecution, but as a primary cause of it. So rather than solving the problem, the honorable conduct of Christians was only expected to further exacerbate the readers’ troubles. Noteworthy is the fact that the author himself assumes that the ethic will be met with an antagonistic response. Even though he recognizes the limitations of this ethic and the troubles it would cause, he still prescribes good works as the primary strategy through which his readers should confront a hostile world. This intentionality is crucial for understanding the subversive nature of good works in 1 Peter. What it means is that the strategy represents not a naïve attempt to abrogate social tensions, but a calculated plan of defiance against popular standards. a. Suffering the Consequences of “Doing Good” The letter gives a number of explicit indications that good deeds would result in suffering. In 1 Pet 2.20, for example, slaves are exhorted with the following admonition, “If you endure when suffering for doing good (εἰ ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες ὑπομενεῖτε), this finds favor with God.” Here the author draws a causal link between suffering and doing good.32 The same is true in 3.16,33 where he states that the audience’s “good conduct” (τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἀναστροφήν) will be maligned (lit. “those who disparage your good conduct”).34 This causal connection between good works and social conflict is then made even more explicit in the following verse: “for it is better to suffer for doing good (ἀγαθοποιοῦντας . . . πάσχειν), if it be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil” (3.17).35 The final explicit claim that good works would   Since the two halves of v. 20 are parallel in nature, the causal connection of the participles in v. 20a (ἁμαρτάνοντες καὶ κολαφιζόμενοι, “when you are beaten because you do wrong”) should be reproduced in v. 20b: ἀγαθοποιοῦντες καὶ πάσχοντες, “when you suffer because you do good” (see Goppelt, I Peter, 199; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 197 n.  111). Cf. Dubis, 1 Peter, 75: “although πάσχοντες is syntactically parallel to ἀγαθοποιοῦντες (and thus technically temporal), semantically it refers to a temporal event that results from ἀγαθοποιοῦντες.” 33   Against those who argue that the good deeds in 1 Peter serve an apologetic function (e.g., Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive) a further point regarding the good works language in 1 Pet 3.16 could be made. If the “good conduct” of Christians consisted of behavior that society considered to be honorable, why would there be any need to defend (ἀπολογία) their actions? It seems unimaginable that people might approach a “noble and good man” (see Ch. 3) and ask him why he conducted himself the way he did. Such a “defense” is necessary only if the conduct of the Christians was contrary to social expectations. 34   A few commentators have put forward the suggestion that ἀναστροφήν might be the direct object of καταισχυνθῶσιν, with οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες being used absolutely; hence “so that those who disparage you might be ashamed by your good conduct in Christ” (see, e.g., Bigg, Epistles of St. Peter, 159; Selwyn, First Epistle of St. Peter, 194; cf. Senior, “1 Peter,” 96). Rather than being denounced, therefore, the “good conduct” of Christians would be a means of shaming their detractors. Such a proposal, however, is without any real support (see Michaels, 1 Peter, 190). 35   There are some who deny or try to downplay the role of good works as a cause of suffering in this verse (see, e.g., Schott, Der erste Brief Petri, 209; von Hofmann, Der erste Brief Petri, 120). But, with Huther (The General Epistles of Peter and Jude, 173 n.  2) we suggest that, “those suffer32

256

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

produce hostility comes in 3.14a. After posing the rhetorical question, “who will harm you if you are zealous for the good” (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταί – v. 13), the author immediately qualifies his claim, noting, “but even if you should have to suffer for righteousness sake (πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην), you would be blessed” (v. 14).36 Even though the author seems hesitant to draw a causal connection between good deeds and suffering (due to the rhetorical argument which he has constructed),37 it is nonetheless a connection that is clearly made. Aside from the explicit references which connect social conflict and good works, there are also a few texts which seem to provide an implicit indication of this same connection. One such passage is the author’s instruction to the wives in 1 Pet 3.6. Even though he acknowledges the possibility that some unbelieving husbands might come to faith as a result of their wives’ honorable conduct (3.1–2), this does not preclude the fact that many will face further difficulty. For this reason, he encourages them with the words, “You have become children of Sarah, if you do good (ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι) and do not give in to fear” (3.6). This last phrase suggests that the author expects the good deeds to produce hostility (hence μὴ φοβούμεναι . . . πτόησιν), not acceptance.38 Another implicit indication that good works cause, or at least further exacerbate, social conflict (rather than deter it) may be found in 1 Pet 4.19: “let those who suffer (πάσχοντες) according to the will of God entrust their souls to the faithful creator by continuing to do good (ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ).” Since the readers are expected to entrust themselves to God “by (ἐν) continuing to do good,” this could suggest that rather than alleviating the problem, proper Christian conduct will only make it worse. In other words, the good works of Christians receive simultaneous positive and negative responses: to God such acts are praiseworthy, but to non-believers they are a cause of hostility. The exhortation would then be to continue doing good despite the persecution that will inevitably ensue, all the while trusting that God’s response is of much greater importance. The question which these texts raise therefore is, “If the author believed that Christians and Romans agreed upon what is good, why would he turn again and again to the idea that their good behavior would cause suffering?”39 In other words, ings which the believers, as such, have to endure from the unbelieving world, overtake them because of their ἀγαθοποιεῖν.” 36   In this instance, the author equates “righteousness” with being “zealous for the good” (see above). 37   See pp. 180–83. 38   Many recognize that the object of the women’s fear is likely to be their unbelieving husbands (so, e.g., Spicq, Épîtres de Pierre, 123; Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 160; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, 158). But few have actually connected “doing good” with “fear” in any causal relationship, as though the latter is what could be expected if the former is carried out. 39   Betsy J. Bauman-Martin, “Feminist Theologies of Suffering and Current Interpretations of 1 Peter 2.18–3.9,” in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (ed. A.-J. Levine; FCNT 8; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 63–81 (71 n.  45; emphasis added). Further, she notes, “That interpretation [of Balch and Schüssler Fiorenza which says that everyone agreed on what was

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

257

if good works refer to praiseworthy deeds which were approved by Greco-Roman society, why would they not end, or at least reduce, the hostility? As it stands, the ethic of good works appears to be further fuel on the fire. When this causal connection is properly recognized, it not only raises serious doubts about the assumption that the letter’s call to “do good” involved behaving in a manner which was consistent with popular, Hellenistic standards of conduct, it also reveals an underlying subversiveness behind his exhortation. b. Overlapping Social Standards and Social Conflict Given the stress which we have laid on good works as a cause of conflict, it is important to note that some of the good works that are prescribed to the Petrine communities are the types of behaviors which Greco-Roman society normally acknowledged with approval. The epistle’s call for submission to governing authorities (1 Pet 2.13-14), for instance, represents a socially-approved (and expected) form of conduct. What this means is that when Christians undertook good works, they were not always and invariably performing deeds that ran contrary to Greek and Roman standards. For the sake of precision, therefore, we must clarify the relationship between good works and social conflict. First, we will address the modern consensus claim regarding the overlapping standards of good works. When pointing out the convergence of good works and popular values, the modern consensus is only partially correct. Its assessment requires important qualifications. In particular, there are two nuances to this overlap for which interpreters do not always account. One is that not all of the good deeds described in the epistle shared an overlap with existing social virtues. For example, ministering to members of the Christian community through the exercise of spiritual gifts was clearly important within the community of faith (cf. 1 Pet 4.10–11), but it would not have been particularly praiseworthy in the wider society. The same might be said about the refusal to participate in the cultic worship of the gods. So these good deeds may, in certain instances, share affinities with standards held in Greco-Roman society. But, in many cases, they extend to behaviors that God alone approves, behaviors which are often repudiated by the larger culture. Another nuance for which the consensus opinion must account is that this overlap was not an attempt to assuage the conflict. If the Christians had wanted to build the kind of relations that many assume, then there would have been ways to do it. They could have built patron networks, wherein they would have sought out wealthier good] is inconsistent with much of the letter in which the author insists that the suffering will continue because of their ἀγαθοποιοῦντας (doing good)” (71; original emphasis). This observation reflects the similar concerns of Gene L. Green, “Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1979), who earlier pointed out: “If the Christians were simply called to a high standard of pagan morality, it seems exceedingly strange that this new behavior should meet with such opposition as is found reflected in 1 Peter” (274).

258

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

members in hopes of establishing their presence in the civic community,40 or as Carter has argued, they could have simply gone “all the way” in their accommodation. Certainly, if this message appeared on an inscription that was posted in public view, then we might argue that the Christians were trying to build symbolic capital and alleviate some of the tensions with the surrounding culture. However, it is important that we recognize is that 1 Peter is a letter written to those within the community and so not necessarily for outside consumption (i.e., a “hidden transcript”).41 As such, our views regarding the positive affects of good works must be reflective of this fact. Furthermore, the overlap which does exist has more to do with the natural levels of compliance from a disadvantaged group in a postcolonial setting than with the author’s desire to approve social norms. At the points where there is compliance with popular standards, there are also calculated attempts to undercut or subvert certain aspects of these values (e.g., honoring the emperor; submission to husbands). So it is important to be precise when describing the situation. Simply labeling obedience to governing authorities or a slave’s submission to his master as “accommodation” does not fully capture the essence of the author’s instructions. For the purpose of self-preservation, this kind of deference had to be made by persons or groups in a disadvantaged position. Subtly undercutting the powerbase of hegemony while maintaining feigned compliance is very different from approving the ethic toward which he is asking his readers to conform. The second means of clarifying the relationship between good works and social conflict relates to the logic of persecution: If some overlap between Christian and “pagan” standards does exist, then why would the author expect them to be met with hostility rather than acceptance? One solution to this problem is simple confusion. It may be that outsiders simply misinterpreted the conduct of Christians and responded with hostility to deeds which were normally assigned a positive value in popular culture. An example might be the familial designations used within the community (1 Pet 5.9, 12). Although they were meant to represent the kind of mutual love that Christians were expected to show towards one another (cf. 1.22; 2.17; 3.8; 4.8), outsiders could have mistaken this practice for a case of incest. Such a proposal would account for the particular set of deviances commonly applied to the

40   Note how this was practiced by some ancient Jewish groups (see White, “Capitalizing on the Imperial Cult,” 173–214). Of course, this would have required a level of integration that would have been too much for the Petrine author. 41   Cf. Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide (AEG; Nashville: Abingdon, 2006) 12–13. To see how the “accommodation” of 1 Peter could be read on two levels (one at the level of “public” transcript and the other at the level of “hidden” transcript) an analogous reading of Rom 13.1–7 is provided by Sze-kar Wan (“Coded Resistance: A Proposed Rereading of Romans 13:1–7,” in The Bible in the Public Square: Reading the Signs of the Times [eds. C. B. Kittredge, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008] 173–84), who shows how coded resistance can be read within a message of public submission.

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

259

group, viz., incest, cannibalism, and infanticide (cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 26.7; 2 Apol. 12; Tatian, Or. 25; Minucius Felix, Oct. 9; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.14).42 A better response to this question, however, seems to lie in the nature of labeling and the ascription of deviance. Over the last few decades, sociologists have discovered that deviance is a social construct and that the way in which society marks out the stigmatized status of individuals or groups is through assigning stereotypic, deviant labels.43 These insights have been applied to the situation of early Christians with much success. What scholars have shown is that rather than reflecting misinterpretation or mistaken identity, the accusations leveled at Christians simply represent a way of marking out a stigmatized group because of their perceived threat to society.44 So once the Petrine readers became a group of recognized deviants (cf. use of Χριστιανός in 1 Pet 4.16), even non-offensive behavior would have been looked at with suspicion.45 For this reason, the Petrine author could naturally expect any or all of the audience’s good conduct to be met with hostility. With this in mind, it is important to note the letter’s rhetorical strategy. Had he chosen to do so, the Petrine author could have focused on the points of overlap between Christian and “pagan” ethics and downplayed the distinctiveness of Christian behavior. This, in fact, seems to be the strategy of the author of the Pastoral Epistles. Yet, the Petrine author continually directs his audience’s focus toward the negative affects of “good” behavior, which are ultimately remedied at the eschaton. What this suggests is that the he wanted his readers to understand themselves as standing in 42   On the deviances attributed to early Christians, see Bart Wagemakers, “Incest, Infanticide, and Cannibalism: Anti-Christian Imputations in the Roman Empire,” Greece and Rome 57 (2010) 337–54. 43   See discussion of labeling theory on p. 242–43. 44   One example of this is the ascription of cannibalism, see Andrew McGowan, “Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism Against Christians in the Second Century,” JECS 2 (1994) 413– 42. Cf. also Craig de Vos, “Popular Graeco-Roman Responses to Christianity,” in The Early Christian World (ed. P. F. Esler; vol. 2; New York: Routledge, 2000) 869–89 (879–85). 45   Two considerations support this proposal. First, studies have shown that something as seemingly insignificant as ingroup promotion and favoritism, even apart from outgroup derogation, is enough to generate intergroup competition and eventually intergroup conflict (cf. Gary Bornstein, “Intergroup Conflict: Individual, Group, and Collective Interests,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 7 [2003] 129–45; Nir Halevy, et al., “‘In-Group Love’ and ‘Out-Group Hate’ as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict: A New Game Paradigm,” Psychological Science 19 [2008] 405–11). Hence, a good deed such as mutual love within the community (1 Pet 1.22; 2.17; 3.8; 4.8) could have led to conflict with others, even though the value itself might not be derogated within the larger society. Second, since prejudice toward stigmatized outgroups often stems from a difference in perceived values (see Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems [New York: Basic Books, 1960]), the social acceptability of (some) good works would not always have been an issue. The more traditional and authoritarian views that were present at that time, the more likely they would have acted on their hostility (cf. Geoffrey Haddock, et al., “Assessing the Structure of Prejudicial Attitudes: The Case of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 [1993] 1105–18; Christian S. Crandall and Colby Cohen, “The Personality of the Stigmatizer: Cultural World View, Conventionalism, and Self-Esteem,” Journal of Research in Personality 28 [1994] 461–80).

260

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

opposition to the standards of society. In this way, the subversive nature of good works is both inherent within (many of) the deeds themselves and it is also constructed by the Petrine author.

B. The Social Function of Good Works in 1 Peter Now that we understand the subversive nature of good works, our focus will shift to the function of this theme within the overall social strategy of 1 Peter. In diagnosing the aim(s) of the Petrine author, we will explore not only how this dissident perspective was intended to shape the readers’ social identity, but also how it directed their response to persecution. But simply identifying the author’s objectives does not complete our investigation. Such an approach tends to prioritize (and even authorize) the author’s point of view. For this reason, in true postcolonial fashion, we will conclude by evaluating the effectiveness of the author’s strategy, thereby decentering the “authority” of his social construction. 1. Diagnosing the Social Strategy of Good Works In what follows, we will examine the good works theme from two different angles, both of which are intended clarify the social aim(s) of the epistle. From an external perspective, we will seek to better understand how the good works motif was intended to affect or be perceived by the other parties involved in the conflict situation. Conversely, from an internal perspective, we will consider how the theme was intended to affect or be perceived by the readers themselves. a. External Function: Resisting from the Margins Our attempt to read the strategy of 1 Peter through postcolonial lenses provides important insights into the external function of good works. What it reveals is the manner in which this motif is intended to respond to the conflict situation of the readers. The language of good works represents a form of subaltern resistance wherein colonial mimicry is used to invert the oppressive dynamics of hegemonic discourse and social domination.46 The concept of colonial mimicry, as we have already mentioned, has been most famously developed in the work of Homi Bhabha. Mimicry occurs when a colonizer imposes its culture, institutions, and values on the colonized to the point that the 46   On a more general level, one modern scholar who comes close to this conclusion is James G. Crossley, Reading the New Testament: Contemporary Approaches (New York: Routledge, 2010). Based on his postcolonial reading of 1 Peter, Crossley describes the accommodation of the Petrine author as “a classic case of mimicry in that the text absorbs social norms and repeats them but in a new modified, hybridised and Christianised way” (40–42, here 41).

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

261

latter is forced or persuaded to internalize and replicate them. In his investigation of this phenomenon, Bhabha showed that while mimicry can be a powerful tool for propogating and extending colonial power, at its very heart lie the seeds of its own destabilization and destruction. The problem is that the reproduction of an exact copy of the colonizer would undermine the discourse of inequality and difference upon which colonial authority rests. Therefore, “in order to be effective mimicry must continually produce its slippage, its excess, its difference.” In other words, the colonizer’s ambivalent injunction to the colonial mimic is to be “almost the same, but not quite.”47 This ambivalence creates a kind of “third space” for the colonized to inhabit. Yet, it is in this hybrid space that the authority of colonial discourse is fractured, as colonial agency is troubled by an inexact replication. “[T]he very existence of such ‘mimic men’ threatens the colonial discourse that led to their creation, since it shows that other modes of being are possible outside of its binary framework.”48 Its opposition to colonial authority thus lies not in an overt resistance by colonial subjects, but in the persistent confirmation of an identity that is different from the colonizer. At this point, “mimicry is at once resemblance and menace.”49 Perhaps even more troubling for the hierarchical dynamics of the model-copy relationship is the fact that mimicry can very easily turn into subversive forms of mockery or even parody.50 It is this subversive dimension of colonial mimicry that we find in 1 Peter. The crucial point to recognize is that the model which the Petrine author seeks to imitate in his use of the good works motif is the traditional language of social and political elites. He draws from the terminology that was commonly employed in Asia Minor (as well as across the Greek East) to describe prominent citizens whose wealth and beneficence acquired for them great power and recognition among their fellow citizens (see Ch. 3). This language is then turned on its head – at least according to popular standards – as it is applied to a group of marginalized 47  Bhabha, Location of Culture, 122 (original emphasis). This is similar to what Trinh T. Minhha, Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989) 52, describes as the Europeans’ call to the natives: “‘Be like us.’ The goal pursued is the spread of a hegemonic dis-ease. Don’t be us, this self-explanatory motto warns. Just be ‘like’ and bear the chameleon’s fate, never infecting us but only yourself, spending your days muting, putting on/taking off glasses, trying to please all and always at odds with myself who is not self at all” (original emphasis). 48   Christopher D. Stanley, “Paul the Ethnic Hybrid? Postcolonial Perspectives on Paul’s Ethnic Categorizations,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes (ed. C. D. Stanley; Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011) 110–26 (115). 49  Bhabha, Location of Culture, 123. Further, he notes, “The menace of mimicry is its double vision which in disclosing the ambivalence of colonial discourse also disrupts its authority” (126; original emphasis). 50   The work of Judith Butler on the constructive and performative dimension of gender provides a helpful illustration of the subversiveness of parody. See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990); idem, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993); idem, Undoing Gender (New York: Routledge, 2004).

262

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

and stigmatized Christians. This recommissioning and redefining of popular terms is part of his larger attempt to provide his subaltern readers with a more positive social identity (see below). Given the Petrine author’s intentionality about mimicking and subversively transforming this popular language, it might be appropriate to describe his strategy more specifically along the lines of what postcolonial interpreters refer to as catachresis. In general, catachresis refers to the inappropriate application of a word or phrase to something which it does not properly denote. The term is employed in postcolonial discussions (most famously in the work of Spivak) to describe “the process by which the colonized take and reinscribe something that exists traditionally as a feature of imperial culture.”51 This intentional misuse of commonly held culture codes, values, or norms has been adapted to New Testament texts by Stephen D. Moore, who focuses on catachresis as “a strategy of subversive adaptation.” He claims that the adoption and employment of a term like βασιλεία (“empire”), for instance, which would have been widely understood to refer to the imperium Romanum, marks a conscious effort by New Testament authors to transform the language of hegemony in their favor. He sees this as, “a practice of resistance through an act of creative appropriation, a retooling of the rhetorical or institutional instruments of imperial oppression that turns those instruments back against their official owners”52 In anthropological or sociological terms, this phenomenon might be described as symbolic inversion. This refers to “any act of expressive behavior which inverts, contradicts, abrogates, or in some fashion presents an alternative to commonly held cultural codes, values, and norms, be they linguistic, literary or artistic, religious, or social and political.”53 The earliest examples of this topos can be traced back to the ancient Near East,54 and throughout the ancient world its presence can be seen in festivals, art, literature, and even religion.55 It is commonly recognized that sym51   Ashcroft, et al., Post-Colonial Studies, 30. On Spivak’s employment of this term, see Gayartri Chakravorty Spivak, “Identity and Alterity: An Interview (with Nikos Papastergiadis),” Arena 97 (1991) 65–76 (70). Catachresis is an example of the broader strategy of what anthropologists/ sociologists refer to as symbolic inversion (see below). 52  Moore, Empire and Apocalypse, 106. 53   Barbara A. Babcock, “Introduction,” in The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society (ed. B. A. Babcock; Symbol, Myth, and Ritual; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978) 13–36 (14). For more on symbolic inversion, see Salomo Luria, “Die Ersten werden die Letzten sein (zur ‘sozialen Revolution’ im Altertum),” Klio 22 (1929) 405–31; Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 166–72; and Erik M. Heen, “The Role of Symbolic Inversion in Utopian Discourse: Apocalyptic Reversal in Paul and in the Festival of the Saturnalia/Kronia,” in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (ed. R. A. Horsley; Semeia 48; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 123–44. 54   See Hedwig Kenner, Das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt in der griechischrömischen Antike (Aus Forschung und Kunst 8; Klagenfurt: Geschichtsvrein f. Kärnten, 1970). For examples of this “world upside down” theme, see Paul A. Kruger, “The World ‘Topsy-Turvy’ and the Ancient Near Eastern Cultures: A Few Examples,” Anthropology Southern Africa 29 (2006) 115–21. 55  Festivals (Anthesteria; Saturnalia): Hannes Stubbe, “Trauerverhalten und das Phänomen

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

263

bolic inversion is a powerful strategy used either “(1) to depict in a negative sense a world in which everything is turned upside down, or (2) to propogate in a positive fashion a future messianic or utopian age, where these contraries of life will finally be reconciled.”56 According to sociologist Wilhelm E. Mühlmann, the latter manifests itself “from below,” originating among subaltern members of society who longed for a status reversal.57 The conditions in 1 Peter were prime for just such a strategy. Scholars have long recognized that 1 Peter projects a reversal of eschatological fortunes to comfort its beleaguered readers. Like Christ, their time of suffering would be followed by exaltation and glory (1 Pet 5.5–7; cf. 2:4; 3.18, 22). In describing the situation, previous interpreters have even portrayed the strategy as one of symbolic inversion.58 But what none (to my knowledge) have recognized is that the good works motif functions in the same way. Drawing on language that was widely-recognized as a marker of elite social status, the author reinscribes the terminology to provide his readers with an alternative vision of reality, one in which the honor and approval so valued in society is finally available to them. This occurs as he relocates the standards of approval from an earthly sphere, where local and provincial elites define and closely guard the nature of goodness, to a heavenly sphere, der verkehrten Welt,” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 113 (1988) 199–205; Fritz Graf, “Frauenfeste und verkehrte Welt,” in Geschlechterdifferenz, Ritual und Religion (eds. E. Klingner, et al.; Würzburg: Echter, 2003) 37–51. Art (cats submit to mice; fox shepherds geese): Hedwig Kenner, “Das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt in der klassischen Antike,” Forschungen und Fortschritte 41 (1967) 11–14 (12); Emma Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte und Fabel. Gestalt und Strahlkraft (5th ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977) 12–13. Literary (genre of satire): Eleazer Gutwirth, “The ‘World Upside Down’ in Hebrew,” Orientalia Suecana 30 (1981) 141–47; Hans Strauss, “Motiv und Strukturen von Umkehrungssprüchen in ägypten und im Alten Testament,” ZAW 115 (2003) 25–37. Religion (utopian age; life after death): Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Proverbs 30:21–23 and the Biblical World Upside Down,” JBL 105 (1986) 599–610; Paul A. Kruger, “Symbolic Inversion in Death: Some Examples from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near Eastern World,” Verbum et Ecclesia 26 (2005) 398–411. 56   Paul A. Kruger, “A Woman Will ‘Encompass’ a Man: On Gender Reversal in Jer 31,22b,” Bib 89 (2008) 380–88 (384). Cf. also Van Leeuwen, “Biblical World Upside Down,” 602. 57   Wilhelm E. Mühlmann, “Das Mythologem von der verkehrten Welt,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 13 (1961) 614–24 (618); cf. also idem, Chiliasmus und Nativismus: Studien zur Psychologie, Soziologie und historischen Kasuistik der Umsturzbewegungen (Studien zur Soziologie der Revolution 1; Berlin: Reimer, 1961) 333. This more pessimistic manifestation intersects with the work of anthropologist Victor Turner, who has explored the manner in which commonly regarded social distinction is suspended in ritual liminality. He focuses particularly on two types of liminality: status elevation, in which “the ritual subject or novice is being conveyed irreversibly from a lower to a higher position in an institutionalized system of such positions,” and status reversal, in which “groups or categories of persons who habitually occupy low status positions in the social structure are positively enjoined to exercise ritual authority over their superiors; and they, in their turn, must accept with good will their ritual degradation” (Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969] 166–203 (quote 167). The latter manifestation corresponds to the strategy of 1 Peter. 58   See, e.g., Elliott, “Disgraced yet Graced,” 172–73; cf. Moxnes, “Because of ‘The Name of Christ’,” 621.

264

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

where the perspective of God is the final arbitrator. The letter thus articulates a competing discourse which challenges the dominant structures and hegemonic ideology operative in the Greco-Roman world. What this means is that the benefaction theory, so often criticized in Petrine scholarship, has correctly diagnosed the correspondence between the good works terminology in 1 Peter and the euergetistic language prominent within Greco-Roman society. Where the view falters is in pressing a literal understanding of this theme, thereby overlooking the fact that the author is seeking to subvert the conventional meaning by redefining the standards of goodness.59 (1) Identifying the Level of Resistance With all that has been written lately about resistance in the New Testament, it is important that we add a few words of clarification by further specifying the nature of this subversiveness. First, it is important to locate the level of resistance that is promoted by the good works theme. For this task, some have found it helpful to compare and contrast the resistance advocated in 1 Peter with other forms of aversion in the New Testament. A common tendency has been to place Revelation and 1 Peter on opposite ends of the spectrum, with the former representing opposition to Rome and the latter urging accommodation.60 In fact, because of what some per  One (very plausible) question that might be raised at this point is why the language of 1 Peter should be viewed as resistance, given that elsewhere in ancient Jewish and early Christian literature we find the use of similar good works terminology, (presumably) without the same kind of subversive undertones. In response, two points could be made. First, even if the appropriation of the traditional good works language was not an intentional act of resistance, it would nonetheless have to be viewed as a competitive maneuver. When ancient Jews and early Christians adopted terms that had become synonymous with social privilege and redeployed them in an alternative manner, they (like the Hellenistic moralists) were creating a competing discourse. The second point that could be made is that 1 Peter contains all of the ingredients necessary to suggest that the use of this motif is meant to challenge and reverse the hegemonic ideology surrounding social honor and prestige. On the one hand, the letter contains one of the most concentrated uses of the good works language in ancient literature, with many of the terms and phrases being found most frequently (if not exclusively) in the context of euergetism. On the other, the letter is responding to a situation in which the readers are experiencing persecution and hostility from outsiders, and the author consequently must provide a strategy to help them cope with their disadvantaged position. Throughout the letter there are clear examples of subversive intentions. It is not a stretch then to think the same could be intended here. 60   See, e.g., Walter E. Pilgrim, Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) esp. 16–20; Christopher Bryan, Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 95–111. This reconstruction has even become a standard point of comparison in some introductory textbooks (e.g., David M. Carr and Colleen M. Conway, An Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) 360). Within Petrine studies, scholars have begun to draw the line of demarcation somewhat differently. They have insisted that the Petrine author is prescribing a more reserved level of resistance between Revelation, which exhibits a very high level of antagonism, and other documents which might be more compliant (see Horrell, 1 Peter, 85–95). 59

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

265

ceive as too much compromise, the letter is sometimes faulted for not advocating enough resistance.61 The problem is that we cannot judge resistance simply on the basis of its revolutionary character. In this regard, our concept of resistance may have been spoiled by the book of Revelation and its apocalyptic overthrow of Roman imperialism.62 When judged on this basis, all other forms of New Testament subversiveness seem tame. But we cannot forget that 1 Peter is working within a postcolonial context which allowed little room for rebellion. As a result, most forms of aversion are incidental, and more often than not they were – and had to be – clothed in the language and forms of submission. When we take this fact into account, we begin to see the resistance of 1 Peter in its proper (subaltern) light. Ironically, much of the cautious resistance advocated in the epistle (e.g., promoting religious freedom for women and slaves) would have been viewed as revolutionary given the social context. For proof, one needs only to look at the conflict which arose as a result. Therefore, when portraying the nature of dissidence in 1 Peter, and in particular, as it relates to the performance of good works, it might be best to describe it as a form of subaltern resistance which tends to push the boundaries of existing hegemony within the limitations created by an environment of domination.63 61   See, e.g., Briggs-Kittredge, “1 Peter,” 616: “1 Peter presents difficult interpretive issues for women today because its rhetoric constructs the female gender as the ‘weaker sex’ (3:7) and both assumes and reinforces the social structure of masters and slaves. Its injunctions to slaves to endure harsh masters, wives to submit to husbands, and all who suffer to accept it without protest have inflicted harm when received as universal instruction to the weak to endure injustice and abuse.” 62   Another problem is that comparisons between 1 Peter and Revelation often fail to recognize that the latter tends to reinscribe many of the same imperial values that it so vehemently denies. As Moore notes, “Revelation presents us with a reverse scenario [of Bhabha’s pronouncements of colonial mimicry] in which parody or mockery of the imperial order constantly threatens to topple over into mimicry, imitation, and replication” (Moore, Empire and Apocalypse, 97–121, here 112). 63   Some will no doubt object that the adoption of the popular language of good works is not enough to suggest resistance. Such appropriations, they will argue, were common in the Greco-Roman world. Examples might include the propaganda of Augustus in the Res Gestae (see Karl Galinsky, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996] 42–57), Virgil’s portrayal of himself as a triumphator (see Robert D. Williams, ed., Virgil, the Ecologues & Georgics [London: Bristol Classical Press, 1996] 177–79), or the theme of libertas (esp. through the image of Apollo) which dominates the coinage of Brutus and Cassius (see Anne Gosling, “Octavian, Brutus and Apollo: A Note on Opportunistic Propoganda,” AJP 107 [1986] 586–89 [588]). What is essential about these and other appropriations like them, according to Galinsky, is that they “cannot be flattened out into purely negative contestations. Rather, they are synthesized into a more perfect version of the same concept” (Karl Galinsky, “The Cult of the Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider?,” in Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult [eds. J. Brodd and J. L. Reed; WGRWSup 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011] 1–21 [11–13, quote 12]). One could very easily raise the question therefore of whether the same might be said about the good works motif in 1 Peter. However, what differentiates the appropriations that were common across the Greco-Roman world and the use of the good works theme in 1 Peter is that the latter involves a rejection – or, at least, an attempted rejection – of the value domain around which Greek and Roman society was based. For those who were negotiating

266

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

(2) Identifying the Target(s) of Resistance A second way of refining our description of good works is to locate the target(s) of the letter’s opposition. As scholars have uncovered the various forms of resistance in New Testament documents, many have been content to identify this opposition with the broad label, “anti-imperial,” as though the primary target of authors’ polemic was the Roman empire.64 But, in this case, neither the author’s critique, in general, nor the good works theme, in particular, completely fits such a designation. In some places, the cautious resistance of 1 Peter is clearly focused on forms and functions of Roman imperial power (e.g., honoring the emperor; satanically-inspired power behind the opposition; Rome as Babylon). However, Roman domination and hegemony are not always the cause of the conflict, neither are they the primary target of the letter’s aversion.65 But even beyond this, it is important to recognize that by the first century CE, Roman interests had become so enmeshed within the social, political, and religious conventions of Asia Minor that it would have been impossible to separate them completely. This complexity and multivalence makes all binary approaches to resistance (such as “anti-imperial” notions) problematic. When we turn to the good works theme in particular, further problems arise. Although the language of virtue was extolled within imperial discourse, good works was not a specific imperial motif; instead, it was part of the Hellenistic ideal that had been slightly readjusted in the Roman imperial period. This makes it difficult to describe good works as “anti-imperial.” As a form of resistance, it challenges the social structures that were in place in the Greco-Roman world, because it was within this value domain that the readers’ social identity had been diminished. Rome may have been part of this critique, but only to the extent that it legitimated and further facilitated this system. What we might say then is that the target of the theme’s resistance was the dominant social hierarchy (along with the hegemonic ideology that undergirded it) operative in the Greco-Roman world which denied the

life in the cultural milieu of the Greco-Roman world, the goal would have been to increase one’s social, political, or economic status or even one’s prestige in the eyes of fellow citizens. Within the domain there was much competition, but this competition did not challenge the domain itself. 64   Examples of those who tend to focus on the “anti-imperial” message of the New Testament authors include: Richard A. Horsley, ed., Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997); John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004); N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 59–79. 65   Patriarchy, for instance, was a development that was present long before the Romans came to power. Thus, when the author advocates religious autonomy for women and slaves (1 Pet 2.18– 3.6), any subversive intentions that he possessed would be directed at the social hierarchy which reigned throughout antiquity. Likewise, the problem caused by the readers’ separation from the “desires of the Gentiles” (4.3–4) was an issue regarding withdrawal from general social conventions, which may have included everything from the worship of traditional gods to the attendance of spectacles.

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

267

readers the opportunity to construct a positive social identity and which prevented them from living out a life that was pleasing to God.66 One question that arises from this reconstruction is the extent to which economic and political factors are involved in the author’s resistance. It is worth considering whether the conflict of the Petrine communities is being cast in the light of the common “class” struggles that took place in the Greco-Roman world.67 Does the good works language of the Petrine author, for instance, indicate dissatisfaction with the socio-economic conditions of his readers? Does his expectation of Christ’s eschatological return involve more than just an end to social conflict? Might it also include revolutionary prospects on an economic and political level as well? Among some New Testament scholars, there is considerable hesitancy to draw from Marxist theory in order to interpret early Christian history.68 Yet, undergirding many of the recent readings “from below” has been a much greater appreciation for the economic conditions of early Christianity, with particular focus being placed on poverty levels and economic inequality in the Greco-Roman world.69 Moreover, the factors that are involved in the Petrine situation (viz., social conflict, role reversal, adoption of elite language) seem to invite a Marxist approach. This would not be a departure from the postcolonial optic that we have developed but simply another way to explore imperial power and subaltern resistance, with the brunt of the attention focused on the political economy, class divisions, and class conflict.70 It would   We must remember that this construction was in accordance with the perspective of the Petrine author. In his eyes and according to his understanding of the Christian faith, his readers were unable to achieve both social prominence and God’s approval. Therefore, they had to choose one or the other . 67   On the “class” struggle in the ancient world, see G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981). 68   Cf. James G. Crossley, Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (26–50 CE) (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 9, who suggests that, “a fear of or hostility to Marxism may be part of the problem for a Christian-dominated discipline such as NT studies.” Marxist criticism has been entirely absent from biblical studies. Its application can be seen in a few recent works like Gerald O. West, The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible (Interventions 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Ronald Boer, Marxist Criticism of the Bible: A Critical Introduction to Marxist Literary Criticism and the Bible (London: T&T Clark, 2003); David Jobling, “‘Very Limited Ideological Options’: Marxism and Biblical Studies in Postcolonial Scenes,” in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections (eds. S. D. Moore and F. F. Segovia; The Bible and Postcolonialism; London: T&T Clark, 2005) 184–201; and Neil Elliott, “Marxism and the Postcolonial Study of Paul,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes (ed. C. D. Stanley; Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011) 34–50. 69   There are a number of studies that could be mentioned here. A few of the more important contributions include: Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival; Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies,”; Longenecker, Remember the Poor. For a review of this discussion, see Bruce W. Longenecker, “Socio-Economic Profiling of the First Urban Christians,” in After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (eds. T. D. Still and D. G. Horrell; London: T&T Clark, 2009) 36–59. 70   Cf. Ronald Boer, “Marx, Postcolonialism, and the Bible,” in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: 66

268

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

be unwise to press this line of inquiry too far, however, since the rich as well as the poor could have used the same good works terminology to describe ethical responsibilities. We will, therefore, leave the question open for future discussions. b. Internal Function: Disidentification through Symbolic Inversion Understanding the good works motif in 1 Peter as a form of subversive mimicry moves us one step closer toward an accurate diagnosis of this important theme. But our work does not stop there. Catachresis (or symbolic inversion) reflects the external function of good works, one which focuses on the readers’ response to the problem of social conflict. What we still need is a way to examine the social function of this motif from an internal perspective; that is, one which diagnoses how the motif is designed to affect the emotional and mental strain experienced by the readers. For this, we will turn to the social sciences, and more specifically, to the field of social psychology. Drawing on insights from recent fieldwork, we will show how the good works motif is intended to rebuild the status perceptions of the beleaguered Petrine communities. As we have already suggested, it would appear that the author’s use of the good works theme in 1 Peter represents a case of symbolic inversion. How symbolic inversion functions within the wider culture is a matter of debate.71 For our purposes, however, it is more crucial to understand the important role that inversion plays in the construction of social identity among subaltern groups. One of the primary reasons why a subaltern group might employ a strategy of symbolic inversion is to cope with their disadvantaged situation. In social-psychological terms, it appears that the precise coping strategy that is being implemented by the Petrine author is one of disindentification.72 This strategy, as we have mentioned, is triggered by threats to Interdisciplinary Intersections (eds. S. D. Moore and F. F. Segovia; The Bible and Postcolonialism; London: T&T Clark, 2005) 166–83. 71   While many understand it as a form of social critique which opposes existing social orders (so, e.g., Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World [trans. T. F. Rable; Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968]; David Gilmore, “Carnival in Fuenmayor,” Journal of Anthropological Research 31 [1975] 331–49; Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Carnival in Romans [New York: G. Braziller, 1979]), there are some who see it as actually reinforcing dominant ideology, functioning merely as a cathartic release for participants which ultimately leads to a restoration of traditional norms (so, e.g., Roberto Da Matta, “Constraint and License: A Preliminary Study of Two Brazilian National Rituals,” in Secular Ritual [eds. S. F. Moore and B. G. Myerhoff; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977] 244–64; Umberto Eco, “The Frames of Comic ‘Freedom’,” in Carnival! [eds. T. A. Sebeok, et al.; Approaches to Semiotics 64; Berlin: Mouton, 1984] 1–9). It seems that there is some truth in both of these positions, depending on the context in which inversion is used. 72   Pace Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 119, 174–91, who views the letter’s call to “do good” as a form of compensation, wherein the readers are expected to alter their behavior to align with dominant cultural values. The study by Graser and Stenschke (“Coping with Discrimination,”) does not address the strategy of good works directly, although they do suggest that “the reasons for being discriminated against cannot be changed” (109). It is for this reason that they direct their attention primarily on emotion-focused strategies. The strategy of disidentification would qualify as such.

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

269

personal or social identity. In an effort to restructure their self-concept, subjects will selectively devalue certain domains in which disadvantage (i.e., negative external feedback or outcomes) is experienced in order to maintain individual or collective self-esteem.73 In this case, by adopting a popular motif that was lauded among wealthy elites (because of its association with social privilege) and then transforming it into a designation which facilitates the Christian’s relationship with God, the author devalues the social and political realm in which his readers were negatively evaluated and simultaneously introduces a substitute value domain in which they could achieve honor and prestige. The situation of the readers provides the perfect ingredients for this type of coping strategy. It begins with the need to devalue a particular domain. Psychological disidentification (and disengagement) often results from poor performance, or even the anticipation of failure, in a particular domain,74 and it is clear that the readers had faired poorly at the level of achieving social and political status within the dominant culture. For their efforts, they had only attained public notoriety as a group of deviant outcasts, and the author is not altogether optimistic that this situation would change in the future. What is more, membership in a stigmatized group would have only fueled the propensity to disassociate from particular value domains. As Crocker and Major have pointed out, “members of stigmatized or oppressed groups tend to regard those attributes or dimensions on which they or members of their group fare poorly, relative to others, as less personally important or psychologically central to their self-definition.”75 This is in spite of the fact that many individuals or groups recognize the importance of the dominant or majority domain.76 Not only does the good works motif involve a disengagement from popular value domains, on the flipside, it also includes prioritizing certain domains in which the Petrine community excels. This is consistent with what researchers have found in the study of disidentification. Individuals tend to value domains in which they regard themselves especially competent or proficient.77 These become important in an individual’s self-definition. But this is true even on a group level, especially when   For the pertinent literature on disidentification, see p. 34–35.   See Abraham Tesser, “Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed. L. Berkowitz; vol. 21; New York: Academic Press, 1988) 181–227. 75   Crocker and Major, “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem,” 616. 76   See Crocker, et al., “Social Stigma,” 529–530. For a list of various examples, see Crocker and Major, “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem,” 616. 77   See Shelley E. Taylor and Jonathon D. Brown, “Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health,” Psychological Bulletin 103 (1988) 193–210. In a number of studies, researchers have discovered that people tend to rate characteristics or qualities higher when they excel in those areas (cf. Morris Rosenberg, Society and the Adolescent Self-Image [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965]; Susan Harter, “Processes Underlying the Construction, Maintenance, and Enhancement of the Self-Concept in Children,” in Psychological Perspectives on the Self [eds. J. Suls and A. G. Greenwald; vol. 3; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986] 136–82). 73 74

270

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

a group holds to values that are at odds with those of other groups. Studies have shown that, in accordance with the performance feedback hypothesis, members of a group will negatively evaluate domains in which their group fares poorly and positively evaluate domains in which the group excels.78 One example of this selective valuing comes from a study on ingroup/outgroup performance and the construction of values. When participants in the study were told that their ingroup scored better than the outgroup on a personality trait, each group rated that trait as most important.79 Furthermore, this observation aligns with modern research on ingroup bias, which suggests that things associated with one’s ingroup are more positively evaluated than things associated with an outgroup.80 It makes sense then that the Petrine author would redefine good works according to a standard in which his group excelled. By portraying good works according to a theological (rather than a social) standard, Christians are able to achieve a much more positive outcome and, consequently, a positive self-concept. This shifting of the playing field means that they need not consider themselves social deviants; instead, they are now privy to the kind of praise and adulation that was normally reserved for elite members of society who monopolized power and prestige.81 As God’s elect who will soon receive the reward for their faithfulness, they are ultimately winners, despite how things might appear.   One key factor in this discussion is the extent to which a value is extolled by the larger culture. Major and Schmader (“Coping with Stigma,” 223) argue that, “it may be difficult for members of socially devalued groups to devalue domains in which they personally, or their group, are disadvantaged if those domains in [sic] are highly valued in the larger culture.” In support, they point to recent studies which suggest that devaluing in response to feedback “is more likely to be used by members of high status groups than by members of low status groups” (223). There are two points to consider before making the same conclusion about the disadvantaged readers of 1 Peter. First, the Petrine author has already relativized many of the cultural values that are highly prized in the Greco-Roman world (cf. 1 Pet 1.18; 4.3–4). Therefore, it would not be a stretch to suppose he could do the same with the popular values of good works. Second, a closer reading of the motif reveals that the author does not discount the domain altogether. By adopting the same terminology of prestige to represent the standards of his readers, he walks the line of ambivalence so commonly described in postcolonial settings: simultaneous rejection and imitation (see below). 79   Toni Schmader and Brenda Major, “The Impact of Ingroup vs. Outgroup Performance on Personal Values,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 (1999) 47–67. 80   Cf. Marilynn B. Brewer, “In-Group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 86 (1979) 307–24; Marilynn B. Brewer and Roderick M. Kramer, “The Psychology of Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior,” Annual Review of Psychology 36 (1985) 219–43. 81   In his discussion of symbolic inversion in early Christianity, Heen (“Role of Symbolic Inversion,” 130) notes that status reversal “may help to explain the attraction the euangelion of Christ held for people living in the Greek cities of the East. Open resistance to the public discourse was not tolerated. Only in the relative safety of subaltern sites could one imagine—by means of symbolic inversion—something different.” Further, he suggests that the status reversals which were characteristic of the Jesus tradition (e.g., last/first) were “potentially attractive to the large portion of the ancient city’s population that had been scripted into various kinds of subordinate and humiliating roles in the public discourse on a daily basis.” 78

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

271

2. Evaluating the Social Strategy of Good Works What we have argued to this point is that the Petrine author understood and attempted to employ the good works theme as an exercise of cautious resistance. The use of the good work motif devalues the domain in which prestige and honor were traditionally sought and replaces it with an alternative. In this way, the author consciously and intentionally resists the standards of the larger society. What has yet to be discussed, however, is the overall success of this attempt. The importance of this consideration lies in the precision which it requires of our endeavor to classify acts of resistance. It forces us to clearly distinguish between intentionality and actuality.82 This is an important caveat that is often left unexplored in many discussions of accommodation and resistance in 1 Peter. And again, this is where a postcolonial optic is useful. What should not be missed is that the letter’s social strategy of good works evidences a sense of ambivalence. While devaluing the popular, Hellenistic domain of good works – a domain in which the Petrine communities, like many others during the time, faired poorly – and introducing a substitute value in which Christians could excel, the epistle nonetheless maintains the same designation employed within the popular domain (viz., good works). Thus, even though the Petrine author wants to disengage from a value domain in which his readers have not experienced positive outcomes, he still does not move away from it completely. He is drawn to adopt the language of social and political elites to represent the new value domain in which his readers are successful. One might say that there is still a sense of loathing mixed with admiration, simultaneous repulsion and envy. It is clear from the author’s response therefore that, as a tool of resistance, colonial mimicry (and symbolic inversion) is constrainted by certain limitations. In fact, these very restraints have caused some postcolonial scholars to question the validity of Bhabha’s notions of “hybridity” and “mimicry.” Not only does Bhabha’s theory proceed from the perspective of the colonizer,83 many have discovered that mimic82   It would be inappropriate to deny that the good works theme constitutes genuine resistance. One might be justified in questioning the level to which the subversion was taken or even the efficacy of such an approach. But we cannot deny the legitimacy of the author’s resistance, because it appears to proceed from subversive intentions. While there is some disagreement regarding the function of symbolic inversion within culture (see above), all would agree that it represents a response “from below” which is critical of hegemonic discourse. When placed in hidden transcripts, as we have in 1 Peter, these inversions “create an imaginative breathing space in which the normal categories of order and hierarchy are less than completely inevitable” (Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, 168). 83   This is a point raised by Rey Chow (“Where Have All the Natives Gone?,” in Displacements: Cultural Identities in Question [Theories of Contemporary Culture 15; ed. A. Bammer; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994] 125–51), who asks, “But what kind an argument is it to say that the subaltern’s ‘voice’ can be found in the ambivalence of the imperialist’s speech? It is an argument which ultimately makes it unnecessary to come to terms with the subaltern since she has already ‘spoken’, as it were, in the system’s gaps. All we would need to do would be to continue to study – to deconstruct – the rich and ambivalent language of the imperialist” (131; cf. idem, The

272

Part Four:  Good Works in 1 Peter

ry often represents an assimilation of colonial discourse rather than a posture of resistance.84 As Dimple Godiwala points out, “The previously colonized subject— who is the locus of Bhabha’s theory of the mimic—mimics because he or she has internalized the notion that their cultural values are inferior to that of the colonials.”85 Such an observation is consistent with the nature of colonial ambivalence. For as Anuradha Dingwaney Needham observes, “no modes of resistance, whether they acknowledge it or not, are completely free of their implication in the domination they resist.”86 Inversion, especially, “would not be possible without the terms and evaluations embodied in and by the dominant, which the inversion then attempts to devalue (and revalue) through a process of transvaluation.”87 Understanding the ambivalence of postcolonial agency in 1 Peter requires that we account for both the resistance and the assimilation of colonial mimicry.88 In the theory of Bhabha, he discusses how the threat of mockery and parody is inherent within colonial mimicry; whereas in 1 Peter the reverse seems to be the case: the author’s sly inversion of popular discourse borders on (and some might even say, represents) imitation and replication. In an attempt to dismantle traditional models of prestige and power by turning the existing categories on their head, the author inadvertently compromises his position through an unrecognized compliance and attraction. This is clear in that the terminology which the Petrine author adopts to represent the ethic of his community is the very language used within the dominant culture as a way of making social distinctions. Although his concern is with the discrimination and prejudice which outsiders had shown toward the Christian comProtestant Ethnic and the Spirit of Capitalism [New York: Columbia University Press, 2002] 95– 127). 84   A number of recent studies have underlined the compliance with which mimicry is called out (see, e.g., Katharyne Mitchell, “Different Diasporas and the Hype of Hybridity,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15 [1997] 533–53; Sunil Bhatia and Anjali Ram, “Culture, Hybridity, and the Dialogical Self: Cases from the South Asian Diaspora,” Mind, Culture, and Activity 11 [2004] 224–40 [229–38]; Raka Shome, “Thinking Through the Diaspora: Call Centers, India, and a New Politics of Hybridity,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 9 [2006] 105– 24). Because of the inherent problems with Bhabha’s analysis of colonial mimicry, some New Testament scholars have cautioned against its wholesale applicability to early Christian texts (so, e.g., Tatsiong Benny Liew, “Tyranny, Boundary and Might: Colonial Mimicry in Mark’s Gospel,” JSNT 73 [1999] 7–31; Joseph A. Marchal, The Politics of Heaven: Women, Gender, and Empire in the Study of Paul [Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008] 59–90). 85   Dimple Godiwala, “Postcolonial Desire: Mimicry, Hegemony, Hybridity,” in Reconstructing Hybridity: Post-Colonial Studies in Transition (eds. J. Kuortti and J. Nyman; Studies in Comparative Literature 51; Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007) 59–79 (61). 86   Anuradha Dingwaney Needham, Using the Master’s Tools: Resistance and the Literature of the African and South-Asian Diasporas (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000) 10. 87   Dingwaney Needham, Using the Master’s Tools, 11. 88   This fact helps us to recognize that “the ability of a postcolonial subject to resist imperialism is shrouded in ambiguity, since the very act of resistance entails intervention in the conditions that constructed that subjectivity in the first place” (Jeremy Punt, “Pauline Agency in Postcolonial Perspective: Subverter of or Agent for Empire?,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes [ed. C. D. Stanley; Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011] 53–61 [56]).

Chapter Ten:  Good Works as (Assimilated) Resistance in 1 Peter

273

munity, the strategy that he employs represents an internalizing of the same oppressive patterns. Similar to the way that Christians had become recognized social deviants, the author labels outsiders as corrupt and destined for destruction (1 Pet 2.7–8; 4.3–6, 17–18). This creates a binary separation between the “elect” Petrine communities and the “Other.”89 The eschatological scheme that develops from this, consequently, looks remarkably similar to the structure of hierarchcal privilege found within Anatolian society (viz., the privileging of a small group to the exclusion of the majority of disadvantaged subjects). So while the author attempts to subvert hegemonic values through the reappropriation of the language of the dominant, he actually surreptitiously reinscribes them.90 This shows how pervasively “pagan” values encompass the author’s perceptions.

89   A similar colonizing manuever is made as the author appropriates Jewish privileges for his Christian readers (see Bauman-Martin, “Speaking Jewish,” 144–77). 90   This point is made by Bird, who states, “While some claim that taking the language of the colonizer and re-interpreting it for one’s own cause is a move of subversion, I contend that it only helps to mask the extent of the control the colonizer has over the colonized.” Further, she argues that when imagery of violence and war are re-interpreted in this way, “then the colonizer, not the colonized, has won in the adaptation, and subversion quickly becomes collusion” (Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 107, referencing Musa W. Dube, Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible [St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000] 116).

Conclusion In Petrine scholarship, most interpreters understand the letter’s call to “do good” as an admonition to behave in a manner which was consistent with popular standards of conduct. As such, many contend that the recipients of 1 Peter could expect their “good works” to be favorably acknowledged by Greco-Roman society. While there is some variation with regard to how this conclusion is reached, this view has established itself as the reigning consensus. This fact is significant considering that good works are one of the primary paraenetic themes in the epistle, providing the readers with a strategic plan of response for the conflict in which they are engaged. For many years, the consensus reading of good works has thus shaped and directed investigations of the letter’s social strategy. Our goal in this study was to challenge the modern consensus regarding the meaning and function of good works in 1 Peter in order to thereby provide a fresh reading of the letter’s social strategy. After examining some of the problems hampering the popular understanding of good works (e.g., disconnect between problem and solution; methodological flaws; lack of specific referent), we set out to explore how the persistent admonition to “do good” might help the readers respond to the conflict in which they were involved, and whether this strategy served to subvert or accommodate the hegemonic discourse which pervaded Anatolian society. One of the ways in which we sought to accomplish this aim was through a detailed investigation of good works terminology within the Greco-Roman world. Our examination covered a variety of ancient source materials (e.g., literary, epigraphic, papyrological, etc) across the periods of Hellenistic and Roman rule. The focus centered on the types of acts or deeds that were most commonly referred to when one performed “good works” (or if one were to “do good”), as well as the standard of reference by which good works were considered “good.” We began our search in Chapter Three, where we examined good works according to Hellenistic standards. Instructive was the familiar and prevalent Hellenistic topos, “the noble and good man” (ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός). This designation served to illustrate two important uses of the good works language in the Greek world: (a) as a reference to elite social status, usually attained as the result of abundant wealth; and (b) as a reference to moral excellence, due to the virtuous quality of one’s life and character. As we discovered from our trek through the relevant sources, the former represented the traditional and most widespread usage. Normally when the language of good works was employed in the Greek East, it referred in some way to

276

Conclusion

the activities of wealthy elites who contributed to a particular civic community. During the Hellenistic period, the second usage came to be employed within the framework of moral philosophy. As the quality of a person’s life was assessed apart from the necessary precondition of material wealth, a “noble and good man” could be commended simply on the basis of his moral excellence. Such a usage represented a competitive redefinition of virtue which challenged – although it never unseated – the popular discourse of good works. Next, the close connection between the language of good works and the popular convention of benefaction led us to consider whether euergetism might be the referent behind 1 Peter’s admonition “do good” (Chapter Four). After a close look at the nature of this convention (i.e., participants, cost, etc), we concluded that the letter’s call to “good works” is probably not an encouragement to become involved in civic benefaction. There were a number of obstacles which impeded this interpretation, including the lack of the financial surplus necessary to make frequent, large-scale contributions, the socio-political negotiation required to participate in this type of communal gift-giving, and the appropriateness of benefaction as a social strategy given the author’s encouragement toward separation. To complete our survey of the good works language in the Greco-Roman world, we next turned our attention to the evidence from ancient Judaism and early Christianity (Section Three). Having considered the adoption and redefinition of the traditional good works language within philosophic discourse of the Hellenistic era, the purpose of Chapter Five was to explore a similar appropriation within Jewish literature from the Second Temple period. What we found was that many Jews employed the good works terminology, although they assigned it a theological value. This marked an important departure from Hellenistic usage, for it significantly relocated both the types of behavior which could be classified as “good” and the role this conduct played within the wider community. Departing from the traditional focus on the social aspect of good deeds, wherein conduct was defined according to its benefit to the community, Jewish authors began to understand “doing good” as a reference to the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law (however the community defined this task), an act which in some way was thought to affect one’s relationship with God. In this way, the horizontal focus of good works was supplemented with a new vertical dimension. In Chapter Six, our focus shifted to the evidence from the New Testament. Since the precedent for redefining the traditional language of good works had already been established, we briefly reviewed some of the ways that early Christians appropriated the language for their own purposes. Like many Jews from the Second Temple period, Christians also employed the language of good works in a theological manner. For them, however, good works would extend across a somewhat wider spectrum, with referents being connected to everything from Torah-observance to a more general Christ-centered moral virtue. After a brief survey of this material, we turned our attention to the strong concentration of good works language in the

Conclusion

277

Pastoral Epistles. Our goal was to assess the “apologetic” function which interpreters commonly assign the motif. Once we had examined the evidence from the Pastorals, we sought to nuance this position slightly. We argued that in the Pastorals, the author’s call to “do good” is not a request for the readers to abandon all of their distinctively Christian practices and to conform as closely as possible to the accepted behavioral standards of Greco-Roman society. Instead, the language is meant to project a bridging of the gap between Christians and outsiders. The motif allows the author to stress the continuity between the values of his community and those of the outside world, thus creating a sense of solidarity between the two. This consideration was instructive as we turned to the good works language of 1 Peter (Section Four). Once we had surveyed the use of good works language from across the Greco-Roman world, the next major component of the study was to situate the motif within the larger social strategy of 1 Peter. The key here was to locate where good works fit within the letter’s accommodation to certain social expectations and resistance to others. We thus began by addressing two popular misconceptions that have shaped how the motif has been read (Chapter Seven). The first related to the comparative use of the language in the Pastoral Epistles, in particular, the fact that the Pastor’s use of good works to further accommodate Greco-Roman society is often transposed onto the motif in 1 Peter. In clarifying this situation, however, we showed that it is crucial to allow the Petrine language to be interpreted on its own terms. When it is, we find that, despite certain connections between the language of the Pastorals and 1 Peter, the documents contain important, underlying differences which prevent the two motifs from being read in exactly the same manner. The second misconception concerned the perception of the author’s confident expectation regarding the positive impact of good deeds and the use of this interpretive deduction to postulate a strategy of accommodation. What we discovered was that the perceived optimism in 1 Peter is an idea that has been inflated by modern interpreters. The letter instead indicates a much more resigned expectation that good works would not fully be acknowledged until the eschaton. With interpretive clarity brought to these popular misconceptions, we turned our attention to the question of accommodation and conformity in 1 Peter, seeking to determine whether “doing good” involved conforming to the standards and practices of others in Greco-Roman society as a result of real or perceived pressure (Chapter Eight). At the outset, we noted the importance of accounting for the subaltern position of the Petrine audience as well as providing a standard of comparison by which to measure the level(s) of conformity advocated by the Petrine author. For this reason, we set up a categorical hierarchy t­o measure levels of accommodation and to illustrate the broad spectrum of accommodative approaches to life in the Greco-Roman world. Applying this scale to 1 Peter, we examined various passages where accommodation is most commonly envisioned. From this, we concluded that the author’s response constituted a form of subaltern accommodation. That is, the

278

Conclusion

readers were instructed to comply with the standards of popular society as a way of preserving the basic safety of the most at-risk readers; yet, in each case, social conformity was balanced by some form of resistance which cautiously challenged existing social structures and quietly asserted the insubordination of the author. In Chapter Nine, we shifted from conformity to resistance. Moving beyond the common tendency to read 1 Peter as a reflection of the harmonious relationship between church and State, we explored a number of instances where the author cautiously resists the standards and structures of Greco-Roman society. This investigation was facilitated by two methodological precursors. The first involved reading the letter’s social strategy as a natural response to social conflict. We argued that the strong self-concern of the Petrine author along with the responsibility for the conflict which he attributed to outsiders would naturally lead to some type of contentious action. The second related to the establishment of an accurate definition of resistance. Rather than limiting resistance to open forms of struggle, the definition we chose included “everyday” forms of subversion, which remained a feasible option for the Petrine readers. These two considerations served as the foundation upon which we read the subtle yet calculated indications of resistance in 1 Peter, and it was upon this basis that we reached an important conclusion: the tension in which the letter seems to hold accommodation and resistance is not the result of the Petrine author’s voluntary and unrestrained desire to balance opposing social strategies. In many ways, his instructions are constrained by the subaltern position of his readers. Despite this fact, he still works to subtly undermine and cautiously subvert – where practically feasible – the power-base of dominant social and political structures, along with the prevailing hegemonic discourse which underlies them. The final chapter was meant to bring all of the collected data to bear on the meaning and function of good works in 1 Peter. We began by delineating the subversive nature of this prominent theme. Rather than portraying good works as acts by which the readers might accommodate Greco-Roman society, the Petrine author seems to depict this conduct in such a way that it would be perceived as a means of subverting oppressive powers. This is evidenced by the fact that the referent and standard of “goodness” is redefined in a way that departs significantly from the traditional understanding. The theological value assigned to good deeds derives not from their congruence with the wider culture, but from the fact that such behavior is instrumental in attaining God’s eschatological salvation. As such, the author expects this type of behavior to be met with further hostility, not acceptance. This subversive nature of good works was then considered with regard to the letter’s social strategy. What we argued was that the prominent good works motif in 1 Peter represents an attempt to cautiously resist the hegemonic discourse and structures of domination which prevented the audience from achieving positive social outcomes. Drawing on postcolonial perspectives and social psychology, we showed how the theme inverts traditional understandings of “goodness” as a way of helping the recipients cope with their disadvantaged situation. Once we clearly delineated 1 Peter’s social strat-

Conclusion

279

egy of good works, we then sought to evaluate its overall effectiveness for the letter’s marginalized readers. What we found is that even though the author’s intentions may have been subversive, the inversion of popular language tends to reinscribe many of the values and structures which the letter is designed to contradict. There are at least two important contributions which these conclusions make to the field of New Testament research. First, with regard to its application in Petrine studies, this work resolves a crucial difficulty in the diagnosis of the letter’s social strategy. For decades, scholars have debated the goals and purposes of 1 Peter. But, in spite of much discussion, some of the more pressing questions still remain unresolved. What few have been able to achieve is a satisfactory means of reconciling the letter’s accommodation, on the one hand, and resistance, on the other. At the heart of this problem lies the author’s call to “do good.” While agreement on the larger social aims has been elusive, a solid consensus has formed around the meaning and function of this central theme. Even among those who see elements of social resistance in 1 Peter there is a tendency to regard the exhortation to “do good” as a facet of the letter that represents accommodation to the wider society. By exposing the weaknesses of this established opinion, we have challenged many of the traditional readings of 1 Peter. At the same time, by showing how the instruction to “do good” envisages a pattern of conduct – oriented toward what God approves as “good” – that does not conform to social expectations, the fresh perspective which we have offered on the good works theme has charted a new course for the way in which the letter’s social strategy is understood. This theme can no longer be placed unambiguously on the side of “social accommodation,” but instead encapsulates the sense of cautious resistance which the author seems to promote. Second, the present work also makes an important contribution to the modern discussion on early Christian identity in the Greco-Roman world. In particular, it reveals the important, formative influence of social conflict. It was common among interpreters from previous generations to view the New Testament references to good works as a late, apologetic attempt to defend the faith against outside hostility. This assumption had an important impact on how scholars understood the construction of early Christian identity. Through a closer look at the evidence, we have shown that in 1 Peter, the good works theme plays an important part in a much different social strategy. By adopting the language of social and political elites and then transforming it for the sake of his marginal communities, the Petrine author provides his readers with a newly constituted and highly esteemed social identity. This strategy is instructive for a number of reasons. Foremost among them is the fact that it represents one of the earliest examples of how Christian identity came to be shaped by strong outside opposition. Rather than urging his readers to “do good” as a means to lessen social conflict and to accommodate Greco-Roman society, the Petrine author constructs a distinctive Christian identity by adopting, transforming, and subverting this language and thereby (cautiously) challenging a hostile world.

Appendix One

Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians While the scarcity of economic data makes quantifying the disposable income of a first-century Anatolian household a difficult task, from the limited amount of extant data a composite picture can be constructed which can (tentatively) inform our discussion. An important point of methodological clarification is that our investigation will seek to reconstruct the economic conditions of a household in the middle strata of the economic hierarchy.1 This decision is based on two considerations. First, the poorest members of the community, who were struggling just to meet necessary subsistence requirements, would have lacked the financial means of achieving any kind of economic surplus. Second, on the other end of the spectrum, few (if any) early Christian communities would have contained members of the provincial/municipal elite; therefore, the economic surplus which could be amassed by this group need not be factored into our equation. With this consideration in mind, we will turn to the economic data.

A. Expenses of a Middling Household in Roman Anatolia We will begin at the most basic level: the size of an Anatolian household. From the census returns of Roman Egypt, Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier calculate the average size of principal resident families at 4.3 persons.2 This number increases slightly, however, when all the members of a given household (e.g., aged parents, 1   For a full discussion of middling households in urban areas across the Roman Empire, see Emanuel Mayer, The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire, 100 BCE–250 CE (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012). 2   Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 23; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 67–69. While this figure may seem too small, it is not as implausible as it first appears. The crucial factor in keeping the number low, as Bagnall and Frier point out, is the high-mortality rate. Under these conditions, average family size rarely exceeds five persons (see Ansley J. Coale, “Estimates of Average Size of Household,” in Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure [eds. A. J. Coale, et al.; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965] 64–69; Thomas K. Burch, “Some Demographic Determinants of Average Household Size: An Analytic Approach,” in Household and Family in Past Time: Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last Three Centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with further Materials from Western Europe [ed. P. Laslett; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972] 91–102).

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

281

slaves, extended family) are taken into account. In urban areas across Roman Egypt, the size of the average household was approximately 5.31 persons.3 This latter figure most closely approximates the needs and costs of the average Anatolian family, because it accounts for all of the financial dependents in a familial group. Therefore, it will be the household size from which our study works. Our average Anatolian household will include five members: an adult female (60–69 years old), an adult male (20–39 years old), an adult female (20–39 years old), a male child (13–15 years old), and a female child (10–12 years old). The cost of food, which normally served as the largest expense, will be our starting point.4 Here our focus will be on basic calorific intake needed to sustain human life. The nutritional requirements necessary for maintaining human existence have been repeatedly and carefully examined by numerous researchers. From these studies, a variety of projections have been made.5 For the purposes of the present study, however, we have chosen to adopt the figures drawn up by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization.6 Applied to our five-member household, the projections are as follows: Table 5: Nutritional Requirements of an Anatolian Household Member

Age

Calories/day

Adult female

60–69 years old

1,947

Adult male

20–39 years old

3,337

Adult female

20–39 years old

2,434

Male child

13–15 years old

3,237

Female child

10–12 years old

2,350

3   This estimate can be compared with other approximations from this same area, e.g., Marcel Hombert and Claire Préaux, Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Égypte romaine: (P. Bruxelles Inv. E. 7616) (Papyrological Lugduno-Batava 5; Lugdunum Batavorum: Brill, 1952) 154–55 (5.8 persons); Keith Hopkins, “Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (1980) 303–54 (5.1 persons). In Egyptian villages, Deborah W. Hobson, “House and Household in Roman Egypt,” Yale Classical Studies 28 (1985) 211–29, estimate an average of 7.3 persons per household. 4   It has been estimated that in pre–industrial societies, the urban poor (which would have included the majority of the readers) spent approximately 60–80 percent of their income on procuring food (Carlo M. Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution: European Society and Economy 1000–1700 [3rd ed.; London: Routledge, 1993] 24). 5   E.g., Judith Wills, The Food Bible (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998) 12, gives figures of 1,940 calories for women under 50 and 2,550 calories for men; Peter Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 19–20, suggests a diet consisting of 1,625–2,012 calories per day. 6   Energy and Protein Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Ad Hoc Expert Committee, Rome, 22 March–2 April 1971 (FAO Nutrition Meetings Report Series 52; Technical Report Series (WHO) 522; Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1973). One of the

282

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

When these numbers are added up, our average Anatolian household would require a total of 13,305 calories (or 2,661 calories per person/day) in order to sustain human existence. In the Greco-Roman world, the primary food source through which most of these calories would be consumed was wheat.7 But how much wheat was necessary in order to meet these minimum calorific requirements (using the metrological calculation 1 standard Roman modius = 8.6185 liters,8 holding 6.65 kg9 of Italian wheat)? One feasible solution to this question has been proposed by Peter Garnsey. He suggests that the average wheat consumption needed to maintain human exis-

primary reasons for choosing these figures is because they allow for the active lifestyles of those under consideration. While lower projections might provide bare minimum subsistence allowances, they would not allow individuals to adequately carry out necessary lifestyle functions for very long. 7   In classical antiquity, the only other food grain consumed on a substantial scale was barley. But during this time, the importance of barley was decreasing, and there was a clear preference for wheat (Athenaeus, Deip. 3.113A; Aristophanes, Wasps 717–718; see Naum Jasny, “Competition Among Grains in Classical Antiquity,” American Historical Review 47 [1942] 747–64; idem, The Wheats of Classical Antiquity [Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science 62/3; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1944]). In fact, the dislike for barley was so great that it was sometimes issued to slaves and soldiers as punishment (F. Orth, “Gerste,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft [eds. A. F. von Pauly, et al.; vol. 7/1; Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1910] 1275–84). 8  See Richard Duncan-Jones, “The Choenix, the Artaba and the Modius,” ZPE 21 (1976) 43–52 (51–52). Compare this calculation with other previous proposals, e.g., Vicente Vázquez Queipo, Essai sur les systèmes métriques et monétaires des anciens peuples, depuis les premiers temps historiques jusqu’à la fin du khalifat d’Orient (Paris: Dalmont et Dunod, 1859) 2:444, who suggested 8.67 liters; and Friedrich Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie (2nd ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1882) 122–26, who calculated the volume at 8.75 liters. 9   A range of figures is used to estimate the volume of dry wheat per standard modius. Some work from a measurement of 6.5 kg of wheat (so, e.g., Willem Jongman, The Economy and Society of Pompeii [Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 4; Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1988] 195 n.  2). Others prefer the slightly higher figure of 6.55 kg (so, e.g., M. I. Rostovtzeff, “Frumentum,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft [eds. A. F. von Pauly, et al.; vol. 7; Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1910] 126–87 [149]; Zuiderhoek, The Politics of Munificence, 4 n.  3). Many work from the calculation of 6.75 kg of wheat per modius (so, e.g., Raymond W. Goldsmith, “An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire,” Review of Income and Wealth 30 [1984] 263–88 [266]; Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 263 n.  33; Dennis P. Kehoe, The Economics of Agriculture on Roman Imperial Estates in North Africa [Hypomnemata 89; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988] 15). The number has even reached as high as 6.8 kg (so, e.g., Dominic Rathbone, “Earnings and Costs: Living Standards and the Roman Economy (First to Third Centuries AD),” in Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems [eds. A. K. Bowman and A. Wilson; Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009] 299–326 [301]). Yet, if one liter of wheat weighed approximately 0.772 kg, as Lin Foxhall and H. A. Forbes (“Σιτομετρία: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity,” Chiron 12 [1982] 41–90 [43–44]) have shown, then 8.6185 liters (the volume of one standard modius) would hold 6.653482 kg (or 6.65 kg, if rounded down) of wheat (cf. Barbara Levick, The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook [2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 2000] xix).

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

283

tence would have been 230 kg/person/year.10 Support for this figure is found in the Athenian grain-tax law of 374/373 BCE, which provides the weight and volume ratios of wheat and barley: one choinix of (dried) barley weighed 545 grams; one choinix of (dried) wheat 655 grams (SEG 48 [1998] no. 96, ll. 21–25). If a choinix was the daily ration for one individual, then a yearly total of wheat would be 239 kg (655 grams = 0.655 kg/day or 239 kg/year). This number is nearly equivalent to that proposed by Garnsey. A somewhat higher projection, and one that is probably closer to the actual levels of consumption by mid-level households in Asia Minor, is that of Colin Clark and Margaret Rosary Haswell.11 On the assumption of a minimal extraction rate of 10% (i.e., in the process of removing part of the bran, 1 kg of wheat will be milled down to 900 grams),12 the authors projected that in order to meet the minimum calorific requirements necessary to sustain life a person would need between 190 and 235 kg of unmilled grain per year. But considering that even among the most impoverished societies there is a desire for variety, Clark and Haswell increase these numbers slightly to account for the acquisition of nutritionally less efficient food such as fruits and vegetables.13 This additional factor takes the level of subsistence to 250– 300 kg of wheat equivalent per person/year.14 10  Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 104. Cf. Scheidel and Friesen, “The Size of the Economy,” 65 n.  16. 11   Colin Clark and Margaret Rosary Haswell, The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture (3rd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1967) 53–77. Cf. Keith Hopkins, “Rome, Taxes, Rents, and Trade,” Kodai 6/7 (1995/96) 41–75; reprinted as idem, “Rome, Taxes, Rents, and Trade,” in The Ancient Economy (eds. W. Scheidel and S. von Reden; New York: Routledge, 2002) 190–230 (197–98), who proposes 250 kg of wheat equivalent. For comparison sake, in mid–15th century Florence, wheat consumption has been estimated at 250 kg (or 39 modii) per person (see William Roscoe, Life of Lorenzo de Medici, called the Magnificent [London: Routledge, 1883] 406 n.  1, drawing from the unpublished work “Inventiva d’una impositione di nuova gravezza” by Lodovico Ghetti). 12  For triticum and unmoistened siligo the normal extraction rate appears to have been almost 10%, see Naum Jasny, “Wheat Prices and Milling Costs in Classical Rome,” Wheat Studies of the Food Research Institute 20 (1944) 137–70 (154); Ludwig A. Moritz, Grain-Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) 184–209. 13   On foods that might supplement the grain-heavy diet of classical antiquity, see John K. Evans, “Plebs rustica. The Peasantry of Classical Italy, II: The Peasant Economy,” American Journal of Ancient History 5 (1980) 134–73. In some cases, peasants would collect wild plants to provide a free supplement (see Joan M. Frayn, “Wild and Cultivated Plants: A Note on the Peasant Economy of Ancient Italy,” JRS 65 [1975] 32–39). 14   When these figures are applied to our average Anatolian household, the following distribution seems appropriate: (1) adult female (60–69 years old) = 250 kg; (2) adult male (20–39 years old) = 300 kg; (3) adult female (20–39 years old) = 270 kg; (4) male child (13–15 years old) = 290 kg; (5) female child (10–12 years old) = 260 kg. These totals average out to about 275 kg/person. Similar numbers are found in the annual allowances for Roman soldiers (cf. Polybius, Hist. 6.39.12–14). Each soldier received 3.5 bushels of unmilled grain (7.5 kg per bushel) per month, which comes out to an annual allotment of 315 kg of grain (Peter Herz, “Finances and Costs of the Roman Army,” in A Companion to the Roman Army [ed. P. Erdkamp; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007] 306–22 [315]), or to put it terms of modii, the basic ration for a soldier was 4 modii (or approximately 26.6 kg) of unmilled grain per month, an equivalent of 319 kg per annum (Dominic Rathbone,

284

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

Across the Roman Empire, the price of wheat varied according to location and the productivity of local harvest. In Judea, during the late-first century CE to the early-third century CE, the price ranged between HS 4 and HS 16 per modius.15 Some of the lowest prices in the Empire could be found in the land of Egypt. Collections of numerous texts from the first three centuries CE show an average price range of HS 2 to HS 2.5 per modius.16 In Italy, the price of a modius of wheat during the first century would have been around HS 4.17 The only explicit reference to the price of wheat in first-century CE Asia Minor can be found in an inscription from Pisidian Antioch (93/94 CE). After a winter shortage, the Roman governor ordered surplus wheat to be sold at no more than 1 denarius (= HS 4) per modius. Prior to this point, the price had been 8 or 9 asses (= HS 2 to 2.25) per modius (AE [1925] no. 126b).18 Based on these prices, ancient historians tend to calculate the average cost of wheat during the first century CE at HS 3 per modius.19 If we assume that this was the “Warfare and the State: Military Finance and Supply,” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. 2: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire [eds. P. Sabin, et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007] 158–76 [169–70]). These projections find further support in the living allowances cited in Roman legal sources (see Bruce W. Frier, “Subsistence Annuities and per Capita Income in the Early Roman Empire,” CP 88 [1993] 222–30) and in the rations apportioned for slaves (Cato, Agr. 56; see also Heinrich Michaelis, “Kritische würdigung der preise des edictum Diocletiani vom nationalökonomischen standpunkte aus,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 53 [1897] 1–29 [4]). What is interesting is that, according to Sallust (Hist. 3.48 Mb), Roman prisoners received a little less than 5 modii per month. 15   These figures come from rabbinic texts discussed by Daniel Sperber, Roman Palestine, 200–400: Money and Prices (2nd ed.; Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991) 102. The price is based on the assumption that one se’ah = one modius. If one se’ah = one modius castrensis (or 1.5 standard modii), as argued by F. M. Heichelheim (“Roman Syria,” in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4: Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor [ed. T. Frank; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938] 121–257 [181]), then the range would be HS 2.67 to HS 10.67 per modius. 16   See the evidence discussed by Richard Duncan-Jones, “The Price of Wheat in Roman Egypt under the Principate,” Chiron 6 (1976) 241–62; idem, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 143–55; and Dominic Rathbone, “Prices and Price Formation in Roman Egypt,” in Économie antique: prix et formation des prix dans les économies antiques (eds. J. Andreau, et al.; Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire 3; Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges: Musée archéologique départemental, 1997) 183–244. 17  Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 345–47. 18   This example from the small colony of Pisidian Antioch illustrates the effect of location on the cost of wheat. Much like the rest of the Empire, larger urban areas tended to create higher prices; whereas prices seem to be lower in smaller cities. According to Dio Chrysostom (Or. 46.10), the price of wheat at the small town of Prusa (Bithynia) was less in times of crisis than that of some other cities when costs were at their lowest. This would explain why the price of bread at a large city like Ephesus was so high (note, e.g., I.Ephesos nos. 910, 923, 938). Cicero, in fact, notes that the grain prices in the city (Ephesus) were much higher than those in the smaller community of Philomelium (Verr. 2.3.191). Evidence from a later period also seems to confirm this disparity between the prices in large and small communities. In the mid–fourth century CE, the cost of wheat in the city of Syrian Antioch (one of the largest cities in the Empire) was double the normal price in Egypt (Julian, Misopogon 369). 19   So, e.g., Rostovtzeff, “Frumentum,” 149; Eugène Cavaignac, Population et capital dans le monde méditteranéen antique (Publications de la Faculté des lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

285

price paid by our average Anatolian household, then the annual cost of wheat would have been HS 563.91 to 676.68 (= 140.98 to 169.17 denarii).20 Aside from wheat (and barley), there were a variety of foodstuffs which had become staples in the diets of antiquity. One of these substances was olive oil. Since oil could be used for a variety of purposes (e.g., as foodstuff; in preparation of medicines, unguents, and perfumes; as a cleansing agent if rubbed on the body; burned in lamps for light; as all-purpose lubricant), it was a common expense in most ancient budgets. It has been estimated that in antiquity the average annual consumption rate of olive oil was 20 liters per person.21 While this figure might be somewhat low, especially if we are concerned with the expenses of middle income households, it is generally accepted as a basic standard, and so it will be the number adopted here.22 If, then, we assume that the average (five member) Anatolian household would require approximately 100 liters of olive oil per year, what would be the total cost? One projection comes from Tenney Frank’s work on prices in the Roman Republic. According to Frank, during the third and second centuries BCE, the price of oil can be located somewhere around 0.4 denarius per liter. In the late first century BCE, however, there was a slight inflation as prices increased to 0.5–0.75 denarius per 18; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923) 136; Geoffrey Rickman, The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980) 144–55; Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 50–51, 145–46, 345–56; Peter Garnsey and Richard P. Saller, The Early Principate: Augustus to Trajan (New Surveys in the Classics 15; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982) 15. 20   The calculations are as follows: 250–300 kg of wheat equivalent/person/year × 5 people = 1,250–1,500 kg/year ÷ 6.65 kg (the volume of 1 modius) = 187.97–225.56 modii/year at HS 3/modius = HS 563.91–676.68 (= 140.98–169.17 denarii) per year. 21   David J. Mattingly, “First Fruit? The Olive in the Roman World,” in Human Landscape in Classical Antiquity: Environment and Culture (eds. G. Shipley and J. Salmon; Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 6; London/New York: Routledge, 1996) 213–53 (239); J. Theodore Peña, The Urban Economy during the Early Dominate: Pottery Evidence from the Palatine Hill (BARIS 784; Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999) 20. Divergent figures have been proposed for classical Athens. For instance, Marie-Claire Amouretti (Le pain et l’huile dans la Grèce antique: de l’araire au moulin [Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 328; Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 67; Paris: Belles Lettres, 1986] 177–96) has suggested an average of 15 to 28 liters/person/year in classical Attica, while Lin Foxhall (Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007] 85–95) estimates that wealthy Athenian households used approximately 200–330 kg (= 220–363 liters) of olive oil (for food, bathing, and lighting) per year. 22   If compared with data from elsewhere, the number falls somewhere in the middle. When we consider that in modern Methana, the average rate of olive oil consumption is 50 kg (= 55 liters) per person/year (H. A. Forbes, “Strategies and Soils: Technology, Production and Environment in the Peninsula of Methana, Greece,” [Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1982] 177), then the projection seems fairly low. However, evidence from the Mishna tends to situate this figure on the high side. According to the m. Ketub. 5.8, the minimum amount of oil with which a husband was required to supply his wife was half a log per week. Therefore, each person was apportioned a minimum of 26 logs of oil annually. If 1 se’ah = 24 logs = 8.54 liters, then each person would need 9.26 liters per annum (see Zeev Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine [London/New York: Routledge, 1994] 125–26).

286

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

liter.23 These calculations appear to find validity in an episode recounted (twice) by Josephus. In J.W. 2.591–592, Josephus tells the story of a man from Gischala named John, son of Levi, who purchased olive oil at the price of 1 denarius per amphora (presumably holding 25.9 liters) in Galilee and then sold it for eight times that price (or 0.31 denarius per liter) to the Judeans dwelling in Syria.24 However, this same story is recounted in his Life, with slightly different figures. In this later account, Josephus says that John purchased the oil at a price of 2.4 denarii per amphora from the town of Gischala and then sold it to Judeans living in Caesarea Philippi at an inflated cost of 24 denarii per amphora (or 0.93 denarius per liter) (Life 74–75).25 If we take these projections (0.5–0.75 denarius per liter) as a standard price range in the first century CE, then our average Anatolian household would spend approximately 50–75 denarii per year on olive oil. Another food item that would have been a staple in the diet of mid-level Anatolian households is meat. It is not uncommon for scholars to claim that within antiquity meat was a luxury item that only the wealthy could afford.26 The inadequacy of this perspective has, nonetheless, been demonstrated time and again from the ancient source material.27 From the biblical texts alone, we discover that meat was consumed regularly enough to create problems within early Christian congregations (see Rom 14.1–15.6; 1 Cor 8–10). The more pertinent questions then are: how much meat was consumed? and what was the total cost?   Tenney Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 1: Rome and Italy of the Republic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1933) 200, 220. Cf. H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC (5th ed.; London: Routledge, 2003) 357. 24   Ordinarily, olive oil was not considered to be a large-profit investment in classical antiquity (see Pliny, Nat. 18.38; cf. Cato, Agr. 1.7). 25   According to Josephus (Life 75), the free-market rate at which John purchased oil was 1 sextarius for 0.05 drachma/denarius, while his selling rate was 1 sextarius for 0.5 drachma/denarius. Given that 1 sextarius = 1/48 amphora and 1 amphora = 25.9 liters, then 1 amphora (at 0.05 drachma/denarius per sextarius) would cost 2.4 denarii (or 0.09 denarius per liter) and 1 amphora (at 0.5 drachma/denarius per sextarius) would be sold at 24 denarii (or 0.93 denarius per liter). 26   So, e.g., Magen Broshi, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: Introductory Notes,” Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986) 41–56; repr. in idem, Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (JSPSup 36; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 121–43 (132–33). In earlier scholarship, this was also a common claim made about the Roman army, based on texts such as Tacitus, Ann. 14.24 and Caesar, Bell. gall. 7.17 (see, e.g., H. M. D. Parker, The Roman Legions [Oxford: Clarendon, 1928] 220; cf. also Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth [trans. J. H. Schütz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] 126). This supposition has proved to be untenable, however. Meat was clearly a part of the average Roman soldier’s diet throughout the Imperial period (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 4.3). For a discussion, see Roy W. Davies, “The Roman Military Diet,” Britannia 11 (1971) 122–42 (138–41); Paul Erdkamp, Hunger and the Sword: Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican Wars (264–30 B.C.) (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 20; Amsterdam: Gieben, 1998) 31–33; Jonathan Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. – A.D. 235) (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 23; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 27–32. 27   A. King, “Diet in the Roman World: A Regional Inter-Site Comparison of Mammal Bones,” JRA 12 (1999) 168–202. Cf. also Mireille Corbier, “The Ambiguous Status of Meat in Ancient Rome,” Food and Foodways 3 (1989) 223–64; Justin J. Meggitt, “Meat Consumption and Social Conflict in Corinth,” JTS 45 (1994) 137–41. 23

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

287

In the Roman army, it has been estimated that each soldier consumed about onehalf a pound (163 grams) of meat per day.28 The price is more difficult to discern because of the lack of pertinent data.29 Some of the few actual figures that are preserved in the source material come from second-century CE Palestine. Here different carcasses of cattle range between 4 to 50 denarii (m. B. Qam. 3.9; b. B. Qam 34b). In the absence of any specific prices, we might tentatively place the annual cost of meat for a mid-level household at somewhere between 75–100 denarii. But, of course, we recognize that this is the most speculative of our projections. A final consideration when calculating average household costs is the price and consumption of wine by a given family. In the city of Rome, André Tchernia has estimated wine consumption at 146–182 liters (= 5.64 to 7.01 amphora) per person/ year.30 This is well below the figures supplied by Cato the Elder, whose field hands were apportioned 7–10 amphora (= 181.3 to 259 liters) of wine per person/year (Cato, Agr. 57). Given that our concern is with an average household (including individuals of varying consumption needs), the suggestion by Tchernia appears to be a reasonable approximation which could be applied to the population of Asia Minor. Calculating the cost of wine is a little more difficult, however. What one discovers is a large disparity between prices across the Empire. In a city like Pompeii, the price of wine, which varied according to quality, ranged from HS 12 to HS 24 to even HS 48 per amphora (CIL IV no. 1679). These numbers seem to be slightly higher in the city of Herculaneum (CIL IX no. 2689: HS 24, HS 36, HS 48, and HS 54 per amphora). But the highest prices, of course, came from Rome. During the mid-second century CE, wine prices in the capital ranged from HS 61 to HS 88 per amphora (CIL VI no. 10234 = ILS no. 7213; cf. AE [1937] no. 161).31 The inflated prices of Italy were not representative of the entire Empire, however. Based on an inference from customs dues, Tenney Frank calculates the price of wine in Spain, which was 28  Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army, 32. A late Roman papyrus from Egypt lists a soldier’s ration as either 1 or 1/2 libra of meat per day (CPL no. 199 [398 CE]). The problem is that the precise figure depends on one’s interpretation of the text. 29   Little quantitative data from the early Imperial period has survived. From the Later Roman Empire, we know that Valentinian III fixed price at 270 pounds per solidus for Numidia and Mauretania, and in 452 CE, a guild of butchers in Rome sold pork at 240 pounds per solidus (see A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social Economic and Administrative Survey [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964] 1:446). Prior to this we also have Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, which sets the cost of meat from 8 denarii for a pound of beef to 12 denarii for a pound of pork all the way up to 24 denarii for a pound of sow’s matrix (Edict on Maximum Prices 4). 30   André Tchernia, Le vin de l’Italie romaine: essai d’histoire économique d’après les amphores (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 261; Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1986) 21–27, 58–60. An average rate of consumption of 100 liters/person/year is assumed by Greg S. Aldrete and David J. Mattingly (“Feeding the City: The Organization, Operation, and Scale of the Supply System for Rome,” in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire [eds. D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999] 171–204 [195]), but this seems a little too low. In modern Methana, adult males drank over 1 liter of homemade wine per day (Foxhall and Forbes, “The Role of Grain as a Staple Food,” 68). 31   See Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 364–65.

288

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

known to have much lower prices than Italy (Polybius, Hist. 34.8.6; cf. Martial, Ep. 12.76), at somewhere between HS 8 and HS 12 per amphora.32 These figures afford us with the basic materials for approximating the cost-range of wine for the average Anatolian family. Based on an estimated wine consumption at 146–182 liters (= 5.64 to 7.01 amphora) per person/year,33 an average household of five in a large urban area like Ephesus might spend HS 338.4 (= 84.6 denarii) to HS 420.6 (= 105.15 denarii) per year on cheap wine (HS 12). In smaller urban communities such as Prusa in Bithynia, this same family might pay anywhere from HS 225.6 (= 56.4 denarii) to HS 280.4 (= 70.1 denarii) for cheap wine (HS 8) per annum. Clothing is another expense that all households would have to include in their annual budget. Each year, or possibly every other year, members of the household would require shoes and various garments. This expenditure can clearly be seen in the living costs which Cato the Elder provided for the slaves on his farm. Every other year, he supplied each slave with a tunic, a blanket, and a pair of wooden shoes (Cato, Agr. 59). For those who resided at a mid-level economic position, other accessories might also be added to this list (e.g., jewelry and other forms of ornamentation).34 The prices of these items, of course, varied depending on the article and its quality. In Rome, a new pair of shoes is said to have cost HS 9–12 (Seneca, Ben. 7.21.2); whereas a toga might range anywhere from HS 12, for one of lesser quality (Martial, Ep. 9.100), to more than HS 120, for one whose quality was much higher (Martial, Ep. 4.26). In first and second-century CE Roman Palestine, a Jewish tallith (inner garment) could cost as little as 8 denarii for a small (children’s?) size, but ordinarily these garments would have averaged around 20–25 denarii, with some even being priced as high as 50 denarii.35 Likewise, with the outer garment (chaluk), one might pay 8 denarii for a smaller (children’s?) size, but on average the price normally ran somewhere between 12 to 25 denarii.36 From this same area, a good slave suit was priced at 30 denarii (m. ‘Arak. 6.5). If we apportion a total of 20 denarii/year for 32   Tenney Frank, “On the Export Tax of Spanish Harbors,” AJP 57 (1936) 87–90. Columella (Rust. 3.3.10) says that in Nero’s time the cheapest wine sold at wholesale (on the farm) at HS 300 for 40 urns (525 liters). 33   For clarification purposes, we are using the following measurement conversions: 1 amphora = 1 quadrantal = 25.9 liters; 1 sextarius = 1/48 amphora. 34   The author of 1 Peter clearly expected some of his readers to own, or at least be able to own, jewelry and costly apparel (1 Pet 3.3). Even for those who could not afford to spend extravagant sums on ornamentation (as seen in Suetonius, Jul. 50.2; Pliny, Nat. 9.58; Petronius, Satyr. 67), there were nevertheless cheaper alternatives. Manufacturers often copied the designs of expensive pieces of jewelry using cheaper metals (see A. T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion [Stround: Tempus, 2000] 114). 35   Examples of Jewish tallith prices include: 8 denarii (t. Me‛il 2.10); 12 denarii (m. Me‛il 6.4); 20 denarii (t. Bek. 6.13; t. ‘Arak. 4.2); 25 denarii (t. B. Mesi’a 3.14); 50 denarii (t. Šeqal. 2.8; t. Me‛il 1.23). 36   Examples of Jewish chaluk prices include: 8 denarii (t. Me‛il 2.10); 12–25 denarii (m. Me‛il 6.4); 20–24 denarii (t. B. Mesi’a 3.16); 24 denarii (t. Me‛il 2.10).

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

289

each household member, then the annual clothing costs would amount to 100 denarii.37 Part of the expenses of any Anatolian household would have included the payment of taxes. In the Roman Empire, inhabitants were subject to both direct and indirect taxation. The latter, which made up the bulk of Imperial tax income, involved tax on persons and property (tributum capitis/soli).38 Consequently, its greatest affect was on those in rural communities, leaving urban dwellers (in principle) exempt from many of these costs. However, since peasants in the countryside had difficulties producing the cash reserve needed to make these payments, the bill was usually the responsibility of cities, and at times, wealthy benefactors stepped in and paid much (or all) of the dues.39 Indirect taxation involved payment on transactions such as inheritance, manumission of slaves, and the import/export of goods. But, again, given the frequency of their occurrence, an urban household might not be greatly affected.40 Given these considerations, a reasonable approximation for taxes each year, as suggested by Keith Hopkins, is HS 15 per person (or almost 20 denarii total).41 37   An annual allotment of 20 denarii seems to be a reasonable sum. We might compare this figure to annuity payments left by a certain Aurelius Symphorus (Dig. 34.3.28). According to the jurist Scaevola, Symphorus had served as personal surety on behalf of the tutor of two brothers, both minors. Subsequently, in his will, Symphorus left a legacy for each boy which included HS 5,000 upon reaching the age of fourteen plus a small annuity until then. The annuity consisted of monthly payments of 6 denarii each for maintenance and a yearly payment of 25 denarii each for clothing (cf. Dig. 10.2.39.2 [25 denarii/year]; 34.1.20.3 [50 aurei/year]; 34.4.30 [125 denarii/year]). 38   Lutz Neesen, Untersuchungen zu den direkten Staatsabgaben der römischen Kaiserzeit (27 v. Chr. – 284 n. Chr.) (Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte 32; Bonn: Habelt, 1980). In previous periods, we also hear of direct taxation on the people of Asia Minor: M. Segre, “Iscrizioni di Licia, I: Tolomeo di Telmesso,” Clara Rhodos 9 (1938) 181–208 (190 – poll tax); Michael Wörrle, “Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens, III: Ein hellenistischer Königsbrief aus Telmessos,” Chiron 9 (1979) 83–111 (83 – artisan tax). For a fuller discussion on taxation in the cities of Roman Anatolia, see Schwarz, Soll oder Haben? 39   IGR IV nos. 181, 259; cf. ILS no. 6960; IG XII,5 no. 946. 40   Concerning export/import taxes, Mitchell (Anatolia I, 257) notes, “It is hard to believe that more than about 10 per cent of goods that circulated in the cash economy crossed the boundaries of customs.” Part of this was due to the fact that in the time period with which we are concerned (late-first century CE), the Anatolian economy was still in its infancy. Increased mass-production and long-distance trade developed sometime later. The production of olive oil is one example. During the early Principate, production seems to have been designed around the needs of local markets, especially in the inland portions of the continent. It was not until the later Roman Empire that production and large-scale distribution increased (Stephen Mitchell, “Olive Cultivation in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor,” in Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor [eds. S. Mitchell and C. Katsari; Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2005] 83–113). 41   Keith Hopkins, “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C. – A.D. 400),” JRS 70 (1980) 101–25 (120). Hopkins’ notion of a low tax–rate is seriously called into question by P. A. Brunt (“The Revenues of Rome,” JRS 71 [1981] 161–72 [170–71]), based on the numerous complaints referred to in the ancient sources. As such, our projected expenditure on taxes might need to be increased. But it is difficult to assess how urban traders and merchants would have been affected by these tax burdens compared to rural farmers.

290

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

A further cost in the overall budget of the average Anatolian household would be housing rental. Since few families would have been wealthy enough to own a home, we must consider the cost of leasing a room(s) in one of the apartment buildings located in various cities. But again, much as is the case with other areas of economic quantification, we are forced to work from a very meager amount of data. When it comes to basic rental prices of mid- to low-income families in Roman society, no accurate statistics have survived. Nevertheless, based on a small amount of evidence from lease payments procured by wealthy elites, Bruce W. Frier suggests that a decent rental house may have cost HS 500 (= 125 denarii) per year.42 A slightly lower projection is offered by Frank, who proposes an annual cost of HS 360 (= 90 denarii).43 Although these figures are merely educated conjectures, they could serve as a basic price range for mid- to low-income housing.44 As such, they would reveal the high cost of accommodation in the Roman world. In order to cover all expenses not included in the previous categories, we have added a section for miscellaneous costs. This allows us to account for things like business expenses (e.g., buying or repairing equipment), household appliances (e.g., dishes, pots, etc), payments for the bathhouse, or any of the other variety of costs that may have arisen for an average Anatolian household. The total which we have designated for this category of expenses is 25–50 denarii per year. When all of the expenses of the mid-level Anatolian household are calculated, the following totals are generated. On the low end of the scale are those who live in urban areas with a small population and whose spending limits only rise slightly above the basic needs of the family. In this case, an Anatolian household might expect to spend approximately 557 denarii annually.45 On the other end of the spectrum, are those who are located in large urban centers and whose spending greatly exceeds minimum levels of subsistence and necessity. The total yearly expenditure for this household would be around 744 denarii.

42   Bruce W. Frier, “The Rental Market in Early Imperial Rome,” JRS 67 (1977) 27–37 (34). For an examination of the social and economic aspects of housing rental, see Bruce W. Frier, Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980) 21–47. 43  Frank, Rome and Italy of the Republic, 385 (although cf. p. 189, where 100 denarii are apportioned for rent). 44   From first and second century CE Roman Palestine, there are two references to house rentals which provide a much broader price-range. In t. B. Mesi’a 4.5, the cost of rent is said to be 48 denarii per year, while t. B. Mesi’a 8.31 records a price of 240 denarii annually. Between these two extremes a price of 100 denarii, which is much closer the projections above, is found in y. B. Mesi’a 4.2 (9D11). 45   Cf. Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (trans. O. C. Dean Jr.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) 80–85, who propose 600–700 denarii as the annual cost of subsistence living for an urban family of four. This figure seems much too high for a minimum subsistence level.

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

291

B. Income of a Middling Household in Roman Anatolia The problem that one runs into when calculating the income of the average Anatolian family is that the wages found in the extant source material are mainly those of common laborers from rural areas, with most deriving from the second century CE or later.46 Therefore, in many cases, we are only able to surmise the earnings of mid-level professions (i.e., those whose earnings placed them in an economic situation between abject poverty and extreme wealth) in the urban environments of the first century CE. Yet, even though precise information is lacking, it is still possible to offer an informed hypothesis. There are two possible methods by which this information could be attained. First, one could reconstruct the financial situation of urban laborers based on the salary of a close economic counterpart: the Roman soldier. Since “[t]he [soldier’s] basic rate of pay from Julius Caesar to Domitian . . . seems to lie in the middle range of civilian earnings,”47 an analysis of a soldier’s wages could be instructive. During most of the first century CE, the salary (stipendium) of Roman a legionary soldier was HS 900 (= 225 denarii) per annum.48 This total was increased to HS 1,200 (=

  A few of the more helpful studies on wages in Greek and Roman antiquity include: János Szilágyi, “Prices and Wages in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire,” Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11 (1963) 325–89; Mireille Corbier, “Salaires et salariat sous le Haut-Empire,” in Les ‘devaluations’ à Rome: époque républicaine et impériale (Gdansk, 19 – 21 octobre 1978) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 37,2; Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1980) 61–101; and Rathbone, “Earnings and Cost,” 299–326. 47   Rathbone, “Earnings and Cost,” 311. 48   Evidence for the exact pay-rate of legionary soldiers is sparse, Tacitus, Ann. 1.17, Suetonius, Dom. 7.3, and Dio Cassius, 67.3.5 being two of the few sources that provide actual monetary figures (although cf. Suetonius, Aug. 49.2; Dio Cassius, 54.25.5–6; M. Alexander Speidel, ed., Die römischen Schreibtafeln von Vindonissa: Lateinische Texte des militärischen Alltags und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung [Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 12; Brugg: Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, 1996] nos. 64–66). Very often documents from Egypt are brought in to supplement the literary record (e.g., Jules Nicole and Charles Morel, eds., Archives militaires du 1er siècle: texte inédit du Papyrus latin de Genève no. 1 [Genève: H. Kündig, 1900] [= P.Gen.Lat.] = Robert Cavenaile, ed., Copus papyrorum Latinarum [Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1956–58] no. 106 = Robert O. Fink, ed., Roman Military Records on Papyrus [Philological Monographs 26; Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 1971] [= RMR] no. 68 [81 CE]; P.Gen. Lat 4 = RMR 69 [ca. 84 CE]; and Hannah M. Cotton and Joseph Geiger, eds., Masada II. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Report. The Latin and Greek Documents [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989] no. 722 [72/75 CE]). Each of these texts is a financial account of a Roman soldier, with a record of various amounts being credited to the individual and certain camp expenses being deducted. Because the money paid into the accounts of the soldiers closely approximates the rates discussed elsewhere, historians regularly interpret these figures as full salaries of Roman soldiers. Yet, given the lack of exact correspondence between these numbers and those in the literary records, this evidence might not reveal as much as some have assumed (cf. Richard Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History [London: Routledge, 1995] 104–105). 46

292

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

300 denarii) in 85 CE49 under the reforms of Domitian.50 But even this raise did not propel them into the upper echelons of provincial society. Those who were single may have been left with a small amount of disposable income,51 but for those who had to support a family, these wages would have produced very little net profit.52 The salaries of higher ranking military officials, on the other hand, were much more generous. For instance, a centurion of the Roman legions earned HS 13,500 (= 3,375 denarii) per year during much of the first century CE, and this rate was increased to HS 18,000 (= 4,500 denarii) under the reforms of Domitian (84 CE). Three positions of greatest interest for our purposes, however, come from the Roman auxiliary forces: the centurio cohortis, the decurio cohortis and the decurio alae. Each of these officers earned a slightly smaller salary than his legionary counterpart, and it is these wages that would appear to be closer to a mid-level urban profession. From Augustus to Domitian (84 CE), each officer earned an annual salary of HS 3,750 (= 937.5 denarii), HS 4,500 (= 1,125 denarii), and HS 5,250 (=

49   Some have argued that these reforms occurred during or after the revolt of Saturninus (88– 89 CE) (so, e.g., J. Brian Campbell, The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 BCE–AD 235 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1984] 185; Johan van Heesch, “Some Aspects of Wage Payments and Coinage in Ancient Rome, First to Third Centuries CE,” in Wages and Currency: Global Comparisons from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century [ed. J. Lucassen; International and Comparative Social History; New York: Peter Lang, 2007] 77–96 [86–87]). 50   On the pay of Roman soldiers, see P. A. Brunt, “Pay and Superannuation in the Roman Army,” Papers of the British School at Rome 18 (1950) 50–71; G. R. Watson, “The Pay of the Roman Army: The Auxiliary Forces,” Historia 8 (1959) 372–78; Jorma Kaimio, “Notes on the Pay of Roman Soldiers,” Arctos 9 (1975) 39–46; Ramsay MacMullen, “The Roman Emperors’ Army Costs,” Latomus 43 (1984) 571–80; Joachim Jahn, “Zur Entwicklung römischer Soldzahlungen von Augustus bis auf Diokletian,” Studien zu den Fundmünzen der Antike 2 (1984) 53–74; M. Alexander Speidel, “Roman Army Pay Scales,” JRS 82 (1992) 87–106; Richard Alston, “Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Diocletian,” JRS 84 (1994) 113–23. 51   From Augustus to Domitian (84 CE), legionary forces grossed HS 900 per annum. The Roman army made the following deductions from this total: HS 240 for rations, HS 36 for boots, and HS 30 for hay. This left a net income of HS 594 (= 148.5 denarii). But even then soldiers had other expenses. As Pecennius, had previously pointed out, with this money “they had to buy clothes, weapons and tents bribe the bullying centurion and purchase a respite from duty” (Tacitus, Ann. 1.17). However, despite these costs, a solider without any other financial commitments could accumulate a modest savings. For instance, in RMR 68, two soldiers are said to have deposited an excess of 206 Egyptian drachmae (= 51.5 denarii) and 166 Egyptian drachmae (41.5 denarii) respectively in a given year. If this rate of savings continued, and if each soldier received a large cash grant (missio nummaria) following an honorable discharge from military service (Res Gestae 16; Dio Cassius, 54.25.5; see Gabriele Wesch-Klein, “Recruits and Veterans,” in A Companion to the Roman Army [ed. P. Erdkamp; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007] 435–50 [439–49]), then he could retire with a considerable sum. 52   There were laws against Roman soldiers entering into recognized marriages (Dig. 23.2.63), but co-habitation along with the bearing and raising of children were still common (see Richard P. Saller and Brent D. Shaw, “Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves,” JRS 74 [1984] 124–56; Sara E. Phang, The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C. – A.D. 235): Law and Family in the Imperial Army [Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 24; Leiden: Brill, 2001]).

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

293

1,312.5 denarii) respectively. These wages were subsequently increased by onethird following the Domitianic reforms. From these figures, it might be possible to draw some conclusions about the income of mid-level professions in the urban centers of first-century CE Asia Minor. But, upon further investigation, we discover that these salaries are somewhat beyond mid-level earnings and much closer to the fortunes of provincial elites. Take, for instance, the annual income of a decurion who possessed only the minimum census requirement for council membership (HS 100,000 = 25,000 denarii). If his fortune is invested in landed property which yields a total of 5% interest, his annual earnings would be 1,250 denarii. This figure closely approximates the salaries of Roman military officials. Therefore, it might be best to seek a different point of comparison. An alternative, although in many respects an essentially supplementary, method of calculating the financial yield of mid-level professions is through a basic comparison with the daily maximum wages set by the edict of Diocletian (301 CE). While it is true that there was considerable disparity between the prices and wages during the first century CE and those set forth in the edict of Diocletian, the latter could serve as a helpful guide for differentiating between the financial yield of various professions. By comparing the maximum earnings for various occupations in the Roman world (even those from a later period), we are afforded at least some idea about the financial stratification that existed and where certain jobs ranked in terms of economic output. To make such a comparison, however, it is necessary to first gain a better understanding of the common laborer’s wage during the first century CE. The most abundant source of information on wages in antiquity are the papyri from Roman Egypt.53 Despite the fact that much of the evidence is outside of the timeframe with which we are concerned, the papyrological sources do provide us with a few glimpses into first-century CE earnings.54 The problem, aside from the 53   For a complete list of wages (mostly from rural areas) in Roman Egypt, see Louis C. West, “The Cost of Living in Roman Egypt,” CP 11 (1916) 293–314 (304–305); Daniel Sperber, “Costs of Living in Roman Palestine, II,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 9 (1966) 182–211 (187–90); Hans-Joachim Drexhage, Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians (Vorarbeiten zu einer Wirtschaftsgeschichte des römischen Ägypten 1; St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991) 412–39. 54   E.g., cultivation of a piece of land for 3 years (112.5 denarii or 37.5 denarii/year – BGU 1123 [13 BCE]); shepherds and foreman (6 denarii/month – P.Lond. 1171 [8 BCE]; assistant shepherd (3 denarii/month – P.Lond. 1171 [8 BCE]); weaver (1/7 denarius per day – P.Oxy. 737 [31–38 CE]); conductei (1/6 denarius per day – P.Oxy. 737 [31–38 CE]); magister (1/4 denarius per day – P.Oxy. 737 [31–38 CE]); household servant (1/10 denarius per day – P.Oxy. 736 [1st century CE]); pruner (5/24 to 7/24 denarius per day – P.Lond. 131 [78 CE]); boys weeding and gathering leaves (1/12 denarius per day – P.Lond. 131 [78 CE]); farm workers (1/8 denarii, 1/7 denarii, 1/6 denarius per day respectively – P.Lond. 131 [79 CE]); bricklayer (1/4 denarius per day – P.Lond. 131 [79 CE]); laborer (4 obols per day – P.Oxy. 985 [90 CE]); guard (10 denarii per month – P.Lond. 701 = P.Gren. II no. 43 [92 CE]); guard (1 drachma, 5 obols per day – P.Oxy. 390 [89–96 CE]).

294

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

fact that the salaries derive mainly from rural areas, is that Egyptian wages (and prices) are much lower than other areas around the Empire; thus, it is difficult to project comparable earnings in Asia Minor. Other areas, however, appear much more promising. From Roman Palestine, there are various sources which estimate an average daily wage for a common laborer at 1 denarius (= HS 4).55 The evidence from Italy suggests a similar earning scheme.56 Consequently, this figure tends to be viewed as a basic standard within modern scholarship.57 What is more uncertain is the total number of days (per year) these wages would be earned. Because there is no direct evidence concerning the average work calendar in Greek and Roman antiquity, we can only surmise the frequency with which work would be commenced. Over the years, scholars have proposed a range of solutions, but none has been able to rise above the status of an educated guess.58 A reasonable projection, which takes into account holidays, the lack of employment, and the affects of slack season in agriculture, might be that the average laborer in the early Imperial period worked a total of 225 days per year.59 According to this cal-

55   Matt 20.4; b. ‘Abod. Zar. 62a; y. Šeb. 8.4; b. B. Bat. 86b–87a; René Dussaud, “Comptes d’ouvriers d’une entreprise funéraire juive,” Syria 4 (1923) 241–49. Nonetheless, smaller daily wages are not uncommon, e.g., 1/2 denarius per day (b. Yoma 35b); 1/4 denarius per day (Lev. Rab. 1.17); 1/24 denarius (m. Šeb. 8.4). 56   During the Republic, a laborer could earn HS 3 per day (Cicero, Rosc. com. 28), and in the fields, HS 2 would pay for one man’s labor plus a yoke of oxen for a day (Cato, Agr. 22.3). Seneca (Ep. 80.7), writing in the early Principate, reports that a slave’s wage was five measures of grain and five denarii (presumably) per month. According to Martial (Ep. 3.7) clients in Rome were given a measly 1.5 denarii per day by their patrons. Cf. also two inscriptions from Pompeii, which give the figures of five asses and one denarius (plus bread) (CIL IV nos. 4000, 6877). 57   So, e.g., Heichelheim, “Roman Syria,” 178–88, esp. 180; Ulrich Kahrstedt, Kulturgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit (2nd ed.; Bern: Francke, 1958) 210–11. For a discussion of the literary and epigraphic evidence (with daily averages ranging from HS 1 to 6.5), see Marcus Prell, Sozialökonomische Untersuchungen zur Armut im antiken Rom: von den Gracchen bis Kaiser Diokletian (Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 77; Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1997) 173–74. 58   E.g., Colin Clark, The Conditions of Economic Progress (3rd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1957) 664, 678 (300 days); Goldsmith, “An Estimate of the Size and Structure,” 269 (200–250 days); Robert C. Allen, “How Prosperous were the Romans?: Evidence from Diocletian’s Price Edict (AD 301),” in Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems (eds. A. K. Bowman and A. Wilson; Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 327–45 (337) (250 days). The range of possibilities is surveyed by Richard Duncan-Jones, “Two Possible Indices of the Purchasing Power of Money in Greek and Roman Antiquity,” in Les ‘Dévaluations’ à Rome, époque républicaine et impériale (Rome, 13–15 novembre 1975) (Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome 37; Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1978) 159–68 (160). 59   For comparison sake, an Irish cottier in the early 19th century is said to have worked approximately 200 days per year (George A. T. O’Brien, The Economic History of Ireland from the Union to the Famine [London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1921] 19). Furthermore, based on his own personal experience, Arye Ben-David (Talmudische Ökonomie: Die Wirtschaft des jüdischen Palästina zur Zeit der Mischna und des Talmud [Hildesheim: Olms, 1974] 65–69, 292) estimates that agriculture workers in Palestine might only find work 200 days out of the year due to weather conditions.

Appendix One: Calculating the Disposable Income of Anatolian Christians

295

culation, the annual income of a common day-laborer would be approximately 225 denarii.60 With this information, we can now compare first-century CE wages with those in place during the time of Diocletian. In his edict on prices and wages in the Roman Empire, the emperor Diocletian set the maximum earnings of a general laborer at 25 denarii communes per day, while a carpenter could earn 50 denarii communes/day and a wall painter 75 denarii communes/day (Edict on Maximum Prices 7.3a, 8). If we convert these percentages to the known wages of the first century CE, we might conclude that while a day-laborer, on average, could make about 1 denarius per day, a carpenter and a wall painter might earn 2 and 3 denarii per day respectively.61 This would mean that someone in the profession of carpentry could earn an annual salary of approximately 450 denarii; whereas a painter might bring home an even greater amount of 675 denarii per year.

60   Interestingly, this was the exact same yearly wage as a Roman legionary soldier prior to Domitian’s pay increase (see above). Further confirmation on the viability of this projection comes from an alimentary foundation created by Pliny the Younger. Upon his death, Pliny left HS 1,866,666 to provide for 100 freedmen (CIL V no. 5262 = ILS no. 2927). Assuming a 6% return on landed property (see Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 33, 132–36), each freedman would receive HS 1,120 (= 280 denarii) annually (cf. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 183 n.  1, who suggests that it would take a minimum of “250 denarii per year to support a laborer and small family in poverty”). 61   I am unaware of any explicit references to the earnings of carpenters and wall painters from the first century CE. Therefore, it is possible that, for some reason or another, these specific projections may be inaccurate. Nevertheless, whether or not these were the actual salaries of the designated professions is unimportant. The key is that some professions—whatever they may have been—would have put their participants in a middle economic position within the local community, and it is this economic situation which I wish to represent.

Appendix Two

The Partitioning of Good Works in 1 Peter One problem inherent in many treatments of 1 Peter is the partitioning of the good works theme. As we have mentioned, based on the use of popular Hellenistic terms such as καλός and ἀγαθός, many conclude that the ethic being encouraged was consistent with Hellenistic standards of behavior. For support, they sometimes posit a proposed shift in the way the language is employed. Many point out that during first half of epistle the author uses traditional Jewish terminology to depict the readers’ new calling (1 Pet 1.3–2.10), but when the discussion shifts to social relations (2.11– 3.17) Hellenistic language tends to dominate.1 This proposed shift, aside from being used to argue that doing good involved behavior that was positively recognized by pagan society, has led many to assume that good works only relate to social interaction with those outside the community of faith.2 Upon a closer examination, it would seem that the terminological shift in the letter has been overblown and has resulted in significant confusion regarding the referent behind good works. Rather than drawing dividing lines between the paraenesis of the epistle, we would suggest that good works encompass not merely social interaction, but all of the paraenetic content in 1 Peter, a proposition recently demonstrated by Karl O. Sandnes. As shown by Sandnes, there are a number of points at which the first major section of the letter (1.3–2.10) connects with the second (2.11– 4.6): 1)  The addressees are called τέκνα ὑπακοῆς (1:14; compare v. 22). This prepares for the frequent use of words with the prefix ὑπο-: ὑποτάσσεθαι: 2:13, 18; 3:1, 5; ὑπολιμπάνων ὑπογραμμόν: 2:21 (compare 1:2); ὑποφέρειν (2:19); ὑπομένειν (twice in 2:20); ὑπακούειν: 3:6 (τέκνα appears here as well). 2)  Proper conduct is described in terms of ἀναστροφή (1:15, 17, 18). This reappears in 2:12 introducing the household code (compare 3:1, 16). 1   The assessment by Boring is fairly representative of how the question is treated: “The turn toward social responsibility marked by this paragraph includes a shift in terminology. The vocabulary analogous to Qumran and Palestinian Judaism virtually disappears from this point on . . . The life to which they are called is no longer characterized primarily by the biblical vocabulary of holiness, but by the hellenistic categories of ‘good works’ and ‘doing good,’ expressed in the hellenistic vocabulary of ‘desires of the flesh’ that war against the ‘soul’” (1 Peter, 113). Cf. Goppelt, I Peter, 154: “From this point on [1 Pet 2.11ff] contact with the Qumran text ceases. From the first verse of this part on a close association with Hellenistic social ethics is felt.” 2   So, e.g., Bénétreau, La Première Épître de Pierre, 146, 189; Goppelt, I Peter, 177; Poh, “Social World of 1 Peter,” 81–84; Münch, “Zur Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes,” 148.

Appendix Two: The Partitioning of Good Works in 1 Peter

297

3) The ἀναστροφή of the believers is marked by being ἑν [sic] φόβῳ (1:17). This reappears in 2:17, 18; 3:2, 6, 14, 16. 4)  The terminology of holiness by which the paraenesis in chapter 1 as well as in 2:9 was supported, appears twice in the rest of the letter (3:5, 13; cf. 3:2 ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφήν); in both instances it is subsumed under “doing good.”3

All of these points of similarity suggest a greater degree of continuity than many acknowledge. They also prevent us from too strongly separating the paraenetic elements encountered in each portion of the letter. The much greater obstacle for this position is the theology of good works which is constructed in 1 Peter.4 Support for the continuity between the various sections of the letter comes from the theological focus behind the ethical paraenesis. Contrary to the opinion of Lauri Thurén, who suggests that the ethical language changes according to its observer (i.e., it is to be ἅγιος before God [1.3–2.10], but καλός before Hellenistic society [2.11–4.6]),5 the good deeds in the Petrine Haustafel are just as important for one’s relationship to God as they are with one’s relationship to society, and in this way, the focus of both section one (1.3–2.10) and section two (2.11–4.6) are similar. Given that the good works motif broadly summarizes all of the Christian paraenesis in the epistle, its definition could be extended to include all of the ethical exhortations found in 1 Peter. When this paraenesis is collected, there are a number of “good” behaviors which might be actively pursued. The letter is filled with personal virtues or traits which the author expected would be developed and fostered within the Christian communities: self-discipline (1 Pet 1.13; 4.7; 5.8); holiness (1.15); fear of (or reverence for) God (1.17; 2.17); righteousness (2.24; 3.12, 14; 4.18); inner purity (3.2–4); sympathy and tender-heartedness (3.8); and humility (3.8; 5.5–7). Along with the individual aspects of the Christian life, he also encourages his audience to display inter-personal “goodness”: loving one another (1.22; 2.17; 3.8; 4.8); showing honor to everyone (2.17); living with one’s wife according to knowledge (3.7); maintaining unity (3.8); hospitality (4.9); and ministering to one another through spiritual gifts (4.10–11). One work specifically recommended for the elders among the communities is shepherding the flock of God (5.2). The type of conduct prescribed as “good” would include not only active pursuits whereby the community members might please God, but also acts of compliance such as submitting to proper authorities (1 Pet 2.13–14, 18; 3.1; 5.5), enduring unjust   Sandnes, “Revised Conventions in Early Paraenesis,” 381–82.   See pp. 246–54. 5  Thurén, Argument and Theology, 135: “the clearly Hellenistic expression καλὴ ἀναστροφή . . . here replaces ἀναστροφή [sic] ἐν φόβῳ [(]1.17) and ἅγιος life (1.16). This change is obviously connected with the change of the observer: whereas in 1.14–17 God was presented as the one who assesses the life of the addressees, now the Gentiles have taken over this function. The addressees should behave according to the Gentiles’ requirements so that they should praise both the addressees and their Lord when he comes” (original emphasis). 3 4

298

Appendix Two: The Partitioning of Good Works in 1 Peter

suffering (2.19–20), and the refusal to retaliate (3.9–11). Part of the “good” to which the readers were expected to adhere was abstinence from certain “sinful” activities (cf. 1.14; 2.1, 11; 3.3, 6, 9, 14; 4.1–3, 15). By avoiding the sinful behaviors which previously consumed their lives and which presently tested their faithfulness, they were actually “doing good.” The nature of this list, with its variety and general appeal, suggests that the virtues and practices mentioned in the epistle probably do not exhaust the potential good deeds which the readers could have performed.

Bibliography Primary Sources Aeschines. Speeches. Translated by C. D. Adams. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 19 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1895–2005. Aland, Barbara, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior IV Catholic Letters, Part 1: Text. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013. Alexander, Philip S. and Géza Vermès. Qumran Cave 4.XIX: Serekh ha-Yaḥad and Two Related Texts. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 26. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Allegro, John M. Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Ameling, Walter, ed. Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 27. Bonn: Habelt, 1985. Anderson, J. G. C., Franz Cumont and Henri Grégoire, eds. Studia Pontica, III. Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie. Brussels: Lamertin 1910. Appian. Roman History. Translated by Horace White. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913. Aristophanes. Clouds. Wasps. Peace. Translated by Jeffrey Henderson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander. Translated by P. A. Brunt. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. 8 vols. Translated by Douglas S. Olson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007–2012. Augustine. Confessions. Translated by William Watts. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912. Avram, Alexandru, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae, vol. 3: Callatis et territorium. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 2000. Babrius and Phaedrus. Fables. Translated by Ben Edwin Perry. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. Bagnall, Roger S., et al, eds. Documents from Berenike, vol. 2: Texts from the 1999–2001 Seasons. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 33. Bruxelles: Association Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth 2005. Balland, André, ed. Fouilles de Xanthos, VII: Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létôon. Paris: Klincksieck, 1981.

300

Bibliography

Bataille, André, et al, eds. Les Papyrus Fouad. Textes et documents / Société royale égyptienne de papyrologie 3. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1939. Becker-Bertau, Friedrich, ed. Die Inschriften von Klaudiu Polis. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 31. Bonn: Habelt, 1986. Bégulgnon, Yves. “Études Thessaliennes, VII: Inscriptions de Thessalie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 59 (1935) 36–77. Bilabel, Friedrich, ed. Griechische papyri (urkunden, briefe, mumienetiketten). Veröffentlichungen aus den badischen Papyrus-Sammlungen 2. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1923. Binger, Jean, et al, eds. Mons Claudianus: Ostraca Graeca et Latina. 4 vols. Documents de Fouilles 29, 32, 38, 47. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1992–2009. Blackman, Philip. Mishnayoth: Pointed Hebrew Text, English Translation, Introductions, Notes, Supplement, Appendix, Indexes, Addenda, Corrigenda. 2nd ed. New York: Judaica Press, 1963–1964. Blümel, Wolfgang, ed. Die Inschriften von Iasos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 28.1–2. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1985. —, ed. Die Inschriften von Mylasa. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 34–35. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1987–1988. —, ed. Die Inschriften von Knidos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 41. Bonn: Habelt, 1992. Boeckh, Augustine, ed. Corpus inscriptionum graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1828– 1877. Bosch, Emin. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum. Türk Tarih kurumu yayainlarindan, Series 7, no. 46. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1967. Bourguet, Émile, ed. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie, Fasc. 1, Inscriptions de l’entrée du sanctuaire au trésor des Athéniens. Paris: de Boccard, 1929. Braund, David. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 BC–AD 68. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1985. Broshi, Magen, Esther Eshel, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and James C. VanderKam, eds. Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Brownlee, William H. The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline: Translation and Notes. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Supplement Series 10/12. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951. Buckler, William Hepburn, and David Moore Robinson, eds. Sardis, VII. Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Part I. Leiden: Brill 1932. Cabanes, Pierre and Neritan Ceka. Corpus des inscriptions grecques d’Illyrie méridionale et d’Épire 1. Inscriptions d’Épidamne-Dyrrhachion et d’Apollonia, vol. 2: Inscriptions d’Apollonia d’Illyrie. Études épigraphiques 2. Athens: Fondation D. et E. Botsaris/Ecole française d’Athènes 1997. Cagnat, René, et al., eds. Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. 4 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927. Cato and Varro. On Agriculture. Translated by W. D. Hooper. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. Cavenaile, Robert, ed. Corpus papyrorum Latinarum. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1956– 58. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–1985.

Bibliography

301

—, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 1994. —, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 1997. —, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Westminster John Knox, 2002. Cicero. Philosophical Treatises. Translated by Clinton W. Keyes, H. Rackham, J. E. King, W. A. Falconer, and Walter Miller. 6 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913–1933. —. The Verrine Orations. 2 vols. Translated by L. H. G. Greenwood. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928–1935. Claudius Ptolemy. Tetrabiblos. Translated by F. E. Robbins. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940. Colin, Gaston, ed. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie, Fasc. 2, Inscriptions du trésor des Athéniens. Paris: Fontemoing et Cie, 1909–1913. Colin, Gaston, et al, eds. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie, Fasc. 4, Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et la région nord du sanctuaire. 4 vols. Paris: de Boccard, 1930–1976. Collart, Paul, ed. Les Papyrus Bouriant. Paris: Champion, 1926. Collitz, Hermann, et al, eds. Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften. 4 vols. in 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1884–1915. Cooley, Alison E., ed. and trans. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Corsten, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 39–40. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1991–1993. —, ed. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn: Habelt, 1997. —, ed. Die Inschriften von Kibyra, I: Die Inschriften der Stadt und ihrer näheren Umgebung. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 60. Bonn: Habelt, 2002. Cotton, Hannah M. and Joseph Geiger, eds. Masada II. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963– 1965: Final Report. The Latin and Greek Documents. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Cousin, Georges. “Inscriptions du sanctuaire de Zeus Panamaros.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 28 (1904) 20–53. Cousin, Georges and Charles Diehl. “Cibyra et Eriza.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 13 (1889) 333–42. —. “Inscriptions d’Halicarnasse,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 14 (1890) 90–121. Crampa, Jonas, ed. Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches, III: Greek Inscriptions. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4–5. 2 vols. Lund/Stockholm: Svenska Institut i Athen, 1969–1972. Cuvigny, Hélèlne, ed. Ostraca de Krokodilô, vol. 1: La correspondance militaire et sa circulation. Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 51. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 2005.

302

Bibliography

Cyprian. De Lapsis and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate. Translated by Maurice Bénvenot. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982. Daur, Klaus-D, ed. Liber ad Gregoriam in Arnobii iunioris Opera minora. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 25A. Turnholti: Brepols, 1992. Daux, Georges. “Inscriptions de Delphes.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 63 (1939) 142–82. —. “Inscriptions de Delphes inédites ou revues.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 73 (1949) 248–93. Daux, Georges and Antoine Salac, eds. Fouilles de Delphes, III. Épigraphie, Fasc. 3, Inscriptions depuis le trésor des Athéniens jusqu’aux bases de Gélon. 2 vols. Paris: de Boccard, 1932–1943. de Jonge, Marinus. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 1,2. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Delamarre, Jules, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII,7. Inscriptiones Amorgi et insularum vicinarum. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1908. Demosthenes. Orations. Translated by J. H. Vince, C. A. Vince, A. T. Murray, N. J. De Witt, and N. W. De Witt. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1949. Dio Cassius. Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927. Dio Chrysostom. Discourses. Translated by J. W. Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby. 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932–1951. Diodorus Siculus. Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather, Charles L. Sherman, C. Bradford Welles, Russell M. Geer, and Francis M. Walton. 12 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933­–1967. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities. Translated by Earnest Cary. 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937–1950. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae IX,1. Inscriptiones Phocidis, Locridis, Aetoliae, Acarnaniae, insularum maris Ionii. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1897. —, ed. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae: Supplementum sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903–1905. Reprinted by Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960. —, ed. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Leipzig: Apud S. Hirzelium, 1915– 1924. Reprinted by Hildesheim/New York: G. Olms, 1982. Dittenberger, Willhelm, and Karl Purgold, eds. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Olympia 5. Berlin: Asher, 1896. Dubois, Marcel and Amédée Hauvette-Besnault. “Inscriptions de l’île de Cos.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 5 (1881) 201–40. Durrbach, Félix, et al, eds. Inscriptions de Délos. 7 vols. Paris: Champion, 1926–1972. Dürrbach, Felix, and Pierre Roussel, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae XI. Inscriptiones Deli. 4 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1912–27. Edson, Charles F., ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, X. Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Pars II, fasc. 1: Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et Viciniae. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972. Eger, Otto, Ernst Kornemann, and Paul M. Meyer, eds. Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen. Leipzig-Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1910–1912.

Bibliography

303

Ehrman, Bart D., ed. The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Elliott, J. K., ed. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Engelmann, Helmut, ed. Die Inschriften von Kyme. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 5. Bonn: Habelt, 1976. Engelmann, Helmut and Reinhold Merkelbach, eds. Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 1. Bonn: Habelt, 1972. Epictetus. Discourses. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1928. Epstein, Isidore, ed. The Babylonian Talmud. 30 vols. London: Sonico, 1960–1990. Eshel, Esther, Hanan Eshel, Carol A. Newsom, Bilhah Nitzan, Eileen M. Schuller, and Ada Yardeni, eds. Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Euripides. Helen. Phoenician Women. Orestes. Translated by David Kovacs. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1932. Fink, Robert O., ed., Roman Military Records on Papyrus. Philological Monographs 26. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 1971. Fougères, Gustave. “Inscriptions de Mantinée.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 20 (1896) 119–66. Fränkel, Max, ed. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. 2 vols. Altertümer von Pergamon 8.1–2. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1890–95. French, David H. The Inscriptions of Sinope. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 64. Bonn: Habelt, 2004. Frey, Jean-Baptiste, ed. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum: recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère. 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di archeologia Cristiana, 1936–1952. Revision of vol. 1: Baruch Lifshitz, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. New York: KTAV, 1975. Frisch, Peter, ed. Die Inschriften von Ilion. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 3. Bonn: Habelt, 1975. —, ed. Die Inschriften von Lampsakos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 6. Bonn: Habelt, 1978. García Martínez, Florentino. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. 2nd ed. Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1996. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Gasquet, Aidano. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem iussu Pii PP. XI, vol. VIII: Libri Ezrae, Tobiae, Iudith, ex interpretatione Sancti Hieronymi cum praefationibus et variis capitulorum seriebus. Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950. Geffcken, Johannes. Die Oracula Sibyllina. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 8. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902. Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt, eds. New Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Latin Papyri. Greek Papyri 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897.

304

Bibliography

Grenfell, Bernard P., et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 72 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1898–. Grenfell, Bernard P., et al, eds. The Tebtunis Papyri. 5 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1902–2005. Gsell, Stéphane, and Hans-Georg Pflaum, and Louis Leschi, eds. Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie, 1: Inscriptions de la proconsulaire. Paris: Champion, 1922. Guggenheimer, Heinrich W., ed. The Jerusalem Talmud. Studia Judaica. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000–2012. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Tobit. Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 8/5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Hansen, Peter A., ed. Carmina Epigraphica Graeca: Saeculorum VIII–V a.Chr.n. Text und Kommentare 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1983. Hanson, Ann Ellis, ed. Collectanea Papyrologica: Texts Published in Honor of H. C. Youtie. Papyrologische Text und Abhandlungen 19–20. Bonn: Habelt, 1976. Hepding, Hugo. “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908–1909. II: Die Inschriften.” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (Athenische Abtheilung) 35 (1910) 401–93. Herodotus. The Persian Wars. Translated by A. D. Godley. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920–1925. Hodot, René. “Décret de Kymè en l’honneur du Prytane Kléanax.” The J Paul Getty Museum Journal 10 (1982) 165–80. Holmes, Michael W., ed. and trans. Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Horace. Satires. Epistles. The Art of Poetry. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Horbury, William, and David Noy, eds. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Horsley, G. H. R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Volume 4: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979. North Ryde: Macquarie University, 1987. —, ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Volume 5: Linguistic Essays with Cumulative Indexes to Vols. 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Horsley, G. H. R. and Stephen Mitchell, eds. The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia, including texts from Kremna, Ariassos, Keraia, Hyia, Panemoteichos, the Sanctuary of Apollo of the Perminoundeis, Sia, Kocaaliler, and the Döşeme Boğazi. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 57. Bonn: Habelt, 2000. Hunt, Arthur S. and Colin H. Roberts, eds. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, vol. 2: Documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1915. Husselman, Elinor M., et al, eds. Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection, vol. 5: Papyri from Tebtunis. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1944. Ihnken, Thomas, ed. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Sipylos, mit einem Kommentar zum Sympolitievertrag mit Smyrna. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 8. Bonn: Habelt, 1978. Isocrates. Translated by George Norlin and La Rue Van Hook. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928–1945.

Bibliography

305

Jacobsthal, P. “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1906–1907. I. Die Inschriften.” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts Athenische Abteilung 33 (1908) 375–420. James, M. R. “A New Text of the Apocalypse of Peter.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1911) 36–54. Johnson, Allan C. and Sidney P. Goodrich, eds. Papyri in the Princeton University Collections. Princeton University Studies in Papyrology 4. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1942. Johnson, Gary J. Early-Christian Epitaphs from Anatolia. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 35. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Jonnes, Lloyd, ed. The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 47. Bonn: Habelt, 1994. Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis Feldman. Loeb Classical Library. 9 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930–1965. —. The Jewish War. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. —. The Life. Against Apion. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–1928. Judeich, Walther, ed. “Inschriften.” Pages 67–202 in Altertümer von Hierapolis. Edited by Carl Humann, et al. Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 4. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1898. Julian. Orations. 2 vols. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913. Kalinka, Ernst, ed. Tituli Lyciae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. 3 vols. Vienna: Alfredi Hoelder, 1920–1944. Kayer, F., ed. “Nouveaux textes grecs du Ouadi Hammamat.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 98 (1993) 111–156. Keil, Josef, et al., eds. Monumenta asiae minoris antiqua. Journal of Roman Studies Monographs. 10 vols. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1928–. Kenyon, Frederic G., et al., eds. Greek Papyri in the British Museum. 7 vols. London: British Museum, 1893–1974. Kern, Otto, ed. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin: W. Spermann, 1900. —, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, IX,2. Inscriptiones Thessaliae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1908. Kirchner, Johannes, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Parts I–III, 2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1913–1940. Klaffenbach, Günther, and Klaus Hallof, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae IX, Inscriptiones Graeciae septentrionalis voluminibus VII et VIII non comprehensae. Pars I, Inscriptiones Phocidis Locridis Aetoliae Acarnaniae insularum maris Ionii. Fasc. II: Inscriptiones Acarnaniae. 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1957. —, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae IX, Inscriptiones Graeciae septentrionalis voluminibus VII et VIII non comprehensae. Pars I, Inscriptiones Phocidis Locridis Aetoliae Acarnaniae insularum maris Ionii. Fasc. IV: Inscriptiones insularum maris Ionii. 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001. Kolbe, Walter, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, V,1. Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1913. Krauss, Johannes, ed. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 19. Bonn: Habelt, 1980.

306

Bibliography

Łajtar, Adam, ed. Die Inschriften von Byzantion. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 58. Bonn: Habelt, 2000. Latyshev, Basilius [Vasilii], ed. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, vol. 1: Inscriptiones Tyriae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Iussu et Impensis Societatis Archaeologicae Imperii Russici 1916. Leake, William M., ed. and trans. An Edict of Diocletian, fixing a Maximum of Prices throughout the Roman Empire. A.D. 303. London: J. Murray, 1826. Le Bas, Philippe, and William Henry Waddington, eds. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. fait par ordre du gouvernement français pendant les années 1843 et 1844, Tome III, 5ème partie: Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grèce et en Asie Mineure. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1870. Lefèvre, François, Didier Laroche, and Olivier Masson, eds. Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes, Tome IV: Documents Amphictioniques. Paris: Ecole française d’Athènes/Diff. de Boccard, 2002. Levick, Barbara. The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2000. Lewis, Naphtali and Meyer Reinhold, eds. Roman Civilization, Selected Readings, vol. 2: The Empire. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. Livy. History of Rome. Translated by B. O. Foster, Frank G. Moore, Evan T. Sage and Alred C. Schlesinger. 14 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919–1959. Lucian. Translated by Austin M. Harmon, K. Kilburn, and Matthew D. MacLeod. 8 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913–1967. Lüderitz, Gert. Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenschaften 53. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1983. Lutz, Cora E. “Musonius Rufus: ‘The Roman Socrates’.” Yale Classical Studies 10 (1947) 3–147. Lysias. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. Malherbe, Abraham. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Sources for Biblical Study 19. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Manganaro, Giacomo. “Le Iscrizioni delle isole Milesie.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 41–42 (1963–1964) 293–349. Manni Piraino, Maria T., ed. Iscrizioni greche lapidarie del Museo di Palermo. Sikelika, Serie Storica 6. Palermo: Flaccovio, 1973. Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Iustini Martyris apologiae pro christianis. Patristische Texte und Studien 38. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994. —, ed. Origenes Contra Celsum libri VIII. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 54. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Martial. Epigrams. Translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. McNamara, Martin. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. The Aramaic Bible 1A. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. Merkelbach, Reinhold, ed. Die Inschriften von Assos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 4. Bonn: Habelt, 1976. Merkelbach, Reinhold and Josef Stauber. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Band 1: Die Westküste Kleinasiens von Knidos bis Ilion. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1998.

Bibliography

307

Merkelbach, Reinhold and Sencer Şahin. “Die publizierten Inschriften von Perge.” Epigraphica Anatolica 11 (1988) 97–170. Michajlov, Georgi I., ed. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, vol. 1: Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini. 2nd ed. Serdicae: Academiae Litterarum Bulgaricae, 1970. Michel, Charles, ed. Recueil d’inscriptions grecques. Paris: Brussels: Lamertin, 1900. Mitchell, Stephen, and David French, eds. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Ankara (Ancyra), vol. 1: From Augustus to the End of the Third Century AD. Vestigia 62. Munich: Beck, 2012. Mommsen, Theodor, et al., eds. Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. 17 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1853–. Mommsen, Theodor, Paul Krueger, and Alan Watson, eds. The Digest of Justinian. 4 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Mommsen, Theodor and Paul M. Meyer, eds. Codex Theodosianus. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1962. Montevecchi, Orsolina, ed. Papyri Bononienses. Pubblicazioni dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, n.s. 42. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1953. Moretti, Luigi, ed. Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae. 4 vols. in 5 parts. Rome: Istituto Italiano per la storia antica, 1968–1990. Moretti, Paola F., ed. La Passio Anastasiae: introduzione, testo critico, traduzione. Rome: Herder, 2006. Musurillo, Herbert, ed. and trans. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs: Introduction, Texts and Translations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Neubauer, Adolph. The Book of Tobit: A Chaldee Text from a Unique Ms. in the Bodleian Library, with other Rabbinic Texts, English Translations, and the Itala. Oxford: Clarendon, 1878. Neugebauer, Otto and Henry B. Van Hoesen. Greek Horoscopes. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 48. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1959. Neusner, Jacob. The Tosefta. 6 vols. New York: Ktav, 1977–1986. Newton, C. T., ed. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1874–1916. Nicole, Jules and Charles Morel, eds. Archives militaires du 1er siècle: texte inédit du Papyrus latin de Genève no. 1. Genève: H. Kündig, 1900. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. La Troisième Sibylle. Etudes juives 9. Paris: Mouton, 1970. Nollé, Johannes and Friedel Schindler, ed. Die Inschriften von Selge. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 37. Bonn: Habelt, 1991. Origen. Philocalie 1–20, Sur les Écritures La Lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne. Translated by Marguerite Harl and Nicholas De Lange. Sources chrétiennes 302. Paris: Cerf, 1983. Pallas, Demetrios I., Séraphin Charitonidis, and Jacques Vénencie. “Inscriptions trouvées à Solômos, près de Corinthe.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 83 (1959) 496–508. Paris, Pierre and Georges A. Radet. “Inscriptions de Pisidie, de Lycaonie et d’Isaurie.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 10 (1886) 500–14. Paton, William R. and Edward L. Hicks, eds. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Repr., Hildesheim/New York: G. Olms, 1990. Pausanias. Description of Greece. Translated by W. H. S. Jones, H. A. Ormerod and R. E. Wycherley. 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918–1935.

308

Bibliography

Peek, Werner, ed. Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Band 60, Heft 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1969. Petronius. Satyricon. Translated by Michael Heseltine and W. H. D. Rouse. Revised by E. H. Warmington. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975 Petzl, Georg, ed. Die Inschriften von Smyrna. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 23–24,1–2. 3 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1982, 1987 & 1990. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus. 12 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Philostratus. Lives of the Sophists. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921. Picard, Charles and Charles Avezou. “Inscriptions de Macédoine et de Thrace.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 37 (1913) 84–154. Pindar. Nemean Odes. Isthmian Odes. Fragments. Translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. —. Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes. Translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Pippidi, Dionisie M., ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae. vol. 1: Inscriptiones Histriae et vicinia. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1983. Pleket, H. W. The Greek Inscriptions in the “Rijksmuseum van Oudheden” at Leyden. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Pliny (the Elder). Natural History. Translated by H. Rackman, W. H. S. Jones, A. C. Andrews and D. E. Eichholz. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938–1962. Pliny (the Younger). Letters. Translated by Betty Radice. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Plutarch. Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1926. —. Moralia. Translated by Frank C. Babbitt, Harold N. Fowler, W. C. Helmbold, Harold Cherniss, Benedict Einarson, Phillip H. De Lacy, F. H. Sandbach, Edwin L. Minar, Lionel Pearson, H. B. Hoffleit, P. A. Clement, and Edward N. O’Neil. 16 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924­–2004. Poljakov, Fjodor B., ed. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36. Bonn: Habelt, 1989. Polybius. The Histories. Translated by W. R. Patton. 6 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922–1927. Porphyry. De l’abstinence. Translated by Michel Patillon, Jean Bouffartigue, and Alain P. Segonds. 3 vols. Collection des universités de France. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1977– 1995. Preisendanz, Karl, et al., eds. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. 2nd ed. Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–1974. Preisigke, Friedrich, ed. Griechische Papyrus der Kaiserlichen Universitäts- und Landes-bibliothek zu Strassburg. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1912–1920. Preisigke, Friedrich, et al, eds. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1915–. Puech, Émile. Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.

Bibliography

309

Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Maʻaśe ha-Torah. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ramsay, William M. “Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 7 (1883) 258–78, 97–328. Rehm, Albert. Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, Bd. 1, Hft. 3: Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin: Reimer, 1914. Reynolds, Joyce M. “Inscriptions.” Pages 233–54 in Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), vol. 1: Buildings, Coins, Inscriptions, Architectural Decoration. Edited by John A. Lloyd. Supplements to Libya Antiqua 5. Tripoli: Department of Antiquities of the Arab Libyan Jamahiriya, 1977. Reynolds, Joyce, Charlotte Roueché, and Gabriel Bodard, eds. Inscriptions of Aphrodisias (2007), available . Rhodes, P. J. and Robin Osborne, eds. Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Robert, Jeanne and Louis Robert. “Bulletin épigraphique.” Revue des Études Grecques 69 (1956) 104–91. —, eds. Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, I. Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions. Paris: de Boccard, 1983. Robert, Louis. “Notes d’épigraphie hellénistique.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 52 (1928) 158–78. —. Études anatoliennes: recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie mineure. Paris: Boccard, 1937. —. Hellenica: Recueil d’épigraphie de numismatique et d’antiquitiés grecques, vol. 13: D’Aphrodisias à la Lyocanie, Compte Rendu du Volume VIII des Monuments Asiae Minoris Antiqua. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1965. —. Documents de l’Asie Mineure méridionale: inscriptions, monnaies et géographie. Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 2. Genève: Droz, 1966. —. “Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce centrale.” Archaiologike Ephemeris (1969) 1–58. Roussel, Pierre, et al., eds. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Lugduni Batanorum: Sijthoff, 1923–. Roux, J. and G. Roux. “Un décret du politeuma des Juifs de Bérénikè en Cyrénaique au Museé Lapidaire de Carpentras.” Revue des Études Grecgues 62 (1949) 281–96. Şahin, M. Çetin, ed. Die Inschriften von Stratonikeia. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 21–22.1–2. 2 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1982–90. Şahin, Sencer, ed. Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9–10.3. 4 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979–1987. —, ed. Die Inschriften von Perge. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn: Habelt, 1999. Salmenkivi, Erja, ed. Cartonnage Papyri in Context: New Ptolemaic Documents from Abū Ṣīr al-Mala. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 119. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 2002. Segre, Mario. “Iscrizioni di Licia, I: Tolomeo di Telmesso.” Clara Rhodos 9 (1938) 181–208. —. “Tituli Calymnii.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 22–23 (1944–45 [1952]) 1–248. —, ed. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente, 6. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider 1993. Segre, Mario and Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. “Tituli Camirenses.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 27–29 (1949–51) 141–318.

310

Bibliography

Seneca. Epistles. 3 vols. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–1925. —. Moral Essays. Translated by John W. Basore. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928–1935. Sophocles. Ajax. Electra. Oedipus Tyrannus. Translated by Hugh Lloyd-Jones. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. —. Antigone. The Women of Trachis. Philoctetes. Oedipus at Colonus. Translated by Hugh Lloyd-Jones. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Speidel, M. Alexander, ed. Die römischen Schreibtafeln von Vindonissa: Lateinische Texte des militärischen Alltags und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung. Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 12. Brugg: Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, 1996. Stegemann, Hartmut, Eileen M. Schuller, and Carol A. Newsom. Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota with incorporation of 1QHodayot b and 4QHodayota-f. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Stoian, Iorgu, ed. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae. Series altera: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae, vol. 2: Tomis et territorium. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1987. Strabo. Geography. Translated by Horace L. Jones. 8 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–1932. Strubbe, Johan H. M., ed. The Inscriptions of Pessinous. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 66. Bonn: Habelt, 2005. Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars. Translated by J. C. Rolfe and K. R. Bradley. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Tacitus. The Histories and The Annals. Translated by Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1937. Tait, John G. and Claire Préaux, eds. Greek Ostraca in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and Various Other Collections, vol. 2: Ostraca of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 33. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1955. Tcherikover, Victor, et al., eds. Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press/Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1957–1964. Tertullian. Apology. De Spectaculis. Minucius Felix. Octavius. Translated by T. R. Glover and Gerald H. Rendall. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. Thür, Gerhard, and Hans Taeuber, ed. Prozessrechtliche Inschriften der griechischen Poleis: Arkadien (IPArk). Sitzungsberichte (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse) 607. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994. Varinlioğlu, Ender, ed. Die Inschriften von Keramos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 20. Bonn: Habelt, 1986. —. “Inschriften von Stratonikeia in Karien.” Epigraphica Anatolica 12 (1988) 79–128. Vermès, Géza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised ed. London: Penguin, 2004. von Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, 3. Inscriptiones Symes, Teutlussae, Teli, Nisyri, Astypalaeae, Anaphes, Therae et Therasiae, Pholegandri, Meli, Cimoli. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1898. —, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII,5. Inscriptiones Cycladum. 2 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1903–1909. —, ed. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1906.

Bibliography

311

—, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, V,2. Inscriptiones Arcadiae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1913. —, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae, IV. Inscriptiones Argolidis. Fasc. 1, Inscriptiones Epidauri. 2nd ed. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1929. —, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII. Supplementum. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1939. Von Spengel, Leonhard, ed. Rhetores graeci. 3 vols. Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana. Lipsiae: Teubner, 1854–1856. Wagner, Christian J., ed. Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse: Griechisch, Lateinisch, Syrisch, Hebräisch, Aramäisch, mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse Dritte Folge, Band 258. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XXVIII. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Wagner, Guy, ed. Papyrus grecs de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale II. Bibliothèque d’étude – Institut français d’archéologie 55. Le Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1971. Wankel, Hermann, et al., eds. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11.1–17.4. 8 vols. Bonn: Habelt, 1979–84. Waszink, J. H. and J. C. M. van Winden, eds. Tertullianus. De Idololatria: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 1. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1987. Weeks, Stuart, Simon J. Gathercole, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds. The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. Fontes et subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Wernberg-Møller, Preben. The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 1. Leiden: Brill, 1957. Whittaker, Molly, ed. and trans. Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Wilhelm, Adolf. “Inschriften aus Halikarnassos und Theangela.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 11 (1908) 53–82. Williams, Robert D., ed. Virgil, the Ecologues & Georgics. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1996. Winter, John G., ed. Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection, vol. 3: Miscellaneous Papyri. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 40. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1936. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. 2nd ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Worp, Klaas A., ed. Einige Wiener Papyri. Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 1. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1972. Xenophon. Memorabilia. Oeconomicus. Symposium. Apology. Translated by E. C. Marchant and O. J. Todd. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923. —. Cyropaedia. Translated by Walter Miller. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Zereteli, Gregor, ed. Papyri russischer und georgischer Sammlungen, vol. 1: Literarische Texte. Tiflis: Universitätslithographie, 1925. Ziebarth, Erich, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XII,9. Inscriptiones Euboeae insulae. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1915.

312

Bibliography

Zilliacus, Henrik, ed. Vierzehn Berliner griechische Papyri. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum XI, 4. Helsingfors: Societas scientiarum Fennica, 1941.

Secondary Sources Energy and Protein Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Ad Hoc Expert Committee, Rome, 22 March­­–2 April 1971. FAO Nutrition Meetings Report Series 52; Technical Report Series (WHO) 522. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1973. Aageson, James W. “1 Peter 2.11–3.7: Slaves, Wives and the Complexities of Interpretation.” Pages 34–49 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 8. London: T&T Clark, 2004. —. Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church. Library of Pauline Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. Abraham, Susan B. “Critical Perspectives on Postcolonial Theory.” Pages 24–33 in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor, 1994 [1958]. Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Adams, Edward. The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? Library of New Testament Studies 450. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Adams, J. Stacy. “Inequity in Social Exchange.” Pages 267–98 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. vol. 2. Edited by Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Adib-Moghaddam, Arshin. “Can the (sub)altern resist? A dialogue between Foucault and Said.” Pages 33–54 in Orientalism Revisited: Art, Land and Voyage. Edited by Ian R. Netton. Culture and Civilisation in the Middle East 35. New York: Routledge, 2013. Adinolfi, Marco. “Stato civile dei Cristiani ‘forestieri e pellegrini’ (1 Pt 2,11).” Antonianum 42 (1967) 420–34. Adkins, Arthur W. H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960. —. Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the End of the Fifth Century. Ancient Culture and Society. New York: Norton, 1972. Agrell, Göran. Work, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in Old Testament, Intertestamental, and Early Rabbinic Writings. Lund. Ohlsson, 1976. Ahmad, Aijaz. “Postcolonialism: What’s in a Name?” Pages 11–32 in Late Imperial Culture. Edited by Román de la Campa, E. Ann Kaplan, and Michael Sprinker. London/New York: Verso, 1995. Aldrete, Greg S. and David J. Mattingly. “Feeding the City: The Organization, Operation, and Scale of the Supply System for Rome.” Pages 171–204 in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire. Edited by David S. Potter and David J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Alford, Henry. “ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α.” in The Greek Testament. London: Rivingtons, 1849­– 60.

Bibliography

313

Allen, Robert C. “How Prosperous were the Romans?: Evidence from Diocletian’s Price Edict (AD 301).” Pages 327–45 in Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems. Edited by Alan K. Bowman and Andrew Wilson. Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Allina-Pisano, Eric. “Resistance and the Social History of Africa.” Journal of Social History 37 (2003) 187–98. Allison, Kevin W. “Stress and Oppressed Social Category Membership.” Pages 145–70 in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective. Edited by Janet K. Swim and Charles Stangor. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998. Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Alston, Richard. “Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Diocletian.” Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994) 113–23. —. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History. London: Routledge, 1995. —. The City in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. London/New York: Routledge, 2002. Altheim, Franz and Ruth Stiehl. Christentum am Roten Meer. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973. Amirkham, James H. “Applying Attribution Theory to the Study of Stress and Coping.” Pages 79–102 in Attribution Theory: Applications to Achievement, Mental Health, and Interpersonal Conflict. Edited by Sandra Graham and Valerie S. Folkes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1990. Amouretti, Marie-Claire. Le pain et l’huile dans la Grèce antique: de l’araire au moulin. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 328. Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 67. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1986. Andreau, Jean. “Fondations privées et rapports sociaux en Italie romaine (Ier-IIIe s. ap. J.C.).” Ktèma 2 (1977) 157–209. Andreau, Jean, Alain Schnapp, and Pauline Schmitt. “Paul Veyne et l’évergétisme.” Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations 33 (1978) 307–25. Anthias, Floya. “New Hybridities, Old Concepts: The Limits of ‘Culture’.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 24 (2001) 619–41. Applebaum, Shimon. “Jews and Service in the Roman Army.” Pages 181–84 in Roman Frontier Studies, 1967: The Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress Held at Tel Aviv. Edited by Shimon Applebaum. Tel-Aviv: Students’ Organization of Tel Aviv University, 1971. —. Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 28. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Ashcroft, Bill. “On the Hyphen in Post-Colonial.” New Literatures Review 32 (1996) 23–32. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge, 2007. Asumang, Annag. “‘Resist him’ (1 Pet 5:9): Holiness and Non-Retaliatory Responses to Unjust Suffering as ‘Holy War’ in 1 Peter.” Conspectus 11 (2011) 7–46. Auffret, Pierre. “‘Allez, fils, entendez-moi!’ Étude structurelle de psaume 34 et son rapport au psaume 33.” Église et Théologie 19 (1988) 5–31. Averill, James R. “Studies on Anger and Aggression: Implications for Theories of Emotion.” American Psychologist 38 (1983) 1145–60. Avi-Yonah, Michael. “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 2 (1933) 136–81. Avruch, Kevin. Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1998.

314

Bibliography

Babcock, Barbara A. “Introduction.” Pages 13–36 in The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society. Edited by Barbara A. Babcock. Symbol, Myth, and Ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978. Bagnall, Roger S. and Bruce W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. Rabelais and His World. Translated by Tvorchestvo Fransua Rable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968. Balch, David L. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter. Soceity of Bibilical Literature Monograph Series 26. Atlanta: Scholars, 1981. —. “Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter.” Pages 79–101 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, Special Studies Series 9. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986. Balz, Horst R., and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. Bammel, Caroline P. “Patristic Exegesis of Romans 5:7.” Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1996) 532–42. Bammel, E. “The Commands in I Peter II.17.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65) 279–81. Banks, Robert J. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting. 2nd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Barbalet, Jack M. “Power and Resistance.” British Journal of Sociology 36 (1985) 531–48. Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 10 (1987) 73–93. —. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Barnes, Timothy D. “Christians and the Theater.” Pages 161–81 in Roman Theater and Society: E. Togo Salmon Papers 1. Edited by William J. Slater. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. —. Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History. Tria corda 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Baron, Robert A. “Environmentally Induced Positive Affect: Its Impact on Self-Efficacy, Task Performance, Negotiation, and Conflict.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20 (1990) 368–84. Bartholomew, Craig G. Ecclesiastes. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Bartlett, John R. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, the Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200 1.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Barzanò, Alberto. “Tiberio Giulio Alessandro, Preffetto d’Egitto (66/70).” Pages 518–80 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Part II, Principat 10.1. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Bassler, Jouette M. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Batson, C. Daniel and Tecia Moran. “Empathy-Induced Altruism in a Prisoner’s Dilemma.” European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (1999) 909–24. Batten, Alicia J. “God in the Letter of James: Patron or Benefactor?” New Testament Studies 50 (2004) 257–72.

Bibliography

315

Bauckham, Richard J. “Apocalypses.” Pages 135–87 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. —. The Jewish World around the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Bauer, Johannes B. Der erste Petrusbrief. Die Welt der Bibel 14. Düsseldoft: Patmos Verlag, 1971. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Edited by Frederick W. Danker, based on Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Edited by Kurt and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Baum, Armin D. “‘Babylon’ als Ortsnamenmetapher in 1 Petr 5,13 auf dem Hintergrund der antiken Literatur und im Kontext des Briefes.” Pages 180–220 in Petrus und Paulus in Rom: Eine interdisziplinäre Debatte. Edited by Stefan Heid. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Bauman-Martin, Betsy. “Speaking Jewish: Postcolonial Aliens and Strangers in First Peter.” Pages 144–77 in Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin. Library of New Testament Studies 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Bauman-Martin, Betsy J. “Feminist Theologies of Suffering and Current Interpretations of 1 Peter 2.18–3.9.” Pages 63–81 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 8. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Baumgarten, Albert I. “The Rule of the Martian as Applied to Qumran’” Israel Oriental Studies 14 (1994) 179–200. Bayart, Jean-François. “En finir avec les études postcoloniales.” Le Débat 154 (2009) 119–40. Bean, G. E. and J. M. Cook. “The Halikarnassian Peninsula.” Annual of the British School at Athens 50 (1955) 85–171. Beare, Francis W. The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Bechard, Dean Philip. Paul Outside the Walls: A Study of Luke’s Socio-Geographical Universalism in Acts 14:8-20. Analecta Biblica 143. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2000. Bechtler, Steven R. Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 162. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. Beck, J. T. Erklärung der Briefe Petri. Güttersloh: Bertelsmann, 1896. Beck, Norman A. Anti-Roman Cryptograms in the New Testament: Hidden Transcripts of Hope and Liberation. 2nd ed. Studies in Biblical Literature 127. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Becker, Howard S. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: Free Press, 1963. —. “Labelling Theory Reconsidered.” Pages 41–66 in Deviance and Social Control. Edited by Paul E. Rock and Mary McIntosh. Explorations in Sociology 3. London: Tavistock Publications, 1974. Begley, Ronald B. “The Carmen ad quendam senatorem: Date, Milieu, and Tradition.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1984. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

316

Bibliography

Beltz, Walter. “Gute Werke I. Religionsgeschichtlich.” Pages 1343–44 in volume 3 of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. 4th ed. Edited by Hans Deter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Ben-David, Arye. Talmudische Ökonomie: Die Wirtschaft des jüdischen Palästina zur Zeit der Mischna und des Talmud. Hildesheim: Olms, 1974. Ben-Yoav, Orly and Dean G. Pruitt. “Resistance to Yielding and the Expectation of Cooperative Future Interaction in Negotiation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20 (1984) 323–53. Bénabou, Marcel. La résistance africaine à la romanisation. Paris: Maspero, 1976. —. “Résistance et Romanisation en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire.” Pages 367–75 in Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien: travaux du VIe Congrès international d’études classiques (Madrid, septembre 1974). Edited by Dionisi M. Pippidi. Bucarest: Editura Academiei, 1976. Bénétreau, Samuel. La Première Épître de Pierre. 2nd ed. Commentaire évangélique de la Bible. Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 1992. Bengtsson, Håkan. What’s in a Name? A Study of Sobriquets in the Pesharim. Uppsala: Uppsala Univeristy, 2000. Bennett, W. H. The General Epistles: James, Peter, John, and Jude. The Century Bible. Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1901. Bercovitch, Jacob. Social Conflicts and Third Parties: Strategies of Conflict Resolution. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984. Berger, Klaus. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament, Teil 1: Markus und Paraellelen. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. Bergmeier, Roland. “Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 f2, II, 1–13.” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 145 (1995) 38–48. Berlage, J. “De vi et usu vocum ΚΑΛΟΣ ΚΑΓΑΘΟΣ, ΚΑΛΟΚΑΓΑΘΙΑ.” Mnemosyne 60 (1932) 20–40. Best, Ernest. “1 Peter II, 4–10 – A Reconsideration.” Novum Testamentum 11 (1969) 270–93. —. 1 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971; Reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. —. “A First Century Sect.” Irish Biblical Studies 8 (1986) 115–21. Betz, Hans Dieter. 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: Fortress, 1995. Bévenot, H. “The Primitive Book of Tobit: An Essay in Textual Reconstruction.” Bibliotheca Sacra 82 (1926) 55–84. Bhabha, Homi. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.” October 28 (1984) 125–33. —. The Location of Culture. London/New York: Routledge, 1994. Bhatia, Sunil and Anjali Ram. “Culture, Hybridity, and the Dialogical Self: Cases from the South Asian Diaspora.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 11 (2004) 224–40. Bickell, G. “Der chaldäische Text des Buches Tobias.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 2 (1878) 216–22. Bickerman, Elias J. “The Name of Christians.” Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949) 109– 24.

Bibliography

317

Bieder, Werner. Grund und Kraft der Mission nach dem I. Petrusbrief. Theologische Studiën 29. Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer, 1950. Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. 2nd ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Binder, Stéphanie E. “Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Second and Third Centuries C.E.? The Case of Carthage: Tertullian and the Mishnah’s Views on Idolatry.” Pages 187–230 in Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: Text and Context. Edited by Dan Jaffé. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 74. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bird, Jennifer G. Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives. Library of New Testament Studies 442. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised from the 9th–10th German edition, incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Blenkin, George W. The First Epistle General of Peter. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Blue, Bradley. “Acts and the House Church.” Pages 119–222 in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 2: The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting. Edited by David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Blumenfeld, Bruno. The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 210. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Boer, Ronald. Marxist Criticism of the Bible: A Critical Introduction to Marxist Literary Criticism and the Bible. London: T&T Clark, 2003. —. “Marx, Postcolonialism, and the Bible.” Pages 166–83 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia. The Bible and Postcolonialism. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Bolkestein, Hendrik. Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum: Ein Beitrag zum Problem “Moral und Gesellschaft”. Utrecht: Oosthoek, 1939. Bömer, Franz. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom. Vierter Teil: Epilegomena. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10. Mainz: Franz Steiner, 1963. Bony, Paul. La Première épître de Pierre: Chrétiens en diaspora. Lire la Bible 137. Paris: Cerf, 2004. Borgen, Peder. “‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘How Far?’: The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults.” Pages 30–59 in Paul in His Hellenistic Context. Edited by Troels Engber-Pedersen. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Boring, M. Eugene. 1 Peter. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Bornemann, Wilhelm. “Der erste Petrusbrief—eine Taufrede des Silvanus?” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 19 (1919–20) 143–65. Bornstein, Gary. “Intergroup Conflict: Individual, Group, and Collective Interests.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 7 (2003) 129–45. Botermann, Helga. Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1 Jahrhundert. Hermes Einzelschriften 71. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996. Botha, Phil J. “The Social Setting and Strategy of Psalm 34.” Old Testament Essays 10 (1997) 178–97.

318

Bibliography

—. “Annotated History: The Implications of Reading Psalm 34 in Conjunction with 1 Samuel 21–26 and Vice Versa.” Old Testament Essays 21 (2008) 593–617. —. “Psalm 34 and the Ethics of the Editors of the Psalter.” Pages 56–75 in Psalmody and Poetry in Old Testament Ethics. Edited by Dirk J. Human. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 572. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Boulanger, Andre. Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IIe siècle de notre ère. Paris: De Boccard, 1923. Bourriot, Félix. Kalos Kagathos—Kalokagathia: D’un terme de propogande de sophistes à une notion sociale et philosophique. Étude d’histoire athénienne. 2 vols. Spudasmata 58. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1995. Bovon, François. “Foi chrétienne et religion populaire dans la première Épitre de Pierre.” Études theologiques et religieuses 53 (1978) 25–41. —. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Bowersock, Glen W. “The Mechanics of Subversion in the Roman Provinces.” Pages 291–317 in Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan: neuf exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœuvres-Genève, 25–30 août 1986. Edited by Kurt A. Raaflaub, Adalberto Giovannini, and Denis van Berchem. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33. Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1987. Boyley, Mark. “1 Peter – A Mission Document?” Reformed Theological Review 63 (2004) 72–86. Braddock, Jomills Henry and James M. McPartland. “How Minorities Continue to Be Excluded from Equal Employment Opportunities: Research on Labor Market and Institutional Barriers.” Journal of Social Issues 43 (1987) 5–39. Brandt, Wilhelm. “Wandel als Zeugnis nach dem 1. Petrusbrief.” Pages 10–25 in Verbum dei manet in aeternum: Eine Festschrift für Prof. D. Otto Schmitz zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 16. Juni 1953. Edited by Werner Foerster. Witten: Luther, 1953. Branick, Vincent P. The House Church in the Writings of Paul. Zacchaeus Studies. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989. Bredin, Mark. “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8.” Pages 43–58 in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by Mark Bredin. Library of Second Temple Studies 55. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Brewer, Marilynn B. “In-Group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 86 (1979) 307–24. Brewer, Marilynn B. and Roderick M. Kramer. “The Psychology of Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior.” Annual Review of Psychology 36 (1985) 219–43. —. “Choice Behavior in Social Dilemmas: Effects of Social Identity, Group Size, and Decision Framing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986) 543–49. Briggs-Kittredge, Cynthia. “1 Peter.” Pages 616–19 in Women’s Bible Commentary. 3rd ed. Edited by Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Bringmann, Klaus and Hans von Steuben. Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, Teil 1: Zeugnisse und Kommentare. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995. Briones, David E. Paul’s Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach. Library of New Testament Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Brooke, George J. “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran.” Revue de Qumran 54 (1989) 267–92.

Bibliography

319

—. “From Jesus to the Early Christian Communities: Modes of Sectarianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 413–34 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008). Edited by Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 93. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Broshi, Magen. “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: Introductory Notes.” Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986) 41–56. —. Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 36. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Broughton, T. R. S. “Roman Asia Minor.” Pages 499–918 in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4: Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor. vol. 4. Edited by Tenney Frank. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938. Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–78. Brox, Norbert. Die Pastoralbriefe. 4th ed. Regensburger Neues Testament 7,2. Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1969. —. Der erste Petrusbrief. 4th ed. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 21. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/ Neukirchener, 1993. Brunner-Traut, Emma. Altägyptische Tiergeschichte und Fabel. Gestalt und Strahlkraft. 5th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977. Brunt, P. A. “Pay and Superannuation in the Roman Army.” Papers of the British School at Rome 18 (1950) 50–71. —. “The Revenues of Rome.” Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981) 161–72. Bryan, Christopher. Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Bryant, Joseph M. Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: A Sociology of Greek Ethics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics. SUNY Series in the Sociology of Culture. Albany, NY: SUNY, 1996. Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting: With an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 17. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Burch, Thomas K. “Some Demographic Determinants of Average Household Size: An Analytic Approach.” Pages 91–102 in Household and Family in Past Time: Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last Three Centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with further Materials from Western Europe. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Burge, Gary M., Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green. The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Contexts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Burr, Viktor. Tiberius Iulius Alexander. Antiquitas 1,1. Bonn: Habelt, 1955. Burton, Ernest de Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. —. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York: Routledge, 1993. —. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.

320

Bibliography

Calder, W. M. “Studies in Early Christian Epigraphy.” Journal of Roman Studies 10 (1920) 42–59. Callaway, Phillip R. The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Campbell, Barth L. Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 160. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. Campbell, J. Brian. The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 BCE – AD 235. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Caputo, Giacomo. “Note sugli edifici teatrali della Cirenaica.” Pages 281–91 in Anthemon. Scritti di archeologia e di antichità classiche in onore di Carlo Anti. Firenze: G. C. Sansoni, 1955. Carmignac, Jean. “Conjecture sur la première ligne de la Règle de la Communauté.” Revue de Qumran 2 (1959–60) 85–87. Carnevale, Peter J. and Alice M. Isen. “The Influence of Positive Affect and Visual Access on the Discovery of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (1986) 1–13. Carnevale, Peter J. and Edward J. Lawler. “Time Pressure and the Development of Integrative Agreements in Bilateral Negotiations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30 (1986) 636–59. Carnevale, Peter J. and Dean G. Pruitt. “Negotiation and Mediation.” Annual Review of Psychology 43 (1992) 531–82. Carr, David M. and Colleen M. Conway. An Introduction to the Bible: Sacred Texts and Imperial Contexts. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Carter, Michael J. D. “The Presentation of Gladiatorial Spectacles in the Greek East: Roman Culture and Greek Identity.” Ph.D. dissertation. McMaster University, 1999. Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Bible & Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000. —. “Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13–3.6.” Pages 14–33 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 8. London: T&T Clark, 2004. —. The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide. Abingdon Essential Guides. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006. —. “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism.” Pages 97–116 in New Meanings for Ancient Texts: Recent Approaches to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and John Kaltner. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013. Carver, Charles S., Michael F. Scheier, and Jagdish Kumari Weintraub. “Assessing Coping Strategies: A Theoretically Based Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (1989) 267–83. Castro-Klarén, Sara. “Mimicry Revisted: Latin America, Post-Colonial Theory and the Location of Knowledge.” Pages 137–64 in El debate de la postcolonialidad en Latinoamérica: una postmodernidad periférica o cambio de paradigma en el pensamiento latinoamericano. Edited by Alfonso de Toro and Fernando de Toro. Madrid: Iberoamericana, 1999. Cavaignac, Eugène. Population et capital dans le monde méditteranéen antique. Publications de la Faculté des lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 18. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923.

Bibliography

321

Ceresko, Anthony R. “The ABC’s of Wisdom in Psalm XXXIV.” Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985) 99–104. Césaire, Aimé. Discourse on Colonialism. Translated by Joan Pinkham. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000 [1955]. Chaniotis, Angelos. “The Jews of Aphrodisias: New Evidence and Old Problems.” Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002) 209–42. —. “From Communal Spirit to Individuality: The Epigraphic Habit in Hellenistic and Roman Crete.” Pages 75–87 in Creta romana e protobizantina: Atti del congresso internazionale (Iraklion, 23–30 settembre 2000). Edited by Monica Livadiotti. Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo, 2004. Chevallier, Max-Alain. “Condition et vocation des chrétiens en diaspora. Remarques exégétiques sure la 1er épître de Pierre.” Revue des sciences religieuses 48 (1974) 387–98. Chiat, Marilyn J. S. Handbook of Synagogue Architecture. Brown Judaic Studies 29. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982. Chin, Moses. “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless: Aliens and Strangers in 1 Peter.” Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991) 96–112. Chow, Rey. “Where Have All the Natives Gone?” Pages 125–51 in Displacements: Cultural Identities in Question. Theories of Contemporary Culture 15. Edited by Angelika Bammer. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. —. The Protestant Ethnic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Chun, Kevin M., Pamela Balls Organista, and Gerardo Marín, eds. Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research. Decade of Behavior; Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2003. Cialdini, Robert B. and Melanie R. Trost. “Social Influence: Social Norms, Conformity, and Compliance.” Pages 151–92 in The Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed. Edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Cipolla, Carlo M. Before the Industrial Revolution: European Society and Economy 1000– 1700. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 1993. Clark, Colin. The Conditions of Economic Progress. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1957. Clark, Colin and Margaret Rosary Haswell. The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1967. Clark, Kenneth B. and Mamie K. Clark. “The Development of Consciousness of Self and the Emergence of Racial Identification in Negro Preschool Children.” Journal of Social Psychology 10 (1939) 591–99. Clark, Rodney, Norman B. Anderson, Vernessa R. Clark, and David R. Williams. “Racism as a Stressor for African Americans: A Biopsychosocial Model.” American Psychologist 54 (1999) 805–16. Clarke, Andrew D. “The Good and the Just in Romans 5:7.” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990) 128– 42. Clinton, Henry F. Fasti Romani: The Civil and Literary Chronology of Rome and Constantinople, vol. 2: Appendix, From the Death of Augustus to the Death of Heraclius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1850. Clowney, Edmumd P. The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988. Coale, Ansley J. “Estimates of Average Size of Household.” Pages 64–69 in Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure. Edited by Ansley J. Coale, Marion J. Levy, Lloyd Fallers, David M. Schneider, and Silvan S. Tomkins. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.

322

Bibliography

Cohen, Raymond. Negotiating across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997. Cohen, Ronald L. “Power and Justice in Intergroup Relations.” Pages 65–84 in Justice in Social Relations. Edited by Hans Werner Bierhoff, Ronald L. Cohen, and Jerald Greenberg. New York: Plenum, 1986. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Colburn, Forrest D., ed., Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1989. Collins, John J. “The Provenance of the Third Sibylline Oracle.” Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies 2 (1974) 1–18. —. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974. —. “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition.” Pages 421–59 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Part II, Principat 20.1. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1987. —. “The Sibyl and the Potter: Political Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 57–69 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi. Edited by Lukas Bormann, Kelly Del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger. Novum Testamentum Supplements 74. Leiden: Brill, 1994. —. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. —. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Biblical Resources Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. —. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Literature on the Dead Sea Scrolls. London/New York: Routledge, 2002. —. “The Third Sibyl Revisited.” Pages 3–19 in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth A. Clements. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004. —. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, Matthew A. The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. Library of Second Temple Studies 67. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Combrink, H. J. B. “The Structure of 1 Peter.” Neotestamentica 9 (1975) 34–63. Conze, A. and C. Schuchhardt. “Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1886–1898.” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (Athenische Abtheilung) 24 (1899) 97–240. Corbier, Mireille. “Salaires et salariat sous le Haut-Empire.” Pages 61–101 in Les ‘devaluations’ à Rome: époque républicaine et impériale (Gdansk, 19 – 21 octobre 1978). Collection de l’École Française de Rome 37,2. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1980. —. “The Ambiguous Status of Meat in Ancient Rome.” Food and Foodways 3 (1989) 223– 64. Corley, Kathleen E. “1 Peter.” Pages 349–60 in Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2: A Feminist Commentary. Edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. New York: Crossroad, 1994. Coser, Lewis A. Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press, 1967.

Bibliography

323

Cothenet, Édouard. “Le réalisme de l’espérance chrétienne selon 1 Pierre.” New Testament Studies 27 (1980–81) 564–72. Coulton, J. J., N. P. Milner, and A. T. Reyes. “Balboura Survey: Onesimos and Meleager, Part 1.” Anatolian Studies 38 (1988) 121–45. Countryman, Louis W. The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accommodations. Texts and Studies in Religion 7. New York: Mellen, 1980. Crandall, Christian S. and Colby Cohen. “The Personality of the Stigmatizer: Cultural World View, Conventionalism, and Self-Esteem.” Journal of Research in Personality 28 (1994) 461–80. Cranfield, C. E. B. I & II Peter and Jude. Torch Bible Commentaries. London: SCM, 1960. —. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79. Crocker, Jennifer and Jason S. Lawrence. “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Role of Contingencies of Worth.” Pages 364–92 in Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict. Edited by Deborah A. Prentice and Dale T. Miller. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999. Crocker, Jennifer and Brenda Major. “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma.” Psychological Review 96 (1989) 608–30. —. “The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma: Evolution of a Modern Classic.” Psychological Inquiry 14 (2003) 232–37. Crocker, Jennifer, Brenda Major, and Claude M. Steele. “Social Stigma.” Pages 504–53 in The Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed. Edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Crook, Zeba A. Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 130. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Croom, A. T. Roman Clothing and Fashion. Stround: Tempus, 2000. Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd ed. Biblical Seminar 30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. —. “Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran and the Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246).” Pages 1–13 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Crossan, John Dominic and Jonathan L. Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004. Crossley, James G. Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins (26–50 CE). Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. —. Reading the New Testament: Contemporary Approaches. New York: Routledge, 2010. Crowther, C. “Works, Work and Good Works.” Expository Times 81 (1970) 166–71. D’Angelo, Mary R. “Εὐσέβεια: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals.” Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003) 139–65. Da Matta, Roberto. “Constraint and License: A Preliminary Study of Two Brazilian National Rituals.” Pages 244–64 in Secular Ritual. Edited by Sally F. Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977. Dalton, William J. Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6. 2nd ed. Analecta Biblica 23. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989.

324

Bibliography

Danker, Frederick W.. “First Peter in Sociological Perspective.” Interpretation 37 (1983) 84–88. Daube, David. “κερδαίνω as a Missionary Term.” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947) 109–20. —. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 2. London: University of London, 1956. Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Davies, Margaret. The Pastoral Epistles. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Davies, Philip R. “Didactic Stories.” Pages 99–133 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. —. “Sects from Texts: On the Problems of Doing a Sociology of the Qumran Literature.” Pages 69–82 in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William John Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen. Library of Second Temple Studies 52. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Davies, Roy W. “The Roman Military Diet.” Britannia 11 (1971) 122–42. Davies, W. 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. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Davila, James R. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005. De Dreu, Carsten K. W. “Social Conflict: The Emergence and Consequences of Struggle and Negotiation.” Pages 983–1023 in Handbook of Social Psychology. 5th ed. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, Gardner Lindzey. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2010. De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Bianca Beersma, Wolfgang Steinel, Gerben A. Van Kleef. “The Psychology of Negotiation: Principles and Basic Processes.” Pages 608–29 in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. 2nd ed. Edited by Arie W. Kruglanski and E. Troy Higgins. New York: Guilford, 2007. —. “A Theory-Based Measure of Conflict Management Strategies in the Workplace.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (2001) 645–68. de Ligt, Luuk. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire: Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic Trade in a Pre-Industrial Society. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 11. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1993. den Boer, W. Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects. Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Classica Batava 57. Leiden: Brill, 1979. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London: Duckworth, 1972. —. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981. de Villiers, Pieter G. R. “Heroes at Home: Identity, Ethos, and Ethics in 1 Timothy within the Context of the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 357–86 in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and François S. Malan. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 141. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.

Bibliography

325

de Vos, Craig S. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 168. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. —. “Popular Graeco-Roman Responses to Christianity.” Pages 869–89 in The Early Christian World. vol. 2 Edited by Philip F. Esler. New York: Routledge, 2000. de Wette, W. M. L. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen Bücher des Neuen Testaments. 6th ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1860. —. Kurze Erklärung der Briefe des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus. 3rd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 3/1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1865. Deines, Roland. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Demarest, John T. A Translation and Exposition of the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter. New York: John Moffet, 1851. Deselaers, Paul. Das Buch Tobit: Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 43. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Deutsch, Morton. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973. DeVoe, Richard F. Christianity and the Roman Games: The Pagnization of Christians by Gladiator, Charioteers, Actors and Actresses from the First through the Fifth Centuries A.D. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2002. Di Lella, A. A. “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3–11.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979) 380–89. Dibelius, Martin. Die Pastoralbriefe. 2nd ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 13. Tübingen: Mohr, 1931. Dibelius, Martin and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Diehl, Judy. “Empire and Epistles: Anti-Roman Rhetoric in the New Testament Epistles.” Currents in Biblical Research 10 (2012) 217–63. Dijkman, J. H. L. “The Socio-Religious Condition of the Recipients of I Peter: An Attempt to Solve the Problem of Date, Authorship and Addressees of the Letter.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand, 1984. Dimant, Devorah. “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance.” Pages 23–58 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Doering, Lutz. Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und-praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Domingo Gygax, Marc. “Euergetismus und Gabentausch.” Mètis: anthropologie des mondes grecs anciens 1 (2003) 181–200. —. “Les origines de l’évergétisme. Échanges et identités sociales dans la cité grecque.” Mètis: anthropologie des mondes grecs anciens 4 (2006) 269–95. —. “Gift-Giving and Power-Relationships in Greek Social Praxis and Public Discourse.” Pages 45–60 in The Gift in Antiquity. Edited by Michael L. Satlow. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

326

Bibliography

—. Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. Donaldson, Laura E., ed. Postcolonialism and Scriptural Reading. Semeia 75. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1996. Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 22. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. —. I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Donlan, Walter F. “Agathos-Kakos: A Study of Social Attitudes in Archaic Greece.” Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University, 1968. —. “The Origin of καλὸς κἀγαθός.” American Journal of Philology 94 (1973) 365–74. Donohue, W. A. “Analyzing Negotiation Tactics: Development of a Negotiation Interact System.” Human Communication Research 7 (1981) 273–87. Donovan, J. “Greek Jussives.” Classical Review 9 (1895) 145–49. Doudna, Gregory L. “Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis.” Pages 430– 71 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Dover, K. D. Greek Popular Morality In the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Dowd, Sharyn. “1 Peter.” Pages 370–72 in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisvile: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Downs, David J. “‘Early Catholicism’ and Apocalypticism in the Pastoral Epistles.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67 (2005) 641–61. Drew-Bear, Thomas. “Les voyages d’Aurélius Gaius, soldat de Dioclétien.” Pages 93–141 in La Géographie administrative et politique d’Alexandre à Mahomet: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 14–16 juin 1979. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 6. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Drexhage, Hans-Joachim. Preise, Mieten/Pachten, Kosten und Löhne im römischen Ägypten bis zum Regierungsantritt Diokletians. Vorarbeiten zu einer Wirtschaftsgeschichte des römischen Ägypten 1. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991. Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Paul Rainbow. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, with an Afterword by and Interview with Michel Foucault. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Drogula, Fred K., “The Office of the Provincial Governor under the Roman Republic and Empire (to AD 235): Conception and Tradition.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Virginia, 2005. Druckman, Daniel. “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38 (1994) 507–56. Druckman, Daniel, Benjamin J. Broome, Susan H. Korper. “Value Differences and Conflict Resolution: Facilitating or Delinking?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 32 (1988) 489– 510. Dryden, J. de Waal. Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Dube, Musa W. Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. St. Louis: Chalice, 2000. Dubis, Mark. 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. Duckitt, John. The Social Psychology of Prejudice. New York: Praeger, 1992.

Bibliography

327

—. “Reducing Prejudice: An Historical and Multi-Level Approach.” Pages 253–72 in Understanding Prejudice, Racism, and Social Conflict. Edited by Martha Augoustinos and Katherine J. Reynolds. London: SAGE Publications, 2001. Duhaime, Jean. “The War Scroll from Qumran and the Greco-Roman Tactical Treatises.” Revue de Qumran 49–52 (1988) 133–51. Duncan-Jones, Richard. “The Choenix, the Artaba and the Modius.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 21 (1976) 43–52. —. “The Price of Wheat in Roman Egypt under the Principate.” Chiron 6 (1976) 241–62. —. “Two Possible Indices of the Purchasing Power of Money in Greek and Roman Antiquity.” Pages 159–68 in Les ‘Dévaluations’ à Rome, époque républicaine et impériale (Rome, 13–15 novembre 1975). Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome 37. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1978. —. Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Duncan-Jones, Richard P. “Wealth and Munificence in Roman Africa.” Papers of the British School at Rome 31 (1963) 159–77. —. The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. —. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary 38B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988. Dussaud, René. “Comptes d’ouvriers d’une entreprise funéraire juive.” Syria 4 (1923) 241– 49. Dvorjetski, Esti. Leisure, Pleasure and Healing: Spa Culture and Medicine in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 116. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Dyson, Stephen L. “Native Revolts in the Roman Empire.” Historia 20 (1971) 239–74. —. “Native Revolt Patterns in the Roman Empire.” Pages 138–75 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Part II, Principat 3. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975. Easton, Burton S. The Pastoral Epistles: Introduction, Translation, Commentary, and Word Studies. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1947. Eck, Werner. “Der Euergetismus im Funktionszusammenhang der kaiserzeitlichen Städte.” Pages 305–31 in Actes du Xe Congrès international d’épigraphie grecque et latine. Nîmes, 4–9 octobre 1992. Edited by Michel Christol and Olivier Masson. Histoire ancienne et médiévale 42. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1997. Eco, Umberto. “The Frames of Comic ‘Freedom’.” Pages 1–9 in Carnival! Edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, Umberto Eco, Viacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, and Mônica Rector. Approaches to Semiotics 64. Berlin: Mouton, 1984. Eddy, Samuel K. The King is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334–31 B.C. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, 1961. Ego, Beate. “Textual Variants as a Result of Enculturation: The Banishment of the Demon in Tobit.” Pages 371–78 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Ehrman, Bart D. Forgery and Counter-Forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

328

Bibliography

Eiler, Claude. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. El Mansy, Aliyah. “Interreligiöse Ehen im literarischen Diskurs des 1./2. Jahrhunderts. Plutarch und der Erste Petrusbrief im Vergleich.” Pages 155–78 in Doing Gender – Doing Religion: Fallstudien zur Intersektionalität im frühen Judentum, Christentum und Islam. Edited by Ute E. Eisen, Christine Gerber, and Angela Standhartinger. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 302. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Elgvin, Torleif. “Wisdom With and Without Apocalyptic.” Pages 15–38 in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo, 1998. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez, Eileen M. Schuller. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Ellemers, Naomi and Wendy Van Rijswijk. “Identity versus Social Opportunities: The Use of Group Level and Individual Level Management Strategies.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60 (1997) 52–65. Elliott, John H. The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Peter 2:4–10 and the Phrase Basileion Hierateuma. Novum Testamentum Supplements 12. Leiden: Brill, 1966. —. “The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976) 243–54. —. “1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch.” Pages 61–78 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, Special Studies Series 9. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986. —. A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, with a New Introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990 [1981]. —. “Disgraced yet Graced: The Gospel according to 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and Shame.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 25 (1995) 166–78. —. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 37B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. —. “Jesus the Israelite was Neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5 (2007) 119–54. Elliott, Neil. “Marxism and the Postcolonial Study of Paul.” Pages 34–50 in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Engelmann, Michaela. Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen zum literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 192. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2012. Erdkamp, Paul. Hunger and the Sword: Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican Wars (264–30 B.C.). Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 20. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1998. Eriksson, LarsOlov. “Come, Children, Listen to Me!” Psalm 34 in the Hebrew Bible and in Early Christian Writings. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1991. Etienne, Stéphanie. “Réflexion sur l’apostasie de Tibérius Julius Alexander.” Studia Philonica Annual 12 (2000) 122–42. Evang, Martin. “‘Jedes menschliche Geschöpf’ und ‘treuer Schöpfer’. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte in 1 Petr 2,13; 4, 19.” Pages 53–67 in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Fest-

Bibliography

329

schrift für Erich Grässer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Edited by Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael Wolter. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 89. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Evans, Craig A. “Qumran’s Messiah: How Important Is He?” Pages 135–49 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Evans, John K. “Plebs rustica. The Peasantry of Classical Italy, II: The Peasant Economy.” American Journal of Ancient History 5 (1980) 134–73. —. “Resistance at Home: The Evasion of Military Service in Italy during the Second Century B.C.” Pages 121–40 in Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity. Edited by Toru Yuge and Masaoki Doi. Tokyo/Leiden: Society for Studies on Resistance Movements in Antiquity/Brill, 1988. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Die Qumrantexte und das biblische Kanonproblem.” Pages 251–71 in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament – Gestalt und Wirkung. Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauß. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999. Fagan, Garrett G. Bathing in Public in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Fagbemi, Stephen Ayodeji A. Who Are the Elect in 1 Peter? A Study in Biblical Exegesis and Its Application to the Anglican Church of Nigeria. Studies in Biblical Literature 104. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. —. “Transformation, Proclamation and Mission in the New Testament: Examining the Case of 1 Peter.” Transformation 27 (2010) 209–23. Falconer, Robert. The Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1937. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Charles Lam Markmann. New York: Grove, 1967 [1952]. Faure, Guy O. and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, eds. Culture and Negotiation: The Resolution of Water Disputes. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 1993. Fedalto, Giorgio. “Il toponimo di 1 Petr. 5,13 nella esegesi di Eusebio di Cesarea.” Vetera Christianorum 20 (1983) 461–66. Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. 2nd ed. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. Feldmeier, Reinhard. Die Christen als Fremde: Die Metapher der Fremde in der antiken Welt, im Urchristentum und im 1. Petrusbrief. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 64. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992. —. “Die Außenseiter als Avantgarde. Gesellschaftliche Ausgrenzung als missionarische Chance nach dem 1. Petrusbrief.” Pages 161–78 in Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism. Edited by Pieter W. van der Horst, Maarten J. J. Menken, Joop F. M. Smit, and Geert Van Oyen. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 33. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. —. The First Epistle of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Translated by Peter H. Davids. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008. Felix, Paul W. “Penal Substitution in the New Testament: A Focused Look at First Peter.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 20 (2009) 171–97.

330

Bibliography

Femia, Josephu. Gramsci’s Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Fink, Paul R. “The Use and Significance of en hōi in 1 Peter.” Grace Theological Journal 8 (1967) 33–39. Fiore, Benjamin. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. Analecta Biblica 105. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995) 655–75. —. Tobit. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Flint, Peter W. “Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Evidence from Qumran.” Pages 269–304 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, Weston W. Fields. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Folkman, Susan, Richard S. Lazarus, Rand J. Gruen, and Anita DeLongis. “Appraisal, Coping, Health Status, and Psychological Symptoms.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986) 571–79. Fontana, Benedetto. “Hegemony and Power in Gramsci.” Pages 80–106 in Hegemony: Studies in Consensus and Coercion. Edited by Richard Howson and Kylie Smith. Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought 56. New York: Routledge, 2008. Forbes, H. A. “Strategies and Soils: Technology, Production and Environment in the Peninsula of Methana, Greece.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1982. Forbis, Elizabeth. Municipal Virtues in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Italian Honorary Inscriptions. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 79. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996. Fotopoulos, John. Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/151. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Foucault, Michel. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry 8 (1982) 777–95. —. The History of Sexuality, vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage, 1990. Foulkes, Irene. “1 Peter.” Pages 878–85 in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Foxhall, Lin. Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Foxhall, Lin and H. A. Forbes. “Σιτομετρία: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity.” Chiron 12 (1982) 41–90. France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Frank, Tenney. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 1: Rome and Italy of the Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1933. —. “On the Export Tax of Spanish Harbors.” American Journal of Philology 57 (1936) 87– 90. Frayn, Joan M. “Wild and Cultivated Plants: A Note on the Peasant Economy of Ancient Italy.” Journal of Roman Studies 65 (1975) 32–39. Freedman, Stuart C. “Threats, Promises, and Coalitions: A Study of Compliance and Retaliation in a Simulated Organizational Setting.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 11 (1981) 114–36. Frézouls, Edmond. “L’hellénisme dans l’épigraphie de l’Asie mineure romaine.” Pages 125– 47 in ῾ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ. Quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identité grecque. Actes du

Bibliography

331

Colloque de Strasbourg 25–27 octobre 1989. Edited by Suzanne Saïd. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 11. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Friedländer, Moriz. Geschichte der jüdischen apologetik als vorgeschichte des christenthums. Zürich: Schmidt, 1903. Frier, Bruce W. “The Rental Market in Early Imperial Rome.” Journal of Roman Studies 67 (1977) 27–37. —. Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980. —. “Subsistence Annuities and per Capita Income in the Early Roman Empire.” Classical Philology 88 (1993) 222–30. Friesen, Steven J. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-called New Consensus.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004) 323–61. Fronmüller, G. F. C. The Epistles General of Peter and the Epistle General of Jude. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 9. New York: Charles Scribner, 1867. Fry, William R., et al. “Negotiation Process and Outcome of Stranger Dyads and Dating Couples: Do Lovers Lose?” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 4 (1983) 1–16. Fuchs, Harald. Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1964. Fuchs, Rüdiger. Unerwartete Unterschiede: Müssen wir unsere Ansichten über “die” Pastoralbriefe revidieren? Bibelwissenschaftliche Monographien 12. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2003. Fuks, Alexander. “Dositheos son of Drimylos: A Prosopographical Note.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 7–8 (1953–54) 205–09. Furfey, Paul H. “ΠΛΟΥΣΙΟΣ and Cognates in the New Testament.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 5 (1943) 241–63. Gaebelein, Paul W. “Psalm 34 and Other Biblical Acrostics: Evidence from the Aleppo Codex.” Maarav 5–6 (1990) 127–43. Galinsky, Adam D., Kurt Hugenberg, Carla Groom, Galen Bodenhausen. “The Reappropriation of Stigmatizing Labels: Implications for Social Identity.” Pages 221–56 in Identity Issues in Groups. Edited by Jeffrey T. Polzer. Research on Managing Groups and Teams 5. Amsterdam/Boston: JAI, 2003. Galinsky, Karl. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. —. “The Cult of the Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider?” Pages 1–21 in Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult. Edited by Jeffrey Brodd and Jonathan L. Reed. Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Gallagher, Susan VanZanten. “Mapping the Hybrid World: Three Postcolonial Motifs.” Semeia 75 (1996) 229–40. Garfinkel, Harold. “Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies.” American Journal of Sociology 61 (1956) 420–24. Garnsey, Peter. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. —. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Garnsey, Peter, Tom Gallant, and Dominic Rathbone. “Thessaly and the Grain Supply of Rome during the Second Century B.C.” Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984) 30–44.

332

Bibliography

Garnsey, Peter and Richard P. Saller. The Early Principate: Augustus to Trajan. New Surveys in the Classics 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Gaster, Moses. “Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of the Tobit Legend.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 18 (1896) 208–22, 59–71. —. “Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of the Tobit Legend.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 19 (1897) 27–38. Gathercole, Simon J. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gauger, Jörg-Dieter. Sibyllinische Weissagungen: Griechisch-Deutsch. Sammlung Tusculum. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler, 1998. Gauthier, Philippe. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVer – Ier siècle avant J.-C.): contribution à l’histoire des institutions. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 12. Paris: De Boccard, 1985. Geffcken, Johannes. Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula sibyllina. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur NF 8/1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902. Gehring, Roger W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Genovese, Eugene D. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon, 1974. Geschiere, Peter. “Le politique ‘par le bas’: Les vicissitudes d’une approche.” Pages 93–107 in Trajectoires de libération en Afrique contemporaine: Hommage à Robert Buijtenhuijs. Edited by Piet Konings, Wim van Binsbergen, and Gerti Hesseling. Paris/Leiden: Karthala/Afrika-Studiecentrum, 2000. Giesen, Heinz. “Lebenszeugnis in der Fremde: Zum Verhalten der Christen in der paganen Gesellschaft (1 Petr. 2.11–17).” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 23 (1998) 113–52. —. Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche: Studien zur Eschatologie und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptikern und im ersten Petrusbrief. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2004. Gilmore, David. “Carnival in Fuenmayor.” Journal of Anthropological Research 31 (1975) 331–49. Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Gmirkin, Russel. “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996) 89–129. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2. Teilband: Mk 8,27–16,20. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2,2. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1979. Godiwala, Dimple. “Postcolonial Desire: Mimicry, Hegemony, Hybridity.” Pages 59–79 in Reconstructing Hybridity: Post-Colonial Studies in Transition. Edited by Joel Kuortti and Jopi Nyman. Studies in Comparative Literature 51. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. Goffman, Erving. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Goldsmith, Raymond W. “An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire.” Review of Income and Wealth 30 (1984) 263–88. Goldstein, Horst. “Die politischen Paränesen in 1 Petr 2 und Röm 13.” Bibel und Leben 14 (1973) 88–104.

Bibliography

333

Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 2: The Archaeological Evidence from the Diaspora. Bollingen Series 37. New York: Pantheon, 1953. Goodman, Martin. “The Sibylline Oracles.” Pages III.1:618–53 in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C–A.D. 135). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987. —. “A Note on the Qumran Sectarians, the Essenes and Josephus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995) 161–66. —. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212. 2nd ed. Parkes-Wiener Series on Jewish Studies. London/Portland: Vallentine Mitchell, 2000. Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on I Peter. Translated by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Gorsline, Robin Hawley. “1 and 2 Peter.” Pages 724–36 in The Queer Bible Commentary. Edited by Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohache. London: SCM, 2006. Gosling, Anne. “Octavian, Brutus and Apollo: A Note on Opportunistic Propoganda.” American Journal of Philology 107 (1986) 586–89. Graf, Fritz. “Frauenfeste und verkehrte Welt.” Pages 37–51 in Geschlechterdifferenz, Ritual und Religion. Edited by Elmar Klingner, Stephanie Böhm, and Thomas Franz. Würzburg: Echter, 2003. Gramsci, Antonio. Prison Notebooks. Translated by Joseph A. Buttigieg and Antonio Callari. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Graser, Aaron and Christoph Stenschke. “Coping with Discrimination in the First Epistle of Peter and in Modern Social Psychology.” International Journal for Religious Freedom 5 (2012) 101–12. Gréaux, Eric James. “The Lord Delivers Us: An Examination of the Function of Psalm 34 in 1 Peter.” Review and Expositor 106 (2009) 603–13. Green, Gene L. “Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Aberdeen, 1979. —. “The Use of the Old Testament for Christian Ethics in 1 Peter.” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1993) 276–89. Green, H. Benedict. The Gospel according to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version: Introduction and Commentary. New Clarendon Bible: New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Green, Joel B. 1 Peter. Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Grudem, Wayne. 1 Peter. Tyndate New Testament Commentaries 17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gruder, Charles L. “Relationships with Opponent and Partner in Mixed-Motive Bargaining.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 15 (1971) 403–16. Gruen, Erich S. “Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the Third Sibylline Oracle.” Pages 15–36 in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. Edited by Martin Goodman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Grundmann, Walter. “ἀγαθός, κτλ.” Pages 10–18 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. vol. 1. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. —.. “καλός.” Pages 536–50 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. vol. 4. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

334

Bibliography

Grünewald, Thomas. Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Realty. Translated by John Drinkwater. London/New York: Routledge, 2004. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Gunkel, Hermann. Der erste Brief des Petrus. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917. Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. 2nd ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Gutwirth, Eleazer. “The ‘World Upside Down’ in Hebrew.” Orientalia Suecana 30 (1981) 141–47. Habicht, Christian. “Samische Volksbeschlüsse der Hellenistischen Zeit.” Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts (Athenische Abtheilung) 72 (1957) 152–274. Hachlili, Rachel. “Burial Practices at Qumran.” Revue de Qumran 62 (1993) 247–64. —. “The Qumran Cemetery: A Reconsideration.” Pages 661–67 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery 1947–1997: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emmanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & The Shrine of the Book, 2000. Haddock, Geoffrey, Mark P. Zanna, and Victoria M. Esses. “Assessing the Structure of Prejudicial Attitudes: The Case of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (1993) 1105–18. Häfner, Gerd. “Das Corpus Pastorale als literarisches Konstrukt.” Theologische Quartalschrift 187 (2007) 258–73. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993. Halevy, Nir, Gary Bornstein, and Lilach Sagiv. “‘In-Group Love’ and ‘Out-Group Hate’ as Motives for Individual Participation in Intergroup Conflict: A New Game Paradigm.” Psychological Science 19 (2008) 405–11. Hall, Randy. “For to This You Have Been Called: The Cross and Suffering in 1 Peter.” Restoration Quarterly 19 (1976) 137–47. Hall, Stuart. “When was ‘the Post-Colonial’? Thinking at the Limit.” Pages 237–57 in Postcolonialism: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. vol. 1. Edited by Diana Brydon. London: Routledge, 2000. Hallermayer, Michaela. Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Hands, A. R. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968. Hanhard, Robert. Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse Dritte Folge, Band 139. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XVII. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Hanson, A. T. Studies in the Pastoral Epistles. London: S.P.C.K., 1968. —. The Pastoral Epistles. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Harland, Philip A. “Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypse of John.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 77 (2000) 99–121. —. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Harris, H. A. Greek Athletics and the Jews. Trivium: Special Publications 3. Cardiff: University of Wales Press for St. David’s University College, 1976.

Bibliography

335

Harris, J. Rendel. “The Double Text of Tobit: Contribution Toward a Critical Inquiry.” American Journal of Theology 2 (1899) 541–54. Harrison, James R. Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 273. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hart, J. H. A. The First Epistle General of Peter. The Expositor’s Greek Testament 5. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910; Reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961. Harter, Susan. “Processes Underlying the Construction, Maintenance, and Enhancement of the Self-Concept in Children.” Pages 136–82 in Psychological Perspectives on the Self. vol. 3. Edited by Jerry Suls and Anthony G. Greenwald. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986. Hasler, Victor. Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Pastoralbriefe). Zürcher Bibelkommentare 12. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978. Hauge, Eirin Hoel. “Turn Away from Evil and Do Good!: Reading 1 Peter in Light of Psalm 34.” Ph.D. dissertation. Det teologiske Menighetsfakultete (Oslo), 2008. Haynes, Douglas and Gyan Prakash. “Introduction: The Entanglement of Power and Resistance.” Pages 1–22 in Contesting Power: Resistance and Everyday Social Relations in South Asia. Edited by Douglas Haynes and Gyan Prakash. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Healey, John F. “‘May He Be Remembered for Good’: Aramaic Formula.” Pages 177–87 in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara. Edited by Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 230. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Heen, Erik M. “The Role of Symbolic Inversion in Utopian Discourse: Apocalyptic Reversal in Paul and in the Festival of the Saturnalia/Kronia.” Pages 123–44 in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul. Edited by Richard A. Horsley. Semeia 48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Heichelheim, F. M. “Roman Syria.” Pages 121–257 in An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 4: Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor. Edited by Tenney Frank. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938. Heiligenthal, Roman. Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/9. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983. Helgeland, John. “Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine.” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Part II, Principat 23.1. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979. Helgeland, John, Robert J. Daly, and J. Patout Burns. Christians and the Military: The Early Experience. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Hendrix, Holland. “Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment: Evidence from Thessalonica.” Semeia 56 (1992) 39–58. Hengel, Martin. “Qumran and Hellenism.” Pages 46–56 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. —. Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 10. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1969. —. Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of Early Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.

336

Bibliography

—. “Messianische Hoffnung und politischer ‘Radikalismus’ in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen Aufstandes unter Trajan 115–117 n. Chr.” Pages 655–86 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by David Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983. Henning, Meghan. “In Sickness and in Health: Ancient ‘Rituals of Truth’ in the Greco-Roman World and 1 Peter.” Pages 185–203 in Disability Studies in Biblical Literature. Edited by Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Hensler, Christian G. Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus übersetzt und mit einem Kommentar versehen. Sulzbach: Seidel, 1813. Herz, Peter. “Finances and Costs of the Roman Army.” Pages 306–22 in A Companion to the Roman Army. Edited by Paul Erdkamp. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Herzer, Jens. Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 103. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. —. “Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A New Perspective on the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 547–66 in Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magdalena Misset-van de Weg. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Hicks, E. L. “On Some Political Terms Employed in the New Testament.” Classical Review 1 (1887) 4–8. Hiebert, D. Edmond. First Peter. 2nd ed. Chicago: Moody, 1992. Hillyer, Norman. 1 and 2 Peter, Jude. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992. Hingley, Richard. “Resistance and Domination: Social Change in Roman Britain.” Pages 81–102 in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. Edited by David J. Mattingly. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 23. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997. Hoag, Gary G. “Decorum and Deeds in 1 Timothy 2:9–10 in Light of Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus.” Ex Auditu 27 (2011) 134–60. Hobson, Deborah W. “House and Household in Roman Egypt.” Yale Classical Studies 28 (1985) 211–29. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Holloway, Paul A. “Bona Cogitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8–9.” Harvard Theological Review 91 (1998) 89–96. —. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. —. “Nihil inopinati accidisse – ‘Nothing unexpected has happened’: A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos in 1 Pet 4.12ff.” New Testament Studies 48 (2002) 433–48. —. Coping with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 244. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Holm, Douglas. “Holy Engagement: ‘Doing Good’ as a Missional Response in 1 Peter.” Leaven 20 (2012) 110–16. Holmer, Uwe and Werner de Boor. Die Briefe des Petrus und der Brief des Judas. 5th ed. Wuppertaler Studienbibel. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986. Holtzmann, Heinrich J. Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1880.

Bibliography

337

Hombert, Marcel and Claire Préaux. Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Égypte romaine: (P. Bruxelles Inv. E. 7616). Papyrological Lugduno-Batava 5. Lugdunum Batavorum: Brill, 1952. Hopkins, Keith. “Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (1980) 303–54. —. “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C. – A.D. 400).” Journal of Roman Studies 70 (1980) 101–25. —. “Rome, Taxes, Rents, and Trade.” Kodai 6/7 (1995/96) 41–75. —. “Rome, Taxes, Rents, and Trade.” Pages 190–230 in The Ancient Economy. Edited by Walter Scheidel and Sitta von Reden. New York: Routledge, 2002. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 8. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Horn, Christoph. “Der Güterbegriff der antiken Moralphilosophie.” Pages 61–72 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend. Edited by Friedrich Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Horrell, David G. “Converging Ideologies: Berger and Luckmann and the Pastoral Epistles.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 50 (1993) 85–103. —. The Epistles of Peter and Jude. Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough: Epworth, 1998. —. “The Product of a Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of 1 Peter.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 86 (2002) 29–60. —. “Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate Towards a Postcolonial Reading of 1 Peter.” Pages 111–43 in Reading 1 Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin. Library of New Testament Studies 364. London: T&T Clark, 2007. —. “The Label Χριστιανός: 1 Pet 4.16 and the Formation of Christian Identity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007) 361–81. —. 1 Peter. New Testament Guides. London: T&T Clark, 2008. —. “Aliens and Strangers? The Socioeconomic Location of the Addressees of 1 Peter.” Pages 176–202 in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. —. Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity. Library of New Testament Studies 394. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. —. “‘Honor everyone …’ (1 Pet 2.17): The Social Strategy of 1 Peter and its Significance for the Development of Christianity.” Pages 192–212 in To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and its Social World in Honor of John H. Elliott. Edited by Stephen K. Black. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2014. Horrell, David G., Bradley Arnold, and Travis B. Williams. “Visuality, Vivid Description, and the Message of 1 Peter: The Significance of the Roaring Lion (1 Peter 5:8).” Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 697–716. Horsley, Richard A., ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. Horsley, Richard A. and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985. Hort, F. J. A. The First Epistle of St. Peter I.1–II.17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes. London: Macmillan, 1898.

338

Bibliography

Houlden, J. L. Ethics and the New Testament. London: Mowbrays, 1975. Howe, Bonnie. Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter. Biblical Interpretation Series 81. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Howe, Frederic R. “The Cross of Christ in Peter’s Theology.” Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000) 190–99. Howson, Richard and Kylie Smith, eds. Hegemony: Studies in Consensus and Coercion. Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought 56. New York: Routledge, 2008. Huggan, Graham. “A Tale of Two Parrots: Walcott, Rhys, and the Use of Colonial Mimicry.” Contemporary Literature 35 (1994) 643–60. Hughes, H. Maldwyn. The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature. London: Culley, 1910. Hultgård, Anders. “Figures messianiques d’Orient comme sauveurs universels dans le monde gréco-romain.” Pages 734–52 in La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero romano: atti del Colloquio internazionale su la soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’Impero romano, Roma, 24–28 Settembre 1979. Edited by Ugo Bianchi and M. J. Vermaseren. Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 92. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Hultsch, Friedrich. Griechische und römische Metrologie. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1882. Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno. “Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes.” Pages 67–77 in Gottes Wort und Gottesland. Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburstag. Edited by Henning Graf Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Huschke, Philipp E. Über den Census und die Steuerverfassung der frühern römischen Kaiserzeit ein Beitrag zur römischen Staatswissenschaft. Berlin: Gebauer, 1847. Hutchesson, Ian. “The Essene Hypothesis After Fifty Years: An Assessment.” Qumran Chronicle 9 (2000) 17–34. Huther, J. E. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of Peter and Jude. Translated by D. B. Croom and P. J. Gloag. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1893. Hutnyk, John. “Hybridity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (2005) 79–102. Hüttenmeister, Frowald and Gottfried Reeg. Die antiken Synagogen in Israel, 1: Die jüdischen Synagogen, Lehrhäuser und Gerichtshöfe. Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients / Beihefte / B 12,1. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977. Innocenti, Beth. “Towards a Theory of Vivid Description as Practiced in Cicero’s Verrine Orations.” Rhetorica 12 (1994) 355–81. Iosif, Despina. “‘The Present and Future Worlds Are Enemies to Each Other’: Early Christian Aloofness and Participation in the Pagan World.” Pages 289–308 in Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age. Edited by Richard Alston, Onno M. van Nijf, and Christina G. Williamson. Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age 3. Peeters: Leuven, 2013. Isaacman, Allen and Barbara Isaacman. “Resistance and Collaboration in Southern and Central Africa, c. 1850–1920.” International Journal of African Historical Studies 10 (1977) 31–62. Isager, Signe. “Halikarnassos and the Well of Aphrodite: On EM 199, Text and Provenance.” Pages 153–58 in Ancient History Matters: Studies Presented to Jens Erik Skydsgaard on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Karen Ascani, Vincent Gabrielsen, Kirsten Kvist, and Anders H. Rasmussen. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 30. Rome: “L’erma” di Bretschneider, 2002.

Bibliography

339

Jacobs, Martin. “Theatres and Performances as Reflected in the Talmud Yerushalmi.” Pages 327–47 in Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Edited by Peter Schäfer. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 71. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Jahn, Joachim. “Zur Entwicklung römischer Soldzahlungen von Augustus bis auf Diokletian.” Studien zu den Fundmünzen der Antike 2 (1984) 53–74. James, C. L. R. Beyond a Boundary. London: Stanley Paul, 1963. James, William. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt & Co., 1890. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Jasny, Naum. “Competition Among Grains in Classical Antiquity.” American Historical Review 47 (1942) 747–64. —. The Wheats of Classical Antiquity. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science 62/3. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1944. —. “Wheat Prices and Milling Costs in Classical Rome.” Wheat Studies of the Food Research Institute 20 (1944) 137–70. Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jeffers, James S. Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Jeremias, Joachim. “Die Salbungsgeschichte Mc 14,3–9.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 35 (1936) 75–82. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jobes, Karen H. “Got Milk? Septuagint Psalm 33 and the Interpretation of 1 Peter 2:1–3.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2002) 1–14. —. 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Jobling, David. “‘Very Limited Ideological Options’: Marxism and Biblical Studies in Postcolonial Scenes.” Pages 184–201 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia. The Bible and Postcolonialism. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Johnson, Luke Timothy. “II Timothy and the Polemic against False Teachers: A Re-Examination.” Journal of Religious Studies 6–7 (1978–79) 1–26. —. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 35A. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Johnstone, Robert. The First Epistle of Peter: Revised Text, with Intoduction and Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888. Jokiranta, Jutta. “‘Sectarianism’ of the Qumran ‘Sect’: Sociological Notes.” Revue de Qumran 78 (2001) 223–39. —. Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 105. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Jones, A. H. M. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. —. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social Economic and Administrative Survey. 3 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964. Jones-Haldeman, Madelynn. “The Function of Christ’s Suffering in First Peter 2:21.” Th.D. dissertation. Andrews University, 1988. Jongman, Willem. The Economy and Society of Pompeii. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 4. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1988.

340

Bibliography

Jossa, Giorgio. “La sottomissione alle autorita politiche in 1 Pt 2,13–17.” Rivista Biblica 44 (1996) 205–11. Joubert, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. —. “One Form of Social Exchange or Two? ‘Euergetism,’ Patronage, and Testament Studies.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 31 (2001) 17–25. Joüon, Paul. “Quelques hébraïsmes du Codex Sinaiticus de Tobie.” Biblica 4 (1923) 168–74. —. “Notes philologiques sur quelques versets de l’Épître aux Éphésiens.” Recherches de science religieuse 26 (1936) 454–64. Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain: leur condition juridique, économique et sociale. Paris: Geuthner, 1914. Justnes, Årstein. The Time of Salvation: An Analysis of 4QApocryphon of Daniel ar (4Q246), 4QMessianic Apocalypse (4Q521 2), and 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a). European University Studies 23, Theology, vol. 893. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Jüthner, Julius. “Kalokagathia.” Pages 99–119 in Charisteria: Alois Rzach zum 80. Geburtstag dargebracht. Reichenberg: Gebrüder Stiepel, 1930. Kahrstedt, Ulrich. Das wirtschaftliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit: Kleinstadt, Villa und Domäne. Dissertationes Bernenses 1/7. Bernae: A. Francke, 1954. —. Kulturgeschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit. 2nd ed. Bern: Francke, 1958. Kaimio, Jorma. “Notes on the Pay of Roman Soldiers.” Arctos 9 (1975) 39–46. Kaiser, Cheryl R. and Carol T. Miller. “Reacting to Impending Discrimination: Compensation for Prejudice and Attributions to Discrimination.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (2001) 1357–67. Kalinowski, Angela. “The Vedii Antonini: Aspects of Patronage and Benefaction in Second-Century Ephesos.” Phoenix 56 (2002) 109–49. Karris, Robert J. “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973) 549–64. Käsemann, Ernst. An die Römer. 3rd ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 8a. Tübingen: Mohr, 1974. Kearsley, Rosalinde A. “A Civic Benefactor of the First Century in Asia Minor.” Pages 233– 41 in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 7: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1982–83. Edited by Stephen R. Llewelyn. North Ryde: Macquarie University, 1994. —. “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul.” Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999) 189–211. Keck, Leander E. Romans. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kehoe, Dennis P. The Economics of Agriculture on Roman Imperial Estates in North Africa. Hypomnemata 89. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Keil, Carl F. Commentar über die Briefe des Petrus und Judas. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1883. Keil, Josef, et al. Bericht über eine Reise in Lydien und der südlichen Aiolis, ausgeführt 1906 im auftrage der kaiserlichen Akademie der wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 53/2. Vienna: A. Hölder, 1908.

Bibliography

341

Kelhoffer, James A. Persecution, Persuasion, and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 270. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. —. “Improvising Two Different Responses to Persecution: First Peter’s Innovations and Relationship to the Corpus Paulinum.” Pages 263–80 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 200. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. Kelly, J. N. D. The Pastoral Epistles. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1960. —. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Kenner, Hedwig. “Das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt in der klassischen Antike.” Forschungen und Fortschritte 41 (1967) 11–14. —. Das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt in der griechischrömischen Antike. Aus Forschung und Kunst 8. Klagenfurt: Geschichtsvrein f. Kärnten, 1970. Kerr, Norbert L. “Motivation Losses in Small Groups: A Social Dilemma Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (1983) 819–28. Kidd, Reggie M. Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles: A Bourgeois Form of Early Christianity? Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 122. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Kiel, Micah D. The “Whole Truth”: Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit. Library of Second Temple Studies 82. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Kiesler, Charles A. and Sara Kiesler. Conformity. Topics in Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Kim, Kyoung-Shik. God Will Judge Each One according to Works: Judgment according to Works and Psalm 62 in Early Judaism and the New Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 178. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. King, A. “Diet in the Roman World: A Regional Inter-Site Comparison of Mammal Bones.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 12 (1999) 168–202. Kitsuse, John. “Societal Reaction to Deviance: Problems of Theory and Method.” Social Problems 9 (1962) 247–56. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Knapp, Mark L., Linda L. Putnam, and Lillian J. Davis. “Measuring Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations: Where Do We Go from Here?” Management Communication Quarterly 1 (1988) 414–29. Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Knights, David and Theodore Vurdubakis. “Foucault, Power, and Resistance and All That.” Pages 167–98 in Resistance and Power in Organizations. Edited by John M. Jermier, David Knights, and Walter R. Nord. London/New York: Routledge, 1994. Knoch, Otto. 1. und 2. Timotheusbrief, Titusbrief. Neue Echter Bibel 14. Würzburg: Echter, 1988.

342

Bibliography

—. Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1990. Knopf, Rudolf. Die Briefe Petri und Judä. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912. Kochhar-Lindgren, Kanta. “Mimicry.” Pages 297–98 in Encyclopedia of Postcolonial Studies. Edited by John C. Hawley. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Stamm, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995. Kokkinia, Christina. Die Operamoas-Inschrift von Rhodiapolis: Euergetismus uns Soziale Elite in Lykine. Antiquitas, Reihe 3, Band 40. Bonn: Habelt, 2000. Konoske, Paula, Sandra Staple, and Richard G. Graf. “Compliant Reactions to Guilt: Self-Esteem or Self-Punishment.” Journal of Social Psychology 108 (1979) 207–21. Kraabel, A. T. “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982) 445–64. Krentz, Edgar. “Order in the ‘House’ of God: The Haustafel in 1 Peter 2:11–3:12.” Pages 279–85 in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon Snyder. Edited by Julian Victor Hills and Richard B. Gardner. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998. Kressel, Kenneth and Dean G. Pruitt, eds. Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989. Kriesberg, Louis. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Krodel, Gerhard. “1 Peter.” Page 42–83 in The General Letters: Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, Jude, 1–2–3 John. 2nd ed. Proclamation Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Kroeger, Catherine Clark. “Towards a Pastoral Understanding of 1 Peter 3.1–6 and Related Texts.” Pages 82–88 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 8. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Kroll, John H. “The Greek Inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001) 5–127. Kruger, Paul A. “Symbolic Inversion in Death: Some Examples from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near Eastern World.” Verbum et Ecclesia 26 (2005) 398–411. —. “The World ‘Topsy-Turvy’ and the Ancient Near Eastern Cultures: A Few Examples.” Anthropology Southern Africa 29 (2006) 115–21. —. “A Woman Will ‘Encompass’ a Man: On Gender Reversal in Jer 31,22b.” Biblica 89 (2008) 380–88. Kugler, Robert A. The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Kühl, Ernst. Die Briefe Petri und Judae. 6th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897. Kurfess, Alfons. “Das Mahngedicht des sogenannten Phokylides im zweiten Buch der Oracula Sibyllina.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 (1939) 171–81. —. “Oracula Sibyllina I/II.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 40 (1941) 151–65. Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy. Carnival in Romans. New York: G. Braziller, 1979.

Bibliography

343

Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains. Etudes bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1950. Laistner, M. L. W. Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire, Together with an English Translation of John Chrysostom’s Address on Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up Their Children. James W. Richard Lectures in History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1951. Lamau, Marie-Louise. Des chrétiens dans le monde: Communautés pétriniennes au 1er siècle. Lectio Divina 134. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Lambrecht, Jan. “Christian Freedom in 1 Pet 2,16: A Grammatical and Exegetical Note.” Pages 319–25 in Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on the Book of Revelation. Analecta Biblica 147. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001. Lamp, Jeffrey S. “Friendship with the World: Social Accommodation and the Evangelistic Imperative in 1 Timothy.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 42 (2007) 87–102. Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Translated by Michael Steinhauser. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Lanckoroński, Karl, ed. Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Unter Mitwirkung von G. Niemann und E. Petersen, Band 1: Pamphylien. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1890. —, ed. Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Unter Mitwirkung von G. Niemann und E. Petersen, Band 2: Pisidien. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1892. Lang, Mabel L. Cure and Cult in Ancient Corinth: A Guide to the Asklepieion. Corinth Notes 1. Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1977. Lange, Armin. “‘The Law, the Prophets, and the Other Books of the Fathers’ (Sir, Prologue): Canonical Lists in Ben Sira and Elsewher.” Pages 55–80 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Larfeld, Wilhelm. Griechische epigraphik. 3rd ed. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1914. Lazarus, Richard S. and Susan Folkman. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer, 1984. Lea, Thomas D. and Hayne P. Griffin. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. New American Commentary 34. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Leaney, A. R. C. The Letters of Peter and Jude: A Commentary on the First Letter of Peter, a Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Lebram, Jürgen. “Die Peschitta zu Tobit 7,11–14,15.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957) 185–211. Lefkowitz, Mary R. and Maureen B. Fant. Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. Légasse, S. “La Soumission aux Autorités d’après 1 Pierre 2.13–17: Version Spécifique d’une Parénèse Traditionelle.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988) 378–96. Lévi, Israël. “La langue originale de Tobit.” Revue des études juives 44 (1902) 288–91. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Tobit: Teaching Jews How to Live in the Diaspora.” Bible Review 8 (1992) 42–51. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. Liebenam, Wilhelm. Städteverwaltung im Römischen kaiserreiche. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1900.

344

Bibliography

Liew, Tatsiong Benny. “Tyranny, Boundary and Might: Colonial Mimicry in Mark’s Gospel.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 73 (1999) 7–31. Lifshitz, Baruch. “L’origine du nom des chretiens.” Vigiliae christianae 16 (1962) 65–70. Lightfoot, J. L. The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lim, Jason Jit-Fong. The Trials of the Christians as Elect Resident Aliens and Visiting Strangers in 1 Peter, with an Emphasis on the Context of 1 Peter within the Graeco-Roman Milieu. Jian Dao Dissertation Series 11. Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 2005. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary 42. Dallas: Word, 1990. Lippert, Peter. “Leben als Zeugnis: Ein Beitrag des ersten Petrusbriefes zur pastoral-theologischen Problematik der Gegenwart.” Studia Moralia 3 (1965) 226–68. Ljungvik, Herman. “Zum Gebrauch einiger Adverbien im Neuen Testament.” Eranos 62 (1964) 26–39. Loader, William R. G. The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature. Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. —. The New Testament on Sexuality. Grand Rapis: Eerdmans, 2012. Longenecker, Bruce W. “Exposing the Economic Middle: A Revised Economy Scale for the Study of Early Urban Christianity.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (2009) 243–78. —. “Socio-Economic Profiling of the First Urban Christians.” Pages 36–59 in After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later. Edited by Todd D. Still and David G. Horrell. London: T&T Clark, 2009. —. Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Lüderitz, Gert. “What is the Politeuma?” Pages 183–225 in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Pieter W. van der Horst. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchirstentums 21. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Luraghi, Nino. The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Luria, Salomo. “Die Ersten werden die Letzten sein (zur ‘sozialen Revolution’ im Altertum).” Klio 22 (1929) 405–31. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. MacMullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966. —. Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974. —. “The Roman Emperors’ Army Costs.” Latomus 43 (1984) 571–80. Macro, Anthony D. “The Cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium.” Pages 658–97 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Part II, Principat 7.2. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Madsen, Jesper Majbom. “Intellectual Resistance to Roman Hegemony and its Representativity.” Pages 63–83 in Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation, Resistance. Edited by Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen. Black Sea Studies 5. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2006.

Bibliography

345

Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Maier, Harry O. The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius. Dissertations, Studies in Religion 1. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991. Major, Brenda and Laurie T. O’Brien. “The Social Psychology of Stigma.” Annual Review of Psychology 56 (2005) 393–421. Major, Brenda and Toni Schmader. “Coping with Stigma through Psychological Disengagement.” Pages 219–41 in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective. Edited by Janet K. Swim and Charles Stangor. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998. Major, Brenda, Steven Spencer, Toni Schmader, Connie Wolfe, and Jennifer Crocker. “Coping with Negative Stereotypes about Intellectual Performance: The Role of Psychological Disengagement.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (1998) 34–50. Major, Brenda and Sarah S. M. Townsend. “Coping with Bias.” Pages 410–25 in The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. Edited by John F. Dovidio, Miles Hewstone, Peter Glick, and Victoria M. Esses. London: SAGE Publications, 2010. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 19–35 in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers: A Volume in Honor of Stuart Dickson Currie. Edited by W. Eugene March. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980. —. “‘In Season and Out of Season’: 2 Timothy 4:2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984) 235–43. —. “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 331–58 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. Novum Testamentum Supplements 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005. —. “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth: 1 Timothy 6:3–19 (Part II).” Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 73–96. Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey. “Conflict in Luke-Acts: Labelling and Deviance Theory.” Pages 97–122 in Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Manley, G. T. “Babylon on the Nile.” Evangelical Quarterly 16 (1944) 138–46. Marchal, Joseph A. The Politics of Heaven: Women, Gender, and Empire in the Study of Paul. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Margot, Jean-Claude. Les Épîtres de Pierre: Commentaire. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1960. Marquardt, Joachim. Römische Staatsverwaltung. 2nd ed. Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer 4–6. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1881–85; Reprinted New York: Arno, 1975. Marrou, Henri-Irénée. A History of Education in Antiquity. Wisconsin Studies in Classics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956 [1948]. Marshall, I. Howard. “Tradition and Theology in Luke.” Tyndale Bulletin 20 (1969) 56–75. —. 1 Peter. IVP New Testament Commentary Series 17. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1991. —. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Marshall, John W. “Postcolonialism and the Practice of History.” Pages 93–108 in Her Master’s Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse. Edited by Caroline Vander Stichele and Todd Penner. Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.

346

Bibliography

Martin, Robin and Miles Hewstone. “Conformity and Independence in Groups: Majorities and Minorities.” Pages 209–34 in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Edited by Michael A. Hogg and R. Scott Tindale. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Martin, Troy W. Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 131. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. —. “The Good as God (Romans 5.7).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (2002) 55–70. —. “Roaring Lions among Diaspora Metaphors: First Peter 5:8 in Its Metaphorical Context.” Page 167–79 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 200. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. Mason, A. J. “The First Epistle General of Peter.” Pages 383–436 in A New Testament Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers. vol. 3. Edited by C. J. Ellicott. London: Cassell, 1884. Masterman, J. Howard B. The First Epistle of S. Peter (Greek Text), with Introduction and Notes. London: Macmillan & Co., 1900. Mastino, Attilio. “Le relazioni tra Africa e Sardegna in età romana: inventario preliminare.” Pages 27–92 in L’Africa romana. 2, Atti del II convegno di studio, Sassari, 14–16 dicembre 1984. Edited by Attilio Mastino. Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Sassari 5. Sassari: Edizioni Gallizzi, 1985. Mathews, Mark D. Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Mattern, Lieselotte. Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 47. Zürich: Zwingli, 1966. Mattingly, David J. “First Fruit? The Olive in the Roman World.” Pages 213–53 in Human Landscape in Classical Antiquity: Environment and Culture. Edited by Graham Shipley and John Salmon. Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 6. London/New York: Routledge, 1996. Mattingly, Harold B. “The Origin of the Name Christiani.” Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958) 26–37. Mayer, Emanuel. The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire, 100 BCE–250 CE. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Mazzeo, Michele. Lettere di Pietro, Lettera di Giuda. Libri biblici, Nuovo Testamento 18. Milan: Paoline, 2002. McCartney, Dan G. “Atonement in James, Peter and Jude: “Because Christ Suffered for You”.” Pages 176–89 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Roger Nicole. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. McClintock, Anne. “The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term ‘Post-Colonialism’.” Social Text 31 (1992) 84–98. McGowan, Andrew. “Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism Against Christians in the Second Century.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (1994) 413–42. McKay, K. L. “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek.” Novum Testamentum 27 (1985) 201–26. McKnight, Scot. 1 Peter. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. —. “Aliens and Exiles: Social Location and Christian Vocation.” Word & World 24 (2004) 378–86.

Bibliography

347

—. The Letter of James. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. McKnight, Scot and Joseph B. Modica. Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013. McLeod, John. Beginning Postcolonialism. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010. McNamara, Martin. “Some Targum Themes.” Pages 303–56 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. —. Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible. A Light on the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. McQuillan, Martin. “Irish Eagleton: Of Ontological Imperialism and Colonial Mimicry.” Irish Studies Review 10 (2002) 29–38. Meecham, H. G. “A Note on 1 Peter ii.12.” Expository Times 65 (1953–54) 93. Meeks, Wayne A. The Moral World of the First Christians. Library of Early Christianity 6. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Meggitt, Justin. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. —. “Meat Consumption and Social Conflict in Corinth.” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994) 137–41. Meier, John P. Matthew. New Testament Message 3. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1980. Meier, Mischa. “Kalokagathia.” Pages 209–10 in Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Das klassische Altertum und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte. vol. 6. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, and August Friedrich von Pauly. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1999. Memmi, Albert. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Translated by Howard Greenfeld. New York: Orion, 1965 [1957]. Mendelson, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 7. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982. —. Philo’s Jewish Identity. Brown Judaic Studies 161. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Merk, Otto. “Glaube und Tat in den Pastoralbriefen.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 66 (1975) 91–102. Merkel, Helmut. Sibyllinen. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 5/8. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998. Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Metzner, Rainer. Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangelium im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluss des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Michaelis, Heinrich. “Kritische würdigung der preise des edictum Diocletiani vom nationalökonomischen standpunkte aus.” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 53 (1897) 1–29. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 49. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. Migeotte, Léopold. Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 17. Genève: Droz, 1992.

348

Bibliography

—. “Finances et constructions publiques.” Pages 79–86 in Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus: Kolloquium, München, 24. bis 26. Juni 1993. Edited by Michael Wörrle and Paul Zanker. Vestigia 47. Munich: Beck, 1995. Milik, J. T. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea. Translated by John Strugnell. Studies in Biblical Theology 26. London: SCM Press, 1959. Miller, Carol T. “Social Psychological Perspectives on Coping with Stressors Related to Stigma.” Pages 21–44 in Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives. Edited by Shana Levin and Colette van Laar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. Miller, Carol T. and Brenda Major. “Coping with Stigma and Prejudice.” Pages 243–72 in The Social Psychology of Stigma. Edited by Todd F. Heatherton, Robert E. Kleck, Michelle R. Hebl, and Jay G. Hull. New York: Guilford Press, 2000. Miller, Carol T. and Anna M. Myers. “Compensating for Prejudice: How Heavyweight People (and Others) Control Outcomes Despite Prejudice.” Pages 191–218 in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective. Edited by Janet K. Swim and Charles Stangor. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998. Miller, Dale T. “Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice.” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (2001) 527–53. Miller, Daniel. “The Limits of Domination.” Pages 63–79 in Domination and Resistance. Edited by Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands, and Christopher Tilley. One World Archaeology 3. London/Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Miller, Daniel, Michael Rowlands, and Christopher Tilley. “Introduction.” Pages 1–26 in Domination and Resistance. Edited by Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands, and Christopher Tilley. One World Archaeology 3. London/Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Miller, Larry. “Christianisme et societé dans la première lettre de Pierre: histoire de l’interprétation, interprétation de l’histoire.” Ph.D. dissertation. Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, 1995. —. “La protestation sociale dans la première lettre de Pierre.” Social Compass 46 (1999) 521–43. Minh-ha, Trinh T. Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. Mitchell, Katharyne. “Different Diasporas and the Hype of Hybridity.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15 (1997) 533–53. Mitchell, Stephen. “Festivals, Games, and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor.” Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990) 183–93. —. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. 1: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. —. “Olive Cultivation in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor.” Pages 83–113 in Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor. Edited by Stephen Mitchell and Constantina Katsari. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2005. Mitchell, Timothy. “Everyday Metaphors of Power.” Theory and Society 19 (1990) 545–77. Modrzejewski, Joseph. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Translated by Robert Cornman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Moffatt, James. The General Epistles: James, Peter and Judas. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928. Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Some Preliminary Remarks on the ‘Religious Opposition’ to the Roman Empire.” Pages 103–33 in Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan: neuf exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœuvres-Genève, 25–30 août 1986. Edited by

Bibliography

349

Kurt A. Raaflaub, Adalberto Giovannini, and Denis van Berchem. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33. Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1987. Monnier, Jean. La Première Épître de L’Apôtre Pierre. Macon: Protat Frères, 1900. Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Moore, Carey A. Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 40A. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Moore, Stephen D. Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament. The Bible in the Modern World 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006. —. “Paul after Empire.” Pages 9–23 in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. —. “Situating Spivak.” Pages 15–30 in Planetary Loves: Spivak, Postcoloniality, and Theology. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Mayra Rivera. Transdisciplinary Theological Colloquia. New York: Fordham University Press, 2011. Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics. London/New York: Verso, 1997. Moreau, Jacques. “Le nom des Chrétiens.” La Nouvelle Clio 4 (1949–50) 190–92. Morgan, Teresa. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Moritz, Ludwig A. Grain-Mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958. Moscovici, Serge. “Social Influence and Conformity.” Pages 347–412 in The Handbook of Social Psychology. 3rd ed. Edited by Gardner Lindsey and Elliot Aronson. New York: Random House, 1985. Mott, Stephen Charles. “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Background of Titus II.10–14 and III.3–7.” Novum Testamentum 20 (1978) 22–48. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Moulton, J. H. “The Iranian Background of Tobit.” Expository Times 11 (1900) 257–60. Moulton, James H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1: Prolegomena. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary 46. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Moxnes, Halvor. “Because of ‘The Name of Christ’: Baptism and the Location of Identity in 1 Peter.” Pages 605–28 in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, Øyvind Norderval, Christer Hellholm. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 176. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Mueller, James R. The Five Fragments of the Apocyphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Mühlmann, Wilhelm E. Chiliasmus und Nativismus: Studien zur Psychologie, Soziologie und historischen Kasuistik der Umsturzbewegungen. Studien zur Soziologie der Revolution 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1961. —. “Das Mythologem von der verkehrten Welt.” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 13 (1961) 614–24. Mullin, Gerald W. Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.

350

Bibliography

Münch, Christian. “Geschwister in der Fremde. Zur Ethik des Ersten Petrusbriefes.” Pages 130–64 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 216. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth: Text and Archaeology. 3rd ed. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Naipaul, V. S. The Mimic Men. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Naylor, H. D. “Prohibitions in Greek.” Classical Review 19 (1905) 26–30. Neal, G. C. “In the Original Greek.” Tyndale Bulletin 12 (1963) 12–16. Neale, Margaret A. and Max H. Bazerman. “The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal 28 (1985) 34–39. Needham, Anuradha Dingwaney. Using the Master’s Tools: Resistance and the Literature of the African and South-Asian Diasporas. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Neesen, Lutz. Untersuchungen zu den direkten Staatsabgaben der römischen Kaiserzeit (27 v. Chr. – 284 n. Chr.). Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte 32. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Neugebauer, Fritz. “Zur Deutung und Bedeutung des 1. Petrusbriefes.” New Testament Studies 26 (1979) 61–86. Newman, Barclay M. and Philip C. Stine. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. New York: United Bible Societies, 1992. Newsom, Carol A. “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167–87 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman. Biblical and Judaic Studies 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Nicklas, Tobias and Christian Wagner. “Thesen zur textlichen Vielfalt im Tobitbuch.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 34 (2003) 141–59. Nicols, J. “On the Standard Size of the ordo decurionum.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 105 (1988) 712–19. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/28. Tübingen: Mohr, 1987. —. “4Q521 2 II—Ein eschatologischer Psalm.” Pages 151–68 in Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Aleksy Klawek. Edited by Zdzislaw Jan Kapera. Qumranica Mogilanensia 15. Kraków: Enigma Press, 1998. —. “Tora ohne Tempel: Paulus und der Jakobusbrief im Zusammenhang frühjüdischer Torarezeption für die Diaspora.” Pages 427–60 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Nolland, John. “Sib. Or. III.265–94, An Early Maccabean Messianic Oracle.” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979) 158–67. —. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Bibliography

351

O’Brien, George A. T. The Economic History of Ireland from the Union to the Famine. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1921. O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Oberlinner, Lorenz. Die Pastoralbriefe. 3 vols. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 11/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1994–1996. Oliver, James H. “Epaminondas of Acraephia.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 12 (1971) 221–37. Olson, Vernon S. “The Atonement in 1 Peter.” Ph.D. dissertation. Union Theological Seminary (Virginia), 1979. Olsson, Birger. Första Petrusbrevet. Kommentar till Nya testamentet 17. Stockholm: EFS-förlaget, 1982. —. “A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter.” Pages 827–46 in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Edited by Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Oppenheimer, A’haron. Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Oropeza, B. J. Churches Under Siege of Persecution and Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation. Apostasy in the New Testament Communities 3. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Orth, F. “Gerste.” Pages 1275–84 in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. vol. 7/1. Edited by August Friedrich von Pauly, Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus, and Konrat Ziegler. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1910. Osborne, Grant R. Romans. IVP New Testament Commentary Series 6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Osborne, Jason W. “Academics, Self-Esteem, and Race: A Look at the Underlying Assumptions of the Disidentification Hypothesis.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 (1995) 449–55. Osiek, Carolyn and David L. Balch. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Oskamp, Stuart. “Effects of Programmed Strategies on Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and Other Mixed-Motive Games.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 15 (1971) 225–59. Ottenheijm, Eric. “The Phrase ‘Good Works’ in Early Judaism: A Universal Code for the Jewish Law?” Pages 485–506 in Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magdalena Misset-van de Weg. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Pajunen, Mika S. “The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms.” Pages 347–67 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 419. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. —. “The Textual Connection between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106.” Pages 186–202 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Dávid Nóra, Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer, and Shani Tzoref. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Paribeni, Roberto. “Sull’ origine del nome cristiano.” Nuovo Bollettino di Archeologia Cristiana 19 (1913) 37–41.

352

Bibliography

Parker, H. M. D. The Roman Legions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1928. Parrish, David. “Introduction: The Urban Plan and Its Constituent Elements.” Pages 9–41 in Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge, and Xanthos. Edited by David Parrish and Halûk Abbasoğlu. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 45. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2001. Paschke, Boris A. “The Roman ad bestias Execution as a Possible Historical Background for 1 Peter 5.8.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (2006) 489–500. Pate, C. Marvin. The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/114. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Pelham, Brett W. and William B. Swann Jr. “From Self-Conceptions to Self-Worth: On the Sources and Structure of Global Self-Esteem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1989) 672–80. Peña, J. Theodore. The Urban Economy during the Early Dominate: Pottery Evidence from the Palatine Hill. British Archaeological Review International Series 784. Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999. Perelman, Chaïm and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1969. Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Petersen, Eugen A. H. and Felix von Luschan. Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien, vol. 2: Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis. Vienna: Gerold, 1889. Peterson, Erik. “Christianus.” Pages 355–72 in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. 1: Bibbia, Letteratura cristiana antica. Studi e testi 121. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1946. Phang, Sara E. The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C. – A.D. 235): Law and Family in the Imperial Army. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 24. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Philipps, Karl. Kirche in der Gesellschaft nach dem 1. Petrusbrief. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971. Pietersen, Lloyd K. “Despicable Deviants: Labelling Theory and the Polemic of the Pastorals.” Sociology of Religion 58 (1997) 343–52. Pilgrim, Walter E. Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament. Overtures in Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Pinkley, Robin L. “Dimensions of Conflict Frame: Disputant Interpretations of Conflict.” Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (1990) 117–26. Piper, John. “Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9–12.” New Testament Studies 26 (1980) 221–31. Pleket, H. W. “Political Culture and Political Practice in the Cities of Asia Minor in the Roman Empire.” Pages 204–16 in Politische Theorie und Praxis im Altertum. Edited by Wolfgang Schuller. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. Plumptre, E. H. The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude, with Notes and Introduction. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1879. Poh, Chu Luan Eileen. “The Social World of 1 Peter: Socio-Historical and Exegetical Studies.” Ph.D. dissertation. King’s College, London, 1998. Pont, Anne-Valérie. Orner la cité: enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie gréco-romaine. Scripta antiqua 24. Paris: Boccard, 2010.

Bibliography

353

Portefaix, Lilian. “‘Good Citizenship’ in the Household of God: Women’s Position in the Pastorals Reconsidered in the Light of Roman Rule.” Pages 147–58 in A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 7. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Porter, Dennis. “Orientalism and Its Problems.” Pages 179–93 in The Politics of Theory. Edited by Francis Barker, Peter Hulme, Margaret Iversen, and Diana Loxley. Colchester: University of Essex, 1983. Porter, Judith R. and Robert E. Washington. “Black Identity and Self-Esteem: A Review of Studies of Black Self-Concept.” Annual Review of Sociology 5 (1979) 53–74. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porter, Stanley E. and Cynthia L. Westfall, eds. Empire in the New Testament. McMaster New Testament Studies 10. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011. Portier-Young, Anathea E. “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit: Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001) 35–54. —. Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Poutsma, Albertus. Over de tempora van de imperativus en de conjunctivus hortativus-prohibitivus in het Grieks. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks, Deel 27, no 2. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van wetenschappen, 1928. Preisker, Herbert. Das Ethos des Urchristentums. 3rd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. Prell, Marcus. Sozialökonomische Untersuchungen zur Armut im antiken Rom: von den Gracchen bis Kaiser Diokletian. Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 77. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1997. Prigent, Pierre. Suivre le Christ: Commentaire de la première épître de Pierre. Lyon: Olivétan, 2006. Prostmeier, Ferdinand-Rupert. Handlungsmodelle im ersten Petrusbrief. Forschung zur Bibel 63. Würzburg: Echter, 1990. Pruitt, Dean G. Negotiation Behavior. Organizational and Occupational Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1981. —. “Process and Outcome in Community Mediation.” Negotiation Journal 11 (1995) 365– 77. —. “Social Conflict.” Pages 470–503 in The Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed. Edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998. —. “A History of Social Conflict and Negotiation Research.” Pages 431–52 in Handbook of the History of Social Psychology. Edited by Arie W. Kruglanski and Wolfgang Stroebe. New York: Psychology Press, 2012. Pruitt, Dean G. and Peter J. Carnevale. Negotiation in Social Conflict. Mapping Social Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA.: Brooks/Cole, 1993. Pruitt, Dean G. and Sung Hee Kim. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Series in Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Puech, Émile. “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521).” Revue de Qumran 15 (1992) 475–522. —. “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism.” Pages 545–65 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene C. Ulrich. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

354

Bibliography

Puig i Tàrrech, Armand. “Le Milleu de la Première Épître de Pierre.” Revista Catalona de Teologia 5 (1980) 95–129, 331–402. —. “The Mission According to the New Testament: Choice or Need?” Pages 231–47 in Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament: Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24.–31. August 2005. Edited by Anatoly A. Alexeev, Christos Karakolis, and Ulrich Luz. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Punt, Jeremy. “Pauline Agency in Postcolonial Perspective: Subverter of or Agent for Empire?” Pages 53–61 in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. —. “Postcolonial Approaches: Negotiating Empires, Then and Now.” Pages 191–208 in Studying Paul’s Letters: Contemporary Perspectives and Methods. Edited by Joseph A. Marchal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Quarles, Charles L. “The New Perspective and Means of Atonement in Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period.” Criswell Theological Review 2 (2005) 39–56. Quaß, Friedemann. Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens: Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993. Queipo, Vicente Vázquez. Essai sur les systèmes métriques et monétaires des anciens peuples, depuis les premiers temps historiques jusqu’à la fin du khalifat d’Orient. 3 vols. Paris: Dalmont et Dunod, 1859. Quet, Marie-Henriette. “Remarques sur la place de la fête dans le discours de moralistes grecs et dans l’éloge des cités et des évergètes aux premiers siècles de l’Empire.” Pages 41–84 in La fête, pratique et discours: d’Alexandrie hellénistique à la Mission de Besançon. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 262. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981. Quinn, Jerome D. and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Raaflaub, Kurt A., Adalberto Giovannini, and Denis van Berchem, eds. Opposition et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan: neuf exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœuvres-Genève, 25–30 août 1986. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 33. Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1987. Radermacher, Ludwig. Neutestamentliche Grammatik: Das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1925. Rahim, M. Afzalur and Nace R. Magner. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict: First-Order Factor Model and Its Invariance across Groups.” Journal of Applied Psychology 80 (1995) 122–32. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. 2nd ed. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 29. Tübingen: Mohr (Sibeck), 1987. Rajak, Tessa. “Jews as Benefactors.” Pages 17–38 in Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Edited by Benjamin H. Isaac and A’haron Oppenheimer. Te’uda: The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies Research Series 12. Tel Aviv: Ramot, 1996. Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. “The Pastoral Epistles and Hellenistic Philosophy: 1 Timothy 5:1–2, Hierocles, and the ‘Contraction of Circles’.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011) 562– 81.

Bibliography

355

Ramsay, William M. “Antiquities of Southern Phrygia and the Border Lands, II.” American Journal of Archaeology 4 (1888) 6–21. —. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1, pt. 1: The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895. —. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1, pt. 2: West and West-Central Phrygia. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. —. “The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends: An Anti-Christian Society on the Imperial Estates at Pisidian Antioch.” Pages 303–77 in Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire. Edited by William M. Ramsay. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1906. —. Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908. Rathbone, Dominic. Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. —. “Prices and Price Formation in Roman Egypt.” Pages 183–244 in Économie antique: prix et formation des prix dans les économies antiques. Edited by Jean Andreau, Pierre Briant, and Raymond Descat. Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire 3. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges: Musée archéologique départemental, 1997. —. “Warfare and the State: Military Finance and Supply.” Pages 158–76 in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. 2: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire. Edited by Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. —. “Earnings and Costs: Living Standards and the Roman Economy (First to Third Centuries AD).” Pages 299–326 in Quantifying the Roman Economy: Methods and Problems. Edited by Alan K. Bowman and Andrew Wilson. Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Raymer, Roger M. “1 Peter.” Pages 837–58 in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983. Refoulé, François. “Bible et éthique sociale: Lire aujourd’hui 1 Pierre.” Le Supplément 131 (1979) 457–82. Regev, Eyal. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Religion and Society 45. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. —. “Access Analysis of Kh. Qumran: Reading Spatial Organization and Social Boundaries.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 355 (2009) 85–99. —. “The Archaeology of Sectarianism: Ritual, Resistance and Hierarchy in Kh. Qumran.” Revue de Qumran 94 (2009) 175–214. Reicke, Bo. The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter III.19 and Its Context. Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 13. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1946. —. The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 2nd ed. Anchor Bible 37. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Reimer, Andy M. “Probing the Possibilities and Pitfalls of Post-Colonial Approaches to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 182–209 in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William John Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen. Library of Second Temple Studies 52. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Rey-Coquais, J.-P. “Tyr, fouilles récentes, ville, hippodrome et nécropole: L’apport des inscriptions.” Révue archéologique (1979) 166–68.

356

Bibliography

Reynolds, Joyce M. “Inscriptions and the Building of the Temple of Aphrodite.” Pages 37–40 in Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture, including the Papers Given at the Second International Aphrodisias Colloquium held at King’s College London on 14 November, 1987. Edited by Charlotte Roueché and Kenan T. Erim. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1990. Reynolds, Joyce M. and Robert Tannenbaum. Jews and God-fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary. Texts from the Excavations at Aphrodisias Conducted by Kenan T. Erim. Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Richard, Earl J. Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. Richards, Kent H. “Psalm 34.” Interpretation 40 (1986) 175–80. Richards, William A. Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals. Studies in Biblical Literature 44. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. Richey, Matthew. “The Use of Greek at Qumran: Manuscript and Epigraphic Evidence for a Marginalized Language.” Dead Sea Discoveries 19 (2012) 177–97. Rickman, Geoffrey. The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. Rietz, Henry W. Morisada. “Identifying Compositions and Traditions of the Qumran Community: The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice as a Test Case.” Pages 29–52 in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions. Edited by Michael Thomas Davis and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Robert, Louis. Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec. Paris: Champion, 1940; Reprinted Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1971. Robert, Louis and Jeanne Robert. La Carie II. Le plateau de Tabai et ses environs. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1954. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. Röder, Jörg. “Was ist ‘gut’ im Neuen Testament? Funktionale Bedeutungsmöglichkeiten des ἀγαθός-Begriffs in der ethischen Argumentation.” Pages 93–129 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend. Edited by Friedrich Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Rogers, Guy M. “Demosthenes of Oenoanda and Models of Euergetism.” Journal of Roman Studies 81 (1991) 91–100. —. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London/New York: Routledge, 1991. —. “The Constructions of Women at Ephesos.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 90 (1992) 215–23. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Roloff, Jürgen. Der erste Brief an Timotheus. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 15. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1988. Roscoe, William. Life of Lorenzo de Medici, called the Magnificent. London: Routledge, 1883. Rosenberg, Morris. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Bibliography

357

Rosenzweig, Saul. “The Picture-Association Method and Its Application in a Study of Reaction to Frustration.” Journal of Personality 14 (1945) 3–23. Rostovtzeff, M. I. “Frumentum.” Pages 126–87 in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. vol. 7. Edited by August Friedrich von Pauly, Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus, and Konrat Ziegler. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1910. Roth, Jonathan. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. – A.D. 235). Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 23. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and Bert R. Brown. The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Runesson, Anna. Exegesis in the Making: Postcolonialism and New Testament Studies. Biblical Interpretation Series 103. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Safrai, Zeev. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London/New York: Routledge, 1994. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978. Saller, Richard P. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Saller, Richard P. and Brent D. Shaw. “Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves.” Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984) 124–56. Salviat, François. “Décrets pour Épié, fille de Dionysios: déesses et sanctuaires thasiens.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 83 (1959) 362–97. Sam, David L. and John W. Berry, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Sandelin, Karl-Gustav. “The Danger of Idolatry according to Philo of Alexandria.” Temenos 27 (1991) 109–50. —. “Jews and Aliens Religious Practices during the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 365–92 in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective: Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, Antti Laato, Risto Nurmela, and Karl-Gustav Sandelin. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. —. “Common Judaism and the Synagogue in the First Century.” Pages 1–17 in Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period. Edited by Steven Fine. London: Routledge, 1999. Sanders, Jack T. Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Sandnes, Karl O. “Revised Conventions in Early Paraenesis – ‘Working Good’ in 1 Peter as an Example.” Pages 373–403 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 125. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Sartre, Maurice. L’Orient Romain: Provinces et Sociétés Provinciales en Méditerranée Orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C. – 235 après J.-C.). Paris: Seuil, 1991. Scheidel, Walter and Steven J. Friesen. “The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 99 (2009) 61–91. Schelkle, Karl H. Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief. 6th ed. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 13/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1988.

358

Bibliography

Schertz, Mary H. “Nonretaliation and the Haustafeln in 1 Peter.” Pages 258–86 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by William M. Swartley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Schierse, Franz J. “Eschatologische Existenz und christliche Bürgerlichkeit.” Geist und Leben 32 (1959) 280–91. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Anchor Bible Research Library. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Schimanowski, Gottfried. “Die Jüdische Integration in die Oberschicht Alexandriens und die angebliche Apostasie des Tiberius Julius Alexander.” Pages 111–35 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 71. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Schlarb, Egbert. Die gesunde Lehre: Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe. Marburger theologische Studien 28. Marburg: N.G. Elwert Verlag, 1990. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Über den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos an den Timotheos: Ein kritisches Sendschreiben an J. C. Gass, Consistorialassessor und Feldprediger zu Stettin. Berlin: Realbuchhandlung, 1808. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief: Kommentar. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Schlosser, Jacques. La première épître de Pierre. Commentaire biblique, Nouveau Testament 21. Paris: Cerf, 2011. Schmader, Toni and Brenda Major. “The Impact of Ingroup vs. Outgroup Performance on Personal Values.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 (1999) 47–67. Schmitt, Armin. “Die hebräischen Textfunde zum Buch Tobit aus Qumran. 4QTobe (4Q200).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113 (2001) 566–82. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Schniedewind, William M. “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999) 235–52. Schoenfeld, Andrew J. “Sons of Israel in Caesar’s Service: Jewish Soldiers in the Roman Military.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 24 (2006) 115–26. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 77. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schoor, Antoon. “The Word ṭwb in the Book of Qoheleth.” Pages 685–700 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Edited by Manfried Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 250. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998. Schott, Theodor. Der erste Brief Petri. Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1861. Schottroff, Willy. ‘Gedenken’ im alten Orient und im Alten Testament: Die Wurzel zākar im semitischen Sprachkreis. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 15. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1964. Schrage, Wolfgang. The Ethics of the New Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 6. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. —. 1, 2, Peter, Jude. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

Bibliography

359

Schröger, Friedrich. Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief: Untersuchungen zum Selbstverstandnis einer christlichen Gemeinde an der Wende vom 1. zum 2. Jahrhundert. Passan: Passavia Universitätsverlag, 1981. Schückler, Georg. “Wandel im Glauben als missionarisches Zeugnis.” Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 51 (1967) 289–99. Schuler, Christof. Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien. Vestigia 50. Munich: Beck, 1998. Schuller, Eileen M. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection. Harvard Semitic Studies 28. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. —. “4Q380 and 4Q381: Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran.” Pages 90–99 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Schur, Edwin M. Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications. Harper & Row Monograph Series in Sociology. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C – A.D. 135). 2nd ed. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. —. “The First Letter of Peter.” Pages 380–403 in A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings. Edited by Fernando F. Segovia and R. S. Sugirtharajah. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Schutter, William L. Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/30. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1989. Schwartz, Seth. “The Rabbi in Aphrodite’s Bath: Palestinian Society and Jewish identity in the High Roman Empire.” Pages 335–61 in Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire. Edited by Simon Goldhill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. —. “Euergetism in Josephus and the Epigraphic Culture of First-Century Jerusalem.” Pages 75–92 in From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. Edited by Hannah M. Cotton, Robert G. Hoyland, Jonathan J. Price, and David J. Wasserstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Schwarz, Hertha. Soll oder Haben? Die Finanzwirtschaft kleinasiatischer Städte in der römischen Kaiserzeit am Beispiel von Bithynien, Lykien und Ephesos (29 v. Chr. – 284 n. Chr.). Bonn: Habelt, 2001. Schwarz, Roland. Bürgerliches Christentum im Neuen Testament? Eine Studie zu Ethik, Amt und Recht in den Pastoralbriefen. Österreichische biblische Studien 4. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. Schweitzer, Maurice E. and Leslie A. DeChurch. “Linking Frames in Negotiations: Gains, Losses and Conflict Frame Adoption.” International Journal of Conflict Management 12 (2001) 100–13. Schweizer, Eduard. Der erste Petrusbrief. 4th ed. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 15. Zürich: Theologischer, 1998. Scott, James C. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985. —. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.

360

Bibliography

Scott, James M. Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 84. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1995. Scullard, H. H. A History of the Roman World: 753 to 146 BC. 5th ed. London: Routledge, 2003. Sear, Frank. Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Segovia, Fernando F. “Mapping the Postcolonial Optic in Biblical Criticism: Meaning and Scope.” Pages 23–78 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia. The Bible and Postcolonialism. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Seland, Torrey. Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. Biblical Interpretation Series 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. —. “Resident Aliens in Mission: Missional Practices in the Emerging Church of 1 Peter.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009) 565–89. Selwyn, Edward G. The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1947; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952. Senior, Donald P. “1 Peter.” in 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter. Sacra Pagina 15. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2003. Shamir, Orit and Naama Sukenik. “Qumran Textiles and the Garments of Qumran’s Inhabitants.” Dead Sea Discoveries 18 (2011) 206–25. Sheppard, A. R. R. “R.E.C.A.M. Notes and Studies No. 6: Jews, Christians and Heretics in Acmonia and Eumeneia.” Anatolian Studies 29 (1979) 169–80. Shome, Raka. “Thinking Through the Diaspora: Call Centers, India, and a New Politics of Hybridity.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 9 (2006) 105–24. Shulman, David. “Labeling Theory.” Pages 427–28 in Encyclopedia of Social Theory. vol. 1. Edited by George Ritzer. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2005. Sillars, A. L. “Attributions and Interpersonal Conflict Resolution.” Pages 279–305 in New Directions in Attribution Research. vol. 3. Edited by J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, and R. F. Kidd. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981. Simpson, D. C. “The Chief Recensions of the Book of Tobit.” Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) 516–30. Skard, Eiliv. Zwei religiös-politische Begriffe: Euergetes-Concordia. Oslo: Dybwad, 1932. Sleeper, C. Freeman. “Political Responsibility according to 1 Peter.” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968) 270–86. Snyder, Scot. “1 Peter 2:17: A Reconsideration.” Filología Neotestamentaria 4 (1991) 211–15. —. “Participles and Imperatives in 1 Peter: A Re-Examination in the Light of Recent Scholarly Trends.” Filología Neotestamentaria 8 (1995) 187–98. Solin, Heikki. “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände.” Pages 587–789 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Part II, Principat 29.2. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1983. Soll, Will. “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989) 209–31. Sorek, Susan. Remembered for Good: A Jewish Benefaction System in Ancient Palestine. Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010.

Bibliography

361

Speidel, M. Alexander. “Roman Army Pay Scales.” Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992) 87– 106. Spencer, Richard A. “The Book of Tobit in Recent Research.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 7 (1999) 147–80. Sperber, Daniel. “Costs of Living in Roman Palestine, II.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 9 (1966) 182–211. —. Roman Palestine, 200–400: Money and Prices. 2nd ed. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991. Spicq, Ceslas. “Ce que signifie le titre de Chrétien.” Studia Theologica 15 (1961) 68–78. —. Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre. Sources Bibliques 4. Paris: Gabalda, 1966. —. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Spielman, Loren Roberts. “Sitting with Scorners: Jewish Attitudes toward Roman Spectacle Entertainment from the Herodian Period through the Muslim Conquest.” Ph.D. dissertation. Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010. Spivak, Gayartri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Pages 271–313 in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988. —. “Identity and Alterity: An Interview (with Nikos Papastergiadis).” Arena 97 (1991) 65– 76. —. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Spörri, Theophil. Der Gemeindegedanke im ersten Petrusbrief: Ein Beitrag zur Struktur des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs. Neutestamentliche Forschungen 2,2. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1925. Stahl, Johann M. Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit. Indogermanische Bibliothek, Abt. 1: Sammlung indogermnischer Lehr- und Handbücher. Reihe 1, Grammatiken IV. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1907. Stahl, Michael. Imperiale Herrschaft und provinziale Stadt: Strukturprobleme der römischen Reichsorganisation im 1.–3. Jh. der Kaiserzeit. Hypomnemata 52. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Stanley, Christopher D. “Paul the Ethnic Hybrid? Postcolonial Perspectives on Paul’s Ethnic Categorizations.” Pages 110–26 in The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Starwalt, Ervin R. “A Discourse Analysis of 1 Peter.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas at Arlington, 2005. Steele, Claude M. and Joshua Aronson. “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (1995) 797–811. Stegemann, Ekkehard W. and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. Translated by O. C. Dean Jr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten.” Pages 195–217 in Qumrân: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by Mathias Delcor. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978.

362

Bibliography

Steiger, Wilhelm. Exposition of the First Epistle of Peter, Considered in Reference to the Whole System of Divine Truth. Translated by Patrick Fairbairn. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1836. Sterrett, J. R. S. Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor. Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 3. Boston: Damrell and Upham, 1888. Steskal, Martin J. “Zu den Stiftungen des M. Claudius P. Vendius Antoninus Phaedrus Sabinianus und ihrem Echo in Ephesos.” Tyche 16 (2001) 177–88. Strack, Hermann L. and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 4 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–28. Strauss, Hans. “Motiv und Strukturen von Umkehrungssprüchen in ägypten und im Alten Testament.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 115 (2003) 25–37. Strecker, Georg. Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Strubbe, Johan H. M. “The sitonia in the Cities of Asia Minor under the Principate: I.” Epigraphica Anatolica 10 (1987) 45–82. —. “The sitonia in the Cities of Asia Minor under the Principate: II.” Epigraphica Anatolica 13 (1989) 99–121. Strugnell, John. “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’.” Revue de Qumran 7 (1970) 163–276. Stubbe, Hannes. “Trauerverhalten und das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt.” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 113 (1988) 199–205. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Christliche Verantwortung bei Paulus und seinen Schülern.” Evangelische Theologie 28 (1968) 165–86. Sugirtharajah, R. S. “From Orientalist to Post-Colonial: Notes on Reading Practices.” Asia Journal of Theology 10 (1996) 20–27. —. “A Postcolonial Exploration of Collusion and Construction in Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 91–116 in The Postcolonial Bible. Edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. The Bible and Postcolonialism 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. —. Asian Biblical Hermeneutics and Postcolonialism: Contesting the Interpretations. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998. —. “Biblical Studies after the Empire: From a Colonial to a Postcolonial Mode of Interpretation.” Pages 12–22 in The Postcolonial Bible. Edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. The Bible and Postcolonialism 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. —. “A Brief Memorandum on Postcolonialism and Biblical Studies.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 73 (1999) 3–5. —. Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. —. Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. —. “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 2:123–32 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Sumney, Jerry L. “Servants of Satan”, “False Brothers” and the Other Opponents of Paul. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 188. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Sun, Wai Lan Joyce. “This is True Grace of God: The Shaping of Social Behavioural Instructions by Theology in 1 Peter.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Edinburgh, 2012.

Bibliography

363

Swim, Janet K., Laurie L. Cohen, and Lauri L. Hyers. “Experiencing Everyday Prejudice and Discrimination.” Pages 37–60 in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective. Edited by Janet K. Swim and Charles Stangor. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998. Szilágyi, János. “Prices and Wages in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire.” Acta antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11 (1963) 325–89. Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” Pages 7–24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations. 2nd ed. Edited by Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986. Talbert, Charles H. “Once Again: The Plan of 1 Peter.” Pages 141–51 in Perspectives on First Peter. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, Special Studies Series 9. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986. Taylor, Justin. “Why Were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11, 26).” Revue Biblique 101 (1994) 75–94. Taylor, Shelley E. and Jonathon D. Brown. “Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (1988) 193–210. Tcherikover, Victor. “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered.” Eos 48 (1956) 169–93. Tchernia, André. Le vin de l’Italie romaine: essai d’histoire économique d’après les amphores. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 261. Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1986. Teichert, Horst. “1 Petr 2,13—eine crux interpretum?” Theologische Literaturzeitung 74 (1949) 303–04. Tellbe, Mikael. Christ-Believers in Ephesus: A Textual Analysis of Early Christian Identity Formation in a Local Perspective. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 242. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Tesser, Abraham. “Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior.” Pages 181–227 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. vol. 21. Edited by Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 1988. Tesser, Abraham and Jennifer Campbell. “Self-Definition and Self-Evaluation Maintenance.” Pages 1–31 in Psychological Perspectives on the Self. vol. 2. Edited by Jerry Suls and Anthony G. Greenwald. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983. Tesser, Abraham, Murray Millar, and Janet Moore. “Some Affective Consequences of Social Comparison and Reflection Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (1988) 49–61. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Translated by John H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Thiede, Carsten Peter. “Babylon, der andere Ort: Anmerkungen zu 1 Petr 5,13 und Apg 12,17.” Biblica 67 (1986) 532–38. Thomas, J. D. “The Greek Text of Tobit.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) 463–71. Thompson, James W. Moral Formation according to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Thompson, Leigh and Dennis Hrebec. “Lose-Lose Agreements in Interdependent Decision Making.” Psychological Bulletin 120 (1996) 396–409. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Thurén, Lauri. The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, with Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions. Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, 1990. —. Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995.

364

Bibliography

—. “Jeremiah 27 and Civil Obedience in 1 Peter.” Pages 215–28 in Zwischen den Reichen: Neues Testament und römische Herrschaft. Vorträge auf der ersten Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies. Edited by Michael Labahn and Jürgen Zangenberg. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 36. Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 2002. —. “1 Peter and the Lion.” Pages 142–55 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by Erkki Koskenniemi and Ida Frölich. Library of New Testament Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Tjosvold, Dean. “Cooperative and Competitive Approach to Conflict: Accomplishments and Challenges.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 47 (1998) 285–342. Tod, Marcus N. “Epithets in Greek Epitaphs.” Annual of the British School at Athens 46 (1951) 182–90. Towner, Philip H. The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. —. “Can Slaves Be Their Masters’ Benefactors? 1 Timothy 6:1–2a in Literary, Cultural, and Theological Context.” Current Trends in Scripture Translation 182/183 (1997) 39–52. —. “Romans 13:1–7 and Paul’s Missiological Perspective: A Call to Political Quietism or Transformation?” Pages 149–69 in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Sven Soderlund and N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. —. The Letters of Timothy and Titus. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. —. “What Shall We Call Each Other? Part One: The Issue of Self-Designation in the Pastoral Epistles.” Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002) 239–58. —. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Trummer, Peter. “Corpus Paulinum–Corpus Pastorale. Zur Erörterung der Paulustradition in den Pastoralbriefen.” Pages 122–45 in Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften: Zur Paulusrezeption im Neuen Testament. Edited by Karl Kertelge. Quaestiones Disputatae 89. Freiburg: Herder, 1981. Tukasi, Emmanuel O. “Dualism and Penitential Prayer in the Rule of the Community (1QS).” Pages 166–87 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits. Library of Second Temple Studies 76. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Turner, E. G. “Tiberius Julius Alexander.” Journal of Roman Studies 44 (1954) 54–64. Turner, John C. Social Influence. Mapping Social Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole, 1991. Turner, Nigel. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. —. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 4: Style. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976. Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969. Tuval, Michael. “Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora.” Pages 181–239 in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple. Edited by Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Bibliography

365

Tzoref, Shani. “The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule.” Pages 203–34 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Uhlig, Siegbert. “Die typologische Bedeutung des Begriffs Babylon.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 12 (1974) 112–25. Usteri, Johann M. Wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Commentar über den ersten Petrusbrief, Erster Theil: Die Auslegung. Zürich: Höhr, 1887. Vail, Leroy and Landeg White. “Forms of Resistance: Song and Perceptions of Power in Colonial Mozambique.” American Historical Review 88 (1983) 883–919. Vallois, René. “Le théâtre de Tégée.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 50 (1926) 135– 73. van Bremen, Riet. “Women and Wealth.” Pages 223–42 in Images of Women in Antiquity. 2nd ed. Edited by Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt. London: Routledge, 1993. —. The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 15. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996. van de Vliert, Evert. Complex Interpersonal Conflict Behaviour: Theoretical Frontiers. Essays in Social Psychology. East Sussex: Psychology Press, 1997. van Dommelen, Peter. “Punic Persistance: Colonialism and Cultural Identities in Roman Sardinia.” Pages 25–48 in Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. Edited by Ray Laurence and Joanne Berry. London/New York: Routledge, 1998. van Heesch, Johan. “Some Aspects of Wage Payments and Coinage in Ancient Rome, First to Third Centuries CE.” Pages 77–96 in Wages and Currency: Global Comparisons from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century. Edited by Jan Lucassen. International and Comparative Social History. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Proverbs 30:21–23 and the Biblical World Upside Down.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986) 599–610. van Nijf, Onno. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1997. van Rensburg, Fika J. “Christians as ‘Resident and Visiting Aliens’: Implications of the Exhortations to the παροίκοι and παρεπιδήμοι in 1 Peter for the Church in South Africa.” Neotestamentica 32 (1998) 573–83. —. “Constructing the Economic-Historic Context of 1 Peter: Exploring a Methodology.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 (2011) 1–11. van Unnik, W. C. “The Teaching of Good Works in 1 Peter.” New Testament Studies 1 (1954– 55) 92–110. Repr. as Pages 83–105 in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia. Novum Testamentum Supplements 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. —. “Lob und Strafe durch die Obrigkeit: Hellenistisches zu Röm. 13,3–4.” Pages 334–43 in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Earle E. Ellis and Erich Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. —. “A Classical Parallel to I Peter ii 14 and 20.” Pages 106–10 in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia. Novum Testamentum Supplements 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. —. “The Redemption in 1 Peter I 18–19 and the Problem of the First Epistle of Peter.” Pages 3–82 in Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, Part Two: 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum Generalia. Novum Testamentum Supplements 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

366

Bibliography

van Walraven, Klaas and Jon Abbink. “Rethinking Resistance in African History: An Introduction.” Pages 1–40 in Rethinking Resistance: Revolt and Violence in African history. Edited by Jon Abbink, Mirjam de Bruijn, and Klaas van Walraven. African Dynamics 2. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Vanhoye, Albert. “1 Pierre au carrefour des Théologies du Nouveau Testament.” Pages 96– 129 in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979. Edited by Charles Perrot. Lectio Divina 102. Paris: Cerf, 1980. Varisco, Daniel Martin. Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid. Publications on the Near East. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007. Verboven, Koenraad. The Economy of Friends: Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic. Collection Latomus 269. Brussels: Latomus, 2002. Verhey, Allen. The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Vermès, Géza. “Qumran Forum Miscellanea I.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992) 299– 305. Verner, David C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 71. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Veyne, Paul. Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique. Paris: Seuil, 1976. —. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism. Translated by Brian Pearce. London: Penguin, 1990. Voelz, James W. “The Use of the Present and Aorist Imperatives and Prohibitions in the New Testament.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cambridge, 1977. Vögtle, Anton. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament: exegetisch, religionsund formgeschichtlich untersucht. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 16, 4/5. Münster: Achendorff, 1936. Volf, Miroslav. “Soft Difference: Reflections on the Relation Between Church and Culture in 1 Peter.” Ex Auditu 10 (1994) 15–30. Völkl, Richard. Christ und Welt nach dem Neuen Testament. Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1961. von Campenhausen, Hans. Tradition and Life in the Church: Essays and Lecturers in Church History. Translated by A. V. Littledale. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. von Harnack, Adolf. The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated by James Moffatt. London: Williams & Norgate, 1905. von Hofmann, Johann C. K. Der erste Brief Petri. Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments 7/1. Nördlingen: Nördlingen Beck, 1875. von Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Matthäus, seine Sprache, sein Ziel, siene Selbständigkeit: ein Kommentar zm ersten Evangelium. 6th ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963. von Soden, Hans. Hebräerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas. 3rd ed. Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1899. Wagemakers, Bart. “Incest, Infanticide, and Cannibalism: Anti-Christian Imputations in the Roman Empire.” Greece and Rome 57 (2010) 337–54. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, ed. Patronage in Ancient Society. Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 1. London/New York: Routledge, 1989. Walster, Elaine and G. William Walster. “Equity and Social Justice.” Journal of Social Issues 31 (1975) 21–43.

Bibliography

367

Walters, James C. “Review of Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens by Bruce W. Winter.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996) 536–38. Wan, Sze-kar. “Coded Resistance: A Proposed Rereading of Romans 13:1–7.” Pages 173–84 in The Bible in the Public Square: Reading the Signs of the Times. Edited by Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, and Jonathan A. Draper. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Wand, J. W. C. The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Westminster Commentaries. London: Methuen & Co., 1934. Wankel, Hermann. “Kalos kai agathos.” Ph.D. dissertation. Würzburg, 1961. Warden, P. Duane. “Alienation and Community in 1 Peter.” Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, 1986. Warraq, Ibn. Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007. Wassen, Cecilia and Jutta Jokiranta. “Groups in Tension: Sectarianism in the Damascus Document and the Community Rule.” Pages 205–45 in Sectarianism in Early Judaism: Sociological Advances. Edited by David J. Chalcraft. London: Equinox, 2007. Wasserstein, Abraham. “Rabban Gamliel and Proclus the Philosopher (Mishna Avoda Zara 3,4).” Zion 45 (1980) 257–67. —. “Non-Hellenized Jews in the Semi-Hellenized East.” Scripta Classica Israelica 14 (1995) 111–37. Waßmuth, Olaf. Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2: Studien und Kommentar. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 76. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Watley, Gordon L. “Sibylline Identities: The Jewish and Christian Editions of Sibylline Oracles 1–2.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Virginia, 2010. Watson, Duane F. “First Peter.” Pages 1–127 in First and Second Peter. Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Watson, G. R. “The Pay of the Roman Army: The Auxiliary Forces.” Historia 8 (1959) 372– 78. Weaver, John B. “The Noble and Good Heart: Καλοκὰγαθία in Luke’s Parable of the Sower.” Pages 151–71 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Edited by Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day. Novum Testamentum Supplements 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Webb, Ruth. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, 2009. Weeks, Stuart. “Some Neglected Texts of Tobit: The Third Greek Version.” Pages 12–42 in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by Mark Bredin. Library of Second Temple Studies 55. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Weihs, Alexander. “Teilhabe an den Leiden Christi. Zur Soteriologie des Ersten Petrusbriefes.” Pages 46–88 in Hoffnung in Bedrängnis: Studien zum Ersten Petrusbrief. Edited by Thomas Söding. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 216. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. —. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weingart, Laurie R., Elaine B. Hyder, and Michael J. Prietula. “Knowledge Matters: The Effect of Tactical Descriptions on Negotiation Behavior and Outcome.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (1996) 1205–17.

368

Bibliography

Weiser, Alfons. Der zweite Brief an Timotheus. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 16/1. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 2003. Weiss, Bernhard. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief des Paulus an die Römer. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 4/6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1881. —. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus. 5th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1886. —. Das Neue Testament Handausgabe, vol. 3: Apostelgeschichte - Katholische Briefe, Apokalypse. 2nd ed. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902. Weiss, Ze’ev. “Games and Spectacles in Roman Palestine and their Reflection in Talmudic Literature.” Ph.D. dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994. —. “Roman Leisure Culture and its Influence upon the Jewish Population in the Land of Israel.” Qadmoniot 28 (1995) 2–19. —. “Adopting a Novelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine.” Pages 23–50 in The Roman and Byzantine Near East, vol. 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research. Edited by John H. Humphrey. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 31. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1999. Wendland, Heinz D. Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung. 2nd ed. Neue Testament Deutsch: Ergänzungsreihe 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Wesch-Klein, Gabriele. “Recruits and Veterans.” Pages 435–50 in A Companion to the Roman Army. Edited by Paul Erdkamp. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. West, Gerald O. The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible. Interventions 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. West, Louis C. “The Cost of Living in Roman Egypt.” Classical Philology 11 (1916) 293–314. Westfall, Cynthia Long. “Running the Gamut: The Varied Responses to Empire in Jewish Christianity.” Pages 230–58 in Empire in the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia Long Westfall. McMaster New Testament Studies 10. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011. White, L. Michael. Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians. ASOR Library of Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. —. “Capitalizing on the Imperial Cult: Some Jewish Perspectives.” Pages 173–214 in Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult. Edited by Jeffrey Brodd and Jonathan L. Reed. Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich. “Das Edikt des L. Antistius Rusticus. Eine Preisregulierung als Antwort auf eine überregionale Versorgungskrise?” Anatolian Studies 47 (1997) 195–215. Wiesinger, J. T. August. Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Philipper, an Titus, Timotheus und Philemon. Olshausen: Biblischer Commentar über sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments 5,1. Königsberg: A.W. Unzer, 1850. —. Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus. Olhausens Commentar über sämtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments 6/2. Königsberg: Unzer, 1856. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer, 3. Teilband: Röm 12–16. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6/3. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/ Neukirchener, 1982.

Bibliography

369

Williams, Martin. The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Williams, Travis B. “Reconsidering the Imperatival Participle in 1 Peter.” Westminster Theological Journal 73 (2011) 59–78. —. Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. Novum Testamentum Supplements 145. Leiden: Brill, 2012. —. “Benefiting the Community through Good Works? The Economic Feasibility of Good Works in 1 Peter.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 9 (2013) 147–95. —. “Reading Social Conflict through Greek Grammar: Reconciling the Difficulties of the Fourth-Class Condition in 1 Pet 3.14.” Filología Neotestamentaria 26 (2013) 119–60. —. “The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar in 1Peter 2,13: Early Christian Resistance to the Emperor and His Cult.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 105 (2014) 131–47. Wills, Judith. The Food Bible. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998. Wilson, Bryan R. “An Analysis of Sect Development.” American Sociological Review 24 (1959) 3–15. —. Sects and Society: A Sociological Study of the Elim Tabernacle, Christian Science, and Christadelphians. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961. —. Magic and the Millennium: A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest among Tribal and Third-World Peoples. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Wilson, James P. “In the Text of I Peter II.17 is πάντας τιμήσατε a Primitive Error for πάντας ποιήσατε.” Expository Times 54 (1942–43) 193–94. Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Pastoral Epistles. London: S.P.C.K., 1979. —. Leaving the Fold: Apostates and Defectors in Antiquity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Windisch, Hans. Die katholischen Briefe. 3rd ed. Edited by Herbert Preisker. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1951. Winer, G. B. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek. Translated by W. F. Moulton. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882. —. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, Theil 1: Einleitung und Formenlehre. 8th ed. Edited by P. W. Schmiedel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894. Winter, Bruce W. “The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13.3–4 and 1 Peter 2.14–15.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988) 87–103. —. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Wischmeyer, Wolfgang. “Bemerkungen und Beobachtungen zu Ps. Cyprian. Carmen ad quendam senatorem ex Christiana religione ad idolorum servitutem conversum.” Pages 335–43 in Vielseitigkeit des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Georg Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by James A. Loader and Hans V. Kieweler. Wiener Alttestamentliche Studien 1. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999. Wisse, Fredrik. “The Righteous Man and the Good Man in Romans v.7.” New Testament Studies 19 (1972–73) 91–93. Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. —. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007. Woan, Susan A. “The Psalms in 1 Peter.” Pages 213–29 in The Psalms in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

370

Bibliography

—. “The Use of the Old Testament in 1 Peter, with especial focus on the role of Psalm 34.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Exeter, 2008. Wold, Benjamin. “Agency and Raising the Dead in 4QPseudo-Ezekiel and 4Q521 2 ii.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (2012) 1–19. Woolf, Greg. “Provincial Revolts in the Early Roman Empire.” Pages 27–44 in The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mladen Popović. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 154. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Wörrle, Michael. “Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens, III: Ein hellenistischer Königsbrief aus Telmessos.” Chiron 9 (1979) 83–111. —. Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda. Vestigia 39. Munich: Beck, 1988. Wright, N. T. “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 393–770 in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes. vol. 10. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. —. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. —. “Justification and Eschatology in Paul and Qumran: Romans and 4QMMT.” Pages 104– 32 in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday. Edited by Sang-Won (Aaron) Son. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Xeravits, Géza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Yadin, Azzan. “Rabban Gamliel, Aphrodite’s Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism.” Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006) 149–79. Yadin, Yigael. “Three Notes on the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Israel Exploration Journal 6 (1956) 158–62. Yinger, Kent L. Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Young, Frances M. The Theology of the Pastoral Letters. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Young, Robert J. C. White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. London/New York: Routledge, 1990. —. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race. London/New York: Routledge, 1995. —. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Yuge, Toru and Masaoki Doi, eds. Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity. Tokyo/ Leiden: Society for Studies on Resistance Movements in Antiquity/Brill, 1988. Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by John Moore Trout, William A. Mather, Louis Hodous, Edward S. Worcester, William H. Worrell, and Rowland B. Dodge. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917. Zamfir, Korinna. Men and Women in the Household of God: A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Zeller, Dieter. “Nominal unbestimmtes ἐν ᾧ im Neuen Testament.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 104 (2013) 268–76. Zerbe, Gordon M. Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 114. Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1963.

Bibliography

371

Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London/New York: Routledge, 2003. Zimmermann, Johannes. Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Das ‘Gute’ als ethische Norm in Antike und Christentum: Gut, Güter Güterabwägung in philosophischen und christlichen Ethiken.” Pages 53–60 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend. Edited by Friedrich Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Zissu, Boaz. “‘Qumran Type’ Graves in Jerusalem: Archaeological Evidence of an Essene Community?” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998) 158–71. Zubek, Josephine M., Dean G. Pruitt, Robert S. Peirce, Neil B. McGillicuddy, and Helena Syna. “Disputant and Mediator Behaviors Affecting Short Term Success in Mediation.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (1992) 546–72. Zuckerman, Constantine. “Hellenistic Politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration.” Scripta Classica Israelica 8–9 (1985–88) 171–85. Zuiderhoek, Arjan. “The Icing on the Cake: Benefactors, Economics, and Public Building in Roman Asia Minor.” Pages 167–86 in Patterns in the Economy of Roman Asia Minor. Edited by Stephen Mitchell and Constantina Katsari. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2005. —. “The Ambiguity of Munificence.” Historia 56 (2007) 196–213. —. “Feeding the Citizens: Municipal Grain Funds and Civic Benefactors in the Roman East.” Pages 159–80 in Feeding the Ancient City. Edited by Richard Alston and Onno van Nijf. Groningen-Royal Holloway Studies on the Greek City after the Classical Age 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. —. “Oligarchie, democratie en publieke weldoeners in de antieke stad: Over de oorsprong van de publieke gift in de Grieks-Romeinse wereld.” Tetradio 18 (2009) 89–110. —. The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire: Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. —. “Cities, Buildings and Benefactors in the Roman East.” Pages 173–92 in Public Space in the Post-Classical City. Edited by Chris P. Dickenson and Onno van Nijf. Caeculus. Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology and Greek and Roman Studies 7. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Zwemstra, Jacomien and Elma M. Cornelius. “Die kommunikatiewe funksie(s) van die gebruik van Psalm 34 in 1 Petrus.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 14 (2003) 325–44.

Index of Ancient Sources 1. Hebrew Bible/LXX Gen 2.15 114 15.6 136 16.6 107 19.8 107 26.29 107 29.26 178 44.20 119 50.24–25 169 Exod 3.16 169 13.19 169 15.26 129 18.9 107 20.4–5 110 Lev 19.9–10 123 19.35 123 23.22 123 Num 24.13 107 Deut 4.20 126 4.25 129 4.37 126 5.8–9 110 6.18 107, 129 9.18 129 9.26 126 9.29 126 10.15 126 12.25 129 12.28 107, 129 13.19 129 14.2 126

17.2 129 19.14 123 21.9 129 24.19 123 25.15 123 27.17 123 28.26 120 31.29 129 Josh 9.25 107 Judg 2.11 129 3.7 129 3.12 129 4.1 129 6.1 129 8.35 107 10.6 129 10.15 107 13.1 129 19.24 107 1 Sam 1.23 107 3.18 107 11.10 107 12.23 129 14.36 107 14.40 107 15.19 129 24.18 107 2 Sam 2.6 107 10.12 107 12.9 129 15.26 107

374 19.19 107 19.28 107 19.38–39 107 23.20 109 23.20–21 109 1 Kgs 8.66 107 11.6 129 11.33 129 11.38 129 14.8 129 14.11 120 14.22 129 15.5 129 15.11 129 15.26 129 15.34 129 16.19 129 16.25 129 16.30 129 21.20 129 21.24 120 21.25 129 22.43 129 22.53 129 2 Kgs 3.2 129 8.18 129 8.27 129 10.5 107 12.3 129 13.2 129 13.11 129 14.3 129 14.24 129 15.3 129 15.9 129 15.18 129 15.24 129 15.28 129 15.34 129 16.2 129 17.2 129 17.13 130 17.17 129 18.3 129 20.3 107

Index of Ancient Sources

21.2 129 21.6 129 21.15 129 21.16 129 21.20 129 22.2 129 23.32 129 23.37 129 24.9 129 24.19 129 1 Chr 11.22 109 19.13 107 21.23 107 2 Chr 7.10 107 14.1 107, 129 24.16 107 29.25 130 31.20 107, 129 Ezra 6.10 209 9.10–11 130 Neh 1.4 121 6.19 107 Esth 3.11 107 Ps 14.1 107 14.3 107 22.13 238 25.8 129 28.4 132, 252 181, 229, 247, 248 33 33.15 58, 132, 247, 248 33.20 182 34.14 107 37.3 107 37.27 107 53.1 107 53.3 107 62.12 252 62.13 132, 252 79.3 120

1. Hebrew Bible/LXX

106.2–5 125 106.31 136 119.65 107 Prov 8.21 156 13.22 156 24.12 132, 252 24.21 232 Eccl 3.12 107 7.20 107 Isa 3.10 128 10.3 169 13 241 23.17 169 29.15 132 38.3 107 43.14 241 46.13 128 59.6 132 Jer 6.15 169 7.33 120 8.12 169 10.15 169 14.12 121 128, 252 17.10 21.14 128 26.14 107, 129 29.32 107 32.19 128 33.9 107 50.29 132, 241 51.1–58 241 Ezk 36.19 252 Dan 4.27 133 9.10 130 Hos 2.10 130 Joel 1.14 121

Amos 8.7 132 Jon 3.10 132 Mic 7.13 128 8.16 132 Tob 1.16–20 134 4.9 156 4.10 133 4.14 132 5.14 118 6.8–13.2 118 6.10 119 6.11 119 6.12 118, 119 7.1 119 7.3–4 119 7.6 118 7.7 119 7.7–8 119 8.5 226 8.13 226 12.7 118, 120 12.7–8 133 12.8 120 12.9 133 118, 120, 134 12.13 13.3–6 134 Wis 3.7 169 3.15 128 9.12 132 14.25–27 234 Sir 3.30 121, 133 11.21 132 11.26 252 12.1 121 12.3 121 12.5 121 16.12 132, 252 16.14 252 17.23 252 18.15 121

375

376

Index of Ancient Sources

18.20 169 20.16 121 29.11 156 35.22 252 35.24 132 51.18 63 1 Macc 1.14–15 189 2.15–26 188 2.51 109 7.33 209 2 Macc 1.10 122

2.52 136 1 Esd 1.21 132 4.37 132 4.39 132 8.86 132 3 Macc 1.3 187 2.25–33 188 4 Macc 4.1 108

2. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 En. 1.9 132 95.5 252 98.6 133 100.7 133, 252 101.3 133 102.6 133 2 Bar. 11.1 241 14.7 133 14.12 133, 156 51.7 133 67.7 241 73.4 234 77.12 241 77.17 241 77.19 241 79.1 241 80.4 241 2 En. 34.1–2

234

4 Ezra 3.1–5.20 241 7.35 133, 252 133, 156 8.33 8.36 133 10.19–48 241 11.1–12.51 241 15.43–63 241

16.1–34 241 Apoc. Ezek. 2.10–11 135 Jos. Asen. 28.3

133, 252

Jub. 5.15 252 14.6 136 L.A.B. 3.10

133, 252

Let. Aris. 3 113 18 113 43 113 46 108, 113 195 113 207 113 231 113 242 113 272 113 285 113 Pss. Sol. 2.7 252 2.16 132, 252 2.25 252 2.34 132 2.34–35 252

2. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

11.1 169 11.6 169 17.8–9 252 Sib. Or. 1.1–323 114 1.24–25 114 1.25 114 1.90 114 1.125–126 114 1.126 114 1.296 114 1.324–400 114 2.6–33 114 2.34–347 114 2.45–55 114 2.56–148 114 2.70 114 2.137–138 114 2.145 114 2.177–183 114 2.190–192 114 2.214–219 135 2.238–251 114 2.252–255 135 2.272 114 2.296 114 2.304 135 2.311–312 114 2.313–314 114 2.313–316 135 3.1–96 121 3.63–74 241 3.97–349 121 3.175–190 121, 122 3.185 122 3.189 122 3.191 122 3.192–193 121 3.219–220 123 3.221–233 122 3.233 123 3.235 122 3.237 123 3.240 123 3.241–245 123 3.266–267 123 3.272 124 3.273–279 122

3.280–281 123 3.303–313 241 3.312 122 3.318 121 3.350–488 121, 122 3.469 122 3.489–829 121 3.547–555 122 3.573–575 123 3.575–579 124 3.584–590 122 3.596–601 122 3.601–607 122 3.608–609 121 3.652–656 121 3.665 122 3.669–701 122 3.701 122 3.702–703 123 3.705 134 3.718 123 3.719 124 3.756–759 124 3.768 124 3.772–773 124 3.777–780 122 4.178–190 134 5.137–178 241 T. Ab. 9.8 133 T. Ash. 1.9 113 2.3 140 3.2 113 4.1 113 T. Benj. 4.1 113 4.3 113 5.2–3 113 6.1 113 11.1 113 T. Dan 4.3 113 T. Jos. 10.1 122 18.2 113

377

378

Index of Ancient Sources

T. Jud. 16.1 234

T. Reu. 4.1 113

T. Naph. 8.4–6 113

T. Sim. 3.2 113 4.4 113

3. Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa 4.35–36 131 8.34–36 131 8.36 131

1 ii 2–6 1 ii 5

126 126

1QS 1.1–3 129 1.1–5 132 1.3 129 2.5–7 132 4.9–11 234 5.8 131 5.9 131 5.21 132, 136 132, 136 5.23–24 6.14–18 132, 136

4Q398 2 ii 2–8 132 11–13.23–24 136 14–17 ii 25–26 136 14–17.30 136 14–17.31 136

4Q385 2.1–10 136

4Q502 136.2 131

4Q166 ii 3–5

130

4Q521 2 ii 9–11 2 ii 10 7 ii 1–6

4Q171 ii 2–3

131

11Q5 21.15 63

4Q197 4 ii 1 4 iii 9

119 120

11Q19 55.14 131 59.16–17 131

4Q380 1 i 1–6 1 i 7–11 1 i 7–12 1 i 11–12 1 ii 2

125 125 125 126 125

CD 132, 136 13.11 15.9 131 15.12 131 16.1 131 16.5 131

127 132 128, 136

4. New Testament

4. New Testament Matt 1.18 178 2.6 175 3.10 146 5.13–15 145 144, 145, 168, 169, 170, 174 5.16 5.17–7.27 145 6.9 178 6.19–20 156 7.17–19 146 12.33 146 19.21 156 20.4 294 26.10 145 Mark 3.1–5 146 14.6 145 14.6–7 146 Luke 6.35 147 8.15 143 12.21 156 12.33–34 156 19.31 178 19.44 169 John 3.16 178 7.46 178 10.32–33 146 15.13 140 21.1 178 Acts 1.11 178 2.1 240 2.41 89 4.4 89 7.6 178 9.36 147 11.26 235, 236 13.34 178 13.47 178 14.1 178 16.1–3 188 24.17 89

27.25 178 Rom 1.29–30 234 2.6 147, 252 2.6–8 148 4.4–5 137 5.7 139 7.24 182 8.39 226 10.6 178 13.1 226 13.1–7 258 13.3 141, 142 13.3–4 141, 142 13.6–7 142 13.13 234 14.1–15.6 286 15.23–24 142 16.23 90 1 Cor 1.10–17 95 3.12–15 147 3.13–15 252 3.15 178 4.1 178 5.2 147 6.9–10 234 8–10 193, 286 9.22 142 9.24 178 9.26 178 14.23 90 15.45 178 89 16.1–4 2 Cor 5.10 148 8–9 89 8.1–5 89 9.5 178 9.8 147 13.7 146 Gal 6.4 252 6.7–10 148

379

380 6.8 148 6.9 148 6.10 147 Eph 2.10 148 4.28 147 5.3–5 234 5.8 178 5.21–6.9 206 5.33 178 6.8 146 6.11–13 240 Phil 3.17 178 Col 1.10 148 1.13 182 1.23 226 2.12 150 3.18–4.1 206 1 Tim 1.4 160 1.7 160 1.9–10 234 1.12–17 156 2.1–2 154 2.8–10 154 39, 155 2.10 2.11–15 160 3.1 39, 159 3.2 154 3.7 161 3.12 154 4.3–5 160 4.7 160 4.12 154 5.4 157 5.8 157 5.9 154 5.10 39, 159 5.13 160 5.16 157 5.24–25 156 5.25 39 6.1 149 6.1–2 161

Index of Ancient Sources

6.4–5 234 6.6–11 158 6.13 154 6.17 158 6.17–18 158 6.17–19 95, 156, 157 6.18 39, 158 6.19 156, 158 2 Tim 1.8 154 1.9 156 2.2 209 2.3 154 2.11 154 2.18 160 3.2–5 234 3.6–7 160 4.4 160 4.5 154, 229 4.14 252 4.17 182 Tit 1.6 154 1.14 160 2.5 160, 161 2.7 154 2.14 155 3.3 234 3.5 156 3.9 160 3.14 157 Heb 4.4 178 4.13 226 10.24 146 Jas 2.12 178 4.7 240 1 Pet 1.1 179 1.1–2 242 1.2 296 1.2–3 253 1.3–2.10 7, 296, 297 1.4 253 1.5 253, 254

4. New Testament

1.6 20, 203 1.7 254 1.9 253, 254 229, 297 1.13 1.13–2.10 23 1.14 202, 207, 208, 210, 234, 251, 296, 298 1.14–17 239, 297 1.15 56, 229, 296, 297 1.16 297 1.17 4, 208, 229, 251, 252, 296, 297 1.18 7, 56, 207, 208, 210, 234, 251, 270, 296 1.18–19 253 1.22 7, 229, 258, 259, 296, 297 1.22–23 254 251, 298 2.1 2.2 229, 253, 254 2.3 179 2.4 263 2.7 179 2.7–8 273 2.8 179 2.9 179, 234, 297 2.10 253, 254 2.11 7, 174, 298 50, 82, 168, 180, 184 2.11–12 2.11–15 82 17, 23, 208 2.11–3.12 2.11–3.17 296 2.11–4.6 296, 297 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 50, 51, 2.12 56, 57, 82, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 179, 203, 218, 249, 250, 296 2.12–14 18 2.12–15 4 2.13 208, 209, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 296 2.13–14 226, 257, 297 2.13–15 179 206, 209, 228, 239, 242 2.13–17 2.13–3.6 7 2.14 3, 4, 13, 50, 58, 175, 176, 177, 227, 250, 251 2.14–15 7, 13, 14, 141, 165, 167, 175, 184

2.15

381

3, 5, 9, 11, 58, 82, 175, 177, 178, 179, 226 2.16 230 7, 22, 206, 207, 208, 209, 2.17 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 258, 259, 297 2.18 95, 208, 227, 296, 297 2.18–20 202, 204 2.18–25 7, 82, 85 2.18–3.6 203, 204, 205, 206, 266 2.18–3.7 180 2.19 296 2.19–20 298 2.19–25 237 3, 13, 58, 82, 84, 85, 173, 2.20 179, 180, 250, 251, 255, 296 2.21 296 2.21–25 84, 203, 250 2.22 251 2.23 202 2.24 253, 254, 297 3.1 5, 95, 165, 168, 180, 205, 296, 297 167, 179, 203, 256 3.1–2 3.1–6 204 3.2 56, 180, 208, 250, 297 3.2–4 297 3.3 93, 288, 298 3.5 178, 296, 297 3.6 3, 58, 82, 179, 180, 208, 256, 296, 297, 298 3.7 95, 265, 297 204, 258, 259, 297 3.8 3.8–12 253 3.9 7, 181, 202, 253, 298 3.9–11 298 3.10 251 180, 181, 182, 183, 247, 3.10–12 248, 249 3.11 3, 58, 247, 250 3.12 203, 297 63, 180, 181, 182, 183, 256, 3.13 297 3.13–14 82, 165, 167, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 3.13–16 4 3.13–17 181, 218 3.13–4.11 23

382

Index of Ancient Sources

3.14

82, 173, 180, 181, 182, 183, 208, 256, 297, 298 3.14–17 181 6, 229 3.15 3.15–16 7, 183 3.16 3, 5, 8, 56, 170, 172, 203, 249, 255, 296, 297 3.16–17 82, 173, 179 3.17 3, 58, 250, 255 253, 263 3.18 3.18–22 203 3.22 263 4.1 229 4.1–3 298 4.1–6 251 4.2 202, 234 4.2–4 7, 239 202, 234 4.3 4.3–4 102, 207, 208, 210, 218, 233, 234, 235, 266, 270 4.3–6 273 4.4 167, 234 4.5 167, 235 4.5–6 180, 252 4.6 202 4.7 166, 203, 229, 297 4.8 258, 259 7 4.8–11 4.9 297 7, 257, 297 4.10–11 4.12 20, 229 4.13 229 251, 298 4.15

4.15–16 235 4.16 4, 235, 236, 237, 243, 259 167, 180, 203, 273 4.17–18 4.18 297 4.19 3, 58, 82, 173, 179, 256 5.1 95 5.2 229, 297 5.2–5 7 5.5 95, 229, 297 263, 297 5.5–7 5.6 229 5.8 229, 237, 238, 297 5.8–9 237, 238, 239, 240 5.9 229, 239, 240, 258 5.10 249, 253 5.12 229, 258 5.13 240, 241, 242, 243 229, 249 5.14 Rev 2.23 252 12–13 239 14.8 241 16.19 241 17.3–14 239 17–18 239 18.2 241 18.10 241 18.21 241 20.12–13 252 21.8 234 22.12 252

5. Rabbinic and Targumic Literature b. ‘Abod. Zar. 19b 248 62a 294 b. B. Bat. 86b–87a

294

b. B. Qam. 34b 287 b. Ber. 17a 144 60b 116

b. Gittin 7a–b 156 b. Rosh Hash. 16b 156 b. Shab. 156b 156 b. Yoma 35b 294

383

6. Early Christian Writings

Lev. Rab. 1.17 294

t. Bek. 6.13 288

m. ’Abot. 3.2 209 3.11 116 3.12 189 4.11 116 4.17 116

t. Me‘il 1.23 288 2.10 288

m. ‘Arak. 6.5 288 m. B. Qam. 3.9 287 m. Kethub. 5.8 285 12.4 116 m. Me‘il 6.4 288 m. Peah 1.1 156 m. Šeb. 8.4 294 t. ‘Arak. 4.2 288 t. ‘Avod. Zar. 2.5–7 196 t. B. Mesi’a 3.14 288 3.16 288 4.5 290 8.31 290

t. Šeqal. 2.8 288 Tg. Ket. Eccl 2.11 Eccl 9.10 Ruth 2.12

136 136 136

Tg. Neb. Isa 26.20 Isa 57.9

136 136

Tg. Neof. Gen 4.8 Gen 15.1 Gen 48.22 Num 23.23 Num 24.23

128, 136 136 136 136 136

Tg. Onq. Deut 7.10

136

y. ‘Abod. Zar. 1.7–8 196 3.4 196 y. B. Mesi’a 4.2 290 y. Šeb. 8.4 294

6. Early Christian Writings 1 Clem. 60.4–61.2 209

Acts of Justin and his Companions 236

Acta Pionii 4.3 190 10.5–6 190 12.2 190 20.3 190

Acts of Phocas 3 227 Acts of Pionius 8 227 Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 236

384

Index of Ancient Sources

Augustine Conf. 9.9.19 205

Jerome Vir. ill. 55 190

Clement of Alexandria Paed. 3.5 198 3.9 198

John Chrysostom De inani Gloria 4–5 102

Cyprian De Lapsis 190 Did. 5.1–2 234 Diogn. 5.1–2 198 5.4–5 198 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.15.2 241 3.28 198 4.7.7 190 4.15.7 190 5.1.11 190 5.1.14 259 5.1.25 190 5.1.32–35 190 5.1.45–48 190 6.19.7 190 6.19.9 190 194, 233 7.15 7.15.2 194 7.15.5 194 8.4.3 195 Herm. Man. 8.2 229 8.3 234 10.1.4–5 191 Sim. 8.8.1 191 8.9.1 191 9.20.2 191 9.21.3 189 Vis. 3.6.5 191

Justin 1 Apol. 26.7 259 2 Apol. 2 205, 236 12 259 Mart. Pol. 4 190 10–12 233 10.1 236 11.1 239 12.1 236 12.2 193 Minucius Felix Oct. 9 259 Origen Cels. 8.75 198 65 233 Ep. Afr. 13 116 Pass. Pert. 6 236 Passion of Anastasia 205 Pseudo-Cyprian Carmen ad quendam senatorem 190 Tatian Or. 22–24 198 25 259 Tertullian Apol. 2.10 239

7. Greco-Roman Literature

3.4 205 15.5 197 30–32 209 35.1 233 42.1–3 198 Idol. 11.5 197 17.1 197 19 194 27 193 Nat. 1.17.8 227 Scap. 3.4 205

Scorp. 14.3 227 Spect. 1–30 197 8 197 Ux. 2.5.4 205 2.6 207 Theophilus Autol. 1.11 227 To Gregoria 205

7. Greco-Roman Literature Aeschines Ctes. 186 109

Athenaeus Deip. 3.113A 282

Tim. 54 86

Augustus Res Gestae 16 292

Aesop Fab. 101 58 284 58 Alexander Numenius De Fig. 2α 61 Appian Bell.civ. 3.10.75 62 Aristophanes Wasps 717–718 282 Aristotle Eth. nic. 4.2.13–14 87 Arrian Anab. 5.26.1 53 5.25.4 53 5.27.5 62

Cato Agr. 1.7 286 22.3 294 56 284 57 287 59 288 Catullus 23.26 78 Cicero Off. 2.16 101 Rosc. com. 28 294 Claudius Ptolemy Tetra. 1.5.1 59 Columella Rust. 3.3.10 288

385

386

Index of Ancient Sources

Democritus Frag. 166 58

14.107.3 61 15.1.1 177 31.3.2 53

Demosthenes 1 Aristog. 97 53

Diogenes Laertius 3.30 65

Dio Cassius 37.20.2 78 43.16.2 62 46.28.2 62 54.25.5 292 54.25.5–6 291 67.3.5 291 68.30.1 240 Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.34 62 1.65 62 31.14 83 32.95 55 39.2 177 39.5 71 41.3 62 45.7 79 46.3 101 46.10 284 48.9 71 49.1 63 51.9 62, 80 68.6 62 Diocletian Edict on Maximum Prices 4 287 7.3a 295 7.8 295 Diodorus Siculus Bib. 1.56.3 241 1.70.6 176 2.9.9 240 2.38.5 54 5.71.1 177 11.46.1 177 12.56.5 61 12.67.4 61 12.78.4–6 54

Dionysius Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 3.9.7 62d 3.11.9 61 4.9.5 61 4.11.1 61 4.12.2 62 4.72.2 61 5.27.2 53 6.9.5 53 6.30.2 54 7.32.1 53 7.54.2 54 8.1.6 61 8.29.1 60, 61 8.29.2 53 8.58.2 54 8.70.4 61 9.3.3 53 9.70.3 53 10.27.4 53 10.39.3 62 11.12.2 54 14.9.5 53 19.16.1 61 Epictetus Diatr. 1.7.2 47, 56 2.7.3 140 2.13.16–17 47 2.14.10 47 2.23.28 47 3.2 47 3.24.19–20 47 3.24.50 47 Euripides Phoen. 526 53 Herodotus Hist. 1.54 70

7. Greco-Roman Literature

8.136 70 Horace Sat. 1.9.60–78 189 1.9.71–72 189 Isocrates Panath. 260 109 Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.33–34 199 2.49 122 2.66 191 2.211 120 Ant. 2.315 241 4.137–138 191 6.267 177 8.157 235 12.125–126 191 13.62–73 192 13.352–355 192 14.115–116 199 14.223–232 192 14.259–261 199 15.272–281 110 16.136 74 134 17.154 18.64 236 18.259 187 18.371–379 241 20.100–103 187 J.W. 2.123 200 2.126 200 2.137 200 2.309 187 2.488 199 2.495 199 2.591–592 286 6.134 177 7.50–51 188 Life 74–75 286 75 286

Julian Misopogon 369 284 Julius Caesar Bell. gall. 7.17 286 Justinian Dig. 10.2.39.2 289 23.2.63 292 34.3.28 289 50.2.3.3 192 50.8.2.2–4 98 50.10.3 99 50.12.10 76 Livy 41.20 99 Lucian Nav. 12–25 86 22 86 24 86 44 61 Lysias Olym. 1 54 Or. 31.30 176 Martial Ep. 3.7 294 4.26 288 7.82 188 9.100 288 12.76 288 Musonius Rufus 8 48 9 47 17 47 Pausanias Descr. 10.4.1 71

387

388 Petronius Satyr. 44.14 78 55 242 67 288 Philo Deus 121 235 Ebr. 177 192 Flacc. 55 199 Hypoth. 11.12 200 Legat. 193 7 177 115–118 192 132 199 162–164 192 216 240 Migr. 89–92 192 89–93 189 91 189 Mos. 1.154 177 Prob. 26 192 86 200 141 192 Prov. 2.58 192 Sacr. 32 234 78 109 Spec. 1.315–316 192 2.229–230 192 4.77 177 Virt. 227 177

Index of Ancient Sources

Philomelium Verr. 2.3.191 284 Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.25 75 2.1 74 7.12 140 Pindar Nem. 7.14 53 Ol. 2.97 53 Pliny (the Elder) Nat. 6.122 240 9.58 288 18.38 286 Pliny (the Younger) Ep. 1.8 101 1.19 78 10.37 73 10.39 74, 99 10.58 79 10.77 101 10.79-80 78 10.96 177, 233, 236 10.96.6 189 Plutarch Ag. Cleom. 2.1 53 Ages. 9.4 62 Cat. Maj. 4.3 286 Conj. praec. 19 205 Flam. 13 55 Inim. util. 9 61

7. Greco-Roman Literature

Is. Os. 42 58 Mulier. virt. 9 235 Pel. 19 53 Praec. ger. rei publ. 19 99 29 101 Thes. 7.2 53 Polybius Hist. 6.39.12–14 283 18.53.1 53 34.8.6 288 Porphyry Abst. 4.22 61 Pseudo-Callisthenes Historia Alexandri Magni 1.10.1 227 Pseudo-Demetrius Epistolary Types 21 140 Pseudo-Libanius Epistolary Styles 53 83 64 83 Seneca Ben. 3.18–20 85 7.21.2 288 Ep. 80.7 294 Sophocles Aj. 527 143 Ant. 663–665 143 817 143

Strabo Geogr. 13.1.27 71 16.1.5 240 17.1.30 241 Suetonius Aug. 49.2 291 Dom. 7.3 291 12.2 188 Jul. 50.2 288 Tacitus Ann. 291, 292 1.17 14.24 286 15.28 187 Theodosius Cod. theod. 16.8.2 192 16.8.4 192 Theon Prog. 118.6 238 Valerius Maximus Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 4.7.5 140 Vettius Valens 2.21 86 Xenophon Cyr. 1.5.11 53 1.6.20 176 8.1.39 54 Mem. 1.2.18 47 2.6.35 53 3.4.8 176 3.5.15 47 8.2.26 53

389

390

Index of Ancient Sources

Oec. 9.14 176

Symp. 3.4 47 8.11 47

8. Inscriptions AE 1925:126 98, 284 1937:161 287 1949:40 101 1980:865 79 1981:777 194 Bosch, Ankara 51 193 71 176 128 61 CEG I 332

51, 52

CID IV 87 61 135 56 CIG 1625 51, 64, 79, 80 1829c 59 2681 74 2725 51 2741 76 2759 76 2774 78 2782 74, 75, 79 2817 78 2836 77 2927 72, 98 2930 72 3067 40 3148 188 3643 77 3861 101 3943 51, 52 4157 193 4380 86 5361 60 CIJ 711 187 748 192

760 191 987 111 CIL III 6817 176 6866 79 6998 77 7086 76 CIL IV 1679 287 4000 294 6877 294 CIL V 5262 295 CIL VI 10234 287 CIL VIII 4193 101 12058 101 12067 101 15572 101 23107 101 CIL IX 2689 287 CIL XIII 31662 176 CIL XV 7247 86 F.Amyzon 35 41 F.Delphes III,1 152 61 227 40 451 56 457 40 487 40

8. Inscriptions

F.Delphes III,2 92 57 164 57 249 57

I.Assos 11 41 25 72, 77, 98 28 72

F.Delphes III,3 220 61

I.Byzantion 2 41 289 65 S31 59

F.Delphes III,4 34 43 45 40 56 61 59 51 133 57 135 57 175 56 362 57 431 40 438 40 443 40 GIBM 418 41 420 42 481 79 970 51 I.Ankara 2 193 141 61 IAph2007 2.6 192 2.18 192 5.121 51, 52 11.21 76 11.55 88 77 11.403 12.317 77 12.534 78 12.538 76 52 12.909 12.1007 75 12.1111 74, 75, 79 14.18 52 15.333 78 I.Apollonia 241 59 I.Asklepieion 21 56

I.Cos 13 79 I.Délos 157 74 270 74 290 74 291 74 1500 57 1502 56 1503 57 1507 65 1508 65 1518 51 1520 41, 65 1521 65 I.Ephesos 6 64 20 88 61, 76 27 211 51 425 52 621 52 633 52 690 72 712B 52 728 52 833 52 892 52 910 284 923 284 938 284 1491 83, 101 1545 52 2061 II 72 2253 59 2951F 52 3063 52 3071 75

391

392 4123 77 5113 76 I.Erythrai 28 51 IG I 2 1032 65 1057 65 IG II2 110 60 207 60 429 60 1006 65 1008 57 1011 57 1023 56 1028 64 1039 57, 65 1043 57, 65 1098 41 1136 58 1188 60 1330 65 1333 65 1343 65 11420 65 12583 65 IG IV 558 65 800 51 IG IV2,1 63 57 65 100 237 51, 52 IG V,1 762 65 970 77 1208 42, 77 40 1566 IG V,2 221 65 222 65 223 65 224 65 225 65 226 65

Index of Ancient Sources

227 65 228 65 229 65 230 65 231 65 232 65 233 65 234 65 235 65 258 65 304 51, 53 367 57 370 51, 53 491 65 IG VII 95 53 411 65 527 40 1704 65 1794 51, 52 2130 65 2315 65 2711 40 2712 51, 64, 79, 80 2850 56 4132 40 IG IX,12.2 209

56, 57

IG IX,1 .4 798 76 2

IG IX,2 1 40 69 57 IG X,2.1 4 65 7 65 IG XI 1061 41 1136 41 IG XI,4 562 60 672 60 717 60 893 60 1038 60

8. Inscriptions

IG XII,2 645 51 IG XII,3 170 41 51, 53 212 249 51 1271 51 IG XII,5 596 60 655 57 829 57 946 289 IG XII,7 6 60 7 60 41, 60 11 36 60 49 42 231 64 232 64 233 41, 64 234 41, 64 515 76 IG XII,9 234 65 64, 65, 77 236 239 65 899 65 IG XII, Suppl. 139A–B 57 178 51 249 64 257 41 354 41 549 70 553 64, 65 IG XIV 223 59 225 59 229 59 1566 59 2087 59 IGBulg I2 13 56 38 41

308(2) 41 41, 60 308(6) 316 41 388 41 IGLPalermo 19 59 21 59 22 59 24 59 IGR I 779 59 1024 60 IGR III 66 75 125 176 209 61 351 75 407 75 473 41 492 72, 79 493 72 582 176 628 79, 80 704 74, 77 739 46, 75, 78 796 98 800 72, 78 801 72, 78 802 72, 78 804 74, 78 IGR IV 181 289 182 77 210 88 259 72, 289 316 72 337 76 636 101 796 59 801 59 808 88 914 76 915 72, 77 941 72, 77, 98 1127 72 1222 72, 79

393

394 1342 72, 77 1431 75, 88, 188 1523 98 75, 77, 98 1632 1637 76 1700 75 1756 41 IGUR II 495 59 498 59 1033 59 1082 59 I.Halicarnassus 1 41 3 79 4 51

Index of Ancient Sources

I.Kibyra 40 76 42 72, 77 288 59 I.Knidos 81 61 220 41 I.KPolis 44

193, 194

I.Kremna 117 81 121 41 122 41, 43 I.Kyme 13 42

I.Heraclea 54 75

ILAlg I 2035 101

I.Hierapolis 4 88

I.Lambraunda 11 41

I.Iasos 50 41, 60 51 41 52 41 54 41 56 61 58 41 60 41 66 60 73 42 98 64 153 60 193 187 206 74 249 74 253 88

I.Lampsakos 1 41 12 77

I.Ilion 2 41 3 41 54 41 103 88

I.Magnesia 94 41

I.Keramos 14 72

I.Milet I 3 139C 51 154 41

I.Laod.Lyk. 52 51, 52 88 59 132 53 I.Leros 3 65 12 59 ILS 2927 295 6090 79 6960 289 7196 77 7213 287

I.MagSip 20 72

395

8. Inscriptions

I.Mylasa 109 64 869 41 870 41 871 41 874 41 911 41 I.Nikaia 61 72 557 193 I.Olympia 486 53 487 53 51, 53 449 450 51, 53 IosPE I2 53 64 78 61 484 59 IPArk 19 57 I.Pergamon 253 65 250 72 270 76 I.Perge 12 57 14 65 23 65 67 41 I.Perge (EA) 7 41 14 41 I.Pessinous 13 53 T81 194 I.Priene 17 41 26 41 50 41 53 42 66 41 71 41 82 41

99 61 41, 61 107 108 41 41, 64 110 114 41 208 42 I.Prusa 1034 59 I.Prusias 6 72 I.Sardis VII 4 65 7 41 8 41 47 98 I.ScM I 9 41 15 41, 60, 61 23 41 32 57 37 61 43 41 45 41 57 42, 72 I.ScM II 4 41 I.ScM III 3 41 Iscr.Cos 28/29

41, 60

I.Selge 17 78 I.Sestos 1

61, 64

I.Sinope 103 193 141 59 I.Smyrna 491 59 616 40, 140 697 188

396 I.Stratonikeia 205 77 237 72 527 72 662 72 667 98 1206 51 1327 51, 53, 66 I.Tralleis 29 65 77 72 72, 98 80 145 72 177 59 I.Tyana 69 65 84 65 89 65 I.Xanthos 67 72 JIGRE 154 187 155 187 156 187 Johnson, Epitaphs 2.19 197 3.1 193, 194 3.4 193 3.5 194 3.10 193 3.13 197 3.14 197 3.15 197 3.16 197 3.17 197 3.18 197 4.12 197 LW 409 64 1006 72, 77 1228 86 1381 76 1382 76 1383 76

Index of Ancient Sources

MAMA I 170 194 MAMA IV 151(2) 40 MAMA V 202 77 MAMA VI 14 51, 52 335 191 MAMA VIII 420 76 524 77 Michel 327 64 459 41 1015 41 OGIS 4 51 6 51 257 51 339 61, 64 509 76 533 193 663 187 669 187 765 41 4931 51 Petersen-Luschan, RLMK 19 64 SEG 1:169 40 2:184 57 2:316 57 2:332 57 2:564 41 4:428 57 4:656 41 6:612 101 9:908 41 11:948 41, 80 13:258 42, 77 13:299 53 13:361 56, 57 15:698 61

Bibliography

16:931 60 18:289 41 19:465 41 64 19:834 21:310 60 22:116 60 61 23:549 24:1023 41 24:1095 41, 60, 61 24:1100 57 25:112 65 27:96 40 27:366 41 27:370 61 27:527 51 29:1086 79 29:1087 41 40 30:533 30:796 42 31:1116 194 32:613 40 32:1111–1112 41 34:553 40 34:558 40 34:1175 72 35:1086 61 36:970 88 36:1048 60 38:1102 51, 53, 66 38:1396 65 38:1462 72, 75, 76, 81 40:141 56 40 43:371 47:737 51 47:1125 41 48:96 283 52:724 41, 60, 61 SGDI 1447 57 2672 56

2673 57 2819 61 SIG 3 4 70 174 60 534 56 534B 56 538 57 553 56 596 41 608 57 654B 57 671B 99 675 65 682 57 700 40 711K 58 740 57 770A 40 817 43 850 83 Studi Pontica III 85 51 TAM II 168 65 550 74, 87 551 74, 87 578 78 579 78 650 87 768 40 41, 74 905 Tit.Cal 34 41 Tit.Cam. 110 56

397

398

Index of Ancient Sources

9. Papyri and Ostraca BGU 596 59 844 59 1078 59 1097 59 1123 293 1195 59 1203 59 1467 59 1727 59 1756 56 1769 56 1786 59 1826 59 1827 59 1876 59 2421 59 2606 59 2618 59 2621 59 2622 59 2623 43 2650 59 2656 59 2660 59 2736 59 CPJ 9 195 10 195 12 195 13 195 14 195 15 195 18 192 19 192 20 192 21 192 22 192 23 192 24 192 25 192 26 192 27 192 28 192 29 192, 195 30 192

31 192 32 192 39 195 42 195 44 195 127 187 133 195 282 195 362 195 404 195 405 195 412 195 418 187 422 195 CPL 199 287 O.Berenike 193 60 O.Bodl. 1704 60 O.Claud. 359 60 786 60 824 60 865 60 O.Krok. 18 60 69 60 70 60 77 60 O.WadiHamm. 22 60 P.Bad. 15 59 16 59 35 59 P.Berl.Salmen. 3 59 5 60 P.Berl.Zill. 9 60

9. Papyri and Ostraca

P.Bon. 43 60 P.Bour. 10 60 P.Brem. 5 43 P.Coll.Youtie 17 60 P.Fay. 12

56

P.Fouad 75 60 P.Giss. 40 56 P.Grenf. II 38 60 43 293 P.IFAO II 24 60 P.Lond. 122 58 131 293 356 60 701 293 1171 293 2116 56 P.Mich. 201 60 232 60 244 43 245 43 P.Oxy. 297 60 299 60 300 60

390 293 505 235 736 293 737 293 745 60 985 293 1672 60 2131 176 2844 60 3061 60 3175 79 P.Princ. 160 60 P.Ross.Georg. I 10 60 P.Ryl. 231 60 P.Stras. 101 60 P.Tebt. 703 56 786 56 904 56 P.Vind.Worp 12 60 P.Yale 61 176 1606 176 SB 5216 60 6265 60 9165 60 12143 60 12321 60 13226 60

399

400

Index of Ancient Sources

10. Miscellaneous PGM 4.48 59 4.2675 58 4.2678 58 4.2872 58

8.16 58 13.1028 59 13.1033 59 RMR 68 292

Index of Modern Authors Aageson, James W.  150, 204 Abbink, Jon  221 Abegg, Martin G.  128 Abraham, Susan B.  29 Achebe, Chinua  25 Achtemeier, Paul J.  5, 6, 7, 12, 82, 171, 172, 178, 206, 208, 227, 230, 233, 234, 237, 239, 250, 254, 255 Adams, Edward  90 Adams, J. Stacy  33 Adib-Moghaddam, Arshin  220 Adinolfi, Marco  19 Adkins, Arthur W. H.  44 Agrell, Göran  147 Ahmad, Aijaz  26 Aldrete, Greg S.  287 Alexander, Philip S.  128 Alford, Henry  225, 238 Allegro, John M.  130 Allen, Robert C.  294 Allina-Pisano, Eric  222 Allison, Dale C.  145 Allison, Kevin W.  32 Allport, Gordon W.  31, 33 Alston, Richard  199, 291, 292 Altheim, Franz  241 Amkirkham, James H.  33 Amouretti, Marie-Claire  285 Anderson, Norman B.  32 Andreau, Jean  69, 80 Anthias, Floya  30 Applebaum, Shimon  110, 192 Arnold, Bradley  238 Aronson, Joshua  32 Ashcroft, Bill  26, 219, 262 Asumang, Annag  210 Auffret, Pierre  248 Averill, James R.  217 Avezou, Charles  41

Avi-Yonah, Michael  111 Avruch, Kevin  218 Babcock, Barbara A.  262 Bagnall, Roger S.  280 Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich  268 Balch, David L.  4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 90, 175, 176, 204, 205, 255, 256 Balls Organista, Pamela  19 Bammel, Caroline P.  139 Bammel, E.  229 Banks, Robert J.  90 Barbalet, Jack M.  221 Barclay, John M. G.  187, 192, 199 Barnes, Timothy D.  194, 197 Baron, Robert A.  216 Bartholomew, Craig G.  108 Bartlett, John R.  122 Barzanò, Alberto  188 Bassler, Jouette M.  150 Batson, C. Daniel  216 Batten, Alicia J.  70 Bauckham, Richard J.  115, 135 Bauer, Johannes B.  225, 226, 239 Baum, Armin D.  242 Bauman-Martin, Betsy  22, 256, 273 Baumgarten, Albert I.  199 Bayart, Jean-François  30 Bazerman, Max H.  215 Bean, G. E.  89 Beare, Francis W.  13, 178, 225, 226, 250 Bechard, Dean Philip  113 Beck, J. T.  225 Beck, Norman A.  237 Becker, Howard S.  242, 243 Bechtler, Steven R.  5, 9, 21, 84, 225, 250 Beersma, Bianca  213, 214 Begley, Ronald B.  190 Bégulgnon, Yves  40

402

Index of Modern Authors

Beker, J. Christiaan  147 Beltz, Walter  145 Ben-David, Arye  294 Ben-Yoav, Orly  216 Bénabou, Marcel  223 Bénétreau, Samuel  5, 173, 178, 180, 227, 229, 237, 254, 296 Bengtsson, Håkan  242 Bennett, W. H.  206, 225 Bercovitch, Jacob  213 Berger, Klaus  123 Bergmeier, Roland  127 Berlage, J.  40 Berry, John W.  19 Best, Ernest  19, 225, 232 Betz, Hans Dieter  145 Bévenot, H.  116 Bhabha, Homi  26, 29, 30, 31, 261, 271, 272 Bhabtia, Sunil  272 Bickell, G.  116 Bickerman, Elias  235 Bieder, Werner  9 Bigg, Charles  173, 225, 229, 255 Billerbeck, Paul  12, 116 Binder, Stéphanine  196 Bird, Jennifer G.  14, 204, 206, 208, 273 Blenkin, George W.  5, 171, 173, 225, 232 Blue, Bradley  90 Blumenfeld, Bruno  142 Bodenhausen, Galen  237 Boer, Ronald  267 Bolkestein, Hendrick  73 Bömer, Franz  205 Bony, Paul  173, 227 Borgen, Peder  193 Boring, M. Eugene  6, 9, 225, 296 Bornemann, Wilhelm  247 Bornstein, Gary  259 Botermann, Helga  236 Botha, Phil J.  248 Boulanger, Andre  69 Bourriot, Félix  40 Bovon, François  9, 144 Bowersock, Glen W.  223 Boyley, Mark  9 Braddock, Jomills Henry  32 Brandt, Wilhelm  6, 9, 56 Branick, Vincent P.  90

Braund, David  43 Bredin, Mark  116 Brewer, Marilynn B.  216, 270 Briggs-Kittredge, Cynthia  204, 265 Bringmann, Klaus  76 Briones, David E.  70 Brooke, George J.  125, 127 Broome, Benjamin J.  216 Broshi, Magen  286 Broughton, T. R. S.  76, 97 Brown, Bert R.  213 Brown, Jonathon D.  269 Brownlee, William H.  129 Brox, Norbert  5, 6, 152, 171, 172, 178, 225, 232, 237 Brunner-Traut, Emma  263 Brunt, P. A.  289, 292 Bryan, Christopher  264 Bryant, Joseph M.  44 Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd  121, 124 Burch, Thomas K.  280 Burge, Gary M.  14 Burns, J. Patout  194 Burr, Viktor  188 Burton, Ernest de Witt  230 Butler, Judith  261 Calder, W. M.  194 Callaway, Phillip R.  199 Campbell, Barth L.  13, 49, 176, 229, 232, 256 Campbell, Constatine R.  231, 252 Campbell, J. Brian  292 Campbell, Jennifer  35 Caputo, Giacomo  110 Carmignac, Jean  128 Carnevale, Peter J.  213, 214, 216, 217 Carr, David M.  264 Carter, Michael J. D.  240 Carter, Warren   8, 9, 11, 28, 84, 145, 206, 207, 208, 233, 258 Carver, Charles S.  33 Castro-Klarén, Sara  30 Cavaignac, Eugène  284 Cavenaile, Robert  291 Ceresko, Anthony R.  248 Césaire, Aimé  25 Charitonidis, Séraphin  42 Chaniotis, Angelos  88, 111

Index of Modern Authors

Charlesworth, James H.  129, 132 Chevalier, Max-Alain  5 Chiat, Marilyn J. S.  110 Chin, Moses  21, 174 Chow, Rey  271 Chun, Kevin M.  19 Cialdini, Robert B.  186 Cipolla, Carlo M.  281 Clark, Colin  283, 294 Clark, Kenneth B.  31 Clark, Mamie K.  31 Clark, Rodney  32 Clark, Vernessa R.  32 Clark Kroeger, Catherine  205 Clarke, Andrew D.  140 Clinton, Henry F.  190 Clowney, Edmund P.  253 Coale, Ansley J.  280 Cohen, Colby  259 Cohen, Laurie L.  33 Cohen, Raymond  218 Cohen, Ronald L.  43 Cohen, Shaye J. D.  110 Cohick, Lynn H.  14 Colburn, Forrest D.  220 Collins, John J.  113, 115, 121, 122, 123, 135, 199, 201 Collins, Matthew A.  242 Collins, Raymond F.  150, 154 Combrink, H. J. B.  229 Conway, Colleen M.  264 Conze, A.  65 Conzelmann, Hans  152 Cook, Edward M.  128 Cook, J. M.  89 Corbier, Mireille  286, 291 Corley, Kathleen E.  6, 204 Cornelius, Elma M.  247 Coser, Lewis A.  212 Cothenet, Édouard  232 Cotton, Hannah M.  291 Coulton, J. J.  86 Countryman, Louis W.  160 Cousin, Georges  64, 75 Crandall, Christian S.  259 Cranfield, C. E. B.  140, 142, 227 Crocker, Jennifer  32, 34, 269 Crook, Zeba A.  70

403

Croom, A. T.  288 Cross, Frank Moore  127, 199 Crossan, John Dominic  266 Crossley, James G.  260, 267 Crowther, C.  147 Da Matta, Roberto  268 Dalton, William J.  9 Daly, Robert J.  194 Danby, Herbert  189 D’Angelo, Mary R.  154 Danker, Frederick W.  42, 50, 63, 64, 80 Daube, David  146, 205 Daux, Georges  40, 56 Davids, Peter H.  4, 5, 7, 173, 206, 209, 227, 229 Davies, Margaret  151, 154, 159 Davies, Philip R.  125, 134 Davies, Roy W.  286 Davies, W. D.  145 Davila, James R.  122 Davis, Lillian J.  214 de Boor  173, 225 De Dreu, Carsten K. W.  213, 214 de Ligt, Luuk  69 de Ste. Croix, G. E. M.  39, 44, 267 de Villiers, G. R.  153 de Vos, Craig S.  207, 259 de Wette, W. M. L.  150, 173, 225, 240 DeChurch, Leslie A.  215 Deines, Roland  144, 145 DeLongis, Anita  33 Demarest, John T.  171 den Boer, W.  45 Deselaers, Paul  117 Deutsch, Morton  25, 212, 215 Devoe, Richard F.  197 Di Lella, A. A.  133 Dibelius, Martin  152, 160 Diehl, Charles  64 Diehl, Judy  211 Dijkman, J. H. L.  21 Dimant, Devorah  124 Dingwaney Needham, Anuradha  272 Doering, Lutz  189 Doi, Masaoki 223 Donaldson, Laura E.  28 Donelson, Lewis R.  6, 161, 172, 177, 180, 227

404

Index of Modern Authors

Donlan, Walter F.  40 Donohue, W. A.  214 Donovan, J.  231 Doudna, Gregory L.  127 Dover, K. D.  45 Dowd, Sharyn  10 Downs, David J.  161 Drew-Bear, Thomas  195 Drexhage, Hans-Joachim  293 Dreyfus, Hubert L.  220 Drogula, Fred K.  176 Druckman, Daniel  216 Dryden, J. de Waal  5, 6 Dube, Musa W.  273 Dubis, Mark  170, 171, 178, 227, 229, 255 Dubois, Marcel  41 Duckitt, John  31 Duhaime, Jean  201 Duncan-Jones, Richard P.  76, 79, 101, 282, 284, 285, 287, 294, 295 Dunn, James D. G.  90, 140 Dussaud, René  294 Dvorjetski, Esti  198 Dyson, Stephen L.  198 Easton, Burton S.  157 Eck, Werner  97 Eco, Umberto  268 Eddy, Samuel K.  223 Ego, Beate  116 Ehrman, Bart D.  150 Eiler, Claude  69 El Mansy, Aliyah  205 Elgvin, Torleif  127 Ellemers, Naomi  33 Elliott, John H.  4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 49, 84, 89, 166, 169, 170, 172, 174, 177, 178, 209, 211, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 237, 239, 240, 242, 247, 254, 263 Elliott, J. K.  115 Elliott, Neal  267 Engelmann, Michaela  150 Erdkamp, Paul  286 Eriksson, LarsOlov  247 Esses, Victoria M.  259 Etienne, Stéphanie  188 Evang, Martin  227 Evans, Craig A.  127

Evans, John K.  224, 283 Fabry, Heinz-Josef  130 Fagan, Garrett G.  86 Fagbemi, Stephen Ayodeji A.  14, 247 Falconer, Robert 157 Fanning, Buist M.  231 Fanon, Frantz  25, 30 Fant, Maureen B.  58 Faure, Guy O.  218 Fedalto, Giorgio  241 Fee, Gordon D.  154 Feldmeier, Reinhard  6, 7, 9, 21, 173, 174, 177, 225, 237, 254 Felix, Paul W.  253 Femia, Joseph V.  219 Fink, Paul R.  172 Fink, Robert O.  291 Fiore, Benjamin  159 Fitzmyer, Joseph A.  117, 119, 120 Flint, Peter W.  130 Folkman, Susan  32, 33 Fontana, Benedetto  219 Forbes, H. A.  282, 285, 287 Forbis, Elizabeth  46 Fotopoulos, John  193 Foucault, Michael  220 Fougères, Gustave  53 Foulkes, Irene  204 Foxhall, Lin  282, 285, 287 France, R. T.  145 Frank, Tenney  286, 288, 290 Frayn, Joan M.  283 Freedman, Stuart C.  218 Frézouls, Edmond  71 Friedländer, Moriz  123 Frier, Bruce W.  280, 284, 290 Friesen, Steven J.  91, 267, 283 Fronmüller, G. F. C.  170, 173, 240 Fry, William R.  216 Fuchs, Harald  222 Fuchs, Rüdiger  150 Fuks, Alexander  187 Furfey, Paul H.  158 Gaebelein, Paul W.  248 Galinsky, Adam D.  237 Galinsky, Karl  265 Gallant, Tom  40 García Martínez, Florentino  126, 127, 128

Index of Modern Authors

Garfinkel, Harold  243 Garnsey, Peter  40, 80, 98, 281, 282, 283, 285 Gasquet, Aidano  117 Gaster, Moses  117 Gathercole, Simon J.  116, 134, 135 Gauger, Jörg-Dieter  113 Gauthier, Philippe  71 Geffcken, Johannes  113, 115 Gehring, Roger W.  90 Geiger, Joseph  291 Genovese, Eugene D.  222 Geschiere, Peter  222 Ghetti, Lodovico  283 Giesen, Heinz  169 Gilmore, David  268 Giovannini, Adalberto  222 Glancy, Jennifer A.  204 Gmirkin, Russel  201 Gnilka, Joachim  145 Godiwala, Dimple  272 Goffman, Erving  31 Goldsmith, Raymond W.  282, 294 Goldstein, Horst  230 Goodenough, Erwin R.  110 Goodman, Martin  122, 196, 199 Goppelt, Leonhard  5, 82, 171, 173, 178, 180, 227, 228, 237, 254, 255, 296 Gosling, Anne  265 Graf, Fritz  263 Graf, Richard G.  218 Gramsci, Antonio  218 Graser, Aaron  23, 268 Gréaux, Eric James  181 Green, Gene L.  14, 202, 247, 257 Green, H. Benedict  145 Green, Joel B.  84, 171, 232 Gregory, Bradley C.  121 Griffin, Hayne P.  149, 159 Griffiths, Gareth  219, 262 Groom, Carla  237 Grudem, Wayne  178, 225, 228, 252, 253 Gruder, Charles L.  216 Gruen, Erich S.  122 Gruen, Rand J.  33 Grundmann, Walter  48, 58 Grünewald, Thomas  198 Gundry, Robert H.  144

405

Gunkel, Hermann  13, 176 Guthrie, Donald  149 Gutwirth, Eleazer  263 Gygax, Marc Domingo  45, 69 Habicht, Christian  60 Hachlili, Rachel  200 Haddock, Geoffrey  259 Häfner, Gerd  150 Hagner, Donald A.  146 Halevy, Nir  259 Hall, Randy  233 Hall, Stuart  26 Hallermayer, Michaela  117 Hands, A. R.  73, 80 Hanhart, Robert  117, 118 Hanson, A. T.  151, 157, 160 Hanson, John S.  198 Harland, Philip A.  13, 18, 188, 209 Harris, H. A.  192 Harris, J. Rendel  116 Harrison, James R.  140 Hart, J. H. A.  13, 178, 225, 241 Harter, Susan  269 Hasler, Victor  157 Haswell, Margaret Rosary  283 Hauge, Eirin Hoel  247, 248, 249 Hauvette-Besnault, Amédée  41 Hawley Gorsline, Robin  204 Haynes, Douglas  221 Healey, John F.  111 Heen, Erik M.  262, 270 Heichelheim, F. M.  284, 294 Heiligenthal, Roman  9, 141 Helgeland, John  194 Hendrix, Holland  70 Hengel, Martin  108, 134, 152, 192, 200 Henning, Meghan  206 Hensler, Christian G.  172 Hepding, Hugo  65 Herz, Peter  283 Herzer, Jens  150, 225, 249 Hewstone, Miles  186 Hicks, E. L.  57 Hiebert, D. Edmond  13, 173, 175, 225, 232, 252 Hillyer, Norman  230 Hingley, Richard  223 Hoag, Gary G.  154

406

Index of Modern Authors

Hobson, Deborah W.  281 Hodot, René  52 Hoehner, Harold W.  148 Holloway, Paul A.  6, 9, 23, 24, 34, 177, 268 Holm, Douglas  9 Holmer, Uwe  173, 227 Holtzmann, Heinrich J.  155 Hombert, Marcel  281 Hopkins, Keith  281, 283, 289 Horgan, Maurya  130 Horn, Christoph  47 Horrell, David G.  8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 31, 85, 160, 183, 207, 209, 211, 212, 227, 233, 236, 238, 249, 264 Horsley, G. H. R.  88, 109 Horsley, Richard A.  198, 266 Hort, F. J. A.  4, 170, 173, 178, 225, 230, 252 Houlden, J. L.  160 Howe, Bonnie  249, 250 Howe, Frederic R.  253 Howson, Richard  219 Hrebec, Dennis  217 Hugenberg, Kurt  237 Huggan, Graham  30 Hughes, H. Maldwyn  123 Hultgård, Anders  121 Hultgren, Arland J.  139 Hultsch, Friedrich  282 Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno  241 Huschke, Philipp E.  78 Hutchesson, Ian  199 Huther, J. E.  155, 171, 172, 173, 225, 229, 238, 240, 255 Hutnyk, John  30 Hüttenmeister, Frowald  111 Hyder, Elaine B.  214 Hyers, Lauri L.  33 Innocenti, Beth  238 Iosif, Despina  193 Isaacman, Allen  220 Isaacman, Barbara  220 Isager, Signe  89 Isen, Alice M.  216 Jacobs, Martin  196 Jacobsthal, P.  41 Jahn, Joachim  292 James, C. L. R.  25 James, M. R.  115

James, William  35 Japhet, Sara  130 Jasny, Naum  282, 283 Jassen, Alex P.  130 Jeffers, James S.  191 Jeremias, Joachim  145 Jewett, Robert  140 Jobes, Karen H.  4, 6, 7, 50, 171, 177, 178, 181, 225, 242, 254 Jobling, David  267 Johnson, Luke Timothy  149, 154, 159 Johnstone, Robert  240 Jokiranta, Jutta  125, 200 Jones, A. H. M.  71, 97, 287 Jones-Haldeman, Madelynn  13, 82 Jongman, Willem  282 Jossa, Giorgio  225 Joubert, Stephan  69 Joüon, Paul  116, 147 Juster, Jean  196 Justnes, Årstein  127, 128 Jüthner, Julius  40 Kahrstedt, Ulrich  64, 294 Kaimio, Jorma  292 Kaiser, Cheryl R.  34 Kalinowski, Angela  83 Karris, Robert J.  160 Käsemann, Ernst  141 Kearsley, Rosalinde A.  42, 52 Keck, Leander E.  142 Keener, Craig S.  144 Kehoe, Dennis P.  282 Keil, Carl F.  225, 230 Keil, Josef  87 Kelhoffer, James A.  141, 183 Kelly, J. N. D.  12, 89, 156, 173, 177, 178, 225, 227, 229, 237, 242 Kenner, Hedwig  262, 263 Kerr, Norbert L.  215 Kidd, Reggie M.  153, 157, 160, 161 Kiel, Micah D.  133 Kiesler, Charles A.  185 Kiesler, Sara  185 Kim, Kyoung-Shik  252 Kim, Sung Hee  217 King, A.  286 Kitsuse, John  243 Klijn, A. F. J.  156

Index of Modern Authors

Knapp, Mark L.  214 Knibb, Michael A.  131 Knight, George W.  149 Knights, David  220 Knoch, Otto  5, 157, 173, 176, 225 Knopf, Rudolf  13, 169, 173, 176, 178 Koester, Helmut  160 Kokkinia, Christina  46 Konoske, Paula  218 Korper, Susan H.  216 Kraabel, A. T.  188 Kramer, Roderick M.  216, 270 Krentz, Edgar  205 Kressel, Kenneth  213 Kriesberg, Louis  212 Krodel, Gerhard  237 Kroll, John H.  192 Kruger, Paul A.  262, 263 Kugler, Robert A.  113 Kühl, Ernst  171, 173, 225, 240 Kurfess, Alfons  114, 115 Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy  268 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph  139 Laistner, M. L. W.  102 Lamau, Marie-Louise  89, 233 Lambrecht, Jan  232 Lamp, Jeffrey S.  153 Lampe, Peter  191 Lanckoronski, Karl  75, 78 Lang, Mabel L.  193 Lange, Armin  130 Larfeld, Wilhelm  40 Lawler, Edward J.  214 Lawrence, Jason S.  32 Lazarus, Richard S.  32, 33 Lea, Thomas D.  149, 159 Leaney, A. R. C.  12 Lebram, Jürgen  118 Lefkowitz, Mary R.  58 Légasse, S.  5, 6, 12, 229 Lévi, Israël  116 Levick, Barbara  282 Levine, Amy-Jill  121 Levine, Lee I.  110 Lewis, Naphtali  83 Liebenam, Wilhelm  79, 97 Liew, Tatsiong Benny  272 Lifshitz, Baruch  235

407

Lightfoot, J. L.  115 Lim, Jason Jit-Fong  21 Lincoln, Andrew T.  147 Lindgren, Kanta Kochhar  30 Lippert, Peter  9, 250 Ljungvik, Herman  177 Loader, William R. G.  114, 206 Long Westfall, Cynthia  205, 211 Longenecker, Bruce W.  91, 157, 267 Lüderitz, Gert  109, 110 Luraghi, Nino  53 Luria, Salomo  262 Luz, Ulrich  145 MacMullen, Ramsay  99, 222, 292, 295 Macro, Anthony D.  53 Madsen, Jesper Majbom  223 Magner, Nace R.  214 Magness, Jodi  200 Maier, Harry O.  191 Major, Brenda  32, 33, 34, 269, 270 Malherbe, Abraham J.  83, 140, 152, 156, 158 Malina, Bruce J.  243 Manley, G. T.  241 Marchal, Joseph A.  272 Margot, Jean-Claude  233 Marín, Gerardo  19 Marquardt, Joachim  78 Marshall, I. Howard  13, 144, 156, 158 Marshall, John W.  28 Martin Robin  186 Martin, Troy W.  63, 139, 232, 237 Marrou, Henri-Irénée  69 Mason, A. J.  241 Masterman, J. Howard B.  225, 230 Mastino, Attilio  223 Mathews, Mark D.  158 Mattern, Lieselotte  147 Mattingly, David J.  285, 287 Mattingly, Harold B.  236 Mayer, Emanuel  280 Mazzeo, Michele  225 McCartney, Dan G.  253 McClintock, Anne  26 McGillicuddy, Neil B.  216 McGowan, Andrew  259 McKay, K. L.  231 McKnight, Scot  21, 89, 146, 173, 178, 211, 225, 232, 242

408

Index of Modern Authors

McLeod, John  27 McNamara, Martin  128, 135, 136 McPartland, James M.  32 McQuillan, Martin  30 Meecham, H. G.  171 Meeks, Wayne A. 153 Meggitt, Justin  141, 267, 286 Meier, John P.  145 Meier, Mischa  39 Memmi, Albert  25 Mendelson, Alan  192 Merk, Otto  152 Merkel, Helmut  115 Merkelbach, Reinhold  66 Metso, Sarianna  128 Metzner, Rainer  168 Michaelis, Heinrich  284 Michaels, J. Ramsey  5, 172, 177, 178, 182, 225, 227, 230, 237, 242, 255 Migeotte, Léopold  89, 97 Milik, J. T.  199 Millar, Murray  35 Miller, Carol T.  32, 33, 34 Miller, Dale T.  217 Miller, Daniel  219, 220 Miller, Larry  211, 245 Milner, N. P.  86 Minhha, Trinh T.  261 Mitchell, Katharyne  272 Mitchell, Stephen  41, 70, 79, 81, 97, 289 Mitchell, Timothy  208 Modica, Joseph B.  211 Modrzejewski, Joseph  187 Moffatt, James  13 Momigliano, Arnaldo  223 Monnier, Jean  5, 171, 173, 225 Moo, Douglas  141 Moore, Carey A.  119, 133 Moore, Janet  35 Moore, Stephen D.  26, 27, 28, 262, 265 Moore-Gilbert, Bart  26 Moran, Tecia  216 Moreau, Jacques  235 Morel, Charles  291 Morgan, Teresa  250 Moritz, Ludwig A.  283 Moscovici, Serge  186 Mott, Stephen Charles  152

Moule, C. F. D.  140, 172, 229 Moulton, J. H.  116, 202, 229, 230 Mounce, William D. Moxnes, Halvor  249, 263 Mueller, James R.  135 Mühlmann, Wilhelm E.  263 Mullin, Gerald W.  222 Münch, Christian  12, 296 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome  90 Murray, John  139 Myers, Anna M.  34 Naipaul, V. S.  30 Naylor, H. D.  231 Neal, G. C.  229 Neale, Margaret A.  215 Neesen, Lutz  289 Neubauer, Adolph  117 Neugebauer, Fritz  5 Neugebauer, Otto  86 Neusner, Jacob  196 Newman, Barclay M.  144 Newsom, Carol A.  124, 131 Neyrey, Jerome H.  243 Nickelsburg, George W. E.  122 Nicklas, Tobias  118 Nicole, Jules  291 Nicols, J.  79 Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm  120, 126 Nikiprowetzky, Valentin  122 Nolland, John  122, 146 Oberliner, Lorenz  150 O’Brien, George A. T.  294 O’Brien, Laurie T.  32 O’Brien, Peter T.  147 Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie  234 Oliver, James H.  64 Olson, Vernon S.  253 Olsson, Birger  21, 248 Oppenheimer, A’haron  192 Oropeza, B. J.  239 Orth, F.  282 Osborne, Grant R.  140, 141 Osborne, Jason W.  34 Osborne, Robin  60 Osiek, Carolyn  90, 204 Oskamp, Stuart  215 Ottenheijm, Eric  113, 118 Pajunen, Mika S.  125, 126

Index of Modern Authors

Pallas, Demetrios I.  42 Paribeni, Roberto  236 Paris, Pierre  77, 98 Parker, H. M. D.  286 Parrish, David  72 Paschke, Boris A.  238 Pate, C. Marvin  123 Peirce, Robert S.  216 Pelham, Brett W.  35 Peña, J. Theodore  285 Perelman, Chaïm  234 Perkins, Pheme  13 Peterson, Erik  236 Phang, Sara E.  292 Philipps, Karl  232 Picard, Charles  41 Pietersen, Lloyd K.  160 Pilgrim, Walter E.  264 Pinkley, Robin L.  217 Piper, John  252, 254 Pleket, H. W.  59, 100 Plumptre, E. H.  225 Poh, Chu Luan Eileen  11, 13, 82, 83, 87, 296 Pont, Anne-Valérie  97 Portefaix, Lilian  160 Porter, Dennis  26 Porter, Judith R.  32 Porter, Stanley E.  211, 231 Portier-Young, Anathea  134, 222 Poutsma, Albertus  231 Prakash, Gyan  221 Préaux, Claire  281 Preisker, Herbert  152 Prell, Marcus  294 Prietula, Michael J.  214 Prigent, Pierre  4, 6, 171, 177, 225 Prostmeier, Ferdinand-Rupert  5, 172 Pruitt, Dean G.  213, 214, 215, 216, 217 Puech, Émile  126, 127 Puig i Tàrrech, Armand  9, 21, 89 Punt, Jeremy  27, 272 Putnam, Linda L.  214 Qimron, Elisha  129, 132, 136 Quarles, Charles L.  133 Quaß, Friedemann  46, 78 Quet, Marie-Henriette  46 Quinn, Jerome D.  150

409

Raaflaub, Kurt A.  222 Radermcher, Ludwig  230 Radet, Georges A.  77, 98 Rahmin, M. Afzalur  214 Rainbow, Paul  220 Räisänen, Heikki  123 Rajak, Tessa  110 Ram, Anjali  272 Ramelli, Ilaria L. E.  152 Ramsay, William M.  52, 64, 88, 98, 101, 193, 194 Rathbone, Dominic  40, 85, 282, 283, 284, 291 Raymer, Roger M.  238 Reed, Jonathan L.  266 Reeg, Gottfried  111 Refoulé, François  82 Regev, Eyal  200 Reicke, Bo  63, 89, 169, 172, 233 Reimer, Andy M.  200 Reinhold, Meyer  83 Rey-Coquais, J.-P.  192 Reyes, A. T.  86 Reynolds, Joyce M.  87, 88, 109 Rhodes, P. J.  60 Richard, Earl J.  4, 6, 174, 182, 227 Richards, Kent H.  248 Richards, William A.  150 Richey, Matthew  201 Rickman, Geoffrey  285 Rietz, Henry W. Morisada  125 Robert, Jeanne  42, 61 Robert, Louis  41, 42, 57, 59, 61, 64, 72, 193 Robertson, A. T.  169, 172, 179, 229, 238 Robinson, Stephen E.  135 Röder, Jörg  246 Rogers, Guy M.  42, 80 Rokeach, Milton  259 Roloff, Jürgen  150, 156 Roscoe, William  283 Rosenberg, Morris  269 Rosenzweig, Saul  33 Rostovtzeff, M. I.  282, 284 Roth, Jonathan  286, 287 Roux, G.  109 Roux, J.  109 Rowlands, Michael  220 Rubin, Jeffrey Z.  213, 218

410

Index of Modern Authors

Runesson, Anna  28 Safrai, Zeev  285 Sagiv, Lilach  259 Said, Edward  25, 26 Saller, Richard P.  69, 285, 292 Salviat, François  42 Sam, David L.  19 Sandelin, Karl-Gustav  187, 192 Sanders, E. P.  116, 188 Sanders, Jack T.  152 Sandnes, Karl O.  6, 82, 296, 297 Sartre, Maurice  70, 97 Scheidel, Walter  91, 283 Scheier, Michael F.  33 Schelkle, Karl H.  5, 172, 225, 228, 241 Schertz, Mary H.  202 Schierse, Franz J.  152 Schiffman, Lawrence H.  129 Schimanowski, Gottfried  188 Schlarb, Egbert  160 Schleiermacher, Friedrich  150 Schlier, Heinrich  139 Schlosser, Jacques  6, 7, 169, 209, 227, 229, 233, 254 Schmader, Toni  34, 270 Schmitt, Armin  117 Schmitt, Pauline  80 Schnackenburg, Rudolf  145 Schnapp, Alain  80 Schniedewind, William M.  201 Schoenfeld, Andrew J.  192 Schofield, Alison  199 Schoor, Antoon  107 Schott, Theodor  171, 172, 225, 255 Schottroff, Willy  111 Schrage, Wolfgang  153 Schreiner, Thomas R.  6, 84, 140, 172, 178, 206, 227, 228, 256 Schröger, Friedrich  229 Schuchhardt, C.  65 Schückler, Georg  169 Schuler, Christof  69 Schuller, Eileen M.  125, 126, 131 Schur, Edwin M.  242 Schürer, Emil  110 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth  7, 54, 202, 256 Schutter, William L.  84, 89, 176

Schwartz, Seth  111, 196 Schwarz, Hertha  97, 289 Schwarz, Roland  151, 153 Schweitzer, Maurice E.  215 Schweizer, Eduard  227 Scott, James C.  22, 202, 203, 208, 212, 220, 221, 262, 270 Scott, James M.  113 Scullard, H. H.  286 Sear, Frank  74 Segovia, Fernando F.  26 Segre, M.  289 Seland, Torrey  9, 18, 50, 84, 169, 185 Selwyn, Edward G.  4, 13, 169, 171, 174, 178, 225, 230, 232, 241, 255 Senior, Donald P.  6, 172, 225, 242, 255 Shamir, Orit  200 Shaw, Brent D.  292 Sheppard, A. R. R.  193 Shome, Raka  272 Shulman, David  242 Sillars, A. L.  218 Simpson, D. C.  118 Skard, Eiliv  40 Sleeper, C. Freeman  13 Smith, Kylie  219 Snyder, Scot  174, 232 Solin, Heikki  188 Soll, Will  133 Sorek, Susan  110 Speidel, M. Alexander  291, 292 Spencer, Richard A.  117 Spencer, Steven  34 Sperber, Daniel  284, 293 Spicq, Ceslas  169, 173, 175, 176, 178, 235, 256 Spielman, Loren Roberts  196 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty  26, 262 Spörri, Theophil  167 Stahl, Johann M.  230 Stahl, Michael  97 Stanley, Christopher D.  261 Staple, Sandra  218 Stark, Rodney  91 Starwalt, Ervin R.  227 Stauber, Josef  66 Steele, Claude M.  32, 34, 269 Stegemann, Ekkehard  290

Index of Modern Authors

Stegemann, Hartmut  125, 131 Stegemann, Wolfgang  290 Steiger, Wilhelm  173, 240 Steinel, Wolfgang  213, 214 Stenschke, Christoph  23, 268 Sterrett, J. R. S.  77 Steskal, Martin J.  83 Stiel, Ruth  241 Stine, Philip C.  144 Strack, Hermann L.  12, 116 Strauss, Hans  263 Strecker, Georg  145 Strubbe, Johan H. M.  98 Strugnell, John  130, 136 Stubbe, Hannes  262 Stuckenbruck, Loren T.  116 Stuhlmacher, Peter  152 Sugirtharajah, R. S.  25, 27, 28 Sukenik, Naama  200 Sumney, Jerry L.  151 Sun, Wai Lan Joyce  212 Swann, Jr., William B.  35 Swim, Janet K.  33 Syna, Helena  216 Szilágyi, János  291 Tajfel, Henri  33, 237 Talbert, Charles H.  23 Tannenbaum, Robert  88 Taylor, Justin  236 Taylor, Shelley E.  269 Tcherikover, Victor  113 Tchernia, André  287 Teichert, Horst  227 Tellbe, Mikael  91 Tesser, Abraham  35, 269 Theissen, Gerd  286 Thiede, Carsten Peter  242 Thomas, J. D.  118 Thompson, James W.  115 Thompson, Leigh  217 Thorsteinsson, Runar M.  48 Thurén, Lauri  5, 6, 23, 63, 211, 234, 239, 297 Tiffin, Helen  219, 262 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C.  126, 128 Tilley, Christopher  220 Tjosvold, Dean  215 Tod, Marcus N.  65

411

Towner, Philip H.  86, 143, 150, 153, 154, 156, 159 Townsend, Sarah S. M.  33 Trebilco, Paul R.  91, 113, 157, 161, 188, 236 Trost, Melanie R.  186 Trummer, Peter  150 Tukasi, Emmanuel O.  132 Turner, E. G.  188 Turner, John C.  33, 186, 237 Turner, Nigel  229, 230 Turner, Victor  263 Tuval, Michael  114 Tzoref, Shani  129 Uhlig, Siegbert  242 Usteri, Johann M.  171, 173 Vail, Leroy  222 Vallois, René  99 Van Berchem, Denis  222 van Bremen, Riet  42, 78 van de Vliert, Evert  214 van Dommelen, Peter  223 van Heesch, Johan  292 Van Hoesen, Henry B.  86 Van Kleef, Gerben A.  213, 214 Van Leeuwen, Raymond C.  263 van Nijf, Onno  80 van Rensburg, Fika J.  21, 89 Van Rijswijk, Wendy  33 van Unnik, W. C.  12, 13, 18, 63, 141, 170, 176, 247, 252 van Walraven, Klaas  221 Vanhoye, Albert  254 VanZanten Gallagher, Susan  29 Varinlioğlu, Ender  66 Vásquez Queipo, Vincente  282 Vénencie, Jacques  42 Verboven, Koenraad  69 Verhey, Allen  151 Vermès, Géza  126, 127, 128 Verner, David C.  154, 159 Veyne, Paul  69, 80 Voelz, James W.  231 Vögtle, Anton  234 Volf, Miroslav  5 Völkl, Richard  152 von Campenhausen, Hans  152 von Harnack, Adolf  236 von Hofmann, Johann C. K. 172, 173, 225, 255

412

Index of Modern Authors

von Schlatter, Adolf  144 von Soden, Hans  225 von Steuben, Hans  76 Vurdubakis, Theodore  220 Wacker, William C.  150 Wagemakers, Bart  259 Wagner, Christian J.  116, 118 Wallace, Daniel B.  140, 202 Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew  69 Walster, Elaine  43 Walster, G. William  43 Walters, James C.  48 Wan, Sze-kar  258 Wand, J. W. C.  5 Wankel, Hermann  40 Warden, P. Duane  89, 227 Warraq, Ibn  26 Washington, Robert E.  32 Wassen, Cecilia  200 Wasserstein, Abraham  196, 201 Waßmuth, Olaf  114 Watley, Gordon L.  115 Watson, Duane F.  6, 203, 225, 240 Watson, G. R.  292 Weaver, John B.  144 Webb, Ruth  238 Weeks, Stuart  116, 118 Weihs, Alexander  253 Weinfeld, Moshe  129 Weingart, Laurie  214 Weintraub, Jagdish Kumari  33 Weiser, Alfons  150 Weiss, Bernhard  140, 158, 225 Weiss, Ze’ev  196 Wendland, Heinz D.  152 Wernberg-Møller, Preben  129 Wesch-Klein, Gabriele  292 West, Gerald O.  267 West, Louis C.  293 White, L. Michael  90, 109, 258 White, Landeg  222 Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich  98 Wiesinger, J. T. Augustus  158, 170, 173, 225, 238 Wilckens, Ulrich  141 Wilhelm, Adolf  88 Williams, David R.  32

Williams, Martin  179, 253 Williams, Robert D.  265 Williams, Travis B.  3, 18, 21, 73, 78, 84, 85, 102, 142, 174, 175, 177, 180, 187, 208, 224, 225, 233, 236, 238, 239 Wills, Judith  281 Wilson, Bryan R.  19 Wilson, James P.  230 Wilson, Stephen G.  153, 188 Windisch, Hans  172, 226 Winer, G. B.  173, 179, 238 Winter, Bruce W.  13, 40, 48, 50, 68, 84, 85, 96, 97, 98, 100, 104, 141, 175 Wischmeyer, Wolfgang  190 Wise, Michael O.  128 Wisse, Fredrik  139 Witherington III, Ben  14, 21, 82, 140, 141, 178, 229, 238 Woan, Susan A.  247 Wold, Benjamin  136 Wolfe, Connie  34 Woolf, Greg  198 Wörrle, Michael  81, 289 Wright, N. T.  137, 140, 266 Xeravits, Géza G.  127 Yadin, Azzan  196 Yadin, Yigael  128, 201 Yinger, Kent L.  252 Young, Frances M.  151, 155 Young, Robert J. C.  25, 26, 30 Yuge, Toru  223 Zahn, Theodor  236 Zamfir, Korinna  157 Zanna, Mark P.  259 Zeller, Dieter  173 Zerbe, Gordon M  6, 202 Zerwick, Maxamilian  169, 230 Zetterholm, Magnus  188 Zimmermann, Johannes  127 Zimmermann, Ruben  47 Zissu, Boaz  200 Zubek, Josephine M.  216 Zuckerman, Constantine  110 Zuiderhoek, Arjan  44, 45, 46, 71, 72, 78, 79, 81, 97, 98, 282 Zwemstra, Jacomien  247