Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric: 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews 3161624750, 9783161624759

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ∙ 2. Reihe Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

600

Christine R. Trotter

Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews

Mohr Siebeck

Christine R. Trotter, born 1986; 2021 PhD University of Chicago; 2021–23 Divinity School Teaching Fellow in the Divinity School and the College at the University of Chicago; Assistant Teaching Professor at Georgetown University.

ISBN 978-3-16-162475-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-162476-6 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-162476-6 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailled bibliographic data are available on the Internet at https://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.

www.mohrsiebeck.com

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 and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by SatzWeise in Bad Wünnenberg using Minion typeface, printed on nonaging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Luke, Avery, and Caleb

Preface This book is a revision of my doctoral dissertation, submitted in 2021 to the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. I am grateful to my advisor, Margaret M. Mitchell, whose work on 1 Thessalonians sparked my interest in consolatory rhetoric. Her precision and excitement about Paul and Paulinism have made a lasting impact on me. My arguments are stronger as a result of her tireless care to comment on drafts of my chapters and meet with me to discuss them. The breadth of her knowledge of New Testament scholarship is unparalleled, and I am fortunate to have been the beneficiary of her mentorship. I am thankful to my dissertation readers, Jeffrey Stackert and Sofia TorallasTovar, who, along with Margaret Mitchell, encouraged me to think big and expand the scope of this project beyond my initial focus on 1 Thessalonians. Their feedback and enthusiasm for this research has made it what it is today. Many thanks are due to Hans-Josef Klauck, who introduced me to ancient consolation literature in his University of Chicago course on Plutarch of Chaeronea and helped me refine my thinking on theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon. I have benefited from the advice and mentorship of numerous other professors of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, including Harold Attridge, Adela Yarbro Collins, April DeConick, Judith Gundry, Jeremy Hultin, Jeff Jay, Werner Kelber, David Martinez, Diana Swancutt, and Erin Walsh. It has been a gift to learn from these scholars. Justin Howell shepherded this manuscript through the editing phase, and I am so appreciative of his keen eye and expertise in biblical studies. During my doctoral program, I presented portions of this research at the Early Christian Studies Workshop. I am grateful for my colleagues who sharpened my thinking through their questions and suggestions during these workshops. Thank you, James Covington, Brad Hansen, Nathan Hardy, Doug Hoffer, Kelly Holob, Cameron Ferguson, and Richard Zaleski. My postdoctoral Teaching Fellowship at the University of Chicago afforded me the time and resources to prepare this manuscript for publication. Thanks are due to the students in my undergraduate course, Suffering, Grief, and Consolation, who were excellent conversation partners over the winter quarter of 2023 and raised important questions concerning many of the ancient sources in this book. Financial support for this project was provided by the Joyce Z. and Jacob Greenberg Center for Jewish Studies and the Divinity School’s Provost Disser-

VIII

Preface

tation Completion Fellowship at the University of Chicago. I am grateful to the Greenberg Center and the Divinity School for their confidence in my work and their generosity. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unwavering support of my scholarship. My parents, Lee and Linda Miller, celebrated every milestone along the way. My husband, Jon, made this work possible. Our children, Luke, Avery, and Caleb, are the best sources of consolation one could ever ask for! Chicago, June 2023

Christine R. Trotter

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1. The Goals of Ancient Consolatory Rhetoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Plan of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 11

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Ancient Greco-Roman Consolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ancient Jewish Consolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric . . . . Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Rejection of Greco-Roman Consolations . . . . . . . . . 1.4.3 Rejection of Biblical Assumptions and Arguments . . . . 1.4.4 Employing Multiple Paradigms: Afterlife Beliefs . . . . . 1.5 Hellenistic Jews at the Intersection of Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

14 19 24

. . . . .

. . . . .

30 31 35 40 49

. .

51

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees . . . . . . . .

55

2.1 Circumstances of Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Previous Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Genre and Purpose of 2 Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 59 60

Part 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Response to State-Sponsored Religious Persecution

X

Table of Contents

2.4 Consolatory Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Suffering Is Punishment for Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 God Disciplines His People with Calamities for Their Good 2.4.3 God Does Not Abandon His People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 God Watches Everything from Heaven . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 God Is Your Help and Ally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.6 God Punishes the Wicked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.7 God Rewards the Righteous with Life after Death . . . . . . . 2.4.8 God’s Wrath Is Short-Lived, but His Mercy toward His People Is Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Function of the Consolatory Arguments in 2 Maccabees . . . . . . 2.6 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 89 90

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . .

93

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Circumstances of Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genre of the Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Persona of King Solomon and Addressees . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Consolation concerning the Apparent Death of Adults by Torture (3:1–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Consolation concerning the Apparent Deaths of Young People (4:7–19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 Consolation for Parents Who Had Become Childless (3:13–19; 4:1–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4 Conclusion: Consolatory Rhetoric in 3:1–4:19 . . . . . . . . 3.6 Wisdom and Education in Grief and Suffering . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 The Relationship between Grief and Education . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Lady Wisdom in the Role of Reason and in the Place of the God of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.1 God’s Righteous Children Thirst in the Desert (11:1–14) . . . 3.7.2 Darkness for “the Lawless” and Light for the “Holy Ones” (17:1–18:4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3 Former Friends Once Again Become Enemies (19:13–17) . . 3.8 Making Meaning of the Suffering of the Righteous . . . . . . . . . 3.8.1 The Suffering of the Righteous: Neither Divine Violence Nor Divine Absence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64 64 68 69 72 76 81 82

93 96 99 102 105 109 118 119 124 125 126 128 130 136 138 141 144 145

Table of Contents

3.8.2 God Does Not Cause the Righteous to Suffer, but Uses Their Suffering for Their Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI 148 152

Part 2: Consolatory Rhetoric in the Early Jesus Movement Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians . . . . . . . 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

Circumstances of Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s Diagnosis and Characterization of the Situation . . . . . . . Arrangement and Genre of 1 Thessalonians . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolatory Exhortation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Paul’s Processes of Invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:9–12 . . . 4.5.3 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:13–5:11 . . 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22 . . 4.5.5 Conclusion: Consolatory Exhortation in 1 Thessalonians . . . Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Ancient Consolers Sing the Praises of the Person in Distress: Form and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Paul Sings the Praises of the Thessalonians in Distress: Form and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.3 Conclusion: Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expressions of Sympathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Expressions of Sympathy within Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish Consolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Paul’s Expressions of Sympathy in 1:6–3:10 . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.3 Conclusion: Expressions of Sympathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief . . 4.8.1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as Consolatory Exempla: Case Study on 2:1–16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.2 Conclusion: Exempla for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157 158 161 165 168 173 174 175 186 195 211 212 214 216 218 218 220 221 224 224 227 230 231

XII

Table of Contents

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem: Hebrews

.

233

5.1 Circumstances of Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Previous Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 What You Lost Exists in Heaven, in an Even Better Form . . . 5.3.2 Everything Perishes and Everything That Remains Will Soon Perish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 This Happened according to God’s Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 You Have Another Form of Atonement That Is Just as (or Even More) Efficacious Than the Forms of Atonement You Lost . . 5.3.5 Consolatory Exempla of Sojourners Seeking a Heavenly Homeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Imitating Pauline Consolation regarding Persecution . . . . . . . . 5.5 The Problem of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

233 238 242 243

Conclusion: Hellenistic Jews at the Crossroads of Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

250 252 256 261 266 269 276

281

Appendices Appendix 1: The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric . .

289

Appendix 2: Explanations for Why God’s Children and Their Enemies Suffer in the Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

299

Appendix 3: Proposals for the Structure of 1 Thessalonians as a Letter of Consolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

301

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

303

Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

341

Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

377

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

383

Introduction:

Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric God did not make death, nor does he delight in the destruction of the living.… God created man for immortality, and as the image of his own likeness he made him; but by the devil’s envy death entered into the world, and those who belong to his portion experience it. 1

The author of the Wisdom of Solomon asserts that death was not God’s design for humankind but entered creation due to an otherworldly being. Furthermore, he claims that death is not something experienced by everyone. Only those who belong to the devil really die. In subsequent chapters of his work, he argues that those who belong to God enjoy the immortality God intended from the beginning of creation. The Wisdom of Solomon, an early first-century CE composition, was addressed to Greek-speaking Jews who had survived a persecution in which some of those faithful to the Torah suffered and even died at the hands of non-Jews. Offering a plausible interpretation of their suffering that demonstrated God to still be on the side of the maltreated Jews was a necessary ingredient of the author’s larger aim of persuading readers to hold fast to the God of Israel, despite the risks their allegiance entailed. His compressed exegesis of Gen 1–3 in the passage cited has a consolatory function. Not only is death contrary to God’s plan, but readers who had lost loved ones are told that they did not actually die. As the author will illustrate, those departed righteous ones only seem to have died, but they are actually living an immortal existence in God’s hand (3:1–5:23). The author of the Wisdom of Solomon interweaves his exegesis of Gen 1–3 with other biblical motifs (e. g., Ezek 18:32; 33:11) and concepts from Greek philosophical discourse on immortality in the interest of his larger consolatory argument. 2 The Jewish Scriptures generally hold death to be God’s will for finite 1 Wis 1:13; 2:23–25. Unless marked otherwise, all translations of Greek texts in this monograph are my own. 2 While he was certainly influenced by Plato’s teaching on the nature of the soul, James M. Reese has argued that the author of the Wisdom of Solomon was likely also indebted to the teaching of Philodemus of Gadara on ἀφθαρσία, “incorruption” or “immortality,” and may have been responding to Epicureanism in his use of ἀϊδιότης, “eternity” (Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences, AnBib 41 [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970], 62–69).

2

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

human beings and attribute immortality solely to God, with rare exceptions. 3 The Wisdom of Solomon, however, argues that immortality is available to all righteous people (1:15; 3:1–9; 4:7–14; 5:15–16) in terms that have strong affinities with Middle Platonism. 4 The author of the Wisdom of Solomon hoped that his admixture of his biblical inheritance with the contemporary Platonic doctrine of the soul would constitute a fitting balm to soothe the wounds of his Jewish audience immersed in the Greek culture of Alexandria, an audience still recovering from past persecution and fearing future harm. 5 The Wisdom of Solomon is an example of a larger group of texts under consideration in this monograph whose Hellenistic Jewish authors utilized their pluriform cultural heritage to provide answers to the perennial questions that arise in the face of human suffering. The author’s concerns with theodicy and giving an empowering meaning to seemingly unmerited suffering are also found, for example, in 1–2 Enoch, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, 2 Maccabees, the Philonic corpus, Paul’s letters, Hebrews, and 4 Maccabees. Neither the biblical authors nor the Greek philosophical schools alone offered clear answers to the questions raised by the Hellenistic Jewish authors of these texts: questions about God’s power, justice, and goodness when the righteous suffer and die, about the postmortem fate of the dead, and about how unmerited suffering fits into God’s purposes. 6 Which biblical voices do the Hellenistic Jewish authors of these texts 3 John J. Collins calls “the idea that God did not make death” a “shocking novelty in Jewish tradition” (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997], 187–88). Apart from Gen 2–3, the origin of death is not a major concern of the Hebrew Bible (Kent H. Richards, “Death: Old Testament,” ABD 2:108–9). Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:3–11) were translated, and the seer of Daniel prophesies that many of the righteous dead, “the wise,” will awake to everlasting life (Dan 12:1–4) (Bernd Janowski, “Death, Dying II. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 6:359–61). 4 John J. Collins, “The Root of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom,” HTR 71 (1978): 177–92; John M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A. D. 220 (London: Duckworth, 1977), 177–78. 5 Contemporary Platonism held that the souls of the wise enjoyed immortality, but there was no personal immortality for evil people (Dillon, Middle Platonists, 177–78). 6 Michael E. W. Thompson, “Where Is the God of Justice?”: The Old Testament and Suffering (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011); James L. Crenshaw, Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Shannon Burkes, God, Self, and Death: The Shape of Religious Transformation in the Second Temple Period, JSJSup 79 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); James L. Crenshaw, ed., Theodicy in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); James Arthur Dumke, “The Suffering of the Righteous in Jewish Apocryphal Literature” (PhD diss., Duke University, 1980); A. R. C. Leaney, “The Eschatological Significance of Human Suffering in the Old Testament and in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” SJT 5 (1963): 286–301; James A. Sanders, Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-biblical Judaism, CRDSB 28 (Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1955); Edmund F. Sutcliffe, Providence and Suffering in the Old and New Testaments (London: Nelson, 1953); Arthur S. Peake, The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament (London: Epworth, 1947); L. B. Paton, “The Problem of Suffering in the Pre-exilic Prophets,” JBL 46 (1927): 111–31. For Greek views, see Roman Garrison, Why Are You Silent, Lord?, BibSem 68 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000);

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

3

echo, and which ones do they avoid in their consolatory endeavors? How do their arguments compare with reflections on suffering and death in contemporary Jewish texts? What did they embrace and what did they reject from Platonic, Stoic, Epicurean, Peripatetic, and Cyrenaic theories of consolation? Greek philosophical discussions on suffering and death have arguably left their mark on books that would eventually be included in the Jewish and Christian canons, such as Ecclesiastes and Daniel, even in the Masoretic Text. Yet what logical and theological tensions are created when our authors interpret their Bible in Greek philosophical terms that stretch the biblical texts beyond their original meanings and contexts? 7 As readers of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, these authors were primed to find the vocabulary of the Platonic dialogues and other Greek literature in their sacred texts and to interpret accordingly. 8 They often found their Bible and select strands of Hellenistic philosophy to be in harmony, whereas a direct comparison with the Masoretic Text would have shown a starker tension. Nevertheless, our authors’ attempts to console readers by integrating assumptions and arguments from the Bible with those of their Greco-Roman world were not without costs. For example, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon’s desire to distance God from all evil, including death, causes him to personify death as an otherworldly being who invades God’s creation from the outside (1:13–16; 2:23–25). In his effort to maintain the axiom of Plato, Cleanthes, and others that “the deity is absolutely good, and therefore, cannot have anything to do with death,” 9 the author of the Wisdom of Solomon also strains the limits of his monotheism. 10 Can Hellenistic Jewish authors have it both ways when offering consolation? What must be sacrificed? In this analysis, I understand Hellenistic Judaism as “simply the form taken by Judaism in Greek-speaking environments in the Hellenistic age.” 11 This Thomas Finan, “The Myth of the Innocent Sufferer: Some Greek Paradigms,” PIBA 9 (1985): 121–35; Harold Cherniss, “The Sources of Evil according to Plato,” PAPS 98 (1954): 23–37; James Adam, “Ancient Greek Views of Suffering and Evil,” in The Vitality of Platonism, ed. Adela M. Adam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 190–212. 7 Although the Torah and the Prophets were already established during this period, the Writings of the Hebrew Bible continued to be in flux. The modern canon of the Hebrew Bible is first attested in the late first century CE by Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.8). 8 Louis H. Feldman, “The Septuagint: The First Translation of the Torah and Its Effects,” in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, JSJSup 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 53–69. 9 Laato and de Moor call this a “basic idea in ancient Greek philosophy” (Theodicy in the World of the Bible, xxviii). See, e. g., Plato, Resp. 379A–380C; cf. Resp. 617E; Tim. 42D, 69C–D; Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus (SVF 1.537); Democritus, DK. 68, B. 175. 10 David Winston, “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 525–45, esp. 526. 11 John J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule, JSJSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 5. This definition of Collins rightly refuses to limit Hellenistic Judaism to the particular form of Judaism found in the diaspora, a view that continues to be propagated (e. g., Peder Borgen, “Introduction,” in The

4

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

monograph thus investigates how Jews of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods utilized Greek literary forms and rhetoric to console their readers. I approach this question through a study of the consolatory rhetoric in Jewish texts spanning from the Septuagint to texts responding to the destruction of the Second Temple. I focus on 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews for three primary reasons. First, the authors of these texts are all engaged in interpreting the suffering of specific readers, offering them comfort, and enjoining particular behaviors for them to live faithfully in distress. Each author addresses suffering on account of persecution in some form, ranging from verbal abuse, social discrimination, and confiscation of property, to imprisonment, torture, and death. 12 Because their consolatory efforts are aimed at resolving particular instances of trauma in specific communities, they are “address-mode” texts. 13 As such, they stand apart from fictional stories of one person consoling another and fictional consolatory letters (“facsimile” texts). 14 Furthermore, they differ from “texts which bear closely on the practice of consolation but are not in themselves directly consolatory,” that is, “reflective-mode” or “metaconsolatory” texts. 15 Second, these four texts are particularly illustrative of the different approaches Hellenistic Jewish authors might adopt when consoling persecuted communities. These different methods can be seen, for example, in the meaning each author assigns to the suffering of their intended communities. The author of the earliest text, 2 Maccabees, views the suffering of the Jerusalem Jews as just New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, ed. Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen [Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995], 9–13, esp. 9) despite the important work of Martin Hengel and others. 12 The authors of 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon were responding to persecution that had escalated to the point of public torture and death. Some of the intended recipients of Hebrews had suffered public humiliation, imprisonment, and confiscation of their property, but the author suggests that none of them had died as a result of persecution. The nature of the persecution endured by the Thessalonians is more highly debated, with a lack of consensus regarding whether Paul’s addressees were facing only verbal abuse and social discrimination, or whether the unexpected deaths among them were the result of persecution. 13 J. H. D. Scourfield, “Towards a Genre of Consolation,” in Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife, ed. Han Baltussen (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013), 1–36, esp. 20. 14 For the category of “facsimile” texts, see Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 18–20. In Hellenistic Jewish literature, fictional scenes of consolation include Tob 5:18–6:1; 7:15–16; Jdt 8:12– 27; Josephus, B. J. 4.39–48; 7.320–388; A. J. 7.178, 201–204; 8.355–357; 4 Ezra 9.38–10.24; 14.27–36. Scourfield identifies the following as fictional consolatory letters, though he displays some hesitation regarding whether the letters of Apollonius of Tyana should be included: the Letters of Phalaris, Ep. 10, 103; the “Socratic Epistles,” Ep. 21; [Xen.], Ep. 3; Ap. Ty., Ep. 55, 58 (“Towards a Genre,” 30 n. 127). To this corpus, I add 2 Bar. 78–86. 15 Philosophical discussions about consolation, grief, death, and mourning fall into this category (Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 19–20). Within Hellenistic Jewish literature, see, e. g., Sir 2:1–18; 38:9–23; Let. Aris. 268; Ps.-Phoc. 59–69; 97–121; Philo, De Abrahamo, Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat, De Iosepho, De mutatione nominum, De praemiis et poenis, De providentia.

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

5

punishment for sin and, without hesitation, acknowledges God as the cause of their plight and pain (5:17–20; 6:12–16; 7:32–38). The author of the Wisdom of Solomon, writing some two hundred years later, advocates the opposite position. He argues that the suffering and death of Alexandrian Jews should not be regarded as divine punishment for sin, and furthermore, that God did not cause their suffering. Viewing the Thessalonian Christ-believers’ afflictions within an apocalyptic worldview and in light of the suffering and death of Jesus, Paul argued that their suffering was an expected and inescapable consequence of faithfully following the God of Israel and awaiting his son, Jesus. As one would expect, the Paulinist author of Hebrews, writing some twenty to forty years after 1 Thessalonians, echoes Paul’s view that God’s faithful ones have always suffered (11:1–12:3). Yet the author of Hebrews also expresses his perspective on suffering in terms reminiscent of the Wisdom of Solomon when he urges his readers to conceptualize their present suffering not as punishment for sin but as an indication of God’s care and love for them as his children (12:4–11). In fact, the author of Hebrews appears to have known and utilized 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and 1 Thessalonians when formulating his own consolatory discourse. 16 By analyzing these four texts on their own and in relationship to each other, we gain both an understanding of the diversity within Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric and an ability to articulate what unites Hellenistic Jewish consolers across theological borderlines. Paul and the author of Hebrews believed that Jesus was the Messiah of Israel, but they were, nevertheless, Hellenistic Jews. 17 Like the author of 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon, they believed in one God, the God of Israel, reverenced the Jewish Scriptures that they read in the Septuagint translation, and believed that Israel was both elected by God and bound to him by a covenant entailing certain obligations and privileges. Although both authors would 16 Cf. Heb 11:35 and 2 Macc 6:18–7:42; Heb 1:3 and Wis 7:26; Heb 12:4–11 and Wis 3:5; 11:9–10; 12:22; Heb 10:32–39 and 1 Thess 1:2–10; 5:9. See Chapter 5, § 5.4 Imitating Pauline Consolation regarding Persecution. 17 Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Michael F. Bird, An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), esp. 49–50; Kimberly Ambrose, Jew among Jews: Rehabilitating Paul (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015); Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, eds., Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015); Pamela M. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperCollins, 2009); Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini, BibInt 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 213–37; John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Gabriella Gelardini, “Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht”: Der Hebräer, eine Synagogenhomilie zu Tischa be-Aw, BibInt 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Clark M. Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?,” Int 57 (2003): 266–79; Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTS 73 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).

6

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

eventually be considered advocates of Christianity, to label them as Christian when analyzing their consolatory rhetoric is anachronistic and foreign to how they identified themselves. Both authors wrote in the first century CE, and the view that the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity occurred in the first or early second century CE has increasingly been challenged in the past thirty years. 18 As a result, scholars today rightly analyze the first-century CE writings of the early Jesus movement within Judaism, as evidence of its diversity in thought and practice. My studies of 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews demonstrate the great extent to which both Paul and the author of Hebrews consoled their readers using the same methods as those used by their Jewish peers who were not Christ-believers. 19 Lastly, each of these four texts contains consolatory rhetoric that is either underappreciated or unrecognized as ancient consolatory rhetoric in modern scholarship. 20 Among them, only 1 Thessalonians has been a locus of scholarly attention on the question of Paul’s use of ancient methods and forms of consolation. 21 Studies on the consolatory rhetoric within 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom 18 E. g., Peter J. Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries, WUNT 418 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019); Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999); Paula Fredriksen, “‘What Parting of the Ways’? Jews, Gentiles, and the Ancient Mediterranean City,” in The Ways That Never Parted, ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, TSAJ 95 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 35–63; Philip S. Alexander, “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism,” in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), esp. 1–25; Martha Himmelfarb, “The Parting of the Ways Reconsidered: Diversity in Judaism and JewishChristian Relations in the Roman Empire, ‘A Jewish Perspective,’” in Interwoven Destinies: Jews and Christians through the Ages, ed. Eugene Fisher (New York: Paulist, 1993), esp. 47–61; Steven Katz, “Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A Reconsideration,” JBL 103 (1984): 43–76. 19 While the author of 2 Maccabees wrote about two hundred years before Paul and the author of Hebrews, this study also analyzes the consolatory rhetoric of Jews who were their contemporaries (e. g., Philo, Josephus, and the authors of the Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch). 20 Underappreciated as ancient consolatory rhetoric: e. g., 2 Macc 6:18–7:42; 9:1–29; 12:39– 45; Wis 1–5; 1 Thess 1:6–10; 2:1–2, 13–20; 4:13–5:11; Heb 6:15–20; 12:4–13. Unrecognized as ancient consolatory rhetoric: e. g., 2 Macc 6:12–17; 14:37–46; 15:7–19; Wis 6:15–20; 8:7, 13, 16–17; 10:1–19:22; 1 Thess 4:9–12; 5:12–22; Heb 10:32–12:3; 13:5–6. 21 E. g., David Luckensmeyer and Bronwen Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians as a Consolatory Letter in Light of Seneca and Ancient Handbooks on Letter-Writing,” NTS 62 (2016): 31–48; Abraham Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, AB 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 279–86; Abraham Smith, Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995); Juan Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians a Letter of Consolation?,” NTS 40 (1994): 150–60, esp. 159 n. 45; Chapa, “Consolatory Patterns? 1 Thess 4, 13.18; 5, 11,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 220–28, esp. 224–26; Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” in Light from the Gentiles, NovTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2014; repr. NovT 25 [1989]: 49–66), 182–85; Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tra-

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

7

of Solomon, and Hebrews qua ancient consolatory rhetoric are few in the case of 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon and nonexistent in the case of Hebrews. 22 Scholars have identified a consolatory function or intent in Hebrews, even labeling some units specifically as “consolations,” but these units have not been analyzed in light of ancient consolatory rhetoric. 23 By scrutinizing how these authors were engaged in ancient consolatory discourse, we gain fresh exegetical, theological, and historical insights that can substantively contribute new knowledge to the study of Judaism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, of the Pauline Letters and Paulinism, and of ancient consolation at large. I analyze 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews against the background of ancient biblical and Greco-Roman consolation, examining their rhetoric, arguments, motifs, and appeals in light of the various consolatory strategies used by ancient Jews, Greeks, and Romans to process loss and to urge the distressed to resume normal life. Because consoladition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 57–59; Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 145. 22 2 Maccabees: e. g., Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 170–71; Arie van der Kooij, “The Use of the Greek Bible in II Maccabees,” JNSL 25 (1999): 127–38; Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees, AB 41A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 292–97. Wisdom of Solomon: e. g., Armin Schmitt, “Der frühe Tod des Gerechten nach Weisheit 4, 7–19 und die griechisch-römische Konsolationsliteratur,” in Der Gegenwart verpflichtet: Studien zur biblischen Literatur des Frühjudentums, ed. Christian Wagner, BZAW 292 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 204–22; Helmut Engel, Das Buch der Weisheit, NSK-AT 16 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), esp. 98–101; Chrysostome Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou La Sagesse de Salomon, EBib 1 (Paris: Gabalda, 1983–1985), 2:330–39; Giuseppe Scarpat, Libro della Sapienza, 3 vols. (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1989–1999), esp. 2:325–39. 23 On a consolatory function in Hebrews, see, e. g., Kenneth Schenck, A New Perspective on Hebrews: Rethinking the Parting of the Ways (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019), 21, 93–125; Gabriella Gelardini, “Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological Interpretation,” in Deciphering the Worlds of Hebrews: Collected Essays, NovTSup 184 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 92–112, esp. 105; Gelardini, Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht; Isaacs, Sacred Space, esp. 67, 77–78; Otto Schmitz and Gustav Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:788–99, esp. 796–97; Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, EBib 1–2, 2 vols. (Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 1:260. Walter G. Übelacker designates Heb 6:13–20 and 12:4–13 as “consolations,” which he defines as “exhortations … intend[ed] both to encourage and comfort the readers” (“Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, BZNW 125 [New York: de Gruyter, 2004], 319–52, esp. 342). For other units labeled as consolation, see Schmitz and Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:796–97; Phillip A. Davis Jr., The Place of Paideia in Hebrews’ Moral Thought, WUNT 2/475 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 212–13, 241; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 320; Brent Nongbri, “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12,” NovT 45 (2003): 265– 79, esp. 265; N. Clayton Croy, Endurance in Suffering: A Study of Hebrews 12:1–13 in Its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context, SNTSMS 98 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 162.

8

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

tion was first and foremost a social practice, the arguments, motifs, and assumptions of ancient consolation are not confined to a particular form of literature, but appear in various genres, including letters, philosophical treatises, sermons, funeral speeches, tragedies, epics, histories, apocalypses, prophecies, and epitaphs. Theodicy, that is, the justification of the divine in the face of undeserved suffering and evil, may appear in Greek and Roman consolations, but it is a standard and developed component of the consolatory works of Jews. The Jewish belief in one sovereign, good, and just God made instances of the suffering and premature death of seemingly righteous people particularly difficult to comprehend. According to the covenants God had established with Israel, following God’s laws should result in abundant blessings and long life (e. g., Deut 30:16). For the Hellenistic Jewish authors of the texts under consideration in this project, then, explaining God’s purposes in relation to his people’s suffering was an essential component of their attempts to console readers who had suffered on account of and in spite of their fidelity to their God. The biblical and Greco-Roman sources are in essential agreement about the consoler’s role in what may be called “popular consolation,” that is, the attempts of ordinary individuals (as opposed to prophets, seers, philosophers, and orators) to comfort friends and family members in grief. 24 In the case of bereavement, biblical, Greek, and Roman sources agree that loved ones should be present (if possible) and first participate in the mourning rituals to express their sympathy (e. g., Job 2:11–12). But after initially sharing in grief, the role of the consoler was to encourage the bereaved to stop mourning and return to normal life. This encouragement typically included rational arguments, advice, imperatives, and a meal. Greek and Roman sources frequently part ways with biblical voices, however, concerning the role of professional consolers, that is, those called upon to address calamities of communal or even national importance. How did Hellenistic Jews navigate the diverse roles and expectations of consolers presented by their multicultural identities? 25 To console readers facing the effects of persecution, the authors of my case studies utilized the tools of both their biblical heritage and the Greco-Roman culture in which they were immersed. Through modeling proper responses and through direct exhortation, these authors also convey ideals and instructions for how readers should behave in times of calamity. How do these Hellenistic Jewish authors not only pick and choose from the resources of their multicultural heritage, but also creatively recombine them in order to alleviate readers’ grief and spur them on to faithful living? What elements of the biblical heritage 24 In distinguishing “popular consolation” from the consolation offered by prophets, seers, philosophers, and orators, I am building upon the categorization of Paul Holloway, who contrasts “more technical philosophical strategies” with “popular consolatory arguments and techniques” (“Consolation, Greco-Roman Antiquity,” EBR 5:670). 25 For a discussion of the roles of a consoler, see chapter 1, § 1.4.1 Compatibility.

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

9

do these authors view as bedrock? What elements of the biblical heritage are these authors willing to elide, subtly transform, or outright reject in the attempt to offer more appealing consolation to audiences who also embraced GrecoRoman values and cultural assumptions? These are the guiding questions of this inquiry.

1. The Goals of Ancient Consolatory Rhetoric Ancient consolers operated with two interrelated goals: one concerning a transformation of the emotions and another regarding a transformation of visible behavior. Paul Holloway aptly captures the first goal of consolatory rhetoric in his statement of “the goal of consolation”: “to defeat grief, one of the four cardinal passions, and to replace it as far as possible with its contrary, joy (χαρά, gaudium, laetitia).” 26 The opposition of grief (λύπη) and joy (χαρά) is proverbial, finding its place in ancient Jewish, Greco-Roman, and early Christian writings. 27 In conceptualizing “joy and sorrow” as “two ‘ends’ of an emotional spectrum,” 28 consolers utilized both argument and exhortation to guide the distressed from grief (λύπη) to joy (χαρά). 29 Consolatory arguments (παραμυθίαι) attempted to change how the distressed evaluated their circumstances, while consolatory exhortation (παραίνεσις) consisted of imperatives and encouragement for the distressed to take up a certain course of action. In most cases, ancient consolers did not expect that those under their care would end up entirely free from grief and full of joy. Rather, they exerted their efforts to move the distressed person as close as possible to the pole of joy. The second goal of consolatory rhetoric was to encourage the distressed to behave admirably in the midst of their adverse circumstances. In striving to fulfill this second goal, consolers not only issued imperatives but also utilized the tools of persuasion to coax suffering people to rise to the occasion and prove their character.

26

2–3.

Paul A. Holloway, Philippians: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017),

27 The opposition of λύπη and χαρά in all three corpora is treated by Rudolf Bultmann in “λύπη, λυπέω, ἄλυπος, περίλυπος, συλλυπέομαι,” TDNT 4:313–24. 28 Christina M. Kreinecker, “Emotions in Documentary Papyri: Joy and Sorrow in Everyday Life,” in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, DCLY 2011 (Boston: de Gruyter, 2012), 450–72, esp. 452. 29 I am expanding upon Donovan J. Ochs’s identification of “the rhetorical situations” of consolatory discourse: “one attempted to argue, in a written composition, that a bereaved individual should replace grief with reasoning or other emotional states” (Consolatory Rhetoric: Grief, Symbol, and Ritual in the Greco-Roman Era, SRC [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993], 104). More recently, see Troy W. Martin, “Emotional Physiology and Consolatory Etiquette: Reading the Present Indicative with Future Reference in the Eschatological Statement in 1 Peter 1:6,” JBL 135 (2016): 649–60, esp. 653–59.

10

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

These two goals are meant to work together to achieve the ultimate desired outcome, “a calm and cheerful” person who is fulling their routine duties and obligations (professional, familial, social, religious, etc.). 30 A person who has achieved the first goal by rationally finding a way out of their grief should be able, however gradually, to abandon the behaviors associated with grieving and exhibit courage in hardship (the second goal). At the same time, achieving the second goal also contributes to achieving the first, because consolers believed that adopting certain behaviors (e. g., giving thanks) and avoiding others (e. g., lamenting) would facilitate and expedite the sufferer’s journey from grief to joy. This study critically investigates how Greek-speaking Jews of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods employed the tools of persuasion in their attempts to achieve these goals of consolation. What vocabulary, methods, expressions of sympathy, consolatory arguments, and consolatory exhortations did they deem constructive toward empowering suffering people to rise above their calamities and hold fast to the God of Israel, irrespective of the costs of their allegiance? Hellenistic Jewish consolers were highly selective in their processes of invention, and the authors of each of my case studies navigated the different options in Greco-Roman culture, their Bible, and Second Temple Judaism in their own ways. Notwithstanding their individuality as authors and consolers, we can describe their collective tendencies in several trends. I argue that Hellenistic Jewish consolers made ample use of the methods of Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric, freely applying these methods alongside those of their biblical heritage. Similarly, Hellenistic Jewish consolers often juxtaposed select consolatory arguments derived from Greco-Roman culture with consolatory arguments of biblical origin. When analyzing their expressions of sympathy, Hellenistic Jewish literary consolers usually rejected the most common expression of sympathy within Greek and Roman sources, a statement of the consoler’s own grief over what had occurred. 31 They preferred other expressions of sympathy (also found in Greco-Roman consolation) that were more amenable to their theology, such as referring to when they had experienced the same sort of misfortune as their addressees or naming others who had experienced or were currently experienc30 My own understanding of the twin rhetorical goals of consolation builds on the work of Stählin, who explains that when the sense of παραμυθέομαι is “to console,” “also implied … are the further senses ‘to exhort’ – for comfort often consists in the admonition to bear what is suffered in a calm and cheerful spirit – and ‘to alleviate’ – for often the chief aim of comfort is to lessen grief ” (“παραμυθέομαι, παραμυθία, παραμύθιον,” TDNT 5:816–23, esp. 819). 31 This rejection was theologically motivated. See chapter 4, § 4.7.1 Expressions of Sympathy within Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish Consolation, esp. n. 210. I limit my claim to literary consolers because expressing grief alongside the mourner was expected for people who were physically present with the mourner. Sirach writes, “Do not lag behind those who weep, but mourn with those who mourn” (μὴ ὑστέρει ἀπὸ κλαιόντων καὶ μετὰ πενθούντων πένθησον [7:34]). Cf. Rom 12:15: “weep with those who weep” (κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων).

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

11

ing similar traumas. As for consolatory exhortations, Hellenistic Jewish consolers embraced many of the same ideals advocated by Greek and Roman consolers regarding how to behave in adversity and urged their readers to act in line with them. At the same time, they supported these shared exhortations to admirable behavior in suffering with different arguments, primarily arguments concerning God’s will and overarching plans. In doing so, they endowed calm and even joyful endurance of suffering with new meanings not shared by their Greek and Roman counterparts.

2. Plan of This Study Chapter 1 sets the stage for the case studies of individual texts by surveying the state of research, defining Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric, and identifying its vocabulary, expressions of sympathy, consolatory arguments, and consolatory exhortations. As all consolation is selective, this chapter analyzes the particular sets of choices Hellenistic Jewish authors made when deciding what to incorporate into their written consolations. I have divided my case studies into two parts. Part 1 consists of chapters on 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon and explores how their authors employed consolatory rhetoric to counteract grief among Jews regarding statesponsored religious persecution. The author of 2 Maccabees focused his consolatory efforts on Antiochus IV’s persecution of the Jews of Jerusalem (168–167 BCE), while the author of the Wisdom of Solomon responded to the persecution of the Jews of Alexandria in 38 CE under Aulus Avillius Flaccus, the Roman governor of Egypt. Part 2 consists of chapters on 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews and investigates how Paul and the Paulinist author of Hebrews utilized consolatory rhetoric to strengthen early Christ-followers facing various traumas, from persecution and bereavement (common to both texts) to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE (addressed by Hebrews). Chapter 2 argues that the author of 2 Maccabees integrated numerous consolatory arguments into his history of the Jewish people under the Seleucids (2:19–15:39) in his effort to motivate his readers to abide by their ancestral laws at any cost. This chapter nuances the view that the author of 2 Maccabees developed his theology of suffering from Deuteronomy, highlights how he navigated different biblical perspectives regarding God’s presence/absence and wrath/mercy in suffering and catastrophe, and offers a corrective to the widespread idea that bodily resurrection is the position on the afterlife espoused by 2 Maccabees. Chapter 3 argues that the reflections on suffering and death in the Wisdom of Solomon are a consolatory response to the specific traumas endured by Alexandrian Jews in 38 CE, who had been deprived of their rights as a result of a

12

Introduction: Hellenistic Jews and Consolatory Rhetoric

decree of the Roman governor of Egypt. Without their legal protections, Alexandrian Jews were plundered, evicted from their homes, and even killed by their hostile neighbors. Whereas previous studies identify consolatory rhetoric in 1:1–6:21 (esp. 3:1–3 and 4:7–20), I argue that the author engages with consolatory rhetoric in 6:22–19:22 as well. Additionally, I present a new interpretation of the consolatory rhetoric in 3:1–4:19. Chapter 4 argues that 1 Thessalonians is a letter of consolation (ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική) by epistolary genre. In contrast to the majority view that identifies consolatory rhetoric in 3:2–4, 4:13–18, and 5:1–11, I demonstrate that the expressions of sympathy, arguments, exhortations, and motifs of diverse streams of ancient consolation pervade the entire letter. In supplementing prior scholarship on the consolatory arguments in 1 Thessalonians, my chapter focuses on components of the letter typically thought to be unrelated to Paul’s consolatory aim. Chapter 5 argues that Hebrews’ consolatory rhetoric presupposes an audience that was struggling to cope with the following: (1) grief and theological disorientation caused by the loss of Jerusalem and the temple, (2) continued social pressure and hostility from outsiders, and (3) the fear of death. To address these sources of grief and anxiety, the author of Hebrews attempted to console his addressees in the heritage of the apostle Paul. I demonstrate that the author employed multiple consolatory arguments concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, utilized 1 Thessalonians as a model for his own consolation, and endeavored to resolve tensions and fill gaps in the Pauline corpus on the question of life after death. In the conclusion, I highlight the primary contributions of this project to scholarship, propose several directions for future research, and discuss the relationship between the case studies of this monograph and Christian consolatory rhetoric.

Chapter 1:

Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism Contemporary studies of ancient consolation tend to approach the evidence through four interrelated subfields of research: the social practice of consolation, the literary genre(s) of consolation, the rhetoric of consolation, and the traditions of consolation. Analysis of the social practice of consolation investigates the concrete actions expected of comforters, the specific actions taken by the bereaved or distressed persons to express their grief, and the behaviors performed at the termination of the mourning period to signify that the distressed persons have been consoled. The literary genre of ancient consolation is textual evidence of the “social practice, ultimately concerned with the alleviation of the grief, or other sense of loss, of a particular individual or individuals in particular circumstances.” 1 This literary genre is dominated by the writings of highly educated philosophers, orators, and Christian bishops, with the result that Wilhelm Kierdorf defines the “consolatio as a literary genre” as “writings of a philosophic bent, whose authors either try to dissuade individuals from grieving in the face of misfortune, or proffer general counsel on overcoming adversity.” 2 We can also speak of literary genres of ancient consolation, as the macrogenre of ancient consolation encompasses several more specific genres distinguished by their form, for example, the “consolatory speech” (παραμυθητικὸς λόγος), the “funeral speech” (ἐπιτάφιος λόγος), and the “letter of consolation” (ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική). The study of the rhetoric of ancient consolation explicates the means of persuasion by which writers sought to alleviate grief and encourage the distressed to behave admirably in the midst of their trying circumstances. 3 Lastly, scholars seek to elucidate the various traditions of consolation that are distinguished from each other by their methods for alleviating grief, their content, “their respective modes of knowing,” and “the range

1

Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 15. Wilhelm Kierdorf, “Consolatio as a Literary Genre,” BNP 3 (2003): 704. Han Baltussen’s definition of “the ancient consolation” mediates between those of Scourfield and Kierdorf: “In a nutshell, we could define the ancient consolation as a philosophically informed written crystallization of a social practice” (“Introduction,” in Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife, ed. Han Baltussen [Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013], xiii–xxv, esp. xiv). 3 See introduction, § 1. The Goals of Ancient Consolatory Rhetoric. 2

14

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

of subjects each treated.” 4 Greco-Roman consolation and Jewish consolation are studied as distinct traditions, yet within them, other subsidiary traditions may be identified. Within Greco-Roman consolation, we can speak of Platonic consolation, Stoic consolation, Peripatetic consolation, Epicurean consolation, and Cyrenaic consolation. Within Jewish consolation, one can distinguish “the wisdom tradition,” “the prophetic tradition,” and “the apocalyptic tradition.” 5 This monograph contributes new knowledge to the study of the literary genre(s) of ancient consolation, the rhetoric of consolation, and the traditions of consolation. Regarding genre, I argue that the epistolary genre of 1 Thessalonians is a “letter of consolation” (ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική). In terms of rhetoric, I demonstrate how Hellenistic Jewish authors employed and intertwined means of persuasion from both their biblical heritage and their GrecoRoman culture in order to persuade suffering people to rise above their adversities and exhibit virtuous character in the midst of them. In doing so, my project begins to rectify what Duane F. Watson has called a “lack of broad-based and in-depth studies of Jewish rhetoric in the Hellenistic period.” 6 As for traditions of consolation, my monograph straddles the well-established field of Greco-Roman consolation and the more recent inquiry into ancient Jewish consolation. I explore the myriad ways in which Hellenistic Jewish authors navigated the tensions within each consolatory tradition and between them as they selectively combined resources from Greco-Roman consolation and ancient Jewish consolation to comfort distressed readers. In the process, my monograph paints the broad contours of a tradition of ancient consolation that has yet to be studied, Hellenistic Jewish consolation.

1.1 Ancient Greco-Roman Consolation Within the study of literary consolation among ancient Greeks and Romans, extensive work has been done on the words of consolation, which has revealed a shared rhetoric of consolation across the centuries. Words of sympathy, arguments used to combat grief, and exhortations issued to distressed people have been scrutinized in consolatory texts that span a host of literary genres, including letters, philosophical treatises, tragedies, epics, poems, funeral speeches, and epitaphs. 7 By focusing on the content and function of words of consolation 4 Paul A. Holloway, Coping with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective, WUNT 244 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 87. 5 Holloway categorizes ancient Jewish consolation into these “three more or less distinct consolatory traditions” (Coping with Prejudice, 86–112; Philippians, 7–9). 6 Duane F. Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles Since 1978,” CR 5 (1997): 175–207, esp. 180. 7 Letters: The letter of Crantor (c. 330–268 BCE) to Hippocles upon the death of his children (Περὶ πένθους) survives only in fragments cited by later consolers. Cicero’s corpus

1.1 Ancient Greco-Roman Consolation

15

across different literary forms, scholars have sought to reconstruct the development of a “consolation tradition” among Greeks and Romans, spanning from Homer through medieval times. 8 This scholarship has demonstrated that “there is a core of consolatory motifs, which creates a noteworthy consistency across time.” 9 Scholars have scrutinized the content, form, and rhetoric of the GrecoRoman tradition of consolation from several different angles. Following the lead of Cicero in books 3 and 4 of his Tusculan Disputations, scholars have provides the earliest complete Latin literary letters of consolation (Fam. 4.13; 5.16; Ep. Brut. 18; Att. 12.10; Fam. 4.5). Our earliest complete literary Greek letter of condolence is Plutarch’s letter to his wife following the death of their two-year-old daughter c. 90 CE (Consolatio ad uxorem). The consolatory letters of Seneca are also from the first century CE (Ep. 63; 91; 93; 99; Ad Marciam de consolatione; Ad Helviam matrem de consolatione; Ad Polybium de consolatione). From the end of the first century and beginning of the second century are those of Pliny the Younger (Ep. 1.12; 3.7, 21; 5.5, 16; 7.19; 8.1). There are also several second century CE examples from Fronto (Ad Verum Imp. 2.9, 10; De nepote amisso 1, 2). The consolatory letter to Apollonius preserved in Plutarch’s corpus (Consolatio ad Apollonium) was most plausibly written in the second century CE by someone other than Plutarch (Margaret Graver, Cicero on the Emotions: Tusculan Disputations 3 and 4 [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002], 188). The two consolatory letters of Apollonius of Tyana, Ep. 55 and 58, should be dated to the third century. The rest of the Greek and Latin literary consolatory letters are from the fourth century and later, listed by Juan Chapa in Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri, PapyFlor 29 (Firenze: Edizioni Gonnelli, 1998), 10. There are approximately fifteen Greek letters of condolence on papyri dated from the second to the seventh century, which provide a window into popular letters of consolation (see chapter 1, n. 13). Our earliest Greek letter of condolence on papyrus is SB XIV 11646, whose handwriting suggests a first or second century CE date (Chapa, Letters of Condolence, 54). Philosophical treatises: e. g., Plato, Apologia, Phaedo, Respublica; Teles 3, 6–7; Cicero, Tusc. 3–4; Plutarch, De exilio, De tranquillitate animi; Dio Chrysostom, De aegritudine (Or. 16). Cf. Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus. Tragedies: See James H. Kim On Chong-Gossard, “Mourning and Consolation in Greek Tragedy: The Rejection of Comfort,” in Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife, ed. Han Baltussen (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013), 37–66. Epics: e. g., Achilles’s speech to Priam in Homer’s Il. 24.549–551. Poems: e. g., Pseudo-Ovid, Consolatio ad Liviam; Statius, Silv. 2.6; Catullus 96; Horace, Carm. 2.9; Ovid, Am. 3.9. Funeral speeches: For ancient Greek and Roman funeral speeches, see Ezra JaeKyung Cho, The Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians in Light of Ancient Funeral Oration (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020), 48–129. Early Christian examples include, e. g., Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 7, 18; Ambrose, De obitu Theodosii, De obitu Valentiniani consolatio. Epitaphs: See Andrzej Wypustek, Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Periods, MnS 352 (Leiden: Brill, 2013); Richard A. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), 215–65. 8 Baltussen, “Introduction,” xiii–xxv. For Greek texts, see Sister Mary Evaristus Moran, The Consolations of Death in Ancient Greek Literature (Washington, DC: National Capital, 1917). For Latin texts, see Sister Mary Edmond Fern, The Latin Consolatio as a Literary Type (Saint Meinrad, IN: Abbey), 1941. For the medieval consolation literature, see the magisterial study of Peter Von Moos, Consolatio: Studien zur mittellateinischen Trostliteratur über den Tod zum Problem der christlichen Trauer, 4 vols. (München: Fink, 1971–1972). 9 Baltussen, “Introduction,” xix.

16

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

explicated, compared, and contrasted the various philosophies of consolation espoused by the different philosophical schools. 10 The Stoics attempted to prove that the alleged evil was not an evil at all, while the Peripatetics argued that the evil in question was not great. The Epicureans maintained that one ought to avert the attention of the distressed away from unpleasant things and toward good things. The Cyrenaics thought it sufficient to demonstrate that nothing unexpected had happened. 11 In practice, Greek and Roman consolers freely mixed and molded these disparate methods of consolation, and it was no different among Hellenistic Jews. Hellenistic Jews deftly employed all of these methods (Stoic, Peripatetic, Epicurean, and Cyrenaic) in their own consolatory endeavors. In the study of Greek and Latin literary letters of consolation, scholars have focused their attention particularly on the consolatory letters of Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, and Pseudo-Plutarch. 12 The much shorter fifteen surviving consola10 Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 76–86; L. Michael White, “The Pathology and Cure of Grief (λύπη): Galen’s De indolentia in Context,” in Galen’s De indolentia: Essays on a Newly Discovered Letter, ed. Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson, STAC 88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 221–49; Scott LaBarge, “How (and Maybe Why) to Grieve like an Ancient Philosopher,” in Virtue and Happiness: Essays in Honour of Julia Annas, ed. Rachana Kamtekar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 321–42; Ochs, Consolatory Rhetoric, 104; Graver, Cicero on the Emotions; Rudolf Kassel, Untersuchungen zur Griechischen und Römischen Konsolations-literatur, Zet 18 (Munich: Beck, 1958); Carolus Buresch, “Consolationum a graecis romanisque scriptarum historia critica,” LSCP 9 (1886): 1–170. 11 This concise formulation of the different philosophical theories of consolation derives from Cicero, Tusc. 3.76. 12 Cicero: Amanda Wilcox, The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome: Friendship in Cicero’s Ad Familiares and Seneca’s Moral Epistles (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2012); Andrew Erskine, “Cicero and the Expression of Grief,” in The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature, ed. Susan Morton Braund and Christopher Gill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 36–47; Stephen A. Wilson, “Cicero and the Therapists,” in Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers, ed. J. G. F. Powell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 219–46. Seneca: Paul A. Holloway, “Gender and Grief: Seneca’s Ad Marciam and Ad Helviam matrem,” in Women and Gender in Ancient Religions: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll, Paul A. Holloway, and James A. Kelhoffer, WUNT 263 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 299–321; Marcus Wilson, “The Subjugation of Grief in Seneca’s ‘Epistles,’” in The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature, ed. Susan Morton Braund and Christopher Gill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 48–67; C. E. Manning, On Seneca’s “Ad Marciam”, MBCBSup 69 (Leiden: Brill, 1981); Constantine C. Grollios, Seneca’s Ad Marciam: Tradition and Originality (Athens: Christou & Son, 1956). Plutarch: Han Baltussen, “Personal Grief and Public Mourning in Plutarch’s Consolation to His Wife,” AJP 130 (2009): 67–98; Stefan Schorn, “Tears of the Bereaved: Plutarch’s Consolatio ad uxorem in Context,” in Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. Thorsten Fögen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 335–65; Sarah B. Pomeroy, ed., Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to His Wife: English Translations, Commentary, Interpretive Essays, and Bibliography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Hubert Martin Jr. and Jane E. Phillips, “Consolatio ad Uxorem, Moralia 608A–612B,” in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, ed. Hans Dieter Betz, SCHNT 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 394–441.

1.1 Ancient Greco-Roman Consolation

17

tory letters written on papyrus have been analyzed as evidence of popular letters of condolence. 13 Scholars have begun to explore the impact of Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric on texts of the New Testament through studies on 1 Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Peter, and the Gospel of John. 14 My own work is indebted to this scholarship yet pushes the inquiry further by identifying and explicating unrecognized Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews. Scholars have long recognized that the Greco-Roman tradition of consolation greatly influenced the sermons, consolatory letters, and funeral orations of the church fathers. 15 I seek to bring greater Pseudo-Plutarch: Jean Hani, Consolation à Apollonios [de] Plutarque, ÉC 78 (Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1972). 13 Chrysi Kotsifou, “‘Being Unable to Come to You and Lament and Weep with You’: Grief and Condolence Letters on Papyrus,” in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World, ed. Angelos Chaniotis (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2012), 389–411; Bernhard Palme, “The Range of Documentary Texts: Types and Categories,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. Roger S. Bagnall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 358– 94, esp. 363; Peter Parsons, City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish: Greek Lives in Roman Egypt (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007), 129; Chapa, Letters of Condolence; Amphilochios Papathomas, “Ein neues Zeugnis frühchristlicher griechischer Kondolenzepistolographie,” Tyche 13 (1998): 195–206; Klaas A. Worp, “Letters of Condolenz [sic] in the Greek Papyri: Some Observations,” AnPap 7 (1995): 149–54. 14 First Thessalonians: Cho, Rhetorical Approach; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians”; Jutta Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death by Building Community,” in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature, trans. Everett R. Kalin, ed. Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 810–20; Bickmann, Kommunikation gegen den Tod: Studien zur paulinischen Briefpragmatik am Beispiel des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefes (Würzburg: Echter, 1998); Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians”; Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians; Malherbe, “Pastoral Care in the Thessalonian Church,” in Light from the Gentiles, NovTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2014; orig. NTS 36 [1990]: 375–91), 229–45; Malherbe, Letters; Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians”; Malherbe, “Consolatory Patterns”; Smith, Comfort One Another. Second Corinthians: Ben Kaplan, “Comfort, O Comfort, Corinth: Grief and Comfort in 2 Cor 7:5–13a,” HTR 104 (2011): 433–45; Laura Dawn Alary, “Good Grief: Paul as Sufferer and Consoler in 2 Corinthians 1:3–7; A Comparative Investigation” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2003); Otfried Hofius, “‘Der Gott allen Trostes’: Παράκλσις und παρακαλεῖν in 2 Kor 1,3–7,” in Paulusstudien, WUNT 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 244–54. Philippians: Holloway, Philippians; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy, SNTSMS 112 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Holloway, “Bona Cogitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8–9,” HTR 91 (1998): 89–96. First Peter: Martin, “Emotional Physiology”; Holloway, Coping with Prejudice; Holloway, “Nihil Inopinati Accidisse – ‘Nothing Unexpected Has Happened’: A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos in 1 Pet 4.12 ff,” NTS 48 (2002): 433–48. Gospel of John: George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, NovTSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2005); Paul A. Holloway, “Left Behind: Jesus’ Consolation of His Disciples in John 13,31–17,26,” ZNW 96 (2005): 1–34. 15 Pieter W. van der Horst, “Consolation from Prison: Mara bar Sarapion and Boethius,” in The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context: Proceedings of the Symposium Held at Utrecht

18

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

attention to how New Testament texts written by Hellenistic Jews are also saturated with the assumptions, arguments, and exhortations of Greco-Roman consolation. Scourfield identifies a point of consensus that has emerged from these studies of the Greco-Roman tradition, namely, that “much consolatory writing from Antiquity is subject to the twin cultural underpinnings of philosophy and rhetoric.” 16 Nevertheless, whether one should “restrict the genre to texts of a ‘philosophical’ kind,” 17 as does Kierdorf, 18 remains a point of debate. Scourfield has argued that this restriction would “exclude, or risk excluding, material bearing a close relation to texts whose place at the heart of the genre no one would think to question.” 19 As one interested in comparative work between Greco-Roman and ancient Jewish consolation, I worry that restricting the literary genre of consolation to philosophical writings (when “philosophical” is de facto defined as informed by Greek and Roman philosophy) risks excluding many of the biblical and ancient Jewish consolatory writings from the conversation. The Bible offers numerous texts that “try to dissuade individuals from grieving in the face of misfortune, or proffer general counsel on overcoming adversity,” yet that are not “of a philosophic bent.” 20 Must the genre of ancient literary consolation be limited to texts that are clearly influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy? Furthermore, is ancient literary consolation really so different from anUniversity, 10–12 December 2009, ed. Annette Merz and Teun Tieleman, CHANE 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 193–203; Liana Lamprecht, “Consolation of the Bereaved: Reflections on the Pastoral Care of the Early Church Fathers from a Postmodern Perspective,” AcPB 21 (2010): 61– 81; Theodore S. De Bruyn, “Philosophical Counsel versus Customary Lament in Fourth-Century Christian Responses to Death,” in Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities, ed. Willi Braun, SCJ 16 (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005), 161–86; George L. Parsenios, “‘Paramythetikos Christos’: St. John Chrysostom Interprets John 13–17,” GOTR 47 (2002): 215–36; A. R. Littlewood, “The Byzantine Letter of Consolation in the Macedonian and Komnenian Periods,” DOP 53 (1999): 19–41; J. H. D. Scourfield, “The De Mortalitate of Cyprian: Consolation and Context,” VC 50 (1996): 12–41; Scourfield, Consoling Heliodorus: A Commentary on Jerome Letter 60, OCM (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Robert C. Gregg, Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories, PMS 3 (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975); Leokadia Małunowiczówna, “Les éléments stoïciens dans la consolation grecque chrétienne,” StPatr 13 (1975): 35–45; Jane F. Mitchell, “Consolatory Letters in Basil and Gregory Nazianzen,” Hermes 96 (1968): 299– 318; R. P. McGuire, “The Early Christian Funeral Oration,” in Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose, FC 22 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953), vii–xxi; Charles Favez, La Consolation Latine Chrétienne (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1937), 9–73; Henry Clay Fish, “Excessive Grief at the Death of Friends,” in Masterpieces of Pulpit Eloquence Ancient and Modern (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1856), 82–93. 16 Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 17. 17 Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 2. 18 Kierdorf, “Consolatio as a Literary Genre,” 3:704. 19 Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 2. 20 Kierdorf, “Consolatio as a Literary Genre,” 3:704. The most obvious examples from the Bible are prophetic oracles announcing salvation. Consider also Judith, Baruch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, which are discussed below.

1.2 Ancient Jewish Consolation

19

cient popular consolation that it requires its own separate genre? The substantial overlap in arguments and exhortations found in literary consolations and popular consolatory letters (e. g., those found on papyri) suggests the contrary. 21 If consolatory writings are first and foremost the textual evidence of the “social practice” of individuals attempting to alleviate the grief of others, 22 then I agree with Scourfield that we need a more expansive definition of the genre of ancient consolation, one that could accommodate not only the literary and clearly philosophical ancient consolatory writings (e. g., the letters of Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch) but also popular texts (e. g., the letters of condolence written on papyri) and those whose ties to Greco-Roman philosophy are unclear (e. g., 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch).

1.2 Ancient Jewish Consolation Scholarship on ancient Jewish consolation has paid little attention to consolatory rhetoric within Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, focusing instead on the behavioral aspects of the social practice of consolation in ancient Israel and the words of consolation within the Hebrew Bible. Within the first line of study, attention is geared toward analyzing physical expressions of grief, mourning, and consolation in ancient Israel, as well as the actions expected of comforters. 23 Within the second, scholars interrogate the meanings of ‫ נחם‬within the Hebrew Bible and the biblical portrayal of human beings and God as comforters. 24 Building on these studies, one promising line of research has identified a progression from grief to joy as a structuring device for several Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, including Judith, Baruch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. 25 Each of these texts was written to encourage Jews 21

Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 86. Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 15. 23 Saul M. Olyan, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 302 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Gary A. Anderson, A Time to Mourn, a Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991); Charles A. Muenchow, “Consolation: An Old Testament Perspective” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1983). For a summation of this line of inquiry, see Carol A. Newsom, “‘The Consolation of God’: Assessing Job’s Friends across a Cultural Abyss,” in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines, ed. J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson, JSOTSup 373 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 347–58, esp. 348–52. 24 E. g., Peter Riede, Trost, der ins Leben führt: Ein Beitrag zum Menschen- und Gottesverständnis des Alten Testaments, BibS(N) 138 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013); Chloe Sun, “Consolation, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 5:669; H. Simian-Yofre, “‫נחם‬,” TDOT 9:340–55; H. J. Stoebe, “‫ נחם‬nḥm pi. to comfort,” TLOT 2:734–39; Muenchow, “Consolation,” 16–95. 25 Judith: Renate Egger-Wenzel writes, “On the basis of the emotional pair ‘grief-joy,’ exe22

20

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

who were living through troubling times, such as the persecutions of the Maccabean age (Judith, Baruch) and the aftermath of the First Jewish Revolt and destruction of the Second Temple (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch). 26 These studies have laid the groundwork for further investigation into how Jewish writers of this period told stories about how suffering protagonists eventually found consolation in order to comfort readers who could see their own anxieties and struggles reflected in the narrative world. Compared to the work done on the social practice of consolation, much less scholarly attention has been directed toward the identification and analysis of a shared vocabulary and rhetoric of consolation within ancient Judaism (as scholars have accomplished regarding Greco-Roman consolation). Admittedly, this type of inquiry proves more challenging when studying consolation in ancient Judaism on account of the number of different languages in which the important texts are preserved: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Ethiopic, Latin, and Syriac. These language barriers create difficulty in identifying a common vocabulary of ancient Jewish consolation at large. To address this issue, I have focused the gesis of the Book of Judith finds a new approach, which goes along with an almost complete listing of mourning rites and their reversal. So far, a new dramatic arc has been revealed” (“Judith’s Path from Grief to Joy – from Sackcloth to Festive Attire,” in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, DCLY 2011 [Boston: de Gruyter, 2012], 189–223, esp. 219). Baruch: Jeremy Corley argues, “The four sections of the Book of Baruch describe the emotional transformation from shameful sorrow to glorious joy.… The emotional transformation in the Book of Baruch represents a journey through suffering, from desolation to consolation and from disorientation to new orientation” (“Emotional Transformation in the Book of Baruch,” in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, DCLY 2011 [Boston: de Gruyter, 2012], 225–51, esp. 248). For the sources used in Baruch’s consolation, see Sean A. Adams, “Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: Baruch 4:5–5:9 and Its Relationships with Jewish Scripture,” in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception, ed. Sean A. Adams, DCLS 23 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 61–77. Fourth Ezra: Earl Breech writes, “I would suggest that the formal principle which structures 4 Ezra as a literary composition is what may be called the pattern of consolation. The form of the work is constituted by the narrative of Ezra’s (not the author’s) movement from distress to consolation, from distress occasioned by the destruction of Jerusalem to consolation by the Most High himself who reveals to the prophet, in dream visions, his end-time plans” (“These Fragments I Have Shored against My Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra,” JBL 92 [1973]: 267–74, esp. 269). Alary builds on Breech’s scholarship (“Good Grief,” 183–94). Second Baruch: Gwendolyn B. Sayler writes, “The author of 2 Baruch responds to the events of 70 CE by composing a story – a story in which Baruch and then his community move from grief to consolation” (Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch, SBLDS 72 [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984], 9). See also Sayler, “2 Baruch: A Story of Grief and Consolation,” SBLSP 21 (1982): 485–500; Alary, “Good Grief,” 169–82. 26 Contemporary scholarship dates Judith to “the Maccabean-Hasmonean era” (Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “Judith, Book of,” EDEJ 856). The majority of scholars place Baruch in the time of the Maccabean Revolt, yet the dating of the book is by no means settled. For a discussion of the issues surrounding dating, see Michael H. Floyd, “A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch,” in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception, ed. Sean A. Adams, DCLS 23 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 25–42, esp. 30–36.

1.2 Ancient Jewish Consolation

21

present study on Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric and chosen Greek texts as case studies. Most of my comparanda are Greek texts, but I do not exclude key consolatory writings from this period in other languages. 27 My inclusion of select non-Greek texts in elucidating the consolatory rhetoric of my case studies is necessary to paint a more complete and thus more accurate picture of the various ways in which Jews of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods attempted to comfort one another. As with the Greek and Roman texts, consolatory rhetoric is found in a host of genres within ancient Judaism, including prophecies, psalms, apocalypses, narratives, letters, histories, wisdom literature, biblical commentaries, and epitaphs. 28 Studies exist concerning the theme of consolation within individual texts (e. g., Isaiah), 29 and the consolatory function of prophecy is well known. The consolatory function of apocalypses is also widely recognized, 30 whether 27 E. g., 4 Ezra (Latin) and 2 Baruch (Syriac) are important witnesses to how Jews attempted to console one another following the destruction of the Second Temple. These texts are essential comparanda in explicating Hebrews (Greek), which I argue was also composed in the wake of the temple’s destruction. 28 Prophecies: e. g., Isa 40–55; Jer 37–40; Ezek 37. See “Consolation in the Jewish Prophetic Tradition” in Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 97–105. Psalms: e. g., Pss 9, 22, 29, 32, 36, 45, 54, 93, 117, 146. See Riede, Trost, der ins Leben führt, 94–107. Apocalypses: e. g., 1 Enoch; Dan 7–12; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch. See “Consolation in Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 105–12. Narratives: e. g., Gen 24:67; 37:32–35; 2 Sam 10:1–2; 2 Sam 12:16–25; 1 Chr 7:20–23; Job. Letters: e. g., 1 Thessalonians; Philippians; Hebrews; 2 Bar. 78–86 (fictional). Histories: e. g., 2 Maccabees; Josephus, A. J. 7.178, 8.357; B. J. 4.40. Wisdom literature: e. g., Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Pseudo-Phocylides. Biblical commentaries: e. g., Philo’s voluminous commentaries, esp. De Abrahamo, De Iosepho, and De vita Mosis. Epitaphs: Pieter W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE), CBET 2 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991). 29 E. g., Riede, Trost, der ins Leben führt, 63–87; Hayyim Angel, “Prophecy as Potential: The Consolations of Isaiah 1–12 in Context,” JBQ 37 (2009): 3–10; John W. Olley, “‘No Peace’ in a Book of Consolation: A Framework for the Book of Isaiah?,” VT 49 (1999): 351–70; Rikki E. Watts, “Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the New Exodus,” TynBul 41 (1990): 31–59. 30 John J. Collins writes, “while the functions of apocalypses may vary from one situation to another, one may say, on a fairly high level of abstraction, that they serve to exhort and console their addressees” (“From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End,” in The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, ed. John J. Collins [New York: Continuum, 1998], 129–61, esp. 147). According to D. S. Russell, Jewish apocalyptic “has the prophetic tradition as its father and faith in the ultimate triumph of God in times of peril and persecution as its mother” (The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC–AD 100 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964], 104). Bickmann investigates consolation within “early Jewish apocalyptic” in Kommunikation gegen den Tod, 89– 102.

22

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

for communities in actual crisis or merely perceived crisis. 31 Nevertheless, the shared rhetoric of ancient Jewish consolation remains understudied. What is needed is a rigorous conversation across texts and literary genres about the content and methods of ancient Jewish consolatory rhetoric more broadly. Although this line of inquiry was initiated in 1916 with a lecture by Claude G. Montefiore, 32 it received scant attention prior to Paul Holloway’s 2009 survey on Jewish consolation. 33 In the intervening period, Schmitz and Stählin’s 1967 TDNT essay on παρακαλέω and παράκλησις constituted the only attempt to analyze consolatory rhetoric across texts and genres within ancient Judaism. 34 Holloway’s categorization of ancient Jewish consolation into “the wisdom tradition,” “the prophetic tradition,” and “the apocalyptic tradition” is valuable for identifying, comparing, and contrasting both “traditional consolatory topoi” and “new consolatory strategies” across a wide array of texts. 35 In fact, Holloway insightfully comments on a much larger number of texts than his predecessors. 36 Despite the existence of these three traditions of Jewish consolation, Holloway recognizes that actual texts demonstrate that the boundaries between 31 David Hellholm suggests that the “definition of the genre ‘Apocalypse’” include the clause “intended for a group in crisis with the purpose of exhortation and/or consolation by means of divine authority” (“The Problem of the Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” Semeia 36 [1986]: 13–64, esp. 27). John J. Collins cautions that “the reference to a ‘group in crisis’ is appropriate for many apocalypses, though scarcely for all.… however, the illocutionary functions of exhortation and consolation can generally be maintained for the Jewish apocalypses” (The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016], 51). Speaking of the “social situation” of apocalyptic literature, Adela Yarbro Collins writes, “the crucial element is not so much whether one is actually oppressed as whether one feels oppressed” (Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984], 85). Leonard Thompson advocates the “concept of perceived crisis”: “a way of saying that (1) the author of an apocalypse considers a situation to be a crisis but (2) that the crisis dimensions of the situation are evident only through his angle of vision” (The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990], 28). 32 Claude G. Montefiore, Ancient Jewish and Greek Encouragement and Consolation in Sorrow and Calamity (Claude G. Montefiore, 1917; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 1. 33 Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 86–112. 34 Schmitz and Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:791–92. 35 Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 86–112, 103. 36 Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, 1–2 Enoch, Daniel, Sibylline Oracles, Testament of Moses, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Abraham, 3 Baruch, Testament of Abraham, Rule of the Community (1QS), Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH), 1 Thessalonians, Jude, and 1 Peter (Coping with Prejudice, 90–112). Montefiore’s work covers the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature, with one quotation from the Wisdom of Solomon and one quotation from 2 Maccabees in his discussion of the immortality of the soul and the hope of resurrection, respectively (Ancient Jewish, 1–35). Schmitz and Stählin cite consolations within the Septuagint, the Philonic corpus, the New Testament, the writings of Josephus, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Testament of Joseph, and rabbinic literature (“παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:791–97).

1.2 Ancient Jewish Consolation

23

these respective traditions are porous. He writes, “a few consolatory topics characteristic of prophecy also appear in certain wisdom texts,” and “later wisdom texts such as the Wisdom of Solomon also incorporate a range of apocalyptic motifs.” 37 On my analysis, the porosity of those boundaries between Jewish traditions of consolation reaches a high point in the consolatory writings of Hellenistic Jews. In the case of 1 Thessalonians, for example, Paul drew from the wells of all of these consolatory traditions of ancient Judaism, as well as that of Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric. By interweaving and fusing disparate traditions of consolation, Paul created sophisticated consolatory arguments that were intended to pull his readers out of grief and into a renewed hope. Similarly, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon not only works within “the Jewish Wisdom Tradition” but also builds upon the foundation of Jewish prophecy, makes fruitful use of apocalyptic (esp. Wis 1–5), and utilizes Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric. My project extends Holloway’s inquiry into ancient Jewish consolation by adding to the pool of analysis a host of writings from Hellenistic Judaism that are not properly wisdom literature, prophecy, or apocalypses, such as Tobit, Judith, 2 Maccabees, the Letter of Aristeas, Pseudo-Phocylides, the Philonic corpus, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and the writings of Josephus. 38 In doing so, I seek to fill a gap in knowledge identified by Holloway, who writes, “a monograph length description of consolation in Second Temple Judaism remains a major desideratum.” 39 These new texts contribute to our knowledge of how Hellenistic Jews conceived of the task and the content of consolation and add additional points of reference for how we conceptualize the big picture of ancient Jewish consolation. 40 The present analysis of consolatory rhetoric within Hellenistic Judaism extends beyond the wisdom, prophetic, and apocalyptic traditions of Jewish consolation to explore the creative ways in which Hellenistic Jewish authors mixed consolatory resources from a host of philosophical and religiocultural backgrounds. 41 The authors of 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews all used Greek literary forms and rhetoric, not only to advance their claims about the God of Israel but also to craft their consolatory 37

Holloway, Philippians, 7. With the exception of 1 Thessalonians, Holloway does not account for these texts in his overview of “Jewish consolation” (Coping with Prejudice, 86–112). 39 Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 105 n. 194. 40 Although Holloway does not include these texts in his 2009 survey of Jewish consolation, he uses many of them (esp. 2 Maccabees, 1 Thessalonians, Philo’s corpus, Josephus’s corpus) in his 2017 commentary to explicate the consolatory rhetoric of Philippians. E. g., see Philippians, 210–13, 221–22. 41 This approach to evaluating the consolatory rhetoric of Hellenistic Jewish authors follows the contours of Holloway’s scholarship on consolatory rhetoric in John (“Left Behind: Jesus’ Consolation”), Philippians (Philippians), and 1 Peter (Coping with Prejudice). 38

24

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

arguments. 42 To explicate their literary and rhetorical achievements then, their consolatory rhetoric should be analyzed according to the definition of the literary genre as understood by their contemporaries. Scholars agree that “the genre of consolation was defined in antiquity in terms of content, not form.” 43 In other words, extant consolations exhibit incredible flexibility in form but relatively predictable collections of consolatory topoi. Reoccurring motifs, arguments, appeals, and exhortations unite the literary genre, from consolatory speeches, to letters of consolation, to fictional consolation scenes embedded in narratives and tragedies. 44 Analysis of form remains a crucial component to analyzing the rhetoric of any consolatory text, but a text’s content and purpose determine whether it belongs to the literary genre of ancient consolation. 45 Of these two factors, the content of a text exercises a crucial role in determining its genre because a text can have several legitimate purposes. The controlling role of content in the ancient understanding of the literary genre leads us to the crucial task of identifying the content of Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric. What is the substance of the consolation offered by Hellenistic Jews to their compatriots? Does this content change when Hellenistic Jews seek to console gentiles (e. g., 1 Thessalonians) or when they believe that Jesus is the Messiah (e. g., 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews)?

1.3 The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric Ancient scenes, speeches, and letters of consolation usually contain three primary elements: an expression of fellow feeling or sympathy (συμπάθεια), one or more consolatory arguments (παραμυθίαι), and exhortation to proper behavior (παραίνεσις). In modern scholarship, the recognition of these three components within a theory of ancient consolatory rhetoric can be traced back to a 1911 dissertation by Marcel Guignet. 46 Nevertheless, the idea did not be42 Malka Z. Simkovich, “Greek Influence on the Composition of 2 Maccabees,” JSJ 42 (2011): 293–310; Reese, Hellenistic Influence; Frank W. Hughes, “The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 94–116; Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 1:351–78. 43 Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 42. Scourfield writes, “the frequency with which certain topoi recur points towards a similarity with Cairnisian ‘genres of content’” (“Towards a Genre,” 19). See also Holloway, Philippians, 36. 44 In the words of Scourfield, “similar nexuses of material may be found in texts very different in form: topoi, sympathetic, consolatory, and exhortatory, to which are added, on occasion, features such as exempla, lament, and eulogy” (“Towards a Genre,” 15). 45 As discussed above, at least one purpose of a consolatory text must be to “try to dissuade individuals from grieving in the face of misfortune, or proffer general counsel on overcoming adversity” (Kierdorf, “Consolatio as a Literary Genre,” 3:704). 46 Marcel Guignet, Les procédés épistolaires de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze comparés à ceux de ses contemporains (Paris: Picard, 1911), 79–85.

1.3 The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric

25

come popular until after 1968 when Jane F. Mitchell accepted Guignet’s theory that letters of consolation at the time of Gregory Nazianzen “were expected to have three parts”: “expressions of sympathy,” “consolatory arguments drawn from literature and philosophy,” and “adjurations to mourners to conduct themselves in a certain way.” 47 While the identification of these three components of ancient consolatory rhetoric emerged from studies of consolatory letters, “the essential elements of the model letter – sympathy, consolation, and exhortation – are typical of much ancient consolatory writing.” 48 From Guignet to the present, scholars have labeled these three components differently, which has resulted in some degree of terminological confusion. The expression of sympathy has been referred to as “commiseration,” “sympathy,” συμπάθεια, “lament”/“lamentation,” and lamentatio. 49 Because expressions of sympathy or lament usually begin a consolatory letter or speech, Gregg names this component the “exordium” or “proem.” 50 In my view, this designation should be avoided, as expressions of sympathy can occur in places other than the beginning of a letter or speech. 51 The consolatory arguments are sometimes called paraenesis/παραίνεσις, 52 but they are more frequently designated as “consolation proper,” “consolation,” παραμυθία, paramythesis, “consolatory commonplaces,” or simply “consolatory arguments.” 53 The exhortation was nar-

47

Mitchell, “Consolatory Letters,” 301. Scourfield, Towards a Genre, 27. 49 Commiseration: Mitchell (“Consolatory Letters,” 302) follows Guignet’s “συμπάθεια ou commisération” (Les procédés épistolaires, 80). Sympathy: Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 5; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 62; Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 155; Chapa, Letters of Condolence, 26–33. συμπάθεια: Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 155; Guignet, Les procédés épistolaires, 80–85. Lament/lamentation: Several scholars use “lament” and sympatheia interchangeably: e. g., Stowers, Letter Writing, 144; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 45; Smith, Comfort One Another, 52. Lamentatio: Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 45. Gregg labels this section of a consolatory letter “a combination of laudatio et lamentatio” (Consolation Philosophy, 58). 50 Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 58. 51 See chapter 4, § 4.7 Expressions of Sympathy. 52 Stowers, Letter Writing, 144; Guignet, Les procédés épistolaires, 85. 53 Consolation proper: Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 38; Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 5; Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 59; Mitchell, “Consolatory Letters,” 302. Consolation: Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 27; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 62; Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 60. παραμυθία: Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 155; Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 59. Paramythesis: Mitchell, “Consolatory Letters,” 302. Consolatory commonplaces: Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 155; Chapa, Letters of Condolence, 34–38. Consolatory arguments: Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 58; Mitchell, “Consolatory Letters,” 306–12. 48

26

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

rowly classified by Guignet as ἐπιτίμησις (“censure”; “rebuke”), 54 but it is usually designated more generally as “exhortation,” exhortatio, or παραίνεσις. 55 The slippage between scholarly terms for the three typical components of ancient consolation is apparent in Holloway’s definition of “consolation proper” (which others understand as consolatory arguments) as including both “rational arguments against grief ” and “exhortations to responsible behavior and bits and pieces of practical advice.” 56 To clarify and standardize our terms, we must select terms that most closely align with ancient usage and most accurately represent the content of texts whose status in the genre of ancient consolation is unquestioned. On these criteria, the expressions of fellow feeling with the distressed are better classified as sympathy/συμπάθεια rather than lament/lamentation/lamentatio. The designation συμπάθεια accounts for more of the evidence because it is the broader category; lamentation is only one method by which ancient consolers expressed sympathy. 57 The label συμπάθεια also finds support on lexical grounds, as consolers writing in Greek used the verb συμπαθεῖν to express their shared feeling with the bereaved. 58 In fact, when detailing the components of a typical consolatory letter, Gregory Nazianzen first writes, συμπαθεῖν ἔδει (Ep. 165). 59 In regard to labeling the consolatory arguments, the designation παραμυθία or παραμυθίαι is preferable to παραίνεσις. Guignet suggested the “arguments philosophiques … et religieux” be labeled παραίνεσις on the basis of the same section of Gregory’s Ep. 165, in which Gregory follows up the obligation of a consoler to sympathize (συμπαθεῖν) with the obligation παραινέσαι. 60 While ancient authors could use the term παραίνεσις to describe sections of letters that contained both practical advice and consolatory arguments, 61 ancient con-

54

Guignet, Les procédés épistolaires, 79–85. Exhortation: Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 38; Scourfield, “Towards a Genre,” 5; Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 155; Chapa, Letters of Condolence, 33–43; Mitchell, “Consolatory Letters,” 302–4; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 62–64. Exhortatio: Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 46. παραίνεσις: Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 155. 56 Holloway, Philippians, 2. 57 For an outline of expressions of sympathy in Hellenistic Jewish consolation, see appendix 1: “The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric.” 58 E. g., Pseudo-Plutarch writes, “συμπαθεῖν δ’ ἦν ἀναγκαῖον” (Cons. Apoll. 102A). 59 This is cited by Guignet as evidence of the first of the “trois parties” in the “genre de consolation” known to Gregory Nazianzen and Basil of Caesarea (Les procédés épistolaires, 79– 80, 85). 60 Stowers, Letter Writing, 144; Guignet, Les procédés épistolaires, 80–85. 61 Theodoret, e. g., identifies παραίνεσις in 1 Thess 4:1–5:12 but not 1 Thess 1–3 (PG 82:644–53). This point is developed by Margaret M. Mitchell in her analysis of how patristic interpreters use παραίνεσις/παραινεῖν in their exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Paul and the Emergence of Christian Textuality: Early Christian Literary Culture in Context, 2 vols., WUNT 393 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], 1:56–59). 55

1.3 The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric

27

solers used the more specific term παραμυθίαι for arguments against grief. 62 In Menander Rhetor’s consolatory speech (παραμυθητικὸς λόγος), for example, the lament (θρῆνος) is followed by the consolatory part (τὸ παραμυθητικόν) that consists of arguments against grief (2.9.413.5–23). In Menander’s funeral speech (ἐπιτάφιος λόγος), he again demarcates laments (θρήνοι) from consolations (παραμυθίαι [2.11.418.26]) but also distinguishes the consolatory part of the speech (τὸ παραμυθητικόν) from “advice” (συμβουλή) and “counsel” (ὑποθήκη) to the wife and children, such as instructions for the children to emulate their father’s virtues (2.11.421.14–33). Following Menander Rhetor, I think it is best to designate the arguments against grief as παραμυθίαι and analyze more specific advice and instructions under the separate category of advice and exhortation. 63 This accords with Seneca’s distinction between “consolations” (consolationes) and “exhortations” (adhortationes) (Ep. 95.34). Most scholarship on ancient Greco-Roman consolation classifies the “bits of advice to the person addressed about how his or her travail might best be borne” under the rubric of “exhortation” without identifying a Greek label. 64 The primary reason for this reticence, it seems, is that we do not have any complete rhetorical theory of consolation elaborated in the ancient sources that uses a Greek term to describe the instructions and imperatives given to the distressed. 65 Nevertheless, ancient interpreters habitually understood instructions to proper behavior like these as παραίνεσις. 66 Troels Engberg-Pedersen explains that the word παραίνεσις “does not stand for ‘exhortation’ broadly conceived … but something more specific, a speech act that was logically directed towards conduct, behavior, acts-to-be done or avoided.” 67 This is precisely the meaning of “exhortation” used by scholars of ancient consolatory rhetoric,

62 E. g., Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 110E, 111F; Menander Rhetor 2.9.413.23–414.30; 2.11.418.26; 2.11.421.15–18; Letters of Phalaris, Ep. 10; John Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Thess 3.2 (PG 62:408). 63 For an extensive outline of arguments against grief in Hellenistic Jewish consolation, see appendix 1: “The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric.” 64 Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 58. 65 Gregory Nazianzen writes that a consoler may “perhaps” (ἴσως) need “to rebuke” (ἐπιτιμῆσαι) their addressee (Ep. 165), but this is, of course, a partial picture of the potential contents of exhortation in consolation. For an outline of frequently used exhortations in Hellenistic Jewish consolation, see appendix 1: “The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric.” 66 See the discussion of “Parainesis as an Ancient Genre-Designation” by David Hellholm and Vemund Blomkvist in Vemund Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary, TUGAL 170 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 299–344. 67 Troels Engberg-Pedersen also qualifies this concept of paraenesis as “traditional paraenesis,” which is “defined by being specifically directed towards conduct, behavior, acts to be done” (“The Concept of Paraenesis,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, BZNW 125 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004], 47–72, esp. 51, 59).

28

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

making παραίνεσις an excellent label for this component of consolatory discourse. 68 Although the presence of συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, and παραίνεσις is almost universal in extant consolations, they may not be in contained units, nor must they appear in this order. 69 As Mitchell observed, the inclusion of these three components concerned content, not structure: “The division [into sympathy, consolation, and exhortation] appears to be one of subject matter rather than of form. Although all three elements find a place in consolations, Christian and pagan, of all periods, their separation into three distinct sections is by no means generally observed.” 70 The recurring presence of these three elements in consolations across time necessitates that we approach the study of ancient consolation holistically by taking each of these three factors into account, without neglecting to attend to how individual authors also structured their texts to achieve their goals of persuasion. To analyze ancient works of consolation in terms of questions about συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, and παραίνεσις is nothing novel in the study of Greek and Roman consolations. Scholars recognize both sympathy and exhortation as essential elements of offering consolation. 71 In discussing the theoretical distinction between “consolation and admonition,” Stählin rightly observes, In practice, however, consolation and exhortation often merge; μῦθοι παραμυθητικοί often become words of admonition rather than comfort … in popular as in philosophical consolation the exhortation to stop crying and lamenting is the final word of wisdom. 72

Despite agreement that συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, and παραίνεσις are key components of ancient consolation, συμπάθεια and παραίνεσις are frequently not 68 To my knowledge, Chapa was the first to label the component of exhortation as παραίνεσις (“Is First Thessalonians,” 155). 69 “Ancient letters of consolation, fitted as they are to the specific situation of the sufferer, differ significantly in terms of their overall structure or disposition. The most that can be said is that they typically begin with a warm and friendly greeting, and then proceed more or less seriatim through an assortment of consolatory ‘arguments,’ pausing from time to time to offer small pieces of practical advice also of a consolatory nature or to exhort the recipient not to shirk his or her obligations and duties” (Holloway, Philippians, 36–37). 70 Mitchell, “Consolatory Letters,” 303. 71 Schmitz and Stählin note that “a lively expression of sympathy” was expected of consolers who were physically present, which created the expectation for absent consolers to likewise express sympathy in writing (“παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:782–83). Holloway writes, “it became customary to preface words of consolation with an expression of personal affection and sympathy” (Consolation in Philippians, 63). Schmitz and Stählin list “exhortations” as one of their “various ways of comforting the sorrowing” (“παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:783). According to Holloway, “Ancient consolers … understood their primary task to be … one of removing that grief by rational argument and frank exhortation” (Consolation in Philippians, 1). Furthermore, “It was typical of ancient consolation to include exhortation” (Philippians, 82). 72 Schmitz and Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:780.

1.3 The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric

29

accounted for when studying the consolatory writings of Hellenistic Jews. In the case of letters, such as 1 Thessalonians and Philippians, 73 the elements of συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, and παραίνεσις have been duly considered. 74 Yet in the study of consolatory rhetoric within other genres, the arguments against grief (παραμυθίαι) have dominated the analysis, such that expressions of sympathy and consolatory exhortations are rarely addressed, and only in passing. Schmitz, Stählin, and Holloway describe methods by which consolers could show sympathy in person (e. g., to mourn with the distressed), 75 but they do not address how ancient Jews conveyed sympathy in written works of consolation. Consolatory exhortations appear in the overviews of Schmitz, Stählin, and Holloway but only as occasional addendums to consolatory arguments. In their outline “Comfort and Comfortlessness in the OT,” Schmitz and Stählin note one consolatory exhortation, the “exhortation to self-consolation.” 76 In their summary “Human and Divine Comfort in Judaism,” they offer two: the burial inscription θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος, that is, “take courage, no one is immortal,” and “do not grieve, but hope.” 77 Holloway’s overview of “Jewish Consolation” includes several more: that intense mourning be kept to two days (Sir 28:17), “that a person overcome by grief should distract himself or herself … with the pleasures of food and friendship” (Sir 14:16; 30:23), that the bereaved should end their mourning rites (Isa 52:1–2; Bar 5:1), that the distressed should prepare their soul for future reward (2 Bar. 52.7), and “that the elect should turn their attention away from their present suffering to their future rewards” (4 Ezra 7.14; 2 Bar. 19.4, 83.5; 3 Bar. 4.1). 78 Because these examples of consolatory παραίνεσις appear incidentally in the overviews of Schmitz, Stählin, and Hol73 Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 31–48; Smith, Comfort One Another, 52, 61–92; Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 157–59; Holloway, Philippians, 181–84; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 146–55; Holloway, “Bona Cogitare.” 74 Holloway has investigated συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, and παραίνεσις in 1 Peter as well, a pseudepigraphal letter that seems to have been written by “a gentile Christian” (Coping with Prejudice, 17). See also Holloway, “Nihil Inopinati Accidisse.” Although I do not classify 1 Peter among Hellenistic Jewish consolatory writings on account of its author, this letter draws heavily on Hellenistic Jewish consolation. 75 Schmitz and Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:782, 788, 790–91; Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 87–90. 76 Schmitz and Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:789. 77 Schmitz and Stählin cite Philo, Mos. 1.8 as evidence for “do not grieve, but hope,” but this text does not contain any possible Greek translation of these exhortations (“παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:791). While the exhortations to “not grieve” and to “hope” are common, I have not found these two imperatives in Hellenistic Jewish literature in a combined unit as quoted by Schmitz and Stählin. For “do not grieve” (e. g., μὴ λυπεῖσθε and μὴ λύπῃς), see Gen 45:5; Jer 38:16; Ezek 24:22–23; Jub. 27.14, 18 (“do not weep”); 1 En. 92.2–3; 102.5; 1 Thess 4:13; 4 Ezra 10.15, 24; 12.46; Josephus, A. J. 7.204; 8.357; T. Zeb. 10.1–2. Cf. Sir 38:16–23; Let. Aris. 268. For “hope” (e. g., ἔλπισον), see chapter 1, n. 103. 78 Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 94–95, 102, 109, 111.

30

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

loway, they do not represent the most common exhortations in Hellenistic Jewish consolation. What is needed is a systematic attempt to (1) identify and explicate expressions of sympathy and consolatory exhortation within Hellenistic Jewish consolation literature, and (2) scrutinize their relationships with the consolatory arguments. To meet this need, this project gives due attention to συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, and παραίνεσις and studies their complex interrelations in the writings of Hellenistic Jews. How did Hellenistic Jewish consolers try to gain the goodwill of their persecuted and weary readers and hearers? How did they argue against grief? What behaviors did Hellenistic Jewish consolers advocate for distressed audiences? What behaviors did they prohibit? In taking this broad approach toward analyzing the content of consolatory rhetoric within Hellenistic Judaism, we gain an immeasurably richer picture of the multifaceted nature of how Jews of this period strove to comfort one another, one in which tried and true platitudes are simply one component of a larger effort that may involve, for example, lavish praise of the suffering addressees, examples of noble sufferers, and appeals to honor and shame.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation Hellenistic Jewish consolers had to navigate diverse, overlapping, and conflicting perspectives about their task within their Bible, Second Temple Judaism, and Greco-Roman culture. What is the role of a consoler? How should a person properly respond to adverse circumstances? What is the value of grief? Just as their Bible gave multiple (and sometimes contradictory) answers to these questions, the schools of Hellenistic philosophy espoused different arguments and consolatory strategies in accordance with their beliefs about God/the gods, the soul, the afterlife, good and evil, and the emotions. 79 For example, battle lines were drawn between philosophical schools regarding what happens after death and whether grief is an appropriate response to loss. For those who believed grief was appropriate, the debate concerned which performances of grief were “natural” and “within reason” and which were excessive. 80 How did Hellenistic 79 See chapter 1, n. 10; Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 82; Adam Drozdek, Athanasia: Afterlife in Greek Philosophy, Spudasmata 137 (Zürich: OLMS, 2011). 80 On the performance of grief in ancient Greece and Rome, see Angelos Chaniotis, ed., Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2012); Douglas L. Cairns, “Weeping and Veiling: Grief, Display and Concealment in Ancient Greek Culture,” in Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. Thorsten Fögen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 37–57; Margaret Graver, Stoicism and Emotion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007); Graver, Cicero on the Emotions; Gay Ord Pollock Lynch, “‘Why Do Your Eyes Not Run like a River?’: Ritual Tears in Ancient and Modern Greek Funerary Traditions,”

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

31

Jewish authors navigate the plethora of theories and practices of consolation within Hellenistic philosophy? What methods of consolation within their pluriform biblical heritage did they emphasize over others? From a close analysis of Hellenistic Jewish consolation literature, I have identified three paradigmatic ways that Hellenistic Jewish consolers navigated the tensions between and within biblical and Greco-Roman consolation. First, they may accept aspects of Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric as compatible with strands of biblical consolation and integrate both into their work (what I term the compatibility paradigm). Second, they may outright reject assumptions, methods, and/or topoi of Greco-Roman consolation as incompatible with their faith in the God of Israel (the rejection of Greco-Roman consolations paradigm). Third, they may reject certain assumptions and arguments within biblical consolation as inapplicable to the situation of their persecuted readers (the rejection of biblical assumptions and arguments paradigm). Finally, Hellenistic Jewish consolers may employ elements of multiple paradigms simultaneously.

1.4.1 Compatibility Regarding the proper role of a consoler and how to behave in adversity, Hellenistic Jews usually adopted the compatibility paradigm. Within Judaism, prophets and apocalyptic seers were called upon to address calamities of communal or even national importance, which thrust them into the role of professional consolers. Within Greco-Roman culture, philosophers and orators occupied this role. From the prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the apocalyptic seers of Second Temple Judaism, Jewish sources repeatedly depict consolers as chosen conduits of God’s consolation. Within this understanding of a consoler’s role, the consoler’s primary task is to convey to God’s people the salvation, healing, and recompense that God has announced. 81 Paradigmatic examples include Isa 40, in which God commissions Isaiah to comfort his people, and Ezek 37, in which God commissions Ezekiel to announce his plan to bring his exiled people back to the land of Israel. Jewish sources also depict God as a consoler without the mediation of a prophet or seer. 82 While the idea that consolers should be in Holy Tears: Weeping in the Religious Imagination, ed. Kimberley Christine Patton and John Stratton Hawley (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 67–82; Lawrence C. Becker, “Stoic Emotion,” in Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations, ed. Steven K. Strange and Jack Zupko (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 250–75; Schorn, “Tears of the Bereaved”; Juha Sihvola and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, eds., The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy (Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1998); Susan M. Braund and Christopher Gill, eds., The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 81 On prophecy as a vehicle for conveying God’s comfort to God’s people, see Isa 61:1–3; Sir 48:24–25; 49:10; 4 Ezra 14.13; 2 Bar. 54.4; 81.4. 82 E. g., Gen 3:5–7 (only in LXX; God is not depicted as a consoler in MT Gen 3:5–7); Job 38–42; Pss 22:4; 29:12; 45:2–3; 54:23; 146:3; Jonah 4:4–11; Sir 17:24; Wis 8:9 (God’s Wisdom);

32

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

conduits of God’s consolation is common in Judaism, philosophically minded Greeks and Romans assigned different roles for consolers. According to Plutarch, the task of consolation consists of frank speech and teaching the sufferer that grieving and self-abasement are useless and even foolish (Ex. 599B–C). While Seneca would agree with Plutarch on this point, he also sets forth more specific roles of a comforter: to revive and strengthen the distressed, to present exempla that could calm their mind, and to offer them the precepts of the sages (Polyb. 14.1). Plutarch’s and Seneca’s comments on the roles of a consoler reflect a larger phenomenon within literary Greek and Roman sources, in which the consoler most frequently emerges as a moral philosopher, ready to instruct and persuade the distressed to bear up under their burdens. Hellenistic Jewish authors frequently deemed the biblical role of a consoler to be compatible with the role of a consoler in Greco-Roman philosophy. They took on both the biblically defined role to announce God’s consolation and the philosophically defined role to instruct and persuade the distressed to bear up under their burdens. Paul, for example, takes on the requisite tasks of a prophet and a moral philosopher in his efforts to console the bereaved Thessalonians. He both reveals that God will resurrect their dead in Christ (1 Thess 4:13–17) and urges them to be calm, attend to their affairs, get to work, and comfort one another (4:10–12; 4:18; 5:11). Similarly, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon announces that God’s slain righteous ones will be vindicated before their oppressors, while also proffering standard consolatory arguments used by Greeks and Romans to persuade the bereaved to quit grieving (Wis 3–5). 83 The both/ and approach of Paul and Pseudo-Solomon in navigating the different expectations of consolers in Judaism and Hellenistic culture finds a precedent in Jewish wisdom. In many ways, the cosmopolitan wisdom literature of ancient Judaism functions as a sort of contact zone between the prophetic and apocalyptic traditions of Judaism and the philosophical koine of Hellenistic culture. Sirach, for example, echoes Jewish prophetic tradition when he affirms that a person who fears the Lord “will be delivered in a test” (33:1; cf. 2:1–5) and “aided” by the Lord (2:6), yet he also issues the standard arguments against prolonged grief found in consolations written by Greek and Roman philosophers (38:18–23). When choosing exhortations, Hellenistic Jews usually embraced the ideals promulgated by Greek and Roman consolers concerning how a person ought to act in adversity. They ought to be calm, composed, productive, facing their challenge with courage, expressing gratitude to God/the gods, and rejoicing irrespective of their circumstances. As a result, there is remarkable overlap between the consolatory exhortation (παραίνεσις) issued by Hellenistic Jews, Philo, Det. 124; 2 Cor 1:4; Phil 4:6–7; 2 Thess 2:16–17; 4 Ezra 10.24; 12.4–8; 2 Bar. 54.4; T. Jos. 1.6–2.7. 83 Following scholarly convention, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon will henceforth be referred to as Pseudo-Solomon.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

33

Greeks, and Romans. Nevertheless, Hellenistic Jews changed the tone of these shared exhortations by juxtaposing them with biblical consolatory arguments (παραμυθίαι) concerning why the suffering person ought to follow the παραίνεσις. Greek, Roman, and Jewish consolers all agreed, for example, that one ought to rejoice in adversity. 84 Greek and Roman consolers asked bereaved people to rejoice because of their past blessings, their current blessings, and the admirable character of the deceased. Seneca, for example, argued that people ought to “rejoice” because of the friends and loved ones they have had, rather than to “grieve” because they have lost them (Polyb. 11.1–3; Ep. 99.3–4). Hellenistic Jewish authors, however, most often urged their suffering readers to rejoice on account of their God and God’s activity on their behalf. 85 “Rejoice in the Lord at all times,” advises Paul, confident of his God’s ability to alleviate his people’s distress by supplying them with peace (Phil 4:4–7). “Rejoice, O mother, with your sons, because I will deliver you, says the Lord” (4 Ezra 2.36–37). 86 “Rejoice … because your reward is great in heaven” (Matt 5:12; cf. Luke 6:23), says Jesus concerning the abuse and persecution his followers would endure. These examples represent the standard usages of the exhortation to rejoice in Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric: one ought to rejoice in God, in God’s promises to rescue his people, and in the certain rewards God has prepared for the faithful. When we analyze how literary consolers justify their exhortations more broadly, the same pattern evident in the exhortations to rejoice repeats itself. Greek and Roman consolers justify their consolatory exhortations using arguments about how one should evaluate one’s circumstances. Jewish consolers usually justify the same exhortations by directing the sufferer to observe and contemplate the activity of God. Why should one cease grieving? For Greek and Roman consolers, the most cited reasons are that grief is futile (benefiting neither the dead nor the mourner) and harmful to the mourner and their loved ones. 87 While these arguments against grief are embraced, for instance, by Sir84 For exhortations to rejoice (e. g., χαίρετε and εὐφράνθητι), see, e. g., Isa 54:1; 66:10–11; Hab 3:18; Cicero, Tusc. 4.6.12–4.7.14; Seneca, Ep. 23.3–4; 59.2, 14–18; 66.5; 99.3–4; Polyb. 5.4– 5; 10.6; 11.1–3; Helv. 4.2–5.1; 18.2; Prov. 6.1–5; 1 Thess 5:16; Rom 12:12; Phil 3:1; 4:4; Matt 5:11–12 (cf. Luke 6:22–23); 4 Ezra 2.30, 36–37; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 114D; T. Jos. 8.5; T. Benj. 6.4. Cf. Seneca, Tranq. 2.4; Const. 9.3; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 469D–470A; Exil. 606F; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.8.23 (cf. 3.5.14). 85 In numerous writings, Philo argues that a person’s joy is dependent on one’s fellowship with God and attention to God’s activity: Abr. 201–208; QG 4.15–19; Det. 120–125; Plant. 38; Leg. 3.217–219; Migr. 156–157; Her. 3, 315; Spec. 1.271; Spec. 2.46–48, 54–55; Cher. 86; Somn. 1.71; 2.249; Praem. 27, 31–35, 50; Mut. 169–178. 86 All translations of 4 Ezra in this monograph are cited from Bruce M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 517–59. 87 E. g., Cicero, Tusc. 3.66; Sir 30:21–23; 38:17–23; Seneca, Marc. 6.2; Polyb. 2.1; 4.1; Ep. 99.6;

34

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

ach (38:17–23), Hellenistic Jews most often supported their exhortations against grieving with promises that God would act to heal traumas and correct injustices. For Paul, the bereaved Thessalonians ought not to grieve because God will reunite the dead and the living at the return of Christ (4:13–17). His exhortation is one variation of a larger theme in Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric, in which people are urged not to grieve about their dead or dying loved ones because God will bring them back to life. 88 Philo, on the other hand, explains that excessive mourning is illogical since “death is not the extinction [σβέσις] of the soul but its separation [χωρισμός] and parting [διάζευξις] from the body” in order to return to God (Abr. 258). Paul’s belief in resurrection and Philo’s belief in the immortality of the soul represent two different trajectories of multiple and even overlapping options in Hellenistic Judaism concerning some form of postmortem life for the righteous. 89 Subsequent chapters explore how Hellenistic Jews retrofitted contemporary philosophical speculation about the afterlife to cohere with their views of God’s justice. Why should one be courageous? 90 For Greeks and Romans, courage (ἀνδρεία) was a cardinal virtue. 91 Given its prized status, Greek and Roman conPlutarch, Cons. ux. 609B–C, 609E–610A; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 111F–113B, 117F, 119E; Aelius Theon, Prog. 2:117.15–16. For additional sources in ancient Greek literature, see Moran, Consolations of Death, 46–50. 88 E. g., 1 En. 92.2–3; 4 Ezra 10.15; T. Zeb. 10.1–2. Cf. 1 En. 102.5–103.4, in which the exhortation to not grieve is given to the pious dead awaiting resurrection. 89 George W. E. Nickelsburg writes, “The evidence indicates that in the intertestamental period there was no single Jewish orthodoxy on the time, mode, and place of resurrection, immortality, and eternal life” (Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, HTS 56 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006], 222). This variety in perspectives on the afterlife among Second Temple Jews is also represented in the work of C. D. Elledge (Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism 200 BCE–CE 200 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017]) and Hans Clemens Caesarius Cavallin (Life after Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead, part 1, An Enquiry into the Jewish Background, ConBib NT Ser 7:1 [Lund: Gleerup, 1974]). 90 E. g., Homer, Il. 24.549; Gen 35:17; Exod 14:13; Ps 30:25; Jdt 7:30; 11:1–3; 1 En. 102.4; 104.2, 4; Bar 4:30; Tob 7:17; 2 Macc 6:31; 7:10, 20–21; Cicero, Fam. 4.13.7; 5.18.1; 6.1.4; Rep. 6.10; Wis 8:7; Seneca, Ep. 99.14; Marc. 1.1 (praise of past courage); Polyb. 6.1; Helv. 15.4; 19.7; Heb 13:6; 4 Ezra 12:46; Plutarch, Exil. 600B; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 611C–612A; Josephus, A. J. 11.238, 241; 4 Macc 1:4–6, 11, 18; 5:23; 15:23; SB XIV 11646, line 9; P.Oxy. I 115, line 2. For consolatory exempla of courage in adversity, see 2 Macc 7:20 (εὐψύχως); Seneca, Marc. 16.2–4; 26.3; Polyb. 11.3; 14.5; Helv. 19.4–7; 4 Macc 6:1–11; 9:23 (εὐψυχία). In funerary inscriptions and within consolatory exhortation more broadly, Marcel Simon argues that “θάρσει et εὐψύχει sont équivalents et pratiquement interchangeables” (“Θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος: Étude de vocabulaire religieux,” RHR 113 [1936]: 188–206, esp. 204). For discussion of both imperatives, see also Miguel Herrero de Jáuregui, “‘Trust the God’: Tharsein in Ancient Greek Religion,” HSCP 108 (2015): 1–52. 91 E. g., Plato, Phaed. 69C; Resp. 427E–430C; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 3.6.1–3.9.7. For the virtue of ἀνδρεία (“courage” or “manliness”) in Greek and Roman literature, see John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence, SBLDS 99 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 87–90.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

35

solers exhorted courage in adversity without supporting arguments, believing that the necessity of courage in hardship was self-evident. Hellenistic Jewish authors, however, usually buttressed their imperatives to “take courage” (e. g., θάρσει) with assurances of God’s presence and announcements that God was about to save his people, restore what they lost, and judge those who harm them. 92 In Baruch, for example, Mother Zion exhorts her exiled children to “take courage” repeatedly (4:5, 21, 27) because God will not allow them to be destroyed (4:6), is about to deliver them from their enemies (4:21), and will bring them “everlasting joy with [their] salvation” (4:29). Baruch urges Mother Zion to “take courage” also, supporting his imperative with a promise that God will act as her comforter and punish her enemies (4:30–35). According to the author of 2 Maccabees, the mother who saw all her sons executed in a single day endured it all “courageously [εὐψύχως ἔφερεν] because of her hopes in the Lord [διὰ τὰς ἐπὶ κύριον ἐλπίδας]” (7: 20). His explanation of her courage in fearsome circumstances coheres with Hellenistic Jewish consolatory exhortation more broadly, in which consolers ask the distressed to be courageous on account of a confident hope that God will act on behalf of his pious children. These brief entrées into the reasons offered by Greeks, Romans, and Jews for why a suffering person ought to rejoice, stop grieving, and be courageous highlight how Hellenistic Jewish consolers accepted many of the consolatory exhortations of Greeks and Romans as compatible with their biblical tradition while nuancing and even transforming their significance by supporting them with different consolatory arguments. Hellenistic Jewish consolers frequently based their exhortations for noble conduct in adversity on their faith that God was in control of the apparent chaos and their hope that God would intervene in history to vindicate his people and judge their oppressors. Greek and Roman consolers, in comparison, rarely used theocentric arguments to support their exhortations. More commonly, they argued from traditional precepts, exempla, honor, and shame to encourage their suffering readers to behave in ways that would display their virtue and earn them prestige in their respective spheres of influence.

1.4.2 Rejection of Greco-Roman Consolations Hellenistic Jews were committed to the idea that the God of Israel was good, just, and all-powerful. As they applied this view of God to comfort persecuted communities, they were motivated to reject particular expressions of sympathy and consolatory arguments that were commonly used by their Greek and Roman peers. 92 E. g., Exod 14:13; Zeph 3:16–20; Hag 2:5; Zech 8:13–15; Bar 4:5, 21, 27, 30; Jdt 7:30; 1 En. 102.4; 104.2, 4; 4 Ezra 12.46–47. Cf. Joel 2:21–22.

36

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

The most striking difference between expressions of sympathy used by Hellenistic Jewish consolers and those utilized by Greeks and Romans is the reticence of Jewish authors to accuse God of cruelty and injustice in comparison to the willingness of Greek and Roman consolers to passionately charge Fate and Fortune with such attributes. Lamentation was a standard method by which Greek and Roman consolers would commence their consolations, as acknowledging and even amplifying the high degree of loss could express fellow feeling with the bereaved and garner their goodwill. 93 Menander Rhetor advises that one begin lamentations by “uttering indignant complaints” (σχετλιάζειν) “against the gods [δαίμονες] and unjust fate [ἄδικος μοῖρα] and destiny [πεπρωμένη] that ordained an unjust law [ἄδικος νόμος]” (2.16.435.9–13). Seneca hits precisely these notes in his consolatory letter to Polybius. He declares Fortune to be “most unjust” and complains that she is accustomed to vent her rage upon human beings “without discrimination” and “at random” (Polyb. 2.2; 2.7; cf. 16.4). 94 As he concludes his lament over the death of Polybius’s brother, Seneca characterizes Fortune/Fate as “harsh and inexorable,” 95 and even unmerciful, writing, “it never lets anyone off nor shows mercy” (Polyb. 4.1). In consoling Apollonius, Pseudo-Plutarch focuses his complaint on the fact that “Fortune is heedless and terrible to take away what we have worked for and to turn upside down our apparent prosperity, with no fixed season for doing so” (Cons. Apoll. 104D). Hellenistic Jewish consolers refrained from these sorts of accusations against God in their own attempts to communicate shared feeling with their distressed readers. In their view, the need to defend God’s justice and goodness in the face of suffering far outweighed the potential benefits of accusing God of mismanagement or worse in order to show solidarity with the sufferer. Even in circumstances in which children and law-abiding adults experienced seemingly undeserved trauma and violence, Hellenistic Jewish consolers held out positive views of their God and reiterated that life in this world, lived in relationship with God, was good. 93 Regarding the task of consoling (παρηγορέω), Aelius Theon suggests that one give words of admonition only after the lamentations (θρῆνοι [Prog. 2:117.17–25]). Menander Rhetor divides the consolatory speech (παραμυθητικὸς λόγος) into a lament (θρῆνος) followed by the consolatory part (τὸ παραμυθητικόν) (2.9.413.5–23). He maintains the lament/consolation division in his funeral speech (ἐπιτάφιος λόγος [2.11.418.6–422.3]). Gregg identifies “a section of the letter constituted by eulogistic remarks and periodic lamentations” as one of the “‘constants’ in epistles of condolence” (Consolation Philosophy, 58, 75–79). For examples in consolatory letters, see Seneca, Polyb. 2.2–4.2; Helv. 2.4–5. Cf. Ep. 99.3. For examples of lamentation in the epitaphs, see Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin, 177–205, 264. 94 All texts and translations of Seneca’s consolations to Marcia, Polybius, and Helvia in this monograph are cited from John W. Basore, trans., Moral Essays, 3 vols., LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932). 95 Seneca uses the terms “Fortune” and “Fate” interchangeably (e. g., Polyb. 2.2–4.2).

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

37

In conceptualizing human life as a blessing, Hellenistic Jewish consolers also rejected the prominent consolatory argument among Greek and Roman authors that the best thing is not to be born, and the next best thing is to die as quickly as possible. 96 Hani identifies this argument as “la formule la plus célèbre du ‘pessimisme grec.’” 97 According to Pseudo-Plutarch, “many wise men” have regarded life as a “punishment” (τιμωρία), such that for a person to be born at all was the “greatest calamity” (ἡ μέγιστη συμφορά) (Cons. Apoll. 115B). Voices within the Hebrew Bible recognize the hardships and toils of human existence (e. g., Job 7:1; Eccl 2:22–23), but none maintain that life is a punishment. They viewed life as a gift bestowed by God to be enjoyed in relationship with him. 98 In fact, the inverse of the Greco-Roman consolatory topos could represent the overall estimation of life within the Hebrew Bible, “the best thing is to be born, and the next best thing is to live as long as possible.” After all, long life was the promised reward for obeying God’s laws (e. g., Deut 5:16; 30:19–20). Following their biblical heritage, Hellenistic Jewish consolers rejected the argument that to die as soon as possible was desirable and instead composed arguments that extended the lifetime of God’s people into eternity. Another consolatory argument that Greeks and Romans often employed was the argument that people who have died return to the same state (κατάστασις) in which they were before birth. 99 This consolation was utilized in arguments that death is not an evil, 100 but it was also employed to allay more specific fears of experiencing physical or emotional pain after death. 101 Hellenistic Jews rejected the notion that a deceased person returned to their state before birth. The reasons why they deemed this consolation unacceptable vary in accordance with their diverse perspectives on anthropology and postmortem existence, yet as before, the need to maintain God’s justice was a driving factor in their rejection of the topos. For Jews who accepted many aspects of Middle Platonism, the anthropology was not a hurdle. Pseudo-Solomon appears to have believed that 96 Cicero, Tusc. 1.114–115; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 115C–E. Frank Cole Babbitt lists the following as parallels: Theognis, 425; Bacchylides, v. 160; Sophocles, Oed. Col. 1225 (Plutarch, Moralia, LCL [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928], 2:179). 97 Hani, Consolation à Apollonios, 183. 98 In his examination of “life” in the Hebrew Bible “in the context of earthly existence,” R. J. Taylor writes, “For the Israelite, life was the supreme value which Jahweh bestowed, and it was not just a matter of breathing and existing in simple animal fashion. It was much more than a mere fact of nature; it was the supreme good.… Prolongation of physical existence into old age was a grace of a special kind given by God to those he loved, Gn. 15,15; 25,8; 35,29; Jb. 42,17” (“The Eschatological Meaning of Life and Death in the Book of Wisdom I–V,” ETL 42 [1966]: 72–137, esp. 73–75). 99 E. g., Lucretius 3.973–975; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 365D; Seneca, Ep. 54.4–5; Marc. 19.5; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 109F–110A. 100 E. g., see Pseudo-Plutarch’s summary of Socrates’s argument that ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔστι κακόν (“death is not an evil”) in Cons. Apoll. 107D–110E. See also Seneca, Marc. 19.5. 101 E. g., Lucretius 3.973–1024; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 365D, 369C; Seneca, Ep. 54.4–5.

38

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

preexisting souls enter human bodies before birth (Wis 8:19–20), and Philo is clear that the air is the abode of disembodied souls, some of which descend to earth to enter bodies (e. g., Somn. 1.135–138; cf. Plant. 14). For Pseudo-Solomon and Philo, the issue is rather about God’s justice, which, in certain situations, requires the ability to reward and punish after death. The Greco-Roman consolation that the dead simply return to the same condition before their birth leaves no room for God to reward the faithful and punish the wicked postmortem. Jews like the author of 2 Maccabees and Paul would have dismissed this Greco-Roman consolation on the grounds of both its presupposed anthropology (neither author believed in preexistent souls) and its inability to accommodate their belief that God would execute judgment after death. Lastly, the conviction of Hellenistic Jewish consolers that their God was allpowerful led them to reject the consolatory argument that nothing can be done (to change the situation). 102 In Greek and Roman letters of condolence, this argument is commonly the basis of exhortations to bear what has happened as lightly and as bravely as possible. If one cannot do anything to change the situation, why be preoccupied with it? Hellenistic Jewish consolation literature contains the opposite of the Greco-Roman topos – claims that God can/will change the situation and encouragement for God’s people to do a variety of things that will influence the outcome of undesirable circumstances. Distressed readers are urged to hope (e. g., ἔλπισον) in the Lord to deliver them and to wait for the Lord to intervene on their behalf (e. g., ἀναμείνατε τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ [Sir 2:7]; ὑπόμεινον τὸν κύριον, ἵνα σοι βοηθήσῃ [Prov 20:9c]). 103 Hellenistic Jewish consolers attempted to build anticipation that God would intervene in the disastrous circumstances of his people by encouraging their readers to remember past prophecies, God’s promises, 104 and times when God has helped or rescued his people in the past. 105 At the same time, they believed that their readers could influence the outcome of their situations through their actions, 102 E. g., Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 106C; P.Oxy. I 115, lines 9–10; P.Wisc. II 84, col. 2, lines 16–18, col. 3, lines 40–42. In Seneca’s formulation of the topos, the gods are not moved by human suffering to change the course of events that Fate/Fortune has already spun (Marc. 21.6; Polyb. 16.5). Chapa identifies the view that “death is something against which nobody can do anything” as “the most characteristic feature of letters of condolence on papyrus” (Letters of Condolence, 34). 103 Hope for deliverance: e. g., Pss 33:20–23; 41:6, 12; 42:5; 61:9; Bar 4:21–22; Sir 2:6; 33:1; Philo, Mos. 1.199; 1 Thess 5:8; Heb 6:18–20. Cf. 1 Chr 5:20; 13:18; Pss 16:7; 17:3, 31; 21:5–6; 24:20; 25:1; 27:7; 30:2; 31:10; 33:23; 36:5, 40; 55:4, 12; 70:14; 91:14, etc.; 1 Macc 2:61; T. Job 24.1. Wait for intervention: e. g., Prov 20:9c; Lam 3:25–26; Jdt 8:17; Sir 2:7; 1 Thess 1:9–10; Heb 9:28; 10:36–37; 4 Ezra 2.34. Cf. Ps 32:20; Mic 7:7; T. Job 24.1. For the theory behind this exhortation, see Nah 1:7; Isa 40:31. 104 For calls to remember past prophecies and God’s promises, see, e. g., Isa 54:9–10; 2 Macc 7:6; 15:9; 1 Thess 3:4; Heb 10:37–38; 13:5; 2 Bar. 78.7. 105 E. g., 2 Macc 8:19–20; 12:15; 15:8–9; Wis 9:18–10:21; 11:1–14; 16:2–19:22; 1 Thess 2:14–16.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

39

the chief of which was prayer. 106 The author of 2 Maccabees, for example, was hopeful that the living could play a powerful role in whether the dead are eventually “delivered from their sin” by praying and making atonement for the dead (12:39–45). For authors who interpreted suffering as punishment for sin, repentance was another means by which the distressed could curtail the extent and degree of their suffering. 107 Greek and Roman authors were divided on the question of the efficacy of prayer in hardship, 108 with some consolers (e. g., Seneca) explicitly rejecting the idea that prayer could change the course of future events. 109 Of course, popular Greek piety looked to the gods for help and rescue in times of trouble along many of the same lines as did ancient Israelites and Second Temple Jews. 110 Pseudo-Libanius’s sympathetic style (συμπαθητικὴ χαρακτήρ) of letter includes a claim that the writer had prayed to God to free the addressee from the terrible things that had happened to them, as well as the maxim, “friends ought to pray [εὔχεσθαι] to see their friends always free from evils” (Epistolary Styles 65). Greek and Roman philosophical consolers, however, tended to avoid stoking hopes for divine rescue and instead directed those under their care to bravely resign themselves to their undesirable circumstances. Their idea that nothing could be done to change the situation was

106 For exhortations to pray in ancient Jewish consolation, see, e. g., Jer 36:7–13; Job 8:5–6; 22:23–28; Ps 104:4; Bar 4:21, 27; Sir 38:9; 2 Macc 13:10–12; Jdt 8:17; Wis 16:27–28; 1 Thess 5:17; Phil 4:6; Luke 18:1–8; 21:36; 4 Ezra 9.25; 2 Bar. 84.10. The Septuagint contains numerous depictions of fervent and efficacious prayer in hardship: e. g., 2 Kgs 20:1–7; Ps 87:1, 10; Prayer of Azariah; 2 Macc 15:26–27; 3 Macc 5:7–9, 13, 25, 50–51; 6:1–17; Jdt 4:9–12; Wis 11:4; 18:21– 22. Cf. Let. Aris. 232–233. 107 E. g., Job 8:5–7; 11:6–19; 22:23–28; Bar 2:6–3:8; 4:28; 4 Ezra 14.27–36; 2 Bar. 84–85. 108 The exhortation to pray is rare in extant Greek and Roman consolatory literature and is absent from the consolatory letters of Cicero and Seneca, as well as the Consolation to Apollonius. I have found the exhortation to pray in Aesop, Fab. 288 (cited by Holloway, Philippians, 183) and Plutarch, Tranq. an. 474C, and it appears as a maxim in Pseudo-Libanius’s sympathetic style (συμπαθητικὴ χαρακτήρ) of letter (Epistolary Styles 65). Menander Rhetor recommends that an orator conclude a funeral speech with a prayer that the gods bless the bereaved family (2.11.422.2–4). Despite the paucity of imperatives to pray in extant consolatory letters, Greeks and Romans do advocate prayer in hardship in other sources: e. g., Seneca, Ep. 10.4; Dio Chrysostom, Aegr. 16.7–8; Exil. 13.9–10; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.18.29; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 6.42; 9.40. 109 Seneca believed that prayers could neither sway Fortune/Fate in any way nor secure any means of divine assistance for suffering people (Marc. 21.6; Polyb. 16.5; Ep. 77.11, 12; Nat. 2.35.1–2). Seneca’s stance on prayer is a complicated issue, as he occasionally advocates prayer (Ep. 10.4) despite denying its efficacy to change the course of events. For our purposes, it is significant that Seneca explicitly advises against prayer in his consolatory letters. For Seneca’s position on prayer more broadly, see Jan N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, NovTSup 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 44–49. 110 Schmitz and Stählin quote Plutarch, Cor. 35, in which prayer to the gods is called “the consolation for every misfortune and failure [ἀτυχίας πάσης καὶ κακοπραγίας παραμύθιον]” (“παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:784). For other examples of prayer in hardship in Greek sources, see Herrero de Jáuregui, “‘Trust the God’: Tharsein”, 1–52, esp. 12–14, 19–25.

40

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

precisely what Hellenistic Jewish consolers would not accept. Instead, they urged their persecuted readers to pray and expectantly wait for their God to intervene.

1.4.3 Rejection of Biblical Assumptions and Arguments The Hellenistic Jewish authors under consideration in this project did not reject their biblical inheritance in toto regarding any single assumption about suffering and death or any one consolatory argument or exhortation. In fact, the diverse perspectives about suffering, death, and consolation within the Hebrew Bible render it practically impossible for any consoler, past or present, to reject “the biblical view” on suffering, death, and consolation, since there is no comprehensive and unified “biblical view” on these matters. In their analysis of death and afterlife within the Hebrew Bible, Richard Friedman and Shawna Overton conclude, “We have seen that there is not simply one view of the afterlife that can be generalized for all of ancient Israel over the thousand year period of the Hebrew Bible’s composition. On the contrary, conflicting views can prevail simultaneously.” 111 Using the evidence of archaeology in conjunction with the written record, Friedman and Overton demonstrate the great extent to which ancient Israelites participated in the cult of the dead, despite attempts by Israelite priests to discourage the veneration of one’s ancestors. While Friedman and Overton are analyzing Israelite beliefs about the afterlife, their evaluation also rings true regarding the arguments used by Israelites to comfort one another, that is, “conflicting views can prevail simultaneously.” Given the diversity of perspectives regarding suffering, death, and consolation within the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israel, to speak about what elements of biblical consolation Hellenistic Jews rejected as inapplicable to the situations of their persecuted readers is to contextualize their choices within the different strands of biblical and ancient Israelite thought about suffering and death. In their attempts to console persecuted communities, Hellenistic Jewish authors frequently rejected certain biblical assumptions about the earthly rewards of piety, suffering, death, and postmortem existence in favor of alternative biblical beliefs concerning these subjects that they considered more appropriate for situations of persecution. In line with the fact that consolers selected their arguments on the basis of the circumstances of the distressed, the Hellenistic Jewish consolers (addressed in this monograph) navigated the plethora of biblical perspectives on these topics with an eye to what would be fitting for circumstances in which people presumed to be faithful to God suffered and died prematurely. 111 Richard E. Friedman and Shawna D. Overton, “Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner, part 4 of Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 35–59, esp. 56.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

41

Concerning the earthly rewards of piety, the Hellenistic Jewish consolers under consideration in this study rejected the biblical assumption that individuals who fear the Lord and keep his commandments would not suffer anything evil but would enjoy blessings such as children and long life. The belief that righteousness results in prosperity and protection from the Lord pervades the Hebrew Bible, as it is an essential component of the covenant, namely, that following God’s laws should result in abundant blessings and long life (e. g., Deut 28:1–14; 30:8–16), but rejecting God’s commands should issue in curses and death (e. g., Deut 28:15–68; 30:17–19). This view of the rewards of righteousness is repeatedly conveyed in the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings) via narratives that link the military victories of God’s people with their piety and claim their military defeats were caused by a disregard of God’s laws. The wisdom literature is likewise direct that “no harm happens to the righteous, but the wicked are filled with trouble” (MT Prov 12:21). 112 Given the prominence of this idea in the Hebrew Bible, it is to be expected that Job’s friends formulated their consolatory arguments on the assumption that righteous living would issue in earthly blessings for Job, such as protection from famine, war, and wild animals, as well as the gift of many descendants and a long life (5:17–26). Many Hellenistic Jewish authors rejected the maxim that piety results in prosperity for the same core reason as did the character Job, that is, the sufferers in question were “righteous” people. The reality that Jews who refused to transgress God’s law were the ones most likely to suffer and be killed during the persecutions of 168–167 BCE and 38 CE rendered the widely held biblical equation of piety with prosperity and long life inapplicable to the concrete situations addressed by the authors of 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. For Paul and the author of Hebrews, the fact that “God’s son” was mistreated and crucified despite his faithfulness to God provided additional evidence against the belief that obedience to God would result in peace, safety, and long life. On the basis of their conviction that exceptionally pious individuals endured horrific suffering and death, many Hellenistic Jewish consolers rejected the biblical view that suffering is the result of sin. Because the causal relationship between sin against God and the suffering of God’s people is enshrined in the covenant (e. g., Deut 28:15–68; 30:17–19), the Hebrew Bible frequently depicts unusual, exceptionally painful, and premature deaths as punishments for sin against God. 113 Job’s friends had countless biblical precedents in claiming that 112 This idea is also maintained in Hellenistic Jewish wisdom literature. Sirach claims that “no evil will befall one who fears the Lord” (33:1). Baruch writes, “If you had walked in the way of God, you would be dwelling in peace forever” (3:13). 113 Shaul Bar systematically investigates the “many different forms of unnatural death” in the Bible, including “war, pestilence, famine and the sword, stoning, hanging, impaling, burning, execution by the sword, strangulation, excision, plague, and illness” (I Deal Death and

42

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

Job’s miserable state was just punishment for his sin, such that his suffering would end and his life would “be brighter than the noonday” if he would only repent of his iniquity (11:6–19; cf. 8:5–7; 22:23–28). The link between sin and suffering became increasingly tenuous in the eyes of many (though not all) Jews living through the political turmoil of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. When law-abiding Jews died from public torture at foreign hands, it became harder to maintain that their deaths were just punishment for their sins. As they rejected the act-consequence relationship between sin and suffering as inapplicable to the situations of their readers, many Hellenistic Jews deemed the biblical stories of the suffering prophets more useful for interpreting the forms of persecution they faced. These stories feature prophets like Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, who was stoned to death for speaking the truth from God (2 Chr 24:20–22), and like Uriah, who was killed by the sword because he prophesied God’s coming judgment on the land (Jer 33:20–23). Jeremiah endured numerous imprisonments as a result of his faithfulness as God’s messenger, 114 and according to tradition, Isaiah was sawn in two. 115 The prophet Elijah was forced to flee for his life from Queen Jezebel, who had already killed the rest of the Lord’s prophets (1 Kgs 18:13; 19:1–18). By viewing the violence perpetrated against their communities through the lives of these rejected and even murdered prophets, Hellenistic Jewish authors found biblical warrants to reject the notion that their suffering addressees were being punished by God. Instead, they could argue that their suffering was a consequence of their fidelity to God in the midst of opposition. 116 In addition to stories of the prophets, Hellenistic Jewish consolers drew upon nonpunitive interpretations of suffering within the Bible, such as the perspectives that suffering can be a manifestation of God’s approval and love (ἀγάπη), 117 the means by which God educates and disciplines (παιδεύω) his children, 118 and the instrument by which God tests (πειράζω, δοκιμάζω) the hearts

Give Life: Biblical Perspectives on Death [Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010], 63–119). He concludes, “Common to all of these is that they are viewed as punishment and usually cause premature death” (119). 114 Jer 20:2, 7; 29:26; 37:15; 3 Kgdms 22:27; 2 Chr 16:10. 115 The author of Hebrews appears to allude to this tradition of Isaiah’s martyrdom (Heb 11:37; cf. Mart. Isa. 5.11–14). 116 E. g., Wis 3:1–5:23; 1 Thess 2:13–16; Heb 11:32–38. The author of 2 Maccabees charts a middle course. He maintains that the heroes of his narrative died on account of their unwillingness to transgress God’s laws (e. g., 6:18–7:2) but also interprets their suffering and deaths as punishment for their sin (7:18, 32). 117 E. g., Prov 3:11–12; Job 1:1–2:10; Jdt 8:27; Wis 4, 11–19; 1 Thess 1–3; Heb 12:5–11; 2 Bar. 78.3. 118 E. g., Deut 8:5; Pss 93:12; 117:18; Prov 3:12; 22:3; Isa 26:16; Jer 38:18; 2 Macc 6:12, 16; 7:33; 10:4; Wis 3:5; 11:9; 12:22; Heb 12:7–11; Rev 3:19.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

43

of his people. 119 Pseudo-Solomon and the author of Hebrews utilize all of these biblical perspectives but push the envelope further by arguing that God perfects (τελειόω) his children through suffering. 120 Of course, not all Hellenistic Jewish consolers rejected the biblical idea that their readers were justly suffering God’s wrath because of their own sins. The authors of 2 Maccabees, Baruch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch maintain the sin and punishment schema, 121 but they still integrate some of the positive interpretations of suffering used by their peers. 122 In sum, the split among Hellenistic Jewish consolers concerning whether their addressees’ intense suffering implies prior sin is a manifestation of preexisting diversity in their biblical heritage on the question of what suffering implies about one’s relationship with God. The traumas addressed by the consolers who adopted punitive interpretations of suffering were no less violent and horrific than those faced by their contemporaries who consoled using nonpunitive interpretations of suffering. The one camp followed the tradition of Deuteronomy, and the other built upon the foundations laid by Job, Ecclesiastes, and Second Isaiah, texts that challenged the act-consequence relationship between sin and punishment by claiming that one could suffer innocently, and furthermore, that righteous people might receive the due of the wicked and wicked people might enjoy the blessings that should belong to the righteous. 123 On the topic of death, the Hellenistic Jewish consolers of this study rejected the predominant biblical assumption that death was final and would result in neither postmortem reward nor punishment. Job supposed that, upon his death, he would descend to gloomy Sheol/Hades, the abode of all the dead (wicked and righteous), from where he would never return. 124 Job expected neither rewards nor punishment in Sheol but simply quiet and rest (3:13–26). The idea that a person cannot return from Sheol was shared by the Israelite priests and, 125 consequently, is assumed by most of the Hebrew Bible. 126 Nevertheless, the belief that a dead person could be resurrected existed simultane119 E. g., Deut 8:2, 5, 16; 32:10; Prov 17:3; 1 En. 108.9; Jdt 8:25–27; Sir 2:1, 5; Wis 3:5–6; 11:9–10; 4 Ezra 16.73; Rev 2:10; 3:10; T. Jos. 2.6–7. Cf. Jub. 17.17–18; 19.3–9. 120 E. g., Wis 4:13 (regarding the dead); Heb 2:10; 5:9; 12:23; 4 Macc 7:14 (regarding the dead). 121 E. g., 2 Macc 6:12–17; 7:32–38; 12:40–45; Bar 4:6–16; 4 Ezra 14.27–34; 2 Bar. 78.5; 79.1– 3. 122 E. g., the author of 2 Maccabees discerns God’s “mercy” and intent “to discipline” his people by their punishments (6:12–16; 7:33). 123 E. g., Job 1–2; Eccl 7:15; 8:14; 9:1–3; Isa 53:4–5, 8; 57:1. See chapter 3, § 3.8 Making Meaning of the Suffering of the Righteous. 124 Job 3:11–19; 7:9; 10:20–22; 14:12; 16:22. On the underworld as a place of no return in the Hebrew Bible, see Bar, I Deal Death and Give Life, 127–80. 125 On priestly opposition to various conceptions of the afterlife in ancient Israel, see Friedman and Overton, “Death and Afterlife,” 48–54. 126 Bar cites the following occurrences of this topos: Job 7:7–10; 10:21; 14:12; Ezek 26:20– 21; Prov 2:18–19 (I Deal Death and Give Life, 129–30). See also Ps 48:20; Isa 26:14.

44

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

ously in ancient Israel and is attested in the miracle stories of Elijah (1 Kgs 17:17–24) and of Elisha (2 Kgs 4:18–37; 13:20–21), and, among the prophetic literature, in Isa 26:19, Hos 6:2, and Dan 12:2–3. 127 This diversity of opinion among Jews concerning whether death is final continues into the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. The Sadducees carried on the beliefs of the Israelite priests and, in doing so, rejected the ideas of resurrection, postmortem judgment, and an afterlife. 128 Hellenistic Jews who were consoling bereaved communities, however, overwhelmingly built on the biblical hope reflected in Dan 12:2–3, that God’s justice extends beyond the grave, such that reward and punishment are postmortem realities. 129 For these authors, the fact that the righteous did not appear to receive proper recompense for their piety during their lifetimes necessitated consolatory arguments that would extend the timeline for God to reward them into postmortem existence. Some Hellenistic Jewish consolers argued along the lines of their Greek and Roman peers that the soul is immortal and thus survives the death of the body. 130 For these authors, the pious dead enjoy immediate life and happiness postmortem, in the company of God. 131 Other Hellenistic Jews stayed closer to the biblical precedents that God would eventually reward the righteous with new life after death through some form of resurrection. 132 They did not envision immediate felicity after

127 I am convinced by the arguments of Friedman and Overton that the scholarly tendency to chart the development of afterlife beliefs in ancient Israel along a linear progression does “not take sufficient account of the specific background and situation of each of the biblical authors” and requires scholars to “discount or downplay” each biblical reference to resurrection or resuscitation until Dan 12 (“Death and Afterlife,” 55). 128 E. g., Acts 23:8; Josephus, B. J. 2.165; A. J. 18.16. See “Josephus and Hippolytus on the Sadducees,” in Elledge, Resurrection of the Dead, 101–6. 129 E. g., Dan 12; 2 Macc 7, 12:45; 1 En. 102–104, 108; Wis 1–5; 1 Thess 4–5; 4 Ezra 7.75– 101; 2 Bar. 50.2–51.16; Josephus, B. J. 18.14; 2.153–158; 3.372–376. Cf. Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 371A–372A; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 120E–121E. 130 E. g., Plato, Phaedo, Apol. 40C; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 366A, 370B–372A; Cicero, Rep. 6.14– 29; Ps.-Phoc. 105–108, 115; T. Job 52; Wis 1:13–15; 2:21–5:23; Philo, Abr. 258; Her. 276; Sacr. 5–10; Ios. 264; Fug. 54–61; Det. 49; Post. 39; Gig. 14; Seneca, Marc. 23.1–2; 24.5–26.7; Polyb. 9.3, 7–9; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 611C–612A; Josephus, A. J. 18.18; 1.231; B. J. 2.153–158; 3.372– 376; 7.343–357; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 108A–D, 119F–121F; Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.16–23; Pseudo-Dionysus 6.283; T. Zeb. 10.1–2. For examples in the epitaphs, see Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin, 44–65. For more examples in Greek and Latin literature, see Moran, Consolations of Death, 57–59. 131 E. g., Wis 3:1–4; Philo, Abr. 258; Her. 276; Sacr. 5–10; Ios. 264; Fug. 54–61; Det. 49; Post. 39; Gig. 14; Josephus, B. J. 2.153–158. Cf. Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 366A, 370B–372A; Cicero, Rep. 6.14–29; Seneca, Ep. 93.10; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 115B, 121F; Lucian, Luct. 7, 16; Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.16–20; Pseudo-Dionysus 6.283. 132 E. g., Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2–3; 1 En. 92.2–3; 102.1–108; 2 Macc 6–7; Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385) frag. 2–3; 1 Thess 4:14–5:10; 4 Ezra 2.16, 23, 26, 31; 7.32; 10.16; 14.35; 2 Bar. 50.2–3; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.218–219; B. J. 18.14; Sib. Or. 4.179–192. See Elledge, Resurrection of the Dead.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

45

death but fixed their hope on God’s timely judgment of the living and the dead at the end of days, at which point the righteous dead would live again. Lastly, as a consequence of their commitment to some form of postmortem reward for the righteous, Hellenistic Jewish consolers rejected a series of biblical assumptions about postmortem existence, from the abode of the dead to their relationship with God. Some entirely rejected the biblical view that even the righteous dead went down to dark and silent Sheol, 133 while others maintained that the righteous would remain there only temporarily before their resurrection. 134 Hellenistic Jewish consolers rejected both Job’s belief that the dead have no awareness of their living descendants (14:21) and the wider view of Ecclesiastes that “the dead do not know anything” (οἱ νεκροὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν γινώσκοντες οὐδέν [9:5]). 135 Instead, they sided with biblical voices that maintained that the dead were cognizant of current events, knew the future, had the power to reveal the future to the living, and could even positively impact that future. 136 To make it feasible that God could bless the pious postmortem, they also rejected the idea that death severed the relationship between God and an individual. One strand of biblical thought, expressed repeatedly in the Psalms, held that God would not “remember” the dead (Ps 88:6), and the dead could neither praise nor give thanks to God. 137 Although Hellenistic Jewish consolers disagreed on the timeline by which God would recompense the faithful dead, they 133 On the darkness of Sheol, see Job 10:21–22; 38:17; Pss 88:6–12; 143:3. On the silence of Sheol, see Pss 94:17; 115:17; Job 3:13. See also, e. g., Philo, Abr. 258; Her. 276; Sacr. 5; Ios. 264; Fug. 54–61; Det. 49; Post. 39; Wis 3:1–3; 4:1–11; Heb 12:22–24. 134 E. g., 1 En. 102.4–103.4; 2 Macc 7; 1 Thess 4:13–17. 135 See also Eccl 9:10: “there is neither work, nor reasoning, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in Hades, where you are going” (οὐκ ἔστιν ποίημα καὶ λογισμὸς καὶ γνῶσις καὶ σοφία ἐν ᾅδῃ, ὅπου σὺ πορεύῃ ἐκεῖ). 136 The deceased prophet Samuel can reveal to Saul the outcome of his battle with the Philistines (1 Sam 28:19), and Isaiah attests to the fact that people did “seek out the dead concerning the living” (ἐκζητοῦσιν περὶ τῶν ζώντων τοὺς νεκρούς [8:19]). Though having died hundreds of years before, the matriarch Rachel is aware that her descendants have been exiled to Babylon and weeps inconsolably over their fate (Jer 38:15). Studies of Israelite burial practices and ancestor veneration in ancient Mesopotamia supplement the biblical evidence and show that nonpriestly Israelites widely believed that maintaining relationships with their deceased ancestors (through, e. g., visiting their tombs, giving them food and drinks, and conversing with them) was of paramount importance for determining the divine will and securing blessings for their households (Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992]; Herbert C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – a Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 [1973]: 1–54). In their discussion of afterlife beliefs among ancient Israelites, Friedman and Overton write, “specialists were not needed at all to propitiate the goodwill of the deceased and accrue blessings. The best way for an ancient Israelite to ensure health, prosperity, and fertility was to propitiate the family’s dead ancestors” (“Death and Afterlife,” 49). To protect their own interests, the priests sought to restrict the cult of the dead and issued prohibitions against consulting dead ancestors (e. g., Deut 18:10–11; Lev 19:31; 20:6; 20:27). 137 E. g., Pss 6:5; 30:9; 88:10–12; 115:17; Sir 17:27–28.

46

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

unanimously maintained that God would not forget them (e. g., 1 En. 103.1–4). In marked contrast to the idea that the dead could not communicate with God, some Hellenistic Jewish consolers imagined that the righteous dead, living in heaven, could even petition God on behalf of the living. The author of 2 Maccabees, for example, believed that the righteous dead could influence the state of affairs on earth by praying in heaven (15:12–16). Also writing in response to the Maccabean revolt, the author of Baruch includes in his penitential prayer, “Lord, Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of those who have died in Israel [ἄκουσον δὴ τῆς προσευχῆς τῶν τεθνηκότων Ἰσραὴλ]” (3:4). 138 Philo embraced the idea of the deceased “leaders of the nation [ἀρχηγέται τοῦ ἔθνους],” routinely supplicating “the Father” in heaven “on behalf of their [living] sons and daughters” (Praem. 166). 139 Hebrews depicts the once dead yet now exalted Jesus as the heavenly intercessor par excellence, who “always lives in order to make intercession [εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν]” for “those who approach God through him” (7:25). Josephus depicts Abraham as convinced that his son Isaac, after being sacrificed upon the altar, would become his “protector” (κηδεμών) and “caretaker in his old age” (γηρωκόμος) as a “soul” (ψυχή) with God in heaven (A. J. 1.231). 140 The view of 2 Maccabees and Philo that the deceased leaders of the Jewish nation could petition God on behalf of the living echoes that of Jeremiah, who depicts the Lord as moved to action to restore his exiled people to their land on account of the inconsolable cries of the long-deceased matriarch Rachel (38:15– 17). This strand of biblical thought represents Rachel as conscious of current events and capable of communicating with God on behalf of her descendants, despite the fact that she had died hundreds of years before. Hellenistic Jewish consolers found this strand of biblical thought particularly compelling, for it contained the seeds of an expansive perspective on God’s people and God’s sovereignty that was well suited for dealing with the communal trauma of multiple loved ones suffering violent and unjust deaths. In this perspective, the dead are not actually gone but still active and contributing members of God’s beloved people. Furthermore, God has not forgotten the dead (cf. Ps 88:6) but is as attentive to their cries and entreaties as he is to the prayers of his living children. When determining how their persecuted communities should react to be138 According to Carey A. Moore, the text τῶν τεθνηκότων appears to have been “a misreading of Heb. metê, ‘men,’ for mētê, ‘the dead’” (Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, AB 44 [New York: Doubleday, 1977], 290). The fact that this mistake could have been made is evidence that it was plausible for a Jew of the mid-second century BCE to believe that dead Jews prayed on behalf of the living. 139 Goldstein cites this text as evidence of the “belief ” detected in 2 Macc 15:12–16 “that the souls of dead saints may intercede for the living” (II Maccabees, 498). 140 This citation is also identified by Goldstein, II Maccabees, 498. For analysis, see C. D. Elledge, Life after Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus, WUNT 2/208 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 76–78.

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

47

reavement and loss, Hellenistic Jews found themselves at a crossroads between the dynamic and expressive manifestations of mourning in their biblical heritage, 141 on the one hand, and a general disdain for public and visible displays of grief in the Greco-Roman tradition of consolation, on the other. 142 Their Bible sanctioned a myriad of visible expressions of grief in mourning (πένθος): 143 lamentation (κοπετός), wailing (θρηνεῖν), weeping (κλαυθμός, κλαίειν), fasting, shaving one’s head or beard (ξύρησις), pulling out one’s hair, tearing one’s clothes, wearing sackcloth (σάκκος), going barefoot (ἀνυπόδετος), covering oneself with ashes (σποδός), and occasionally, even going naked (γυμνός). 144 At times, mourning behaviors such as these are even commanded by God. 145 Contemporary Stoicism, however, held that the hypothetical wise man would never grieve but would demonstrate freedom from emotion (ἀπάθεια) even in bereavement. 146 Rejecting the Stoic view, Epicureans maintained that it was better “to suffer somewhat” (πάσχειν τι), “to grieve” (λυπεῖσθαι), and “to be moved to tears” (λιπαίνειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ τήκεσθαι). 147 Greek and Roman practitioners of the art of consolation sympathized with the Epicurean view that the Stoic ideal of ἀπάθεια was neither desirable nor realistic in actual situations of bereavement. Even Stoics like Seneca advocated the AcademicPeripatetic position of moderation of the emotions (μετριοπάθεια). Within

141

For secondary literature, see chapter 1, n. 23. The association of mourning with femininity and weakness is widespread in Greek and Latin sources. E. g., Plato, Resp. 605D; Cicero, Fam. 4.5.6; 4.13.4; Seneca, Polyb. 6.1–2; Ep. 99.1– 2; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 113A. 143 λυπεῖν: e. g., 2 Sam 19:3; Tob 3:1; 10:3; Isa 15:2. πενθεῖν: e. g., Gen 23:2; 37:34; 50:10; 2 Sam 19:1–2; 2 Chr 35:24; 1 Esd 1:30; 8:69; 2 Esd 11:4; Joel 1:9–10. Cf. πένθος: e. g., Deut 34:8; 2 Sam 19:3; Job 2:12; Mic 1:8; Jer 6:26; Esth 4:3. 144 σποδός: e. g., Jer 6:26; Esth 4:1–3; Jdt 4:11; Dan 9:3. ἀνυπόδετος: e. g., 2 Sam 15:30; Mic 1:8. Cf. Ezek 24:17, in which wearing shoes is part of the injunction that Ezekiel not mourn his deceased wife. σάκκος: e. g., Gen 37:34; Joel 1:8; Isa 15:3; 22:12; Jer 6:26; Esth 4:1–3; Jdt 4:11–12; Lam 2:10; Ezek 7:18; Dan 9:3. Tearing clothes: e. g., Gen 37:34; 2 Sam 1:11; 1 Esd 8:68; Job 1:20; 2:11; Jer 48:5; Esth 4:1. Pulling out hair: e. g., 1 Esd 8:68. ξύρησις: e. g., Deut 21:12; Job 1:20; Mic 1:16; Isa 15:2; 22:12; Jer 48:5; Ezek 7:18. Fasting: e. g., 2 Sam 1:12; 2 Esd 11:4; Jdt 4:9; Tob 10:7; Joel 1:14; 2:12. κλαυθμός, κλαίειν: e. g., Deut 21:13; 34:8; Judg 21:2; 2 Sam 1:12; 3:32; 19:1–2; 2 Esd 11:4; Isa 15:3; 22:12; Joel 1:5; 2:12; Tob 3:1; 10:3, 7; Jer 9:17; Lam 1:1–2. θρηνεῖν: e. g., 2 Sam 1:17; 3:33; Judg 11:40; 2 Chr 35:25; 1 Esd 1:30; Tob 10:3, 7; Joel 1:5, 8, 11, 13; Mic 1:8; 2:4; Jer 9:16–17, 19; Lam 1:1; Ezek 32:16. κοπετός: e. g., Gen 23:2; 50:10; 2 Sam 1:12; Isa 15:3; 22:12; Jer 6:26; 48:5; Joel 1:13; 2:12; Mic 1:8; Zech 12:10; Esth 4:3. γυμνός: e. g., Isa 32:11–12; Mic 1:8. Cf. Isa 20:2; Ezek 24:17–23. 145 E. g., Isa 22:12–13; Joel 1:8–14. 146 Seneca refutes this position (Polyb. 18.5–6). See also Ep. 99.26. 147 Plutarch, Suav. viv. 1101A. 142

48

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

this framework, to ask bereaved persons to never grieve would be to ask them to do something “unnatural”: “Nature requires from us some sorrow … never will I demand of you that you should not grieve at all” (Polyb. 18.5). According to Pseudo-Plutarch, the death of a son incites some λύπη that is “natural” (φυσική) and “not under our own power” (οὐκ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν) (Cons. Apoll. 102C). In effect, Seneca argues against the hardline Stoics in his claim that the absence of grief at the death of a friend or family member is not “virtuous” but “hardhearted” (Ep. 99.15). Hellenistic Jewish consolers joined Seneca and Pseudo-Plutarch in rejecting the Stoic ideal of freedom from emotion (ἀπάθεια) in lieu of the AcademicPeripatetic position of moderation of the emotions (μετριοπάθεια). 148 The cognitive dissonance between the legitimate expressions of grief in their sacred Scriptures and the Stoic ideal of ἀπάθεια was too great, even for Jews like Philo who embraced the Stoic theory of the passions. 149 As Hellenistic Jews advocated more moderate approaches to grieving than those enshrined in their Bible, they often prohibited or limited the expression of biblical mourning practices. Philo, for example, rejected lamentations (ὀλοφύρσεις), chanting dirges (θρῆνοι), and beating the breasts (κοπετός) as expressions of mourning that were “alien to wisdom” (ἀλλότριον σοφίας) (Abr. 258–260). Pseudo-Aristeas held that, according to reason (λόγος), one ought not to grieve (λυπεῖσθαι) over people who have died because they have been set free from evils (Let. Aris. 268). Sirach permitted weeping (κλαυθμός), dirges (θρῆνοι), and beating the breasts (κοπετός), but only for a day or two (38:16–17). Paul wrote to his Thessalonian converts that they ought not “to grieve” (λυπεῖσθαι [4:13]) concerning their dead in Christ. Ultimately, Aristotle’s doctrine of μετριοπάθεια appealed to Hellenistic Jews because it allowed them to “have it both ways.” Their Bible was correct that mourning the dead was appropriate, and contemporary philosophers were likewise correct that grief is a destructive emotion and its concrete manifestations should be abandoned as soon as possible. Consider how Philo praises μετριοπάθεια as the appropriate response to bereavement when discussing Abraham’s response to his wife’s death: “Reason” (λογισμός) counseled Abraham “that he should neither be moved more than what is moderate [τὸ μέτρον] as at a totally new and unheard of calamity, nor assume an attitude of freedom from emotion [ἀπάθεια] as though nothing painful had happened, but choosing the mean [τὸ μέσον] rather than the extremes, he should try to moderate his emo148 For a detailed discussion of these positions in relation to consolation literature, see Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 81–123; LaBarge, “How (and Maybe Why) to Grieve,” 325–36. 149 Margaret Graver, “Philo of Alexandria and the Origins of the Stoic Προπάθειαι,” Phron 44 (1999): 300–325. Philo does not always advocate for μετριοπάθεια over ἀπάθεια as he does in the case of grief. E. g., he argues that ἀπάθεια is preferable to μετριοπάθεια in his discussion of anger (θυμός) (Leg. 3.129–132).

1.4 Navigating between and within Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

49

tions [μετριοπαθεῖν]” (Abr. 257). Following this advice, noble Abraham wept for a little while over his wife’s body (ἐπιδακρύω) but never wailed or beat his breast (οὐ θρῆνον, οὐ κοπετόν [Abr. 258–260; QG 4.73]). Like Philo, PseudoPhocylides espouses the position of μετριοπάθεια as one of his many “counsels of God [θεοῦ βουλεύματα]” (Ps.-Phoc. 1). 150 Regarding bereavement, he writes, “Do not weaken your dear heart by sitting at the fire in vain. But be [moderate] 151 in your weeping/lamentations; for moderation is best” (Ps.-Phoc. 97–98). 152

1.4.4 Employing Multiple Paradigms: Afterlife Beliefs As Hellenistic Jewish consolers considered the array of afterlife beliefs within Greco-Roman consolation and biblical consolation, they judged some beliefs from Greco-Roman philosophy compatible with their view of God, appropriated and transformed others by juxtaposing them with biblical topoi, and rejected certain afterlife beliefs from Greco-Roman consolation and their Bible as incompatible with their view of God’s justice. Hellenistic Jews were presented with disparate views on life after death promoted by Epicureans, Platonists, and Stoics. Epicureans rejected the idea of an afterlife entirely by arguing that a person’s soul cannot exist independent of the body, with the result that both body and soul are totally dissolved at death. On their logic, a deceased person no longer exists, which means one can neither suffer postmortem nor feel anything at all. 153 The Epicurean belief that people no longer exist postmortem was supposed to be comforting in that it would banish fears of punishments in Hades. 154 Some people, however, found the very idea of no longer existing after death deeply unsettling. For them, Plato’s reflections on the immortality of the soul may have offered greater consolation. According to Plato, after the soul has separated from the body at death, it is judged on the basis of its deeds in the body. 155 In Plato’s most elaborate post150 E. g., πάντων μέτρον ἄριστον, ὑπερβασίαι δ’ ἀλεγειναί (Ps.-Phoc. 36); Ἔστω κοινὰ πάθη μηδὲν μέγα μηδ’ ὑπέροπλον (Ps.-Phoc. 59); πάντων μέτρον ἄριστον, ὑπερβασίαι δ’ ἀλεγειναί (Ps.-Phoc. 69b). 151 The text is corrupt here, but the following clause (τὸ γὰρ μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄριστον) suggests this sense to the prior clause, τεῦχε γόοισι. 152 Ps.-Phoc. 97–98: Μὴ δὲ μάτην ἐπὶ πῦρ καθίσας μινύθῃς φίλον ἦτορ. τεῦχε γόοισι τὸ γὰρ μέτρον ἐστὶν ἄριστον. Given that the text is addressed to Jews, it is more likely that this is the fire of the hearth at one’s home, not the funeral pyre. See Walter T. Wilson, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 120. 153 These views are expounded in most detail by Lucretius in book 3 of On the Nature of Things. See also Diogenes Laertius 10.125: “Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not … the dead no longer exist.” Cf. 10.139. PseudoSolomon stereotypes the Epicurean view of death in Wis 2:2–3. 154 E. g., Lucretius 3.978–1024. 155 E. g., Plato, Phaed. 108B–C, 113D–114C; Gorg. 523–527; Resp. 614B–621D.

50

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

mortem judgment scene, the souls of just and holy people (δίκαιοι καὶ ὅσιοι) are rewarded by ascending into heaven, where they have pleasant experiences and beautiful surroundings (Resp. 614C–615C). The souls of those who had been unjust (ἄδικοι) in their bodies are taken under the earth, where they suffer punishments (Resp. 614C–616B). For most souls, these punishments are temporary and remedial, but for the worst offenders, they are unending. 156 Plato’s ideas about how souls eventually enter new bodies and are reborn into new lives on earth do not appear in extant consolatory writings. 157 In light of their purpose to alleviate grief, these texts focus on the pleasures that await just souls after death. 158 In many respects, the Stoic position on the afterlife offered a middle course between the Epicurean denial of postmortem existence and the Platonic belief in the immortality of the soul. Stoics agreed with Epicureans that there was nothing to fear after death; people would not suffer pain and torment in Hades (e. g., Seneca, Ep. 54.4–5). At the same time, the Stoics agreed with Platonists that the souls of human beings could survive death and ascend to heaven, where they would live a happy existence for some time. 159 What they rejected from Plato was the possibility of postmortem judgment and punishment, as well as the idea that souls would live forever in a cycle by which they would be reincarnated into new bodies after death. For Stoics who followed Cleanthes, all souls would live until the next conflagration (ἐκπύρωσις). For Stoics who followed Chrysippus, only the souls of the wise would survive until the fiery rebirth of the world. 160 Although Hellenistic Jewish consolers did not all agree about the afterlife, their extant writings do exhibit certain tendencies concerning how they negotiated the different conceptions of the afterlife advocated by the major philosophical schools. First, they judged the Platonic view that all people would be rewarded or punished postmortem on the basis of how they had lived to be compatible with the justice and power of the God of Israel. Some Hellenistic Jewish consolers appropriated Plato’s notion of the immortality of the soul but transformed it by bringing it within the bounds of the biblical creation story 156

Plato, Resp. 615A–616B; Phaed. 113D–114B. Plato, Resp. 617D–621B. 158 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 366A, 370B–372A; Cicero, Rep. 6.14–29; Seneca, Marc. 23.1–2; 24.5–26.7; Polyb. 9.3, 7–9; Wis 3:1–4; Philo, Abr. 258; Her. 276; Sacr. 5–10; Ios. 264; Fug. 54–61; Det. 49; Post. 39; Gig. 14; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 115B, 121F; 4 Ezra 7.88–99; 2 Bar. 30.1–5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 611C–612A; Josephus, A. J. 1.231; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 108A–D, 119F–121F; Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.16–23; Pseudo-Dionysus 6.283; T. Zeb. 10.1–2. Cf. 2 Macc 15:12–16. For examples in the epitaphs, see Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin, 44–65. For more examples in Greek and Latin literature, see Moran, Consolations of Death, 57–59. 159 For a detailed exposition of this view in consolation literature, see Seneca, Marc. 24–26. 160 Diogenes Laertius 7.156–157. 157

1.5 Hellenistic Jews at the Intersection of Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

51

and God’s covenant promises to reward obedience with long life and punish disobedience with death. In tension with Plato’s idea of preexistent souls, the God of Israel is “the creator” (ὁ πλάσσων) who “breathes” (ἐμπνέω) a soul (ψυχή) into a person’s body (Wis 15:11). 161 Instead of the postmortem rewards of piety and punishments for wickedness lasting for only a time before souls are reincarnated, the immortal souls referred to in Hellenistic Jewish consolation live forever in fellowship with God (e. g., Wis 5:15–16). The punishment of death or postmortem suffering is likewise permanent in Hellenistic Jewish consolation (e. g., Wis 4:16–5:14). In short, Hellenistic Jewish consolers adapted the Platonic concept of the immortality of the soul to an eternal state of life and death postmortem in order to cohere with the two-ways topos of covenant theology. Third, concerns with theodicy motivated Hellenistic Jewish consolers to reject any and all beliefs from Greco-Roman and biblical sources that either denied an afterlife or maintained that all people were treated the same postmortem. This meant that the Epicurean view was rejected entirely, the Stoic idea that the souls of all people could live in heaven had to be wrong, and the ancient biblical conception that both good and bad people would find rest in Sheol could not be the whole picture. More than any other factor, Hellenistic Jews formulated their ideas on the afterlife on the basis of what they believed was necessary for God to keep his promises to protect and to bless his faithful people while punishing wrongdoing.

1.5 Hellenistic Jews at the Intersection of Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation At the most fundamental level, this monograph seeks to prove that the authors of 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews employed ancient consolatory rhetoric to a much greater extent than is recognized in current scholarship. At the next level of analysis, this project articulates the characteristic ways by which Hellenistic Jewish authors navigated the tensions between their biblical heritage and Greco-Roman consolation in their processes of invention. I show that Hellenistic Jews usually adopted the compatibility paradigm when considering their role as consolers and exhorting the distressed to behave admirably in their hardships (παραίνεσις). The ways in which Hellenistic Jewish authors evaluated the expressions of sympathy and consolatory arguments in Greco-Roman consolation cannot be generalized. In the case studies that follow, I argue that they accepted, transformed, and rejected various

161 Cf. Gen 2:7: καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς· καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.

52

Chapter 1: Consolatory Rhetoric in Hellenistic Judaism

forms of συμπάθεια and παραμυθία on a case-by-case basis, as dictated by their own proclivities and their estimation of the needs of their intended readers within their particular historical circumstances.

Part 1:

Consolatory Rhetoric in Response to State-Sponsored Religious Persecution

Chapter 2:

Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees Now I urge those reading this book not to be depressed because of these calamities, but to consider that these punishments were not for the destruction, but for the discipline of our nation.… He [God] never withdraws his mercy from us; and though he disciplines us with misfortune, he does not abandon his own people. 1

The violent suppression of Judaism enacted by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168–167 BCE constitutes “one of the most traumatic events in Jewish history.” 2 In contrast to the policy of religious toleration adopted by his Seleucid predecessors and the Ptolemies, Antiochus IV prohibited Jewish religious practice altogether. 3 He revoked the right of Jews to follow their ancestral laws (2 Macc 6:1; cf. 7:2, 37; 1 Macc 1:42), and in doing so, prohibited circumcision (2 Macc 6:10; 1 Macc 1:48, 60–61), sabbath observance (2 Macc 6:6, 11), celebrating the Jewish festivals (2 Macc 6:6), and traditional forms of temple worship through sacrifice and drink offerings (1 Macc 1:45). Antiochus rededicated the Jerusalem temple as the temple of Olympian Zeus (2 Macc 6:1–5). Copies of the law were burned, and possession of and adherence to the Jewish law were deemed crimes punishable by death (1 Macc 1:56–57). According to the author of 2 Maccabees, to even confess to be Jewish was a punishable offense (2 Macc 6:6). Jews were compelled to celebrate the king’s birthday on a monthly 1

2 Macc 6:12, 16. Carol A. Newsom with Brennan W. Breed, Daniel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 23. 3 For historical reconstructions of Antiochus’s persecution in the context of Seleucid rule in Judea, see, e. g., Anathea E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 49–216; Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Applebaum (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959; repr. with a preface by John J. Collins, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 117–234; Erich S. Gruen, “Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews,” in Hellenistic History and Culture, ed. Peter Green, HCS 9 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 238–74; Daniel J. Harrington, The Maccabean Revolt: Anatomy of a Biblical Revolution, OTS 1 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988); Elias J. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, trans. Horst Moehring (Leiden: Brill, 1979); trans. of Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung des makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken, 1937). 2

56

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

basis and participate in a festival honoring the god Dionysus (2 Macc 6:7–9). Jews who refused to eat pork as commanded by Antiochus were publicly tortured and executed (2 Macc 6:18–7:42). Even before these specific prohibitions against Jewish practice, Antiochus had ordered massacres and abductions of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, creating a climate of terror amid mass bereavement. 4 The random and indiscriminate nature of these violent attacks against the populace of Jerusalem rendered safety beyond the grasp of even those who would comply with Antiochus’s suppression of Judaism. What motivated these acts of violence against Jews and drastic prohibitions against Judaism by the Seleucid monarch remains an unresolved mystery, concerning which scholars have offered numerous hypotheses. 5 The question of why God had apparently allowed such atrocities to occur pained ancient Jewish authors living in close proximity to the horrors and spawned a series of texts that attempted to answer the theological riddle, including Dan 7–12, the Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90), the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93.1–10 + 91.11–17), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. 6 The author of 2 Maccabees anticipates that rehearsing the massacres of the populace in Jerusalem, the desecration of the temple, and Antiochus’s harsh measures to prohibit the practice of Judaism would cause his readers “to be depressed” (συστέλλεσθαι [6:12]). 7 The author’s exhortation for his readers “not to be depressed because of these calamities” (μὴ συστέλλεσθαι διὰ τὰς 4 When Antiochus first invaded Jerusalem in response to Jason’s revolt (168 BCE), his troops are said to have massacred forty thousand inhabitants of Jerusalem (men, women, children) and captured another forty thousand to be sold into slavery (2 Macc 5:11–14). In 167 BCE, Antiochus commanded a second round of public massacres and enslavement in Jerusalem, this time staged as an assault on spectators of a military parade on the Sabbath (2 Macc 5:24–26). 5 Gruen helpfully summarizes and evaluates the major different proposals to answer the question, “why did Antiochus IV break sharply with the long-standing policy of both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids in Palestine and engage in a brutal repression with such fateful consequences for Jewish history and for Hellenism in the East?” (“Hellenism and Persecution,” 239). Gruen argues Antiochus’s actions were motivated by a “concern for image and reputation” following his forced withdrawal from Egypt, such that “Judaea would serve as a conspicuous showcase for Seleucid power” (“Hellenism and Persecution,” 263). Portier-Young concurs with Gruen that magnifying Antiochus’s power was certainly important but argues that “the primary concern” was “the continual re-creation of empire,” that is, “Antiochus aimed through his edict and persecution at the unmaking and making of world and identity for the inhabitants of Judea in order to assert the empire as sole power, reality, and ground of being” (Apocalypse against Empire, 178). 6 Portier-Young analyzes Daniel, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Book of Dreams as “historical apocalypses,” which, alongside 1 and 2 Maccabees, “showcase a variety of responses to this [Antiochus’s] program of terror and conquest” (Apocalypse against Empire, 174). Her study is essential reading for investigations of how Jews made sense of the atrocities committed under Antiochus IV and resisted imperial domination. 7 Lust s. v. συστέλλω, “P: to be discouraged 2 Mc 6, 12”; Muraoka s. v. συστέλλω, “2.b. to depress psychologically: 2M 6.12.”

2.1 Circumstances of Composition

57

συμφοράς) constitutes the only instance in the entire narrative when he directly addresses his readers (6:12). This is highly significant because it shows that the emotional well-being of his readers was of paramount importance to the author of 2 Maccabees. Broadly, his narrative is a tale of overcoming national trauma by the help of God. He offers positive interpretations of the Jews’ suffering and argues that the God of Israel can still be trusted after so many Jews were indiscriminately slaughtered in the city their God was supposed to protect. 8 Though years had passed since the reconquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV and the desecration of the temple, knowledge of the atrocities committed in Jerusalem at that time still posed a serious challenge to the belief that the God of Israel was sovereign, merciful, and just. Awareness of what the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and the temple had suffered without consolation about these events could breed more than despair – it could cause some Jews to conclude that obeying God’s laws was a pointless exercise. Women who circumcised their sons and Jews who obeyed the food laws had been publicly executed (6:7–10; 6:18–7:42). Whatever happened to the blessings and long life that should have accompanied obedience to God’s covenant (e. g., Deut 28:1–14; 30:8–16)? The author’s efforts to comfort his readers about the recent history of Jerusalem are a means to his end of persuading readers that adhering to the laws ordained by their God is in their best interest as individuals and as a nation.

2.1 Circumstances of Composition The historical circumstances in which 2 Maccabees was composed are uncertain, prompting debates about its author(s), intended audience, date of composition, and location of composition. The question of authorship is complicated by the fact that the text consists of two prefixed letters in 1:1–9 and 1:10–2:18, followed by an epitome of the five-volume history of Jason of Cyrene in 2:19– 15:39. The first letter is purportedly from the Jews in Jerusalem to the Jews in Egypt (1:1). The second letter presents itself as from the people of Jerusalem and Judea, the senate, and Judas and is addressed to Aristobulus and the Jews of Egypt (1:10). The author of the epitome is anonymous and gives no unequivocal indication of his intended audience. The precise relationship between the letters of 1:1–2:18 and the epitome is contested, yet most scholars maintain that the author of the epitome was not responsible for both letters because the story of Antiochus’s death in the second letter contradicts that in the epitome. 9 Many scholars have adopted the theory of Elias J. Bickerman that the epitome was 8

On God protecting Jerusalem, see 2 Macc 3:37–39. Jonathan R. Trotter, “2 Maccabees 10:1–8: Who Wrote It and Where Does It Belong?,” JBL 136 (2017): 117–30, esp. 117–18. 9

58

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

composed shortly before or during 124 BCE in order to accompany the first letter’s invitation for the Jews of Egypt to join the Jews of Judea in celebrating Hanukkah. 10 On this reconstruction of events, the epitome was written approximately forty years after the events it describes and was intended for the same addressees as the prefixed letters, “the Jews in Egypt” (1:1, 10). 11 In my view, it is more probable that the epitome was written independently from the prefixed letters and was only later preserved with them. 12 The epitome never refers to the prefixed letters and even contradicts them. 13 The letters never refer to the epitome. The absence of a clear link between the letters and the epitome means that we cannot know for sure whether the original intended audience of the epitome was Judeans or diaspora Jews (the addressees of the letters). Interpreting the epitome separately from the letters also opens up more possibilities for its date of composition. 14 The events described in the narrative took place between 176 BCE (the last year of Seleucus IV) and 161 BCE (the death of Nicanor during the battle of Adasa), sometime after which Jason of Cyrene composed his history. 15 Unfortunately, we do not know when Jason composed his history, nor when the epitomist abbreviated it. Nevertheless, it is clear that the author’s project was not to comfort immediate survivors of persecution, but to retrospectively make sense of past trauma for his Jewish contemporaries who were years (perhaps even decades) removed from the events he describes. Whether 10 Elias J. Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr. (II Macc 1.1–9),” ZNW 32 (1933): 233–54. For supporters of Bickerman’s theory, see, e. g., Hermann Lichtenberger, “History-Writing and History-Telling in First and Second Maccabees,” in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium (Durham, September, 2004), ed. Stephen C. Barton, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Benjamin G. Wold, WUNT 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 95–110, esp. 104; Jan Willem van Henten, “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the Talmud, ed. Menachem Mor et al. (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003), 63–86, esp. 85; Christian Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, JSHRZ 1 (Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1976), 174–75; Arnaldo Momigliano, “The Second Book of Maccabees,” CP 70 (1975): 81–88, esp. 83; FelixMarie Abel, Les livres des Maccabées, EtB (Paris: Gabalda, 1949), xlii–xliii. Daniel R. Schwartz follows this basic hypothesis but dates the first letter and “final form” of the book to the 140s BCE on the basis of the book’s view of Onias (2 Maccabees, CEJL [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008], 11–15). 11 John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 78–83. 12 I follow Robert Doran on this point, who concludes his analysis of the prefixed letters as follows: “While the epitome, therefore, must be considered an independent work and studied as such, one will also have to agree that the final arrangement of the work with the two letters prefixed is no coincidence” (Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, CBQMS 12 [Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981], 12). 13 On these contradictions, see Goldstein, II Maccabees, 6, 25–26. 14 For a summation of theories that date the epitome apart from the first letter, see Doran, 2 Maccabees, 14–15. 15 Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 170, 376.

2.2 Previous Scholarship

59

the author of the epitome wrote from the diaspora or out of Judea is debated. 16 For the purposes of analyzing the author’s use of ancient consolatory rhetoric, the question of his geographical origin may remain open. The present study focuses on the epitome, a unified composition comprised of a preface (2:19– 32), history (3:1–15:37), and epilogue (15:38–39). 17 I refer to the author of the epitome as the author of 2 Maccabees. 18

2.2 Previous Scholarship Past scholarship on 2 Maccabees engages with the topic of consolation incidentally in the process of analyzing how the author utilized the Septuagint. More than any other commentator on 2 Maccabees, Goldstein has sought to reconstruct how “the pious” living in the aftermath of Antiochus’s persecution “searched the Torah and the Prophets for explanation, instruction, and consolation and taught their discoveries to their fellows.” 19 Goldstein draws attention to the importance of Isaiah in explaining why the Jews had suffered and identifies the following as “important consolations found by the pious searchers of scriptures”: (1) “promises of vengeance or vindication,” (2) “the hope that the torment will soon end,” and (3) “the hope that they can themselves do something to hasten the end.” 20 Goldstein’s work on this topic is seminal but limited to 2 Macc 7 and how the author drew inspiration from the Septuagint to provide consolation to his addressees. Scholarship published since Goldstein’s commentary that engages with the topic of consolation in 2 Maccabees has similarly focused on these two loci. Arie van der Kooij argues that “in 2 Macc 7, the Song of Moses serves as a source of hope and comfort for the faithful 16 From the diaspora: e. g., Doran, 2 Maccabees, 15–17; Simkovich, “Greek Influence on the Composition,” 306–10; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 45–56; John R. Bartlett, First and Second Books of the Maccabees, CBC 52–53 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 218–19; Solomon Zeitlin, The Second Book of Maccabees, trans. Sidney Tedesche, JAL (New York: Harper, 1954), 19–21. Out of Judea: e. g., Lichtenberger, “History-Writing and History-Telling,” 105; Jan Willem van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees, JSJSup 57 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 50; van Henten, “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” 83; Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), 79; Momigliano, “Second Book of Maccabees,” 83. 17 I agree with van Henten’s assessment, “2 Maccabees 2:19–15:39 is to be considered a unified work and the epitomist its ‘author’” (“2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” 66). 18 This convention is widespread (e. g., Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 37; Abel, Les livres des Maccabées, xxxiv). Others prefer to call this writer the “epitomist” (e. g., Momigliano, “Second Book of Maccabees”) or “abridger” (e. g., Goldstein, II Maccabees) to distinguish him from the authors of the prefixed letters. 19 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 292. 20 Goldstein draws special attention to Isa 10:5–15; 14:4–25; 40:2; 52:13–53:12 (II Maccabees, 293–94).

60

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

Jews.” 21 Doran has proposed that the belief that God looks down from heaven functions as a source of consolation for the seven brothers and their mother in 7:6. 22 Van der Kooij has also drawn attention to 2 Macc 15:9, where “we are told that Judas, just before the battle with Nikanor, exhorted his company not to fear the powerful enemy, by comforting [παραμυθούμενος] them out of the Law and the Prophets.” 23 The present chapter builds upon the groundwork laid by these scholars by further interrogating consolatory rhetoric in 2 Macc 7 and the author’s use of biblical consolatory arguments while also expanding the inquiry to examine consolatory rhetoric in the rest of 2 Maccabees and the author’s engagement with Greco-Roman traditions of consolation. I argue that the author of 2 Maccabees integrated numerous consolatory arguments into his history in support of his larger aim to encourage his readers to abide by their ancestral laws at any cost. I show that his consolatory arguments are heavily influenced by Deuteronomic theology but that he rejects aspects of Deuteronomic theology that he considered counterproductive to his consolatory aim. To prove these theses, I first discuss the genre and purpose of 2 Maccabees. Second, I explicate how the author utilizes and reshapes the following consolatory arguments for his purposes: suffering is punishment for sin, God disciplines his people with calamities for their own good, God does not abandon his people, God watches everything from heaven, God is your help and ally, God punishes the wicked, God rewards the righteous with life after death, and God’s wrath is short-lived, but God’s mercy toward his people is constant. Next, I explicate the intended function of the consolatory arguments in 2 Maccabees. Lastly, I conclude the chapter by discussing the implications of the consolatory rhetoric in 2 Maccabees.

2.3 Genre and Purpose of 2 Maccabees The author of 2 Macc 2:19–15:39 classifies his “epitome” (ἐπιτομή [2:26, 28]) of Jason of Cyrene’s five-volume work as a “history” (ἱστορία [2:32]). On the most general level, 2 Maccabees is a product of both Hellenistic and biblical historiography. From the perspective of Hellenistic historiography, critical scholarship of the twentieth century classified the epitome of 2 Maccabees as “rhetorical,” “pathetic,” or “tragic” historiography that seeks to arouse the emotions of the reader and often features gruesome depictions of suffering and miraculous divine interventions. 24 The arguments of Frank W. Walbank and 21

Van der Kooij, “Use of the Greek Bible in II Maccabees,” 132. Doran, 2 Maccabees, 170–71. 23 Van der Kooij, “Use of the Greek Bible in II Maccabees,” 127. 24 The scholarship uses these terms interchangeably and in combination. Benedictus Niese was the first to argue that the epitome is representative of “rhetorical historiography” (“Kritik 22

2.3 Genre and Purpose of 2 Maccabees

61

Robert Doran have since swayed the pendulum toward the thesis that “tragic history” did not exist as a particular genre of Hellenistic historiography but that historians across the board could write tragically when it fit their purposes. 25 Jeff Jay’s proposal that the history of 2 Maccabees is tragic in mode (not genre) accounts for the numerous affinities between 2 Maccabees and Greek tragedy while critiquing the thesis “that tragic history constituted a distinctive school of history-writing.” 26 If we are to further classify the history of 2 Maccabees within Hellenistic historiography, its “subgenre” is “a local history, not of events of a mythic time, but of recent events concerning a particular city.” 27 From the perspective of biblical historiography, 2 Maccabees writes in the heritage of the Deuteronomic school, whose narratives feature a common pattern of sin, punishment, repentance, and salvation. 28 According to Schwartz, “the main elements of biblical historiography” include “that God rules history and that He is the Jews’ covenantal partner,” themes strongly conveyed in 2 Maccabees. 29 Despite their differences, both Hellenistic and biblical historiography shared a didactic aim. Thucydides and Polybius “wanted history to serve a political and moral purpose, to instruct readers how to behave.” 30 Likewise, the goal of biblical historiography is “not only to describe and explain the past but primarily to elucidate it by way of guidance for the future.” 31 As an heir to both Hellenistic and biblical traditions of writing history, one would expect the author of 2 Maccabees to craft his composition with an aim to the moral and religious improvement of his intended readers. What was he hoping to teach them? How did he attempt to guide their behavior? Scholars have identified numerous overarching didactic purposes within 2 Maccabees. Doran argues that the author had “a twofold aim”: “he seeks to engage his audience in maintaining their ancestral traditions, and, at the same time, he insists that Jews can live in peace with local Gentile communities and der Beiden Makkabäerbücher Nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der Makkabäischen Erhebung,” Hermes 35 [1900]: 268–307, esp. 301). Proponents of this rhetorical/pathetic/tragic subgenre of Greek historiography include, e. g., Bartlett, First and Second, 216; Abel, Les livres des Maccabées, XXXVI; Bickerman, Gott, 147; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 387; Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, 189. I know of only one monograph in the twenty-first century that classifies the history of 2 Maccabees as “tragic historiography”: Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 176. 25 Frank W. Walbank, “History and Tragedy,” Historia 9 (1960): 216–34. Doran, Temple Propaganda, 84–104; Doran, “Second Maccabees and ‘Tragic History,’” HUCA 50 (1979): 107–14. 26 Jeff Jay, The Tragic in Mark: A Literary-Historical Interpretation, HUT 66 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 118–33, 25–78. 27 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 6. 28 E. g., Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 21–22, 66; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 93–94; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, 43–44. 29 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 65. 30 Doran, Temple Propaganda, 97. 31 Yairah Amit, “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature,” VT 37 (1987): 385–400, esp. 385.

62

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

with an imperial power.” 32 Bar-Kochva avers that “the didactic-religious purpose is to show that God will not allow his people to fall even if He is angry at them and punishes them.” 33 Van Henten writes more generally of the author’s purpose, “He seems to have aimed for a history which entertained and uplifted the reader by means of anecdotal and didactic historiography.” 34 For Momigliano, who interprets the epitome in connection with the prefixed letters, 2 Maccabees is a “festal book” whose purpose is to explain the celebration of Hanukkah: “In festal books history was written in order to explain, justify, and celebrate a religious ceremony or festival.” 35 Schwartz agrees that the final form of 2 Maccabees was intended “to encourage readers to celebrate the holiday of Hanukkah.” 36 The purposes identified by Doran, Bar-Kochva, and van Henten each point to different aspects of the author’s task of making sense of past trauma suffered by the Jewish people in order to empower them to “maintain their ancestral traditions” and “live in peace with local Gentile communities and with an imperial power” in their present. In the author’s efforts to achieve these practical purposes identified by Doran, he makes the consolatory argument recognized by Bar-Kochva, among others. Van Henten is correct that the cumulative desired effect is to “uplift” the reader. I am not convinced by the proposal of Momigliano that the history was written in order to explain Hanukkah (referenced in 1:7–9 and 2:16–18), because the evidence that the epitome was written independently from the prefixed letters is, in my view, overwhelming. For this reason, it seems most prudent to discern the purpose of the epitome on its own terms and bracket the issue of how it later came to be preserved with the letters of 1:1–2:18. In the preface to his work (2:19–32), the author states his purpose to condense the voluminous history of Jason of Cyrene with an eye to three priorities: (1) “ψυχαγωγία for those who wish to read,” (2) “ease [εὐκοπία] for those with a disposition to memorize,” and (3) “benefit [ὠφέλεια] for all readers” (2:25). The meaning and significance of the last two priorities are undisputed. Ancient historians agreed that history should be useful/beneficial to readers, and ease of memorization was also considered important by the historian Diodorus Siculus (16.1.1). 37 The intended meaning of the first priority, ψυχαγωγία, is unclear. Is 32

Doran, 2 Maccabees, 14. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 171. 34 van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 25. 35 Momigliano, “Second Book of Maccabees,” 87. On the connection between the history and the prefixed festal letters, see also van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 46–50. 36 Nevertheless, Schwartz argues that “the book was meant, originally, to foster celebration of Nicanor’s Day” before the prefixed letters were added (2 Maccabees, 8–10). 37 Doran comments, “That history should be useful/profitable was a rhetorical commonplace” and offers Thucydides 1.22.4 as an example (2 Maccabees, 70). See also Polybius 9.2.6, cited by van Henten (Maccabean Martyrs, 22). In his essay “How to Write History,” Lucian chimes in, “history has one task and one goal, what is useful” (ἓν γὰρ ἔργον ἱστορίας καὶ τέλος, τὸ χρήσιμον [9]). For the passage from Diodorus Siculus, see Doran, 2 Maccabees, 70. 33

2.3 Genre and Purpose of 2 Maccabees

63

the author’s goal “persuasiveness,” “pleasure,” or “entertainment/amusement”? 38 The translation “persuasiveness” is based on Plato’s understanding of rhetoric as ψυχαγωγία (lit: the leading of souls) by means of words (Phaedr. 261A). 39 The translations of ψυχαγωγία as “pleasure” or “entertainment/ amusement” are supported by the apparent nuance of the word “in defining the purpose of historiographic writings (see esp. Luc. Hist. conscr. 9–13; Dion. Hal. Pomp. 6).” 40 Given the content of the epitome, I propose another potential meaning of ψυχαγωγία to the conversation, namely, “consolation” or “comfort.” Josephus employs ψυχαγωγία in this sense when narrating the intense grief of King Herod following the death of his wife Mariamme. In the midst of Herod’s frequent laments, “he would devise anything possible for consolation (εἰς ψυχαγωγίαν), arranging drinking parties and banquets for himself, but none of these things was sufficient” (A. J. 15.241). In the patristic corpus, ψυχαγωγία more often means “consolation, comfort” than “entertainment, amusement” or “indulgence, pleasure.” 41 In his commentary on the Pauline Letters, Theodoret of Cyrus “appears to mean by ψυχαγωγία a very specific thing – consolation and encouragement that directly counters experiences of suffering and death with the hope of the gospel.” 42 The author of 2 Maccabees was not a church father, yet his epitome unequivocally aims to counteract grief over the suffering and death of Jews under the Seleucids. While I do not insist that ψυχαγωγία means “consolation” or “comfort” in 2 Macc 2:25 rather than “persuasiveness,” “pleasure,” or “entertainment/amusement,” it is possible, and awareness of this meaning of ψυχαγωγία focuses our attention on the fruitful (yet understudied) question of how the author attempted to console his readers. 43

38 Doran translates “persuasiveness” (2 Maccabees, 69). Bar-Kochva translates “pleasure” (Judas Maccabaeus, 177). Goldstein translates “entertainment” (II Maccabees, 189). Lust s. v. ψυχαγωγία, “2 Mc 2,25 amusement, delight.” Muraoka s. v. ψυχαγωγία, “sth amusing and attractive: w. ref. to studying of history, 2 Mc 2.25.” 39 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 69. 40 Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 177. 41 Lampe s. v. ψυχαγωγία, “1. relief, refreshment. … 2. consolation, comfort. … 3. entertainment, amusement. … 4. indulgence, pleasure.” 42 Mitchell, Paul and the Emergence, 59. 43 I do not think it is possible to reconstruct the intended nuance of ψυχαγωγία in 2 Macc 2:25. There are strong arguments in support of multiple translation options. The fullest discussion of the options is found in Doran (2 Maccabees, 69–70), although he does not mention the consolatory nuance of the word.

64

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

2.4 Consolatory Arguments 2.4.1 Suffering Is Punishment for Sin When Job had lost his children and was suffering from festering sores all over his body, his friends repeatedly attempted to comfort him with the reassurance that his suffering and that of his children was deserved punishment for transgression against God. His children died because of their lawlessness (ἀνομία [Job 8:4]). He was suffering in equal measure to his sins (Job 11:6; 22:5–11) or even less than he deserved (Job 15:11). Although Job rejected these consolations as inapplicable to his situation, the majority of books preserved in the Hebrew Bible affirm them as bedrock sources of comfort in tragedy. The consolation that suffering is punishment for sin dominates the Deuteronomistic History, explains the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and is enshrined in the historiography of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. 44 In the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, this argument plays a prominent role in the consolations of Baruch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. 45 It was appealing for several reasons. First, it absolved God of any guilt regarding the catastrophes suffered by his people. If the people were totally to blame for their plight, then God’s power, justice, and goodness could be maintained. Cognitive dissonance between the belief that God is good, just, and powerful and the reality that people who seem to be faithful to God sometimes endure horrific suffering and tragic deaths could be avoided. Second, it reinforced the comforting idea that the world is a predictable place governed by the rules of cause and effect as outlined in the covenant. If obedience to God’s laws issues in blessings and transgression results in curses, one never has to acknowledge the disconcerting reality of unmerited suffering. Third, it could instill confidence in survivors that they had the power to avoid horrendous suffering themselves by simply obeying what God had commanded. Job’s friends emphasize this hopeful aspect of the consolation when they depict the wonderful life of peace, prosperity, and protection Job will enjoy if he would only repent of his lawlessness (e. g., Job 11:13–19; 22:23–28). The belief that one can choose a future of blessing and happiness and avoid sickness, famine, or war is empowering. This con44 Antti Laato classifies the belief that suffering is “proof that those who suffer have not been loyal to their god” as part of “the free-will theodicy,” which she argues is “the most important” type of theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History (“Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 183–235, esp. 183). See also Sara Japhet, “Theodicy in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 429–69. 45 E. g., Bar 4:6–16; 4 Ezra 14.27–34; 2 Bar. 78.5; 79.1–3. Cf. Aelius Theon, Prog. 2:117.9–12, which does not use the theological category of sin, but which nevertheless suggests that, in appropriate circumstances, people are less grieved if they realize that they alone are to blame for what has happened to them.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

65

solation provides an optimistic outlook on the future, yet it comes at the cost of blaming anyone who does suffer sickness, famine, war, and other trauma as choosing these evils of their own volition – they chose to suffer when they disobeyed God. The author of 2 Maccabees follows his biblical predecessors in capitalizing on the connection between sin and punishment to explain and justify the reconquest of Jerusalem and ensuing persecution of Judaism during the reign of Antiochus the IV. The seventh brother declares to Antiochus, “we are suffering [πάσχομεν] because of our own sins [διὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἁμαρτίας]” (7:32), thus echoing the sixth brother, “we are suffering these things because of ourselves [δι’ ἑαυτοὺς ταῦτα πάσχομεν], for we have sinned against our own God [ἁμαρτόντες εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν θεόν]” (7:18). The author specifies that the disaster that eventually overtook the priesthood in Jerusalem was caused by their “irreverence to the divine laws” (4:16–17). Even after the Jews had successfully recovered the temple, the author continues to explain suffering and death as a result of sin. He posits that wearing idols under their clothes was the reason (αἰτία) why certain Jews died in battle, with the result that Judas warns his men to keep themselves “free from sin” (ἀναμάρτητοι), for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened to their fallen comrades on account of sin (12:42). In this instance, only the individuals who sinned by committing idolatry died (12:39–45), yet this is the exception to the rule in 2 Maccabees. More often, the people as a whole collectively suffer on account of the sin of the majority, such that the preeminently righteous high priest Onias and “sinless” babies are also killed despite their innocence (8:4). When “the Master became angry for a little while because of the sins of those who inhabited the city,” God’s wrath (ὀργή) fell upon “the whole nation [τὸ σύμπαν γένος]” (7:38). 46 This is how God’s wrath usually functions in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: once God’s wrath is released, it touches everyone, such that innocent people are destroyed along with the sinners. 47 Like the authors of the Deuteronomistic History, the author of 2 Maccabees was interpreting trauma of a national scope 46 2 Macc 5:17: διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῶν τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων ἀπώργισται βραχέως ὁ δεσπότης. 47 Speaking of “divine wrath and corporate punishment” in the Hebrew Bible, Joel S. Kaminsky demonstrates that “once wrath is released it has a tendency to spread beyond the guilty and consume anyone in its vicinity” (Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 196 [London: T&T Clark, 1995], 59). Kari Latvus explicates this collective dimension of God’s anger in deuteronomistic texts as follows: “The theology of anger is deeply bound to experiences of national catastrophes and crises and ought to be evaluated only in this context. It can be called theology of experience because the values of the past are interpreted in the light of historical events and experiences. In deuteronomistic theology, unlike later chronistic writings, experiences of individuals have no specific importance, which means that we are dealing with the collective experience of an exiled generation” (God, Anger, and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings, JSOTSup 279 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998], 86–87).

66

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

that did not spare individuals of renowned piety or clear innocence. Like them, he interprets this historical reality theologically as an instance of God’s wrath falling upon the whole nation for collective sin. 48 This interpretation of the persecution under Antiochus explains the author’s repeated emphasis on the necessity of strict law observance. 49 In his logic, stricter adherence to God’s law collectively was the only path forward for avoiding such atrocities in the future. When the Jews follow God’s laws, they are “invulnerable” (ἄτρωτοι [8:36]), but pious individuals will not be safe if the Jewish nation as a whole does not abide by their covenantal obligations. The Bible offered the author of 2 Maccabees options concerning how to conceptualize God’s role in punishing his people for sin. Sometimes, biblical authors represent God as directly involved in punishing his people. 50 In Deut 32:23, for example, God declares, “I will gather [συνάξω] evils against them, and I will spend [συντελέσω] my arrows against them.” Other times, biblical authors depict God as merely allowing others to punish his people. The Septuagint frequently uses παραδίδωμι in these contexts in which God “hands over” his people to be punished by their enemies. 51 Because the Israelites worshiped foreign gods, “The Lord handed them over [παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς κύριος] into the hands of Eglom, the king of Moab” (Josh 24:33). These two options for describing God’s role in punishing his people are not mutually exclusive. Jeremiah and Ezekiel depict God as both punishing his people through the Babylonians and punishing them himself. 52 In light of this prophetic heritage, it is significant that 2 Maccabees never presents God as punishing his people himself but maintains that God handed them over to foreigners for punishment. This choice highlights the author’s concern to shift the blame for the atrocities the Jews suffered away from God and onto the Seleucids. After Judas Maccabeus and the people had rededicated the temple, they implored the Lord that “they might never again fall into such evils, but if they should ever sin [ἐάν ποτε καὶ ἁμάρτωσιν], to be disciplined by him with fairness [ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ μετὰ ἐπιεικείας παιδεύεσθαι] and not be handed over to the blasphemous and barbarous nations [καὶ 48 See the monograph of Kaminsky, who argues that “thinkers who worked within the Deuteronomic tradition commonly employed the notion of divine wrath … to explain why God exiled Israel and Judah.… It is employed as a central theological concept that helps explain the greatest tragedy in ancient Israelite history” (Corporate Responsibility, 57). 49 E. g., 2 Macc 3:1–3; 8:26–28, 36; 10:26; 12:39–42. 50 The following texts depict God as the direct agent of punishment by using the first person singular: Lev 26:16–33; Hos 5:10–15; Mic 5:10–15; 6:13; Jer 15:6–7, 13–14; 33:5 (LXX Jer 40:5); Ezek 21:17; 22:13–16. 51 E. g., Josh 24:33; Judg 2:14; 6:1; 13:1; 1 Kgs 8:46; 2 Kgs 21:14; 2 Chr 24:24; 28:5; 30:7; 1 Esd 6:14; 8:74; 9:7; Esth 14:6; Ps 105:41; Isa 64:7; Jer 15:14; 21:10; 22:25; 24:8; 39:28; 41:2; Ezek 7:21; 11:9; 16:39; 23:28; 39:23. Cf. prayers that God would “not hand over” the petitioner to their enemies: Ps 26:12; 40:3; 118:121; 139:9; Pss. Sol. 7.3. 52 Cf. Jer 15:6–7, 13–14; 33:5 (LXX Jer 40:5) and Jer 15:14; 21:10; 22:25; 24:8; 39:28; 41:2. Cf. Ezek 21:17; 22:13–16 and Ezek 7:21; 11:9; 16:39; 23:28; 39:23.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

67

μὴ βλασφήμοις καὶ βαρβάροις ἔθνεσιν παραδίδοσθαι]” (10:4). Here the author unequivocally characterizes the persecution as a time in which God handed his people over to foreigners rather than disciplining them himself. The author diverts blame to the blasphemous nations in this way to solve the theological problem that not every murder and atrocity committed in Jerusalem could be adequately explained by the consolatory argument that suffering is punishment for past sin. This argument cannot account for “the lawless destruction of the innocent infants,” who are explicitly described as “without sin” (ἀναμάρτητοι [8:4]). Similarly, the sin and punishment argument cannot explain the murder of the high priest Onias, whose piety (εὐσέβεια) and hatred of wickedness (μισοπονηρία) had ensured years of peace and strict law observance in Jerusalem (3:1; cf. 4:30–34). To make sense of events like these that contradicted his commitment to God’s justice, the author concluded (1) that God was not entirely directing events and (2) that the nations had punished the inhabitants of Jerusalem even more than they deserved. In this regard, he was following the precedent of Isaiah, which maintained that the Israelites had received double for their sins when God’s instrument of punishment had overstepped its role (Isa 40:2; 10:5–15). 53 While the murdered babies (5:10; 8:4) and Onias constitute the strongest illustrations of foreigners punishing the Jerusalemites beyond what could be justified as recompense for sin, Jews who violated the edict of Antiochus in their determination to follow God’s law also fall into the category of individuals whose suffering and deaths cannot be readily explained by their sin. These include the two mothers who were executed for circumcising their sons (6:10), the Jews who were burned to death while they attempted to observe the Sabbath (6:11), and the scribe Eleazar who chose torture over violating the food laws (6:18–31). In his effort to distance God even further from directly harming his people in the process of punishing them for their sin, the author narrates the period of the Jews’ suffering using the principle of dual causality, a principle the author soon abandons once the Jews are winning battles. Yechezkel Kaufmann coined the term “dual causality” to describe how the action progresses in “a typical biblical story”: “Events occur through dual causality, i. e. through both natural causes and divine guidance which determines a purpose for the events.” 54 Building upon Kaufmann’s work, Amit has argued that “stories which demonstrate the principle of dual causality are those in which there is a clear aim to refrain – as far as is possible in religious literature – from describing God as directly guiding history, and as playing an all-pervading and active role in the course of 53 Goldstein offers the model of Isaiah as one of the ways in which Jews attempted to make sense of “the disproportion” between the sins of Hellenizers in Jerusalem and the fact that “all Jews, even the pious, suffered frightful persecution” (II Maccabees, 292–93). 54 Yechezkel Kaufmann, Sefer Yehoshua (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970), 128. Citation and translation of the Hebrew by Amit (“Dual Causality Principle,” 388).

68

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

events.” 55 God is still ultimately responsible for what happens in biblical stories that display dual causality, but the narrator focuses on the human/natural causes of events. 56 Analyzing the narrative of 2 Maccabees in light of the principle of dual causality illuminates one way in which the author seeks to address theodicy, namely, he narrates human causes of the Jews’ suffering while attributing their rescue out of suffering to divine intervention. Jews were killed because Menelaus plotted against his own citizens (4:39–50), Jason attempted to regain the high priesthood (5:5–10), Antiochus believed Judea was revolting (5:11–13), Apollonius and the Athenian followed orders (5:24–26; 6:1–2), and the people of Ptolemais issued a decree (6:8–9). The temple was plundered because Menelaus, “a traitor both to the laws and to his country,” allowed Antiochus to plunder it (5:15–16, 21). The author attributes no direct agency to God for the suffering of the Jewish people but concedes that the plunder of the temple was the result of God temporarily abandoning it on account of the people’s sin (5:17–20). In contrast, the author attributes direct responsibility to God when narrating victories in battle led by Judas. 57 While God is technically in control of both the Jews’ punishment and their deliverance, by narrating the causes of events this way, the author of 2 Maccabees chooses to represent God primarily as the helper and ally of his people rather than their punisher. The consolatory purpose of this portrait is obvious – God is shown to be on his people’s side against their persecutors.

2.4.2 God Disciplines His People with Calamities for Their Good Although God handed his people over to the nations on account of their sin (10:4), the author maintains that God used their punishments as beneficial discipline (παιδεία). The notion that calamities are a form of divine discipline frames the author’s digression against depression in 6:12–17. He understands the “calamities” (συμφοραί) that befell the Jews of Jerusalem as “punishments” (τιμωρίαι) yet directs the reader to recognize a salutary purpose behind them, that “these punishments were not for the destruction [μὴ πρὸς ὄλεθρον], but for the discipline [ἀλλὰ πρὸς παιδείαν] of our nation” (6:12). He concludes the unit with the consolation that “though he disciplines with misfortune [παιδεύων … μετὰ συμφορᾶς], he does not abandon his own people” (6:18). The seventh brother claims that the Lord was briefly angry with his people “for the sake of rebuke and discipline [χάριν ἐπιπλήξεως καὶ παιδείας]” (7:33). What is the precise content of this divine παιδεία discerned by the author of 2 Maccabees? On the most general level, 2 Maccabees understands divine παιδεία as 55 56 57

Amit, “Dual Causality Principle,” 390. Amit, “Dual Causality Principle,” 391. See chapter 2, § 2.4.5 God Is Your Help and Ally.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

69

punishment intended to alert the impious that they have sinned so they can change their ways and be reconciled with God. The seventh brother is confident that God “will again be reconciled [καταλλαγήσεται] with his servants” (7:33). Within this optimistic outlook of eventual reconciliation, God’s swift punishment of his people is actually a sign of God’s “benefaction” (εὐεργεσία [6:13]) and “mercy” (ἔλεος [6:16]) because it hastens their reconciliation with God and rescues them from incurring worse punishment in the future on account of their accumulating sins (6:13–15). The consolatory argument that God educates and disciplines (παιδεύω) his people through suffering occurs often in biblical literature. 58 The significance of the divine παιδεία endured by God’s people varies greatly from text to text, but texts tend to fall into two categories: (1) those that maintain that God’s παιδεία is corrective punishment for past sin, and (2) those that resist the claim that suffering implies prior sin but nonetheless attribute positive outcomes to suffering. 59 Among biblical authors who interpret suffering as divine παιδεία, the author of 2 Maccabees displays the closest affinity with the prophets, who interpreted national disasters as God’s punishment with the express purpose of bringing his people back to obedience. 60 The author assures his readers that God never intended to destroy his people (μὴ πρὸς ὄλεθρον [6:12]), but to discipline them “with calamities” so that he might redirect them away from sin and back to him (6:12–16; 7:32–33). 61 In the author’s estimation, the recognition that these calamities are for the ultimate benefit of God’s people should enable his readers “not to be depressed” (μὴ συστέλλεσθαι) on account of them (6:12).

2.4.3 God Does Not Abandon His People The author concludes his digression against depression (6:12–17) with the consolation that “though [God] disciplines with misfortune, he does not abandon [οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει] his own people” (6:16). He reiterates his claim through the fifth brother, who declares to Antiochus, “But do not think that our nation has 58

See chapter 1, n. 118. See Croy’s investigation of “punitive” and “non-punitive” interpretations of suffering in ancient Jewish, Greek, and Roman literature (Endurance in Suffering, 77–161). 60 Croy identifies the following as “punitive suffering”: Zeph 3:1–8; Jer 2:1–37; 7:28; 30:14; 31:18–20; Ezek 5:15; 23:18; Isa 1:5–9; Amos 4:6–12; Joel 1:2–2:27 (Endurance in Suffering, 106). 61 The consolatory argument that God does not intend to destroy his people appears in other Hellenistic Jewish texts composed in the wake of trauma. Baruch writes, “Not for destruction [οὐκ εἰς ἀπώλειαν] were you sold to the nations, but because you angered God you were handed over to your adversaries” (4:6). The Psalms of Solomon assure the reader, “The discipline [παιδεία] of the righteous [for things done] in ignorance is not like the destruction [καταστροφή] of the sinners” (13.7). 59

70

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

been forsaken by God” (μὴ δόκει δὲ τὸ γένος ἡμῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καταλελεῖφθαι [7:16]). The author’s assurance that God does not abandon his people was not self-evident to his biblical predecessors and contemporaries. The Bible contains numerous threats that God would, in fact, abandon his people if they abandoned him. 62 The programmatic statement of this threat is Deut 31:16– 17, in which God warns that if the people forsake him and break his covenant, “I will be angry with wrath against them on that day, and I will abandon [καταλείψω] them, and I will turn my face away from them.” As a result of this divine abandonment, “many evil things and afflictions” will befall the people, such that the Israelite will say, “Because the Lord my God is not with me [Διότι οὐκ ἔστιν κύριος ὁ θεός μου ἐν ἐμοί], these evil things have found me” (Deut 31:17). When seeking to understand military invasions and defeats, the biblical authors frequently concluded that God had abandoned his people. 63 Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God admits that he had temporarily forsaken Zion when the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem, “For a short time I abandoned you [χρόνον μικρὸν ἐνκατέλιπόν σε]” (Isa 54:7). In response to his people’s idolatry, God reveals to Jeremiah, “I have abandoned my house, I let go of my inheritance, I gave my beloved soul to the hands of her enemies” (Jer 12:7). A century after 2 Maccabees was written, the authors of the Psalms of Solomon settled on divine abandonment as the reason why the Roman general Pompey could invade Jerusalem and slaughter its inhabitants: “In accordance with their sins he did [this] to them [κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐποίησεν αὐτοῖς], for he abandoned them into the hands of those who prevail [ὅτι ἐγκατέλειπεν αὐτοὺς εἰς χεῖρας κατισχυόντων]” (Pss. Sol. 2.7). The author of 2 Maccabees was seeking to justify God in the face of Antiochus’s reconquest of Jerusalem, yet he rejects the solution of divine abandonment that prophets before him and the pious after him had chosen when dealing with their more proximate attacks on the holy city and its inhabitants. He maintains their schema of sin, divine anger, and punishment but denies that the evils that befell the people occurred on account of God’s absence. In his theological reconstruction of events, God’s anger over his people’s sin provoked him to abandon “the place” of the temple, but never the “people” (ὁ τόπος [5:17– 20]; cf. λαός [6:16]). The author seeks to ameliorate the blow of God abandoning the holy place by directing the reader to its glorious restoration in the same breath as he mentions its abandonment: “what was abandoned [ὁ καταλη62 In 1 Chr 28:9, David advises his son Solomon, “if you abandon him, he will abandon you completely” (ἐὰν καταλείψῃς αὐτόν, καταλείψει σε εἰς τέλος). This theme is reiterated in 2 Chr 15:2 (ἐὰν καταλίπητε αὐτόν, ἐνκαταλείψει ὑμᾶς), 2 Chr 24:20 (ὅτι ἐνκατελίπετε τὸν κύριον, καὶ ἐνκαταλείψει ὑμᾶς), and Neh 9:28 (ἐπέστρεψαν ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου· καὶ ἐγκατέλιπες αὐτοὺς εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν αὐτῶν). See also 2 Chr 12:5. 63 E. g., Neh 9:28; Jer 12:7; Isa 54:7–8; Ezek 8:12; 9:9.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

71

φθείς] in the wrath of the Almighty was again restored [ἐπανωρθώθη] with full glory [μετὰ πάσης δόξης] when the great Lord was reconciled” (5:20). The author’s care to distinguish how God relates to his temple in his anger from how he relates to his people in his anger points to an author who is engaged with consolatory rhetoric and tailors his arguments and explanations to fit the particular type of trauma he is attempting to console. In this respect, the author of 2 Maccabees stands out from the aforementioned examples in Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms of Solomon, which make no distinction between divine abandonment of places and people. In 2 Maccabees, however, consolatory arguments concerning the temple’s desecration (5:17–20) are qualitatively different from consolatory arguments concerning the suffering of God’s people (6:16) because they seek to ameliorate different traumas. 64 In his attempt to offer comfort regarding the Jews of Jerusalem who suffered under Antiochus, the author drew upon the biblical consolation that God does not abandon his people, 65 which is a variation of the consolation that God is with you. 66 When Daniel is miraculously sent food in the lion’s den, he extols the Lord as the God “who does not abandon [ὁ μὴ ἐγκαταλείπων] those who love him” (Bel 38). The magistrate Uzziah tries to comfort the besieged people of Bethulia with the promise that the Lord God “will not abandon [οὐ γὰρ ἐγκαταλείψει] us completely” (Jdt 7:30). The consolation that God will not forsake his people often occurs in contexts in which the recipients are afraid and vulnerable, as when Moses urges the Israelites on the verge of entering the promised land to “be courageous” and “not fear” the nations they will encounter because God “will neither leave nor abandon” them (οὐκ ἀνήσει σε οὐδὲ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃ σε [Deut 31:6, 8]). Assurances of God’s continued presence like this one console because God’s presence is associated with safety and protection. This connection is explicit in Ps 36:28: “The Lord loves justice, and he will not forsake [οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψει] his holy ones; they shall be kept safe forever” (cf. Sir 2:10–11). The association between God’s presence and safety also explains why the assurance of God’s presence was deemed necessary in the first place, that is, because it was widely assumed that if God was with his people, then horrible things would not happen to them. When an angel of the Lord 64 For this reason, the former should not be used as a basis from which to show theological development in the latter. I am thus not convinced by the argument of Daniel R. Schwartz that there is “Theological Progress in II Maccabees” on the topic of how God punishes transgression (“Divine Punishment in Second Maccabees: Vengeance, Abandonment, or Loving Discipline?,” in Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran; Festschrift für Hermann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. U. Mittmann-Richert et al. [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003], 109–16, esp. 114). 65 Future Tense: Deut 4:31; 31:6, 8; Pss 36:28; 95:14; Isa 41:17; 42:16; Jdt 7:30. Past Tense: Neh 9:31; Sir 2:10. 66 E. g., Gen 21:17; Judg 6:13; Pss 9:9–10; 22:4; 36:28; 91:14; 93:14; Isa 41:10; Zeph 3:15–17; Hag 2:4–5; Bel 38; 2 Macc 6:16; Wis 10:13–14; 19:22; Heb 13:5–6.

72

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

announces to Gideon, “The Lord is with you [Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ],” he responds, “If the Lord is with us, why have all these evil things found us?” (Judg 6:13). 67 Likewise, the suffering speaker of Ps 21:1 interprets his pain as divine absence and cries out to God, “why did you abandon me?” (ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;). The author of 2 Maccabees stands among ancient Jewish consolers who worked to counteract the perception that God had forsaken his suffering people, by arguing that God was still present with his people in their suffering and as they suffered. 68 This highlights his selective use of Deuteronomic theology in formulating his consolatory arguments.

2.4.4 God Watches Everything from Heaven The author’s depiction of God as “the one who watches over all things” (τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐφορῶντος [12:22]; τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος [15:2]) is intimately related to his insistence that God does not abandon his people (6:16; 7:16). If people believed that the Lord had forsaken them or their land, they would be more likely to conclude that God did not see what was happening. According to Ezekiel, the belief that “the Lord has forsaken [ἐνκαταλέλοιπεν] the land” increased impiety in Jerusalem prior to its destruction by the Babylonians because the people were convinced that “the Lord does not see [οὐκ ἐφορᾷ]” (Ezek 9:9; cf. Ezek 8:12: Οὐχ ὁρᾷ ὁ κύριος, ἐγκαταλέλοιπεν κύριος τὴν γῆν). The author of 2 Maccabees betrays awareness of the charge that God was not watching over his people during the persecution, for he defensively claims that God was “watching over” the seven brothers and their mother as they were tortured and died (7:6: ὁ θεὸς ἐφορᾷ.…). He thoroughly develops the character of the God of Israel as an “overseer” (ἐπόπτης [7:35]) who is “the all-seeing Lord” (ὁ παντεπόπτης κύριος [9:5]). 69 Eugene Coezter rightly directs our attention to how “this theme deals with the existential problem of conceptualizing the presence/absence of God in times of suffering.” 70 Against biblical voices that interpret suffering as a sign of God’s absence, the author of 2 Maccabees sides with biblical voices that stress God’s presence with his suffering people by representing God as attentively watching them from heaven. 71 He follows the precedent Judg 6:13: εἰ ἔστιν κύριος μεθ’ ἡμῶν, ἵνα τί εὗρεν ἡμᾶς πάντα τὰ κακὰ ταῦτα; For God’s presence in the midst of trouble as a source of consolation, see, e. g., Pss 9:9– 10; 36:28; 93:14; Isa 41:10; Zeph 3:15–17; Hag 2:4–5; Bel 38; Wis 19:22; Heb 13:5–6. See also chapter 3, § 3.8.1 The Suffering of the Righteous: Neither Divine Violence Nor Divine Absence. 69 See “2.1.2 Emphasising God as Overseer,” in Eugene Coezter, “A Spatial Analysis of the References to Heaven in 2 Maccabees,” BN 168 (2016): 105–15, esp. 112–13; van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 126–27. 70 Coezter, “Spatial Analysis,” 113. 71 Doran contextualizes 2 Macc 7:6 within the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint, writing, “God is said to see when people are in trouble: Hagar (Gen 16:13); the Israelites in Egypt (Exod 2:25); the psalmist (LXX Ps 30:7). The Septuagint particularly heightens this view of God as all67 68

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

73

of Exod 2:23–25, which claims that God “heard” the groaning of his people in Egypt and “looked upon” (ἐπεῖδεν) them. According to Exodus, God seeing “the suffering of [his] people” and hearing “their cry” was the catalyst for his decision to rescue them from Egypt (3:7–10). The author of 2 Maccabees similarly structures his narrative such that God is moved to action to both save his people and punish their oppressors as a result of looking upon their pitiful state and hearing their entreaties (7:1–8:5). In this way, the conviction that God is watching from heaven is simultaneously a source of consolation for the suffering faithful and a wellspring of confidence that God will punish those who harmed them. The consolatory effect of the belief that God is watching is expressed most clearly by the remaining six brothers and their mother as they witnessed the first brother being fried in a pan (7:5–6): They were encouraging one another with their mother to die nobly, saying, “The Lord God is watching over [us] and truly has pity on us, just as Moses explained in his song which testifies against [the people], saying, ‘And he will have pity on his servants.’” ἀλλήλους παρεκάλουν σὺν τῇ μητρὶ γενναίως τελευτᾶν λέγοντες οὕτως Ὁ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐφορᾷ καὶ ταῖς ἀληθείαις ἐφ’ ἡμῖν παρακαλεῖται, καθάπερ διὰ τῆς κατὰ πρόσωπον ἀντιμαρτυρούσης ᾠδῆς διεσάφησεν Μωυσῆς λέγων Καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ παρακληθήσεται.

Their quotation from the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43) is embedded in Deut 32:36: For the Lord will judge his people and he will have pity on his servants; for he saw them disabled, and having died in distress and weakened. ὅτι κρινεῖ κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ παρακληθήσεται· εἶδεν γὰρ παραλελυμένους αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἐκλελοιπότας ἐν ἐπαγωγῇ καὶ παρειμένους.

Within the Song of Moses in LXX Deuteronomy, this verse functions as a beacon of hope that God will not unleash his wrath on his rebellious people forever but will eventually “have pity on his servants” when sees them weakened, disabled, and dying in distress. In the previous verses, Moses depicts God as taking vengeance upon his people for having abandoned him for other gods (32:15– 35). Afterward, God taunts his humbled people by asking where their gods are to help them and reminding them that he alone has the power over life and death (32:37–42). Sandwiched between these grim scenes of divine judgment, seeing: LXX Job 22:12; 34:21–24; Zech 9:1; Ps 122:5–6. The impious think that God does not see (Ezek 8:12; 9:9)” (2 Maccabees, 156).

74

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

Deut 32:36 stands out as a faint glimmer of hope that God’s wrath can be appeased when he sees the total humiliation of his servants. In the final line of the song, Moses promises that God “will avenge [ἐκδικᾶται] the blood of his children” by repaying their enemies (32:43). For the purpose of analyzing 2 Maccabees, the crucial point is that God’s decision to stop taking vengeance on his own people (ἀνταποδώσω [32:35]) and start punishing their enemies (ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς [32:43]) is predicated on him “seeing” his servants disabled and dying. The necessity of God seeing this horrendous spectacle in the Song of Moses explains both the graphic descriptions of the torture and dismemberment of the seven brothers in 2 Macc 7 and the simultaneous emergence in the narrative of the theme that the Lord God watches everything. It is no coincidence that the author introduces “the Almighty Overseer God” (ὁ παντοκράτωρ ἐπόπτης θεός [7:35]) at the point in the narrative where the deliverance of the people and punishment of their enemies depend on God’s ability to see their state. The translation of παρακληθήσεται in 2 Macc 7:6 (quoting Deut 32:36) varies widely among commentators. I am most persuaded by the argument of Schmitz that παρακαλεῖσθαι has “the sense of pitying sympathy” in 2 Macc 7:6, such that the brothers and their mother encourage one another by saying, “he will have pity on his servants.” 72 Joachim Schaper’s translation in NETS, “he will have compassion on his slaves,” conveys this sense in different words. Goldstein’s translation, “He will relent concerning His servants,” highlights the result of God’s pity – he is moved to abandon his anger and help his suffering servants. 73 The translation proposed by Schwartz, “He will reconcile Himself [παρακληθήσεται] with His servants [ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ],” has no basis in lexical meanings of παρακαλεῖσθαι. 74 72 In support of this meaning, Schmitz lists Judg 2:18, wherein “παρεκλήθη is used for God’s sympathy,” and Ps 89:13 (παρακλήθητι ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις σου), which he translates, “have pity” on your servants. Schmitz translates 2 Macc 7:6a, “The Lord our God sees it and unquestionably has pity on us (παρακαλεῖται)” (Schmitz and Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:777–78). Muraoka’s entry for the passive of παρακαλέω in Deut 32:36 and Ps 89:13 expresses the notion of having pity while maintaining the passive voice in the English: s. v. παρακαλέω, “pass … c. to allow oneself to be swayed by a plea to help … ἐπί τινι (pers.) and s God, De 32.36 …, Ps 89.13, 134.14.” 73 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 289. Cf. LSJ s. v. παρακαλέω IV. 1, “Pass., relent, πρός, ἐπί τινι, towards a person, LXX Jd. 21.6, 15, cf. 2 Ki. 24.16”; Lust s. v. παρακαλέω, “P: … to relent Dt 32,36.” 74 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 296. Schwartz maintains that the “verb which our author used for ‘reconciliation’” was παρακληθήσεται because of the presence of forms of καταλάσσω in 7:33 and 8:29, two verses that he believes echo 7:6 (2 Maccabees, 303). The conviction of the seventh brother in 7:33 that after the Lord’s anger has passed “he will again be reconciled with his own servants” (πάλιν καταλλαγήσεται τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ δούλοις) does not address why God would switch course from anger to reconciliation; it states only that God will switch course. In 8:29, the people petitioned the Lord “to be completely reconciled with his servants” (εἰς τέλος

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

75

The citation of Deut 32:36 in 2 Macc 7:6 portrays the seven brothers and their mother as so well versed in the law that they can recall from memory the consolation given in the Song of Moses to strengthen them before their executioners. They are represented as poised in the face of death because they had learned from the Song of Moses that even when God’s wrath seemed overwhelming, such that people were being killed, from babies to the aged, God would have pity on his people when he saw them “disabled, and having died in distress and weakened” (Deut 32:23–36). While torture is intended to render its victims powerless, the brothers and their mother are depicted as powerful figures who believed, in accordance with Deut 32:36, that they could provoke God’s compassion by their own painful deaths “for his laws” (7:9) and thus halt his outpouring of wrath. The youngest brother prays for God “to be merciful soon to the nation” and, audaciously, “to stop with me and my brothers the wrath of the Almighty [τὴν τοῦ παντοκράτορος ὀργήν] that has justly come upon our whole nation” (7:37–38). The continuation of the narrative after their deaths affirms that the courageous mother and her sons were not in error. They did effectively elicit their God’s pity, for the “wrath of the Lord” turned to “mercy” after they died (8:4; cf. 7:37–38). While the mother emerges as the chief consoler of her children as they are dying, each son also engages with consolatory rhetoric in his final words as he utters his hopes for renewed life and foretells the punishment of his persecutor. When the first son is tortured (7:6), the family reminds each other that “the Lord God is watching [ἐφορᾷ].” 75 This theme of the divine gaze colors all of the subsequent consolatory arguments from 7:6–38, as it is a necessary prerequisite for their vindication in resurrection and the eventual condemnation of the king orchestrating their deaths. How can God judge what is happening if God does not see it? When the righteous prophet Azarias was being stoned to death, he cried out, “May the Lord see and let him judge [Ἴδοι κύριος καὶ κρινάτω]” (2 Chr 24:24). Like Azarias, the brothers expect that God sees them being killed and will punish their murderers. The seventh brother declares to Antiochus, “You have not yet escaped the judgment of the Almighty God, the overseer!” 76 God’s coming retribution against Antiochus and his descendants is a recurring source of consolation for the dying brothers (7:14, 17, 19, 31, 34–36). At the same time, the belief that God would resurrect those who died for his laws is the mother’s concluding argument for each of her sons (ἕκαστον δὲ αὐτῶν παρεκάλει… [7:21, 23, 29]). Her sons accept this consolation and propagate it in their own words (7:9, 11, 14, 36). Other consolatory arguments voiced by the καταλλαγῆναι τοῖς αὑτοῦ δούλοις). This verse has no bearing on what caused the Lord to begin to be reconciled with them. We must translate 7:6 on its own terms. 75 I agree with Doran, “In 7:6, the brothers and their mother had consoled each other by noting that God looks down” (2 Maccabees, 170). 76 2 Macc 7:35: οὔπω γὰρ τὴν τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐπόπτου θεοῦ κρίσιν ἐκπέφευγας.

76

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

brothers include the following: suffering is punishment for sin (7:18, 32, 38), 77 God has not abandoned his people (7:16), 78 the Lord’s anger is short-lived (7:33), 79 and God disciplines his people for their own good (7:33). 80

2.4.5 God Is Your Help and Ally Once the Lord abandons his wrath toward his people, he is depicted primarily as their “ally” (σύμμαχος) who consistently supplies “help” (βοήθεια) in battle against the Seleucids. 81 In chapters 8–15, God consoles his people through intervening in history to deliver them from their oppressors. The Hebrew Bible frequently equates “consolation” with God changing the situation of the sufferer and represents God as a “help” to his people in times of trouble. 82 Among human consolers, the focus shifts from the mother and her seven sons (7:5– 38) to Judas Maccabeus, the commander of the Jewish army (8:16–15:36). In a series of prebattle speeches, Judas utilizes consolatory rhetoric to counteract the fear of his troops and convince them that victory is assured. The author extensively describes the speeches of Judas before the first and last battle against the Seleucids (8:12–23; 15:6–24), while highlighting aspects of Judas’s other prebattle speeches between these bookends (10:16, 25–28; 11:6–10; 12:15, 36–37; 13:10–15; 14:15). Prebattle speeches, sometimes called “battle exhortations,” are a standard component of Hellenistic historiography. 83 Their purpose is “to encourage” the soldiers. 84 In his treatise The General, Onasander explains that the general’s address to his troops before battle should cause them to despise danger and long for honor (1.13). If the army is dispirited, the general’s speech serves to “give their souls new strength” (τὰς ψυχὰς ἀνέρρωσε) and “console” (παραμυ77

See chapter 2, § 2.4.1 Suffering Is Punishment for Sin. See chapter 2, § 2.4.3 God Does Not Abandon His People. 79 See chapter 2, § 2.4.8 God’s Wrath Is Short-Lived, but His Mercy toward His People Is Constant. 80 See chapter 2, § 2.4.2 God Disciplines His People with Calamities for Their Good. 81 σύμμαχος: 2 Macc 8:24; 10:16; 11:10; 12:36. βοήθεια θεοῦ: 8:23; 12:11. βοήθεια τοῦ κυρίου: 8:35; 15:35. σκέπη τοῦ κυρίου: 13:17. ἀντίλημψις παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου: 15:7. Help from heaven depicted in battle: 10:18–31; 11:6–13; 12:22. 82 See chapter 1, § 1.4.2 Rejection of Greco-Roman Consolations; chapter 3, § 3.6.2 Lady Wisdom in the Role of Reason and in the Place of the God of Israel. On God as a help in trouble, see, e. g., Pss 32:20; 45:2–3; 107:6–7; Job 22:25. 83 See chapter 2, “The General’s Exhortations in Greek Warfare,” in W. Kendrick Pritchett, Essays in Greek History (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1994), 27–110; Mogens Herman Hansen, “The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography. Fact or Fiction?,” Historia 42 (1993): 161–80. Theodore Chalon Burgess summarizes the prominence of battle exhortations in Greek historical writing as follows, “The most distinctive, fully developed, and persistent single type of speech among historians is the general’s oration before battle, urging his army to deeds of valor” (“Epideictic Literature,” in Studies in Classical Philology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902], 3:89–248, esp. 3:209). 84 Hansen, “Battle Exhortation,” 167. 78

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

77

θεῖσθαι) them (1.13). Pseudo-Dionysius writes, “soldiers need the speech and encouragement [προτροπή] of the generals for war or battle, and [then] they become stronger [ἐρρωμενέστεροι] than themselves.” 85 How do Judas’s prebattle speeches attempt to achieve this aim of strengthening his men? In composing Judas’s battle exhortations, the author of 2 Maccabees amplifies the consolatory topoi within typical battle exhortations of Greek historiography in order to emphasize God’s help in battle for the Jews. Common themes of battle exhortations within Greek historiography include the following: (1) military instructions; obedience to orders; discipline; tactical plan, (2) rewards to victor; punishment to laggards; spoils, (3) comparison of forces, (4) achievements of past; ancestry; former battles, (5) consequences of defeat; slavery; etc., (6) gods are on our side; auspices are favorable, (7) recent battles lost by mismanagement, (8) death is glorious to brave, and (9) evils of the enemy. 86

The general engages in consolatory rhetoric when he narrates the achievements of the past (#4) and claims that the “gods are on our side” (#6), but most of these topics are not intended to comfort the army. 87 Rather, they prepare men for battle through other means, such as reviewing tactics, arousing anger, and amplifying the consequences of defeat. Judas’s speeches in 2 Maccabees extensively engage with the consolatory topoi (#4, 6) while neglecting topoi that emphasize the human strategy of warfare (#1, 7) and the possibility of death and defeat (#2, 5, 7, 8). Judas relates “achievements of past; ancestry; former battles” (#4) in rehearsing past times when God had helped their ancestors win battles: the miraculous defeat of Sennacherib (8:19; 15:22), the defeat of the Galatians in Babylonia (8:20), and Joshua and the battle of Jericho (12:15). He asks his men to keep in mind the former times when help had come to them from heaven and reminds them of the contests they had overcome personally (15:8–9). Judas adapts the theme that “gods are on our side” (#6) to his monotheism (8:18, 20) and gives “the help of God” (βοήθεια θεοῦ) and “the victory of God” (νίκη θεοῦ) as watchwords for battle (8:23; 13:15). Judas and his army fervently pray for God’s help in preparation for battle and during the fight. 88 In his final battle speech, Judas urges his men “to anticipate their coming victory from the Almighty” (15:8) and tells them about his dream in which the prophet Jeremiah 85

Pseudo-Dionysius, On Epideictic Speeches 7.2. Pritchett collected these major themes of prebattle speeches through surveying the writings of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius (Essays in Greek History, 101–5). Burgess identifies topoi within the general’s speech from a larger pool of Greek historians than Pritchett does (he also includes Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, Arrian, and Dio Cassius), but his results are essentially the same (“Epideictic Literature,” 212–14). 87 On the consolatory method of rehearsing past victories, see chapter 3, § 3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials. 88 In preparation for battle: 2 Macc 10:16, 25–28; 11:6; 12:6, 15, 28; 13:10–12; 14:15; 15:21– 24. During battle: 2 Macc 12:36–37; 15:25–27. 86

78

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

gave him a golden sword with which to strike down his enemies (15:11–16). This dream report is intended to convey that God is on the Hebrews’ side. 89 Judas subjects the topos “comparison of forces” (#3) to the theme of God being on their side, arguing that “they trust in arms and bold deeds, but we trust in the Almighty God, who is able, with one nod, to throw down both those coming against us and the whole world” (8:18). Maintaining his theocentric focus, Judas elaborates the “evils of the enemy” (#9) in terms of their transgressions against God. They are coming against God’s “holy people” (15:24) and have lawlessly violated the holy place, tortured the city of Jerusalem, and destroyed the ancestral way of life (8:17). The absence of topoi that emphasize the human strategy of warfare (#1, 7) and the possibility of death and defeat (#2, 5, 7, 8) in Judas’s battle speeches underscores their theocentric orientation and Judas’s confidence that they will be victorious by the help of God. If Judas was to issue military instructions and outline the tactical plan of attack (#1), their victory could be attributed to their superior military strategy rather than to their Lord. The author is concerned to give the God of Israel all of the credit for the military successes that lead to the Hebrews regaining control over Jerusalem. He makes the defeated general Lysias say that “the Hebrews were unconquerable because the mighty God fought with them/was their ally.” 90 If Judas was to threaten his army with the consequences of defeat (#5), his firm trust that the Lord would come to their aid would be called into question. The author prefaces Judas’s final speech with the note that “Maccabeus was trusting with all hope, without ceasing [ἀδιαλείπτως], that he would obtain help from the Lord” (15:7). If Judas discussed previous battles lost (#7) and the glories of dying in battle (#8), he would draw attention to the fact that losing the battle and one’s life are very real possibilities in war. The author of 2 Maccabees greatly minimizes this harsh reality by limiting the possibility of death in battle to those who sinned against God (12:39– 43). In his story, Jews who obey God’s laws are invincible in battle. The defeated general Nicanor recognizes that “the Jews had a defender [ὑπέρμαχος], and for this reason the Jews were invincible [ἄτρωτοι], because they followed the laws established by him [διὰ τὸ ἀκολουθεῖν τοῖς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ προτεταγμένοις νόμοις]” (8:36). Lastly, the absence of anything about the spoils of war (#2) in Judas’s prebattle speeches underscores his piety and pure intent. Judas is motivated not by greed but by concern for the temple, the city of Jerusalem, his 89 Jan Willem van Henten analyzes the sword of 2 Macc 15:16 as “a symbol of victory” within Egyptian traditions (“Judas the Maccabee’s Dream [2 Macc. 15:11–16] and the Egyptian King’s Sickle Sword,” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture 4 [2004]: 8–15). Doran more broadly contextualizes 2 Macc 15:12–16 within dreams in ancient literature in which a god promises aid to a hero (Temple Propaganda, 72–75). 90 2 Macc 11:13: ἀνικήτους εἶναι τοὺς Εβραίους τοῦ δυναμένου θεοῦ συμμαχοῦντος αὐτοῖς.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

79

ancestral way of life, his people, and God’s laws (8:17, 21; 11:7; 13:14; 15:17–18). His moving speeches render his men “ready to die on behalf of the laws and their fatherland” (ἑτοίμους ὑπὲρ τῶν νόμων καὶ τῆς πατρίδος ἀποθνῄσκειν [8:21]), but the only ones who do die are the few who had committed idolatry (12:39–42). The consolatory focus of Judas’s prebattle speeches derives from biblical narrative, wherein battle exhortations emphasize the role of God to a much greater extent than in Greek historiography. The author draws attention to the importance of the Bible in Judas’s battle speeches in the two speeches he describes at length (8:16–23; 15:8–24). In the first, Judas reads aloud from “the holy book” (8:23). 91 In the second, Judas is depicted as “consoling” his men “out of the Law and the Prophets” (παραμυθούμενος αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν [15:9]). What precisely he read from the Bible to console them is not stated, yet we can detect biblical influence on several themes and exhortations of his prebattle speeches. In Deut 20, Moses issues instructions concerning war. These contain a succinct prebattle address to the troops (20:3–4): Hear, O Israel! Today you are advancing for battle against your enemies. Do not let your heart fail; do not be afraid, nor be shattered, nor turn away from before them, for the Lord your God who advances before you is with you, to fight your enemies with you, to save you. Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· ὑμεῖς προσπορεύεσθε σήμερον εἰς πόλεμον ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, μὴ ἐκλυέσθω ἡ καρδία ὑμῶν, μὴ φοβεῖσθε μηδὲ θραύεσθε μηδὲ ἐκκλίνητε ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν, ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν ὁ προπορευόμενος μεθ’ ὑμῶν συνεκπολεμῆσαι ὑμῖν τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν διασῶσαι ὑμᾶς.

When compared to the prebattle speeches of Greek historiography, this prebattle speech is remarkable in that it consists almost entirely of consolation. Israel need not fear the battle because their God will fight with them and give them the victory (Deut 20:3–4). Judas’s two extended battle exhortations sound these same notes. His army should “not be afraid of the attack of the gentiles” (μὴ δειλιᾶν τὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔφοδον [15:8]), nor “be terrified by their adversaries” (μὴ καταπλαγῆναι τοῖς πολεμίοις [8:16]), but should expect that their Almighty God would help them and give them the victory (προσδοκᾶν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐσομένην αὐτοῖς νίκην [15:8; cf. 8:18–20]). Judas’s confidence that God would be their ally in war reflects the two-ways theology of Deuteronomy, in which obedience to God’s laws should result in military success (Deut 28:7). Job’s friend Eliphaz turns this theology into a consolatory argument when he promises Job that if he humbled himself before the Lord and put wickedness far from him, the Almighty would be his “help from ene91 Eleazar was later inserted into the manuscripts to read the Bible in place of Judas. On this textual history, see Doran, 2 Maccabees, 177.

80

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

mies [βοηθός ἀπὸ ἐχθρῶν]” (Job 22:25). Within this Deuteronomic framework, it is no accident that the author portrays Judas and his men as eminently pious and law-abiding. Their strict Sabbath observance (8:25–27; 12:38, 15:1–4) and concern to distribute the spoils of war to widows, orphans, and those who had been tortured (8:28) are prerequisites to their military success. Another recurring theme of Judas’s prebattle speeches is that God decides the outcome of the battle (10:28; 11:13; 13:14; 15:21). The notion that the gods determine the results of warfare is widespread in ancient Near Eastern, Greek, and Roman literature. 92 Speaking of the winners and losers in battle, Demosthenes said, “God decides how to apportion victory among the living” (Or. 60.19). David’s declaration to Goliath that “the battle belongs to the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου ὁ πόλεμος) captures the concept in its biblical form (1 Sam 17:46; Cf. 2 Chr 20:15). 93 Second Maccabees vividly illustrates this principle in that God routinely sends heavenly warriors to aide Judas and his army and once appears to the enemy himself. When the Jews were defending Jerusalem against the attack of Timothy and his army, five illustrious men riding horses with golden bridles appeared from heaven to lead them (10:29). These heavenly warriors shield Judas from his enemies while simultaneously raining arrows and thunderbolts upon them, thus winning the victory for the Jews (10:30–31). In this instance, God sends the heavenly cavalry as reinforcements when the battle is already raging (10:29). In the subsequent episode of help from heaven, God sends a heavenly horseman, clothed in white and in full armor, to lead the Jews before the battle even begins (11:6–10). When Judas pursued Timothy, God himself appears to the enemy, causing such terror that many of the enemy were injured and killed by their own weapons (12:22–23). As a result of “the epiphany of him who sees all things” (τῆς τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐφορῶντος ἐπιφανείας), Judas’s task is reduced to pursuing the injured enemy as they fled in terror (12:23). Scholarship has often interpreted these epiphanies as one of the numerous affinities between 2 Maccabees and Greek tragedy. 94 They are so prominent in the narrative that Doran describes 2 Maccabees as “a history of recent events filled with the theme of the epiphanic help of God.” 95 In my view, these visible manifestations of God’s aid and presence in the battles against the Seleucids are intended to console readers about the traumas of the prior persecution, when there was no visible manifestation of God’s aid and presence. To compensate for the fact that God had appeared to be absent when his people were suffering and

92

Doran, Temple Propaganda, 72–74, 97–104. The Bible also communicates God’s sovereignty over warfare by portraying God as “handing over” enemies to his people when they are victorious in battle, e. g., Judg 3:10, 28; 4:7, 14; 7:14–15; 1 Sam 14:12; 17:47; 2 Sam 5:19; 2 Chr 16:8. 94 E. g., Jay, Tragic in Mark, 121–23. 95 Doran, Temple Propaganda, 103. 93

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

81

needed him, 96 the author emphasizes that God was present and intimately involved in rescuing his people from danger in chapters 8–15.

2.4.6 God Punishes the Wicked Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic texts frequently seek to console their addressees by describing either how God has punished oppressors or how God will punish them in the future. Among the Prophets, the book of Nahum is a prime example. Nahum literally means “comfort” but could also be “a shortened form of Nehemiah, ‘Yahweh has given comfort.’” 97 Although “Nahum” is a well-attested west-Semitic name, the contents of its oracles more than live up to its lexical meaning of consolation. 98 O’Brien explains, “The literary worlds of the OAN [Oracles against the Nations] … draw clear connections between the devastation of the enemy and the comfort of Judah, forging a fit between the allusions of Nahum’s name and the worldview of this book.” 99 Nahum interprets the destruction of Nineveh (612 BCE) as the Lord’s vengeance against the Assyrians and celebrates this outpouring of divine wrath through graphic portrayal of their military defeat and suffering (esp. 1:2). While Nahum interpreted a past event as evidence that God would retaliate on behalf of his oppressed people, more frequently, the prophets spoke of the future when God would judge people and nations who had attacked Israel. By way of oracles against foreign nations, the prophets comforted Israelites by assuring them that their oppressors would not escape God’s wrath. 100 Within the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, many Jewish authors shifted the timeframe of God’s judgment on oppressors from the plane of history to postmortem existence. 101 Rather than promising that God will punish the wicked in the future, the author of 2 Maccabees, like Nahum, depicts their definitive and completed judgment in this world. His choice to narrate the past punishment of Andronicus (4:35–38), Jason (5:7–10), Antiochus IV (9:4–29), Menelaus (13:3–8), and Nicanor (15:32–35) should heighten the intended consolatory effect of the argument that God punishes wrongdoing, since readers are not required to trust that God would eventually execute justice, whether in this 96

See chapter 2, § 2.4.3 God Does Not Abandon His People. Julia Myers O’Brien, Nahum, RNBC (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 42. 98 O’Brien, Nahum, 42. Because “Nahum” is a common name, Holloway cautions that we need not assume that Nahum is “an ideal figure” simply because the meaning of his name fits so well with the content of his oracles (Coping with Prejudice, 99). 99 O’Brien, Nahum, 42. 100 E. g., Isa 13–23; 34:1–17; Jer 46:1–51:58; Ezek 25:1–32:32; Obad 1–16. 101 E. g., Dan 12; 1 En. 102–104, 108; Wis 1–5; 4 Ezra 7.75–101; 2 Bar. 50.2–51.16. Holloway identifies this extension of the scope of God’s judgment to “a time beyond death” as a hallmark of “apocalyptic consolation” in contrast to “prophetic consolation” (Coping with Prejudice, 105). 97

82

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

world or after death. The author allows his readers to “see” the horrible deaths of these men (e. g., Antiochus’s tortured and stinking body swarming with worms and rotting away [9:7–12]) while still in the world of the story, and thus gain full assurance that they did not escape the judgment of God (cf. 7:17, 35). While scholarship has thoroughly analyzed how the punishments of the wicked correspond to their crimes in 2 Maccabees, 102 it is worth emphasizing that the author’s graphic portrayals of the suffering and destruction of the enemies of God’s people is a consolatory topos in Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic texts that aim to comfort their readers.

2.4.7 God Rewards the Righteous with Life after Death While 2 Maccabees shows God to reward fidelity to him in this life whenever possible (e. g., in military victories), it also illustrates several ways by which God rewards his people after death. Most scholarship gives the impression that 2 Maccabees advocates one and only one position on postmortem reward for the faithful, that of bodily resurrection. 103 This focus on bodily resurrection is understandable given its prominence in the consolatory rhetoric of the seven brothers and their mother, who believe that God will recreate their bodies and endow them with new life because they have died for God’s laws (7:9, 11, 14, 23, 29, 36). Judas’s expectation that those killed in battle would rise again (12:39– 45) and Razis’s dying prayer that God would give him back his entrails (14:46) round out the references to resurrection in 2 Maccabees. Building on the work of Doran, Elledge has cautiously proposed that the text may present “some range of conceptions” of the afterlife on the basis of 6:30–31. 104 While Elledge is correct that 2 Maccabees contains multiple conceptions of the afterlife, the key text that illustrates afterlife beliefs other than bodily resurrection is 15:12– 16, not 6:30–31. 105 The author of 2 Maccabees presents two options concerning 102 Beate Ego, “God’s Justice. The ‘Measure for Measure’ Principle in 2 Maccabees,” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology, ed. Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSup 118 (Boston: Brill, 2007), 141–54. See also Doran’s comments on the topos of “just deserts” within ancient Greek literature and 2 Maccabees (Temple Propaganda, 94–95). 103 E. g., George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Space and Time, Body and Psychē in 1 Enoch and 2 Maccabees,” BN 168 (2016): 117–27; Shmuel Shepkaru, “From after Death to Afterlife: Martyrdom and Its Recompense,” AJSR 24 (1999): 1–44; Eberhard Bons, “ΕΛΠΙΣ comme l’espérance de la vie dans l’au-delà dans la littérature juive hellénistique,” in Ce dieu qui vient, LD 159 (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 345–70. 104 Elledge proposes that Eleazar’s distinction between his body and soul in 6:30 and the use of μεταλλάσσω in 6:31 “perhaps … suggests some range of conceptions [of the afterlife] present even within the book itself ” (Resurrection of the Dead, 27). Doran suggests that “the soul-body distinction [in 6:30] seems to reflect a worldview akin to that of Wis 3:1–4” and that “Eleazar’s distinction between body and soul thus looks forward to the possibility of a future life” (2 Maccabees, 155). 105 Elledge bases his argument on Doran’s translation of 6:31, which I find problematic.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

83

postmortem reward: a belief in eventual bodily resurrection and a belief that the faithful dead are immediately rewarded with new life after death. Because the text’s advocacy of bodily resurrection is undisputed, I focus my argument on the second conception of postmortem reward given in 2 Maccabees. In 15:12–16, Judas Maccabeus encourages his men before battle by relating a “dream” (ὄνειρος) in which he saw the pious high priest Onias, “with outstretched hands, praying for the whole community of the Jews” (τὰς χεῖρας προτείναντα κατεύχεσθαι τῷ παντὶ τῶν Ιουδαίων συστήματι [15:12]). Next to Onias stood a gray-haired man, of whom Onias says, This man is the one who loves his brothers, who prays much concerning the people and the holy city – Jeremiah, the prophet of God. Ὁ φιλάδελφος οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πολλὰ προσευχόμενος περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῆς ἁγίας πόλεως Ιερεμιας ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ προφήτης. 106

Jeremiah gives Judas a golden sword as a “gift from God” and instructs him to use it to strike his enemies (15:16). At this point in the narrative, Onias has been dead for approximately six years, having been murdered before the 167 BCE massacre carried out by Apollonius (cf. 4:34; 5:24–26). 107 Jeremiah has been dead for hundreds of years. The premise of Judas’s dream, which the author denotes as “trustworthy” (ἀξιόπιστος [15:11]), is that deceased Jews who had been particularly faithful to God (like Onias and Jeremiah) are not waiting for God to give them new life through bodily resurrection. Rather, the faithful dead from ages past and recent history are alive in heaven and praying for the Jewish people. While the author does not name the location of Onias and Jeremiah, their presence in heaven is suggested by the fact that Jeremiah can bestow a “gift from God” (δῶρον παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) to Judas (15:16). They are not disembodied souls but have bodies that resemble their appearance before death, for Judas can recognize Onias (15:12). The author specifically mentions their arms, hands, and Jeremiah’s gray hair (15:12–13, 15), leaving little doubt that he understands their bodies to resemble human bodies. Doran translates καὶ οὗτος οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον μετήλλαξεν as “So in this way, he exchanged this life for another” (2 Maccabees, 145). The words “for another” have no basis in the Greek, yet these are essential to the argument that there may be “the hope of an ‘exchange’ into a new life immediately at death” in 6:31 (Elledge, Resurrection of the Dead, 27). Given the usage of μεταλλάσσω elsewhere in 2 Maccabees (4:7, 37; 5:5; 7:7, 13, 40; 14:46), μετήλλαξεν in 6:31 should be translated “he died,” as is recognized by the NRSV and NETS. Despite their suspicion that 2 Maccabees may contain multiple views on the afterlife, neither Elledge nor Doran connect Judas’s dream in 15:12–16 to afterlife beliefs. Goldstein notes how the dream is interpreted by Catholics and cites parallels in ancient Jewish literature yet does not comment on the crucial issue of whether the author of 2 Maccabees was trying to convey something about the afterlife through the dream (II Maccabees, 498–99). 106 2 Macc 15:14. 107 On this date for Apollonius’s mission, see Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire, 159. This dream is portrayed as preceding the battle of Adasa (161 BCE).

84

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

The belief that the righteous dead were already living in heaven and could petition God on behalf of the living occurs in a number of Hellenistic Jewish texts besides 2 Maccabees, including Bar 3:4, Philo’s Praem. 166, Heb 7:25, and Josephus’s A. J. 1.231. This idea is a synthesis of the biblical perspective that God hears the cries of his deceased people on behalf of their living descendants (e. g., Jer 38:15–17) 108 and the argument in Greco-Roman consolation that the deceased was alive, happy, and with God/the gods in heaven. 109 In Greco-Roman consolation, the blessed dead in heaven might be represented as embodied and looking down upon the living as in 2 Maccabees, but they are never depicted as praying. 110 As far as I can tell, the motif of praying to God in heaven is first attested in Hellenistic Jewish consolation literature. In 2 Maccabees, it enhances the consolatory potential of Judas’s prebattle speech. Not only has God given them a sign of victory (the sword), God has also revealed that the Jewish people have heavenly intercessors who are petitioning God on their behalf. And to round it off, God has provided a balm for the fear of death by revealing that the faithful dead are given new life in heaven, where they join God’s people of ages past and remain contributing members of the Jewish people. The idea of immediate postmortem reward for the faithful illustrated in 15:12–16 supplements the notion of bodily resurrection presented in chapter 7 and assumed in 12:39–45 and 14:46. By including both concepts, the author of 2 Maccabees follows a convention of Greco-Roman consolation, wherein the consoler presents multiple options for what might happen after death, each intended to be comforting. 111 For example, the Consolation to Apollonius summarizes Socrates’s position that death could be three things, like a very deep sleep, like a long and distant journey, or the destruction of the body and soul, but in each case, death is not an evil [ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔστι κακόν]” (107D– 110E). Likewise, the author of 2 Maccabees suggests that death for faithful Jews could issue in future bodily resurrection on earth or could result in immediate embodied life in heaven, but in each case, God rewards his faithful people with life after death. The intended effect is to comfort readers about the unjust killings of faithful Jews while maintaining a sense of humility about the limits of human knowledge in discerning how exactly God will reward them. Is it bodily resurrection? Is it immediate life in heaven? Is it both, such that the seven brothers and their mother are living in heaven with Onias and Jeremiah while 108 See my discussion in chapter 1, § 1.4.3 Rejection of Biblical Assumptions and Arguments. 109 See chapter 1, n. 131. 110 Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.20–23; Seneca, Marc. 23.1–2; 25.3; 26.1–2; Polyb. 9.3. 111 E. g., Plato, Apol. 40C–41C; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 369C–370A (on nonexistence postmortem); Ax. 370B–372A (on the life of the soul postmortem, either above or below the earth); Seneca, Polyb. 9.2–3; Ep. 24.18; Ep. 99.30; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 107D–110E. On the multiple and conflicting arguments ancient consolers utilized “to deny that any harm has befallen the deceased,” see LaBarge, “How (and Maybe Why) to Grieve,” 330–31.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

85

they await the future resurrection of their bodies on earth? By inciting such questions, the author directs the reader’s attention away from the injustice of their deaths toward contemplating God’s justice and goodness in rewarding them.

2.4.8 God’s Wrath Is Short-Lived, but His Mercy toward His People Is Constant The idea that intense suffering cannot last long is reflected in several consolations of Hellenistic Jewish literature. When reflecting on past trauma, one states that it was of short duration. 112 When encouraging people in the middle of suffering, one says it will soon be over. 113 The author of 2 Maccabees employs this consolation when he writes that God was only “briefly” (βραχέως) angry with the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with the result that he withdrew his protection from the temple (5:17). The seventh brother echoes the narrator when he declares to Antiochus, “And if our Living Lord is briefly angry [βραχέως ἐπώργισται], for the sake of rebuke and discipline, he will again be reconciled with his own servants” (7:33). Just as he quickly passes over God’s anger to end on the positive note of reconciliation, the seventh brother ends on the high note of everlasting life in his next usage of the topos: “Now our brothers, having endured brief pain [βραχὺν ὑπενέγκαντες πόνον], have inherited everlasting life under God’s covenant” (7:36). In each of these instances, the author stresses that God’s wrath (and the suffering it caused) was short-lived. In the latter two, he argues that God’s brief expression of anger produced positive results: the people were rebuked and disciplined so they could be reconciled with God, while the brothers inherited everlasting life. The author reiterates his point that God’s anger was relatively brief in the structure of his epitome as a whole by allocating only three chapters to the period of God’s “wrath” (chapters 5–7) and eight chapters to the period of God’s “mercy” (chapters 8–15). In contrast to the short duration of God’s wrath, the author assures his readers that God’s mercy is constant: God “never withdraws his mercy from us” (οὐδέποτε μὲν τὸν ἔλεον ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἀφίστησιν [6:16]). He derives this conclusion from his belief that the Lord’s swift punishment of his people’s sin rescues them from far worse and lasting future punishment had they been allowed to continue sinning (6:13–15). The emphasis of οὐδέποτε leads the reader to assume that 6:16 is a gnomic statement – God never (οὐδέποτε) withdraws his mercy from his people. In other words, God is always merciful toward his people. Mercy is an essential attribute of the God of Israel. The Lord reveals to 112

E. g., Isa 54:7–8; 2 Macc 5:17; 7:36; Wis 3:5; 16:6, 11; 18:25–19:1. E. g., 2 Macc 7:33; Bar 4:22–25; 2 Cor 4:17–18; Heb 10:36–37; Rev 2:10; 4 Ezra 2.34; 16.52; 2 Bar. 82.2–83.6; 85.10. 113

86

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

Moses on Mount Sinai that “the Lord God is compassionate and merciful [ἐλεήμων], patient and abounding in mercy [πολυέλεος] and true, and preserving righteousness and doing mercy for thousands [ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας], taking away transgressions and injustices and sins” (Exod 34:6–7; cf. LXX Ps 102:6–8). The mercy of God is a source of consolation for the mother of the seven brothers, who bases her hope that she will get them back again on “God’s mercy” (7:23, 29). In chapter 8, the author undercuts his own claim that God never withdraws his mercy from his people (6:16) when he identifies the victory of Judas over Nicanor as “the beginning of mercy” (ἀρχὴ ἐλέους [8:27]). If mercy has a beginning, it is not constant. Indeed, the author’s narration of events in chapters 7–15 presumes that God had not been merciful to his people during the persecution. The youngest brother had prayed for God “to be merciful soon to the nation [ἵλεως ταχὺ τῷ ἔθνει γενέσθαι]” and “to stop with me and my brothers the wrath of the Almighty [τὴν τοῦ παντοκράτορος ὀργὴν] which has justly come upon our whole nation” (7:37–38). The prayer of the six thousand faithful Jews that follows the death of the martyrs recapitulates the seventh brother’s dying plea for mercy: They called upon the Lord to look upon [ἐπιδεῖν] the people oppressed by all, and to pity [οἰκτῖραι] the temple that had been desecrated by ungodly men, and to have mercy [ἐλεῆσαι] also on the city that was being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, and to hearken [εἰσακοῦσαι] to the blood crying out to him, and also to remember [μνησθῆναι] the lawless destruction of the innocent infants and the blasphemies committed against his name and to hate wickedness [μισοπονηρῆσαι]. 114

The prayer of the seventh martyr joined with these prayers of the Jewish people proved effective, for in the very next verse, the author attributes Judas’s immediate military success to the fact that “the wrath of the Lord had turned to mercy” (τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἔλεον τραπείσης [8:5]). This verse is frequently understood as “the turning point of the entire book, answering the prayer of vv. 2–4 and the hopes of 7:38.” 115 From 8:5 until the end of the epitome, the author narrates the military victories of Judas, each won with the help of the Lord. This hinge of the epitome complicates the author’s theodicy and attempts at consolation, for it casts doubt on his prior assertion that God “never withdraws his mercy from us” (6:16) by implicitly classifying all of the events of the reconquest of Jerusalem and ensuing persecution narrated in chapters 4–7 as a period of “the wrath of the Lord,” which was later superseded by a period of mercy in 8:5–15:37.

114 115

2 Macc 8:2–4. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 329.

2.4 Consolatory Arguments

87

The wrath/mercy schema adopted by 2 Maccabees to interpret the calamities and victories of the Jewish people is common in the Bible. Isaiah 54:7–8, for example, explicitly classifies the Babylonian invasion and exile as a period of divine abandonment and wrath that precedes a promised future period of God’s mercy. God declares to Zion, For a short time, I abandoned you, but with great mercy I will have mercy on you. With a little wrath I turned my face from you, and with eternal mercy I will have mercy on you. χρόνον μικρὸν κατέλιπόν σε καὶ μετὰ ἐλέους μεγάλου ἐλεήσω σε, ἐν θυμῷ μικρῷ ἀπέστρεψα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἀπὸ σοῦ καὶ ἐν ἐλέει αἰωνίῳ ἐλεήσω σε.

Likewise, Isa 12:1 understands the return from exile as a sign that God has finally turned away from his wrath to have mercy on his children: “You will say in that day, ‘I will bless you, Lord, for you were angry with me [ὠργίσθης μοι] and you turned away your anger [ἀπέστρεψας τὸν θυμόν σου] and had mercy on me [ἠλέησάς με].’” Daniel, when engaging in penitential prayer for the sins of the people, asks of God, “Let your wrath [ὁ θυμός σου] and your anger [ἡ ὀργή σου] turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy mountain” (Dan 9:16). Daniel acknowledges that God is right to have punished them (9:7, 14) and appeals to God’s mercy (ἔλεος 9:18) as the ground of his hope that God will relent. These same motifs are found in the speech of the seventh brother. They have sinned (2 Macc 7:32) and God is right to unleash his wrath on the nation (7:38), yet he asks that God might stop his wrath and soon show mercy to the nation (7:37). The claims of the author of 2 Maccabees concerning God’s wrath and mercy are rife with tension. Like Isaiah, he adopts a schema of God’s wrath being superseded by God’s mercy to interpret his people’s suffering and subsequent good fortune. But, contrary to Isaiah, he also maintains that God “never withdraws his mercy from us” and “does not forsake his own people” (6:16). If God’s mercy is always present with his people (6:16), then how can God’s mercy be confined to a certain period of history marked by victory rather than suffering (8:5)? The portrait of God in 8:5 operates on the assumption that God expresses either “wrath” or “mercy” but not both at the same time. Suffering and hardship are then deduced to signify God’s wrath; while victory and prosperity are taken to signify God’s mercy. The author’s exploration of the meaning of the persecution in 6:12–17 eschews this paradigm as too simple to account for reality. In these musings, God is merciful to his people while they are being “disciplined with calamities” (6:16). 116 Here, God is present with his suffering people. If we 116 Pseudo-Solomon likewise views the suffering of God’s people as God’s discipline (παιδεία) and claims that God’s people should expect “mercy” from God when they are “judged” by him: “when being judged, we expect mercy” (κρινόμενοι δὲ προσδοκῶμεν ἔλεος [Wis 12:22]).

88

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

must speak of God’s “wrath” (ὀργή, a term the author does not use in 6:12–17), the God described in 6:12–17 is merciful to his people in the midst of his wrath. Separating God’s “wrath” from God’s “mercy” as two distinct time periods in history does not fit with the author’s claims in 6:12–17. The tension within the author’s conception of God’s wrath and mercy is the result of his decision to integrate two different consolatory arguments in his composition without harmonizing them. The author of 2 Maccabees associates the consolation that God never withdraws his mercy from his people with the assurance that God does not abandon them (6:16): Therefore, he [God] never withdraws his mercy from us; and though he disciplines us with misfortune, he does not abandon his own people. διόπερ οὐδέποτε μὲν τὸν ἔλεον ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἀφίστησιν, παιδεύων δὲ μετὰ συμφορᾶς οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λαόν.

Other biblical authors similarly link God’s mercy with God’s enduring presence. In Ezra’s prayer, for example, he says that despite the disobedience of God’s people, “you, in your many mercies, did not make an end of them and you did not forsake them [οὐκ ἐγκατέλιπες αὐτούς], for you are strong and merciful [ἐλεήμων] and compassionate [οἰκτίρμων]” (Neh 9:31). Judith claims that “our God is with us” and “has not withdrawn his mercy [οὐκ ἀπέστησεν τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ] from the house of Israel” with reference to the same event of decapitating Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrian army (13:11–14). In equating God’s mercy with God’s presence in 2 Macc 6:16, the author of 2 Maccabees supports his claim that God does not withdraw his mercy from his people with the biblical consolation that God does not abandon his people, a variation of the consolation that God is with you. 117 The wrath/mercy schema (8:5) of his narrative is based on the different biblical consolation that God will not be angry forever on account of God’s abundant mercy. Septuagint Ps 102:8–9 captures this consolation: “The Lord is compassionate and merciful [ἐλεήμων], patient and abounding in mercy [πολυέλεος]. He will not be angry forever [οὐκ εἰς τέλος ὀργισθήσεται], nor will he bear a grudge forever [οὐδὲ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηνιεῖ].” When the Lord is trying to woo Israel back from her infidelity, he speaks through Jeremiah, “Return to me.… I will not set my face against you, for I am merciful [ἐλεήμων], and I will not bear a grudge against you forever [οὐ μηνιῶ ὑμῖν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα]” (Jer 3:12). This consolation hits at the heart of the biblical conception of God as merciful, that God’s mercy limits the expression and duration of his wrath. Michael L. Morgan writes, “Divine compassion or mercy or love is primarily expressed in the Bible as God’s disposition to overcome his fury and pardon the transgression which means not to

117

See prior discussion in chapter 2, § 2.4.3 God Does Not Abandon His People.

2.5 Function of the Consolatory Arguments in 2 Maccabees

89

forget it as much as it is to forgo punishment for it.” 118 The biblical belief that God’s mercy will ultimately overpower God’s wrath is represented as a source of comfort for God’s suffering people in the Bible because it gives them hope that their situation will change for the better. When the people of Bethulia are under siege by the Assyrians, the elder Uzziah seeks to comfort them and arouse their courage by promising that within the next five days, “the Lord our God will turn his mercy [τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ] upon us” (Jdt 7:30). The author of 2 Maccabees capitalizes on the biblical consolation that God’s wrath can last only so long because of God’s mercy to compose a triumph narrative in which God’s mercy overcomes God’s wrath. But this narrative arc comes at the cost of implying that God’s mercy was conspicuously and painfully absent from the period of God’s wrath when his people were being tortured and killed. The author attempts to circumvent this disturbing inference by integrating another biblical consolatory argument in his work, that God never withdraws his mercy from his people because he does not abandon them.

2.5 Function of the Consolatory Arguments in 2 Maccabees Ancient consolatory rhetoric aimed not only to transform emotions but to influence behavior. 119 The author of 2 Maccabees marshals consolatory arguments in support of his goal to persuade his readers to maintain God’s laws. His παραμυθίαι are essentially counterarguments to potential accusations that the atrocities committed by the Seleucids during the reign of Antiochus IV suggest that God is not sovereign, just, or merciful. He argues that God was in control of the situation and, in his mercy, used it for the good of his people. In terms of law obedience, the most pressing theological problem posed by the traumas of 168– 167 BCE was the impression that God did not reward obedience to his laws with life and blessing as promised in Deuteronomy. One could cite the murder of the high priest Onias, whose obedience to the law is unquestioned by the author (3:1), as evidence. The author of 2 Maccabees counterargues that Onias was rewarded by God and is living in heaven with Jeremiah (15:12–16), and, moreover, that God could recreate the bodies of those who died for his laws and give them new life (7:22–23, 27–29). In each instance, the lesson is that God’s covenant is still trustworthy and binding, with the result that the Jewish people as a whole must continue to maintain the laws handed down from Moses. Consolatory arguments are just one way the author seeks to encourage fidelity to God’s laws. He also attempts to guide their behavior by showing his read118 Michael L. Morgan, “Mercy, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Ancient Judaism,” in Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian, ed. David Konstan and Charles L. Griswold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 137–57, esp. 139. 119 See introduction, § 1. The Goals of Ancient Consolatory Rhetoric.

90

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

ers the results of irreverence to the laws and of obedience to the laws. 120 By way of wicked characters such as Jason and Menelaus, he displays the horrific consequences of disregarding God’s commands: innocent Jews are killed by other Jews (5:6), a foreign monarch invades Jerusalem (5:11–14), and the temple is plundered (5:15–17). By way of pious characters such as the high priest Onias, the seven brothers and their mother, and Judas Maccabeus, he exhibits the benefits of obeying God’s laws: foreign kings honor Jerusalem (3:2–3), God’s anger is placated (7:5–8:5), the people are victorious in battle (8:5–15:27), and the Hebrews regain control over Jerusalem (15:37). The author presents the fruits of obedience to God and of disobedience to God in stark terms to make it easy for his readers to decide how they will live their own lives. Do they aspire to live in peace and not become a casualty of foreign invasion and war? If so, they will obey God’s laws (3:1–3).

2.6 Implications In this chapter, I have demonstrated that the author of 2 Maccabees integrated numerous consolatory arguments from his Bible into his retelling of Jewish history under Seleucid rule. To achieve his practical aim of motivating his readers to observe God’s laws, he deemed it necessary to attend to readers’ potential depression over the atrocities committed against the Jews during that period (6:12). In his effort to counteract his readers’ (anticipated) grief, he engages with the wide spectrum of interpretations of suffering and consolatory arguments within the Bible and makes his own contribution to this storehouse of consolatory resources. Though he accepts that suffering is God’s punishment for sin, he takes care to distance God from harming his own people, such that he can represent God as chiefly his people’s helper, not their punisher. He distinguishes God’s treatment of his temple from his treatment of his people such that he can argue that God does not abandon his people but is with them always. At one point, the author’s eagerness to pile up biblical consolations leads him to a logical impasse (how can God be always merciful to his people and suddenly abandon his wrath to show mercy?), but this inconsistency in his consolation highlights his eager attempt to create his own multifaceted and biblically based

120 Historians of this period tried to influence the behavior of their readers by constructing models of good lives and bad lives and showing the fruit of each. In his preface to his history, Diodorus Siculus states that we should all be grateful to historians, since they have endeavored “to benefit” (ὠφελῆσαι) society by enabling people to learn from the mistakes and successes of the past without incurring any harm or suffering themselves (1.1.1–4; cf. 1.3.5). The author of 2 Maccabees lays out for his readers the mistakes and successes of the Jewish people in the past so that they can make the right choice to obey God’s laws.

2.6 Implications

91

argument against depression over the horrors of Seleucid rule, especially as seen in the violent suppression of Judaism under Antiochus the IV. The author of 2 Maccabees is less interested than the authors of my other case studies in synthesizing biblical and Greco-Roman consolations, yet he embraces the common Greco-Roman argument that the pious dead are alive and well in heaven in his effort to maintain the justice of God in the midst of the reality that numerous law-abiding Jews were killed during the persecution. Scholarship on afterlife beliefs in 2 Maccabees has almost exclusively focused on the text’s advocacy of bodily resurrection to the neglect of its hope that the faithful dead are already alive in heaven and looking down on the living. I have argued that 2 Maccabees offers its readers both options for conceptualizing life after death. The reticence of scholarship to acknowledge 15:12–16 as a legitimate source of afterlife beliefs in 2 Maccabees is puzzling. Are the beliefs within 15:12–16 dismissed because they are expressed within a dream? God frequently communicates to his people through dreams in the Bible (e. g., Joseph), such that this fact does not warrant disregarding the afterlife beliefs within 15:12–16 as invalid. 121 Are the assumptions about the afterlife in 15:12–16 neglected because they conflict with the author’s prior advocacy of a belief in bodily resurrection? This should not be a hindrance, since the author advocates contradictory positions elsewhere in his epitome in his effort to include multiple consolatory arguments. 122 Like other ancient consolers, the author of 2 Maccabees presents multiple consoling options about the afterlife to readers. Lastly, my study of the consolatory rhetoric within 2 Maccabees has significant implications for how we understand the author’s relationship to Deuteronomic theology. My research affirms the observation of previous scholarship that the theology of suffering in 2 Maccabees is heavily influenced by Deuteronomic theology. 123 However, I demonstrate that the author rejects aspects of Deuteronomic theology that he deemed counterproductive to his consolatory aim. First, he emphatically rejects the Deuteronomic belief that God would abandon his people if they abandoned him. Whereas Deuteronomy asserts that God will “forsake” and “hide his face from” his people in response to their sin (Deut 31:16–17; 32:19–20), the author of 2 Maccabees claims that God “does not forsake his own people” (6:16; cf. 7:16). For this reason, the God of Israel can be called “the constant defender of our nation” (ὁ διὰ παντὸς ὑπέρμαχος τοῦ ἔθνους ἡμῶν [2 Macc 14:34]). Second, the author’s special pleading that God never (οὐδέποτε) withdraws his mercy from his people (6:16) is in tension 121 See Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein, eds., ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 584 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014). 122 See chapter 2, § 2.4.8 God’s Wrath Is Short-Lived, but His Mercy toward His People Is Constant. 123 E. g., Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 21–22, 66; Doran, Temple Propaganda, 93–94; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, 43–44.

92

Chapter 2: Narrating Trauma: Consolatory Rhetoric in 2 Maccabees

with Deuteronomy, which portrays God as having mercy on his children (ἐλεήσει σε) after they return to him and obey his commandments (Deut 30:1–3). 124 Recognition of these ways in which the author of 2 Maccabees rejects Deuteronomy’s perspective on suffering highlights his overriding concern to stress that God is with his people in their pain and hardship.

124 As discussed above, this is a complicated issue because the author of 2 Maccabees wants to have it both ways: that God is always merciful to his children and that God becomes merciful to his children following his wrath. See chapter 2, § 2.4.8 God’s Wrath Is Short-Lived, but His Mercy toward His People Is Constant.

Chapter 3:

Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon For through everything, O Lord, you have exalted your people and glorified them, and you did not neglect standing by them in every time and place. 1

The anonymous author of the Wisdom of Solomon ends his work with these words. They sum up what he has been striving to communicate to his readers all along, namely, that God is always present with his beloved children and always acts for their benefit, no matter how disastrous circumstances may appear to ignorant eyes. Pseudo-Solomon argues that God is a merciful and beneficent father who uses whatever his children suffer toward their ultimate glorification. His intended readers were survivors of a persecution in which some of those faithful to the Torah suffered and even died at the hands of non-Jews. As readers sought to make meaning out of what they had endured, Pseudo-Solomon provides answers to the question of why God often does not intervene to prevent the suffering and premature death of his children. He writes to his fellow Alexandrian Jews in the guise of wise King Solomon in order to offer a plausible interpretation of their suffering that demonstrates that God was on their side all along. By cutting to the heart of why they had suffered, Pseudo-Solomon hoped to achieve his larger aim of persuading readers to hold fast to the God of Israel, despite the risks their allegiance entailed. To this end, Pseudo-Solomon mobilized the resources of his biblical inheritance and his Greek education to forge consolatory arguments that he hoped would combat despair and reawaken hope in his Jewish community.

3.1 Circumstances of Composition The author behind the persona of King Solomon was a Hellenistic Jew who wrote in early Roman Egypt, most likely in Alexandria. The author’s impassioned animosity toward Egyptians (19:13–17) and his damning critique of Egyptian religion (12:23–27; 15:18–19) are commonly cited as evidence that

1

Wis 19:22.

94

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

he had personal interactions with Egyptians. 2 Pseudo-Solomon’s familiarity with Greek philosophy, particularly Middle Platonism and Stoicism, suggest Alexandria. 3 Similarities in vocabulary and thought between the Wisdom of Solomon and extant writings of Alexandrian Jews, especially those of Philo, add additional support to the hypothesis of Alexandrian origin. 4 Arguments that the Wisdom of Solomon was composed in Syria have not gained wide support. 5 As for the date of composition, most scholars today agree that the Wisdom of Solomon was written sometime between the Roman capture of Alexandria (30 BCE) and the writings of Paul (c. 50 CE). 6 Within this range, some argue that Pseudo-Solomon wrote in response to Augustus’s imposition of the poll tax in 24/23 BCE. 7 Against this view, a greater number of scholars have maintained that the Wisdom of Solomon was composed in or shortly after the reign of 2 E. g., Lester L. Grabbe, Wisdom of Solomon, GAP (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 90; Hans Hübner, Die Weisheit Salomons, ATD 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 16; David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 43 (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 25. 3 Matthew Edwards, Pneuma and Realized Eschatology in the Book of Wisdom, FRLANT 242 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), esp. 28–30; Reese, Hellenistic Influence, esp. 146–62. 4 Mareike V. Blischke, Die Eschatologie in der Sapientia Salomonis, FAT 2/26 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 46, 203–23; Chrysostome Larcher, Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 132–78. 5 A Syrian origin has been argued by Dieter Georgi (Weisheit Salomos, JSHRZ 3/4 [Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980], 395–97) and Frank Zimmerman (“The Book of Wisdom: Its Language and Character (Continued),” JQR 57 [1966]: 101–35, esp. 130–35). Georgi argues that the Wisdom of Solomon emerged from Syria on account of “die intensive Bekanntschaft des Werkes mit der palästinischen Apokalyptik” (396). Given that Jewish apocalyptic texts also emerged from Egypt (e. g., Sib. Or. 3, Sib. Or. 5, 2 Enoch, 3 Baruch, Testament of Abraham), similarities between the Wisdom of Solomon and apocalyptic texts from Syria do not warrant assigning the book to Syria. See Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 124–27, 233–55. Zimmerman bases his theory of Syrian provenance on his larger argument that the Wisdom of Solomon was originally composed in Aramaic, “the language of Jews in the Syrian Diaspora” (133). Scholars now agree that the Wisdom of Solomon was originally composed in Greek. 6 For 30 BCE as the earliest possible date, see Giuseppe Scarpat, “Ancora sull’autore del Libro della Sapienza,” RivB 15 [1967]: 171–89. The debate regarding whether Paul and later New Testament authors were dependent on the Wisdom of Solomon is summarized by Larcher (Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse, 11–30). Some scholars do not find sufficient evidence to date the work more precisely than sometime between 30 BCE and 50 CE: e. g., Burkes, God, Self, and Death, 174–75; Moyna McGlynn, Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom, WUNT 2/139 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 13; Jonathan A. Linebaugh, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation, NovTSup 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 28–29. 7 E. g., Marie-Françoise Baslez, “The Author of Wisdom and the Cultured Environment of Alexandria,” in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLY 2005 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 33– 49, esp. 49; Luca Mazzinghi, “Wis 19:13–17 and the Civil Rights of the Jews of Alexandria,” in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLY 2005 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 53–82, esp. 78.

3.1 Circumstances of Composition

95

Gaius Caligula (37–41 CE), when the Roman governor of Alexandria revoked Jewish rights and Jews were attacked by their Greek neighbors. 8 Other scholars maintain the hypothesis of a persecuted readership without identifying a particular persecution against Jews. 9 A few scholars have challenged the now consensus view that the Wisdom of Solomon was composed in the early Roman period, 10 and a minority argues that the text was written over several decades. 11 My analysis of the consolatory rhetoric in the Wisdom of Solomon identifies new evidence in support of the hypothesis that it was composed in the wake of and in reaction to the anti-Jewish violence that began in August of 38 CE in Alexandria, Egypt. The intended readers were Alexandrian Jews who, in August of 38 CE, had been deprived of their civil rights by their Roman governor and had survived 8 Samuel Cheon, The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: A Study in Biblical Interpretation, JSPSup 23 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 127–49; Michael Kolarcik, “The Sage behind the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World, ed. Leo G. Perdue, FRLANT 219 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 245–57, esp. 249–50; Christian Kurzewitz, Weisheit und Tod: Die Ätiologie des Todes in der Sapientia Salomonis, TANZ 50 (Tübingen: Francke, 2010), 41; Leo G. Perdue, “Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, vol. 2 of Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, TENTS 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 341–71, esp. 371; Scarpat, Libro della Sapienza, 1:21–24; José Vílchez Líndez, Sapienza: Traduzione e comment, CB (Rome: Borla, 1990), 66; Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 23–24. 9 John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 451; Joseph R. Dodson, The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans, BZNW 161 (New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 51–53; Peter Enns, “Pseudo-Solomon and His Scripture: Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 389– 414, esp. 390–96; Andrew T. Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses, DCLS 9 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 29–31. In contrast to these scholars, Giuseppe Bellia argues that the Wisdom of Solomon was written in “a tranquil and agreeable period” (“Historical and Anthropological Reading of the Book of Wisdom,” in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLY 2005 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005], 83–115, esp. 104). 10 Georgi finds no reference to the Roman republic in the Wisdom of Solomon but familiarity with “the philosophical ideologies of the Hellenistic Kingdoms,” leading him to hypothesize that the Wisdom of Solomon was written in the last decades of the second century BCE (Weisheit Salomos, 396). William Horbury, who sees “Sadducaic-Pharisaic strife” reflected in Wis 1–6, argues that the Wisdom of Solomon was likely written between 100 BCE and 50 BCE (“The Wisdom of Solomon,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Muddiman and John Barton [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 650–67, esp. 653). James R. Davila, on the other hand, argues from the earliest extant quotations of the Wisdom of Solomon that it could have been composed as late as the second half of the first century CE by a gentile Christian (The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?, JSJSup 105 [Leiden: Brill, 2005], 224–25). 11 E. g., Blischke, Die Eschatologie, 45; Engel, Das Buch der Weisheit, 34; Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse, 1:161.

96

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

the ensuing persecution. 12 Synagogues were razed. Jewish homes were plundered. Jews were crowded into one section of the city and were unable to procure food for their families. Mobs murdered Jews in the streets. The Jewish elders were arrested and tortured in the theater. A number of Jews were rounded up and forced to either eat pork or be executed. Some Jews gave up their fidelity to Torah in order to save their lives. Other Jews refused to transgress the law of their God and died horrendous deaths from public torture. Philo’s writings on these events, On Flaccus and Embassy to Gaius, constitute our only sources that undisputedly refer to this Jewish persecution and its immediate aftermath. I am convinced that the Wisdom of Solomon is another early witness to these horrors. Pseudo-Solomon and Philo share more in common than being highly educated Alexandrian Jews – both men employed their knowledge of literature and rhetoric to help their Jewish community process what they had endured and heal from their collective traumas.

3.2 Previous Scholarship The few existing studies of ancient consolatory rhetoric within the Wisdom of Solomon almost exclusively concern 4:7–20, in which Pseudo-Solomon offers consolation about premature deaths. 13 Commentaries may list parallels with ancient consolations in analyses of 3:1–3 and individual verses outside of 4:7– 20, but when interpreting larger units of the Wisdom of Solomon, the conversation about the author’s interaction with ancient consolatory rhetoric begins and ends with 4:7–20. 14 Holloway’s three-page synopsis of consolatory topoi in the Wisdom of Solomon is a welcome exception to the rule. Holloway identifies “the traditional prophetic theme of the reward of the righteous and the punishment of their oppressors” as “a central consolatory topos in the Wisdom of Solomon” and lists other topoi Pseudo-Solomon utilizes in 1:1–6:21. 15 Did 12 For historical reconstructions of these events, see Sandra Gambetti, The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction, JSJSup 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Pieter W. van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom, PACS 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); E. Mary Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1961). 13 Schmitt, “Der frühe Tod des Gerechten nach Weisheit 4, 7–19”; Engel, Das Buch der Weisheit, 98–101; Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse, 2:330–39; Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 140–41; Winston, “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon,” 536–37; Scarpat, Libro della Sapienza, 2:325–39. 14 E. g., Larcher identifies consolatory rhetoric in 3:1–3, 15:8, and 17:12 (Le Livre de la Sagesse, 1:277; 3:865, 966). William J. Deane cites Seneca’s Ad Helviam in his notes on 3:18 (The Book of Wisdom [Oxford: Clarendon, 1881], 128). 15 These topoi include “(1) the hope that God will preserve the righteous in his or her righteousness in preparation for the life to come, (2) the related hope that God will give inner peace and sustenance to the righteous in death, (3) belief that the suffering of the righteous is

3.2 Previous Scholarship

97

Pseudo-Solomon engage with consolatory rhetoric in the rest of his work (6:22– 19:22)? No study currently exists that analyzes Pseudo-Solomon’s use of ancient consolatory rhetoric throughout his composition. Scholars have approached the question of how Pseudo-Solomon attempted to console persecuted readers by means of different but related lines of research, such as investigations into his struggle with theodicy, 16 his understanding of death, 17 his eschatology, 18 and his peculiar rewritings of biblical stories. 19 Each of these fields of inquiry informs the analysis of Pseudo-Solomon’s consolatory rhetoric, but they cannot give us the full picture of how Pseudo-Solomon attempted to console his persecuted community. Pseudo-Solomon’s attempts to solve the problem of theodicy, his views on death, his eschatology, and his rewritings of biblical stories are building blocks to larger consolatory arguments, by which he aimed to influence the behavior of this intended readers. What are these overarching consolatory arguments, whose threads run through the entire book? Did Pseudo-Solomon compose subsidiary consolatory arguments to address specific causes of his intended readers’ grief? If so, what are these consolatory arguments, and what were their desired effects upon his readers? What responses to adversity did Pseudo-Solomon urge upon his persecuted readers? What biblical books, philosophies, and theories of consolation intesting in preparation for the life to come, (4) the idea that the early death of the righteous signals their early perfection and actually removes them from the evils and temptations of this life, and finally, (5) the related claim that it is not length of life that matters so much as it is the quality of life lived in preparation for future reward.” In relation to his third topos, Holloway lists not only 3:5–6 but also 11:8–10; 12:20–22; 16:3–6, 11; 18:20. For all other topoi, Holloway cites examples only in 1:1–6:21 (Coping with Prejudice, 96–97). 16 E. g., Dodson explores how Pseudo-Solomon and the apostle Paul use personification in contexts of theodicy in order to “achieve their rhetorical ends of comforting the righteous in suffering” (‘Powers’ of Personification, 216). Winston treats how Pseudo-Solomon handles problems of theodicy more broadly, although he does not discuss 11:1–14 and 16:1–19:22, in which Pseudo-Solomon tries to explain why God allowed innocent Israel to repeatedly suffer during their wandering in the wilderness (“Theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon,” 525–45). See also Jason M. Zurawski, “Hell on Earth: Corporeal Existence as the Ultimate Punishment of the Wicked in Philo of Alexandria and the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: End Time and Afterlife in Judaism, ed. J. Harold Ellens, vol. 1 of Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2013), 193–226; Robert J. Miller, “Immortality and Religious Identity in Wisdom 2–5,” in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack, ed. Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 199–213; Garrison, Why Are You Silent, 63–71. 17 E. g., Kurzewitz, Weisheit und Tod; Burkes, God, Self, and Death, 159–91; Michael Kolarcik, The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1–6: A Study of Literary Structure and Interpretation, AnBib 127 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991); Taylor, “Eschatological Meaning of Life and Death,” 72–137. 18 E. g., Edwards, Pneuma and Realized Eschatology; Blischke, Die Eschatologie. 19 E. g., Cheon, Exodus Story; Enns, “Pseudo-Solomon and His Scripture”; Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10; Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, “The Hermeneutics of Exodus in the Book of Wisdom,” in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, ed. R. Roukema, CBET 44 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 97–116.

98

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

formed Pseudo-Solomon’s processes of invention? These questions guide my analysis of consolatory rhetoric within the Wisdom of Solomon. I argue that Pseudo-Solomon’s composition is undergirded by two broadsweeping consolatory arguments, namely, (1) that God will use whatever his righteous children suffer to benefit them and (2) that God will never fail to punish those who have wronged them. Both arguments are intimately tied with Pseudo-Solomon’s insistence that, contrary to appearances, God rewards faithfulness to him and punishes transgression. Within this framework, I argue that Pseudo-Solomon offers subsidiary consolatory arguments to address several specific sources of his readers’ sorrow: people who had been faithful to God were publicly punished, tortured, and killed while their enemies watched (3:1– 9; 4:17–18), parents had been bereaved of their children (4:1–6; cf. 3:13–19), young people had died (4:7–19), members of God’s people had been unjustly imprisoned by oppressors (17:2–18:4; esp. 17:2; 18:4), and God’s people were suffering on account of sinners with whom they had formerly shared the same rights (19:14–16). 20 Taken together, these sources of grief cohere with what we know of the persecution of the Jewish community of Alexandria that began in August of 38 CE. In response to the devastation this persecution had wrecked on his community, Pseudo-Solomon attempted to inspire his readers to choose righteousness over apostasy, to exhibit self-control rather than grief, and to be courageous rather than fearful. He prodded them to refrain from retaliating against their oppressors in anticipation that God would save them and destroy their enemies. In the meantime, Pseudo-Solomon urged his addressees to meditate continually on God’s word and his promises, to trust, to pray, and to give thanks to God amid their hardship. I show that his consolatory rhetoric was particularly informed by Job, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Daniel, and the Epistle of Enoch. At the same time, I demonstrate that Pseudo-Solomon’s arguments against grief in bereavement are indebted to the Platonic tradition of consolation, that several of his ideals for how to behave in suffering cohere with the recommendations of Greek and Roman consolers, and that his method for rewriting biblical stories in chapters 11–19 follows a particular compositional practice in Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric, that is, presenting the past self of the distressed as an exemplum for navigating adversity. To prove these theses, I first address the genre of the Wisdom of Solomon and the relationship between protreptic and consolation. Second, I argue that the persona of King Solomon was particularly appropriate for consoling the author’s Jewish audience and elucidate the literary construct of his addressees. Third, I analyze the consolatory arguments in the Book of Eschatology (1:1– 20

grief.

This list is not comprehensive, but it contains the most overt sources of his audience’s

3.3 Genre of the Wisdom of Solomon

99

6:21) 21 with a focus on 3:1–4:19. In this unit, Pseudo-Solomon argues against grief concerning the public punishment, torture, and killing of Jews (3:1–9; 4:17–18), the newfound childlessness of parents who had been bereaved of their children (4:1–6; cf. 3:13–19), and the premature deaths of young people (4:7– 19). Fourth, I explicate the consolatory rhetoric within the Book of Wisdom (6:22–10:21) and argue that Pseudo-Solomon presents Lady Wisdom as exercising the functions that Greco-Roman consolation attributes to “reason” and the functions that Jewish traditions of consolation attribute to the God of Israel. Fifth, I identify Pseudo-Solomon’s consolatory methods in the Book of History (11:1–19:22), with a particular focus on how he attempts to demonstrate to his readers that they have already conquered the trials they are facing and that God used their past trials for their ultimate benefit. Sixth, I explore the various ways in which Pseudo-Solomon attempts to make meaning out of the suffering of righteous people throughout his composition. Lastly, I lay out the implications of my study of the Wisdom of Solomon as Hellenistic Jewish consolation literature.

3.3 Genre of the Wisdom of Solomon The majority of scholars identify the Wisdom of Solomon as a λόγος προτρεπτικός, that is, a protreptic or exhortatory discourse, 22 although several scholars have argued that the Wisdom of Solomon is an encomium. 23 James Reese, who is most frequently cited in support of the λόγος προτρεπτικός genre designation for the Wisdom of Solomon, defines protreptic as a “species of philosophical rhetoric” that is “an appeal to follow a meaningful philosophy as a way of life.” 24 David Winston, who also maintains that the Wisdom of Solo21 Current scholarship routinely follows W. Weber’s thematic division of the Wisdom of Solomon into three books: the Book of Eschatology (1:1–6:21), the Book of Wisdom (6:22– 10:21), and the Book of History (11:1–19:22). See “Die Komposition der Weisheit Salomos,” ZWT 48 (1904): 145–69. 22 E. g., Kurzewitz, Weisheit und Tod, 37–38; Perdue, “Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion,” 358–71; David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 137; Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 117–21; Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 18–20; John G. Gammie, “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre,” Semeia 50 (1990): 41–77, esp. 66; Friedrich Focke, Die Entstehung der Weisheit Salomos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 86. 23 E. g., Paolo Bizzeti, Il Libro della Sapienza: Struttura e genere letterario, RivBSup 11 (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1984); Maurice Gilbert, “Sagesse de Salomon (ou Livre de la Sagesse),” DBS 11 (1986): 57–119; Gilbert, La Sagesse de Salomon: Recueil d’études, AnBib 189 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011), 30–32. 24 Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 117–18. Reese expands his argument that the Wisdom of Solomon is a protreptic text in “A Semiotic Critique: With Emphasis on the Place of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Literature of Persuasion,” Semeia 50 (1990): 229–42.

100

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

mon is a λόγος προτρεπτικός, defines protreptic as “a highly charged appeal designed to persuade a large audience to succumb to the charms of the philosophical life.” 25 Both of these definitions are heirs to the scholarly study of protrepsis as “conversion literature” in contrast to paraenesis as “confirmation literature.” 26 Leo Perdue, for example, argues that the terms “paraenesis” and “protrepsis” “be differentiated primarily on the basis of social functions, not content or literary form,” such that paraenesis refers not only to the traditional content of moral instruction, but also to the process of confirming the validity of the moral life undertaken and exhorting the audience to continue in this path.… Protrepsis refers to the process of converting the audience to a new way of life, or exhorting one to take up the responsibilities and virtues required of a new stage or social role.… Protrepsis and paraenesis refer then, to two distinct, but connected stages along the way to virtue: entrance to the path of life and continuance in the course undertaken. 27

In response to this conventional view, Diana Swancutt argues that the notion that “protrepsis was outsider-oriented, philosophic ‘conversion’ literature, while paraenesis advised adherents of a given life path in the best practices of that βίος” is, in fact, “a false dichotomy.” 28 While ancient philosophers did employ λόγοι προτρεπτικοί to win new students, numerous λόγοι προτρεπτικοί were “written to both initiates and longer-term adherents of different ways of life,” such as Origen’s Protreptikos to Martyrdom, Clement of Alexandria’s Protreptikos to Endurance, Pseudo-Anacharsis’s Letter Nine, and Pseudo-Crates’s To Aper. 29 Swancutt’s analysis of λόγοι προτρεπτικοί directed to adherents of marginalized groups within the Roman Empire is particularly revelatory for the Wisdom of Solomon, as this text was “chiefly written to encourage continued adherence to the Jewish way of life” amid social and political pressure for Jews

25

Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 20. Stowers, Letter Writing, 92. Stowers explains, “protreptic works urge the reader to convert to a way of life, join a school, or accept a set of teachings as normative for the reader’s life” (Letter Writing, 113). According to David E. Aune, “The λόγος προτρεπτικός, or ‘speech of exhortation,’ is a speech intended to win converts and attract young people to a particular way of life.… The central function of λόγοι προτρεπτικοί was to encourage conversion” (“Protreptic Literature,” Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, 383–86, esp. 383–84). Diana M. Swancutt traces the history of this view of protrepsis back to Paul Hartlich’s 1889 study De Exhortationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia et indole, “the first study to characterize protrepsis as a ‘call to the philosophic life’ (Hartlich 1889, 210)” (“Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis: Troubling the Typical Dichotomy,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, BZNW 125 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004], 113–53, esp. 114–17). 27 Leo G. Perdue, “The Social Character of Paraenesis and Paraenetic Literature,” Semeia 50 (1990): 5–39, esp. 23–24. 28 Swancutt, “Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis,” 113. 29 Swancutt, “Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis,” 122. 26

3.3 Genre of the Wisdom of Solomon

101

to abandon their Jewish βίος. 30 The Wisdom of Solomon is best understood within this framework, as a text that “deploy[s] the cultural stereotype of the λόγος προτρεπτικός as an exhortation of outsiders to philosophy … in order to strengthen adherents in their ways of life and to underscore their superiority to the lifestyles of ruling elites.” 31 What is the relationship between protreptic and consolation? Malherbe claims that “in Paul’s day, consolation was viewed as belonging to paraenesis or protreptic, which were not yet sharply distinguished (Theon, Preliminary Exercises 3.117).” 32 Malherbe is correct that the ancient sources exhibit substantial overlap between paraenesis and protreptic. Paraenesis was often included within λόγοι προτρεπτικοί, and παραινέσεις could function as “calls to virtue or philosophy.” 33 Consolation, however, did not “belong” to either paraenesis or protreptic. Even if one considers paraenesis and protreptic to be literary genres (a point of fierce debate), 34 it remains that “the ‘genre’ [of consolation] cuts across other, more unified and familiar, literary genres.” 35 If we treat paraenesis and protreptic not as genres but as types of rhetoric, we find that the ancient witnesses distinguish protreptic and paraenesis from consolation. Aelius Theon, for example, addresses consolation after his discussion of protreptic and dissuasion, not as a subspecies of protreptic. 36 Mitchell concurs, “Theon does not support the idea that paraenesis or protreptic is the umbrella category which encompasses consolation, but places them side by side.” 37 Similarly, Seneca places consolationes side by side with exhortationes (Ep. 94.21; 95.65) and adhortationes (Ep. 94.39; 95.34). 38 Clement of Alexandria 30

deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 136. Swancutt, “Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis,” 122. 32 Malherbe, Letters, 279. 33 Swancutt, “Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis,” 122–23. 34 Neither paraenesis nor protreptic were understood as literary genres in antiquity. See, e. g., Swancutt, “Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis,” 113; Engberg-Pedersen, “Concept of Paraenesis,” 48. 35 Baltussen, “Introduction,” xix. 36 He discusses protreptic in 2:116.27–117.4 (προτρέποντες τοίνυν ἐροῦμεν.…), then dissuasion in 2:117.4–6 (ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς τρόπος ἔσται τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως, κἂν αἰτώμεθά τι, ἀποτρέποντες δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων ἐπιχειρήσομεν), then consolation in 2:117.6–25 (ἐὰν δὲ παρηγορῶμεν.…), then seeking forgiveness in 2:117.25–29 (ὅταν δὲ συγγνώμην αἰτῶμεν.…). This order matches 2:116.22–26, where protreptic and consolation are again distinguished: ἢ προτρέπομεν, ἢ ἀποτρέπομεν, ἢ παρηγοροῦμεν, ἢ συγγνώμην αἰτοῦμεν ἐφ’ οἷς ἐπράξαμεν.… Cf. 2:115.20–22. For a study and translation of Theon’s Progymnasmata, see George A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, WGRW 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), esp. 48–49. 37 Mitchell, Paul and the Emergence, 60. 38 Mark Jordan surmises, “Seneca seems to follow Posidonius in distinguishing praeceptio (which Hartlich equates with the logos parainetikos), suasio (hypothetikos), and consolatio (paramuthêtikos)” (“Ancient Philosophical Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive Genres,” Rhetorica 4 [1986]: 309–33, esp. 316). 31

102

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

distinguishes “protreptic discourse” (ὁ προτρεπτικός) from “consolatory discourse” (ὁ παραμυθητικός) that “heals the passions” (τὰ πάθη ἰᾶται) (Paed. 1.1.1–2). Eudorus of Alexandria conceptualizes “consolatory discourse” (ὁ παραμυθητικός) for “treating of the passions” (παθολογικός) and discusses ὁ παραμυθητικός alongside ὁ προτρεπτικός and ὁ ὑποθετικός, not as a subspecies of ὁ προτρεπτικός. 39 Regarding epistolary types, Pseudo-Demetrius discusses protreptic under his “advisory type” (συμβουλευτικὸς τύπος), which he distinguishes from his “consoling type” (παραμυθητικὸς τύπος). 40 In his Epistolary Styles, Pseudo-Libanius explains protreptic under the “the parenetic style” (παραινετικὴ χαρακτήρ), which is separate from his “consoling style” (παραμυθητικὴ χαρακτήρ). 41 Theorists aside, analysis of individual texts demonstrates that no single generalization about the interrelationships between consolation, paraenesis, and protreptic can account for the wide variation in how these three discourses or rhetorics operate in relation to one another. We must work at the level of individual texts and their authors. In the Wisdom of Solomon, consolatory rhetoric is deployed in the service of the larger protreptic argument that the righteous life of wisdom is superior to the impious lives of Jewish apostates, idolatrous Egyptians, and oppressive Greek and Roman rulers.

3.4 The Persona of King Solomon and Addressees Cynics, Jews, and Christians frequently employed “the figure of the philosopher-king” in their λόγοι προτρεπτικοί in order to critique and challenge “Greek and Roman παιδείαι.” 42 In the first century CE, one central feature of the topos of the wise king was the idea that the king was instructed by God, such that the king could, in effect, act as the mouthpiece of God. 43 The author of the Wisdom of Solomon capitalizes on this topos to present his perspective as di39 See Stobaeus, Anth. 2.7.2, esp. lines 113–18 and 130–31: “ὑποθετικόν, προτρεπτικόν, παραμυθητικόν.” Cited by Diana M. Swancutt, “Pax Christi: Romans as Protrepsis to Live as Kings” (PhD diss., Duke University, 2001), 149. 40 Pseudo-Demetrius writes, “Now it is the advisory (συμβουλευτικός) type, when we, offering our own judgment, persuade (προτρέπωμεν) [someone] to something or dissuade (ἀποτρέπωμεν) [someone] from something” (Epistolary Types 11). Cf. the “consoling type” (παραμυθητικὸς τύπος) (Epistolary Types 5). 41 Concerning the “the parenetic style” (παραινετικὴ χαρακτήρ), Pseudo-Libanius writes, “Now paraenesis [παραίνεσις] is divided into two parts, persuasion [προτροπή] and dissuasion [ἀποτροπή]” (Epistolary Styles 5). Cf. the “consoling style” (παραμυθητικὴ χαρακτήρ) (Epistolary Styles 25). 42 Swancutt, “Pax Christi,” 230. 43 Swancutt, “Pax Christi,” 221–30. See esp. 222: “The view that wise kingship was based on the παιδεία of God and that good rulers should imitate their actions therefore rooted the king’s every judgment in divine instruction.”

3.4 The Persona of King Solomon and Addressees

103

vinely inspired. The persona of King Solomon enabled him to unequivocally assert that his σοφία was of divine origin (esp. 7:7, 22). At the same time, the author’s claim to possessing God’s perspective on reality helped to create suitable “conditions for effective consolation” between himself and his readers. 44 Bickmann explains these conditions as follows: The presupposition for [effective consolation] is a supportive relationship between the consoler and the one needing consolation, in which the one seeking consolation can rely on the consoler to do what is necessary to engender meaning. The one to be consoled must know that in this experience of deep sorrow he or she is taken seriously, must be able to find access to the consoler’s understanding of reality, and must recognize that the consoler is capable of providing help. 45

The persona of King Solomon enabled the author to construct an identity for himself that would meet the last two of these conditions beautifully, so long as he presented himself as the young King Solomon, still untainted from the love affairs of his old age and his ensuing apostasy (1 Kgs 11). This he did, styling himself as ὁ νέος Solomon (8:11). In this period of the king’s life, his “understanding of reality” and ability to provide “help” for those seeking answers were highly celebrated and unquestioned within the Bible and Hellenistic Jewish literature. These sources depict King Solomon as the ultimate σοφός of God’s chosen people, whose wisdom surpassed that of the sages and kings of all other nations. 46 King Solomon’s identity as a wise man of ages past was a perfect fit for the consolatory genre, as writers of Greek and Latin consolations frequently attempted to gain authority for their arguments by attributing them to “the ancients” and “the wise men of old.” 47 According to Seneca, a consoler must present “the precepts of all the wise men [omnium praecepta sapientum]” (Polyb. 14.1). In the Greco-Roman tradition, philosophers were charged with the task of comforting the distressed, so much so that Dio Chrysostom generalizes that the bereaved would ask a philosopher to come to console (παρηγορεῖν) them (Or. 27.8–9). 48 Given the immense weight that the perspectives of ancient σοφοί carry in consolatory rhetoric, it is hard to imagine that the author could have chosen a more persuasive persona than King Solomon to console his Jewish audience. In addition to the requisite wisdom and antiquity that the persona of King Solomon afforded the author, the cosmopolitan flair of King Solomon was to his advantage. Both biblical sources and postbiblical literature detail King Solo44

Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 812. Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 812. 46 E. g., 1 Kgs 3; 4:29–34; 10:1–13; 2 Chr 9:1–9, 22–23; Josephus, A. J. 8.22–34, 42–49. 47 E. g., Pseudo-Plutarch directs the attention of Apollonius “to an ancient and wise word [ἀρχαίῳ καὶ σοφῷ λόγῳ]” (Cons. Apoll. 111F). See also Cons. Apoll. 102B, 104D–105A, 112D, 115B, 116D–F. 48 Cited by Stowers (Letter Writing, 142–43) and Holloway (Coping with Prejudice, 82). 45

104

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

mon’s amicable relationships with foreign rulers, relationships in which King Solomon is respected and admired. 49 King Solomon even married the daughter of a pharaoh (1 Kgs 3:1; A. J. 8.21), a testament to his positive relationship with the ruler of Egypt. In writing to readers whose once cordial relationships with non-Jews had turned hostile and even violent, our author found in King Solomon a figure who had managed to enjoy amicable, mutually beneficial relationships with non-Jews, while still following God’s commands for his life. 50 The common lore surrounding King Solomon offered persecuted Jewish readers hope that reconciliation with their Greek and Roman neighbors was possible. King Solomon was a symbol that a pious Jew could “have it all.” One could follow God’s wisdom, obey God’s commands, and be highly esteemed by nonJewish society. By writing in the guise of King Solomon, our author could construct his identity as not only wise and pious but also as cosmopolitan, admired, and respected by non-Jews – precisely the sort of character his Hellenistic Jewish readers could look up to for counsel in their time of need. The work is addressed to the kings and rulers of the earth, yet Pseudo-Solomon does not imagine these persons among his actual readers. 51 Rather, he addresses absent rulers in the same way that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible utter warnings and oracles to foreign monarchs and peoples who were never intended to hear them. 52 Like the prophets, Pseudo-Solomon was actually aiming at “the consolation of Israel.” 53 In 6:1–8, for example, he adopts the persona of a prophet uttering woe oracles to oppressive rulers. Those in power “did not judge rightly, nor keep the law” and should expect swift and “severe judgment” (κρίσις ἀπότομος) from the Lord (6:4–5). Although this portrayal of King Solomon as prophet stretches the biblical portrait of his character, it accords with the first-century CE topos of the philosopher-king, a figure who could criticize the actions of unjust rulers and urge them to imitate his wise rule instead. 54 The intended addressees of his work, Jews who had been deprived of their rights because of their Roman governor, were meant to find comfort in overhearing their illustrious King Solomon rebuke and announce impending judgment on unjust rulers like their own. 49 These themes are particularly developed in stories of Solomon’s relationship with the Queen of Sheba: 1 Kgs 10:1–13; 2 Chr 9:1–12; Josephus, A. J. 8.165–175. See also 1 Kgs 4:29– 5:18; 2 Chr 1–9; Josephus, A. J. 8.21–60. 50 Solomon’s faithfulness to God is displayed through his justice in governing and his building of the temple (1 Kgs 3–9; cf. Wis 9:8). Pseudo-Solomon focuses on Solomon’s identity as a king and his prayer for wisdom, with no mention of the sins of Solomon’s later life (Wis 6–9). 51 οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν (1:1); βασιλεῖς (6:1); δικασταὶ περάτων γῆς (6:1); οἱ κρατοῦντες πλήθους (6:2); τύραννοι (6:9, 21). 52 J. A. F. Gregg, The Wisdom of Solomon: With Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), xxi. 53 Gregg, Wisdom of Solomon, xxi. 54 Swancutt, “Pax Christi,” 222, 247–48.

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

105

In the end, the author’s portrayal of King Solomon is full of tension. On the one hand, he seeks to maintain the persona of King Solomon as the ever-popular Jewish king who boasts friendships galore with foreign monarchs. 55 On the other hand, he marshals the authority of King Solomon to bluntly condemn foreign rulers who did “not walk in accordance with the will of God” (6:4). Thus, King Solomon appears to be both the inviting friend of foreign monarchs and their threatening judge. This tension our author creates in the persona of Solomon is purposeful, as it allows him both to proclaim God’s justice in the midst of injustice and to embrace the possibility of reconciliation with nonJews. He does not give up hope that the present rulers will stop mistreating God’s people but invites the τύραννοι to “learn wisdom and not transgress” (6:9). If the direct addresses to kings and rulers are literary artifice, then how does the author construct the identity of his intended readers? Their identity must be inferred. At a bare minimum, the intended addressees are presented as a faithful Jewish community that had lost loved ones to unjust and public execution (3:1– 9), even young people (esp. 4:7–16). Such traumatic bereavements would have raised questions about God’s justice and ways of governing the world, questions that the author, as King Solomon, anticipates and answers. Given the immense authority of the young King Solomon as the human mouthpiece of God’s wisdom, his constructed readers could hardly challenge his views. God’s “holy people” (λαὸς ὅσιος [10:15]) are thus positioned in a posture of trust toward whatever revelation and knowledge Pseudo-Solomon might impart concerning their distressing circumstances. Returning to Bickmann’s conditions for effective consolation, the intended readers are primed to “recognize that the consoler is capable of providing help,” and to open themselves up to accepting Pseudo-Solomon’s “understanding of reality.” 56

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology In the first discrete unit of the Wisdom of Solomon (1:1–6:21), Pseudo-Solomon urges the kings and judges of the earth to “love righteousness [δικαιοσύνη]” (1:1) and “learn wisdom [σοφία]” (6:9). 57 To demonstrate the superiority of the way of righteousness and wisdom to the way of ungodliness and folly, 55 He styles himself a young sage who is so admired by rulers for his sharp judgment that they wait silently for him and give heed to his words (9:10–12). In turn, Pseudo-Solomon shows magnanimity toward foreign rulers by offering to teach them wisdom for their own benefit. “Honor wisdom, so that you might reign forever” (6:21). “Be educated by my words, and you shall be benefited [ὠφεληθήσεσθε]” (6:25). 56 Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 812. 57 For the literary structure of 1:1–6:21, see Kolarcik, Ambiguity of Death, 62.

106

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

Pseudo-Solomon presents these options as two exclusive ways of living in the world and states their consequences: the way of righteousness leads to life and blessings, while the way of ungodliness leads to death and curses. 58 According to Deuteronomy, this was the message that Moses urged upon the Israelites just prior to their entry into the promised land (30:15–20). The Israelites could choose to follow the commandments of the Lord their God and be rewarded with long life for themselves and their children (30:15–16, 19–20). Conversely, the Israelites could choose to turn away from the Lord their God and cut short their days (30:15, 17–19). Like the author of Deuteronomy, Pseudo-Solomon insists that God will reward faithfulness with life and punish apostasy with death. The experiences of his intended readers, however, presented serious obstacles to their ready acceptance of this belief. My analysis of his consolatory arguments suggests that many of his readers had known, or at least heard of, fellow Jews whose refusal to transgress the Torah resulted in them being publicly scourged, tortured, and killed. According to the promises of Moses, their fidelity should have lengthened their lives, but their lives were cut short (e. g., Deut 30:19–20). PseudoSolomon’s readers would have also been aware of Jews who chose to compromise their adherence to the Torah (e. g., by eating pork), and as a result, gained their lives. 59 According to the promises of Moses, these Jews should meet premature deaths in punishment for their apostasy (e. g., Deut 30:17–18). Yet Pseudo-Solomon’s readers would have seen them enjoying the life that should have been the lot of those faithful Jews who had died. If Pseudo-Solomon was to persuade his readers that allegiance to the God of Israel would truly issue in life and apostasy would truly bring forth death, he had to demonstrate that those righteous Jews who had died were actually alive and blessed, while those apostate Jews whom his readers saw prospering were actually dead and cursed. This is the burden of his argument in 1:1–6:21. Greek and Roman consolers had already been developing arguments that aimed to persuade grieving people that their departed loved ones were actually alive, and Pseudo-Solomon took advantage of their results. As one well educated in the Greek language and with knowledge of Greco-Roman philosophy, 60 Pseu58 Nickelsburg aptly summarizes the thesis of Wis 1–6 that “unrighteousness leads to death and destruction (1:12; 5:9–14), while righteousness leads to life and immortality (1:15; 5:15)” (Resurrection, Immortality, 67). The two-ways topos is common in moral exhortation in several philosophical and religious traditions (Greek, Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc.). Within Jewish texts, it is rooted in the covenant between Yahweh and Israel (e. g., Ps 1:1–6; Sir 15–17; T. Ash. 1.3–5; 1QS III, 18–IV, 26). Early Christian usage of the topos builds on this tradition (e. g., Matt 7:13–14; 2 Pet 2:15; Did. 1–6; Barn. 18–20). Kurt Niederwimmer investigates this topos in The Didache: A Commentary, Hermeneia, ed. Harold W. Attridge, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 59–63. 59 Philo, Flacc. 96. 60 Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 1–88.

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

107

do-Solomon was capable of marshaling the lexica and consolatory arguments used by Greek consolers to his end of persuading his intended readers that God really does reward the righteous with long life (Deut 30:19). Furthermore, Pseudo-Solomon built upon the consolatory rhetoric of Daniel and the Epistle of Enoch, texts that had already assured Jewish readers that God really does bless and honor those faithful to him, even those who died prematurely on account of violence and oppression. In developing consolatory arguments to combat the despair of parents who had been rendered childless by the persecution, he drew on Second Isaiah. Regarding the apostates, Pseudo-Solomon engaged with an already existing conversation among Jewish intellectuals of Alexandria about the death of the soul. 61 Their idea of psychic death seems to have arisen to solve two exegetical difficulties in Gen 1–4: (1) that Adam and Eve continued to live even though God had declared that they would die on the day that they ate from the tree (Gen 2:17), and (2) that Cain continued to live, built a city, and was even protected by God after murdering Abel (Gen 4:8–17). 62 Why didn’t Adam and Eve die? Why wasn’t Cain punished more severely? Alexandrian exegetes reasoned that Adam, Eve, and Cain were, in fact, punished with death for their transgressions by suffering the death of their souls. This concept of psychic death was infinitely useful for Pseudo-Solomon in solving what he perceived to be a theological problem for his intended readers, that Jewish apostates were still living, while many Jews who had remained faithful to God had died. In Wis 1:1–6:21, Pseudo-Solomon manages to maintain the two ways topos of Deuteronomy by challenging the assumption that the appearance of life or death reflects the reality of life or death. I analyze how he skillfully manipulates consolatory vocabulary, motifs, and arguments to this end in 3:1–4:19 in particular. In these verses, Pseudo-Solomon endeavors to comfort Alexandrian Jews whose loved ones were killed in the persecution in order to achieve his larger goal of persuading them to “love righteousness” (1:1) when people who maintain righteousness at all costs risk physical harm and death. 63 Jewish readers enduring persecution could be tempted to forsake their God in order to preserve their lives, but Pseudo-Solomon warns that those who choose this option will paradoxically die while still alive, and then die again when God definitively judges them for their apostasy. To ensure that God’s promise of life for those who keep his commands could be fulfilled, Pseudo-Solomon hoped to convince his readers that righteous peo61 Karina Martin Hogan, “The Exegetical Background of the ‘Ambiguity of Death’ in the Wisdom of Solomon,” JSJ 30 (1999): 1–24; Zurawski, “Hell on Earth,” 193–226. 62 Hogan, “Exegetical Background,” 24. 63 Alexandrian Jews did not regain the rights and privileges they lost with Flaccus’s decree in August of 38 CE until the Edict of Claudius (CPJ 153) in November of 41 CE (E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian [Leiden: Brill, 1976], 249).

108

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

ple never actually die. From a strictly biblical perspective, this is an incredibly bold claim. The Jewish Scriptures attribute immortality solely to God, with rare exceptions. 64 Within Alexandrian Judaism, however, Pseudo-Solomon’s claim that righteous people never die was not particularly innovative. Pseudo-Solomon’s contemporary Philo held that, in the case of righteous and wise individuals, the soul survived the death of the body and returned to God. 65 PseudoPhocylides wrote, “the soul is immortal [ἀθάνατος] and lives forever without aging” (115). 66 While not entirely new within Judaism, Pseudo-Solomon’s perspective was still unorthodox, and he expected resistance from his readers. For this reason, Pseudo-Solomon attempts to gain legitimacy for his view by framing the core of his argument that righteous people never really die as a revelation of “the mysteries [μυστήρια] of God” (2:22). 67 One of these mysteries is “that God created the human being for immortality [ἀφθαρσίᾳ], and as the image of his own likeness he made him/her, but by the devil’s envy death [θάνατος] entered into the world, and those who belong to his portion experience it” (2:23–24). Undoubtedly, Pseudo-Solomon’s readers would have been bewildered by this claim, wondering, “Is he actually implying that only those who belong to the devil experience death? If that is true, then what happened to so and so? They died, didn’t they? Surely, they did not belong to the devil. Is he implying that they are actually alive?” Pseudo-Solomon begins his consolation with such a shocking claim in 2:23–24 to provoke these sorts of questions, which he answers in 3:1–5:23. As readers seek answers to resolve their confusion, Pseudo-Solomon guides them through four diptychs that reveal the divine perspective on life and death as experienced by the righteous who are “faithful” to him (3:9) and the ungodly who “withdrew from the Lord” (3:10). 68 These diptychs constitute four distinct 64

See introduction, n. 3. See, e. g., Abr. 258; Gig. 14–15; Somn. 1.151–152; Opif. 77, 135. Elledge, Resurrection of the Dead, 113–17; Jason von Ehrenkrook, “The Afterlife in Philo and Josephus,” in Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: End Time and Afterlife in Judaism, ed. J. Harold Ellens, vol. 1 of Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2013), 97–118, esp. 104; Dieter Zeller, “The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor,” SPhiloA 7 (1995): 19–55. 66 Pseudo-Phocylides was an Alexandrian Jew, likely active between 30 BCE and 40 CE (Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, SVTP 4 [Leiden: Brill 1978], 81–83). His sentences on death and the afterlife (97–121) cannot be reconciled into one system of belief but “reflect the typical range of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife both in Judea and in the Diaspora” (Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 169). 67 The core of this argument occurs in 2:21–5:23, but Pseudo-Solomon prepares for it in 1:13–15. Here, he asserts that “God did not make death” (1:13) and “righteousness is immortal” (1:15). 68 These diptychs occur in 3:1–4:19 and are sandwiched between the initial speech of the wicked in 2:1–24 and the second speech of the wicked in 4:20–5:14. The first diptych is 3:1–12, the second is 3:13–19, the third is 4:1–6, and the fourth is 4:7–19. On the structure of the whole section, see Kolarcik, Ambiguity of Death, 62. 65

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

109

units of consolation. The first unit, 3:1–12, offers consolation regarding Jewish adults who died as the result of unjust judicial punishments and torture. The last unit, 4:7–19, offers comfort regarding the premature deaths of Jewish young people. The middle two units, 3:13–19 and 4:1–6, console parents who had been rendered effectively childless by the deaths of their children, adult children and little children alike. The structure is thus chiastic: the apparent death of the righteous (A), the childlessness of survivors (B), the childlessness of survivors (B'), the apparent death of the righteous (A').

3.5.1 Consolation concerning the Apparent Death of Adults by Torture (3:1–12) In August of 38 CE, the governor of Egypt, Aulus Avillius Flaccus, created a public spectacle of the torture and crucifixion of Jews in the theater of Alexandria (Flacc. 84–85). Jews were tortured (αἰκίζω; βασανίζω) with lashes, fire, and swords (Flacc. 84). They were hung up (κρεμάννυμι) and broken on the wheel (τροχίζω [Flacc. 85]). Crucifixion (ἀνασκολοπίζω) was the final punishment for Jews who survived these tortures (Flacc. 84–85). As Philo describes the scene, the abuse of the Jews was intended to be a “show” or “spectacle” (θέα), complete with a musical orchestra, dancers, and mimes (Flacc. 84–85; cf. 96). In what may have been a separate occasion, Jewish women were seized, dragged into the theater, and handed over to “torturers” (βασανισταί) if they refused to eat pork (Flacc. 95–96). Reflecting on these events, Philo repeatedly notes their public nature; the physical abuse and torture of Jews was staged so their enemies could watch. In Flaccus’s imagined prayer of repentance, Philo has him say of the Jews, “having brought some into the theater, I ordered them to be tortured unjustly in the sight of their bitterest enemies” (Flacc. 173). Thirty-eight of those Jews who were maltreated in the theater were members of the Jewish gerousia of Alexandria. After being marched through the market in chains, they were brought into the theater, stripped naked, and scourged while “standing opposite their seated enemies” (Flacc. 75). To accommodate large crowds, Flaccus arranged for Jews to be punished and crucified “in the middle of the theater” (Flacc. 84). For the Jews of Alexandria, the highly public nature of their punishments and deaths was an additional source of grief. Some Jewish elders survived the tortures in the theater and were imprisoned (Flacc. 117). Many did die there, however, leaving their survivors in grief that they died so unjustly, so publicly, and in such horrendous pain. In 3:1–12, Pseudo-Solomon attempts to console the surviving Jewish community about the adults who had died from these displays of torture. He argues that the faithful dead are actually alive and safe with God (3:1–4), eulogizes them by endowing their deaths with positive meanings (3:5–6), and describes

110

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

the great benefits that they have earned on account of their faithfulness in contrast to the dreadful consequences of apostasy (3:7–12). a. Your Loves Ones Are Alive, with God, and at Peace (3:1–4) In 3:1–4, Pseudo-Solomon directly states several causes of his intended readers’ grief. “Before the eyes of fools 69 they [i. e., the righteous Jews] seemed to have died” (ἔδοξαν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀφρόνων τεθνάναι [3:2]). Emphasizing again the public nature of their torture, “in the sight of men and women” (ἐν ὄψει ἀνθρώπων) these faithful Jews “were punished” (κολασθῶσιν [3:4a]). Their deaths were thought to be (ἐλογίσθη) their suffering (κάκωσις [3:2]) and destruction (σύντριμμα [3:3]). On the surface, the word σύντριμμα captures the fact that the instruments by which the righteous Alexandrian Jews died aimed at the physical destruction, even “fracturing” (συντρίβω) of their bodies. 70 On a deeper level, the view that the death of the righteous constituted their “destruction” (σύντριμμα [3:3]) could refer to the erroneous belief of “the ungodly” that death marks the end of human existence (2:1–3). Pseudo-Solomon argues against these sources of grief through a series of interrelated claims that pit appearances against reality. The righteous are not dead; they are alive as souls in the hand of God (Δικαίων δὲ ψυχαὶ ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ [3:1a]). They are safe, where torture will never touch them (οὐ μὴ ἅψηται αὐτῶν βάσανος [3:1b]). Their apparent deaths were not their suffering but “their exodus” (ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτῶν 3:2) out of suffering. What appeared to be their “destruction” (σύντριμμα [3:3]) was, in fact, “their journey from us” (ἡ ἀφ’ ἡμῶν πορεία [3:3]), a journey that led to “peace” (οἱ δέ εἰσιν ἐν εἰρήνῃ [3:3]). Though they seemed to die through judicial punishments (ἐὰν κολασθῶσιν), “their hope is full of immortality” (ἡ ἐλπὶς αὐτῶν ἀθανασίας πλήρης [3:4]). Pseudo-Solomon’s consolatory arguments find numerous analogues in the writings of his contemporary Alexandrian Philo. What Pseudo-Solomon asserts of the righteous Philo claims of the wise, writing, “The wise man, though seeming to die [τεθνηκέναι δοκῶν] with respect to the corruptible life, lives the incorruptible life”71 (cf. Wis 3:2: ἔδοξαν … τεθνάναι, “they seemed to have died”). Philo also employs the journey motif to counteract the view that all people die. He interprets Gen 15:15 to mean that the “good man” does “not 69 The “fools” (ἄφρονες) before whose eyes the righteous seemed to have died (3:2a) are not merely unwise. Pseudo-Solomon’s usage of the term “fools” suggests that these spectators include Jewish apostates (5:4; cf. 3:10–12), idolaters (14:11; 15:5, 14–15), and explicit “enemies” and “oppressors” of God’s people (12:22–24; 15:14). In 3:4, he broadens the audience to simply “men and women” (ἐν ὄψει ἀνθρώπων). 70 The most literal meaning of the noun σύντριμμα is a “fracture” (LSJ s. v. σύντριμμα I; cf. Lev 21:19). It is derived from the verb συντρίβω, which means “to shatter,” or, in the case of human bodies, “to crush” (LSJ s. v. συντρίβω II.1 “shatter”; II.2 “of parts of the body, crush”). 71 Ὁ μὲν δὴ σοφὸς τεθνηκέναι δοκῶν τὸν φθαρτὸν βίον ζῇ τὸν ἄφθαρτον (Det. 49).

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

111

die” but “departs” (τὸν ἀστεῖον οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκοντα, ἀλλ’ ἀπερχόμενον), “so that the nature [γένος] of the completely purified soul [ψυχή] might be shown to be unquenchable [ἄσβεστον] and immortal [ἀθάνατον], proceeding on a journey [ἀποδημία] from here to heaven [οὐρανός], not to dissolution [διάλυσις] and destruction [φθορά], which death [θάνατος] seems to bring on” (Her. 276). 72 This quotation is instructive for interpreting Pseudo-Solomon’s consolatory rhetoric, as both he and Philo invoke the same cluster of ideas: good/ righteous/wise people don’t actually die but embark on a journey as souls to heaven/God, where they will live an immortal existence. Both Pseudo-Solomon and Philo interpret the death of good/righteous/wise people in terms that echo Socrates’s second option regarding the nature of death: “death is one of two things: for either the one who has died is like nothing and does not have any sensation [αἴσθησις] of anything, or, according to what is said, it happens to be some change [μεταβολή] and migration [μετοίκησις] of the soul from this place to another place” (Apol. 40C). Inspired by Socrates’s Apology and Platonic myths, 73 Greek and Roman consolers often discussed the journey of the soul postmortem to comfort those near death and the bereaved about what happens to a person’s soul when their body dies. 74 While Plato distinguishes between the journey (πορεία) of the souls of the righteous and the journey of the souls of the unjust, consolers focused on the blessings that awaited just souls. In the Axiochus, Socrates explains that for a pious (εὐσεβής) individual, the destination of the soul’s journey is a land where there is no pain (ἀλυπία) but only pleasure (Ax. 370C–D, 371C–D, 372A). In the words of Pseudo-Plutarch, “the man who has passed through life justly [δικαίως] and in holiness [ὁσίως] shall, at his death, depart to the Islands of the Blessed and dwell in all happiness beyond the reach of evil” (Cons. Apoll. 120F). Pseudo-Solomon deploys the consolatory topos of the journey motif using vocabulary that evokes the biblical narrative of Israel’s deliverance out of suffering in Egypt. Pseudo-Solomon names the apparent deaths of the righteous as “their exodus” (ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτῶν [3:2]) and “their journey from us” (ἡ ἀφ’ ἡμῶν πορεία [3:3]). Given Pseudo-Solomon’s extensive interaction with traditions of Israel’s exodus out of Egypt in chapters 11–19, I believe that he is deliberately alluding to these traditions in his word choices of “suffering” (κάκωσις) and “exodus” (ἔξοδος) in 3:2. 75 His Bible named the “oppression” or “suffering” of 72

Cf. Philo, Mos. 2.288; Spec. 3.207. See the myth of Er (Resp. 614B–621B); Gorg. 523A–526D; Phaed. 113D–114C. 74 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 371A–E, 372A; Seneca, Marc. 23.1–2; 24.5–26.7; Polyb. 9.3; 7–9; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 119F–121E; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 611C–612A; Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.16–23. 75 Enns writes, “Although it is generally ill-advised to load too much significance in individual words, in this case the description of death as an ‘exodus’ is very striking in view of the Wisdom of Solomon as a whole, where chapters 10–19 have as a main focus Israel’s exodus from Egypt and the wilderness period” (“Pseudo-Solomon and His Scripture,” 395). 73

112

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

the Israelites in Egypt as κάκωσις (LXX Exod 3:7, 17), and, like their Israelite ancestors, his Alexandrian Jewish readers were oppressed and suffering in Egypt. Pseudo-Solomon urges his readers to perceive of the death of the righteous not as part of that κάκωσις but rather as their exodus (ἔξοδος) out of their current suffering and oppression (κάκωσις). As in the biblical account, this exodus out of suffering is led by God to a better place (3:1, 8). 76 Yet the ἔξοδος of God’s people in 3:2 is now a “journey” (πορεία [3:3]) of righteous souls out of their suffering and oppressed bodies into the safety of God’s hand (3:1a). In this way, Pseudo-Solomon combines the journey motif of consolatory rhetoric with the consolatory topos that death is an escape from present pain. 77 Consolers frequently elaborated on the ills of human existence in order to encourage the bereaved to conceptualize the death of their loved one as an escape from misery. 78 Because the deceased referred to in 3:1–9 died in literal pain, PseudoSolomon has no need to amplify the ills of life to make this point. Rather, he assures his bereaved community that “torture [βάσανος] will never touch” their departed loved ones again (3:1b). In sum, Pseudo-Solomon has concisely adapted and incorporated the journey motif of Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric into the sacred story of God delivering his people out of their suffering in Egypt. In doing so, he bids his persecuted readers to consider the exodus not only as their shared history but as an ongoing reality in their relationship with their God. As in years past, God still delivers his children out of unjust suffering and into safety. Jewish writers before Pseudo-Solomon had also utilized the postmortem sphere to address the problem that death, at times, robs righteous people of the rewards of their piety. The authors of the Epistle of Enoch, Daniel, 2 Maccabees, and Pseudo-Ezekiel all promised that God would reward righteous Jews who unjustly suffered and died with some form of postmortem life. 79 None of these Jewish authors, however, questioned the fact that the righteous had truly 76 No matter how things might appear, Pseudo-Solomon claims that only God determines when the soul he loaned to the body is returned to him (15:8–11, 16). For the consolatory argument that our lives and the lives of others are given as loans from Nature/God, not as permanent possessions, see also Lucretius 3.970–973; Cicero, Tusc. 1.93; Ps.-Phoc. 106; Seneca, Polyb. 10.4–5; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 116A–B. Cf. Eccl 12:7. 77 E. g., Lucretius 3.978–1024; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 366D–369B; Cicero, Fam. 4.5.2–3; 5.16.4, Tusc. 1.11.24; 1.34.83–86; 1.48.115–116; Let. Aris. 268; Wis 3:1–3; Seneca, Marc. 10.5–11.5; 19.5; 20.4–6; 21.1; 22.1–3; Polyb. 4.2–3; 9.4–7; Ep. 91.21; 99.10–12; 4 Ezra 7.96; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 103B–107C, 108E, 115D–E, 117; Lucian, Luct. 17; Menander Rhetor 2.9.413.25–29; 2.9.414.7–10. See Moran, Consolations of Death, 31–39. 78 E. g., Lucretius 3.978–1024; Cicero, Tusc. 1.11.24; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 103B– 106B, 114B–C, 117E, 119F; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 366D–369B; Seneca, Marc. 10.5–11.5; Polyb. 4.2–3; Ep. 99.10–11. Cicero cites the eulogy of death written by Alcidamas, which he says consists of “an enumeration of human evils” (Tusc. 1.48.116). 79 1 En. 102–108; Dan 12:2–3; 2 Macc 6–7; 12:44–45; 15:12–16; Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385) frag. 2–3.

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

113

died. Pseudo-Solomon breaks new ground in Jewish consolation literature in his argument that God would ensure that the righteous continue their lives notwithstanding the death of their bodies. In his perspective, the righteous should not wait before receiving their blessing of life. 80 Instead, the blessing of eternal life should be immediate; the very moment of physical death should issue in immortality (ἀθανασία), 81 given as a reward for righteousness (1:15; 3:4). 82 b. Praising the Dead; Discerning God’s Purposes in Their Suffering (3:5–6) Eulogies were a standard component of consolatory letters to the bereaved, as highly praising the character of the departed was thought to comfort survivors. 83 When Pseudo-Solomon undertakes this duty of a consoler, he incorporates his praises into claims about God’s purposes in their suffering. In doing so, Pseudo-Solomon encourages his bereaved readers to interpret their horrendous deaths by torture from the perspective of how God disciplines and tests his children in order to “greatly benefit” them (3:5–6): And having been disciplined a little [ὀλίγα παιδευθέντες], they will be benefited greatly [μεγάλα εὐεργετηθήσονται], because God tested them [ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐπείρασεν αὐτοὺς] and found them worthy of himself [εὗρεν αὐτοὺς ἀξίους ἑαυτοῦ]. Like gold in a furnace, he tried them [ἐδοκίμασεν αὐτοὺς], and as a sacrificial whole burnt offering, he accepted them [προσεδέξατο αὐτούς].

These praises laud the departed as people who have successfully passed through divine testing and proven to be worthy of God. The righteous Jews did not compromise their allegiance to God to escape suffering but instead gave their whole selves to God, such that their deaths can be compared to whole burnt offerings (3:6). In this particular form of sacrifice, none of the meat was given to the priests or the one sacrificing; the entire victim was for the Lord. 84 Thus Philo writes that the whole burnt offering “carries with it no element of selfinterest … having none other in view but God himself alone” (Spec. 1.197). By sacrificing their lives in faithfulness to God, God has “found them worthy of 80 Contra the Epistle of Enoch, in which the souls of the righteous dead wait in Hades (102.5) for the promised day in which their souls will come to life and their spirits will live forever with God (103.4). 81 Cf. Philo, Migr. 189–190, which echoes Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 370C: “Axiochus, you change not into death, but into immortality [ἀθανασία].” 82 In contradistinction to Plato, Pseudo-Solomon asserts that souls are not inherently immortal but can become immortal on account of the fact that righteousness is immortal (1:15). See Collins, “Root of Immortality,” 189; Roland Murphy, “‘To Know Your Might Is the Root of Immortality’ (Wis 15, 3)” CBQ 25 (1963): 88–93. 83 E. g., Seneca, Marc. 24.1–4; Polyb. 2.2–3.2; Ep. 93.3–5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608C–D; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 120A–C. 84 For this reason, the whole burnt offering (ὁλοκάρπωμα) is an appropriate analogy for the death of those who have died for God.

114

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

himself ” (3:5). God “tried them like gold in a furnace” (3:6), and their true worth was revealed through the fire. Pseudo-Solomon’s positive interpretation of the righteous Jews’ deaths may have been inspired by Deut 8, which claims that God intended to “afflict” (κακόω [8:2, 16]), “test” (ἐκπειράζω [8:2, 16]), and “educate” or “discipline” (παιδεύω [8:5; cf. 32:10]) his children during their calamitous journey through the wilderness, all with the final goal that he might “do good [εὖ ποιέω] [to them] at the end of [their] days” (8:16). Pseudo-Solomon uses this same cluster of ideas in his claims that God “educated” or “disciplined” (παιδεύω [3:5a]), “tested” (πειράζω [3:5b]), and “tried” (δοκιμάζω [3:6]) the righteous through their suffering, all with the ultimate goal of “accepting” (προσδέχομαι [3:6]) and “benefiting” (εὐεργετέω [3:5a]) them once they had passed the test. Both Deut 8 and Wis 3:5–6 understand the suffering of God’s children as educative tests orchestrated by God for their ultimate benefit. Pseudo-Solomon was not comfortable with the idea of God “afflicting” his own righteous children, 85 but has otherwise broadly applied Deuteronomy’s perspective on Israel’s suffering in the wilderness to his community’s suffering in Alexandria. In this transfer, Pseudo-Solomon expands Deuteronomy’s promise of life for those who keep God’s commandments (e. g., 8:1; 30:15–20) to include eternal life after death (Wis 3:4; 5:15). Additionally, 1 En. 108 may have influenced Pseudo-Solomon’s use of the testing motif of the righteous. The whole Enochic corpus (of which 1 En. 108 is the conclusion) struggles with the fact that people perceived as righteous have died as the result of oppression, persecution, and murder. 86 Pseudo-Solomon deemed 1 En. 108 and the Epistle of Enoch to be particularly useful resources for interpreting the unjust deaths of his own community and consoling survivors. 87 In 1 En. 108, the visionary Enoch interprets the deaths of “those abused by evil men … who love God … [and] gave their bodies to torment” (108.7–8).

85 Pseudo-Solomon rejects the idea that God “afflicted” (κακόω [Deut 8:2, 16]) Israel in the wilderness and “weakened them through hunger” (λιμαγχονέω [Deut 8:3]). See discussion in § 3.8.2 God Does Not Cause the Righteous to Suffer, but Uses Their Suffering for Their Benefit. 86 See esp. 1 En. 103.9–104.6. George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 552. 87 Larcher concludes that Pseudo-Solomon had direct knowledge of 1 En. 91–104 and 108, while granting that the hypothesis of an intermediate or common source has some likelihood (Études sur le livre de la Sagesse, 106–11). Nickelsburg argues that Pseudo-Solomon may have known the Epistle of Enoch in Greek given the “striking parallels” in “form, content, and wording” between Wis 2:1–4:9 and 1 En. 102.6–103.15, as well as 1 En. 108.8–9 (1 Enoch 1, 78, 517). In light of the same similarities, Loren T. Stuckenbruck writes, “It is possible, then, that at least the Epistle [of Enoch] already existed in a Greek translation produced by a Jew, a translation which in turn shaped Wisdom’s ideology and presentation of the postmortem world” (“The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition,” EC 4 [2013]: 7–40, esp. 14).

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

115

Enoch construes their undeserved suffering and death as successfully passing a divine test, “The Lord tested them much and their spirits were found pure” (108.9). He then describes their postmortem rewards for their piety: they will “shine,” sit on thrones, and witness the judgment of their oppressors (108.10– 15). Pseudo-Solomon explains how God tested the righteous dead in his own community in terms that echo 1 En. 108.9, “God tested them and found them worthy of himself ” (Wis 3:5). 88 Pseudo-Solomon then follows Enoch in describing how the righteous dead will be abundantly blessed postmortem – by “shining brightly” (3:7) and sitting in judgment (3:8). Pseudo-Solomon’s interpretation of the Jews’ deaths in 3:5–6 is also notable for what it does not do, that is, it does not suggest that those Alexandrians who died in public spectacles of torture died on account of sin, whether their own sin or the sins of their people. During the persecution of Antiochus the IV, Jewish martyrs died by the same means of torture as did the Jews of Alexandria, but the author of 2 Maccabees insists that their deaths were “punishment” (τιμωρία) for the sins of the people (6:12–17; 7:32–38). 89 The belief “that sins preceded suffering” captures the mainstream of both biblical and postbiblical Jewish thought on suffering. 90 Within ancient Judaism, Pseudo-Solomon represents a minority perspective in blaming neither the victims of the persecution nor their Jewish community for their plight. His minority perspective, however, coheres with the principles of effective consolation laid out by Crantor (c. 330– 268 BCE), hailed as the father of the consolatio genre. 91 Crantor claimed that “not being to blame for faring ill is no small alleviation for one’s bad fortunes” (Cons. Apoll. 114C). While affirming Crantor’s theory, Pseudo-Plutarch adds that the recognition that one is not at fault for one’s mishap is, in his opinion, “the greatest remedy [μέγιστον φάρμακον] for the cure of grief [ἀλυπία]” (Cons. Apoll. 114C). Cicero states the inverse of the theory, that when people believe that they could prevent what had happened to them, their distress is

88

This parallel is noted by Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 557). See chapter 2, § 2.4.1 Suffering Is Punishment for Sin. 90 Sanders explains, “Orthodoxy asserted that sins preceded suffering. It was a matter of basic conviction both in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism of the post-Biblical period that divine discipline was provoked by the sins of the people. If the nation or an individual was confronted by sufferings it was because of sins, iniquities, or rebelliousness” (Suffering as Divine Discipline, 106). Usually, those who suffered were thought to have sinned, whether individually or corporately. The suffering servant of Isa 53, however, is innocent but suffers on account of the sins of others (53:4–5, 8). 91 Crantor was a member of Plato’s Academy and the author of “the first written work of consolation on record,” On Grief (Baltussen, “Introduction,” xv). Crantor’s popularity among consolers from Cicero to Pseudo-Plutarch was due, in part, to his fame as “the first author to have composed a consolation which combined reflections on death and the human condition with instructions or exhortation to overcome one’s sorrow” (Baltussen, “Introduction,” xv). For more on Crantor and his legacy, see Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 11–16. 89

116

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

greater because it is “compounded with guilt” (Tusc. 3.52; cf. Plutarch, Tranq. an. 477A). 92 Pseudo-Solomon seems to have been aware of this consolatory theory that grief can be alleviated by showing sufferers that they are not at fault for what has happened, for he employs it throughout his composition, even when doing so requires that he drastically adapt his source materials. This is particularly apparent in chapters 11–19, where Pseudo-Solomon narrates calamity after calamity that befell God’s children in Egypt and the wilderness and never suggests that they were to be blamed for the dire straits in which they found themselves. 93 Pseudo-Solomon consistently refrains from using verbs of punishment when describing how God brings hardship against his “righteous people” (δίκαιοι). 94 The ungodly (ἀσεβεῖς) are worthy of punishment because of their lawless deeds (1:9) and disregard of righteousness (3:10–13), but the victims of 3:1–9 are “the righteous” (δίκαιοι [3:1]) who maintained their faithfulness to God to the point of death. On my analysis, Pseudo-Solomon was deliberately trying to combat any notions among survivors that their lost loved ones would still be alive if they and others in their community had only lived more righteously. If survivors believed that their loved one had died because of their collective sin, they could become overwhelmed with guilt. According to Cicero, their guilt would only increase their distress (Tusc. 3.52). In his effort to lessen his community’s grief, Pseudo-Solomon adopted the established consolatory method of refusing to blame them for their calamity. c. The Glorious Future of the Righteous Dead and Miserable Existence of Apostates (3:7–12) Lest any bereaved readers suppose that it would have been better for their lost loved ones to save their lives by committing apostasy, Pseudo-Solomon concludes his consolatory arguments of 3:1–12 by describing the future rewards of the righteous dead (3:7–9) and future punishment of ungodly apostates (3:10–12). 95 His goal is to persuade his bereaved readers that the “great benefits” (3:5) that the righteous will receive on account of their faithfulness outweigh the sufferings they endured. 96 The time of their suffering was of a short duration (3:5), but the benefits they will receive on account of it are eternal (3:8). Draw92

All translations of Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations are by Graver, Cicero on the Emotions. See chapter 3, § 3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials. 94 God does not punish his righteous people but disciplines (παιδεύω [3:5; 11:9; 12:22]), tests (πειράζω [3:5; 11:9]; δοκιμάζω [3:6; 11:10]), and admonishes (νουθετέω [11:10]; cf. νουθεσία [16:6]) them. See appendix 2: “Explanations for Why God’s Children and Their Enemies Suffer in the Wisdom of Solomon.” 95 His description of these rewards and punishments at “the time of their visitation” (3:7–9) is not limited to 3:7–12 but also occurs in 3:18; 4:6; 4:15; 4:20–5:23. 96 Cf. 2 Cor 4:17–18. 93

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

117

ing on Daniel and perhaps the Epistle of Enoch, Pseudo-Solomon asserts that the righteous “will shine” at the time of their visitation (3:7; cf. Dan 12:3; 1 En. 104.2; 108.13). 97 They will “judge nations and rule over peoples” (3:8; cf. Dan 7:22, 27), living forever under the reign of the Lord (3:8), in full knowledge of truth and in love (3:9). By revealing these heavenly rewards, Pseudo-Solomon attempts to shift the thoughts of his readers away from the idea that their loved one died through torture and toward the idea that their loved one is alive and protected by God now and will be exalted to a position of authority in the future. This method of redirecting the thoughts of the distressed away from troubles and toward good things was commonly employed by ancient Greek and Roman consolers. 98 According to Cicero, this was the two-step consolatory method championed by Epicurus: “distracting the mind from the thought of suffering and redirecting it to the contemplation of pleasures” (Tusc. 3.33; cf. 3.76). 99 In practice, it was employed by people of all philosophical and religious stripes, including Hellenistic Jews and late antique Christians. 100 Pseudo-Solomon’s usage of this technique broadly follows that of the biblical prophets, who comforted the people Israel by describing a future time in which God would reverse their current situation and restore their glory. While their deceased righteous ones will be benefited (3:5), the ungodly “who withdrew from the Lord” will receive punishment (ἐπιτιμία [3:10]). Instead of the hope of immortality (3:4), their hope is “empty” (κενή [3:10]). To counter the appearance that the lives of the ungodly are full of pleasure and power (2:6– 11), Pseudo-Solomon argues that such people are actually “miserable” (ταλαίπωρος). 101 Their labors are “unprofitable,” their deeds “useless,” and their wives “fools” (3:11–12). By painting the life of apostates so bleakly, Pseudo-Solomon communicates to survivors that, no matter what, those who died for their faithfulness to God made the right choice. 97 Jane Schaberg, “Major Midrashic Traditions in Wisdom 1, 1–6, 25,” JSJ 13 (1982): 75– 101, esp. 96–101. 98 The theory and usage of this consolatory technique are discussed by Holloway, “Bona Cogitare,” 89–96. This technique is employed in Seneca, Marc. 12.1–2; Polyb. 5–8; 12–13; Helv. 18–19; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 610E; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 116 A–B; Pliny, Ep. 8.5.2. 99 See Holloway, “Bona Cogitare,” 92–93. 100 Holloway identifies this technique of “consolation by distraction” in Jewish consolation in 4 Ezra 7.14, 2 Bar. 19.4; 83.5, and 3 Bar. 1.3–4.7 (Coping with Prejudice, 111–12), as well as Phil 4:8–9 (“Bona Cogitare,” 89–96). My own research in Hellenistic Jewish literature has yielded these additional instances of the method: Jer 38:16–17; Isa 49:21–22; 50:11; Bar 4:27– 5:9; Wis 3:7–9; 1 Thess 2:19–20; 3:11–13; 4:15–17; Heb 12:22–24; 4 Ezra 2.42–47; 8.51–55; 1 Pet 1:3–13. Within early Christian literature, Holloway identifies the following: Ambrose, De exc. Sat. 1.3; Jerome, Ep. 60.7.3; 108.1.2; 118.4.1; Basil, Ep. 5.2; 269.2; Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 13.6 (“Bona Cogitare,” 94). 101 LSJ s. v. ταλαίπωρος A: “suffering, distressed, miserable.” Plutarch deals with the fact that many wicked people escape punishment and prosper in a similar manner as Pseudo-Solomon. He argues that the lives of “wicked people” are “always full of terrors, sorrows, dismal memories, misgiving for the future, and mistrust of the present” (Sera 555F–556A).

118

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

3.5.2 Consolation concerning the Apparent Deaths of Young People (4:7–19) Not all of those who died during the Jewish persecution in Alexandria died in the theater. After Jews had been robbed, expelled from their homes, and forced into a ghetto (Flacc. 54–62), food became increasingly difficult to acquire for Jewish families (Flacc. 62–65). As Philo attests, the consequences of food scarcity were lethal: “they were oppressed by lack and a terrible need of necessities and saw women and little children wasting away before their eyes in a manmade famine” (Flacc. 62; cf. Legat. 124, 128). Rampant disease in the overcrowded ghetto also took lives (Legat. 125–126). 102 Jews of all ages who were found outside of the ghetto were burned to death: “The most merciless of all burned even whole families, husbands with wives, little children with parents, in the middle of the city, having shown no pity on old age, youth, or the innocent age of children” (Flacc. 68; cf. Legat. 130). In 4:7–19, Pseudo-Solomon takes up the challenge of offering consolation regarding those Jews who died at a young age, most of whom would have died from starvation or disease. He abandons the testing motif and concept of divine discipline used in 3:1–9, as these are not appropriate for children. Pseudo-Solomon first seeks to lessen the blow of the short life of the deceased by redefining old age as the possession of understanding and blameless character (4:9). Old age, he insists, must not be measured by the length of time or the number of years that a person lives (4:8). Seneca makes a very similar argument in his consolation to Marcia when he urges her to estimate her son’s life not “by his years” but “by his virtues” (Marc. 24.1). If she does so, she “will see that he lived long enough” (Marc. 24.1). Pseudo-Plutarch employs the consolatory topos in the form of a maxim, “The measure of a life is its excellence, not its length in years” (Cons. Apoll. 111D). 103 These consolatory arguments simultaneously praise the deceased and argue that their lives were complete. Second, Pseudo-Solomon develops the maxim of the New Comedy playwright Menander, “Whom the gods love dies young” (Cons. Apoll. 119E). 104 Of the consolations for untimely deaths employed in Wis 4:7–19, this one was the most popular among Greek and Roman consolers. 105 In conjunction with 102 Philo understands the fatalities to be caused by “foul air” (ἀὴρ κακωθείς [Legat. 125]). The actual disease or diseases that caused so many fatalities in the Jewish ghetto is unknown. Smallwood asks, “Was the epidemic perhaps caused by a contaminated water-supply?” (The Jews under Roman Rule, 218). 103 For this topos in consolatory literature, see also Seneca, Ep. 93.1–8 and Cicero, Tusc. 1.109. This theme is frequently attested outside of consolation literature as well. Parallels in Greek and Latin literature are listed by Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 137–38. 104 Menander, Sent. 425: ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν ἀποθνῄσκει νέος. 105 Cf. Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 367B: “The gods, who understand human affairs, quickly release from life those whom they consider of greatest worth.” See also Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 368A; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 121E.

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

119

Menander’s maxim, they told anecdotes about how the gods rewarded pious young people with death, deeming it better for them to be dead than to live in a miserable world. 106 To strengthen the argument, consolers sometimes described all of the evils that the deceased avoided on account of the gods mercifully taking them early from the world. 107 Pseudo-Solomon had to adapt the consolatory topos to fit with his prior argument that righteous people do not actually die (3:1–9). Because Enoch does not die in biblical tradition but was “transferred” by God (μετατίθημι [Gen 5:24]), 108 Pseudo-Solomon uses Enoch as an example of a person whose life on earth was cut short as a result of being “well-pleasing to God and loved by him” (εὐάρεστος θεῷ γενόμενος ἠγαπήθη [4:10]). God snatched him up from the midst of sinners as a means of protection (4:10–12). Lastly, Pseudo-Solomon deals with the problem of short lives by redefining a full lifespan from many years to the time required to be perfected. Righteous Enoch was “perfected in a short time” and thus “fulfilled long years” (4:13). Seneca uses a similar argument when consoling Marcia, that “whatever has reached perfection, is near its end … the brighter a fire glows, the more quickly it dies … so with men – the brighter their spirits, the briefer their day” (Marc. 23.3–5). 109 This argument assumes that the goal of life is virtue, and that once virtue is achieved, life is complete and there is nothing left for a person to do. 110 Like the first argument in Wis 4:8–9, it consoles in two ways: by praising the deceased and by arguing that they had lived long enough to fulfill the purpose of their lives.

3.5.3 Consolation for Parents Who Had Become Childless (3:13–19; 4:1–6) Current scholarship interprets the diptychs of 3:13–19 and 4:1–6 as arguments against the pervading assumption of the Hebrew Bible and postbiblical literature that childlessness was an indication of sin. 111 The arguments of 3:13–19 106 E. g., the Argive youths, Cleobis and Biton (Herodotus 1.31; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 367C; Cicero, Tusc. 1.113; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 108F); Trophonius and Agamedes (PseudoPlato, Ax. 367C; Cicero, Tusc. 1.114; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 109A–B). 107 Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 366D–369A; Cicero, Fam. 5.16.4; Tusc. 1.47.115; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 111B, 117D–E; Seneca, Marc. 22.1–7. 108 LXX Gen 5:24; Sir 44:16; Jub. 4.23. 109 See also Seneca, Ep. 93.4; Cicero, De Sen. 5. 110 Manning, On Seneca’s “Ad Marciam”, 123. 111 E. g., Lev 20:20–21; Hos 9:14; 1 En. 98.5; Gen. Rab. 45.4. This assumption is the logical inverse of the belief that God rewards righteousness with the blessing of children (e. g., Exod 23:26; Deut 7:12–14; 28:4, 11). The associations of children with righteousness, on the one hand, and childlessness with sin, on the other, were shared by Israel’s neighbors. Winston explains, “In the ancient Near East … sexual sin, whether intentional or inadvertent, was believed to result in sterility” (“Theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon,” 531).

120

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

and 4:1–6 do presuppose that a person can be both childless and virtuous, but their central purpose lies elsewhere. I argue that both units make comparative arguments that it is better to have lost one’s children by bereavement while maintaining one’s righteousness than to have unrighteous children as an ungodly person. Given the recent deaths of both young people (4:7–19) and adults (3:1–9), many people in Pseudo-Solomon’s community would have lost a child. Some may have lost all of their children. While bereaved parents of childbearing age could probably have more, older bereaved parents would die childless, the same state that Leviticus designates as punishment for a man who sleeps with his brother’s wife (Lev 20:21; cf. Lev 20:20). Without their children to carry on their legacy, these bereaved parents would have been vulnerable to “death after death,” that is, “the possibility that the memory of [one’s] name and the recollection of [one’s] deeds accomplished while living might be forever forgotten.” 112 As they mourned the loss of their children, bereaved parents also had reasons to mourn for themselves. Who would take care of them in their old age? Who would remember them after they had died? The two central diptychs of the chiasm, 3:13–19 and 4:1–6, seek to console bereaved parents who are bewailing their newfound childlessness. The heart of Pseudo-Solomon’s message is found in the center of the chiasm, 4:1a: “Better is childlessness with virtue” (κρείσσων ἀτεκνία μετὰ ἀρετῆς). Is Pseudo-Solomon referring to childlessness from sterility or childlessness from bereavement? Because of the prior mention of a barren woman and a eunuch in 3:13–14, scholars interpret ἀτεκνία in 4:1 as the childlessness of those who are physically unable to have children. Against this consensus, I argue that the contextual grounds for reading ἀτεκνία in 4:1 as bereavement of one’s children are actually stronger. Pseudo-Solomon’s argument about ἀτεκνία is bracketed by consolation regarding the deaths of adults (3:1–12) and children (4:7–19). If people are dying, then other people are being rendered childless. The consolation given regarding the state of the dead implies that consolation might be deemed necessary concerning the state of the survivors. Though the lexical evidence could support interpreting ἀτεκνία as simple “childlessness” or “barrenness,” 113 it never carries this meaning in the Septuagint. The noun ἀτεκνία occurs four times in the Septuagint other than in Wis 4:1, and in each case, the meaning is not mere childlessness, but the loss of one’s children. 114 Within Pseudo-Solomon’s Bible, the related verb ἀτεκνόω refers to 112 Brian B. Schmidt, “Memory as Immortality: Countering the Dreaded ‘Death after Death’ in Ancient Israelite Society,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner, Part 4 of Death, Life-after-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 87–100, esp. 99. 113 LSJ s.v ἀτεκνία A. “childlessness, barrenness.” 114 In Ps 34(35):12, ἀτεκνία is a state that humans can inflict on their enemies. Lust is

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

121

bereavement thirteen times and to barrenness only six times. 115 Muraoka correctly lists the primary meaning of ἀτεκνόω in the Septuagint as “to cause loss of child”; the secondary meaning is “to be incapable of producing children.” 116 Based on the usage of ἀτεκνία and ἀτεκνόω in the Jewish Scriptures, texts that heavily inform Pseudo-Solomon’s thinking, one would expect that Pseudo-Solomon’s use of ἀτεκνία in 4:1 would refer to the loss of children. To my knowledge, however, the “ἀτεκνία with virtue” that Pseudo-Solomon praises so highly has not been interpreted as the state of those who have been deprived of their children. Given the lexical and contextual grounds for interpreting ἀτεκνία in 4:1a as childlessness caused by bereavement, we may translate, “Better is bereavement of one’s children with virtue” (κρείσσων ἀτεκνία μετὰ ἀρετῆς). Better than what? The κρείσσων points back to the preceding description of “unrighteous offspring” (ἄδικος γενεά [3:19]). The complete thought is this: “Better is bereavement of one’s children with virtue” than to have “unrighteous offspring” (3:19–4:1a). Sirach 16:3 was undoubtedly the inspiration for these verses. 117 Writing about children, Sirach advises, “better [κρείσσων] is one than a thousand [εἷς ἢ χίλιοι], and to die childless [καὶ ἀποθανεῖν ἄτεκνον] than to have ungodly children [ἢ ἔχειν τέκνα ἀσεβῆ]” (16:3cd). In his own composition, Pseudo-Solomon omits Sirach’s point of dying childless (ἀποθανεῖν ἄτεκνον) in the first half of the comparison. Pseudo-Solomon sought to comfort both Jews past child-bearing age and younger Jews who could have more children, so he does not presume in his argument that all those who are now childless will die childless. With this adaptation, Pseudo-Solomon preserves the force of Sircorrect in interpreting ἀτεκνία as “bereavement” in this verse: s. v. ἀτεκνία “childlessness Wis 4:1; bereavement Ps 34(35), 12.” Muraoka defines ἀτεκνία as the “loss of children” in 4 Macc 18:9: s. v. ἀτεκνία, “b. loss of children: 4M 18.9.” I disagree with Muraoka’s decision to cite ἀτεκνία in Isa 47:9 as a simple “state of being childless” rather than “loss of children”: s. v. ἀτεκνία, “state of being childless: χηρεία καὶ ἀ. ‘widowhood …’ Is 47.9.” As recognized by the NETS translation of Isa 47:9, χηρεία καὶ ἀτεκνία (“widowhood and loss of children”) refer to the claim of the daughter of the Chaldeans in the previous verse, Isa 47:8, οὐ καθιῶ χήρα οὐδὲ γνώσομαι ὀρφανείαν (“I shall not sit as a widow or know bereavement”). Neither Lust nor Muraoka list Pss. Sol. 4.18: ἐν μονώσει ἀτεκνίας τὸ γῆρας αὐτοῦ (“May his old age be alone, without children”). The explicit mention of old age in this verse suggests that the person in question currently has children, but the speaker asks God that, as a curse, he may end his life without them. 115 Lust s. v. ἀτεκνόω “A: to make childless Gen 42, 36; to be barren Ct 4,2. P: to be (made) childless Hos 9, 14; to be made barren (of the earth) 2 Kgs 2, 19.” As a reference to bereavement: Gen 27:45; 42:36; 43:14; Deut 32:25; 1 Kgdms 15:33 (2 times); 2 Kgdms 17:8; Hos 9:12; Jer 15:7; Lam 1:20; Ezek 36:12, 13, 14. As a reference to barrenness: Gen 31:38; 4 Kgdms 2:19, 21; Cant 4:2; 6:6; Hos 9:14. 116 Muraoka s. v. ἀτεκνόω “to cause loss of child … b. to be incapable of producing children.” 117 Larcher, who argues that Pseudo-Solomon read and used Sirach in its Greek form, lists Sir 16:3 as a parallel to Wis 4:1 and Sir 16:1–2 and 41:8–9 as parallels to Wis 3:12, 17–18 (Le Livre de la Sagesse, 1:101).

122

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

ach’s comparison that being childless is better than having ungodly children and uses it to console bereaved parents. Why would Pseudo-Solomon choose a barren woman (στεῖρα [3:13]) and a eunuch (εὐνοῦχος [3:14]) as positive exempla for bereaved parents when he could have chosen bereaved parents from biblical lore, such as David mourning over Absalom? Not any bereaved parent of the Bible would do, since PseudoSolomon needed models of virtue (ἀρετή [4:1]). Yet more, Pseudo-Solomon was attempting to argue that faithful bereaved parents among his addressees were blessed in spite of their childlessness. To accomplish this, he was looking for childless exempla whom God had shown special favor. Pseudo-Solomon chose the images of the barren woman (στεῖρα) and the eunuch (εὐνοῦχος), derived from Isa 54:1 and 56:3–5, 118 as models for two primary reasons. First, they are models of childlessness caused by political oppression, which makes them fitting examples for consoling Jews of Alexandria who had also become childless as the result of political oppression. Second, both figures are the recipients of God’s comfort, that is, God addresses them with promises of future reward (esp. Isa 56:5), restoration (esp. Isa 54:1–3), and safety (esp. Isa 54:4– 17). 119 In employing the στεῖρα and εὐνοῦχος as exempla, Pseudo-Solomon could mirror a crucial aspect of the trauma faced by his bereaved addressees and draw inspiration for his consolatory arguments from the comforting words of God himself. First, the στεῖρα and the εὐνοῦχος are symbolic of Israel’s history of suffering at the hands of foreign governments, a history that includes the slaughter and deportation of Jerusalem’s children to Babylon and the castration of Jewish men. In oracles of salvation announcing God’s plans to return the exiles, the prophet Isaiah depicts desolate Jerusalem as both a barren woman (στεῖρα [54:1]) and a bereaved mother who has become “childless” (ἄτεκνος [49:21]) as a result of the Babylonians (esp. 49:20–25). Because these conflicting images coexist in tension in Isaiah, Pseudo-Solomon found in Isaiah the paradox that the Jerusalem who is a childless στεῖρα is also a mother bereaved of her children by death and deportation to Babylon. 120 Her childlessness is a direct result of the violence and power of Babylon, as is the childlessness of the eunuchs referred to in Isa 56:3–5. As the Persians had done, the Babylonians selected young men from their subject peoples and castrated them so that they might serve as eunuchs in Babylonian courts. 121 During the Babylonian exile, some 118 Jack M. Suggs, “Wisdom of Solomon 2:10–5: A Homily Based on the Fourth Servant Song,” JBL 76 (1957): 26–33, 30; Patrick W. Skehan, “Isaias and the Teaching on the Book of Wisdom,” CBQ 2 (1940): 289–99, esp. 296–97. 119 God consoles the στεῖρα in Isa 54:1–17 and the εὐνοῦχος in Isa 56:3–5. 120 E. g., Isa 49:20: “For your children whom you have lost will say…” 121 Jacob L. Wright and Michael J. Chan, “King and Eunuch: Isaiah 56:1–8 in Light of Honorific Royal Burial Practices,” JBL 131 (2012): 99–119, esp. 116–17.

3.5 Consolatory Arguments in the Book of Eschatology

123

Jews were victims of this practice. 122 In First Isaiah, the prophet declares, “they shall take some of your children whom you have begotten and they shall make them eunuchs in the house of the king of the Babylonians” (Isa 39:7). Winston is surely correct in his assessment that “Isa 56:3–5 refers to those Jewish youth who were castrated at the hands of the Babylonian tyranny, and had consequently despaired of any share in Israel’s future redemption.” 123 Would Pseudo-Solomon’s intended readers realize that the biblical figures of the στεῖρα (3:13) and εὐνοῦχος (3:14) mirror their circumstances of having been made childless (ἄτεκνος [Isa 49:21]) because of political oppression? The answer would vary in accordance with the differing levels of biblical literacy among his readers. Regardless, bereaved parents would recognize them as positive exempla for their childless state – a childless woman and a childless man to whom God promised lasting rewards on account of their faithfulness. Second, God’s unsparing words of comfort to the στεῖρα (Isa 54:1–17) and to the εὐνοῦχος (Isa 56:3–6) afforded Pseudo-Solomon templates from which he could console the ἄτεκνοι among his readers. He transfers the promise of literal children made to the στεῖρα in Isa 54:1–3 to the eschatological future. The μακαρία (“blessed”) στεῖρα of his consolation “will bear fruit at the visitation of souls” (3:13). He echoes the promise the Lord made to the faithful εὐνοῦχοι to give them an esteemed place in his temple (Isa 56:5; Wis 3:14) 124 and elaborates the consolation that God would give them “an everlasting name” (ὄνομα αἰώνιον [Isa 56:5; cf. Wis 4:1–2]). The recipients of such a promise of immortality through lasting memory are now the bereaved parents among his readers; they will be eternally remembered by God and human beings on account of their “virtue” (ἀρετή). 125 Because people will remember their virtue and “long for it when it is gone,” even those who end up dying childless will attain the sort of “immortality” (ἀθανασία) that comes from people remembering them (4:1–2). By displaying the rewards of piety promised to a barren woman and a eunuch, Pseudo-Solomon implicitly urges any of his readers who have become childless to continue observing God’s law so that they too might gain heavenly rewards.

122 See 2 Kgs 20:18; 24:12, 15; Isa 39:7, cited as evidence of Judeans serving as eunuchs in Babylon by Wright and Chan, “King and Eunuch,” 117. 123 Winston’s reading of Isa 56:3–5 is also supported by b. Sanh. 93b (“Theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon,” 533). See also Wright and Chan, “King and Eunuch.” 124 Because the eunuch has done nothing lawless, nor devised “wicked things against the Lord,” he will receive “special favor [χάρις]” and “the most delightful portion in the temple of the Lord” (Wis 3:14). 125 “Better is bereavement of one’s children with virtue [κρείσσων ἀτεκνία μετὰ ἀρετῆς], for there is immortality [ἀθανασία] in the memory of virtue because it is recognized by both God and human beings” (Wis 4:1).

124

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

Inspired by God’s consolation of the στεῖρα and the εὐνοῦχος in Isaiah, Pseudo-Solomon composes two diptychs (3:13–19; 4:1–6) to argue that it is better to be faithful, virtuous, and bereaved of one’s children than to keep one’s children as an ungodly person. The diptych of 3:13–19 contrasts the childlessness and rewards of the barren woman and the eunuch (3:13–15) with “the children of adulterers,” that is, “unrighteous offspring” (ἄδικος γενεά [3:19]), and their unhappy ends (3:16–19). The diptych of 4:1–6 addresses the fear that people without children would not be remembered (4:1–2) and expands the argument in 3:16–19 that the living children of the ungodly are worse off than the deceased children of the godly (4:3–6). 126 In both diptychs, Pseudo-Solomon seeks to comfort bereaved parents who are grieved that the children of their ungodly peers are alive while their children are dead. His consolatory method is based on the theory that grief can be diminished if one proves that the calamity of the sufferer is really less than the calamities of others (Cons. Apoll. 106C). He thus needed to demonstrate that the living children of the ungodly and their parents are actually worse off than themselves and their deceased children. To this end, he claims that ungodly children will die anyway before reaching maturity (3:16; 4:3–5), will be “useless” (ἄχρηστος) while alive (4:5), and if they live long, their old age will lack honor (ἄτιμος [3:17]). On the day of judgment, they will have no consolation (παραμύθιον) but serve as “witnesses of wickedness [μάρτυρες πονηρίας] against their parents” at the judgment (3:18–19; 4:6). In contrast, the deceased righteous children are alive (3:1–9; 4:7–16), will be given positions of honor by God (3:7–8; 4:16), and have nothing to fear on the day of judgment (3:4–9; 4:16–19). The faithful bereaved parents will be remembered eternally (4:1–2); the ungodly with their many children will be totally forgotten (5:9–14). Comparatively, bereavement of one’s children with virtue (ἀτεκνία μετὰ ἀρετῆς) truly is “better” (κρείσσων) than having many unrighteous (ἄδικος) offspring as an ungodly person (ἀσεβής).

3.5.4 Conclusion: Consolatory Rhetoric in 3:1–4:19 Taken as a whole, the antithetical comparisons between the righteous and the ungodly in 3:1–4:19 are aimed at persuading surviving Jews that those who sacrificed their lives rather than their fidelity to God made the right choice. Throughout, Pseudo-Solomon seeks to console the bereaved in his community by explaining why the righteous died and describing the eternal rewards that they have earned because of their faithfulness. By postmortem fulfillment, Pseudo-Solomon affirms the promise of Moses that those who guard the Lord’s 126 On the fear that those without children would not be remembered, see Schmidt, “Memory as Immortality,” 100–101. Cf. 2 Sam 18:18, in which Absalom erects a monument because he did not have a son to ensure that his name be remembered.

3.6 Wisdom and Education in Grief and Suffering

125

commandments will live. 127 On the flip side, he affirms the promise of Moses that those Jews who withdrew from the Lord (3:10) and transgressed his law (2:12) will die. In the central diptychs of the chiasm (3:13–19; 4:1–6), PseudoSolomon encourages bereaved parents to maintain their purity, faithfulness, and virtue so that their memory will be forever preserved even without their children to carry it on. By illustrating not only the rewards of piety but also the dreadful consequences of apostasy in each diptych, Pseudo-Solomon hopes to persuade his readers to continue to observe God’s law, whatever the costs. My analysis of 3:1–4:19 stands apart from previous scholarship on multiple levels. First, I have argued that the whole unit is aimed to console bereaved addressees, not just 3:1–12 and 4:7–19. Second, I have identified a new chiastic structure of the unit based on its consolatory rhetoric: the apparent death of the righteous (A; 3:1–12), the childlessness of survivors (B; 3:13–19), the childlessness of survivors (B'; 4:1–6), the apparent death of the righteous (A'; 4:7–19). Third, I have argued that the conglomeration of the consolatory arguments in 3:1–4:19 fits the circumstances of August of 38 CE Alexandria: law-abiding Jewish adults were publicly tortured and executed, Jewish young people died via other means, and some faithful Jews suddenly became childless as a result. Fourth, I have shown how Pseudo-Solomon employed and adapted ancient consolatory theories, arguments, and topoi from both Greco-Roman and biblical consolatory rhetoric in 3:1–4:19. Combined, my analysis offers the most comprehensive effort to date regarding how a highly educated Alexandrian Jew attempted to comfort his bereaved community in the wake of the 38 CE persecution.

3.6 Wisdom and Education in Grief and Suffering The central unit of the Wisdom of Solomon (6:22–10:21) praises personified Wisdom and contains an extensive description of Wisdom’s origin and nature, as well as the benefits given to those who follow her. 128 Dodson has rightfully drawn attention to the ways in which “Lady Wisdom provides knowledge and comfort” in 8:1–21. 129 This chapter heralds Wisdom as both a provider of “advice for cares and grief ” (παραίνεσις φροντίδων καὶ λύπης [8:9]) and a source of gladness (εὐφροσύνη) and joy (χαρά) for those who live with her (8:16). 130 127

Deut 5:33; 6:2; 8:1; 30:15–20. For the history of scholarship on the genre of this unit as an encomium, traditionally demarcated as the “Book of Wisdom” (Weber, “Die Komposition,” 145–69), see Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10, 64–101. 129 Dodson, ‘Powers’ of Personification, 109. 130 Commentators almost universally translate παραίνεσις in 8:9 as if it carried the meaning of παραμυθία, “comfort,” while noting that this usage of παραίνεσις is unattested in 128

126

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

More commonly, scholars have noted the consolatory function of Lady Wisdom in 10:1–11:1, a chapter whose “primary theme is that Wisdom saves the righteous (Wis 9:18; 10:9).” 131 Chapter 10 illustrates the point that people who were taught by Wisdom “were saved by Wisdom” (τῇ σοφίᾳ ἐσώθησαν [9:18]) using an example list of righteous people from the history of Israel whom Wisdom saved: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, and Joseph (10:1–14). 132 The list culminates in Wisdom’s deliverance of the Israelites: “A holy people and blameless race she rescued [ἐρρύσατο] from a nation of oppressors [ἐξ ἔθνους θλιβόντων]” (10:15–11:1). At the midpoint of the list, the theme of the chapter is summarized, that “Wisdom rescued [ἐρρύσατο] out of sufferings [ἐκ πόνων] those who serve her” (10:9). 133 Pseudo-Solomon issues the series of exempla in 10:1–11:1 to motivate his readers to seek Wisdom themselves so that they too can be rescued out of their own sufferings (9:18; 10:9). With these consolatory aspects of Lady Wisdom clear enough, I focus my analysis of 6:22–11:1 on two new lines of inquiry: (1) the ways in which Pseudo-Solomon shares assumptions with Greek and Roman consolers about the relationship between grief and education, and (2) the ways in which PseudoSolomon depicts Lady Wisdom in the role of “reason” (as seen in Greek and Roman consolations) and in the role of the God of Israel (as seen in Jewish consolations).

3.6.1 The Relationship between Grief and Education Under the influence of Stoicism, many Greek and Roman philosophers regarded distress as the product of false beliefs about reality, such as the belief that one’s misfortune is very serious (Tusc. 3.52–61) and the belief that feeling and expressing grief is the appropriate thing to do (Tusc. 3.61–64). 134 Cicero represents one end of the spectrum in his belief that “distress of any kind is far ancient Greek literature (e. g., Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 195; Joseph Reider, The Book of Wisdom [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957], 122; Deane, Book of Wisdom, 155). The context of 8:9 does not demand translating παραίνεσις some way other than the literal meaning of the term, “advice.” LSJ s. v. παραίνεσις A., “c. gen. rei, advice given for, of, or towards a thing.” Furthermore, translating παραίνεσις as “advice” or “exhortation” is supported by the parallel structure in 8:9b and 8:9c, with σύμβουλος (8:9b) parallel with παραίνεσις (8:9c). 131 Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10, 171. See also Dodson, ‘Powers’ of Personification, 113–14. 132 On the literary genre of chapter 10 as an example list, see Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10, 95–101. 133 LSJ s. v. πόνος, A.II.1 “stress, trouble, distress, suffering … in pl. sufferings.” 134 Cicero investigates the viewpoints of the different philosophical schools on the cause of distress in the third book of his Tusculan Disputations. His own position is that “the cause of distress [aegritudo], as of all the emotions, is to be found entirely in belief” (Tusc. 3.24). For modern analysis of how Greek and Roman consolers conceived of the causes of grief, see Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 81–123.

3.6 Wisdom and Education in Grief and Suffering

127

removed from the wise person” (Tusc. 3.82). 135 On the other end of the spectrum, proponents of μετριοπάθεια argued that experiencing some grief was “natural,” but excessive and prolonged grief was due to false beliefs. 136 To combat the false beliefs that held people captive in their grief, both camps agreed that the task of consolation was that of educating the distressed to view reality in a different light. If this education was successful, the distressed would be guided by reason rather than by their emotions. As a result, their grief should be alleviated, even if not totally erased. Given these assumptions, Greek and Roman consolations depict people who behave well in distress as educated and guided by reason, while painting people who complain and grieve more dramatically in distress as ignorant and uneducated. The role of reason in controlling grief is explicit in Pseudo-Plutarch’s positive example of Xenophon. Upon hearing about the death of his son, Xenophon is first silent so that he can “master his emotion [πάθος] by the power of reason [λογισμός]” (Cons. Apoll. 119A). Because he is guided by reason (λογισμός) and not emotion (πάθος), Xenophon can complete the sacrifice that he had begun before receiving the sad news (Cons. Apoll. 119A). Pseudo-Plutarch is explicit that mourning (πενθεῖν) is not appropriate for people who have received the education (παιδεία) of a free person (Cons. Apoll. 113A). In his view, a “lack of education” (ἀπαιδευσία) is what causes people to “wail [ὀδύρομαι] at everything” and “groan” (στένω) when facing difficulties (Cons. Apoll. 117A). People from “barbarian” ethnic groups, such as Egyptians, are depicted as particularly prone to excessive mourning on account of their lack of proper education (Cons. Apoll. 113A–B). According to him, wailings (οἶκτοι) and lamentations (ὀλοφυρμοί) are caused by weakness of the spirit and the fear of death, both of which derive from “ignorance” (ἄγνοια) about the nature of life (Cons. Apoll. 116E). Unsurprisingly then, he believed that Apollonius could “release himself ” from his troubles if he conceded now to “reason” (λόγος) and “education” (παιδεία) what he would later concede to time (Cons. Apoll. 112C). Pseudo-Solomon shared the assumption of Greco-Roman consolation that education (παιδεία) would determine whether a person could successfully navigate hardships and bereavement without being overwhelmed by grief. He diverges, however, from Greek and Roman consolers in identifying God’s Wisdom as the source of proper παιδεία: Lady Wisdom (σοφία) is “a holy spirit of education” (ἅγιον … πνεῦμα παιδείας [1:5]). In his rhetoric, then, to be educated is to be guided by Wisdom, not by reason. As he depicts reality, people 135 For another representative of this view, see Dio Chrysostom’s De aegritudine (Or. 16), esp. 16.4. 136 See the discussion of ἀπάθεια and μετριοπάθεια in chapter 4, § 4.5.3 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:13–5:11, section a. What the Philosopher Ordered, God Wills: “Do Not Grieve” (μὴ λυπῆσθε) but “Console One Another” (παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους).

128

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

who are guided by Wisdom are never undone by their calamities, while people who lack God’s Wisdom, that is, the “uneducated” (ἀπαίδευτοι [17:1]), are unable to control their emotions in adverse circumstances. God’s “holy people” are said to be “guided” by Wisdom (ὁδηγέω [10:17]) on their journey out of Egypt and through the wilderness. Pseudo-Solomon narrates numerous examples of this holy people being oppressed by enemies, 137 enduring bodily suffering, 138 and dying violently, 139 yet never portrays them as distressed or aggrieved over their circumstances. On the contrary, he depicts the enemies of the righteous, who lack God’s Wisdom, as possessed by grief (λύπη [11:12]; cf. θρηνέω [18:10]; πένθος [19:3]) and fear (φόβος [17:3–21; esp. 17:6, 11, 14; 18:17]) when they suffer. Just as Pseudo-Plutarch associates displays of grief with a lack of education, Pseudo-Solomon characterizes these excessive mourners as “uneducated people” (ἀπαίδευτοι ψυχαί [17:1; cf. 14:22; 15:14, 18]). His readers would recognize that these unnamed “enemies” were also Egyptians, one of the ethnic groups Pseudo-Plutarch identifies as prone to loud lamentation (Cons. Apoll. 113A–B). These parallels are evidence that Pseudo-Solomon agreed with Greek and Roman philosophical consolers that a circumstance of pain or suffering should not cause the person enduring hardship to exhibit a strong emotional reaction of distress or sorrow. If someone could be taught to assess hardships properly, it followed that they should neither feel nor exhibit distress in the same way as the ἀπαίδευτοι when faced with a calamity.

3.6.2 Lady Wisdom in the Role of Reason and in the Place of the God of Israel The consolatory functions Pseudo-Solomon attributes to Lady Wisdom are evidence of his efforts to console his readers by combining Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric with the consolatory methods of his biblical heritage. Greek and Roman consolers usually attempted to alleviate the grief of the distressed through appeals to “reason,” by which they helped sufferers change their “understanding of reality.” 140 Jewish consolers more often comforted by promising that God would intervene to change the dire situation. 141 Pseudo-Solomon 137

10:10–14; 17:2; 19:6, 16. The righteous Israelites suffer thirst (11:1–14) and hunger (16:1–4; 24–29). Additionally, they are bitten by poisonous snakes (16:5–14). 139 E. g., the murder of the just man (2:12–20); the slaughter of the Israelite infants by the Egyptians (11:6–7; 18:5); the mass death of the righteous in the wilderness (18:20–25). 140 Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 813. 141 God’s presence in the midst of trouble is also a source of consolation in Judaism (e. g., Pss 9:9–10; 36:28; 93:14; Isa 41:10; Zeph 3:15–17; Hag 2:4–5; Bel 38; 2 Macc 6:16; Heb 13:5–6), though Bickmann is correct that Jewish consolers usually direct the attention of the distressed to God’s plans to somehow remedy the current situation (“1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 813). 138

3.6 Wisdom and Education in Grief and Suffering

129

employs Lady Wisdom toward both ends. Like “reason,” she alleviates grief in the present calamity through teaching her servants how to understand the world and how to properly react to hardship. Like the God of Israel, she has the power to rescue her servants out of their calamities. Pseudo-Plutarch captures the basic assumption of the Greco-Roman tradition of consolation when he writes, “Reason [λόγος] is the best medicine [φάρμακον] for freedom from grief [ἀλυπία]” (Cons. Apoll. 103F). In substituting σοφία for λόγος, Pseudo-Solomon claims that God’s spirit of Wisdom is the ticket to living without “pain” or “sorrow” (ὀδύνη), but with “gladness” (εὐφροσύνη) and “joy” (χαρά) (8:16). People led by Wisdom still encounter hardships in life, but they can face them with self-control (σωφροσύνη), understanding (φρόνησις), righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), and courage (ἀνδρεία) because Wisdom has “taught” (ἐκδιδάσκω) them these virtues (8:7). Functioning as does “reason” in Greco-Roman consolation, she provides advice (παραίνεσις) for worries (φροντίδες) and grief (λύπη [8:9]). At the same time, Wisdom’s devotees do not need to release themselves from their troubles (cf. Cons. Apoll. 112C), because Wisdom will rescue them out of their sufferings (πόνοι) herself (10:9). The exempla list of 10:1–11:1 emphasizes how Wisdom functions like the God of Israel in delivering her oppressed people. By juxtaposing Wisdom’s roles as comforter and educator in trouble (8:7, 9, 16) with Wisdom’s role as savior out of trouble (10:1–11:1), Pseudo-Solomon presents God’s Wisdom as the single, comprehensive, solution to the problem of suffering and grief. He implicitly argues that God’s Wisdom is superior to the reason of Greeks and Romans, since Wisdom not only alleviates grief by advising the sufferer but also intervenes in world history to rescue her followers. In conclusion, Pseudo-Solomon would agree with Cicero that “distress of any kind is far removed from the wise person” (Tusc. 3.82), but he defines a “wise person” as one led by God’s Wisdom, the “holy spirit of education” (ἅγιον … πνεῦμα παιδείας [1:5]), which can educate, advise, sustain, and even rescue her suffering devotees. By writing in the guise of the wise and pious King Solomon, he positions himself as capable of offering the most reliable and trustworthy perspective on the way the world works among competing views – God’s perspective. 142 He styles himself as the chosen purveyor of God’s wisdom, such that he can reveal “secret things” (κρυπτά [7:21; cf. 7:27]) to his persecuted readers, like the mystery that righteous people do not actually die, but live immortally (2:22–3:9). Instead of seeking “reason” for their guide, Pseudo-Solomon directs his readers to Lady Wisdom, who can lessen the anxiety of those she inhabits (7:23) and sustain them by providing “joy” in every situation 142 Competing views include, e. g., that death is final, without postmortem reward or punishment (2:1–5), that the elements of nature are gods (13:1–9), and that idols are gods (13:10– 15:17). The author implicitly claims his perspective is God’s perspective in repeatedly stressing that his wisdom was given to him by God in response to his prayer (7:1–9:18, esp. 7:7).

130

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

(8:16), even “in the dungeon” and “in bonds” (10:14). Because she is “a breath of the power of God” (7:25), she can do more than help her followers endure their traumas; she can also rescue them out of their sufferings (10:9). With such an invaluable resource to offer his readers, Pseudo-Solomon exerted his energy to sing her praises and detail her benefits in the hope that his readers would seek out Wisdom as King Solomon had done and thereby find comfort (6:22–10:21).

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials When making a consolatory speech, Cicero recommends that the speaker offer examples of other people who have suffered (Tusc. 3.56–58). This method of consolation communicates to the distressed that they are not alone in what they have suffered, which can be comforting in itself (Tusc. 3.58). Cicero cautions, however, that “the point is not to list all the troubles people have experienced, but to describe the manner in which wise sufferers have endured them” (Tusc. 3.79). By focusing the attention of the distressed on how wise sufferers in the past have successfully overcome their calamities, the consoler attempts to show the distressed that they, too, are capable of rising above their circumstances. In theory, the distressed should realize that their calamity is “less serious” than they had believed, given that many others have been through the same and valiantly endured (Tusc. 3.58). 143 As a result, the examples should inspire the distressed to patiently endure their own traumas: “the list of examples … is offered not to please the spiteful but to encourage the mourner to resolve on enduring his misfortune, when he sees that many others have endured the same thing with calmness and self-control” (Tusc. 3.60). 144 As one would expect from Cicero’s theoretical treatment of examples in consolation, extant consolatory essays abound in examples of people who have suffered. 145 In fact, lists of examples are so prominent in consolations that they can be considered “un trait caractéristique du genre.” 146 According to Seneca, one of the “roles of the comforter” was to present “examples which could bring [the] mind to a state of calmness” (Polyb. 14.1–2). In his 1997 monograph, Samuel Cheon explores how Pseudo-Solomon depicts the heroes of the Bible and the Israelites of the exodus generation as models of virtue (10:1–19:22). 147 In marked contrast to his source material in Exo143

For the benefits of using exempla, see also Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 106C. Cicero is arguing against the objection of Carneades that “only spiteful people … would find consolation in a speech based upon the misfortunes of others” (Tusc. 3.59–60). 145 E. g., Seneca, Polyb. 14.4–16.3; Helv. 9.4–10.1; 16.6–7; 19.4–7; Marc. 12.5–15.4; 16.3–4; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118D–119D. 146 Hani, Consolation à Apollonios, 18. See also Grollios, Seneca’s Ad Marciam, 25–27. 147 Cheon, Exodus Story, 32, 45, 50, 65, 88, 97, 111. 144

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials

131

dus and Numbers, Pseudo-Solomon does not tolerate even the suggestion that God’s people grumbled, doubted, rebelled, or sinned during their wandering in the wilderness. He systematically removes the sins of Israel’s past to refashion Israel as God’s righteous ones. Why does Pseudo-Solomon do this? Peter Enns is surely correct that “the heroic persons of the Bible are viewed by PseudoSolomon as examples for the faithful of his own day; as such it will not do to present these figures from the past in any way other than the ideal.… he seeks to find in these figures a biblical precedent for the circumstances he is addressing.” 148 Similarly, Cheon has hypothesized that the ideal portrait of the Israelites was intended to meet the current needs of Pseudo-Solomon’s audience, who had “experienced unmerited suffering” in the riots of 38 CE. 149 Cheon rightly maintains that Pseudo-Solomon presents the Israelites as righteous people “who temporarily suffered in spite of their innocence” so that his readers can interpret their suffering through that of their ancestors. 150 Ancient consolation literature affords us a fresh perspective to investigate how and why Pseudo-Solomon presents the Israelites of the wilderness generation as ideal figures. The stories of God’s holy people overcoming their obstacles in chapters 10–19 fall into a particular category of consolatory exempla, that is, stories of how the sufferers themselves triumphed over past adversity. If the sufferer in question had successfully overcome calamities in the past that were similar to their current calamities, the consoler could use the sufferer’s personal history to construct anecdotes of exemplary conduct in distress. These sorts of stories in which the sufferer is primed to regard their past self as a positive example are neither “unusual” nor “innovative” in consolation literature. 151 In what follows, I will first explicate how this technique is used by Plutarch and Seneca and then demonstrate how Pseudo-Solomon employs the technique at the collective level using three case studies: his story of the righteous and their enemies suffering thirst (11:1–14), his story of the plague of darkness (17:1–18:4), and his mini narrative of the inhospitality of the Egyptians toward the Hebrews (19:13–17). When Plutarch consoles his wife about the death of their two-year-old daughter, he reminds her, “you already showed great steadfastness [εὐστάθεια] concerning such things when you lost our oldest child and again when the 148

Enns, “Pseudo-Solomon and His Scripture,” 398–99. Cheon, Exodus Story, 147. 150 Cheon, Exodus Story, 147. 151 Contra Baltussen, who writes of Plutarch’s use of exempla in his consolation to his wife, “What is unusual and innovative in Plutarch’s approach is that he holds up events to his wife (and possibly others) from her own life as exempla (Consol. § 5), perhaps suggesting that she can take heart from her better (former?) self” (“Personal Grief and Public Mourning,” 82). My research suggests that the presentation of the past self as an exemplum is a standard technique: 2 Macc 15:9; Wis 10:15–19:22, esp. 11:1–14; 17:1–18:4; Seneca, Marc. 1.1, 5; Helv. 2.2–5; 1 Thess 1:2–10; Heb 10:32–34; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 609A–D. 149

132

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

beautiful Charon left us” (Cons. ux. 609D). He then recounts for his wife how she managed her household in such a self-controlled manner (σωφρόνως) at that time and comments how noble she was to nurse her dying son at a significant cost to herself (Cons. ux. 609E). 152 In the aftermath of their daughter’s death, Plutarch urges his wife to similarly exhibit herself as a “self-controlled woman” (σώφρονα [Cons. ux. 609A]). By using his wife’s past decorous conduct as the example she should follow, he seeks to raise her confidence that she is capable of exhibiting self-control in her grief. At the same time, Plutarch has put his wife on a pedestal in lavishly praising her proven character in bereavement. As a result, she is pressured to embody her prior idealized response to bereavement, lest she incur the shame of falling from her current position of honor. In Seneca’s consolation to Marcia over the death of her son, he bids her to recall how she handled her father’s death, praises her conduct in that bereavement, and then states his point: “I have recalled to your memory old misfortunes, and, that you may know that even this deep-cut wound will surely heal, I have shown you the scar of an old wound that was not less severe” (Marc. 1.5). Seneca endeavors to stir up Marcia’s hope that she will heal from the current pain of losing her son by showing her that she has already healed from the pain of losing her father. Additionally, Seneca glorifies Marcia’s prior conduct in bereavement in order to shame her into moderating her present grief, writing, “your character was looked upon as a model of ancient virtue,” and “your strength of mind has been already so tested and your courage, after a severe trial, so approved” (Marc. 1.1). In her refusal to be consoled even now, three years after her son’s death, Marcia is not living up to her past virtuous character and proven strength of mind. By praising her past self, Seneca attempts to persuade Marcia to embody the ideals of her glorified past. In consoling his mother Helvia, Seneca identifies another purpose of rehearsing the past calamities of the distressed, namely, to prove that the distressed person is actually a bulwark of strength when assailed by misfortunes. He writes, “constant misfortune brings this one blessing, that those whom it always assails, it at last fortifies” (Helv. 2.3). Seneca argues that Helvia has constantly been up against “the heaviest woes”: the deaths of her mother, husband, and three grandchildren, “countless dangers,” and “countless fears” (Helv. 2.4–5). As a result of this history, he urges Helvia to view herself like a victorious war veteran whose current wound is simply one more of many that have already healed. By setting out her past sources of grief, Seneca writes, “I shall cause a heart that has been victorious over so many afflictions to be ashamed to bewail one wound the more upon a body so marked with scars” (Helv. 2.2). 152 Nursing her son injured her nipple such that she required surgery (Pomeroy, Plutarch’s Advice, 79).

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials

133

In 10:15–19:22, Pseudo-Solomon utilizes this same consolatory technique employed by Plutarch and Seneca – he encourages traumatized readers by reminding them that they have already encountered and healed from similar traumas. Since he is writing not to an individual but to a distressed community, he engages his readers at the level of their “collective” or “group identity” as God’s people. 153 According to social psychologists Marilynn B. Brewer and Miles Hewstone, when a group identity is engaged, the construal of self extends beyond the individual person to a more inclusive social unit. The boundaries between self and other group members are eclipsed by the greater salience of the boundaries between in-group and out-groups.… The fortunes and misfortunes of the group as a whole are incorporated into the self and responded to as personal outcomes. 154

Pseudo-Solomon encourages his readers to think of their collective identity as continuous with that of their ancestors, such that the story of their ancestors’ calamities and divine rescues is their story. To this end, he chooses broad ahistorical designations for God’s people, such as “your people” and “your children,” to emphasize continuity between his intended readers and their Israelite ancestors. 155 Moreover, he presents his readers with idealized anecdotes of their ancestors achieving victory over misfortunes that bear strong resonances with their current predicaments (11:1–19:22). On the broadest level, these anecdotes remind his readers who are presently afflicted and oppressed in Egypt that they, as God’s people, overcame “affliction” (κακόω [19:16]) and “oppression” (καταδυναστεύω [15:14; 17:2]) in Egypt in the past. As he writes stories of God’s people in Egypt and in the wilderness, his method is to amplify the similarities between the traditional story (in Exodus or Numbers) and the circumstances of his readers, while omitting elements of the traditional story that threaten the parallelism between the predicament of the ancestors and the predicament of his readers. When narrating stories of the Israelites overcoming hardships, his guiding principle is to write the stories in such a way that his readers will realize that they, collectively, have already encountered and overcome the challenges

153 Marilynn B. Brewer and Miles Hewstone define group identity as follows: “Analogous to the concept of identity as part of the individual self, group identity refers to the representation of a group or social category as a collective” (Self and Social Identity, PSPsych [Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004], 145). 154 Brewer and Hewstone, Self and Social Identity, 145. 155 The group identity of the intended readers as God’s people is most frequently communicated through the labels “your people” (12:19; 15:14; 16:2, 20, 21; 18:7; 19:2, 5, 22) and “your children” (12:19–21; 16:26; 18:4; 19:6). Other ahistorical designations employed for God’s people include “the righteous” (11:14; 16:17, 23; 18:20), “children of God” (16:10), “those who trust in you” (16:24), “a holy people” (10:15), “a holy nation” (17:2), “a blameless race” (10:15), “the holy ones” (18:5), “the saints” (18:6), and “holy children” (18:9). The patriarchs are simply “righteous” men (10:5–14; 19:17).

134

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

they face. Theoretically, this realization should instill hope and confidence that they can and will overcome these challenges again. To create symmetry between the suffering of his intended readers and the suffering of their ancestors, Pseudo-Solomon never suggests that any of the hardships that the Israelites endured in the wilderness were their fault. Some, if not many, of his readers would have contested the view that men, women, and children in their community had died in the persecution because of their sin. After all, some of those who had died lost their lives precisely because they refused to compromise their adherence to God’s commandments. The experiences of many survivors would have delegitimatized the act-consequence relationship between sin and suffering, leading them to believe that their community’s suffering was undeserved. Pseudo-Solomon grants the belief that those who died in Alexandria died innocently and seeks to show his readers that this is not the first time that their people has undeservedly suffered and died. Sometimes, his source material provided easy examples of Israel suffering for no fault of their own. Exodus never implies that Israel somehow deserved to be thirsty in the desert. They were simply thirsty because they were in a waterless region (Exod 17:1–7). Other times, Pseudo-Solomon had to adapt the stories of his source material to remove the motif that Israel was suffering and dying because of their sin. According to Num 21:4–9, the Israelites were attacked by snakes because they had “sinned” (ἁμαρτάνω [21:7]) in “speaking against” (καταλαλέω [21:5, 7]) the Lord and Moses. In Pseudo-Solomon’s version of the story (16:5–14), God’s people were attacked by snakes because God wanted to “remind” them of his commandments (16:6) and oracles (16:11) and teach them that his “word heals all things” (16:12). Snakes were sent not to punish God’s people; they were sent as a warning (νουθεσία [16:6]) that they better not forget God’s commandments and oracles (16:6, 11), otherwise they could be become “unresponsive to [God’s] benefaction” (16:11). The story of the plague (θραῦσις) in the wilderness (18:20–25) also had to be adapted. According to Numbers, God sent the plague upon the people to punish them for accusing Moses and Aaron of killing the Lord’s people in Korah’s rebellion (Num 17:6–15). In his version of the episode, Pseudo-Solomon excises the punitive purpose of the plague entirely; now the plague is a “test” (πεῖρα [18:25]) of “righteous people” (18:20). As one would expect with consolatory exempla, the circumstances of God’s suffering people are given minimal attention in the stories of 10:1–19:22 so Pseudo-Solomon’s readers can focus on how their ancestors rose above their calamities (Tusc. 3.79). Yet in distinction from the anecdotes found in Greek and Roman consolations, Pseudo-Solomon’s stories feature God as the decisive factor that enables God’s people to triumph over adversity. Situations of lack merely set the scene for God to provide for his children’s needs (11:4; 16:2–4,

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials

135

20–29). The righteous are on the verge of death due to snakebites so God can sweep in and heal them before they die (16:5–14). 156 Although God’s role is paramount in the stories of 10:15–19:22, his people are still given opportunities to showcase their virtue as a “holy people” (10:15) who were “guided” (10:17) by Wisdom on their way out of Egypt and through the wilderness (10:15–11:3). They exhibit how those guided by Wisdom respond to situations of lack, suffering, and death, that is, with self-control (σωφροσύνη), understanding (φρόνησις), righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), and courage (ἀνδρεία) (8:7). Pseudo-Solomon’s ultimate goal is to persuade his suffering readers that they are capable of exhibiting these same virtues now. Since they have already successfully done so in comparable situations of hardship, they can, and should, do so again. Rather than issuing second-person imperatives to his persecuted readership, Pseudo-Solomon shows them how they ought to behave in their trying circumstances. Like God’s holy people of ages past, they should meditate on God’s word and his promises (16:6, 11, 26; 18:6, 9, 22), trust in God (16:24; 18:6), pray (11:4; 16:28; 18:21), give thanks (16:27–29), refrain from retaliating against their oppressors (18:1–2), and anticipate that God will save them and destroy their enemies (18:7; cf. 16:24). Pseudo-Solomon’s anecdotes of his readers overcoming past hardships are paired with stories of how the enemies of God’s people also suffered and died, but for different purposes and with different outcomes than God’s people. These stories of the enemies function like negative exempla in consolatory rhetoric because they showcase the “wrong” reactions to suffering, such as being overcome by grief (λύπη [11:12]), refusing to acknowledge God (16:16), being crippled by fear (φόβος [17:3–21; esp. 17:6, 11, 14; 18:17]), lamenting (θρηνέω [18:10]), and mourning (πένθος [19:3]). 157 In contrast to how Greek and Roman consolers use exempla, however, Pseudo-Solomon uses his antithetical comparisons between how “God’s people” and their “enemies” suffered and died to illustrate a particular theology of suffering through the history of Israel’s interactions with their oppressors. This theology is concisely stated in PseudoSolomon’s confession to God in 18:8: “For by the same means whereby you took vengeance on our adversaries, you summoned us to yourself and glorified us.” 158 Within the comparative stories of suffering in chapters 11–19, PseudoSolomon composes miniature narratives of God’s people suffering that function 156 Pseudo-Solomon has changed the story of his source material (Num 21:6–7) so that none of God’s children die. God’s children were at the “gates of Hades” (16:13), but they were not “conquered” (16:10). See Linebaugh, God, Grace, and Righteousness, 72; Cheon, Exodus Story, 51; Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 401. 157 For more on negative exempla in consolatory rhetoric, see chapter 4, § 4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief. 158 Wis 18:8: ᾧ γὰρ ἐτιμωρήσω τοὺς ὑπεναντίους, τούτῳ ἡμᾶς προσκαλεσάμενος ἐδόξασας.

136

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

as proofs from history that God lets his people suffer in order to bring them closer to him and ultimately glorify them. Simultaneously, he creates miniature narratives of their enemies suffering that function as proofs from history that God takes vengeance on those who would harm his children. These proofs from history are intended to console Pseudo-Solomon’s intended readers by showing them (1) that God will use whatever they suffer to benefit them and (2) that God will never fail to punish those who have wronged them. In summary, Pseudo-Solomon retells stories from Israel’s exodus and wilderness wandering toward three consolatory ends: (1) to convince readers that they have already encountered and overcome similar obstacles to the ones they are now facing, (2) to remind readers that they are a people guided by Wisdom, and thus can behave virtuously in distressing situations, and (3) to persuade them that God will use their suffering toward their glory while punishing those who have made them suffer. In the following three case studies, I elucidate how Pseudo-Solomon achieves these goals.

3.7.1 God’s Righteous Children Thirst in the Desert (11:1–14) Pseudo-Solomon begins his stories of his readers’ victories over past hardships by reinventing the story of Israel’s thirst in the desert (11:1–14; cf. Exod 17:1–7). In his version, God decides to “test” (πειράζω [Wis 11:9]) the righteous in the same way that a father “tests” (δοκιμάζω [11:10]) his children for the purpose of “warning” (νουθετέω [11:10]) them. In this case, God desires to teach (παιδεύω [11:9]) his children about how harshly he “tortured” (βασανίζω [11:9]) the ungodly with thirst when he turned their river into blood (11:8). The ungodly “enemies” had issued a decree to kill the infants of the righteous by drowning them in the Nile; thus God “punished” them by turning their Nile into blood (11:6–8). In order to “show” his children how he punished their enemies with thirst (11:8), “warn” them about the consequences of ungodliness, and “test” how they would act in hardship, God allows them to be thirsty in the wilderness. Their immediate reaction to being thirsty is to pray to God (11:4). By praying, they have demonstrated their trust in God to supply their needs and have passed the test. In response, God provides them with water from a flinty rock to alleviate their thirst (11:4, 14). When the ungodly enemies hear about how God had rescued his children from thirst, they are overwhelmed with “grief ” (λύπη) on two counts: not only were they tortured with thirst by the Lord, but those whose infants they had drowned were thirsty only for a short time before their God miraculously provided water (11:12–13). This curious rendition of the story of Israel’s thirst in the wilderness has been written to enable Pseudo-Solomon’s intended readers to more easily see their current situation in that of their ancestors. First, although Moses was the leading protagonist of the story in Exod 17:1–7, he is reduced to a mere bystander in

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials

137

Wis 11:1–14 to more closely mirror the community structure of his readers, who had no central prophet who interceded for them. Moses has no speaking role in the text; his presence is only implied in 11:1 and 11:14. Second, in the Exodus version of the story, the Nile is turned into blood because Pharaoh would not let the Hebrews go and worship their God in the wilderness (Exod 7:16–17). Pseudo-Solomon has changed the reason for the plague of blood to God’s punishment for “the decree for killing children” (νηπιοκτόνος διάταγμα [11:7]). The Wisdom of Solomon is the earliest text we know of that posits that the slaughter of the Hebrew infants was the reason for the plague of blood. 159 I suggest that Pseudo-Solomon made this particular link of sin and punishment because he was writing to console readers whose children had died as the result of a decree of their ruler in Egypt. The persecution of the Alexandrian Jews in 38 CE began when Flaccus issued a decree (πρόγραμμα) that declared that the Jews of Alexandria were “aliens and foreigners” (ξένους καὶ ἐπήλυδας [Flacc. 54]), a legal status that allowed them to be driven from their homes, plundered, and even murdered by the Greek populace. This decree resulted in the deaths of “little children” (τέκνα νήπια) due to food scarcity and other factors (Flacc. 62). 160 For bereaved parents who had not been able to procure enough food to nourish their small children as the result of Flaccus’s decree, Pseudo-Solomon’s reference to the “child-killing decree” (νηπιοκτόνον διάταγμα [11:7]) would have struck a nerve. These bereaved parents could find satisfaction in learning that God had “judged,” “condemned,” and even “tortured” those who had caused the innocent children of the righteous to die (11:9–10). Pseudo-Solomon claims that God had further avenged the death of the holy ones’ children with the death of the enemies’ firstborn children and the drowning of the enemies in the Red Sea (18:5). 161 If God punished the people who enacted the child-killing decree back then, it follows that God would also harshly punish those responsible for the child-killing decree of Roman Alexandria. Pseudo-Solomon presents the Israelites as models of virtue in how they respond to their lack of water. In the Exodus account of Israel’s thirst, the Israelites “rail against” Moses to give them water and “complain” that he brought them out of Egypt only to kill them with thirst (Exod 17:2–3). Moses interprets their actions as testing the Lord (πειράζω) and fears that they will stone him (Exod 17:2, 4). This narrative had to be drastically revised for Pseudo-Solomon to show his suffering readers that they had already exhibited their stalwart char159 160

For this idea in rabbinic literature, see Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 228. See previous § 3.5.2 Consolation concerning the Apparent Deaths of Young People (4:7–

19). 161 Jubilees, composed in the second century BCE, also understands the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea as punishment for the Egyptians drowning the infants of the Hebrews in the Nile (Jub. 48.14).

138

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

acter under past pressure. In his new version, the Israelites appear as “righteous people” who do not complain when they are thirsty but pray to their God (11:4; cf. 10:20; 11:14). Furthermore, he reverses the direction of the testing so that now God is testing his people (πειράζω [Wis 11:9]). Their situation of suffering has become a testing ground for their virtue, and they pass. Lastly, the story of 11:1–14 illustrates Pseudo-Solomon’s theology of suffering by showing that God punished Israel’s enemies with thirst but called his children closer to him and glorified them through their thirst. God allows his children to suffer thirst to encourage them to ask for his help. By answering their prayer with a miraculous source of water, God teaches his children that he can provide for their needs when they cannot provide for themselves. Yet more explicitly, God desired to teach them how he punished their enemies with a much more severe thirst than their own by letting them thirst temporarily. Similarly, Philo wrote that the Hebrews were taught “piety” (εὐσέβεια) by watching the Egyptians suffer during the plagues, explaining, “for never was judgment so clearly passed upon good people and bad people, when it brought destruction to the latter and salvation to the former” (Mos. 1.146). Pseudo-Solomon shares Philo’s assumption that watching God punish wickedness can teach piety, yet the sort of teaching he envisions is more radical than Philo – he claims that God teaches them piety through letting them experience a lesser form of the suffering that God uses to punish wickedness. Their own experience of thirst thus serves to “warn” (νουθετέω [11:10]) them to continue on the righteous path, lest they become objects of God’s stern judgment.

3.7.2 Darkness for “the Lawless” and Light for the “Holy Ones” (17:1–18:4) In 17:1–18:4, Pseudo-Solomon tells a story about “uneducated” and “lawless” people who endeavored “to oppress a holy nation” (17:1–2). Their crime, the only crime mentioned in the unit, was that they had “kept [God’s] sons shut up in prison” (18:4). 162 Following the principle that one is punished in the same way that one had sinned (11:16), God punishes the lawless oppressors by “imprisoning” them in darkness (18:4). 163 As is fitting for those who unjustly imprisoned God’s sons, God renders the lawless “captives [δέσμιοι] of darkness” and “prisoners [πεδῆται] of a long night” (17:2). “Bound” by “a chain of darkness,” the lawless cannot leave their homes but are tormented by their conscience (17:11) and terrified by the sounds of the animals and elements outside Wis 18:4: οἱ κατακλείστους φυλάξαντες τοὺς υἱούς σου. On this principle within the Bible and other Hellenistic Jewish literature, see Ego, “God’s Justice,” 141–54. Dante greatly develops the idea of “the justice of retaliatory punishment” in his Inferno (Anthony K. Cassell, Dante’s Fearful Art of Justice [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984], esp. 3). 162 163

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials

139

(17:3–10; cf. 17:18–19). Meanwhile, “the holy ones” whom they had imprisoned enjoy “very great light” and do not suffer at all (18:1). Despite having been wronged first (προαδικέω), the holy ones choose not to harm their vulnerable oppressors (18:2). Grateful that they have been spared, the lawless begin to beg the holy ones for their “grace” or “kindness” (χάρις) “for having been in conflict with them” (18:3). 164 His rendition of the plague of darkness story concludes with an affirmation that the punishment of imprisonment justly fit the crime of the lawless: “For those people were worthy to be deprived of light and imprisoned in darkness, they who had kept your sons, through whom the imperishable light of the law was about to be given to the world, shut up in prison” (18:4). Pseudo-Solomon’s plague of darkness story is unique among biblical and postbiblical versions of the episode in its claim that the plague of darkness was punishment for the Egyptians unjustly keeping God’s sons behind bars. 165 No biblical or postbiblical version of the Exodus story shares the claim of Wis 18:4 that the Hebrews were imprisoned by the Egyptians prior to their departure from Egypt. 166 But, most significantly, members of Pseudo-Solomon’s Jewish community had been imprisoned in Egypt. It is entirely possible that some of them were still behind bars when he wrote. 167 Thirty-eight members of the Jewish council of elders had been put in bonds and forced to walk through the market and into the theater, “some with thongs and others with iron chains” (Flacc. 74–75; cf. Wis 17:18). There, they were stripped naked and flogged in front of their enemies (Flacc. 75). Those Jewish leaders who lived through the scourging were imprisoned (κατείργω [Flacc. 117]). Two months later, during Sukkot, they were still in prison. 168 Philo de164 Wis 18:2b: καὶ τοῦ διενεχθῆναι χάριν ἐδέοντο. The NETS translation, “they begged their forgiveness for having been at variance with them” surely captures the sense of the verse, although “forgiveness” is not listed as a meaning of χάρις in LSJ or Lust. Cheon’s translation, “they begged the favor of their being parted,” follows Luther in adopting an unattested meaning of the passive form of διαφέρω in order to harmonize the verse with Exod 10:24 (Exodus Story, 72). According to LSJ, the passive meaning of διαφέρω is “be at variance, quarrel” (s. v. διαφέρω IV). 165 Cf. Exod 10:21–23, 27; Ps 104(105):28; Artap.; Ezek. Trag.; Jub. 46.11–49.23; Philo, Mos. 1.143–145; Josephus, A. J. 2.307–310. 166 Artapanus claims that Pharaoh imprisoned one Hebrew man, Moses, in retaliation for Moses’s request that he release the Jews. God opened the prison doors the first night Moses was confined, and Pharaoh never imprisoned him again (Artap. 23). 167 Philo never mentions the release of the Jewish elders. The Jewish community of Alexandria did not regain the rights and privileges they had lost in August of 38 CE until the Edict of Claudius in November of 41 CE (CPJ 153; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 249). If any Jewish elders were still imprisoned at that time, Claudius’s Edict should have caused their release, since this edict affirmed the legality of the Jewish political body of Alexandria, their politeuma. 168 Philo, Flacc. 116–119. Sukkot occurred in the middle of October in 38 CE (Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 198).

140

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

scribes the effect their unjust incarceration had on the Jewish community as follows: “the common people, considering the misfortunes of those [leaders] as shared by the whole nation, and considering especially the misfortunes that each endured individually, were extremely dejected” (Flacc. 117), so dejected, in fact, that they did not celebrate Sukkot (Flacc. 117). 169 Following the consolatory method of reminding the distressed that they had already been through whatever they were currently suffering, Pseudo-Solomon wrote his episode of the plague of darkness to remind his readers that this is not the first time that “lawless people” (οἱ ἄνομοι) unjustly imprisoned members of their community as part of their efforts to “to oppress” (καταδυναστεύειν) their “holy nation” (17:2; 18:4). The last time it happened, God punished their enemies (17:2–18:4), which should give his readers confidence that God will punish those who unjustly imprisoned their leaders too. Avoiding proper names in his retelling enables Pseudo-Solomon to achieve this symmetry between the history of his addressees and their present situation. Egyptians had oppressed them in the past, but it was a Roman, the governor Flaccus, who had ordered that the Jewish elders be shackled (Flacc. 74), and Roman soldiers had imprisoned them. By using the designation “the lawless” (οἱ ἄνομοι) for the protagonists who have oppressed and imprisoned God’s people, Pseudo-Solomon hides the ethnic difference between their past and present oppressors. As a result, readers can more clearly view their own predicament as a repeat of what they had already been through. Pseudo-Solomon presents the ancestors of his readers as supremely virtuous when given the opportunity to attack their oppressors. Because God’s children have been taught by Wisdom (9:18), they exhibit self-control (σωφροσύνη [8:7]) and refrain from hurting (βλάπτω) their oppressors (18:2). No other version of the plague of darkness story we know of suggests that the Hebrews could have harmed the Egyptians during the plague of darkness but chose nonretaliation. This elaboration of the story belongs to Pseudo-Solomon, who composed it out of concern that his readers would retaliate against the Greeks and Romans who oppressed them. Pseudo-Solomon writes this story line into his version of the plague of darkness in order to demonstrate to his readers that their virtuous ancestors had been in their situation and made the right choice in refusing to attack their oppressors. As an incentive for his readers to follow in the footsteps of their forebears and not harm those who had hurt them, Pseudo-Solomon attempts to incite their hopes that this noble choice could lead to reconciliation with the Greeks of Alexandria and with their Roman rulers. 170 Perhaps their current oppressors 169

Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus, 198. Gordon M. Zerbe analyzes the Wisdom of Solomon alongside 3 Maccabees as texts from the Egyptian Diaspora that “seem to advocate a type of non-retaliatory response to socio-political oppression” (Non-retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical 170

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials

141

would even beg their pardon as their past oppressors had done (18:2). The notion that those who plundered, expelled, imprisoned, and murdered Jews in the persecution would someday ask the Jewish community for forgiveness seems more like a fantasy than a probable response to nonretaliation. Yet, as the apocalyptic literature of oppressed groups attests, imaginative descriptions of what should have happened (18:1–2) or what should happen in the future (e. g., 5:17–23) were thought to be consoling to persecuted people. One would presume that most of Pseudo-Solomon’s Jewish readers would have been eager to live peacefully again with other ethnic groups in Alexandria. In 18:1–2, Pseudo-Solomon attempts to harness the desire for reconciliation and suggests that his readers can expedite the process if they follow the example of their ancestors and not retaliate. Finally, Pseudo-Solomon has composed this unit to display his theology of suffering that God punishes his children’s enemies with suffering and death but uses whatever his children suffer for their ultimate benefit. God imprisons the lawless in darkness to punish them for imprisoning God’s children (18:14). 171 Some of them actually die from terror while “bound with one chain of darkness” (17:10, 17), while others lay awake paralyzed with fear (17:19). In contrast, God ensures that the unjust imprisonment of some of his children ultimately leads to reconciliation with their oppressors; the lawless beg God’s children to forgive them. 172 Through this chain of events, Pseudo-Solomon seeks to show his readers that God will not let his children suffer in vain but will use whatever his children suffer toward their ultimate good.

3.7.3 Former Friends Once Again Become Enemies (19:13–17) Pseudo-Solomon’s pervasive attempt to enable his readers to see their own trying situations in those of their forebears is especially apparent in his description of how God’s people came to be enslaved by “sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοί [19:13–17]). When read against the central biblical narrative of these events, Gen 39–Exod 1, Pseudo-Solomon’s concise narrative abounds in curiosities. Though avoiding proper names, it claims that the Egyptians had “enslaved guests [ξένοι] who were their benefactors [εὐεργέται]” (19:14). 173 Septuagint Genesis does not Themes in Social Contexts, JSPSup 13 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993], 98). In addition to examining Wis 18:1–2, Zerbe astutely notes that “the author presents the motif of prayer versus military strength as the means of victory” in 18:22 (102). 171 The elders had been “bound” (δέσμιος [Flacc. 74]), so Pseudo-Solomon ensures that the lawless oppressors are “bound” (δέσμιος [Wis 17:2]). The elders wore iron chains (ἅλυσις [Flacc. 74]), so Pseudo-Solomon writes that the oppressors were “all bound with one chain of darkness” (ἅλυσις [Wis 17:18]). 172 The text implies that not all of God’s children were imprisoned, because God’s “holy ones” were going about their normal lives in the light during the plague of darkness (18:1–4). 173 Lexically, ξένοι can be “guests” or “foreigners” (LSJ s. v. ξένος I.2 “guest”; II.1 “strang-

142

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

refer to Joseph’s family as ξένοι but supports the assumption of Pseudo-Solomon’s story that Joseph’s family settled in Egypt as invited guests of the Pharaoh under whom Joseph served (Gen 45:16–20). Joseph could easily be perceived as a benefactor of the Egyptians, but the claim that the Hebrews as a people were the benefactors of the Egyptians is unsupportable from the biblical narrative. The claim of 19:16a that the Egyptians had “received” their guests with “festivals” (ἑορτάσματα) does not derive from the Genesis story, which makes no suggestion that the Egyptians received Joseph’s family with “festivals” of any kind. Pharaoh did welcome Joseph’s family and allotted them land, but Genesis mentions no holiday, not even a welcome banquet (Gen 47:1–12). Lastly, Pseudo-Solomon claims that the Egyptians had afflicted their guests “with terrible labors” (δεινοῖς πόνοις), although they had “shared the same rights” (δίκαια) with them (19:16). As Cheon has noted, the assumption that the Hebrews shared rights with the Egyptians might be justified from Pharaoh’s promise to Joseph’s family that “all the good things of Egypt shall be [theirs]” (Gen 45:20). 174 The language of “rights” (δίκαια), however, is foreign to how the Genesis-Exodus narrative describes the relationship between the Egyptians and the Hebrews. I argue that these oddities in 19:13–17 are the result of Pseudo-Solomon’s effort to narrate two stories at once. As he tells of the rupture of a once cordial relationship between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, he is simultaneously recounting the rupture of a once cordial relationship between the Greeks and the Jews of Alexandria. According to one origin myth of the Jewish community in Alexandria, Alexander the Great had invited (κατακαλέω) the Jews to reside in Alexandria (C. Ap. 2.38). Just as Joseph’s family could be thought of as the “guests” (ξένοι) of Pharaoh, the first Jews of Alexandria could be thought of as the “guests” (ξένοι) of Alexander the Great (19:14). Just as Pharaoh allotted Joseph’s family land, in this origin myth, Alexander the Great “gave” (ἔδωκεν) a section of the city to the Jews for their residence (κατοίκησις). 175 On more than one occasion, Josephus explains the land grant as a reward for the military service of Jews in Alexander’s campaign against the Egyptians (B. J. 2.487; C. Ap. 2.42). Alexandrian Jews who believed this origin myth could claim that their ancestors were the “benefactors” (εὐεργέται) of the Greeks in their city (Wis 19:14) by arguing that the city would not have been established without their military aid. This origin story of the Jewish population of Alexandria might also explain Pseudo-Solomon’s claim that “the sinners” had “received er”; III.1 “foreigner”). In the context of 19:14, Joseph’s family were both guests of the Egyptians and foreigners. The translation “guests” is preferable in 19:14 because Pseudo-Solomon’s comparative argument in 19:13–17 is about hospitality. The sinners in question treated their guests even worse than the Sodomites treated their guests (19:13). 174 Cheon, Exodus Story, 101. 175 Josephus, C. Ap. 2.35, 42–43.

3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials

143

their guests with festivals” (μετὰ ἑορτασμάτων [19:16]). If Alexander’s Jewish guests had recently defeated the Egyptians in war, it would have been fitting for the Greeks of Alexandria to receive them with festive celebrations, as any city would receive its war heroes. According to this same origin myth, Alexander gave the Jewish settlers “equal civic rights with the Macedonians” (ἰσοπολίτης [A. J. 12.8]). 176 The specific terminology of rights used by Pseudo-Solomon, δίκαια (19:16), is the term used by Philo when discussing the rights Alexandrian Jews lost in August of 38 CE. 177 In his Embassy to Gaius, Philo names “obtaining our rights” (τευξόμενοι τῶν δικαίων) as the goal of the embassy of five Alexandrian Jews (of which he was a part) that sailed to Italy to obtain a hearing with the emperor Gaius in the winter of 39–40 CE (Legat. 180). 178 At the actual hearing, the emperor Gaius would not allow the Jewish delegation to present all of their arguments for their rights. Disheartened by his disregard for their cause, Philo writes, “In this way our rights [ἡμετέρων … δικαίων] were torn asunder and dismembered, and not only broken up, but shattered” (Legat. 366). 179 Philo and his fellow Alexandrian Jews had to wait almost two more years before they regained their rights and privileges with the Edict of Claudius in November of 41 CE. 180 Until then, the Jewish community of Alexandria was still vulnerable to their Greek neighbors “afflicting” them “with terrible sufferings” (δεινοῖς ἐκάκωσαν πόνοις [19:16]). Pseudo-Solomon has deliberately chosen multivalent vocabulary in this final charge against “the sinners” to enable his two levels of reference. On the level of the ancient history of his intended readers, the Egyptians “afflicted” (ἐκάκωσαν) God’s people “with terrible labors” (δεινοῖς πόνοις). 181 Exodus 2:11 uses πόνος of the forced labor of the Hebrews. On the level of the recent history of his intended readers, the Greeks of Alexandria “afflicted” (ἐκάκωσαν) God’s people “with terrible sufferings” (δεινοῖς πόνοις). 182 Philo sum-

176 Josephus is not consistent in his terminology regarding the rights and status of the Jews relative to the Greeks in Alexandria. Key texts include A. J. 12.8; C. Ap. 2.35; B. J. 2.487. For discussion of Josephus’s complex presentation of the issue, see Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 262–309. 177 Several scholars have interpreted this verse as an allusion to the rights that Alexandrian Jews lost as a result of Flaccus’s decree: Kolarcik, “Sage behind the Wisdom of Solomon,” 250; Cheon, Exodus Story, 132; A. T. S. Goodrick, The Book of Wisdom, OCBC (London: Rivingtons, 1913), 17. 178 For this date, see Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 254. 179 For other instances of δίκαια as the rights Alexandrian Jews lost, see Philo, Legat. 371; Flacc. 53. 180 CPJ 153; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 249. 181 LSJ s. v. δεινός, A.I.1 “fearful, terrible”; s. v. πόνος, A.I.2 “toil, labor.” 182 LSJ s. v. πόνος, A.II.1 “stress, trouble, distress, suffering … in pl. sufferings.”

144

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

marizes all that the Jews of Alexandria had suffered prior to Flaccus’s arrest as “unbroken and ceaseless afflictions [κακώσεις].” 183 In describing the persecution, Philo comments that people who had been “friends” a little while ago had suddenly become the Jews “enemies” (Flacc. 62). Pseudo-Solomon writes the two-level narrative of 19:13–17 to address this particular source of grief. He reminds his readers that God’s people had already encountered this sort of hurdle and not only survived but plundered those who oppressed them on their way out to freedom (10:15–21). God punished those sinners who betrayed their ties of friendship back then (19:17), so it is only a matter of time before his readers will witness God punishing those who are harming them.

3.8 Making Meaning of the Suffering of the Righteous Pseudo-Solomon built upon foundations laid by Second Isaiah, Ecclesiastes, and the book of Job in his insistence that sin cannot always explain why people suffer and die horrible deaths. 184 The unnamed servant of Isa 52:13–53:12 is “dishonored” (53:3), “wounded” (53:5), and killed (53:8, 12), despite the fact that he had committed no transgression (53:9). In another context, Second Isaiah declares, “See how the righteous man [ὁ δίκαιος] perished, and no one takes it to heart; righteous men [δίκαιοι] are carried off, and no one notices, for the righteous has been taken away from the presence of the unrighteous” (57:1). The author of Ecclesiastes observes that the same fate befalls both the righteous (δίκαιος) person and the ungodly (ἀσεβής) person (9:1–3). The suffering of righteous people is a minor theme in Second Isaiah, and even less consequential in Ecclesiastes, yet it is the major preoccupation of the book of Job. As one would expect, Pseudo-Solomon interacted with the book of Job as he formulated his own thinking on why righteous people suffer and

183 Philo, Flacc. 121. Philo also uses κακόω of Flaccus’s intention to harm the Jewish people (Flacc. 97). 184 Shannon Burkes observes how the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Second Isaiah had already “questioned” the “idea that death occurs as a punishment for sin” (“Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Wisdom of Solomon,” HTR 95 [2002]: 21–44, esp. 24). David Seeley discusses the authors of the book of Job and of Ecclesiastes as predecessors of Pseudo-Solomon for whom “the act-consequence relationship” between sin and suffering “has collapsed” (“Narrative, the Righteous Man, and the Philosopher: An Analysis of the Story of the Dikaios in Wisdom 1–5,” JSP 7 [1990]: 55–78, esp. 57). For a discussion of how Pseudo-Solomon builds on Second Isaiah in this regard, see Silvana Manfredi, “The Trial of the Righteous in Wis 5:1– 14 (1–7) and in the Prophetic Traditions,” in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLY 2005 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 159–78; Suggs, “Wisdom of Solomon 2:10–5”; Skehan, “Isaias and the Teaching.”

3.8 Making Meaning of the Suffering of the Righteous

145

die. 185 Although he shared the conviction of the book that righteous people can suffer for reasons other than sin, Pseudo-Solomon was disturbed by how righteous Job interpreted his sufferings. Since Job knew that he had not sinned, Job concluded that God either was attacking him for no reason (9:17) or was ignoring his pleas (e. g., 13:24; 30:20). Job’s view of the cause of righteous suffering moves in two directions: “Either the deity is far too close for comfort, and the source of oppression, or far too distant, and permits oppression.” 186 PseudoSolomon could tolerate neither perspective.

3.8.1 The Suffering of the Righteous: Neither Divine Violence Nor Divine Absence Most plausibly, some survivors of the persecution in Alexandria would have read the book of Job in their efforts to make sense of what had happened to their community. Perhaps some Jews would have been drawn to the book of Job because they could use it to affirm the innocence and righteousness of their loved ones who had died. Job was “blameless” (ἄμεμπτος [1:1]) and “righteous” (δίκαιος [1:1]), but his very godliness made him a target for misfortune (Job 1–2). In many respects, Job’s predicament was like that of Pseudo-Solomon’s readers. He, too, had lost family members, friends, and property (1:13– 22; 17:3–5). He, too, had endured bodily suffering (2:5–8). Job insists that he is a righteous man (δίκαιος), 187 yet he experiences what he calls “the lot of an ungodly [ἀσεβής] person from the Lord” (27:13): God is not listening to him (27:9–10; cf. 30:20), his children have been killed (27:14–15; cf. 1:18–19), and he is overwhelmed with pain (ὀδύνη [27:20; cf. 7:3–4]). Jews of Alexandria who believed that their community’s suffering was undeserved could point to righteous Job as a biblical hero who was just like them. Aware that the book of Job might have been particularly attractive to his grieving readers, Pseudo-Solomon feared that members of his community might adopt Job’s interpretation of his suffering as their own. For this reason, Pseudo-Solomon utilized his own writing to correct the perception of suffering Job that the undeserved pain of righteous people could be caused by divine violence or divine absence. 185 Numerous lexical links and allusions to the book of Job in the Wisdom of Solomon confirm a literary relationship between the two texts. The most detailed study of this relationship is that of Patrick W. Skehan (“The Literary Relationship of the Book of Wisdom to the Earlier Wisdom Writings,” in Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom, CBQMS 1 [Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971], 173–236). More recently, see Vittoria D’Alario, “La réflexion sur le sens de la vie en Sg 1–5. Une réponse aux questions de Job et de Qohélet,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, ed. N. CalduchBenages and J. Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 313–29, esp. 327; Larcher, Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse, 97. 186 Burkes, God, Self, and Death, 40. 187 Job 9:21; 10:7; 12:4; 13:18; 16:17; 27:5–6; 29:14; 31:6; 33:9.

146

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

Job repeatedly voices his belief that he is suffering because God is intent on “destroying” him (ὀλέκω [10:16]). 188 Job asserts that God repeatedly assaults him by throwing him down (16:9), dashing him with darts (16:10), striking him on the cheek with a sharp object (16:12), pulling out his hair (16:12), setting him up like a target for the impious (16:12), shooting him down with arrows (30:14), falling upon him mercilessly (30:21), and scourging him with his mighty hand (30:22). As these images of warfare convey, Job believed that God was treating him like an “enemy” (ἐχθρός [19:11]; cf. ὑπεναντίος [33:10]). He avers that God’s mercy has renounced him (6:14), with the result that God now falls upon him “mercilessly” (ἀνελεημόνως [30:21]). Weary of constant attack, Job asks God to depart from him so that he can enjoy his life (14:6). In response to suffering Job’s depiction of God as a merciless adversary to his suffering righteous people, 189 Pseudo-Solomon portrays God as their merciful father. As a father who “loves” his children (16:26), God “disciplines” (παιδεύω) and “admonishes” (νουθετέω) them through their suffering but always “in mercy” (ἐν ἐλέει [11:9–10]). 190 Pseudo-Solomon extols God as “merciful to all people” (ἐλεεῖς πάντας [11:23]) and “governing all things in mercy” (ἐλέει διοικῶν τὰ πάντα [15:1]). He discovers illustrations of God’s mercy even in God’s interactions with the Egyptians and the Canaanites. 191 If God had shown mercy to the Canaanites whom he “hated” (12:4), how much more would God extend mercy to his beloved children? God’s children, he affirms, should “expect mercy when judged” by God (12:22). God’s mercy came to their aid when they were on the verge of death in the wilderness (16:10). The implicit encouragement for readers is that God’s mercy will be present with them in their suffering too. Pseudo-Solomon also attempts to counter Job’s supposition that God would violently attack his righteous people by only using martial imagery of God in depictions of God punishing the enemies of his righteous people. For example, he employs the imagery of the divine warrior in Isa 59:16–18 to vividly portray 188 The Septuagint version of Job systematically attempts to soften the image of God in the Masoretic Text as the destroyer of Job, yet the character of God as Job’s adversary remains. See Henry S. Gehman, “The Theological Approach of the Greek Translator of Job 1–15,” JBL 68 (1949): 231–40, esp. 238–39. 189 The compiler of the book of Job portrays a more merciful God than does the protagonist Job by depicting the ways in which God restored Job (Job 42). 190 Cf. Prov 3:11–12, which also views hardship as divine discipline, yet which presents God as a much harsher disciplinarian than Pseudo-Solomon does. Pseudo-Solomon’s view of God’s discipline toward his children is closer to that of Deut 8:2–5. 191 Pseudo-Solomon argues that God demonstrated his mercy by punishing Israel’s oppressors slowly, in order to give them time to repent (11:23–12:27). God could have sent bears, lions, or dragons against the Egyptians, but he chose to extend mercy toward them by sending less destructive animals against them in the plagues (11:15–12:2). Similarly, God could have wiped out the Canaanites at once with his word, but he mercifully chose to judge them “little by little” so they would have an opportunity to repent (12:3–11).

3.8 Making Meaning of the Suffering of the Righteous

147

God fighting with his creation against his “enemies” and “foolish people” (5:17– 23). Meanwhile, God’s people, identified as “righteous” and “wise” ones, are protected by God’s right hand and shielded with his arm (5:15–16; cf. 4:17). The divine warrior figure appears again in Pseudo-Solomon’s description of the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn (18:5–19), yet, this time, through the personification of God’s Logos. 192 The “stern warrior” is God’s “all-powerful Word,” which leapt down from heaven and “filled everything with death” (18:14–16). Fighting on the side of God’s children, this warrior accomplishes the destruction (ὄλεθρος [18:13]) of the firstborn of “the enemies” (18:10; cf. 18:8) to punish them for murdering the infants of God’s holy ones (18:5–8). Through these uses of the divine warrior motif, Pseudo-Solomon attempts to correct Job’s false impression that God was attacking him by drawing clear boundaries around God’s acts of violence. In his rhetoric, God reserves his violence for defending the righteous against their enemies (5:15–23) and avenging wrongs committed against them (18:5–19). Even in those cases, PseudoSolomon resorts to personification to distance God from directly harming human beings. 193 God’s love for the people he created encompasses the “ungodly” as well (11:24–26). Although Job most frequently explains his suffering as an outpouring of divine violence, at times, he suggests that his pain is the result of divine absence. He asks God, “Why do you hide from me?” (13:24). Job prays, yet when nothing changes, he infers that God is not listening to his cries for help (30:20; cf. 33:12– 13). God’s absence is not a problem for Job alone. He details atrocities committed against the innocent and wonders why God has not responded to the groans of those suffering (24:1–12). To counteract the idea that righteous people suffer because God is hiding from them or neglecting them, Pseudo-Solomon argues that God is always present with his suffering people to sustain and comfort them in their trials. As discussed previously, Pseudo-Solomon presents God’s Wisdom as a holy spirit who dwells in his people (7:27), provides them advice in their sorrows (8:9), and supplies them with gladness and joy to counteract the pain (ὀδύνη) in life (8:16). 194 He concludes his entire work on the theme of God’s beneficent presence with his children through all they might endure: “For through everything, O Lord, you have exalted your people and glorified them, and you did not 192 Dodson is surely correct in his conclusion that Pseudo-Solomon “uses the personifications of Creation and Logos to distance a God who does not delight in destruction from the direct execution of it. Such an interpretation could be consistent with what one sees in Philo, who holds that since God is righteous, nothing destructive can come directly from him; therefore, God is surrounded by powers that perform questionable acts for him” (‘Powers’ of Personification, 88). 193 Dodson thoroughly analyzes this technique (‘Powers’ of Personification, 69–89). 194 See chapter 3, § 3.6 Wisdom and Education in Grief and Suffering.

148

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

neglect standing by [παριστάμενος] them in every time and place” (19:22). 195 In the middle, παρίστημι can also be translated “to help” or “to defend.” 196 Against Job, Pseudo-Solomon claims that God has never withheld his help from his children; God was there in every time and place. 197

3.8.2 God Does Not Cause the Righteous to Suffer, but Uses Their Suffering for Their Benefit In the final lines of his work, Pseudo-Solomon leaves his readers with his conviction that God has “exalted” (μεγαλύνω) and “glorified” (δοξάζω) his people through everything (κατὰ πάντα [19:22]). All that God’s people endured in Egypt and in the wilderness – the murder of their infants, the imprisonment, the thirst, the hunger, the snake attack, the plague – Pseudo-Solomon hopes to persuade his readers that God used all these calamities to exalt his people. Wisdom 19:22 suggests that suffering and death are opportunities for God’s children to be glorified. In 18:8, this idea is stated more broadly: “For by the same means whereby you took vengeance on our adversaries, you summoned us to yourself and glorified us.” 198 God’s people and their adversaries suffered similar things (thirst, hunger, animal bites, etc.), but God used their suffering toward different ends. 199 Although Pseudo-Solomon is emphatic that God uses his children’s suffering for their benefit, he is reticent to admit that God causes their suffering. God is only named as the source of his people’s hardships once in his text, and indirectly so via his wrath (“your wrath” [16:5]). The only explicit causes of the suffering of righteous people in his work are ungodly people. 200 “Ungodly people” oppress the poor, the widow, and the elderly (2:10). The “ungodly” insult, torture, and kill the righteous poor man (2:19–20). The “unjust man” (Cain) killed his brother (10:3). The “enemies” killed the babies of the holy ones (11:7; 18:5). The “lawless people” imprisoned God’s children (17:2; 18:4). The “sinners” afflicted their benefactors with terrible sufferings (19:13–16). In these 195 Wis 19:22: Κατὰ πάντα γάρ, κύριε, ἐμεγάλυνας τὸν λαόν σου καὶ ἐδόξασας καὶ οὐχ ὑπερεῖδες ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ καὶ τόπῳ παριστάμενος. 196 LSJ s. v. παρίστημι B.I.2: “stand by, i. e. help, defend, τινι.” 197 God provides water for his thirsty children (11:1–14) and manna and quail for their hunger (16:1–4; 24–29). He heals them when they are on the brink of death due to poisonous snakebites (16:5–14). He responds to the prayer of the righteous man and halts the deathly plague (18:20–25). He leads them out of slavery in Egypt (10:15–21; 17:1–18:4; 19:1–12). See also 10:1–11:1 on Wisdom’s constant presence with her followers. 198 Wis 18:8: ᾧ γὰρ ἐτιμωρήσω τοὺς ὑπεναντίους, τούτῳ ἡμᾶς προσκαλεσάμενος ἐδόξασας. 199 See appendix 2: “Explanations for Why God’s Children and Their Enemies Suffer in the Wisdom of Solomon.” 200 This point is usually overlooked but noted by Dumke (“Suffering of the Righteous,” 68– 69).

3.8 Making Meaning of the Suffering of the Righteous

149

instances, the suffering and death of the righteous are results of living in close proximity to the ungodly. While Pseudo-Solomon places the blame for their suffering squarely on the wicked, he claims that God uses the oppression and pain caused by the wicked to educate his children and test their faithfulness (3:5–6). When narrating the hardships of God’s people in the wilderness, PseudoSolomon departs from his source material in his refusal to directly name God as the source of their pain. Pseudo-Solomon writes stories in which the character of God appears almost exclusively as the benefactor, healer (16:10), savior (16:7; 19:9), and ally (18:5–25) of his suffering people. 201 Deuteronomy 8 is explicit that God “afflicted” (κακόω [8:2, 16]) Israel in the wilderness and “weakened them through hunger” (λιμαγχονέω [8:3]) before feeding them with manna. Pseudo-Solomon appears to have agreed with Philo that it is impious to call God “the author of famine and affliction” (Congr. 170–174), because he depicts God exclusively as the gracious benefactor of his children when narrating the stories of the quails and the manna. 202 In what appears to be a deliberate move to clear God of the charge that he had made his children hungry, Pseudo-Solomon’s stories do not assign a cause for the hunger of the righteous. In his stories of the snake attack and the plague in the wilderness, PseudoSolomon uses personification to distance God from inflicting harm on his own people. 203 The serpents are no longer “sent” by “the Lord” (Num 21:6) but start biting God’s children as if of their own initiative (16:5ab) before Pseudo-Solomon subtly alludes to God’s role via his wrath: “your wrath did not remain to the end” (16:5c). In his story of the wilderness plague, God no longer intends to “destroy” his people (Num 17:10). Rather, God appears as the ally of the right201 Pseudo-Solomon consistently uses the language of benefaction to communicate how God relates to his children. The verb εὐεργετέω is used actively, “to show kindness to,” regarding the giving of the quails (16:2). It is used passively, “to be benefited,” regarding the state of the righteous after suffering (3:5) and the righteous being given water from the rock (11:5, 13). The noun εὐεργεσία, “benefaction” or “kindness,” is used in a general sense (16:11) and regarding the manna (16:24). The snake attack (16:5–14) is the only story in which the author points to God as the cause of his people’s suffering. As Dodson has argued, Pseudo-Solomon lessens the theological problem of God attacking his righteous people by using personification to distance God from harming them (‘Powers’ of Personification, 91). It is no longer the Lord himself (Num 21:6) but God’s “wrath” (16:5) that directs the serpents. Furthermore, Pseudo-Solomon drastically reduces the degree of Israelite suffering by claiming that no Israelites died (contra Num 21:6). 202 Pseudo-Solomon’s stories barely mention that God’s children were hungry. They begin with God providing food for his people (quails [16:2]; manna [16:25]). The hunger of God’s people is not mentioned until after God’s “benefit” of the quails is described (16:3). In the story of the manna, Pseudo-Solomon spends five verses waxing poetic about how the heavenly bread displayed God’s “sweetness toward his children” (16:20–24) before mentioning, very briefly, that God’s children were in need (16:25). 203 Dodson, ‘Powers’ of Personification, 91, 97–100.

150

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

eous man who equips him with spiritual weapons in order to defeat an attacking force that threatens his children. 204 The “wrath” that “went out before the Lord” in Num 17:11 is never explicitly associated with God by Pseudo-Solomon but is referred to by various personifications. 205 Pseudo-Solomon’s reticence to name God as the cause of his children’s misfortunes is shared by his contemporary Philo, who argues that God is not the cause of any evil (Prov. 2.53) but is the “cause of good things” (Congr. 171). 206 Both Pseudo-Solomon and Philo were sympathetic to Platonic philosophy, 207 and Plato, among other Greek philosophical thinkers, held that “the deity is absolutely good, and therefore, cannot have anything to do with death.” 208 Pseudo-Solomon struggled to reconcile God’s love (11:24, 26) and mercy (11:23; 15:1) toward his creatures with the fact that innocent people, from antiquity to his own situation in early Roman Alexandria, sometimes are deprived of the necessities of life, sometimes endure agonizing bodily pain, and sometimes die tragic deaths before reaching old age. In the Wisdom of Solomon, he attempts to solve this problem of theodicy by distraction. By offering multiple examples of how God uses his people’s suffering toward their benefit and glory, he seeks to divert his readers’ attention away from the fact that their sovereign God either caused their suffering or failed to prevent it. In his narratives of hardship, suffering is the preexistent condition that God uses toward salutary ends. By narrating his stories in this way, he manages to depict God as the cause of good things and not of evil. Pseudo-Solomon’s care to avoid presenting God as the cause of his children’s pain is also seen in his careful avoidance of verbs of violence in relation to God’s “education” or “discipline” (παιδεία) of his children. He reserves violent verbs for describing how God punishes his children’s enemies: God “scourges” (μαστιγόω [12:22; 16:2]) and “tortures” (βασανίζω [11:9; 12:23; 16:1, 4]) only the enemies of his children. Pseudo-Solomon’s rejection of the verbs μαστιγόω and βασανίζω to describe how God “educates” or “disciplines” (παιδεύω) his children is remarkable. Under the influence of the Hebrew ‫מוָּסר‬, in Pseudo-Solomon’s Greek Bible, God’s παιδεία frequently contains an element of physical 204 His spiritual arsenal includes prayer and the atonement of incense (18:21–22), the oaths and covenants God made with the ancestors (18:22), and the high priestly clothing (18:24). 205 The wrath (ἡ ὀργή [18:20, 25]), the anger (ὁ θυμός [18:21]), the bitter anger (ὁ χόλος [18:22]), the punisher (ὁ κολάζων [18:22]), and the destroyer (ὁ ὀλεθρεύων [18:25]). 206 Philo, Prov. 2.53: Θεὸς γὰρ οὐδενὸς αἴτιος κακοῦ τοπαράπαν. See the investigations of Philo’s theodicy by Peter Frick (Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria, TSAJ 77 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999], 139–75) and David T. Runia (“Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 576–604). 207 Dillon, Middle Platonists; Stella Louise Lange, “The Wisdom of Solomon and Plato,” JBL 55 (1936): 293–302. 208 Laato and de Moor, Theodicy in the World of the Bible, xxviii; Winston, “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon,” 526.

3.8 Making Meaning of the Suffering of the Righteous

151

violence. 209 Most famously, Prov 3:12 states, “The Lord educates [παιδεύω] the one he loves, and he scourges [μαστιγόω] every son whom he accepts.” Judith declares, “The Lord scourges [μαστιγόω] those who draw near to him for admonition [νουθεσία]” (Jdt 8:27). Speaking of the methods by which Lady Wisdom educates her children, Sirach writes, “She will torture [βασανίζω] him by her training/education [παιδεία]” (Sir 4:17). As Zurawski has noted, the παιδεία of the suffering servant of Isa 53 “includes being beaten to death.” 210 PseudoSolomon is an heir to this tradition that interprets suffering as a form of God’s παιδεία of his beloved children, yet he rejects the violent aspect of this tradition. In my estimation, Pseudo-Solomon has adapted this παιδεία tradition of his Bible in light of his aim to console his readers. Some of his addressees would have seen Jews being scourged (μαστιγόω [Flacc. 72, 84]) and tortured (βασανίζω [Flacc. 84, 96]; αἰκίζω [173]). Undoubtedly, Pseudo-Solomon did not deem it appropriate to tell someone who had literally seen a Jewish elder scourged to death (Flacc. 75) that “God scourges every son he accepts” (Prov 3:12). According to Philo, the fact that the Jewish elders were scourged at all was a gross insult, since their status should have allowed them to be beaten with flat blades (Flacc. 78–80). Given his community’s traumatic experience, PseudoSolomon believed his readers would find greater comfort in hearing that God would scourge those who scourged them. In his composition, God inflicts upon his people’s enemies many of the same punishments that the Jews of Alexandria unjustly suffered (cf. 11:16). 211 Pseudo-Solomon repurposes the scourging motif within the παιδεία tradition of his Bible, such that God “disciplines” (παιδεύω) his righteous children while “scourging” (μαστιγόω) their enemies ten thousand times (12:22). Regardless of the causes of righteous people suffering, Pseudo-Solomon tries to focus his readers’ attention on the many positive ways that God uses suffering to draw his children close to him. In death, God summons the souls of his children out of their failing bodies to rest in his hand (3:1–9). In suffering, God teaches his children more about his justice and his ability to provide for their needs (11:8–9; 16:4, 6, 11–12, 26–28). God may let his children suffer temporarily to refocus their attention on his promises and commandments (16:6, 11). God may test his children so that he may benefit them once they have proven their worth (3:1–9). God may rescue young people from the 209 Jason M. Zurawski, “Paideia: A Multifarious and Unifying Concept in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman, EJL 41 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 195–214, esp. 202. 210 Zurawski, “Paideia,” 204. 211 μαστιγόω: Philo, Flacc. 72, 84; Wis 12:22; 16:2. τιμωρέω: Philo, Flacc. 82; Wis 12:20; 18:8. κολάζω: Philo, Flacc. 82; Wis 11:5, 8, 16; 12:14–15; 16:1, 9. βασανίζω: Philo, Flacc. 84, 96; Wis 11:9; 12:23; 16:1, 4.

152

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

wicked world on account of his great love for them (4:7–17). In adopting this broad approach to explaining the manifold purposes of righteous suffering, Pseudo-Solomon creates space for his distressed readers to pick and choose between arguments and to hold fast to whichever ones resonate with them. Pseudo-Solomon concludes his work on a consolatory high note with a doxology: “For through everything, O Lord, you have exalted your people and glorified them, and you did not neglect standing by them in every time and place” (19:22). 212 These words leave readers with the comfort that God is always with them and, more, that the final result of passing through trials of suffering is exaltation and glory. Virtuous conduct in hardship earns one recognition and honor among God and human beings (4:1–2). The enemies of God’s children marvel at the righteous when they see how God delivers his children from hardships (11:12–14). Although God’s people may be abused and oppressed now, Pseudo-Solomon reminds his readers that God will exalt those faithful to him over their enemies (3:1–9; 4:16–19). God’s children will stand among the heavenly host and those who afflicted them will be forced to realize their wrongdoing (5:1–14).

3.9 Implications The present investigation has demonstrated that Pseudo-Solomon actively engaged with the assumptions, methods, and arguments of ancient consolatory rhetoric throughout his composition, not only, or even primarily, in 1:1–6:21. The results of this study additionally suggest that Pseudo-Solomon’s reflections on death and suffering in chapters 1–5 were not intended merely to contribute to a “philosophical and religious debate.” 213 While it is true that the opening chapters of the Wisdom of Solomon, on their own, do not require us to posit a recent persecution, because the Wisdom of Solomon is a unified composition, the opening chapters must be read in light of the whole. 214 The quite specific consolatory arguments regarding unjust imprisonment (17:1–18:4) and the loss of shared rights followed by “terrible sufferings” (19:13–17) point to what happened to the Jews of Alexandria in August of 38 CE. It follows that chapters 1–5 212 According to Winston, “It was already a common practice in the Tannaitic age [10– 220 CE] for a homily to end with words of consolation” (Wisdom of Solomon, 333). 213 Collins writes, “The atmosphere of persecution in the opening chapters suggests more specifically the time of Caligula, but this should not be pressed, as these chapters reflect a philosophical and religious debate that does not require a context of actual persecution” (Between Athens and Jerusalem, 195). 214 On their own, chapters 1–5 could have derived from reflections on the unjust deaths of Jewish martyrs who died centuries before he wrote. Miller, e. g., argues that Pseudo-Solomon was “responding to the problem of Jewish martyrdom” in the Maccabean war, even though he wrote long after the fact (“Immortality and Religious Identity,” 208).

3.9 Implications

153

are not simply a contribution to a “philosophical and religious debate” but a consolatory response to the traumas endured by Jews who lived through this particular persecution. Pseudo-Solomon’s ideas about the postmortem immortality of the righteous and the postmortem eternal pain of the ungodly (4:19) were formulated to address a specific crisis of confidence in God’s promises to reward faithfulness and punish apostasy. These promises could have easily appeared empty to those who had witnessed the torture and death of Jews whom they perceived as faithful and who had seen the release of Jews who broke God’s commandments (e. g., Flacc. 95–96). To maintain the credibility of God’s promise of life for those who keep his commandments and death for those who transgress (Deut 30:15–20), Pseudo-Solomon expanded the time span for God to fulfill his promises from the earthly life span to eternity. In doing so, he utilized lexica and consolatory motifs from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Daniel, the Epistle of Enoch, and 1 En. 108. At the same time, he drew on Greco-Roman consolatory arguments, such as these: the souls of the pious live on immortally irrespective of their failed bodies, death is an escape from pain, and those who die young are particularly beloved by God. Pseudo-Solomon’s attempt to defend God’s goodness in the face of righteous people suffering and dying seems to have been motivated by a concern that some of his Jewish readers would mistakenly believe that the costs of following their God were greater than the benefits. Using his numerous antithetical comparisons between the righteous and the ungodly, he tries to hammer into his readers’ minds, over and over again, that the benefits of being a member of God’s people far outweigh the costs. Even when God’s people suffer, they suffer only for a short time. In contrast, the ungodly endure longer suffering on earth and eternal suffering after death. 215 The suffering of God’s people will end in glory and peace, while the suffering of their enemies will end in humiliation and pain. Although the date of the Wisdom of Solomon has not been the central issue of this investigation, Pseudo-Solomon’s efforts to tailor his consolatory arguments to the specific traumas of his readers have led me to conclude that he composed his work after August of 38 CE. The strongest points of contact between the traumas that Pseudo-Solomon sought to address and the writings of Philo on the 38 CE persecution include the following: (1) that people have died before the eyes of those hostile to them as a result of judicial punishments and torture, (2) that some of God’s children had been unjustly imprisoned in Egypt by the lawless, and (3) that sinners who had shared the same rights with God’s children abandoned their initial role as welcoming hosts of God’s people and 215 On the short duration of righteous people suffering: 3:5; 16:6; 16:11; 18:25–19:1. On the eternal suffering of the ungodly: 4:19.

154

Chapter 3: Consoling in the Guise of Solomon: The Wisdom of Solomon

instead afflicted them with terrible sufferings. The second of these traumas, that of unjust imprisonment, was able to be identified only as the result of detecting a key consolatory method employed in the stories of 11:1–19:22, that of telling sufferers anecdotes about their past victories over the same or very similar misfortunes. In the end, these stories of overcoming past hardships by the power of God are meant to console readers that God will again act to deliver and reward his righteous ones who are suffering. If God exalted and glorified his people through everything in the past (19:22), then God should again take everything that God’s faithful ones endured in Alexandria – the judicial punishments, the torture, the death of young and old alike, the child-killing decree, the imprisonment, the loss of shared rights – and somehow use it to glorify his people. Pseudo-Solomon bids his grieving readers to believe that this process has already begun. God has already glorified those who unjustly died by granting them immortal life with his holy ones (3:1–9; 5:15–16). They wear a glorious crown and beautiful diadem (5:15; cf. Isa 62:3). Someday, they will judge nations and rule over peoples (3:8). Now, Pseudo-Solomon’s readers must wait expectantly as their ancestors had done while still oppressed in Egypt, all the while anticipating the “salvation of the righteous” and “the destruction of their enemies” (18:7). As Pseudo-Solomon’s Jewish community waited for the glory that they could not yet see, Pseudo-Solomon devoted his energies to the cultivation of hope that God would once more act to sustain, heal, and rescue his people.

Part 2:

Consolatory Rhetoric in the Early Jesus Movement

Chapter 4:

Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, concerning those who sleep, so that you may not grieve as the rest who do not have hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, so also God, through Jesus, will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 1

Around 50 CE, the apostle Paul wrote these words to comfort and encourage his persecuted and bereaved church at Thessalonica, penning the earliest extant consolatory letter written by a Jew who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel. 2 Paul’s intended readers were Greeks who had only recently turned to the God of Israel and were awaiting his son Jesus (1 Thess 1:9–10). They were struggling to understand and cope with multiple traumatic events, including their forced and premature separation from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (the founders of their church), persecution from outsiders, and the unexpected deaths of church members. While it is scholarly shorthand to refer to Paul as the author of 1 Thessalonians, the letter presents Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as cowriters engaged in a joint effort to ameliorate the grief of the Thessalonians and reinvigorate their faith, hope, love, and joy. 3 1

1 Thess 4:13–14. Most scholars accept the conventional dating of 1 Thessalonians to c. 50 CE: e. g., M. Eugene Boring, I and II Thessalonians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 9–14; Malherbe, Letters, 72–74. It is possible, however, that the letter was composed as early as 41 CE if the Edict of Claudius ought to be dated to 41 CE rather than 49 CE. John Knox dates 1 Thessalonians to “not long after A. D. 40” (Chapters in a Life of Paul, rev. ed. [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987], 86). Gerd Lüdemann dates the letter to c. 41 CE (Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. F. Stanley Jones [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 238). While their arguments have not swayed the majority of scholarship, they have profitably drawn attention to how the c. 50 CE dating is based on an uncritical acceptance of the portrait given in Acts 18:12–17, namely, that Paul’s first visit to Corinth occurred shortly after the Edict of Claudius (41 or 49 CE) and overlapped with Gallio’s tenure as proconsul of Achaia (51/52 CE, as established by the “Gallio inscription” discovered in Delphi). See Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 157–77. In my view, we cannot conclusively determine whether the portrayal of Acts 18:12–17 accurately reflects Paul’s travels (in which case, 1 Thessalonians was written c. 50 CE) or combines two different visits of Paul in Corinth (in which case, 1 Thessalonians was written c. 41 CE). 3 The epistolary prescript names Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as cowriters (1:1), and the pervasive use of first-person plural verbs coheres with the impression that the letter was from 2

158

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

4.1 Circumstances of Composition When Paul penned his letter to the Thessalonians, he had been absent from his new converts for several months. 4 Internal evidence suggests that Paul wrote from Athens (3:1), yet Corinth has also been defended as the place of composition on account of Luke’s narration of Paul’s travels in Acts 18:1–5. 5 Methodologically, the evidence of authentic Pauline letters must be given priority over evidence in Acts when conflicts such as these arise, which leads me to favor the theory that Paul wrote the letter from Athens. 6 Although Paul had not been able to visit the Thessalonians himself (2:17–18), he had learned about their circumstances through Timothy, whom he had sent from Athens “to strengthen and console” them in the midst of their afflictions (3:1–3). Opposition from “fellow countrymen” (συμφυλέται) and ensuing “affliction” or “persecution” (θλῖψις) had been a feature of the Thessalonian church from its beginning (1:6; 2:2, 14). 7 all of them. The exceptions to the rule of first-person plural verbs are 3:5 (κἀγὼ μηκέτι στέγων ἔπεμψα…) and 5:27 (ἐνορκίζω). Paul also explicitly singles himself out in 2:18: ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς ὁ σατανᾶς. 4 Based on Paul’s itinerary given by Luke (Thessalonica – Beroea – Athens – Corinth; see Acts 17:1–15; 18:1–5), Malherbe estimates that the period between Paul’s departure from Thessalonica and his composition of 1 Thessalonians was about four months (Letters, 72). If we consider the evidence of 1 Thessalonians alone (which does not suggest moves to Beroea or Corinth), one would expect a period of substantially less than four months between Paul’s departure from Thessalonica and his composition of 1 Thessalonians in Athens. 5 Paul sent Timothy back to visit the Thessalonians from Athens (3:1), and the letter gives no indication that Paul had left Athens while awaiting Timothy’s return (3:6–10). Scholars who follow the hypothesis of composition in Athens include, e. g., Margaret M. Mitchell, “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 51–63, esp. 53; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 107–8. Acts 18:1–5 depicts Paul as receiving Timothy and Silvanus from Macedonia in Corinth, not Athens. In attempts to harmonize the evidence from 1 Thessalonians and Acts, some scholars surmise that Paul had moved to Corinth in the interval between sending Timothy to Thessalonica from Athens and receiving him back from his trip: e. g., Helmut Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament (New York: de Gruyter, 2000), 118; Malherbe, Letters, 72; Karl P. Donfried, “Was Timothy in Athens? Some Exegetical Reflections on 1 Thess. 3.1–3,” in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 209–19, esp. 212. 6 In this regard, I follow Knox, who writes, “We may, with proper caution, use Acts to supplement the autobiographical data of the letters, but never to correct them” (Chapters in a Life of Paul, 33). 7 LSJ s. v. συμφυλέτης A. “of the same φυλή, IG 12(2).505.18 (Methymna): generally, fellow-countryman, 1 Ep.Thess. 2.14.” BDAG s. v. συμφυλέτης “one who is a member of the same tribe or people group, compatriot; pl. one’s people 1 Thess 2:14.” The identity of the συμφυλέται in 1 Thess 2:14 has been a point of debate. Craig Steven de Vos argues that Paul is referring to “fellow-Thessalonians” in the sense of fellow “citizens of the city” (Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities, SBLDS 168 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999], 146, 157). Conversely, scholars who interpret 1 Thess 2:14–16 in light of Acts 17:1–10 often maintain that

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

159

Without the presence of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy among the new believers, Paul feared that some of them would succumb to social pressure to abandon their newfound allegiance to the God of Israel and return to worshiping the traditional gods of Greco-Roman religion and the local gods of Thessalonica. 8 While the letter gives no evidence that some believers had left the church, the young church was, nevertheless, in crisis. The new believers were still being maltreated by their fellow gentiles (3:2–5), though Paul does not specify what their θλίψεις entailed. At minimum, we can imagine social ostracism and pressure to return to their previous way of life. 9 At most, persecution of the community resulted in the deaths of at least two, if not more, members of the church (4:13–18; 5:9–11). 10 Karl P. Donfried and I. Howard Marshall state the basis of this theory: “In 1 Thess 2:14–16 … Paul makes a very clear parallel between the situation of the Thessalonian church and that of the churches in Judea: they ‘became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea’ and they ‘suffered the same things’ [τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε] from their countrymen and that clearly involves the dimension of death (2:14–15).” 11 In Paul is referring to fellow residents of Thessalonica, both Jews and gentiles (e. g., Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology, trans. Doug Stott [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 352). The dominant interpretation today holds that Paul’s use of συμφυλέται in 1 Thess 2:14 concerns neither citizenship nor the Jewish inhabitants of Thessalonica. Rather, Paul is referring to non-Jewish inhabitants of Thessalonica (e. g., Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbors, JSNTSup 183 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], 223; Carol J. Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16, JSNTSup 98 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994], 71; John M. G. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 [1993]: 512–30, esp. 514). This hypothesis has the most merit for several reasons: (1) Paul’s addressees are gentiles (1:9), (2) only a minority of the inhabitants in Thessalonica had citizenship (Still, Conflict in Thessalonica, 219), and (3) the parallelism between τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν and τῶν Ἰουδαίων in 1 Thess 2:14 suggests that Paul views the Jewish “persecutors” (ἐκδιώκω [2:15]) as συμφυλέται of the “the churches of God which are in Judea” (2:14) in the same way that those who make his gentile readers suffer are συμφυλέται of his gentile Thessalonian readers. In doing so, Paul seeks to show that believers suffer at the hands of their own people (Jews/Jews; gentiles/gentiles). 8 According to Karl Donfried, the most significant religious cult in Thessalonica at the time of Paul was the cult of Cabirus, although the cults of Serapis and Dionysus were also popular (“The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 21–48, esp. 22–31). 9 See the excellent analysis of Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica.” 10 John S. Pobee has argued that the deceased Thessalonians mentioned in 4:14 were Christian martyrs (Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul, JSNTSup 6 [Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1985], 114), as has Donfried (“Cults of Thessalonica,” 41–43). Ben Witherington III is open to Donfried’s hypothesis but is not definitive (1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 139). Nijay K. Gupta has more recently advocated the thesis that the deaths were related to persecution (“Paul and the Militia Spiritualis Topos in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and the Greco-Roman Philosophical Tradition, LNTS 527, ed. Joseph R. Dodson and Andrew W. Pitts [London: Bloomsbury, 2017], 13–32, esp. 26), but most scholars hold there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate they died on account of their faith (e. g., Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” 514). 11 Karl P. Donfried and I. Howard Marshall, The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters,

160

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

my view, there is reason to believe that at least one of the believers who had died at the hands of his or her “fellow countrymen” (2:14) was considered a prophet (προφήτης) in the church at Thessalonica. When Paul writes, “you suffered the same things” as what “the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus” suffered, he also claims the Judean believers were bereaved of at least two of their προφῆται as a result of Judean nonbelievers. 12 It follows that Paul apparently thought that at least one of the Thessalonians who had recently died was considered a prophet who died as a result of hostility from nonbelievers in their city. My theory that at least one of the deceased Thessalonians had been associated with prophetic speech gains further support by (1) the fact that believers who were speaking prophetically in public would be more likely to attract hostility from outsiders than those who refrained, and (2) Paul’s explicit prohibitions “do not quench the Spirit [τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε]” (5:19) and “do not despise prophecies [προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε]” (5:20). 13 These prohibitions constitute the strongest supporting argument for my interpretation of 2:14–15, because the death of a believer who did openly speak in the Spirit and utter prophecies would plausibly motivate survivors to hinder public prophetic speech as a means of self-preservation. While certainty about the nature of the deaths eludes us, the theory that public prophetic speech by one or more NTT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 22. Raymond F. Collins makes the same point: “Paul’s analogy … did make reference to the death of Jesus and the prophets at the hands of their persecutors. Thus it cannot be excluded that some Christians at Thessalonica had died as a result of persecution” (The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin and Development of the First Christian Generation [New York: Crossroad, 1993], 112). 12 Most scholars interpret the “prophets” in 2:15 as a reference to the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. Malherbe argues, “These were OT prophets rather than Christian ones, as the addition of idious (“their own”) in some manuscripts seeks to make clear” (Letters, 169). I do not find this convincing, because when New Testament authors link the death of the biblical prophets with the death of Jesus, “the chronology begins with the rejection of the series of biblical prophets and is climaxed with the rejection of the Messiah, as in Mark 12:1–12” (Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 103). In 1 Thess 2:15, the prophets are sandwiched between the Lord Jesus and Paul’s self-reference (τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων). If this order has any temporal logic, then these prophets are best understood as members of the “the churches of God who are in Judea” (2:14). The death of early Christian prophets as a result of persecution is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament (e. g., Matt 23:34; Acts 6:8–8:1). Most plausibly, Paul’s claim in 1 Thess 2:15 is that the same Jews of Judea who “killed” the Lord Jesus also killed Christian prophets and severely persecuted both him and other unnamed believers. Of course, historically, the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. 13 One would anticipate that the more ardent among new believers would speak prophetically in public in imitation of Paul’s own frequent use of prophetic speech (ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε [1:6]). In 1:5–6, Paul characterizes his founding visit as animated by the Holy Spirit. See Mary Ann Getty, “The Imitation of Paul in the Letters to the Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 277–83; chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22, section c. Exhortations to Prophetic Speech and Spirit-Led Conduct ἐν θλίψει.

4.2 Previous Scholarship

161

believers incited persecution and led to at least one death makes most sense of the evidence, particularly in 2:14–15 and 5:19–20. Without Paul, Timothy, and Silvanus among them, the Thessalonians were vulnerable to misinterpreting their persecution and these sudden deaths. If they had made the right choice in turning to the God of Israel and awaiting his son Jesus (1:9–10), why were they suffering and dying? In their context, unexpected deaths were not infrequently taken as signs of God’s wrath. 14 Family, friends, and neighbors who disapproved of their new way of life could argue that they had infuriated the gods of Thessalonica. Paul’s disoriented addressees probably wondered what they had misunderstood or done wrong, such that God was angry with them and smote some of their number. What did their suffering signify? Had they misunderstood the gospel, or did the problem lie with those who proclaimed the gospel to them? What was the fate of their dead? What did their future hold? Bereft of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, the new believers needed answers when they had no one to answer them. Timothy’s mission seems to have ameliorated the situation and solidified their (potentially strained) relationship with Paul (3:1–10), but the existence of 1 Thessalonians shows that Paul deemed Timothy’s mission as merely a first step “to strengthen and console” the Thessalonians so that they would not “be shaken” (3:2–3). 15 They were still grieving about their dead (4:13), and Paul believed that their afflictions would continue until the Lord Jesus appeared (3:3–4; 4:15–17). Through his letter, Paul aimed to supplement the prior efforts of Timothy in offering consolation that would encourage their faith as they awaited Jesus, their “rescuer” (ῥυόμενος) from their oppressors and God’s coming wrath (1:10).

4.2 Previous Scholarship The scholarly conversation concerning the intersection of 1 Thessalonians and ancient consolation literature has been structured around debates concerning the genre, function, and contents of 1 Thessalonians. Is the letter of consolation (ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική) the most fitting epistolary genre for 1 Thessalo14 Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 75; De Vos, Church and Community, 167; Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” 513, 516; Bruce C. Johanson, To All the Brethren: A TextLinguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians, ConBNT 16 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1987), 54; I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 73. 15 On the basis of 1 Thess 2:3, Margaret M. Mitchell asks, “Did Timothy also need to restore the Thessalonians’ faith in Paul?” (“New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 [1992]: 641–62, esp. 658).

162

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

nians? 16 Is consolation the primary function of the letter, or is consolation merely one purpose of the letter among other equally important purposes? 17 Do the contents of 1 Thessalonians reflect ancient consolatory rhetoric in each and every chapter, or is this influence limited to 3:2–4, 4:13–18, and 5:1–11? 18 Most commentators today reject the generic classification of 1 Thessalonians as an ancient letter of consolation but acknowledge Paul’s intent to comfort his readers and consolatory arguments in various sections of the letter. Scholars widely recognize arguments against grief (παραμυθίαι) regarding the Thessalonians’ persecution (3:3–4; 5:3), bereavement (4:13–5:11), and sep16 The generic classification of 1 Thessalonians as an ancient letter of consolation is supported by Karl P. Donfried, “The Theology of 1 Thessalonians as a Reflection of Its Purpose,” in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 119–38, esp. 137–38; Donfried, “The Epistolary and Rhetorical Context of 1 Thess 2:1–12,” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 31–60, esp. 48–49; Smith, Comfort One Another, 52; Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Content and Exegesis, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 386; Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 811–12; Bickmann, Kommunikation, 89–102; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 32. Cho contends that “First Thessalonians is more closely related to the funeral oration of epideictic rhetoric than to a consolatory letter” (Rhetorical Approach, 22). 17 Chapa denies that 1 Thessalonians is a letter of consolation by genre yet argues that “we may, nevertheless, be justified in calling it a consoling letter without intending to exclude other valid purposes” (“Is First Thessalonians,” 159–60). Malherbe argues that 1 Thessalonians is “a paraenetic letter that contains a strong interest in consoling as part of its hortatory aim” (Letters, 280). Cho understands the “rhetorical purpose” of 1 Thessalonians to be “consolation and exhortation” (Rhetorical Approach, 22–23, 183, 246). 18 Smith finds consolatory rhetoric in every chapter (Comfort One Another). Although Cho demarcates 1 Thess 4:1–5:11 as “consolation and exhortation,” he discovers parallels with funeral orations in every chapter (Rhetorical Approach, 184). For 3:2–4, see esp. Malherbe, Letters, 197–98; Holloway, Philippians, 9. For 4:13–18, see Ian Y. S. Jew, Paul’s Emotional Regime: The Social Function of Emotion in Philippians and 1 Thessalonians, LNTS 629 (London: T&T Clark, 2021), 111–25; Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 132, 143; Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 216–29; Malherbe, Letters, 260–86, esp. 280; Beverly R. Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1998), 62–68; Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 228–35; Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 166, 176; Stowers, Letter Writing, 145; Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 180, 202. For 5:1–11, see James D. Hester, who argues that 4:13–18 is the παραμυθία and 5:1–11 is a παραλέψις that amplifies the topic of consolation (“The Invention of 1 Thessalonians: A Proposal,” in Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 251–79, esp. 274). See also Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 47; Johanson, To All the Brethren, 119; James L. Jaquette, “Life and Death, Adiaphora, and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies,” NovT 38 (1996): 30–54, esp. 38–42; Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 154; Robert H. Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and the Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians,” NTS 33 (1987): 161–78, esp. 167.

4.2 Previous Scholarship

163

aration from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (esp. 2:17–3:13). 19 Despite this consensus, the epistolary genre of 1 Thessalonians continues to be debated because arguments against grief, no matter how many, are insufficient evidence on their own to warrant categorizing 1 Thessalonians as an ancient letter of consolation. Critiques of the theory that 1 Thessalonians is an ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική are aimed at its other components: its epistolary thanksgiving (1:2–10), 20 apparent lack of expressions of sympathy, 21 apparent lack of exempla, 22 exhortation (esp.

19 Regarding their persecution, see, e. g., Holloway, Philippians, 9; Malherbe, Letters, 198; Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 57–59; Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 46; Smith, Comfort One Another, 81. In 3:3–4, Paul argues that nothing unexpected has happened. In 5:3 (cf. 2:16), Paul argues that the Thessalonians’ persecutors will be destroyed on the Day of the Lord, which is based on the consolatory argument that God punishes the wicked. Regarding their bereavement, see, e. g., Cho, Rhetorical Approach, 191–236; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 47; Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 156; Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 57–59; Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” 183–84; Anselm Wimmer, “Trostworte des Apostels Paulus an Hinterbliebene in Thessalonich (1 Th 4, 13–17),” Bib 36 (1955): 273–86. Paul’s arguments against grief in bereavement in 4:13–5:11 draw on the following established consolations: separated loved ones will be reunited with those who have died, God rewards the righteous with life after death, and God punishes the wicked (see appendix 1). As a result, Paul maintains that “it is a matter of indifference whether one is alive or has died at the time of the parousia” (James L. Jaquette, Discerning What Counts: The Function of the Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters, SBLDS 146 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995], 120–26). Regarding their separation from their founders, see, e. g., Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 32; Klauck, Ancient Letters, 386; Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 811; Smith, Comfort One Another, 53–54. Arguments against grief concerning their separation include the cowriters share their sorrow (2:17–18), the cowriters long for the Thessalonians and have tried to visit them (2:17–3:10, esp. 2:17–18; 3:6), and God will orchestrate their reunion at the parousia if not sooner (2:19; 3:11–13). 20 To support his argument that 1 Thessalonians was not “consciously written by Paul as a letter of consolation,” Jeffrey A. D. Weima notes that “the thanksgiving section of Paul’s letter (1 Thess 1:2–10) – a section that foreshadows the major themes and tone of the letter – does not emphasize even in a minor way the theme of comfort or consolation” (Review of Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians, by Abraham Smith, JETS 40 [1997]: 482–83, esp. 483). Similarly, Chapa comments on “the lack of reference to a sad event at the beginning of the letter, which is a basic characteristic of consolatory works” (“Is First Thessalonians,” 159). Under the heading, “Paul the Consoler,” Malherbe writes, “Paul differs from his pagan contemporaries in that he avoids the most common conventions they used, for example … recalling the noble way in which the grieving person had faced loss and was dealing with adverse circumstances” (Letters, 286). I argue that Paul follows this very convention in 1:2–10. 21 Weima writes, “the body section of consolatory letters typically begins by stressing the great sympathy that the writer shares with the grieving reader(s). The body section of 1 Thessalonians (2:1–12), however, opens with a description of Paul’s and his coworkers’ original ministry in Thessalonica that sounds … much more defensive and apologetic than sympathetic and consoling” (Comfort One Another, 483). 22 Regarding “Paul the Consoler,” Malherbe writes, “Paul differs from his pagan contemporaries in that he avoids the most common conventions they used, for example … reminding

164

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

4:1–12; 5:6, 8, 12–22), 23 and arrangement. 24 These concerns guide my analysis, as they point to which aspects of Paul’s consolatory rhetoric are least understood and most highly contested. My analysis of the consolatory rhetoric within 1 Thessalonians produces an innovative reading of the letter that can substantively contribute to current debates over the genre, function, and content of the letter. I show that 1 Thessalonians conforms to contemporary understandings of the genre of ancient consolation and contains all essential elements of the epistolary genre of the ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική in particular. As to function, I argue from both the structure and content of the letter that consolation was intended to be the primary purpose of 1 Thessalonians. Regarding content, I demonstrate that the rhetoric, motifs, arguments, and exhortations of diverse streams of ancient consolation pervade every chapter of the letter. I argue that units that have challenged the thesis that 1 Thessalonians is an ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική (esp. 4:9–12 and 5:12–22) are actually products of Paul’s interweaving of disparate streams of consolatory discourse, deriving from Greco-Roman culture, the Bible, and the early Jesus movement. Paul synthesizes resources from various traditions of consolation, thus producing an amalgam that cannot be fully explained by any one tradition. To prove my theses, I first set out how Paul diagnosed the situation at Thessalonica and characterized it in the service of his consolatory arguments. 25 In providing an overview of the structure of the letter, I then argue that the arrangement of 1 Thessalonians supports the theory that its epistolary genre is a letter of consolation. Next, I analyze how the exhortations within 1 Thess 4–5 contribute to the goal of consolation through lexical analyses of nine expressions that routinely appear in consolatory exhortation, 26 and three expressions the recipient of the consolation of noble examples of persons who had suffered” (Letters, 286). I argue that Paul does exactly this in 2:1–12 and 2:17–3:10. 23 Still on the topic of “Paul the Consoler,” Malherbe writes, “Paul differs from his pagan contemporaries in that he avoids the most common conventions they used, for example … warning against excessive sorrow, and urging that reason and decorum prevail” (Letters, 286). I argue that Paul exhorts his readers in this very tradition, especially in 4:9–13, 18; 5:6, 8, 11. Carl Johan Berglund maintains that “the aim of consolation has no explanatory value for the most prominently placed exhortations in E1–2, which rather take away from the letter’s consolatory function” (“Paul’s Rhetorical Efforts to Establish Good Will in First Thessalonians,” JSNT 44 [2022]: 539–60, esp. 547). In Berglund’s structure of the letter, E1 corresponds to 1 Thess 4:1–8 and E2 to 1 Thess 4:9–12. In contrast, I argue that the exhortations of 4:9–12 directly contribute to the consolatory function of the letter. 24 Chapa writes, “I do not find that St Paul applied to this letter the structure and patterns characteristic of letters of consolation, as ancient writers would have understood the technical term” (“Is First Thessalonians,” 159). 25 I treat Paul’s diagnosis of the situation and characterization of the situation as distinct from the historical situation of the Thessalonians following the work of Mitchell (“1 and 2 Thessalonians,” 55–57). 26 These include instructions to love one another (τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους [4:9–10]), to strive

4.3 Paul’s Diagnosis and Characterization of the Situation

165

that Paul employs in the service of consolation. 27 I adopt the method of lexical analysis in order to contextualize Paul’s consolatory rhetoric within contemporary expectations of the genre, biblical precedents, and oral Jesus tradition. Having established the pervasive use of consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thess 4–5, I turn to the first three chapters of the letter to elucidate Paul’s use of consolatory rhetoric in the epistolary thanksgiving (1:2–10), identify and contextualize his expressions of sympathy, and analyze his deployment of exempla who have suffered in like manner as the Thessalonians (esp. 2:1–12, 14–16). I conclude the chapter by highlighting the implications of the consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians.

4.3 Paul’s Diagnosis and Characterization of the Situation In Paul’s diagnosis, the Thessalonians’ behavior, anxieties, and grief indicated that their faith, love, and hope were insufficient to empower them to handle their adversities in a way that furthered the propagation of the gospel. According to 3:6, Timothy gave Paul good news of the “faith” and “love” of the Thessalonians but did not report about their “hope” that they had in the beginning (3:6–8; cf. 1:3). This omission has rightly led scholars to suppose that Paul diagnosed the Thessalonians as deficient in hope in some way, an argument that is strengthened by Paul’s attempts to reinvigorate their “hope of salvation” (ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας [5:8]) in 4:13–5:11. 28 Despite the rhetoric of “good news” about the Thessalonians’ “faith” in 3:6, Paul’s prayer “to complete what is lacking in [their] faith” (καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν [3:10]) shows that he also diagnosed their faith as needing supplementation. Similarly, Paul’s report that Timothy gave “good news” about their “love” (3:6) should not convince us that he believed their love was enough to handle their circumstances, because his prayer in 3:12 and exhortations in 4:9–10 and 5:12–15 presuppose the opposite. Paul prays that the Lord would cause them “to increase and eagerly to be calm (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν [4:11]), to be busy with your own affairs and to work with your own hands (πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν [4:11]), to not grieve (μὴ λυπῆσθε [4:13]), to console one another (παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους [4:18; 5:11]), to be sober/self-controlled (νήφωμεν [5:6, 8]), to rejoice always (πάντοτε χαίρετε [5:16]), to pray without ceasing (ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε [5:17]), and to give thanks in everything (ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε [5:18]). 27 These include his instructions to keep watch (γρηγορῶμεν [5:6]), to not quench the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε [5:19]), and to not despise prophecies (προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε [5:20]). Paul also utilizes imperatives within 5:12–15 and 5:21–22 toward his consolatory aim, but I discuss these in a more summary fashion. 28 E. g., Michael W. Pahl, Discerning the ‘Word of the Lord’: The ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, LNTS 389 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 153; Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 79; Mitchell, “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” 57; Gundry, “Hellenization of Dominical Tradition,” 167.

166

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

abound in love for one another and for all” (πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεύσαι τῇ ἀγάπῃ [3:12]), which would “strengthen their hearts” (3:13; cf. 3:2). Paul exhorts them “to excel more and more” (περισσεύειν μᾶλλον) in loving one another (τὸ ἀγαπᾶν [4:9–10]). This theme of increasing in acts of love, both within and outside of the church, is reiterated in several ways in 5:12–15, from the need to regard their leaders “most highly in love” (5:13) to the necessity of nonretaliation (5:15). In Paul’s view, the deficiencies of hope, faith, and love within the Thessalonian church were made visible in the conduct of its members. In his logic, when faith, love, and hope abound in the church, believers “rejoice” irrespective of their circumstances (cf. 5:16). Paul gives the early days of the church as a paradigm. When their “work of faith,” “labor of love,” and “the constancy of [their] hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” were praiseworthy (1:3), believers exhibited “joy from the Holy Spirit” while “in great affliction” (1:6). Now that faith, love, and hope have become inadequate in the church, they are “shaken in afflictions” (3:3). 29 According to Paul, being shaken in afflictions is a symptom of one’s faith being in peril as a result of the Tempter (3:3–5). As for their hope, Paul thought that the Thessalonians’ “grieving” about their dead indicated that it was inadequate (4:13). For Paul, the problem at Thessalonica was not merely inadequate faith, love, and hope but the inappropriate conduct that resulted from it. He worried that the propagation of the gospel would be hindered if the Thessalonians let their fear of harassment (or worse) cause them to remain silent when the Spirit urged them to speak boldly (5:19; cf. 2:2). If they appeared “shaken” (3:3) rather than “calm” (4:11) in adversity, then onlookers would fail to see the “power” of the gospel (1:5) in those who claimed to live by it. If they withdrew from their work and routine social and familial obligations to lament and mourn their untimely dead (4:11–13), they could appear “weak” and “womanly.” 30 For these reasons, Paul’s consolatory rhetoric had a practical goal, to dissuade the Thessalonians from behaviors that he believed would bring disrepute to the gospel and to persuade them to embody a code of conduct that was more likely to earn respect 29 Paul presents the idea of them being “shaken” as his fear and not as a fact in 3:3. Nevertheless, his consolatory arguments throughout the letter presuppose “shaken” addressees whom he is attempting to calm and stabilize. 30 For the association of mourning with femininity and weakness, see chapter 1, n. 142. Paul encourages the Thessalonian church to respond to their bereavement in ways that the wider culture labeled “manly.” However, he does not use a rhetoric of masculinity and femininity to dissuade his readers from passionate grieving and prolonged mourning. This is significant, because consolers commonly did associate mourning with women in order to shame men into stopping their mourning as soon as possible. Paul and his coworkers do not devalue femininity in making their case for noble conduct in adversity. In fact, they compare themselves to a nursing mother (τροφός) to convey how they freely and sacrificially gave of themselves to benefit the Thessalonians, their children (2:7–8).

4.3 Paul’s Diagnosis and Characterization of the Situation

167

from society. In his diagnosis, the image the Thessalonian church was projecting to outsiders needed to be rehabilitated. In his letter, Paul characterizes the situation of the Thessalonian church as far less problematic than he diagnosed it to be in order to avoid shaming his addressees. He seeks to achieve his consolatory aim through praise rather than rebuke. Never, in fact, does Paul accuse his readers of wrongdoing. Paul’s choice to console his readers by way of encomium, whenever possible, 31 stands in sharp contrast to the alternative of rebuking them for their failure to conquer grief and resume their normal patterns of life. Seneca rebukes a bereaved father at the outset of one consolatory letter, asking, “Is it solace that you look for? Let me give you a scolding instead! You are like a woman in the way you take your son’s death” (Ep. 99.2). 32 Paul’s decision to praise rather than criticize his addressees seems to have been motivated by two primary factors. First, Paul perceived that his own relationship with his addressees was strained because of his prolonged absence (2:17–3:11) and attacks on his character made by outsiders in the interim (2:1–12). By praising the Thessalonians, Paul hoped that he could win back the goodwill of any in the church who had fallen prey to the slanderous accusations concerning him. Second, Paul recognized that the unexpected deaths had shocked and disoriented many of the Thessalonians, since they had understood his gospel to mean that all of them would be alive when Jesus came to rescue them (1:9–10). Paul seems to have feared that their disorientation would translate into doubts about whether they had correctly understood the gospel and were living in a way that pleased God (4:1–2). Believing his addressees were vulnerable to self-doubt regarding their knowledge of the gospel and conduct, Paul chose the consolatory strategy of praise to renew their confidence in the choice they had made months ago “to turn to God” (1:9) and to reinvigorate their determination to stay the course. Paul praises the Thessalonians’ past conduct, current conduct, and knowledge of the gospel, while repeatedly holding before them a glorious vision for their future. As he depicts their past, the Thessalonians were remarkable for their faith, love, and steadfast hope in the Lord Jesus (1:3). Their visible “joy from the Holy Spirit” while “in great affliction” earned them renown beyond the borders of their province (1:6–8). Paul characterizes their current behavior as 31 The admonitions of 4:3–8 are not encomiastic and conclude with a threat (4:8). Nevertheless, Paul introduces these admonitions by praising his readers as those who already “know” these commands (4:1) and who are already “walking” in light of them (4:2). Subsequent to the threat of 4:8, Paul reassures his readers that they are already doing the right things in terms of “brotherly love” (φιλαδελφία [4:9–10]). The way in which Paul frames the admonitions of 4:3–8 with praises shows his attempt to console through praise rather than rebuke. 32 All texts and translations of Seneca’s Epistles in this monograph are cited from Richard M. Gummere, Epistles, 3 vols., LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917– 1925).

168

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

exemplary; they are already living as their founders had instructed them in order “to please God” (4:1, 9–10; 5:11). He affirms that their knowledge is correct, although needing supplementation (4:13–18; 5:10). They already “know” the commands Paul and his coworkers had given them “through the Lord” (4:2) and are already taught by God to love one another, such that Paul need not even mention it (4:9). They “knew” beforehand that their afflictions would come (3:3–4). Their knowledge about the Day of the Lord is “accurate” (ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε [5:2]). Paul portrays their future as sure and guaranteed “salvation” (σωτηρία [5:8–9]) 33 and that of “the rest” (οἱ λοιποί [5:5; cf. 4:13]) as sure and guaranteed “destruction” (ὄλεθρος [5:3; cf. 5:9]). This overly positive depiction of the Thessalonians’ past, present, and future is meant to achieve several consolatory ends. Paul depicts their past as that of a Spirit-filled community that has already triumphed over “great affliction” in an exemplary manner (1:3–8) in order to raise their confidence that they can handle their current afflictions with composure. He characterizes their current behavior as “pleasing to God” (4:1) and their knowledge of the gospel as correct to reassure his addressees that they had understood Paul and the gospel properly. As for the future, Paul divides humanity into believers who will be saved and the rest who will be destroyed in order to persuade the Thessalonians to “stand fast in the Lord” (3:8) despite persecution because of the eternal benefits of remaining “in Christ” (4:16). This characterization of the near future is also intended to assure them that God will harshly judge those who are making them suffer (esp. 2:14–16; 5:3, 9).

4.4 Arrangement and Genre of 1 Thessalonians The disposition of extant consolatory letters varies, such that expressions of sympathy, consolatory arguments, and exhortations occur in different combinations. 34 The flexible structure of consolatory letters must be emphasized, as the apparent nonconformity of 1 Thessalonians with the structure of other consolatory letters has been used to argue that the letter of consolation could not be its epistolary genre. 35 Chapa, for instance, identifies “a consoling purpose,” numerous “consolatory topics,” and “some rhetorical strategies current in literature of consolation” in 1 Thessalonians but does not think that one can classify 1 Thessalonians “as a letter of consolation thematically or literarily similar to the letter of consolation of the Graeco-Roman world” on account of form. 36 In his reading, Paul did not apply “the structure and patterns characteristic of 33 34 35 36

See also 1:10; 2:19–20; 4:13–17; 5:1–11, 23–24. See chapter 1, § 1.3 The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric. E. g., Weima, “Comfort One Another,” 483; Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 159. Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 159–60.

4.4 Arrangement and Genre of 1 Thessalonians

169

letters of consolation, as ancient writers would have understood the technical term.” 37 In Chapa’s estimation of the ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική genre, purpose and content are not sufficient markers of genre if there are divergences in form and structure. However, the notion that “the structure and patterns” of letters of consolation were consistent is the very point that many have shown to be false. 38 Chapa acknowledges that some private letters of consolation do not have the συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, παραίνεσις structure, and neither do some literary nonprivate letters. 39 Given that Paul wrote his letter as a semipublic document he intended to be read to the entire church (5:27), 1 Thessalonians should be understood as one such literary nonprivate letter whose author allowed himself “more freedom.” 40 Proponents of the view that 1 Thessalonians is an ancient letter of consolation by genre have rightly challenged the prioritization of form over purpose and contents. 41 Upon my analysis, the arrangement of 1 Thessalonians is not atypical of ancient consolatory letters of comparable length. Paul first attempts to secure the goodwill of his readers, which he does by highly praising them as “imitators” of their founders and Lord in their ability to radiate “joy” in the midst of “affliction” (1:2–10). Paul’s expression of sympathy has already begun in 1:6 when he reminds them that their founders and the Lord had also faced “great affliction,” yet he offers additional expressions of sympathy in 2:1–3:10 for each of the three traumas he addresses. In each case, Paul follows convention in conveying sympathy before offering his arguments against grief. First, Paul demonstrates that he, Silvanus, Timothy, the Judean churches, their prophets, and the Lord all suffered at the hands of their countrymen as the Thessalonians are now suffering (συμπάθεια [2:1–16]) before he explicitly argues that afflictions are to be expected for believers (παραμυθία [3:2–4]). As practiced by other ancient consolers, Paul utilizes his own suffering and that of his cowriters 37

Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 159. Luckensmeyer and Neil write, “while many common τύποι are employed, there is wide variation in the intricacies of argument and structure” of consolatory letters (“Reading First Thessalonians,” 39). Mitchell has noted that the structure of extant consolatory letters is not fixed: the “separation” of συμπάθεια, παραμυθία, and παραίνεσις “into three distinct sections is by no means generally observed” (“Consolatory Letters,” 303). 39 In describing “the structure of a rhetorical letter of consolation,” Chapa writes, “it is worth noting that this structure can be detected in most private letters of consolation, both literary and non-literary. As might be expected, it is in the literary non-private letters that writers sometimes allow themselves more freedom” (“Is First Thessalonians,” 155–56). The suggestion of Cho that “a letter of consolation is a personal letter rather than a public letter” is incorrect (Rhetorical Approach, 22). The consolatory letter in 2 Bar. 78–86 is addressed to the nine and a half tribes. 40 “Is First Thessalonians,” 155–56. 41 Smith, Comfort One Another, 52; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 36, 39. 38

170

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

both to sympathize with his readers and to model how they ought to react to their shared predicament, in this case, incurring slander and hostility on account of the gospel (exempla [2:1–12; cf. 1:6]). Second, Paul shows that the Judean churches were bereaved like the Thessalonians (συμπάθεια [2:15–16]) before he argues against grief in bereavement (παραμυθία [4:13–5:11]). Third, Paul expresses his profound sense of loss from being separated from the Thessalonians (συμπάθεια [2:17]) before he argues that his absence does not indicate a lack of concern for them and urges them to look toward God to orchestrate their reunion (παραμυθία [2:18–3:13]). These three lines of progression from συμπάθεια to παραμυθία point to what is unconventional about the structure of 1 Thessalonians as an ancient consolatory letter – the fact that it addresses three sources of distress rather than one. 42 The arrangement of the παραίνεσις relative to the συμπάθεια and παραμυθία is, however, conventional. Exhortation follows expressions of sympathy, is embedded between consolatory arguments (4:1–13, 18; 5:6, 8, 11), 43 and concludes the letter (5:12–22): I.

Letter Opening (1:1–10) 1:1 Epistolary Prescript 1:2–10 Epistolary Thanksgiving/Captatio Benevolentiae II. Letter Body (2:1–5:11) 2:1–16 Exempla of the Suffering and Slandered Servants of God 2:17–3:2 Sympathy and Consolation regarding the Absence of Their Founders 3:3–4 Consolation regarding Continuing Afflictions 3:5–13 Sympathy and Consolation regarding the Absence of Their Founders 4:1–12 Exhortation regarding Sanctification, Affliction, and Bereavement 4:13–5:11 Consolation and Exhortation regarding Bereavement and Its Effects on Survivors III. Letter Closing (5:12–28) 44 5:12–22 Exhortation: Recapitulation of How of Live in Affliction as Modeled by Their Founders 5:23–24 Assurance of God’s Protection 5:25–28 Epistolary Postscript 42 Contra the recent 2021 treatment of “Consolation in 1 Thessalonians” by Jew, who identifies only one “specific issue of grief in 1 Thessalonians,” the fact that believers had died: “the Thessalonian believers’ grief was most likely brought on by their underdeveloped understanding of the fate of the faithful dead at the return of Christ” (Paul’s Emotional Regime, 111–37, esp. 111, 126). 43 “Exhortation could stand by itself as a separate section of a consolation, but more often it was interspersed with argument” (Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 64). 44 My identification of the “Letter Opening” as 1:1–10 and the “Letter Body” as 2:1–5:11 follows Klauck (Ancient Letters, 357, 363). Unlike Klauck’s macrostructure of 1 Thessalonians, however, I assign 5:12–22 to the “Letter Closing.” Klauck classifies 5:12–22 as the “Body Closing” and 5:23–28 as the “Letter Closing” (Ancient Letters, 371–72). In my view, the exhortations of 5:12–22 are better classified as part of the “Letter Closing” because they recapitulate both the body (2:1–5:11) and key aspects of the epistolary thanksgiving (1:2–10).

4.4 Arrangement and Genre of 1 Thessalonians

171

This outline of the structure of the letter visibly represents my argument concerning its intended function to console the Thessalonians regarding the absence of their founders, persecution caused by outsiders, and unexpected bereavement. In my view, Paul arranges his arguments against grief in this sequence so he might address each trauma in the order of least to greatest severity. His arguments about his absence from the Thessalonians (esp. 2:18–3:2) precede those concerning their afflictions (3:3–4) because he deemed their “afflictions” as more threatening to their “faith” (esp. 3:2–5). Paul argues against grief caused by bereavement (4:13–5:11) last because he considered the unexpected deaths of believers to be the most traumatic for his readers. Furthermore, he knew that his readers were likely to resist his παραμυθίαι and παραίνεσις concerning bereavement. When arguing against grief caused by persecution, Paul could refer to his readers’ prior knowledge (αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε [3:3]). On the topic of “the dead in Christ” (4:16), Paul was issuing new information (Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν) and asking them to do something countercultural (μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ [4:13]). In sum, Paul followed a good rhetorical arrangement by making easier arguments first before addressing the most difficult matter with the Thessalonians. 45 Regarding the arrangement of the παραίνεσις, Paul similarly leads with instructions that are easiest for his readers to follow and then gradually progresses to those less likely to gain ready assent. His initial advice is merely for the Thessalonians to excel more at what they are already doing (4:1–2). To take this presentation as fact, however, would be a mistake, since ancient consolers praised their readers about whatever trait they wanted them to exhibit. 46 Paul’s exhortations that his readers keep doing what they are doing to an even greater degree extend through his instruction that they must abound even more in loving one another (4:9–10). 47 Next, Paul exhorts them to do something that would require at least some of his addressees to change their current behavior: “strive eagerly to be calm … to be busy with your own affairs … to work with your own hands” (4:11–12). Paul’s later exhortations concerning “the idle,” “the faint-hearted,” and “the weak” (5:14) make clear that Paul did not assume that all of the Thessalonians could quickly gain control of their grief, appear calm, and return to life as usual. 48 In 4:11–12, he simply urges them to try their 45 See Quintilian, Inst. 6.4.14, discussed by Ben Witherington III in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 264–95. 46 E. g., Cicero, Fam. 4.5.6; Fam. 5.16.5; Seneca, Marc. 1.1–5; 3.3–4; cf. 9.1; Helv. 16.2–5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F, 609A–E. John Chrysostom rightly recognizes that Paul praises good behavior in order to shame the Thessalonians into acting rightly in 4:9–10 (Hom. 1 Thess 6 [PG 62:429]). 47 Even the admonitions of 4:3–8, which suggest that Paul believed his addressees were not abiding by proper sexual ethics, are rhetorically framed as reminders of how they “ought to live and to please God (as indeed you are living)” (καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε [4:1]). 48 This is also suggested by Paul’s anxiety over their ability to withstand “afflictions” (3:1–4).

172

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

best. 49 Paul reserves the most difficult exhortation of the initial block (4:1–13) for last, that they “not grieve” concerning their dead (4:13). By adopting this arrangement, Paul attempts to raise his readers’ confidence (“I am already doing the right thing”) as he prepares them to accept the hardest exhortation, to stop grieving (4:13). To gain their assent, Paul then switches to consolatory arguments to justify why believers should not grieve over their dead (4:14–17; 5:1–5, 7, 9–10). These arguments are punctuated by imperatives that are easier to follow (e. g., παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους [4:18; 5:11]) and the exhortation to “be sober/self-controlled” (5:6, 8), a euphemistic way to reiterate they ought not “to grieve” (4:13). In the final unit of exhortation (5:12–22), Paul returns to instructions that are easier for his readers to act upon and recapitulates the appeals, arguments, and exhortations of 1:2–5:11. The arrangement of the exhortation in 5:12–22 mirrors the arrangement of the consolatory arguments it recapitulates: instructions about how to act in their founders’ absence (5:12– 13) precede exhortations about how to react to affliction and bereavement (5:14–22). Finally, I propose that Paul arranges his depiction of himself, Silvanus, and Timothy as exempla of suffering and slandered servants of God before his consolatory arguments and exhortations to prime his readers to accept his παραμυθίαι and παραίνεσις. 50 By the time that readers evaluate Paul’s argument that afflictions are to be expected for believers (3:2–5), 51 they have already seen this claim reflected in the lives of their founders and the Judean churches (2:1– 16), and thus are more likely to accept it as fact. The cowriters show their readers what it looks like to continue with their mission irrespective of the hostility it provokes (2:1–16) before urging them to likewise stay busy with their affairs and work despite their bereavement (4:11–13). The exemplary function of the cowriters is not limited to their narrative of their past in 2:1–12, 14–16. The cowriters extensively model rejoicing, prayer, and thanksgiving in the midst of their own afflictions (3:7) throughout chapters 1–3 in order to prepare their readers to accept the imperatives in 5:16–18. In sum, Paul shows the “truth” of claims before explicitly stating them and demonstrates proper conduct in distress before requesting such conduct from his readers. To achieve these ends, Paul devotes much of chapters 1–3 to praising and modeling appropriate conduct and refrains from directing the Thessalonians’ behavior until chapters 4–5.

49 LSJ s. v. φιλοτιμέομαι A.II: “c. inf., strive eagerly to do a thing, endeavour earnestly, aspire.” 50 See chapter 4, § 4.8.1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as Consolatory Exempla: Case Study on 2:1–16. 51 Cicero describes this strategy as “that method of consolation which says that what happened was part of human life” (Tusc. 3.57). When Paul employs the method, he more specifically argues that what happened is part of life for those who follow Christ.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

173

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation A study of the exhortation in 1 Thessalonians enables us to see beyond Paul’s positive characterization of his addressees’ situation to determine what aspects of their conduct concerned him. The extended units of exhortation in 4:1–12 and 5:12–22 constitute the most challenging sections of the letter to explain in terms of consolatory rhetoric. Over twenty-five years ago, Chapa observed that “Paul’s continuous exhortation, especially in chapters 4 and 5, might be seen as a response to circumstances of sorrow and affliction, which could have put at risk the fulfillment of Christian obligations.” 52 Chapa is right, and yet no one has demonstrated how Paul’s exhortation in 4:1–12 and 5:12–22 was a fitting response to the Thessalonians’ circumstances of persecution and bereavement. Instead, the study of consolatory exhortation in 1 Thessalonians has been limited to Paul’s exhortations that his readers “not grieve” (4:13) but “console one another” (4:18; cf. 5:11). 53 Even scholars who argue that 1 Thessalonians is an ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική do not detect exhortation concerning bereavement until 4:13 and routinely ignore 5:12–22. 54 I enter the conversation about the function and meaning of the exhortations in chapters 4–5 by proposing that the situation of escalating persecution (3:2– 4) and unexpected bereavement (4:13) in the Thessalonian church gives us reason to interpret these chapters in light of contemporary advice given to distressed and bereaved individuals. I first reconstruct Paul’s processes of invention when selecting his exhortations and then investigate individual exhortations within three primary units: 4:9–12, 4:13–5:11, and 5:12–22. I demonstrate that the consolatory exhortations scholars have identified in 4:13, 18 and 5:11 are merely the tip of the iceberg. Using primarily lexical studies, I argue that 4:9–12, 5:6–8, and 5:12–22 are also saturated with advice designed to encourage people who are suffering, grieving, or both to cease mourning and return to the routines and obligations of daily life. When 1 Thess 4–5 is analyzed in this manner, one discovers Paul to have been adept at using consolatory rhetoric to 52

Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158–59. See my summation of this scholarship below in § 4.5.3 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:13–5:11, section a. What the Philosopher Ordered, God Wills: “Do Not Grieve” (μὴ λυπῆσθε) but “Console One Another” (παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους). 54 These scholars include Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians”; Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death”; Smith, Comfort One Another. See appendix 3: “Proposals for the Structure of 1 Thessalonians as a Letter of Consolation.” Neither Luckensmeyer and Neil nor Bickmann account for 5:12–22 in their respective proposals. Smith includes 5:12–22 in his analysis under the broad rubric of “consolatory precepts” and, more specifically, as “Proper Judgments about Relations with Others.” Smith points out that “these precepts have already been modeled in the previous large units” but does not interpret them in light of ancient consolatory precepts at large (Comfort One Another, 90). Smith’s analysis of 5:12–22 constitutes one paragraph, leaving open the questions of how these precepts were previously modeled and how they relate to ancient consolation. 53

174

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

urge his distressed addressees to conduct themselves in bereavement and affliction in ways that could impress outsiders and attract them to the gospel.

4.5.1 Paul’s Processes of Invention In ancient rhetorical theory, “invention” (εὕρεσις; inventio) was the first task of an orator, by which they found and selected materials (e. g., arguments, exhortations, topoi) for their speech. 55 I argue that Paul selected his exhortations with a view to urging the Thessalonians to conduct themselves in their calamities and bereavement in ways that Greek and Roman culture deemed noble, wise, educated, and manly. The population of the city of Thessalonica was predominantly Greek, with a substantial Roman subset due to its status as the capital of the Roman province of Macedonia. 56 Paul wrote with a perpetual eye to how the Thessalonian church might appeal to this pool of potential new adherents to the gospel. Paul reveals his motive to impress these Greeks and Romans when he states the purpose of his advice in 4:10–11: “in order that you may behave in a seemly fashion toward outsiders” (ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχημόνως πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω [4:12]). What would Greeks and Romans consider an ideal response to living in adversity? Paul thought with this question as he considered how to advise the Thessalonians. Paul’s process of invention was also influenced by his view of the Bible as written for the “admonition” (νουθεσία) of his own generation (1 Cor 10:11). In his perspective, the events and stories of the Bible were models (τύποι) for his own time: “these things happened as models for us” (Ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν [1 Cor 10:6]). Believing his Bible spoke directly to his circumstances, Paul searched his Scriptures to discern “the will of God” (5:18) for how he and the Thessalonians ought to respond to their calamities. What did God ask of his people in the past when they faced bereavement? What behaviors does God require of his faithful ones when they are persecuted and awaiting God’s salvation? Questions like these also guided Paul’s selection of exhortations in chapters 4–5. Lastly, Paul selected exhortations by reflecting on the oral Jesus traditions of which he was aware. Despite Paul not having known Jesus personally, he had opportunities to learn sayings of the Lord through discussions with others who had followed Jesus (e. g., Cephas and Jesus’s brother James [Gal 1:18–19]) and his work with the church in Antioch (Gal 1:21). 57 To advise the Thessalonians, 55

Aristotle, Rhet. 1–2; Cicero, Inv.; Rhet. Her. 1. De Vos, Church and Community, 123–40; Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety, FFNT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 119–25. 57 The hypothesis that Paul participated in the mission of the Antiochene church is heavily dependent on Acts, which has its own motivations for presenting Paul as working under the authority of the Antiochene church and the Jerusalem church. Nevertheless, Paul’s admission 56

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

175

Paul drew on sayings of Jesus (later preserved in the Synoptic Gospels) regarding proper conduct for his persecuted followers while they awaited the Day of the Lord. In Paul’s perspective, the circumstances of his readers were none other than what Jesus had prophesied and equipped his followers to handle by issuing specific instructions in advance. Paul’s exhortation that his readers “not sleep like the rest but keep watch” (5:6) is unequivocally rooted in oral Jesus tradition. 58 His advice on nonretaliation (5:15) and imperatives “rejoice at all times” (5:16) and “pray without ceasing” (5:17) may have derived from his knowledge of Jesus traditions, though these connections cannot be proven. 59 In conclusion, Paul selected advice for how one should act in adversity and bereavement by considering consolatory exhortation within wider Greek and Roman culture, the Septuagint, and oral Jesus tradition. The final product of his selection, however, is not a montage of exhortations, the origin of each being clearly demarcated from the others. The boundaries between these sources of material were porous, and Paul delights in points of convergence and agreement between Greco-Roman consolation, his Bible, and the sayings of Jesus.

4.5.2 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:9–12 The scholarly conversation about the meaning of 4:9–12 has revolved around what Paul was attempting to accomplish in Thessalonica through these exhortations. Two lines of argument hypothesize a problem of freeloading caused by some people refusing to work. Had some people quit their jobs in excitement about the parousia, expecting that other members of the church would support them? 60 Conversely, had some people stopped working, not because of escha-

that he worked in the region of Syria (Gal 1:21) and the fact that he arrived at the Jerusalem conference with Barnabas (Gal 2:1, 9), whose own work was based out of Antioch for a substantial period (Gal 2:13; Acts 11:19–30; 13:1–15:41) and with whom Paul had worked for some time (1 Cor 9:6), suggests that Paul did in fact work in cooperation with the church in Syrian Antioch sometime before founding the church at Thessalonica. 58 See below § 4.5.3 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:13–5:11, section b. Consolatory Exhortation at the Intersection of Jesus Tradition and Greek Philosophy: “Let Us Keep Watch and Be Sober” (γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν). 59 For nonretaliation, see Matt 5:38–48; Luke 6:27–36; Zerbe, Non-retaliation, 176–210. For rejoicing at all times, see Matt 5:11–12; Luke 6:22–23. For praying without ceasing, see Luke 18:1–8; 21:36. See discussion in chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22, section b. Exhortations to Constancy in Rejoicing, Prayer, and Thanksgiving. 60 According to Boring’s research, “the connection between the ‘idle’ in Thessalonica and overenthusiastic eschatology was first made by Johann Albrecht Bengel in his 1742 commentary on 2 Thess 3:6” (I and II Thessalonians, 193). For more recent proponents of this hypothesis, see K. K. Yeo, “The Rhetoric of Election and Calling Language in 1 Thessalonians,” in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, JSNTSup 195 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 526–47, esp. 535; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence,

176

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

tology, but in pursuit of the philosophic ideal of “living a quiet life”? 61 In both of these reconstructions, the working portion of the Thessalonian church had been financially supporting the rest, prompting Paul to remind the church that everyone needed to “work with [their] own hands” (4:11). A third line of argument finds no indication of any problem in Thessalonica that incited the advice of 4:9–12, 62 while acknowledging that Paul issued it to encourage his readers “to maintain a low profile” on account of persecution. 63 I argue that Paul intended his instructions in 4:9–12 to apply to the circumstance of unexpected bereavement mentioned in 4:13. I demonstrate that the exhortations in 4:9–12 are represented in ancient consolation literature generally and in consolatory letters written to bereaved individuals, in particular. Below, I investigate the exhortations to love one another (τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους [4:9–10]), to strive eagerly to be calm (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν [4:11]), and to be busy with your own affairs and to work with your own hands (πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν [4:11]). I conclude my analysis with a discussion of the goal of impressing witnesses in consolatory rhetoric (οἱ ἔξω [4:12]). a. “You Are Taught by God to Love One Another [τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους] … but We Urge You … Excel More and More” Exhortations to love others commonly appear in ancient consolatory letters, as consolers believed that the bereaved would heal more quickly from their loss if they focused their energies on loving someone else. This consolatory technique of “employing some sort of substitute to take the place of a lost or absent loved one” was particularly common in treating the grief of women, yet it still appears in consolatory letters to men. 64 Seneca, for example, writes to Lucilius, “You have buried one whom you loved; look about for someone to love. It is better to replace your friend than to weep for him” (Ep. 63.11–12). 65 In Seneca’s logic, loving others would facilitate healing by providing an outlet for the bereaved to express their affection formerly directed toward the deceased. The exhorta176; I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 219; Best, Commentary, 176–78. 61 Malherbe, Letters, 258. 62 Witherington, e. g., interprets Paul’s exhortations that they excel more at what they are already doing (4:1, 10) to mean that there was no real problem to be solved (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 120). Boring also discerns no “specific problem” behind 4:9–12, arguing that the point of the unit is that church members mutually care for one another, thus creating a self-sufficient community (I and II Thessalonians, 151–53). 63 Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 153. 64 E. g., Seneca, Marc. 5.6; 16.6–8; Polyb. 12.1; Helv. 18.1–19.4. For discussion and additional examples of the technique, see Holloway, “Gender and Grief,” 306–8. 65 Seneca, Ep. 63.11–12: Quem amabas, extulisti; quaere, quem ames. Satius est amicum reparare quam flere.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

177

tion to love frequently takes the form of instructions for the bereaved to turn their attention to surviving family members, particularly to the younger generation. Seneca advises Marcia to focus her energies upon her granddaughters to “fill the vacant place” of her son (Marc. 16.8) and exhorts Helvia to shower her affection upon her granddaughter Novatilla to find “relief” from her distress about his exile (Helv. 18.7–8). Unlike his exhortations to Lucilius and Marcia, Seneca does not ask Helvia to love Novatilla in his place. Rather, he advocates a form of “consolation by distraction” when he urges Helvia to busy herself with the “honorable occupation” of shaping Novatilla’s character (Helv. 18.8). This method of consolation, which Cicero associates with Epicurus, was based on the theory that grief could be ameliorated if the consoler could redirect the sufferer’s attention away from the cause of their distress and toward pleasant things, such as their many blessings, their hobbies, or their surviving family members. 66 Awareness of how this method undergirds advice for bereaved people to focus their love on others directs us to why this advice should ameliorate grief: it is not merely the presence of another to love that brings healing but the distraction the new person provides. Paul’s request that his readers excel even more at loving one another (4:9–10) is an adaptation of the typical consolatory exhortation to focus on loving one’s family and receiving love from them in turn. Unlike Seneca, Paul motivates his distressed readers to love by grounding his exhortation in the will of God, writing, “you are taught by God to love one another [εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους]” (4:9). Additionally, Paul replaces the expected biological family of the exhortation with the fictive family of Christ-believers. This switch seems to be caused by Paul’s awareness that acceptance of the gospel caused division in biological families. 67 In extreme cases, this could result in the refusal of biological family members to fulfill their duty to love and comfort family members in bereavement. To anticipate and ameliorate the negative effects of biological family members shirking this obligation, Paul directs his distressed readers to love the much larger fictive family of believers. Their love for one another should burst the boundaries of Thessalonica to reach “all [πάντας] the brothers and sisters in all [ἐν ὅλῃ] of Macedonia” (4:10). The sort of province-wide mission of concrete acts of love that Paul is asking of them would require such efforts that his readers would be distracted from licking their wounds. 68 How could they sit back and grieve when they had been 66 The prevalence of this technique in ancient consolatory literature has been amply documented by Holloway (“Bona Cogitare”). For the theoretical underpinnings, see Cicero, Tusc. 3.33. For directing the mind to one’s blessings, see, e. g., Plutarch, Cons. ux. 610E–F; Seneca, Marc. 12.2; Polyb. 10.6. For hobbies, see, e. g., Seneca, Polyb. 8.1–4. For surviving family members, see, e. g., Seneca, Marc. 5.6; 16.6–8; Polyb. 12.1; Helv. 18.1–19.4. 67 Matt 10:34–35; Luke 12:51–53. 68 Paul gives no explicit description of what he means by loving one another, but presum-

178

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

commissioned to excel even more in loving every believer in their whole province? Paul’s hyperbolic language in 4:10 is intended to ensure that his distressed readers would be so busy helping others that they would not have time to retreat into self-pity. They were already exemplary in their acts of love, but Paul believed that they needed to love one another even more to cope with their persecution and bereavement. Ancient consolatory theory would suggest that Paul advised the Thessalonians to reinvigorate their attention to loving others not merely because of how it would benefit the recipients of their care but because of how it would transform them by acting as caregivers. If they could become preoccupied in finding ways to better love one another, it would provide substitutes for their lost loved ones and distract them from their sorrow. b. “But We Urge You … to Strive Eagerly to Be Calm” (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν) Theories about the meaning of Paul’s exhortation in 4:11 that his readers φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν can be categorized into two primary types. The first type, advocated by Malherbe, interprets ἡσυχάζειν in 4:11 as reflective of the philosophical topos “to live a quiet life,” which “had long described withdrawal from active participation in political and social affairs.” 69 Malherbe thus translates φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν “to make it your ambition to live a quiet life” and interprets it as an oxymoron. 70 While Malherbe’s reading is based on the usages of these verbs in Greek philosophical writings, the second line of interpretation takes the hostile social environment of the early Christians as determinative. Boring, for example, translates it “to aspire to live unobtrusively” and interprets it as a survival mechanism in a hostile society: “They had already attracted enough public attention to generate harassment and persecution.… Paul instructs them to maintain a low profile and seek to be respected by society at large.” 71 Witherington also interprets ἡσυχάζειν as commending “avoidance of conflict.” 72 This theory coheres with the nuance of ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν in 1 Tim 2:2, where the Pastor asks that prayers be made for those in power, “in order that we may live a calm [ἤρεμον] and quiet [ἡσύχιον] life.”

ably he is thinking of tangible means of providing help and support, such as providing hospitality to traveling believers, sending material or financial aid to other believers, and preaching the gospel throughout the province. 69 Malherbe, Letters, 247. 70 Malherbe explains, “for the most part … philotimeisthai came to describe the endeavor of the ambitious man, who, in the hope of reputation (doxa), chose the political life and became involved in public affairs” (Letters, 246–47). 71 Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 149, 153. 72 Witherington explains, “Christians were being persecuted, and the lower profile they maintained the better it might go for them” (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 121).

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

179

What has been insufficiently noticed, however, is that the verb ἡσυχάζειν has a specific meaning when it occurs in consolatory contexts, whether as exhortation addressed to a person in distress or in comments about proper conduct in circumstances of loss. This particular meaning of ἡσυχάζειν, which is shared by its periphrasis ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν, is translated by LSJ as to “be tranquil” and “calm thyself.” 73 While LSJ cites two tragedies of Euripides that utilize this consolatory nuance of ἡσυχάζειν, this usage of the verb has broader currency within Hellenistic Jewish texts, from Gen 4:7, to Lam 3:26, to Philo’s Ios. 21. Its periphrastic forms, ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν and ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν, occur in Plato’s Republic and the Consolation to Apollonius in discussions about proper conduct in bereavement. Socrates uses the imperative of ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν, “calm down,” to urge his friends to stop crying after he had drunk the hemlock (Phaed. 117E). However, neither LEH nor BDAG includes this consolatory meaning of ἡσυχάζειν in their entries, and it has never been discussed in scholarship on 1 Thessalonians. 74 I argue that the context of ἡσυχάζειν in 1 Thess 4:11 strongly suggests that Paul intended the consolatory nuance of the verb, “to be calm.” Beyond the obvious fact that Paul is advising a community of persecuted (1:6; 2:13–16; 3:2–5) and bereaved (4:13–18) individuals, Paul’s use of ἡσυχάζειν in 4:11 occurs in a series of exhortations that were common in ancient consolatory letters (4:9–13). In what follows, I discuss occurrences of ἡσυχάζειν in consolatory contexts and then explain the function and meaning of ἡσυχάζειν in 1 Thess 4:11. At the same time that Paul was nurturing his churches, the plays of Euripides were being performed throughout the Mediterranean. 75 Two of Euripides’s tragedies, Madness of Hercules and Iphigeneia at Aulis, contain scenes of consolation in which the consoler uses the imperative ἡσύχαζε. In Madness of Hercules, Amphitryon consoles Hercules’s wife, Megara, with these words: “Daughter, there may be a favorable course out of the present evils for you and for me. My child and your husband may still come. But be calm [ἀλλ’ ἡσύχαζε], 76 and wipe away the streams of flowing tears from your children and soothe them with words” (Herc. fur. 95–99). In Iphigeneia at Aulis, the same imperative is directed to a distraught mother, Clytemnestra, who has just learned that her husband Agamemnon is planning to kill their daughter, Iphigeneia. When Clytemnestra begs Achilles to protect her daughter, he consoles her by promising, LSJ s. v. ἡσυχάζω A.I: “ἀλλ’ ἡσύχαζε only be tranquil, calm thyself, E. HF 98, IA 973.” LEH s. v. ἡσυχάζω “to keep quiet, to be at rest”; BDAG s. v. ἡσυχάζω “1. to relax from normal activity, rest … 2. to live a quiet life or refrain from disturbing activity, be peaceable/ orderly … 3. to be free from being disturbed, have rest … 4. to refrain from saying something., be quiet, remain silent.” 75 Courtney J. P. Friesen, “Paulus Tragicus: Staging Apostolic Adversity in First Corinthians,” JBL 134 (2015): 813–32, esp. 816–17. 76 Arthur S. Way translates ἡσύχαζε “calm thee” in Herc. fur. 98 (LCL). The imperative is not middle, so “be calm” is a better translation. 73 74

180

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

“King Agamemnon shall not touch your child” (Iph. aul. 950). He continues, “My sword will soon know if anyone is to take your daughter from me; for then will I stain it with the blood stains of slaughter.… But be calm [ἀλλ’ ἡσύχαζε]. 77 I have appeared to you as a strong God. Though I am not, still I will prove myself to be” (Iph. aul. 970–974). In both of these occurrences of ἡσυχάζειν, one character is comforting another who is worried about the welfare of a family member, whether husband or daughter. In both, ἡσύχαζε (“be calm”) directly follows a consolation (your husband may arrive; no harm will touch your daughter). The use of ἡσυχάζειν to exhort people in distress is also found in LXX Gen 4:7. The aorist imperative ἡσύχασον occurs in God’s words to Cain in which God seeks to ameliorate Cain’s grief by (1) explaining why he did not look with favor upon his offerings as he had with Abel’s, and (2), assuring Cain that his hierarchical position over his younger brother would not be disrupted. According to Gen 4:5, God’s rejection of Cain’s offering of produce “grieved Cain exceedingly [ἐλύπησεν τὸν Καιν λίαν], and he collapsed in countenance.” In response, God asks Cain, “Why are you exceedingly grieved [περίλυπος] and why has your countenance collapsed? If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be calm [ἡσύχασον]. His turning is to you, and you will rule over him” (Gen 4:6–7). In these verses, the consolatory imperative ἡσύχασον is framed by two consolations. First, God assures Cain that he was right to present his offering; his sin lies in incorrectly dividing the offering. 78 By recognizing why God did not accept his offering, Cain ought to calm down, since God has not rejected him entirely. If Cain was to present an offering again with the correct ritual procedure, God would accept it. He should not be “exceedingly grieved” (4:6) on account of a problem so easily solved. The consolation following ἡσύχασον attempts to address anxiety on Cain’s part that God’s acceptance of Abel’s offering and rejection of his own would put him in a subordinate position to his younger brother Abel. God tells Cain that Abel will still “turn” to him, and Cain will rule over him (4:7). Cain’s error in the ritual procedure of offering sacrifice will not upset the familial hierarchy of the younger looking up to the older and the older controlling the younger. The meaning of ἡσύχασον in Gen 4:7 is analogous to that of ἡσύχαζε in the tragedies of Euripides. These imperatives are issued to individuals who are visibly performing grief by consolers who urge the distressed to “be calm” in ac77 David Kovacs’s translation of ἡσύχαζε in Iph. aul. 973 agrees with my translation, “be calm” (LCL). 78 Within the Masoretic Text, it is unclear why God rejected Cain’s offering. The Septuagint translation brings clarity on this point: “The LXX translation suggests that the problem with Cain and his offering is an error in a ritual detail of the sacrifice” (Joel N. Lohr, “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1–16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New Testament,” CBQ 71 [2009]: 485–96, esp. 489).

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

181

knowledgment of and acceptance of their words of comfort. The NETS translation of ἡσύχασον as “be still” is on the right track in denoting God’s desire that Cain gain some control over his total dejection. Nevertheless, “be calm” has the advantage of clarifying that what is really at stake is Cain’s control over his emotions, 79 not his physical movement, and not his sin. 80 More proximate to the writing of 1 Thessalonians, Philo juxtaposes lamenting (θρηνεῖν) with being calm (ἡσυχάζειν) as opposite responses to personal loss. In Philo’s retelling of Gen 37:12–36, Joseph’s oldest brother, Reuben, being unaware that his brothers had sold Joseph into slavery, engages in frenzied mourning gestures when he cannot find Joseph in the pit where he had left him: “He began to cry aloud and screamed, and having torn off his clothes above and below, just like a madman, he was carried away [by grief], striking his hands [together] and pulling out his hair” (Ios. 16). When his brothers explained that they had sold Joseph into slavery, Reuben laments over that “faithless and inhuman” deed before ultimately gaining control of himself (Ios. 18– 20). Philo intimates that he feared that his lamentation over Joseph could put himself at risk, so he decides it would be better to adopt the opposite reaction to the loss of his brother, that of being calm. Reuben asks, “But why do I continue on lamenting these things [ταῦτα θρηνῶν]? Better to be calm [ἡσυχάζειν], lest I also come to share in some abominable end” (Ios. 21). 81 Philo’s explicit contrast of θρηνεῖν with ἡσυχάζειν is important for interpreting 1 Thessalonians, since Paul urges his distressed readers to strive eagerly “to be calm” (ἡσυχάζειν [4:11]) and in the very next sentence asks that they not grieve concerning the dead, “But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, concerning those who sleep, so that you may not grieve [ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε] as the rest who do not have hope” (4:13). By analogy with Philo, one may surmise that Paul is here presenting ἡσυχάζειν and λυπεῖσθαι as two contrasting responses to bereavement. 82 If Paul was advocating that the Thessalonians refrain from grieving but be calm even when their loved ones die, he had biblical warrants to do so. Proverbs 15:15 reads, “The eyes of the wicked expect bad things all the time, but the good are always calm” (οἱ δὲ ἀγαθοὶ ἡσυχάζουσιν διὰ παντός). A second biblical warrant for remaining calm in their suffering is found in Lamentations. The speaker of Lam 3:25–26 writes, “The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to 79 Following LSJ s. v. ἡσυχάζω A.I: “ἀλλ’ ἡσύχαζε only be tranquil, calm thyself, E. HF 98, IA 973.” 80 Contra Lohr, who writes, “Cain, however, is to remain still, and not commit further sin” (“Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain,” 410). 81 F. H. Colson translates, “But why do I lament thus wildly? It were better to hold my peace [ἡσυχάζειν], lest I too come in for a share in some horrible fate” (LCL). 82 BDAG s. v. λυπέω 2b “pres. λυπεῖσθαι be sad, be distressed, grieve (La 1:22) 1 Thess 4:13.”

182

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

the soul which will seek him. A good thing it is – and it will wait [ὑπομενεῖ] and be calm [ἡσυχάσει] until the salvation of the Lord.” These are the words of a person living in “persecution” (διωγμός [Lam 3:19]). The Thessalonians were also enduring persecution, and Paul urges them to exhibit the same behaviors that the poet of Lamentations advocates for the persecuted people of Judah living in exile. They must “wait” for the Lord’s salvation (1:10) and strive eagerly “to be calm” (4:11) in the meantime. The periphrastic equivalents of ἡσυχάζειν are used the same way as ἡσυχάζειν in consolatory contexts. Although ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν/ἄγειν often means “to be at peace” or “to be at rest,” 83 within consolatory exhortation it has a more specific meaning, “to maintain a calm demeanor.” Pseudo-Plutarch urges his bereaved addressee to consider Plato’s advice for how to behave in “calamities” (συμφοραί): “Plato appears to advise us in such misfortunes to maintain a calm demeanor [ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν], since neither the evil nor the good in them is at all plain, and since no advance is made by the man who takes things much to heart.’” 84 Jean Hani translates ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν here the same way as Frank Babbitt, “à garder notre calme.” 85 Plato’s quote derives from his discussion about how “a decent man” who has suffered an immense loss, like the death of a child, would behave in his grief (Resp. 603E–604D). He should “face misfortunes calmly [ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν] as far as possible and not get agitated” as he strives to exhibit “the calm, thoughtful disposition [τὸ φρόνιμὸν ἡσύχιον ἦθος].” 86 According to Plato, “if we can stay calm [ἂν δυνώμεθα ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν]” whenever “anxiety” or “grief ” befalls us, we can be proud of ourselves that we have chosen “the manly thing to do.” 87 The Platonic corpus also provides an example of ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν as consolatory exhortation. When Socrates drinks the cup of hemlock, his friends “burst into tears,” causing him to rebuke them with these words, “calm down and pull yourselves together [ἡσυχίαν τε ἄγετε καὶ καρτερεῖτε].” 88 In conclusion, the exhortation φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν capitalizes on shared cultural values between Greeks and Hellenistic Jews. A calm demeanor in bereavement was the ideal celebrated by Plato and advocated by the Consolation to Apollonius, yet it was also the conviction of the poet of Lamentations, who had seen death, destruction, and persecution but still wrote that one must wait and be calm until the Lord’s salvation should appear. Characters within the 83 LSJ s. v. ἡσυχία I.4: “a. ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν keep quiet, be at peace or at rest, Hdt. 1.66, Pl. Ap. 38a, Isoc. 6.2, D. 4.1, etc. … b. ἡσυχίαν ἔχειν, = ἡ. ἄγειν, but generally implying less continuance.” 84 Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 113E–F (Babbitt, LCL). 85 Hani, Consolation à Apollonios, 116. 86 Plato, Resp. 604B, 604E (Emlyn-Jones and Preddy, LCL). 87 Plato, Resp. 605D (Emlyn-Jones and Preddy, LCL). 88 Plato, Phaed. 117E (Emlyn-Jones and Preddy, LCL).

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

183

tragedies of Euripides urged the distressed “to be calm.” In Paul’s perspective, consolers like Amphitryon and Achilles would have been following the sound consolatory method of the God of Israel, who, long before the time of Euripides, comforted Cain in his grief and urged him to “be calm.” The perspective of Prov 15:15 that “good people are always calm” coheres with Stoic conceptions of how a “good” and “brave” man responds to adversities: “he overcomes them, and being in all else unmoved and calm rises to meet whatever assails him” (Seneca, Prov. 2.2). With the exhortation φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν, Paul could exploit the popularity of Stoic ideals of his time while staying faithful to God’s revelation in his Bible. The exhortations of 4:11 are not presented as new information to the Thessalonians but reiterate previous instruction (καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν [4:11; cf. 4:1–2]). When Paul had first revealed that they were going to be afflicted (3:4), he would have given them instructions about how to react at that time. One such instruction given “through the Lord Jesus” (4:2) was “to strive eagerly to be calm” (4:11). If the Thessalonians could maintain their composure when suffering, they would impress outsiders (4:12). From Plato to Seneca, to be calm under pressure was brave and admirable, a mark of “manliness” and virtue. For this reason, consolers were advised to give examples of people who had suffered “with calmness and self-control” (Tusc. 3.60). When Paul penned 1 Thessalonians, his readers were living in the midst of the “afflictions” that he had prophesied (3:2–4). Now in the pressure cooker, the Thessalonians needed to be reminded to be calm so that they could win approval from outsiders and thereby further the progress of the gospel. c. “Strive Eagerly … to Be Busy with Your Own Affairs [πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια] and to Work with Your Own Hands [ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς (ἰδίαις) χερσὶν ὑμῶν]” Interpreting 4:11 in light of the Thessalonians’ bereavement endows Paul’s exhortation that his readers φιλοτιμεῖσθαι … πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν with a meaning that has not been considered in previous scholarship. Ancient consolation literature offers us a new way to interpret the fact that some of the Thessalonians were not engaged in their routine social and work obligations, for idleness, neglect of one’s duties, and disregard of one’s work are common manifestations of grief. 89 In cases of unexpected death like in Thessalonica, the urge for bereaved individuals to stop living their normal lives would have been especially strong. 90 Those most se89 The inference that the Thessalonians were not working is based not only on 4:11–12 but also on 5:14 and the interpretation of 1 Thessalonians by the author of 2 Thessalonians. 90 In another situation of untimely death, the death of Plutarch’s two-year-old daughter, Plutarch reminds his wife of the dangers of neglecting one’s daily routines when in grief (Cons. ux. 610A–B).

184

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

verely affected might have wanted to do nothing at all, a sentiment that incited Plutarch to caution his bereaved wife, “we must not sit and shut ourselves in” (Cons. ux. 608F). Using anecdotes of noble sufferers, arguments, and exhortations, ancient consolers attempted to convince suffering people that it was time to stop being idle and reengage with their affairs. In cases of bereavement, they presented examples of people who continued on with their work after receiving news about the death of their children. 91 Lucius Bibulus, “on the day after he had heard of the twofold murder [of his sons], came forth and performed the routine duties of his office” (Marc. 14.1). After hearing about the death of his daughter, “within three days [Gaius Caesar] returned to his duties as a general, and conquered his grief as quickly as he was wont to conquer everything” (Marc. 14.3). “Immediately” (εὐθύς) after Pericles heard news of his sons’ deaths, he put a garland on his head and continued on with this prepared speech to the Athenians (Cons. Apoll. 118F). Consolers could make the same point that their addressees ought to return to their obligations using negative examples, such as the example of Octavia, who, “withdrawing from all her accustomed duties … buried herself in deep seclusion” (Marc. 2.4). Apart from exempla, consolers also directly exhorted the suffering to resume their work and fulfill their responsibilities. 92 Lucius Lucceius, writing to Cicero following the death of Tullia, urges him, “I entreat you as a personal favor and specially request you, if there is anything you wish to do for my sake … to resume your normal habits of life, whether such as are common to all of us, or such as are peculiarly and exclusively your own” (Fam. 5.14.3). Apollonius is given the same exhortation, “You will do well … to turn from your useless distress and destruction … and to go back to your usual and natural way of life” (Cons. Apoll. 122F). Seneca asks Polybius, “Do you suppose that your brother has towards you the disposition that no one else displays – the desire that you should withdraw from your ordinary tasks … ? This is not likely” (Polyb. 5.2). Like other consolers of his day, Paul uses both examples and exhortations to persuade his bereaved readers that they must not withdraw from their work and routine obligations. Paul depicts himself, Silvanus, and Timothy as exempla of believers who stayed on task with their mission despite suffering (2:2), opposition (2:2), and severe persecution (2:15). Their tumultuous circumstances did not cause them to become idle; they kept on “working night and day” (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐργαζόμενοι [2:9]). In 4:11, Paul reminds the Thessalonians that they, too, must keep busy with their affairs and work with their own hands 91 For a detailed discussion, see chapter 4, § 4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief. 92 Holloway captures this “common” exhortation as “not to allow grief to cause one to neglect one’s responsibilities (officia)” (Coping with Prejudice, 81); Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158–59.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

185

(4:11). They must neither let threatening external circumstances cause them to neglect their obligations, nor leave their work for someone else while they sit back and mourn. According to ancient consolatory theory, this attention to managing their affairs and engaging in their habitual work would help them heal. d. The Goal of Impressing Witnesses in Consolatory Rhetoric Paul supplies an explicit purpose for his injunctions that his readers strive eagerly to be calm, to be busy with their own affairs, and to work with their own hands: “that you may behave in a seemly fashion [εὐσχημόνως] toward outsiders [πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω] and not have need of anyone” (4:12). He intimates that these noble responses to calamity would earn them prestige among their neighbors who have yet to embrace their allegiance to Jesus, as well as result in a selfsufficient community of believers. What has not been recognized about the structure of 4:11–12 is that Paul utilizes a common strategy of consolatory rhetoric, namely, he motivates bereaved readers to display laudable behavior by claiming that countless witnesses are watching them. Ancient consolers were apt to remind bereaved people of everyone watching them in order to pressure them into exhibiting commendable behavior. 93 The theoretical basis of this consolatory strategy is discussed as far back as Plato. In theorizing about a man who had lost a son, Plato talks about the effect that being watched has on the performance of grief: “Now tell me this about him: whether you think he is more likely to fight against and resist his grief [λύπη] when he is seen by his peers, or when he is alone, by himself in a deserted place?” He said, “I suppose he will endure much whenever he is seen.” “Indeed, I think when he is alone, he will dare to say many things which, if someone heard him, he would be ashamed to say, and he will do many things that he would not welcome anyone seeing him doing.” 94

Agreeing with Plato, consolers tried to prevent their bereaved addressees from acting shamefully by constructing rhetorical crowds of witnesses whose eyes were ever upon them. Seneca and Cicero develop the theme of being watched in their consolatory letters to Polybius (Polyb. 6.1–5) and Brutus (Ep. Brut. 18.2), respectively. Seneca suggests to Polybius, “it may be that this also will keep you from excessive grief – if you remind yourself that none of the things you do can be kept secret” 93 E. g., Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.2; Fam. 4.5.6; Seneca, Marc. 1.1; Polyb. 5.4–6.5; Helv. 19.7; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F, 609C–E. For heavenly spectators, see Seneca, Marc. 25.3; Heb 12:1–2. 94 Plato, Resp. 604A.

186

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

(6.1). According to Seneca, people are particularly watching how Polybius will respond to his bereavement, “Fortune has placed you in the bright light; all people will know how you have behaved under this wound of yours” (6.2). If Polybius is “consumed by sorrow,” he will lose admirers (6.2–3). If he can control his grief and fulfill the duties of his office, he “may win approval both from wise men and from brothers” (6.4–5; 18.7). When Cicero makes the same appeal, he reminds Brutus, recently widowed, “now you have your obligations to the public and the limelight, as they say. Not only your army but all Romans, one might almost say all nations, have their eyes upon you. It would not be seemly if the man who makes us all braver were himself seen to be broken in spirit.” 95 Paul makes the same argument as Seneca and Cicero in his attempt to encourage his grieving addressees to regulate their own behavior in 4:11–12. He had previously introduced the theme of innumerable spectators in 1:6–10, in which he hyperbolically suggests that “not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place” (1:8) people are talking about the Thessalonians. In 4:11–12, Paul makes explicit that not only believers (1:7) but also outsiders (4:12) have their eyes on the young embattled church. The rhetorical crowd of spectators constructed by Paul provides social pressure for the bereaved to appear calm, handle their affairs, and maintain their work responsibilities, lest they lose prestige or forfeit any chance of earning prestige.

4.5.3 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:13–5:11 In 4:13–5:11, Paul explicitly acknowledges that some of the Thessalonians have died (οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ [4:16]) and urges the survivors to “not grieve” concerning their deaths: “But we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, concerning those who sleep [περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων], so that you may not grieve [ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε] as the rest who do not have hope [καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα]” (4:13). Instead of grieving, Paul urges his readers to “console one another” (παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους [4:18; 5:11]). He equips them for this task with prophetic visions concerning their reunion with their departed loved ones (4:15–17) and their sure salvation on the Day of the Lord (5:2–4, 9–10). Paul’s twin exhortations that his readers “not grieve” (4:13) but “console one another” (4:18; 5:11) have been recognized as typical expressions within Greek and Roman consolation literature. 96 The debate about 4:13 has revolved around whether Paul was issuing a total prohibition against grief in bereavement, or was not prohibiting grief in bereavement, per se, but hopeless grief in bereave95 96

Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.2 (Bailey, LCL). E. g., Malherbe, Letters, 264, 278; Chapa, “Consolatory Patterns,” 226.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

187

ment that Paul associates with the rest of humanity. 97 Scholarship on 4:18 and 5:11 has sought out the most plausible cultural matrix for the exhortation παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους, with most following Chapa’s assessment that “this sentence … can be fitted directly into the Hellenistic background of the letter of condolence.” 98 The consolatory functions of 5:1–11 are not as universally recognized as those of 4:13–18. Some scholars maintain that Paul wrote 5:1–11 to urge his readers to prepare themselves for the sudden and imminent Day of the Lord (5:1–11), that is, to fix a problem of moral and spiritual laxity in the Thessalonian church (5:1–11). 99 Conversely, a significant and growing contingent of scholarship maintains that the primary purpose of 5:1–11, like 4:13–18, is to comfort the Thessalonians. 100 On this interpretation, the problem Paul

97 A total prohibition of grief in bereavement: e. g., John M. G. Barclay, “‘That You May Not Grieve, like the Rest Who Have No Hope’ (1 Thess 4:13): Death and Early Christian Identity,” in Not in the Word Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, ed. Morna D. Hooker (Rome: Benedictina, 2003), 131–53, esp. 139–40; Malherbe, Letters, 204; Wanamaker, Epistles, 167; Paul Hoffmann, Die Toten in Christus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zur paulinischen Eschatologie, NTAbh NF 2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1966), 210. A prohibition of only hopeless grief: e. g., Jew, Paul’s Emotional Regime, 117–20; Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 160–61; Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 25; Richard S. Ascough, “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community-Building Language in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” JBL 123 (2004): 509–30, esp. 521–22; Green, Letters, 218; Gaventa, First and Second, 67; Richard, First and Second, 234. 98 Chapa, “Consolatory Patterns,” 226. Chapa also seeks out precedents in “the Jewish tradition” for these exhortations and has suggested that Paul’s use of παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους may have been “inspired” by 2 Macc 7:5: “as the smoke drifted about, his mother and the rest encouraged one another [ἀλλήλους παρεκάλουν] to die nobly” (“Consolatory Patterns,” 224– 28). 99 Malherbe writes, “No longer expecting the Parousia to be imminent, and in Paul’s eyes, their moral perspective no longer determined by it, their behavior was similar to that of the ‘the rest.’ In practical terms, it meant they grieved for their dead like pagans did (4:13) and, more generally, that they lived without eschatological vigilance” (Letters, 302). See also John Paul Heil, “Those Now ‘Asleep’ (Not Dead) Must Be ‘Awakened’ for the Day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5.9–10,” NTS 46 (2000): 464–71; Duane F. Watson, “Paul’s Appropriation of Apocalyptic Discourse: The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Thessalonians,” in Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse, ed. Greg Carey and L. Gregory Bloomquist (Saint Louis: Chalice, 1999), 61–80, esp. 74–75. 100 Johanson analyzes 4:13–5:11 as “a functional unit intended to convey consolation and encouragement” (To All the Brethren, 119). Nicholl agrees, “Paul’s primary purpose in 5:1–11 is to reassure the community” (From Hope to Despair, 73). Luckensmeyer and Neil categorize 4:13–5:11 as “consolatio” (“Reading First Thessalonians,” 47). Hester argues that 5:1–11 amplifies the topic of παραμυθία (“Invention of 1 Thessalonians,” 274). Joseph Plevnik writes of 5:1–11, “The prevailing note in the section is the same as in 4, 13–18 – encouragement and solicitude” (“1 Thess 5, 1–11: Its Authenticity, Intention and Message,” Bib 60 [1979]: 71–90, 79). Jaquette writes, “Focus on the eschatological content of 4:13–5:11 should not distract us from seeing the consolatory function of this pericope, a function quite at home in both philosophical and rhetorical traditions” (“Life and Death,” 39). See also Dong-Soo Kim, “‘Encourage One Another’: Paul’s Message in 1 Thess 5:1–11,” KJCS 36 (2004): 61–71, esp. 68–69.

188

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

seeks to address in 5:1–11 is the Thessalonians’ anxiety about their salvation, an anxiety precipitated by the shocking deaths in their community. 101 My own work builds on this second position. On my analysis, 4:13–5:11 is a continuous unit of exhortation and consolatory argumentation, aimed to dissipate grief (λύπη; cf. μὴ λυπῆσθε [4:13]) about the dead and lessen anxiety about the fate of the living (esp. 4:17; 5:9–10). The consolatory climax of 5:9–11 functions as a conclusion to the whole unit of 4:13–5:11, 102 as Paul reinforces his prior claim that all the Thessalonian believers will live “with the Lord” (4:17) and reiterates his intent to equip the Thessalonians to console one another (4:18): 4:17–18: And in this way, we will always be with the Lord [σὺν κυρίῳ]. Therefore, console one another [Ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους] with these words. 5:9–11:

For God did not destine us for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we keep watch or are asleep we will live together with him [σὺν αὐτῷ]. Therefore, console one another [Διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους] and build up each other, as indeed you are doing.

Paul’s attempt to present life and death as matters of indifference in 5:9–10 indicates that he is still consoling his readers concerning bereavement in 5:9– 11. This evidence prompts us to inquire if the exhortations in 5:6 and 5:8 are also intended to address his readers’ loss of loved ones. Below, I expand the conversation about consolatory exhortation in 4:13–5:11 through studies of Paul’s processes of invention regarding 4:13, 18 (cf. 5:11) and 5:6, 8. I argue that Paul modeled his advice to “not grieve” (4:13) but “console one another” (4:18; cf. 5:11) after the consolatory exhortation of God himself in LXX Ezek 24. Next, I argue that Paul’s encouragement that his addressees “keep watch and be sober” (5:6; cf. 5:8) is a synthesis of Jesus traditions concerning preparedness for the Lord’s return and Greco-Roman consolation. If the Thessalonians were to follow Paul’s instructions embedded in 4:13–5:11, they would exhibit the virtue of self-control as they processed their losses. a. What the Philosopher Ordered, God Wills: “Do Not Grieve” (μὴ λυπῆσθε) but “Console One Another” (παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους) Under the influence of popular Stoicism and Aristotle’s ideal of μετριοπάθεια, Hellenistic Jews widely rejected numerous expressions of grief sanctioned by their Bible and placed time limitations on other expressions of mourning. 103 101 Nicholl makes this argument more thoroughly than any other commentator (From Hope to Despair, 43–79). 102 E. g., Jaquette, “Life and Death,” 41; Malherbe, Letters, 300. 103 See discussion in chapter 1, § 1.4.3 Rejection of Biblical Assumptions and Arguments.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

189

When evaluated in light of the restrictions on mourning advocated by other Hellenistic Jews, there is nothing strange about Paul’s conviction that the Thessalonians ought not “to grieve” (λυπεῖσθαι [4:13]) concerning their dead in Christ, particularly because at least a month would have elapsed since the deaths had occurred. 104 Thirty days was considered a long mourning period, with seven days being the norm. 105 What is remarkable, however, is that Paul appears to have modeled his exhortations that his readers “not grieve” (4:13) but “console one another” (4:18; cf. 5:11) after the consolatory exhortation of God himself in LXX Ezek 24. Scholarship has yet to recognize any connection between 1 Thess 4:13–18 and LXX Ezek 24. 106 Nevertheless, Paul’s express intent to halt the Thessalonians’ grieving and his exhortation that they console one another capture what he would have perceived as God’s will for how the exiles of Ezek 24 should comport themselves in bereavement. Paul’s stated purpose for his arguments in 4:13–18, “that you may not grieve” (ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε), may be plausibly read as a succinct summation of God’s numerous prohibitions against mourning behaviors for the exilic Jews in LXX Ezek 24:22–23: ἄρτον ἀνδρῶν οὐ φάγεσθε, καὶ αἱ κόμαι ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν, καὶ τὰ ὑποδήματα ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν· οὔτε μὴ κόψησθε οὔτε μὴ κλαύσητε…

You shall not eat the bread of men, and your hair shall be on your head, and your sandals on your feet; you shall neither beat your breasts nor weep…

Paul’s concluding exhortation after his “word of the Lord” (4:15–17) echoes Ezekiel’s last command of the Lord to the soon-to-be-bereaved exiles: 1 Thess 4:18: παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους Ezek 24:23: παρακαλέσετε ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ

Console one another You shall console, each his brother

These correspondences between the exhortations that the bereaved not grieve but console each other in LXX Ezekiel and 1 Thessalonians seem to be more than coincidence. Paul’s view of the Bible as a repository of models (τύποι) for his own generation makes it highly likely that he would have intentionally searched the Jewish 104 Assuming foot travel, the travel time of Timothy from Thessalonica to Athens combined with the travel time of the carrier of 1 Thessalonians from Athens back to Thessalonica would have been about twenty days (Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 60). Paul would also need time to converse with Timothy and write 1 Thessalonians. 105 There were thirty days of mourning for Moses (Deut 34:8), Aaron (Num 20:29), and the destruction of Jotapata during the First Jewish Revolt (Josephus, B. J. 3.432–437). Seven days of mourning is stipulated by Sir 22:12 and depicted in Jdt 16:24. 106 The most recent analysis of recognized Pauline echoes and allusions in 1 Thessalonians does not detect any interaction with LXX Ezek 24. See E. Elizabeth Johnson, “Paul’s Reliance on Scripture in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley, ECL 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 143–62.

190

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

Scriptures for τύποι of God exhorting people in bereavement so that he could discern how God was admonishing his own generation to act in their bereavement. 107 In LXX Ezek 24, Paul found specific instructions that God had given to the exiles in Babylon about how they should respond to impending news of the destruction of the temple and the deaths of their relatives still in Israel. Through Ezekiel, God had announced their impending communal bereavement (“your sons and daughters whom you left behind shall fall by the sword” [24:21]) and commanded how they should conduct themselves at that time (24:22–23). In exhorting the Thessalonians in 4:13–18, Paul took God’s instructions to his people in LXX Ezek 24:22–23 as his τύπος, but he did not simply transfer God’s commands for the exiles to the Thessalonians. Rather, Paul adapted them to his perception of the Thessalonians’ predicament and their needs and, in doing so, heightened the consolatory effect of God’s words. God’s prohibitions against overt mourning gestures, like tearing at one’s hair (αἱ κόμαι ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν) and beating one’s chest (μὴ κόψησθε), were kept and crystalized in Paul’s exhortation μὴ λυπῆσθε (4:13). These prohibitions appealed to Paul not only because of their divine origin but also because they cohered with the exhortations of Greek and Roman consolers, that one ought not to engage in these sorts of bodily torments. 108 To follow God’s commands regarding bereavement found in LXX Ezek 24:22–23 was to behave like an educated, noble, and manly person in Paul’s context. 109 For this reason, Paul likely hoped that adherence to God’s prohibitions against mourning might even win the Thessalonians prestige from onlookers. His contemporary Hellenistic Jew Philo believed that restraint in grieving would earn admiration from society at large. Describing Abraham’s bereavement, Philo writes that the chief men of the country “were profoundly amazed” (ἐθαύμαζον οὐ μετρίως) when they observed the lack of “lamentation” (θρῆνος) in Abraham’s house following the death of Sarah, as well as the fact that neither men nor women were beating their breasts (οὐ κοπετόν, οὐκ ἀνδρῶν, οὐ γυναικῶν [Abr. 260]). Next, Paul emulated God’s command, “you shall console, each his brother” (cf. παρακαλέσετε ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ [Ezek 24:23]; παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους [1 Thess 4:18]). Paul was attempting to create a community in which each member would imitate his example in consoling those in need of comfort (2:12; 5:11, 14) and in accepting consolation (3:6–7). He thus rejected the in107 See my discussion of 1 Cor 10:6–11 above in chapter 4, § 4.5.1 Paul’s Processes of Invention. 108 Speaking of the proper ways to honor the departed, Pseudo-Plutarch writes, “No good man is worthy of lamentations [θρῆνοι], but of hymns and joyful songs; not of mourning [πένθος], but of a good memory; not of tears [δάκρυα]…” (Cons Apoll. 114D). See also Cons. Apoll. 112E–113B, 117F. 109 Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 113A. See also, Plato, Resp. 605D; Cicero, Fam. 4.5.6; 4.13.4; Seneca, Polyb. 6.2; Ep. 99.1–2; Josephus, B. J. 4.42.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

191

junction “you shall not be consoled from their mouth [ἀπὸ στόματος αὐτῶν οὐ παρακληθήσεσθε]” (Ezek 24:22) 110 as contrary to this ideal church culture. Paul did not appropriate God’s command that the bereaved exiles “pine away in [their] injustices” (ἐντακήσεσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀδικίαις ὑμῶν [Ezek 24:23]), because he held that his addressees’ afflictions, bereavement being one of them, were in no way indicative of divine displeasure but a consequence of their faithfulness to God (1:6; 2:13–16; 3:3–4). In contrast, Ezekiel viewed both the destruction of the temple and slaughter of Jerusalem Jews as God’s just judgment of his people’s sin (Ezek 24:14). These omissions show that Paul selectively drew from God’s exhortation in LXX Ezek 24:22–23, appropriating commands that cohered with philosophical consolatory discourse but rejecting those that placed guilt upon the bereaved and would hinder their consolation. b. Consolatory Exhortation at the Intersection of Jesus Tradition and Greek Philosophy: “Let Us Keep Watch and Be Sober” (γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν) To my knowledge, Paul’s advice that the Thessalonians “keep watch and be sober” (5:6) has never been analyzed in light of ancient consolatory exhortation. 111 Paul reiterates his call to sobriety in 5:8, writing, “since we belong to the Day, let us be sober [νήφωμεν], for we have put on a breastplate of faith and love, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.” These verses are usually interpreted as calls to “sober vigilance,” 112 intended to motivate the Thessalonians to prepare themselves for the Day of the Lord. 113 Some surmise that Paul presumed believers would fight in an eschatological battle. 114 Others argue that the aorist participle ἐνδυσάμενοι in 5:8 implies that the Thessalonians had already been

110 In Ezekiel, God paradoxically commands the people to console each other but not accept the consolation offered. This leaves his people in a tensive situation, unable to mourn and be consoled in the usual fashion. 111 Gaventa hints at this possibility in her summary of how “formal letters of consolation … approach the problem of grief ”: “The bereaved individual is admonished to ‘behave’ better – use reason, be sober, be restrained” (First and Second, 73). However, Gaventa does not compare these letters of consolation with Paul’s call to sobriety in 5:6 and 5:8. 112 Malherbe, Letters, 296. 113 E. g., Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 149; Malherbe, Letters, 302; Heil, “Those Now ‘Asleep,’” 464–71; Watson, “Paul’s Appropriation,” 74–75; Green, Letters, 241; Plevnik, “1 Thess 5, 1–11,” 78. 114 E. g., Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, ‘Put on the Armour of God’: The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians, JSNTSup 140 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 84–93; Gupta, “Paul and the Militia Spiritualis Topos,” 13–32; Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 62. Even Malherbe holds that 5:8 reflects an eschatological battle, despite advocating for reading νήφειν in 5:8 in its philosophical sense (Letters, 297).

192

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

clad in the armor of faith, love, and hope since their conversion, 115 such that Paul issues “an exhortation to make better use of one’s gifts or armor.” 116 My own interpretation builds on this second position. Although aorist participles can express coincident action to the main verb, they usually express action prior to the main verb. 117 Paul makes it clear in 1:2–5 that he viewed the Thessalonians as already clothed in faith, love, and hope since they accepted the gospel. I thus agree with Boring that “the readers are not urged to put on armor but to recognize that they are already armor-clad.” 118 The purpose of 5:1– 11, to equip the Thessalonians to “console” and “build up” each other (5:11), must guide the interpretation of the exhortations in 5:6 and 5:8. Exhorting already distressed readers to be alert and ready for eschatological battle would not contribute to the stated goal of consolation and edification. I show that the exhortations to “keep watch” (5:6) and “be sober” (5:6, 8) are the result of Paul’s tendency to offer consolatory exhortation at the intersection of Jesus traditions and Greek philosophical consolation. The instruction “to keep watch” rather than “sleep” (5:6) is dependent on Jesus tradition, while the encouragement to “be sober” capitalizes on a point of convergence between Greek philosophical consolatory exhortation and Jesus traditions about the Lord’s return. Scholars usually translate γρηγορῶμεν along the lines of “let us stay awake” because Paul contrasts καθεύδωμεν with γρηγορῶμεν in 5:6: “let us not sleep [μὴ καθεύδωμεν] like the rest, but γρηγορῶμεν.” 119 In early Jesus tradition, γρηγορέω means not only “to stay awake” but “to watch” or “to be watchful.” 120 Instead of sleeping (καθεύδω [Mark 13:36]), Jesus commands his disciples to “keep watch” (γρηγορεῖτε [Mark 13:35, 37]) for the return of the Son of Man 115 “One must see the participle as insisting on a past action, namely, the time of baptism when converts became children of light and were armed with the armor of light (see Rom 13:12 – with aorist also)” (Richard, First and Second, 254). Boring writes, “Such armor is not gearing up for participation in the final eschatological battle, for this battle is already won, and believers have been armor-clad by its results from the time of their conversion” (I and II Thessalonians, 183). See also, Gaventa, First and Second, 72; Wanamaker, Epistles, 186. 116 Richard, First and Second, 255. 117 “The action set forth by the aorist participle is generally antecedent to that of the leading verb; but it is sometimes coincident or nearly so, when it defines, or is identical with, that of the leading verb, and the subordinate action is only a modification of the main action” (Smyth, Greek Grammar § 1872c.). In my view, putting on armor does not “define” being sober, nor is it “identical with” being sober. Rather, having put on the armor of faith, love, and hope in the past (ἐνδυσάμενοι) is a reason for being sober now (νήφωμεν). 118 Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 176. 119 E. g., Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 175; Malherbe, Letters, 288. Witherington translates “keep awake” (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 126). 120 The καθεύδω/γρηγορέω verb pair is found in Mark 13:33, 35, 37; Matt 24:13, 43; Luke 12:37; 21:36. LSJ s. v. γρηγορέω A “to be or become fully awake, watch.” BDAG s. v. γρηγορέω 1 “to stay awake, be watchful.” This nuance is recognized by Gaventa, who writes of 5:6–8, “Since believers belong to the day, they should remain awake, sober, watchful” (First and Second, 71).

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

193

from heaven. 121 The context of 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 supports this nuance of γρηγορέω, since it describes the return of the Lord and how believers ought to live in light of it. In 5:6, Paul asks his distressed readers to distinguish themselves from the “sleeping” rest by “watching” for the Lord’s return. Because Paul links the Lord’s return with the resurrection of deceased Thessalonians in 4:13–18, Paul’s rhetoric suggests that the bereaved believer who “keeps watch” focuses their attention on the future parousia in which they will both meet their Lord and be reunited with their lost loved ones. Whereas the imperative γρηγορεῖτε carries an ominous tone in the Synoptic Gospels (failure to keep watch results in punishment), the hortatory subjunctive γρηγορῶμεν functions as consolatory exhortation in 1 Thessalonians because it redirects the attention of God’s grieving people away from their loss and toward God’s plans to save and restore. 122 While those “without hope” grieve over the death of their departed (4:13), the Thessalonians should be “watching” for God’s imminent action to reunite them with their loved ones and their Lord (5:6). Synoptic Jesus traditions about the Lord’s return do not include an imperative for Jesus’s followers to “be sober” yet strongly convey the necessity of sobriety while awaiting the Lord by showing the disastrous consequences of drunkenness. In both Matthew and Luke, the servant of the Lord who failed to keep watch but became drunk is sawn in two and grouped with the unbelievers (Matt 24:42–51; Luke 12:37–46). 123 Paul utilizes the same cluster of verbs as the Synoptics in discussing conduct before the Lord’s return (καθεύδω [5:6–7]; γρηγορέω [5:6]; μεθύσκομαι [5:7]; μεθύω [5:7]) but places the most emphasis on the need to “be sober” by issuing the hortatory subjunctive νήφωμεν twice, in 5:6 and 5:8. Given that these are embedded in consolation regarding bereavement (4:13–5:11), I argue that Paul urged his readers to “be sober” to capitalize on a point of convergence between Jesus traditions about the Lord’s return and the philosophical consolatory exhortation that the distressed “be sober” or “self-controlled.” 124 Consolers of Paul’s day sometimes urged the downcast “to be sober” (νήφειν) as the proper response to their adversity. One example is the consolation speech Josephus attributes to Vespasian, who he writes “was consoling” (παρεμυθεῖτο) his army following the greatest military “disaster” (συμφορά) they had encountered thus far (B. J. 4.39–48). In explaining that “it is unmanly to be 121

See also Matt 24:42–43; 25:13; Luke 12:37. In this attempt to redirect his readers’ focus, Paul consoles like a biblical prophet. See, e. g., Jer 38:16–17; Isa 49:21–22; 50:11; 66:12; Bar 4:27–5:9. 123 Cf. γρηγορεῖτε (Matt 24:42–43); γρηγοροῦντας (Luke 12:37); γρηγορῶμεν (1 Thess 5:6); πίνῃ μετὰ τῶν μεθυόντων (Matt 24:49); μεθύσκεσθαι (Luke 12:45); οἱ μεθυσκόμενοι (1 Thess 5:7). 124 LSJ s. v. νήφω A.II.1 “metaph., to be self-controlled.” BDAG s. v. νήφω “in the NT only fig. = be free fr. every form of mental and spiritual ‘drunkeness’, fr. excess, passion, rashness, confusion, etc. be well-balanced, self-controlled.” 122

194

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

downcast in misfortunes,” Vespasian says, “the best man [ὁ ἄριστος] is he who is sober/self-controlled [ὁ νήφων] even in good fortune, in order that he may still remain cheerful when contending with defeats” (B. J. 4.42). To reinvigorate his despondent troops, Vespasian lauds sobriety/self-control as the virtue “the best man” exhibits in both good times and disaster. The second- or third-century CE consolatory letter P.Wisc. II 84 offers another example of νήφειν in consolatory exhortation. Sempronius writes his bereaved mother, “I know that you, too, are in more sorrow than him [ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν λυπῇ]. But, as soon as possible, be serene [νῆψον], because of my siblings and the child” (column III, lines 35–38). 125 This letter juxtaposes λυπεῖσθαι and νήφειν as opposite and visible responses to the death of a loved one and urges the bereaved to replace their grieving with calm and collected behavior. Analogously, Paul urges his bereaved readers to cease grieving (μὴ λυπῆσθε [4:13]) and be sober/self-controlled (νήφωμεν [5:6, 8]). This parallel suggests that Paul uses νήφωμεν to reiterate and expand upon his prior instructions to be calm (4:11) and not grieve (4:13). Between μὴ λυπῆσθε and νήφωμεν, Paul supplies several reasons his readers should not grieve: the salvation of their loved ones is secure, and they will be reunited with them (4:14–18), their persecutors will not escape punishment (5:1–3), and their identity as “children of light and children of day” affords them safety on the Day of the Lord (5:4–5). Because of these (ἄρα οὖν [5:6]), Paul felt justified not only to prohibit grief but also to instruct the Thessalonians to embody its opposite, sobriety and self-control (5:6, 8). Paul employs military imagery to build his readers’ confidence that they are capable of sobriety in hardship: they are armed with “a breastplate of faith and love, and the hope of salvation as a helmet” (5:8). His allusion to the armor of the divine warrior in Isa 59:17 in no way warrants the conclusion that we “reject the possibility of [Stoic] influence” on Paul’s use of military imagery in the verse. 126 Paul was cosmopolitan enough to have been influenced by both Isa 59 and contemporary moral philosophy when he urged the Thessalonians to be sober in light of the defensive armor they wore. The use of military imagery to depict the struggles of ordinary people was common in the early Roman Empire, particularly among Stoics. 127 Hellenistic Jews such as Philo, Josephus, and 125

Translation and text from Chapa, Letters of Condolence, 76–77. Isa 59:17: καὶ ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα καὶ περιέθετο περικεφαλαίαν σωτηρίου ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ περιεβάλετο ἱμάτιον ἐκδικήσεως καὶ τὸ περιβόλαιον… Contra Sevenster, who also writes of Paul’s military imagery, “There is … not the slightest reason to assume that Paul has derived this imagery from the Stoic school” (Paul and Seneca, 162). 127 Abraham Malherbe, “Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War,” in Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity; Collected Essays, 1959–2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe, NovTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 135–66, esp. 146; Malherbe, Letters, 297– 98; Victor C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature, NovTSup 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 163; Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, 160–64. 126

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

195

the author of 4 Maccabees employed military imagery to depict how virtuous people confront and endure the vicissitudes of life. 128 Given the prevalence of this agon motif, Seneca and Hellenistic Jewish consolers alike often framed the adversity of those under their care as a battle and depicted them as soldiers equipped for the fight. 129 Paul employs this topos in 1 Thess 5:8 by reminding the Thessalonians that God has not left them exposed but has clothed them with the armor of faith, love, and hope. 130 Furthermore, God has revealed that the outcome of their battle is already determined; they will obtain “salvation,” and their oppressors will be destroyed (5:9; cf. 5:1–4). Paul’s connection between sobriety and wearing virtues as defensive armor in 5:8 is analogous to Seneca’s use of military imagery to describe how a “sober” man, “full of virtues human and divine,” is protected by his virtues: “His goods are girt about by strong and insurmountable defenses.… The walls which guard the wise man are safe from both flame and assault, they provide no means of entrance – are lofty, impregnable, godlike.” 131 Paul encouraged his readers to recognize that they were “armed” with the virtues of faith, love, and hope in the same way that Seneca portrayed the wise man as “armed” with “virtues human and divine” (Const. 6.8). For both Paul and Seneca, being armed with virtues enables a person to “be sober” (νήφωμεν [5:8]) and “bear hardship calmly” (Const. 6.3). A crucial difference, however, is that Paul views the Thessalonians’ armor as bestowed by God, while Seneca understands the armor of the wise man to derive from philosophy (esp. Ep. 82.5). 132

4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22 Scholarship on 1 Thessalonians is divided over the degree to which Paul’s advice in 5:12–22 was intended to apply specifically to the situation at Thessalonica. Until recently, the majority of scholars followed Martin Dibelius’s assessment of Paul’s closing paraenesis, that these were “rules and directions … not formulated for special churches and concrete cases, but for the general require128 See esp. Pfitzner’s treatment of “Hellenistic Judaism and the Agon Tradition” (Paul and the Agon Motif, 38–72). 129 E. g., Seneca, Marc. 10.4, Polyb. 6.2, Helv. 3.1, 5.3, 15.4; 1 Thess 5:8; Heb 12:4; 4 Ezra 7.57–58; 1 Tim 6:12. Cf. Wis 18:20–22; Seneca, Ep. 59.7–8, 99.32; Dio Chrysostom, Aegr. 16.6–7. 130 Plevnik astutely remarked of 1 Thess 5:6–8, “The mention of the defensive armor suggests that Paul … regards the present life as a siege” (“1 Thess 5, 1–11,” 86). See also Richard, First and Second, 254–55. 131 Seneca, Const. 6.3–8 (Basore, LCL). See also Seneca, Ep. 59.7–8; 82.5. 132 In distinguishing “Paul’s picture of the Christian warfare” from “the moral battle of the Hellenistic moral philosopher,” Pfitzner writes, “The moral athlete trusts in his own prowess and strength, the soldier of God relies only on the strength and the weapons which he receives from God” (Paul and the Agon Motif, 163).

196

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

ments of earliest Christendom.” 133 In 2000, Malherbe wrote that “most commentators [of 1 Thess 5:12–22] surmise that Paul is using traditional material of general applicability that is not addressed to specific conditions in the Thessalonian church.” 134 Since then, the tide has shifted, 135 such that scholars tend to argue one of two positions: (1) that some, but not all, of the exhortations in 5:12–22 were issued in response to the particular situation of the Thessalonian church, 136 or (2) that each aspect of Paul’s advice in 5:12–22 was formulated in light of Paul’s understanding of their specific needs. 137 Investigating the advice of 5:12–22 in terms of ancient consolatory rhetoric can point a way forward through this debate, for consolatory exhortation was both general and specific. The imperatives consolers issued were general in that there was a common stock of exhortations used to console people in distress. 138 Yet these same imperatives and appeals were specific in the sense that a consoler would select some exhortations and not others based on several factors, such as their estimation of the emotional state of the distressed, the amount of time that had elapsed since the trauma, and what they believed the distressed was willing to accept. 139 Although consolers interspersed imperatives throughout their let133 Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, trans. Bertram Lee Woolf (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1935), 238. 134 Malherbe, Letters, 308. 135 Green’s 2002 commentary, however, represents the older view (Letters, 246). 136 Boring, e. g., hypothesizes that “5:12–14 is less dependent on traditional material” than 5:15–22 since there are parallels between 1 Thess 5:15–22 and Rom 12:9–18 (I and II Thessalonians, 190). Within 5:15–22, Boring theorizes that the commands of 5:19–22 were “triggered by the phenomenon of charismatic speech that breaks out in the worship service (I and II Thessalonians, 195). See also Richard, First and Second, 274; Gaventa, First and Second, 79–85. 137 E. g., David Alan Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature, rev. ed. (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 14–15; Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 166; Malherbe, Letters, 308–36; Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 146; Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, EKKNT 13 (Zürich: Benziger, 1986), 240–41; Calvin J. Roetzel, “1 Thess 5:12–28: A Case Study,” in The Society of Biblical Literature One Hundred Eighth Annual Meeting Book of Seminar Papers, 2 vols. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 2:367–83, esp. 373. 138 See appendix 1: “The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric.” 139 Consolers would not ask a grieving person to stop mourning when they were still in shock, believing that too early attempts to console would inflame rather than tame the grief (e. g., Seneca, Helv. 1.2). The Consolation to Apollonius states that it would have been “unsuitable” to visit Apollonius and urge him to bear his lot as a man should when he was still “prostrated in both body and soul by the unexpected calamity” (102A–B). Cicero writes, “Just as in our legal cases we do not always employ the same status (that being our term for the various argumentative strategies) but rather adapt our speeches to the needs of the moment, the nature of the case, and the persons involved, so also in soothing distress we must consider what sort of cure each hearer is able to accept” (Tusc. 3.79). Seneca is explicit about the need to adapt arrangement and content based on the needs of the person being consoled, writing, “I am aware that all those who wish to give anyone admonition commonly begin with precepts, and end with examples. But it is desirable at times to alter this practice; for different people must be dealt with differently. Some are guided by reason, some must be

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

197

ters, a unit of final exhortation just prior to the farewell, like Paul does in 5:12– 22, is common. 140 Aelius Theon, in fact, recommended that consolers conclude with “words of admonition” (λόγοι νουθετικοί). 141 These final instructions specified how the suffering person ought to act in light of the previous consolatory arguments and exhortations. I argue that Paul followed this compositional practice and composed the densely packed exhortation of 5:12–22 to recapitulate key aspects of how the Thessalonians ought to live in light of the preceding appeals and consolatory arguments. The exhortations of 5:12–22 are not random and generalized instructions but connected with Paul’s overall consolatory intent. Margaret M. Mitchell has argued that Paul recapitulated his argument for church unity in 1 Corinthians through his exhortations in 1 Cor 16:13–18. 142 I argue that Paul engaged in this same compositional practice of recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις) using exhortations in 1 Thess 5:12–22. In doing so, I build upon the observation of Smith that “these precepts have already been modeled in the previous large units.” 143 At the same time, I present a new argument, that these exhortations recommend concrete courses of action to ameliorate each trauma addressed by the letter: separation from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (5:12–13), hostility and persecution from outsiders (5:14–22, esp. 14–15), and bereavement (5:14–22). In the beginning of his letter, Paul casts himself and his coworkers as the Thessalonians’ past role models for how to act in affliction (ἐν θλίψει [1:6– 7]). 144 In doing so, he implicitly reminds them that they should continue to view Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as models for how to navigate their current θλίψεις (3:3). Because the Thessalonians cannot observe them in person, Paul uses his letter to represent himself, Silvanus, and Timothy as role models for how they ought to act ἐν θλίψει. Paul characterizes the circumstances of himself and his coworkers as τῇ ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει, “in distress and affliction” (3:7), in order to mirror the Thessalonians’ predicament and provide a platform for their epistolary selves to display “God’s will” (4:3; 5:18) for their behavior. My theory that the cowriters deliberately present themselves as embodying ideal confronted with famous names and an authority that does not leave a man’s mind free, dazzled by showy deeds” (Marc. 2.1). 140 E. g., Cicero, Fam. 4.5.6; 4.13.7; Ep. Brut. 18.2; Seneca, Ep. 63.15; Polyb. 28.6–8; Helv. 19.7; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 612B; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 121E–122A. 141 Prog. 2:117.24–25. 142 Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 178–79, 186, 294. 143 Smith, Comfort One Another, 90. 144 1 Thess 1:6–7: “And you became imitators of us [ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε] and of the Lord when you received the word amid great affliction [ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ] with joy from the Holy Spirit [μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου], with the result that you became a model [ὥστε γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπον] to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.”

198

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

responses to affliction (θλῖψις) and distress (ἀνάγκη) is confirmed by the numerous correspondences between the narrated behaviors of the writers in 1:2– 5:11 and the behaviors they ask of their distressed readers in 5:12–22. These instructions recapitulate what the epistolary Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy have modeled and exhorted all along, from 1:2–5:11. a. Recapitulation of the Appeal to Increase in Love for One Another and for Everyone In 5:12–15, Paul recapitulates his appeal of 3:12 that the Thessalonians “increase and abound in love [τῇ ἀγάπῃ] for one another and for everyone [εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας].” Following the same structure as in 3:12, Paul first exhorts acts of love within the church (5:12–14c) and then acts of love toward everyone (5:14d–15). He concludes the unit by summarizing their ethical obligation toward the church and society, “pursue the good always both for one another and for everyone” (εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας [5:15]). Paul begins his exhortations to love within the church by endorsing the church leaders in Thessalonica: “But we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who labor among you and preside over you in the Lord and admonish you and to esteem them most highly in love [ἐν ἀγάπῃ] on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves” (5:12–13). 145 While Paul presided over the Thessalonian church from afar through letter-writing and envoys (3:1– 10), he also sought to support local church leadership by issuing these specific instructions for how believers might increase their love for them (cf. 3:12). He attempts to garner greater esteem and love for local leaders by depicting them as μιμηταί of himself, Silvanus, and Timothy. The local leaders “labor” among the Thessalonians (τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν [5:12]), as the writers “labored” among them (Μνημονεύετε … τὸν κόπον ἡμῶν [2:9]; cf. ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν [3:5]). They perform essential “work” (τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν [5:13]), just as their founders were “working night and day” (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐργαζόμενοι [2:9]). They “admonish” the Thessalonians (νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς [5:12]) as their founders do by letter (2:12; 4:1–12). Paul’s depiction of these leaders as imitators of himself, Silvanus, and Timothy completes his consolatory arguments regarding their prolonged absence (2:17–3:13). Although Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy are not present, the Thessalonians’ local leaders continue the labor of their founders and are approved by them. When Paul instructs the Thessalonians to perform acts of love toward one another and everyone in 5:14–15, he again advocates behaviors that he, Silva145 “Be at peace among yourselves” (εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς [5:13]) seems to be a positive way of urging the addressees to avoid dissension with the local leaders. Several early textual witnesses (e. g., �30 ‫ א‬D* F G) interpreted the exhortation in this way, reading “be at peace with them” (εἰρηνεύετε ἐν αὐτοῖς [5:13]).

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

199

nus, and Timothy previously modeled in person and by letter. The Thessalonians must “admonish the idle” (νουθετεῖτε τοὺς ἀτάκτους [5:14]), just as their founders urge the idle to “strive eagerly … to be busy with your own affairs and to work with your own hands” (4:11). They need to “console the fainthearted” (παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους [5:14]), following their founders’ example in Thessalonica (παραμυθέομαι [2:12; 3:1–4]) and by letter. They must “help the weak” (ἀντέχεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν [5:14]), a task for which the cowriters supply several paradigms, such as how to help those with easily shaken faith (3:2–3), believers struggling with requisite sexual ethics (4:3–8), and those so overcome by grief that they have withdrawn from their work and social obligations (4:11–18). They must “be patient toward everyone” (μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας [5:14]; cf. εἰς πάντας [3:12]), a response to harassment their founders modeled when outsiders mistreated and persecuted them (2:2, 15). To underline the necessity of nonretaliation when persecuted, Paul urges individuals in the church to regulate the behavior of one another to ensure that “no one repay anyone evil for evil” (ὁρᾶτε μή τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδῷ [5:15]). 146 Unequivocally, this exhortation is the action item corresponding to their own experiences of persecution. To prepare for it, Paul issued prior consolatory arguments intended to restrain the impulse to retaliate when harmed. 147 Instead of seeking vengeance, Paul urges the Thessalonians to “always pursue what is good for one another and for everyone” (πάντοτε τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκετε [καὶ] εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας [5:15]). This exhortation, which concludes the unit, commands what Paul had prayed for in 3:12 (πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεύσαι τῇ ἀγάπῃ εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας) while clarifying that to love others means to seek their good. b. Exhortations to Constancy in Rejoicing, Prayer, and Thanksgiving The three exhortations of 5:16–18 constitute a new unit, as each summons the distressed Thessalonians to maintain the same core behaviors regardless of their circumstances: “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything. For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” Paul issued these imperatives to encourage the Thessalonians to adopt behaviors in their suffering that would facilitate their consolation. In contrast to current scholarship, which does not recognize 5:16–18 as consolatory exhortation, I demonstrate that rejoicing, 146 Paul’s stance on nonretaliation is typical of Hellenistic Jewish literature (Zerbe, Nonretaliation). See, e. g., Wis 18:2; Rom 12:14, 19–21; Matt 5:38–48; Luke 6:27–36; Let. Aris. 232; Seneca, Const. 14.3–4. For nonretaliation as a characteristic of the ideal philosopher, see Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 103–6. 147 E. g., the Lord is an “avenger” (ἔκδικος [4:6]) who will not allow those who harm the innocent to escape unpunished (esp. 2:16; 4:6; 5:3). The Thessalonians’ oppressors “will never escape” God’s “wrath” (5:3; ὀργή [5:9]).

200

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

prayer, and thanksgiving ἐν θλίψει were consolatory topoi. This subunit of the letter epitomizes the whole, in that we can vividly see how Paul stands at the crossroads of intersecting consolation traditions and selectively draws from them all in his attempt to counter the grief of his recipients. I show that each of these three behaviors was in accordance with “God’s will” as revealed in his Bible and as mediated through Jesus (τοῦτο γὰρ θέλημα θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς [5:18]), and moreover, that Greek and Roman consolers frequently urged their addressees to rejoice and give thanks. Paul anticipated resistance to this triad of exhortations. To rejoice and give thanks when suffering and bereaved was deemed counterintuitive by the majority culture, which expected performances of grief such as lamentation. To pray without ceasing would have been considered odd, if not impossible, by Greeks, Romans, and Second Temple Jews. Paul sought to lessen potential resistance to these imperatives by declaring that continual rejoicing, prayer, and thanksgiving was “God’s will in Christ Jesus” for his specific readers (εἰς ὑμᾶς [5:18]) and by modeling how they might embody them amid suffering through his own example in his letter. In chapters 1–3, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy repeatedly model “God’s will” that his faithful ones continue to rejoice, pray, and give thanks in spite of their circumstances (5:16–18). The cowriters describe their situation as one of “distress and affliction” (3:7): they are separated from their beloved readers like orphans who have lost their parents (2:17), unable to visit despite numerous attempts (2:18), hindered by Satan (2:18), and plagued by worry over whether the Thessalonians had fallen prey to the Tempter (μηκέτι στέγοντες [3:1; cf. 3:5]). Nevertheless, the cowriters rejoice in their afflictions on the basis of the faithfulness of the Thessalonians, writing, “we rejoice [χαίρομεν] on account of you before our God” (3:9). They effusively declare their readers to be their joy, rhetorically asking, “For who is our hope or joy [χαρά] or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his parousia? Is it not, in fact, you? Indeed, you are our glory and joy [χαρά]” (2:19–20). They model the imperative “pray without ceasing” (ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε [5:16]) by depicting themselves as “praying most earnestly night and day” (3:10). They refer to their prayers in which they “always” (πάντοτε) give thanks to God, “unceasingly” (ἀδιαλείπτως [1:2– 3]). Paul narrates one of their prayers (3:11–13) and asks for prayer in turn (5:25). They model giving thanks to God “in everything” (ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε [5:16]) via frequent outbursts of thanksgiving about what God is doing in and through the Thessalonians. “At all times” they thank God on account of the Thessalonians’ exemplary early days as a church (εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ πάντοτε [1:2]). The cowriters thank God “without ceasing” because of how the Thessalonians received their gospel not as human words but as “the word of God” (ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως [2:13]). Expressing their joy at hearing Timothy’s positive report, the writers declare their inability to thank

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

201

God enough for all the joy they feel (τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι… [3:9]). By modeling how he, Silvanus, and Timothy have been rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks in their own affliction (θλῖψις), Paul primes his readers to accept the imperatives of 5:16–18. “Rejoice Always” (Πάντοτε χαίρετε) as a Consolatory Topos In issuing the imperative that his afflicted readers “rejoice always” (5:16), Paul takes advantage of the common ground between biblical consolation, Greek and Roman philosophical consolation, the sayings of Jesus, and a growing conviction in Second Temple Judaism that a righteous person should rejoice in suffering. The prophet Habakkuk, whom Paul would later quote in his letters to the Galatians and the Romans, declared that he would “rest” (ἀναπαύσομαι [3:16]) and “rejoice” (χαρήσομαι [3:18]) while enduring the calamities of the Babylonian exile. 148 In a time when “the ungodly devour the just” (2:13) and food is scarce, Habakkuk writes, “I will rest in a day of affliction [ἀναπαύσομαι ἐν ἡμέρᾳ θλίψεως].… For a fig tree will bear no fruit, and there will be no produce in the vineyards … and there are no cows at the mangers. But I will exult [ἀγαλλιάσομαι] in the Lord. I will rejoice [χαρήσομαι] in God my Savior. The Lord God is my strength, and he will set my feet to the end” (3:16–19). For Paul, Habakkuk would have been a model for how God’s people should “rejoice” when facing their own days of affliction (ἡμέρᾳ θλίψεως [Hab 3:16]; cf. θλῖψις [1 Thess 1:6; 3:3, 7]). According to Habakkuk, the saving and strengthening activity of the Lord is sufficient grounds for rejoicing while still in the midst of trouble. Habakkuk directs his gaze to God’s future action on his behalf (3:19) and proleptically rejoices in anticipation. In addition to Habakkuk, several psalms maintain that one should rejoice in calamity. 149 The speaker of Ps 31 is in need of “refuge” from his θλῖψις but finds his joy (ἀγαλλίαμα) in the Lord (31:7) and urges the righteous to “rejoice and exult in the Lord” (e. g., εὐφράνθητε ἐπὶ κύριον καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, δίκαιοι [31:11]). In Ps 32, the community’s confidence that the Lord will rescue them from death encourages them to “wait for the Lord” (32:20) and “rejoice in him” (32:21) while still in their troubles. 150 The speaker of Ps 15 “rejoices” and “ex148

Paul quotes Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11. Christine Abart analyzes Pss 15 and 32 in their Hebrew form in “Moments of Joy and Lasting Happiness: Examples from the Psalms,” in Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions: Emotions Associated with Jewish Prayer in and around the Second Temple Period, ed. Stefan C. Reif and Renate Egger-Wenzel, DCLS 26 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 19–40, esp. 20–34. 150 Ps 32:18–21: “Behold, the eyes of the Lord are upon those who fear him, those who hope in his mercy, to rescue their souls from death and to sustain them in famine. Our soul waits for the Lord for he is our helper and our defender, because in him our heart will rejoice [εὐφρανθήσεται], and in his holy name we hoped.” 149

202

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

ults” in the midst of danger because of the strengthening presence of the Lord with them. 151 Greek and Roman philosophers disagreed with Habakkuk and the Psalms about why one ought to rejoice in adversity, but shared the premise that rejoicing in adversity was the best course of action. 152 Paul’s contemporary Seneca held that “the wise man is joyful, happy, and calm, unshaken” (Ep. 59.14). 153 According to him, the “real joy” of the wise man “never ceases” because it is not dependent on external things, but “springs only from the knowledge that you possess the virtues” (Ep. 59.2, 16–17). With this conception of joy in mind, philosophic consolers of Paul’s day frequently urged the bereaved to rejoice. Seneca argued that people ought to “rejoice” because of the friends and loved ones they have had rather than “grieve” because they have lost them (Polyb. 11.1–3; Ep. 99.3–4). Polybius should “rejoice” that he had been able to enjoy his departed brother (Polyb. 10.6). In another usage of the topos, consolers urged the bereaved to rejoice in what they still have. Plutarch explains, “it is the act of a madman to be distressed at what is lost and not rejoice at what is saved” (Tranq. an. 469D). Thus, Helvia ought “to rejoice” in her sons who are present while Seneca is exiled (Helv. 18.2). Last, consolers argued it is more fitting to rejoice than to lament at the death of a good person. Pseudo-Plutarch writes, “no good man, after he is dead, is deserving of lamentations, but of hymns and songs of joy” (Cons. Apoll. 114D). For a consolatory speech, Menander Rhetor recommends that one quote Euripides: “It is the new-born child we ought to mourn, for all the woes he’s coming to; the dead, from trouble relieved, we should with joy and praises hence escort from home” (2.9.413.25– 29). With arguments and exhortations like these, consolers advised the bereaved to replace their grief with joy. According to Matt 5:11–12 (cf. Luke 6:22–23), Jesus of Nazareth urged his followers to rejoice in the midst of social ostracism and persecution:

151 Ps 15:8–11: “I saw the Lord before me continually [διὰ παντός], because he is at my right hand, so that I might not be shaken. For this reason, my heart rejoiced [ηὐφράνθη], and my tongue exulted [ἠγαλλιάσατο]. Yet more, my flesh will dwell in hope, because you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you permit your holy one to see corruption. You made known to me the paths of life. You will fill me with gladness [εὐφροσύνη] with your presence; delights are in your right hand forever.” 152 E. g., Cicero, Tusc. 4.6.12–7.14; Seneca, Ep. 23.3–4; 59.14–18; 66.5; Helv. 4.2–5.1; Prov. 6.1–5; Diogenes Laertius 10.22; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.8.23 (cf. 3.5.14). Holloway investigates this theme in his work on Philippians (Consolation in Philippians, 78–83). Regarding joy in Stoicism, Holloway writes, “inasmuch as ‘joy’ was the characteristic disposition or εὐπάθεια (‘good emotion’) of the sage, a person’s ability to rejoice in the face of hardship could be read as a measure of his or her progress toward wisdom and virtue” (Philippians, 3). 153 For a discussion of joy in Stoicism more broadly, see Margaret R. Graver, “Anatomies of Joy: Seneca and the Gaudium Tradition,” in Hope, Joy, and Affection in the Classical World, ed. Ruth R. Caston and Robert A. Kaster (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 123–42.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

203

Blessed are you whenever they revile you and persecute [διώξωσιν] you and speak every evil against you, lying, on account of me. Rejoice and be glad [χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε], for your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way, they persecuted [ἐδίωξαν] the prophets who were before you.

Paul shares with his Lord the consolatory exhortation χαίρετε (Matt 5:12; 1 Thess 5:16), as well as the consolatory strategies of directing the attention of those suffering to their future reward and interpreting their hardship as an unavoidable consequence of being God’s chosen ones (Matt 5:12). 154 Jesus’s stance on rejoicing in persecution is representative of a larger trend in Second Temple Judaism that held that a righteous person could and should experience joy in suffering. 155 The suffering of faithful Jews under foreign powers hostile to Judaism provided an impetus to theological creativity about the significance of suffering when its victims are pious people. Jewish writings of this period increasingly assigned positive meanings to suffering, including that suffering is God’s “discipline,” has “cleansing power,” is “predetermined” by God, is a “test” orchestrated by God, is “a sign of election,” is “a sign of the last days,” and that “suffering moves God to action.” 156 Jews at the time of Jesus and Paul discerned numerous reasons to rejoice in affliction on account of what their suffering signified. In conclusion, Paul’s imperative that his readers “rejoice always” (5:16) is a consolatory topos that is well established in the Bible, Greco-Roman consolation, Jesus tradition, and Second Temple Judaism. With such broad attestation, the guiding inspiration for Paul’s exhortation πάντοτε χαίρετε cannot be determined. There are numerous avenues by which Paul could argue that rejoicing always (even in suffering) was “God’s will” (5:18). The exhortation πάντοτε χαίρετε exemplifies Paul’s mode of offering consolatory exhortation – he seeks out the common ground between his addressees’ Hellenistic culture and their newfound commitment to the God of Israel and his son Jesus. In doing so, he demonstrates that the best aspects of Greco-Roman ethics (“best” in his view) are, in fact, consonant with “the will of God in Christ Jesus” for his readers (5:18). 154 Paul repeatedly directs the Thessalonians’ gaze to their future salvation: 1:10; 2:12, 19– 20; 3:13; 4:13–18; 5:4–10, 23–24. He argues that their suffering is nothing strange (3:3–4) but actually confirms their correct reception of “the word of God” and God’s activity among them (2:13–16). 155 For this motif in Jewish texts, see Bernardo Estrada, “The Last Beatitude. Joy in Suffering,” Bib 91 (2010): 187–209; John S. Kloppenborg, “James 1:2–15 and Hellenistic Psychagogy,” NovT 52 (2010): 37–71, esp. 57–64; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 131–32; Dumke, “Suffering of the Righteous”; Wolfgang Nauck, “Freude im Leiden: Zum Problem einer urchristlichen Verfolgungstradition,” ZNW 46 (1955): 68–80. 156 Dumke argues for these seven positive interpretations of suffering in intertestamental Judaism (“The Suffering of the Righteous,” esp. 343–59). Barry D. Smith has expanded upon Dumke’s work, specifically as it applies to Paul (Paul’s Seven Explanations of the Suffering of the Righteous, StBL 47 [New York: Lang, 2002]).

204

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

“Pray without Ceasing” (ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε) as a Consolatory Topos The notion that one should “pray without ceasing” (5:17) is foreign to typical patterns of prayer within Greek and Roman religion, Second Temple Judaism, and the early Jesus movement. Within Greek and Roman religion, prayers most often accompanied sacrifice, were spoken out loud, and occurred in public settings. 157 In the words of David E. Aune, “in Greco-Roman cultic practice, prayer is closely connected with ritual and is nearly always linked to sacrifice (cf. Iliad 1.446–456; 2.410–431) or intended sacrifice – so much so that ‘prayers and sacrifices’ (litai kai thusiai) is a traditional fixed expression found in many texts.” 158 The literature of Second Temple Judaism attests to a wider variety of times and occasions for prayer among Jews: prayers in the morning and evening, prayers at the times of the temple sacrifices, and spontaneous prayers made by both individuals and groups. 159 The New Testament gives the impression that Jesus and his earliest followers prayed frequently but intermittently. The sort of unbroken and unceasing prayer that Paul asks of the Thessalonians is odd in light of the habitual rhythms of prayer in both Jewish and Greco-Roman piety of his time. To make sense of Paul’s imperative “pray without ceasing” (ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε [5:17]), we must turn to the ancient literature of communities and individuals in crisis. With one exception, times of perceived disaster, danger, and intense emotional distress are the only instances in our corpora in which we find depictions of the pious in constant prayer and instructions for God’s people to pray without ceasing. 160 Furthermore, these depictions of and imperatives for constant prayer are found in ancient Jewish texts; no examples have been identified in ancient Greek and Roman texts. 161 When Nehemiah learns that the surviving Jews in Judah were in “great evil” and the walls of 157 Simon Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion, OCM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), esp. 15, 158; Larry J. Alderink and Luther H. Martin, “Prayer in Greco-Roman Religions,” in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology, ed. Mark Kiley (London: Routledge, 1997), 123–27, esp. 125. 158 David E. Aune, “Prayer in the Greco-Roman World,” in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 23–42, esp. 29. 159 Markus McDowell gives an excellent overview of patterns of prayer in Second Temple Judaism in Prayers of Jewish Women: Studies of Patterns of Prayer in the Second Temple Period, WUNT 2/211 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 11–27. 160 Septuagint Ps 71:15, a psalm about King Solomon, is the only text I have found from Hellenistic Jewish literature that mentions continual prayer apart from a perceived crisis: “they will pray for him continually [διὰ παντός].” 161 Holloway has directed our attention to Aesop’s fable of the sick crow, in which he says to his mother, “Mother, pray to God and don’t grieve [εὔχου τῷ θεῷ καὶ μὴ θρήνει]” (Fab. 288, cited as “similar advice” to Phil 4:6–7 in Philippians, 183). This fable attests to the assumption in Greek culture that prayer to God counteracts grief, but it does not strike the same note as ancient Jewish texts, which modeled and urged unbroken prayer in times of crisis.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

205

Jerusalem had been destroyed, he engages in traditional mourning practices and prays to God “day and night” (προσεύχομαι … ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα [2 Esd 1:6]). The Greek additions to Esther represent her prayer that God would save his people as lasting three whole days (15:1). When Judas Maccabeus believed that his people were about to “be deprived of their law and their country and the holy temple,” he ordered them to “call upon [ἐπικαλεῖσθαι] the Lord day and night” (2 Macc 13:10). They do so, imploring their God “for three days without ceasing” (ἀδιαλείπτως [2 Macc 13:12]). 162 Judith presents the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem “crying out” to God “constantly” (ἐκτενῶς) when they believe they are about to be the victims of an Assyrian invasion (4:9–12). 163 In 3 Maccabees, the author depicts the Jews awaiting execution in the hippodrome as constantly praying until God rescues them. 164 Within the Psalms, the person who is “full of trouble” and “has drawn near to Hades” cries out to God “the whole day” (ἐκέκραξα πρὸς σέ, κύριε, ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν [87:10; cf. 87:1]). In each of these portrayals of unceasing prayer, the actors have found themselves in circumstances of intense emotional distress, imminent danger, or both. These same individuals are not depicted in unbroken prayer in daily life, but when they face inordinate grief or risk losing their lives, unceasing prayer is the appropriate action. Analogously, I suggest that Paul’s call for his distressed readers to “pray without ceasing” (5:17) is a direct response to Paul’s estimation of their circumstances as unusually threatening to their well-being. Luke’s special material is illustrative in this regard, as the Lukan Jesus urges his followers to constant prayer as a prophylactic measure against losing heart: “And he was telling them a parable to show that they must always pray [πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι] and not lose heart [μὴ ἐγκακεῖν]” (18:1). Within Luke 18:1–8, the perceived danger is that the unjust suffering of God’s “chosen ones” would cause them to lose heart while they await God’s vindication (18:7–8). To console God’s “chosen ones,” Jesus urges them to “always pray” (πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι [18:1]) and assures them that God will speedily come to avenge his people (18:8). He affirms that God will grant justice to “his chosen ones who cry to him day and night” (18:7). The crucial point is that Luke (and maybe even the historical Jesus) understood continual prayer (πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι) as an antidote to “losing heart” and 162 The theme of constant prayer resurfaces in the final battle against Nicanor, concerning which the author states that Judas and his men were praying to God while they were physically fighting the enemy: οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Ιουδαν μετὰ ἐπικλήσεως καὶ εὐχῶν συνέμειξαν τοῖς πολεμίοις. καὶ ταῖς μὲν χερσὶν ἀγωνιζόμενοι, ταῖς δὲ καρδίαις πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐχόμενοι (2 Macc 15:26–27). 163 BDAG s. v. ἐκτενῶς “pert. to being persevering, eagerly, fervently, constantly.” Cf. Jonah 3:8. 164 Prayer: 3 Macc 5:7–9, 13, 25, 50–51; 6:1–17. Rescue: 6:18–29. Cf. 3 Macc 1:28, in which the Jewish people of Jerusalem let out a “continuous cry” (πυκνοτάτης … κραυγῆς) to God when King Philopator attempts to enter the inner sanctuary of the temple.

206

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

“becoming weary” (ἐγκακεῖν) under duress, that is, as a habit that would console God’s people. The Lukan Jesus urges his followers to pray “at every time” (ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ δεόμενοι) once more in 21:36, in this case, that they would be able to escape the horrors of the Day of Lord. Like the Septuagint, Luke depicts persistent prayer as necessary when God’s people are particularly vulnerable. Unceasing prayer was not normal behavior for early followers of Jesus, just as it was not normal for Second Temple Jews, Greeks, and Romans. 165 Paul is operating within the world of consolatory exhortation when he directs his afflicted readers to “pray without ceasing” (5:17). He follows the precedent of other Jewish consolers who explicitly direct the sufferer to pray to God, 166 but he intensifies the instruction by adding ἀδιαλείπτως. In this way, Paul advises what so many Hellenistic Jewish texts portray as the proper response to intense grief and imminent danger. Paul may have been aware of oral Jesus tradition that attributed the necessity of “always praying” so one might not “lose heart” to Jesus himself (Luke 18:1), but his Bible alone amply supported the idea that incessant prayer was the tried-and-true proper response of God’s people to catastrophe. In Paul’s perspective, this all-encompassing mode of prayer, which radically diverged from the sort of prayer the Thessalonians had practiced in Greco-Roman religion, would strengthen and comfort them as they navigated the afflictions of the last days. 167 “Give Thanks in Everything” (ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε) as a Consolatory Topos Imperatives that the bereaved not be ungrateful but give thanks are common in consolatory letters. 168 For example, “it is your duty not to complain about what has been withdrawn, but to give thanks for what you have had” (Marc. 12.2). Plutarch advises his wife, “we must not consider a small good a great evil, nor 165 Even the most pious Jews of the Septuagint are not represented as praying ἀδιαλείπτως. Daniel’s habit of praying three times a day is presented as exemplary (Dan 6:6, 9, 11, 12, 14), as is Judith’s practice of arising in the middle of the night to pray (Jdt 11:17; 12:5–6; 13:3). 166 E. g., Job 8:5–6; Bar 4:21, 27; Sir 38:9; Jdt 8:17; 2 Macc 13:10. Cf. Let. Aris. 233. 167 The link between prayer and receiving strength from God is engrained in the Bible and well summarized by Ps 104:4: “Seek the Lord and be strengthened [κραταιώθητε], seek his face continually [διὰ παντός].” Cf. 1 Chr 16:11; Ps 137:3. A few years later, Paul would call God “the one who comforts us in all our affliction” (2 Cor 1:4). This view of God as the comforter of his people is already assumed in 1 Thessalonians, and such divine comfort is accessed through prayer, though not exclusively. See E. Bammel, “Preparation for the Perils of the Last Days: 1 Thessalonians 3:3,” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar, ed. William Horbury and Brian McNeil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 91–100. 168 The very short, paragraph-length, consolatory letters do not contain this topos, but it is a common feature of the longer letters. On not complaining to the gods: Seneca, Marc. 15.3. On giving thanks to the gods: Plutarch, Cons. ux. 610E–611C; Seneca, Marc. 13.3–4. On being thankful, but gods not mentioned: Seneca, Ep. 99.4–5; Marc. 12.1–2; 16.3; Polyb. 10.1–6; 11.3; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 106B, 202E.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

207

be ungrateful [ἀχαριστέω] for what was given because Fortune did not deliver what we hoped for” (Cons. ux. 610E). Plutarch accepted the theory that the contemplation of blessings past and present would distract the sufferer from their current pain (Cons. ux. 610E). When Paul urges his readers to “give thanks in everything” (5:18), he advises them to give thanks in bereavement like his gentile counterparts, yet he offers a different rationale, that thanksgiving in each and every circumstance of life is “God’s will” for them (5:18). Judith and the Wisdom of Solomon each offer an example of how this consolatory topos of thanksgiving in adversity might be utilized in Jewish contexts. When Judith advises the elders of the besieged city of Bethulia, she urges them to pray and wait on the Lord (8:17), giving thanks as they live through their current privations, “Throughout all these things [παρὰ ταῦτα πάντα], let us give thanks [εὐχαριστήσωμεν] to the Lord our God, who is testing us just as [he did] our fathers” (8:24). 169 “All these things” endured by the Jews of Bethulia include being encompassed by Assyrian forces (7:19–20), lacking water (7:21–22), and fearing impending death or enslavement (7:25– 27). While Judith will raise a song of thanksgiving after the Assyrians are defeated (15:14–16:17), her consolatory exhortation to the “faint-hearted” (ὠλιγοψύχησαν [8:9]) people of Bethulia is to give thanks to God while they are still suffering. 170 They can be thankful that God is not “punishing” them by their current calamities (ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἐξεδίκησεν) but is “testing” them (πειράζει ἡμᾶς) for the purpose of “admonition” (εἰς νουθέτησιν) (8:24–27). Like Judith, Pseudo-Solomon urges thanksgiving toward God as the proper course for God’s suffering people, writing, “It is necessary [δεῖ] to rise up before the sun to give you thanks [ἐπ’ εὐχαριστίαν σου], and to pray to you at the dawning of the light; for the hope [ἐλπίς] of an ungrateful person [ἀχάριστος] will melt like winter frost and flow away like waste [lit: useless] water.” What is distinctive about Pseudo-Solomon’s usage of the thanksgiving topos is the way he connects it with hope. For him, failure to fulfill one’s obligation to give thanks to God daily puts one at risk of losing hope. If the “ungrateful person” (ἀχάριστος) loses hope, it follows that the daily exercise of thanking God in prayer would cultivate and incite one’s ἐλπίς. Centuries before Pseudo-Solomon made this connection, pious Jews had been praising and thanking God for past deliverance and current sustenance in order to renew their hope that God would again deliver and sustain them.

169 The translation of παρὰ ταῦτα πάντα is up for debate given the many nuances of παρά with the accusative. I understand παρά here to indicate duration over time, as given by Smyth’s example, “Temporal: (duration) παρὰ πάντα τὸν χρόνον throughout the whole time D.5.2” (Greek Grammar § 1692). 170 “The faint-hearted” (οἱ ὀλιγόψυχοι [5:14]) are also among the recipients of Paul’s imperative “give thanks in everything” (5:18).

208

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

The thanksgiving psalms reflect this practice in the worship of ancient Israel. 171 Joshua T. James has argued that the thanksgiving psalms have a “world-creating character,” particularly for worshipers in distress, because the act of performing these psalms in worship “offers [the] audience hope … that Yahweh hears when worshippers pray, that Yahweh responds and rescues.” 172 Septuagint Ps 33 is one such psalm that attempts to generate hope that God’s people will be rescued on account of God’s past action. 173 The psalm begins with a declaration that shares Paul’s concern with thanksgiving ἐν παντί (5:18): “I will bless the Lord at all times [ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ], continually [διὰ παντός] his praise will be in my mouth” (33:2). The speaker alternates between narrations of past rescue and expressions of confidence in future deliverance, 174 such as this one (33:18–21): Past Rescue (33:18) The righteous ones [οἱ δίκαιοι] cried out, and the Lord heard them and rescued them [ἐρρύσατο αὐτούς] from all their afflictions [ἐκ πασῶν τῶν θλίψεων αὐτῶν]. Confidence in Future Rescue (33:19–21) The Lord is near to the broken-hearted, and he will save [σώσει] the humble in spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous [αἱ θλίψεις τῶν δικαίων], but he will rescue them [ῥύσεται αὐτούς] from them all [ἐκ πασῶν αὐτῶν]. The Lord will guard [φυλάσσει] all their bones, not one of them will be broken.

The psalmist concludes with the importance of “hoping” in the Lord: “The Lord will redeem the souls of his servants, none of those who hope in him [οἱ ἐλπίζοντες ἐπ’ αὐτόν] will go wrong” (33:23). Paul is operating within this shared thought world of the thanksgiving psalms, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon when he urges the bereaved Thessalonians to give thanks to God “in everything” (5:18). To thank and praise God when one is in dire straits is a biblical ideal, but it is also a mark of wisdom and maturity among philosophically minded Greeks and Romans, leading them to also encourage suffering and bereaved people to give thanks. Different religiocultural contexts produced different rationales for why expressing thanks to God would console a suffering person. Jewish texts suggest that thanksgiving would reinvigorate a person’s hope that God would save them (e. g., LXX Ps 33; Wis 16). Greek and Roman texts assume it would distract a suffering person by redirecting their mind to pleasant thoughts (e. g., Cons. ux. 610E). As with the exhortations in 5:16–17, Paul does not explain why following his instructions would heal his readers but exhorts them to take up behaviors he deemed pro171 Walter Brueggemann and William H. Bellinger Jr., Psalms, NCBC (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 6. 172 Joshua T. James, The Storied Ethics of the Thanksgiving Psalms, JSOTSup 658 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 30–31. 173 For more examples of this pattern, see LXX Pss 29, 30, 114–117, 137, 146. 174 See also Ps 33:5, 7–8.

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

209

ductive to their consolation and seeks to gain their assent by grounding them in “God’s will in Christ Jesus” for them (5:18). c. Exhortations to Prophetic Speech and Spirit-Led Conduct ἐν θλίψει Paul completes his exhortation with instructions about living by the Spirit: “Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophecies, but test everything, hold fast to what is good, keep away from every form of evil” (5:19–22). In coherence with the thrust of the larger unit to recapitulate how to behave ἐν θλίψει as modeled by the cowriters (5:12–22), these exhortations correlate with how Paul has portrayed the role of the Spirit in him, Silvanus, and Timothy. The cowriters do not “quench the Spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε [5:19]) but proclaim the gospel “in power” (ἐν δυνάμει), that is, “in the Holy Spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ [1:4]). They do not “despise prophecies” (προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε [5:20]) but frequently utilize prophetic speech to comfort their readers. When he was with them, Paul foretold the afflictions they would encounter so that they could be comforted in knowing that their sufferings were within God’s plan (3:3–4). In his letter, Paul prophesies the joyful reunion of them and their founders at the parousia in his effort to console them about their current separation (2:19). To heal the grief of bereavement, Paul shares a prophetic “word of the Lord” (4:15–17). To palliate anxiety about judgment on the Day of the Lord, Paul prophesies that his readers will not be overtaken by it; only “the rest” will face “sudden destruction” (5:3–4; cf. 5:9–10). To my knowledge, Paul’s prohibitions against hindering prophetic speech in 5:19–20 (τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε, προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε) have not been interpreted as contributing to the consolatory goal of the letter. Paul’s negative phrasing of the imperatives, however, have led scholars to hypothesize that he believed there were efforts to silence prophetic speech in the Thessalonian church. 175 I have argued that these efforts make the most sense if one or more Thessalonians who did openly prophesy were killed by nonbelieving residents of Thessalonica (2:14–15). 176 In this situation, Paul would have needed to defend προφητεία (5:20). In my view, Paul’s own use and understanding of prophecy suggest that the prohibitions of 5:19–20 constitute his attempt to ensure that potential consolers within the Thessalonian church would not be silenced by fellow believers who feared that speaking prophetically might once again provoke vehement hostility from their συμφυλέται (cf. 2:14–15). Paul’s consistent use of προφητεία to comfort the Thessalonians points to his conviction that prophecy is a God-given and essential vehicle for reestab175 E. g., Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 196; Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 168; Malherbe, Letters, 331; Green, Letters, 260. 176 See chapter 4, § 4.1 Circumstances of Composition.

210

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

lishing hope in traumatized people. Knowing that he and his coworkers would not be present to console the Thessalonians through prophecy, Paul wanted to ensure that believers would fulfill this role for one another (5:19–20). In a later letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains the effects of one who prophesies (ὁ προφητεύων) as “edification” (οἰκοδομή), “consolation” (παράκλησις), and “comfort” (παραμυθία) (1 Cor 14:3). 177 Paul instructs the Thessalonians to engage in each of these three prophetic activities: Edification [οἰκοδομή] Consolation [παράκλησις] Comfort [παραμυθία]

Build up each other 1 Thess 5:11 [οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα] Console one another 1 Thess 4:18; 5:11 [παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους] Comfort the faint-hearted 1 Thess 5:14 [παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους]

Paul issues the imperatives παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους and οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα to conclude units in which he has shared prophecies with his readers (4:14– 17; 5:3–4, 10). In this way, he intends for his prophetic revelations to be the means of consolation (Ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις [4:18]) and the reason for his readers to console and edify one another (Διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους καὶ οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα [5:11]). Given his view of prophetic speech, Paul issues the prohibitions of 5:19–20 in an attempt to guarantee that his suffering addressees would not be cut off from this fount of consolation. With πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε (5:21), Paul refers to the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers (4:8) to discern “what is good” (τὸ καλόν [5:21]) “from every form of evil” (ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ [5:22]). The cowriters model this spiritual discernment by praising and encouraging the “good” things to which the Thessalonians must “hold fast” (κατέχετε [5:21]) while demarcating several “forms of evil” from which they must “abstain” (ἀπέχεσθε [5:22]). The imperatives of 5:21–22 recapitulate the consolatory exhortations of 4:1–5:11 in particular. Their instruction to “hold fast to what is good” (τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε [5:21]) reiterates their advice to continue in behaviors that align with “the commands of the Lord Jesus” (4:2): loving one another, aspiring to be calm, taking care of one’s own affairs, and working with one’s own hands (4:9–12). The 177 This explanation of the effects of prophecy derives from 1 Cor 14:1b–40, in which Paul advocates prophecy over speaking in tongues (14:1, 5, 39). Although 1 Corinthians was written years after 1 Thessalonians, the frequency with which Paul uses prophecy to encourage and console in 1 Thessalonians suggests that he understood prophecy to have the same effects then that he would later express to the Corinthians. Ulrich Luz wisely differentiates between the “effects” of prophecy (οἰκοδομή, παράκλησις, παραμυθία [1 Cor 14:3]) and its “content” (“divine μυστήρια [1Cor 13,2]”) in Paul’s thinking (“Stages of Early Christian Prophetism,” in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, WUNT 2/286 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 57–75, esp. 65).

4.5 Consolatory Exhortation

211

Thessalonians must maintain their “faith,” “love,” and “hope of salvation” (5:8; 1:3) and continue to “console” and “edify” each other (Διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους καὶ οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα, καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε [5:11; cf. 4:18]). The injunction “abstain from every form of evil” (ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε [5:22]) recapitulates the prohibitions given in 4:3–6 concerning activities contrary to “the will of God” (cf. Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς… [4:3]). These forms of evil include engaging in sexual immorality, using one’s body “in passionate lust like the gentiles who do not know God,” and taking sexual advantage of another (4:3–6). “Grieving,” “sleeping,” and “getting drunk” like “the rest” are also prohibited (4:13; 5:6–7).

4.5.5 Conclusion: Consolatory Exhortation in 1 Thessalonians In this section, I have identified numerous consolatory exhortations undetected by previous analyses of consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians. These include the instructions to love one another (τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους [4:9–10]), to strive eagerly to be calm (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν [4:11]), to be busy with your own affairs and to work with your own hands (πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν [4:11]), to keep watch (γρηγορῶμεν [5:6]), to be sober/self-controlled (νήφωμεν [5:6, 8]), to increase in acts of love toward one another and everyone (5:12–15), to rejoice always (πάντοτε χαίρετε [5:16]), to pray without ceasing (ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε [5:17]), to give thanks in everything (ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε [5:18]), to not quench the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε [5:19]), and to not despise prophecies (προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε [5:20]). Scholars have not recognized these instructions as pillars of Paul’s consolation because past studies have tended to approach the letter from the perspective of Greco-Roman consolation or Jewish traditions of consolation, with insufficient attention to how Paul navigates between both. 178 Additionally, current scholarship has not recognized how Paul uses Jesus tradi178 For the intersection of 1 Thessalonians and primarily Greco-Roman consolation, see Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians”; Chapa, “Consolatory Patterns”; Smith, Comfort One Another; Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” 182–85; Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians; Malherbe, Letters; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians.” For the intersection of 1 Thessalonians and chiefly Jewish traditions of consolation, see Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death”; Bickmann, Kommunikation; Watson, “Paul’s Appropriation.” Donfried suggests “striking similarities” between consolation in 1 Thessalonians and Second Isaiah but does not name or discuss these similarities (“Theology of 1 Thessalonians,” 259). A notable exception to the rule, Chapa contextualizes 4:13–5:11 within both Judaism (e. g., 2 Macc) and the “Hellenistic literature of consolation” (“Consolatory Patterns,” 224–28). In contrast to his earlier work, Malherbe analyzes Paul’s consolation in 4:13–5:11 within both Judaism and “the Greek tradition of consolation” in his commentary (Letters, esp. 261–86).

212

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

tions in the service of consolatory exhortation. 179 None of these traditions of consolation can independently account for all of Paul’s instructions for how to behave in affliction and bereavement, but they offer pieces of the puzzle. Paul mixed and molded exhortations from each of these traditions of consolation, such that the final product transcends the boundaries of each and is unequivocally the work of a Hellenistic Jew devoted to the gospel. Paul was attempting to steer his readers toward conducting themselves in calamity and bereavement in ways willed by his God, advocated by Jesus, and esteemed by Greco-Roman culture. In addition to uncovering Paul’s pervasive use of consolatory topoi in his exhortations, my research on 4:9–5:22 has uncovered two consolatory motifs that have not been discussed in scholarship on 1 Thessalonians: (1) a rhetorical crowd of witnesses who are watching the distressed and scrutinizing their behavior (4:12; cf. 1:6–10), and (2) the representation of the distressed as a soldier equipped for battle (5:8). Finally, I have proposed a new argument concerning the long-recognized consolatory exhortations to not grieve but console one another (4:13, 18; 5:11), namely, that Paul modeled these instructions after God’s commands for the bereaved exiles in LXX Ezek 24. Though Paul varies his word choice, it seems clear to me that his exhortations to “be calm” (4:11), “not grieve” (4:13), and “be sober/self-controlled” (5:6, 8) all connect to the same goal of persuading his addressees to appear calm and collected in the midst of their apparent chaos.

4.6 Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving Scholarship on the epistolary thanksgiving of 1 Thessalonians has been mired in the almost century-old debate concerning where the thanksgiving ends and the letter body begins. 180 Today, most scholars identify the epistolary thanksgiving as 1:2–10 and the beginning of the letter body in 2:1. 181 Exegesis of 1:2–10 179 Scholars do, however, use Jesus traditions to explain Paul’s consolatory arguments in 4:13–18. E. g., Stowers, Letter Writing, 145; Chapa, “Consolatory Patterns,” 226; Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” 184. 180 Schubert argued that the thanksgiving extended from 1:2 to 3:13 (Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings, BZNW 20 [Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939], 16–27). This view, which is defended by Malherbe (Letters, 133), enjoyed wide popularity in the twentieth century: e. g., Jack T. Sanders, “The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in Letters of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 81 (1962): 348–62; John L. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter Body in the Non-literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle, SBLDS 2 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972), 68–91; Peter Thomas O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, NovTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 141–44. 181 E. g., Klauck, Ancient Letters, 357–63; Morna D. Hooker, “Concluding Reflections: ‘Our Gospel Came to You, Not in Word Alone, but in Power Also’ (1 Thess 1:5),” in Not in the Word Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, ed. Morna D. Hooker (Rome: Benedictina, 2003),

4.6 Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving

213

has focused on how this unit introduces the major topics or themes of the letter, a function that all Pauline epistolary thanksgivings perform. 182 Only rarely have scholars considered the possibility that Paul utilized consolatory rhetoric in 1:2–10. In 1994, Chapa argued that “Paul’s praise of the Thessalonians (1.6– 10) … fits within a consolatory rhetorical strategy” because Paul praises “the noble way in which the addressee has faced sorrowful circumstances” and presents their noble conduct as “a source of consolation and joy for the consoler himself.” 183 Around the same time, Smith analyzed 1:2–10 in light of the exordia of ancient consolatory letters and argued that Paul followed the approach of ancient consolers in “typecasting [their addressees] as mature, sage-like figures who have already shown their fortitude in previous struggles.” 184 These astute arguments of Chapa and Smith have made little impact on commentators of 1 Thessalonians. None of the commentaries on 1 Thessalonians that have appeared in the past twenty-five years has accepted their conclusions or extended their inquiry into the relationship between 1:2–10 and ancient consolatory rhetoric. Malherbe’s influential commentary outright denies that Paul used the “most common convention” of “recalling the noble way in which the grieving person had faced loss and was dealing with adverse circumstances.” 185 In a 2016 article, Luckensmeyer and Neil endeavored to redirect the interpretation of 1:2– 10 back to ancient consolatory letters by arguing that “Paul uses the familiar epistolary thanksgiving to acknowledge instances of misfortune: receiving the word in much affliction (1.6); undergoing a traumatic conversion experience (1.9).… Community members are characterized as a model (τύπος) for be-

155–66, esp. 157–59; Jonas Holmstrand, Markers and Meaning: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians, trans. Martin Naylor, ConBNT 28 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997), 71; Wanamaker, Epistles, viii; Richard S. Ascough, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Encountering the Christ Group at Thessalonike, PGNT 13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014), 24. Berglund identifies 1:2–10 as the “Introduction” and 2:1–3:10 as the “Narration” while emphasizing that the first three chapters are dominated by “Paul’s efforts at captatio benevolentiae” (“Paul’s Rhetorical Efforts,” 541–46). 182 In the letter body, Paul expands on his initial visit to Thessalonica (2:1–12; cf. 1:5, 9), the faithful acceptance of the gospel by the Thessalonians (2:13; cf. 1:6–10), the theme of imitation (2:15–16; cf. 1:6), the parousia of Jesus (2:19; 3:13; 4:13–5:11; 5:23–24; cf. 1:10), and the wrath of God (2:16; 4:6; 5:1–10; cf. 1:10). The motif of continual thanksgiving (1:2) is repeated throughout the letter (2:13; 3:9–10; 5:18), as is the Pauline triad of “faith,” “love,” and “hope” (3:6; 5:8; cf. 1:3). According to Schubert, Pauline thanksgivings “indicate the occasion for and the contents of the letters which they introduce” (Form and Function, 27). In regard to how 1:2–10 prepares for the rest of the letter, see Hooker, “Concluding Reflections,” 157–59; Johannes Munck, “1 Thess. i. 9–10 and the Missionary Preaching of Paul. Textual Exegesis and Hermeneutic Reflexions,” NTS 9 (1963): 95–110. 183 Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158. 184 Smith, Comfort One Another, 76. 185 Malherbe, Letters, 286.

214

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

lievers elsewhere (1.7).” 186 While Luckensmeyer and Neil are correct, more comparative evidence is needed to secure the acceptance of their position. The consolatory rhetoric within 1:2–10 has yet to be widely acknowledged because previous studies have addressed this topic at a very general level, without demonstrating the close correspondence with other ancient consolatory texts. 187 To address this issue, I explicate the consolatory method of praising the addressee’s past noble response to adversity by delineating its characteristic forms and functions in the writings of ancient consolers other than Paul. I argue that Paul did, in fact, utilize this “most common convention” of strategically praising his distressed readers in 1:2–10. 188

4.6.1 Ancient Consolers Sing the Praises of the Person in Distress: Form and Functions When Greek and Roman consolers argued that the person in their care was above prolonged grief over their adversities, they praised their character. Such laudations might occur in the exordium of a consolatory letter but also appear within the letter body as components of consolatory arguments. 189 Chapa and Smith both observed that Paul’s praise of the Thessalonians’ past comportment in affliction (1:6–10) coheres with “a consolatory rhetorical strategy.” 190 In Smith’s words, “the past success then becomes a basis for dealing with any present or continuing affliction.” 191 Building upon the work of these scholars, I argue that these praises of the distressed addressee exhibit a particular form and exercise several functions. In terms of form, the praises of the distressed typically contain one or both 192 of the following elements: (1) the distressed person has demonstrated their high character or virtue in past hardship, 193 and (2) the distressed person is an ex-

186

Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 45. Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158; Smith, Comfort One Another, 76; Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 45. 188 Contra Malherbe, Letters, 286. 189 In the exordium: Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Seneca, Marc. 1.1–5; 1 Thess 1:2–10. Compare Seneca’s Ep. 99.3, in which Seneca commences his consolatory letter to Marullus with a rebuke that he is grieving his son’s death in a way that Seneca had thought was beneath his dignity. In the letter body: Cicero, Fam. 4.5.6; 5.16.5; Seneca, Marc. 3.3–4; Polyb. 6.3–5; Helv. 16.2–5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F–609A, 609C–E. 190 Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158. 191 Smith, Comfort One Another, 76. 192 These components occur together in Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Seneca, Marc. 1.1–5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F–609E. 193 Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Fam. 5.16.5; Seneca, Marc. 1.1–5; 3.3–4; Helv. 15.4–16.5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F–609E. 187

4.6 Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving

215

ample to many people who are closely watching them. 194 Cicero’s consolatory letter to Titius offers an example of the first element: It no longer becomes the moral dignity and wisdom you have exhibited from boyhood, to be inordinately impatient of the troubles that have befallen yourself.… The fact is that you have ever proved yourself, both in private and in public life, to be such that you are bound to maintain your high character, and obey the dictates of consistency. 195

As for the second, the consoler may explicitly state that it would be improper for the distressed to be seen as overcome by grief when they are an example to others. 196 Seneca advises Polybius, None of the things that you do can be kept secret. Public opinion has assigned to you an important role; this you must maintain. All yonder throng that offers you consolation stand about you, and it searches your heart, and observes how much strength this has in the face of sorrow, and whether you only know how to use prosperity adroitly, or are able also to bear adversity with courage. They watch your eyes!… Fortune has placed you in the bright light; all people will know how you have behaved under this wound of yours – whether the moment you were struck you laid down your arms, or stood your ground. 197

Consolers either directly state or strongly imply how shameful and improper it is for persons so widely admired to lose their composure when facing adversity and thus fall from their position of honor. 198 Seneca makes the point explicitly to Polybius, “You can never do anything unworthy of your claim to be a sage and a scholar without making many repent of their admiration for you” (Polyb. 6.3). Plutarch opts for the indirect route in consoling his wife, “you already showed great self-possession [εὐστάθεια] concerning such things when you lost our oldest child and again when the beautiful Charon left us” (Cons. ux. 609D). He then reminds her of how observers admired her self-control at that time (Cons. ux. 609D–E), and in this way, subtly pressures her to maintain the same self-possession in bereavement now. Each formal element of how consolers typically praised those under their care has a particular function. Reminding the sufferers that they have demonstrated high character in past hardship serves to raise their confidence that they are capable of exemplary behavior in the midst of present misfortune. Claiming that the sufferers set an example for multiple spectators is intended to motivate them to display their exemplary behavior again in order to not disappoint their admirers and lose prestige. In both instances, consolers appealed to their suffer-

194 Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.2; Fam. 4.5.6; Seneca, Marc. 1.1–2; Polyb. 5.4–6.5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F, 609C–E. 195 Cicero, Fam. 5.16.5 (Bailey, LCL). 196 Cicero, Fam. 4.5.5; Ep. Brut. 18.2; Seneca, Marc. 3.3–4; Polyb. 5.4–6.5; Helv. 19.7. 197 Seneca, Polyb. 6.1–2. 198 See, e. g., Seneca, Polyb. 6.3; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F, 609A–E.

216

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

ing addressees’ desire for honor and fear of incurring shame to persuade them to embody noble conduct amid suffering. 199

4.6.2 Paul Sings the Praises of the Thessalonians in Distress: Form and Functions Paul’s laudation of the Thessalonians in 1:2–10 contains the same two formal elements identified in ancient consolers’ praises of their addressees: (1) a reminder that the Thessalonians have demonstrated their virtue in past hardship, (2) and a claim that the Thessalonians are a model to many people who are closely watching them. If the consolers were aware of a similar past trauma their addressees had conquered, they could incorporate both of these elements into their praise, as Paul does in 1:2–10. Since Marcia is now bereaved of a son, Seneca extols Marcia’s “strength of mind” and “courage” in how she handled her father’s death (#1) and writes of that time, “your character was looked upon as a model of ancient virtue” (#2) (Marc. 1.1–2). Because Plutarch’s wife has lost a child, Plutarch praises her self-controlled response to the earlier deaths of their oldest child and their child Charon (#1) and describes how the townspeople were amazed to observe how she had maintained her household with “great composure [κατάστασις] and calm [ἡσυχία]” (#2) (Cons. ux. 609D–E). Because the Thessalonians are now living in the midst of “afflictions” (θλίψεις [3:3]), Paul praises how they comported themselves when they had initially received the word “amid great affliction” (ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ [1:6]) (#1) and claims that their conduct at that time made them “a model [τύπος] to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia” (#2) (1:7). As Paul represents reality in 1:6–7, the Thessalonians became a model for others because they exhibited joy from the Holy Spirit (μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου) in the midst of affliction (ἐν θλίψει). Joy-in-affliction is a consolatory topos with broad cultural resonance in Greco-Roman consolation, Second Temple Judaism, and the early Jesus movement. 200 Seneca uses this topos in his appeal to Polybius to set an example in how he reacts to his brother’s death: Nothing, however, will so effectually restrain your love from such useless tears as the thought that you ought to give to your brothers an example by bearing this injustice of Fortune bravely. This is the way that great generals act in times of disaster – they purpose199 E. g., Seneca writes, “I shall cause a heart that has been victorious over so many afflictions to be ashamed to bewail one wound the more upon a body so marked with scars” (Helv. 2.2). David A. deSilva has detailed how attaining or maintaining honor and avoiding shame were highly valued in first-century Mediterranean cultures (Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SBLDS 152 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995], 1–144). 200 See chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22, section b. Exhortations to Constancy in Rejoicing, Prayer, and Thanksgiving.

4.6 Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving

217

fully make pretense of cheerfulness, and conceal their misfortunes by feigning joy, lest the soldiers themselves should grow faint-hearted if they saw the spirit of their leader broken. You also must now do the same. 201

Both Seneca and Paul elevate a joyful disposition in calamity as the key trait that makes one worthy to be imitated, whether by soldiers or by “all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia” (1 Thess 1:7). Yet while Seneca implores Polybius to imitate great generals in appearing joyful in his bereavement, Paul praises the Thessalonians for having already imitated their great exemplars (Paul, Silvanus, Timothy, the Lord) by displaying joy-in-affliction (1:6–7): And you became imitators [μιμηταί] of us and of the Lord when you received the word amid great affliction [ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ] with joy from the Holy Spirit [μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου], with the result that you became a model [τύπος] to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

Instead of asking the Thessalonians to adopt a new joyful mien on account of those watching them, Paul encourages his addressees to continue their course in imitating how their founders and their Lord faced affliction, namely, by radiating “joy from the Holy Spirit” for innumerable spectators to see (1:6–11). Paul’s strategic praise of his distressed readers in 1:2–10 is intended to exercise several functions. First, Paul praises his readers to build their confidence that they are equipped to handle their current afflictions without losing their faith, love, hope, and joy. They are exemplary not only on account of their “joy” (1:6) but also because of their “work of faith and labor of love and the constancy of [their] hope in [their] Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2–3). As noted by Johanson, “whether actually current or an ever-present threat, tribulation [1:6b] would be bound to engender fear.” 202 From the outset of his letter, Paul aims to replace any fear or anxiety in his addressees with confidence and comfort. 203 To this end, he reminds them that they have already been victorious over the sort of “afflictions” they face (1:6–7; cf. 3:3). Second, Paul praises his persecuted readers in order to motivate them to lay aside their grief (4:13) and replace it with joy (5:16). 204 He first gently nudges them away from grief and toward joy by heralding joy-in-affliction as the single virtue shared by the Lord and his most esteemed followers (1:6–7). In this way, he lays the groundwork to more forcefully urge them toward this course of action in later exhortations (μὴ λυπῆσθε [4:13]; πάντοτε χαίρετε [5:16]). Second, Paul emphasizes the immense number of people watching them to his end 201

Seneca, Polyb. 5.4. Johanson, To All the Brethren, 85–86. 203 Johanson writes, “The specific context of tribulation (1:6b) gives the praise an additional persuasive dimension, viz., that of a pathos appeal to the emotion of confidence as opposed to fear” (To All the Brethren, 85). 204 See introduction, § 1. The Goals of Ancient Consolatory Rhetoric. 202

218

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

of urging them to reembody their past joyful disposition. 205 They became an example to all the believers (πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν [1:7]) in their province of Macedonia and the province of Achaia. Their fame extended beyond the borders of those provinces to every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ [1:8]). Paul populates the rhetorical crowd of witnesses in 1:6–10 with both “believers” (1:7) and people who have merely heard about the gospel as a result of the Thessalonians’ fame (1:8) in order to exert additional pressure on his readers to behave admirably. Could the Thessalonians’ example inspire others to turn to “the living and true God” themselves (1:8–10)? As Paul frames the issue, the salvation of individuals “in every place” (1:8) may hinge on the example set by the Thessalonian church under pressure. Will the believers in Macedonia and Achaia still be able to look up to Paul’s readers as their τύπος of constant hope in the Lord Jesus (1:3)? Will the rumor mill churn out stories of how the Thessalonians paradoxically appear joyful in hardships (1:6) or tragic tales of the shaken Thessalonians? Paul’s rhetoric of praise in 1:2–10 is undergirded by an implicit threat – if his addressees give into fear and fail to exhibit their faith, love, hope, and joy (1:3, 6), they will fall from their honored position as a model of the faith.

4.6.3 Conclusion: Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving I have argued that Paul utilized common conventions, motifs, and strategies within ancient consolatory rhetoric in his epistolary thanksgiving (1:2–10). He utilizes the conventions of praising the addressee’s past noble conduct in adversity and presenting the addressee’s past actions as a model of appropriate conduct. He integrates the consolatory topos of joy-in-suffering, as well as the consolatory motif of the distressed person being watched by many who are scrutinizing their behavior. Like other consolers of his day, Paul combines these conventions and motifs in an effort to persuade grieving addressees to rise above their circumstances and appear collected and even joyful in spite of them.

4.7 Expressions of Sympathy Extant consolatory letters demonstrate that consolers usually tried to sympathize with the distressed before offering consolatory arguments. 206 Most commentators on 1 Thessalonians do not recognize expressions of sympathy in the 205 Witherington correctly identifies the persuasive intent of the watching motif: “if the Thessalonians have become models of grace under pressure and persecution for those in Achaia and Macedonia, then of course they are being encouraged to keep it up, bearing in mind that they are being watched” (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 72–73). 206 Examples of lamentation/sympathy preceding consolatory arguments: Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Fam. 4.5.1; 5.14.2; 5.16.1; Att. 12.10; Seneca, Ep. 63.1; Polyb. 2.2–3.5; Helv. 1.1; 2.1–5;

4.7 Expressions of Sympathy

219

letter. Smith has tried to circumvent the objection that 1 Thessalonians lacks a “lament (sympatheia)” section as follows: In letters of consolation, the formal lament section is often subdivided into a lament and a laudation, or other comments on how the misfortune came to the author’s attention. 1 Thess 1–3, in fact, is saturated with laudatory remarks about the Thessalonians’ behavior during Paul’s absence … and in the same three chapters, Paul recounts all the events which have taken place since he was with the community, particularly how he knew of their present state (3:16). 207

While he agrees that Paul does not express grief about his readers’ misfortunes, Smith still maintains that 1 Thessalonians contains a “formal lament section” in chapters 1–3 because of Paul’s “laudatory remarks” about the Thessalonians and references to how he came to know of their situation. Most recently, Luckensmeyer and Neil categorized a much smaller unit than Smith does as lamentatio/συμπάθεια, 1 Thess 2:1–16: This section narrates occasions of suffering and emphasises the close relationship between Paul and the Jesus-followers in Thessalonica, in preparation for the consolatio to come … the narrative description of the past and current relationship between Paul and the Thessalonians serves as lamentatio. Note the several references to misfortune.… Because Paul shares in the misfortunes of the Thessalonians, he becomes an exemplum for the community. 208

For Luckensmeyer and Neil, Paul expresses sympathy primarily through narrating occasions of his own suffering that cohered with the suffering of his readers. This perspective was first proposed by Chapa, who wrote, “one of the ways of showing sympathy was through reference to a previous suffering experienced by the writer … it is consoling to know that the other person knows what sorrow means, since he has also suffered and experienced it.… Paul’s reference to his own sufferings (2.2) may be understood as having a consolatory intention.” 209 Unlike Smith and Luckensmeyer and Neil, however, Chapa does not demarcate a section of 1 Thessalonians as lamentatio/συμπάθεια. These explanations of lamentatio/συμπάθεια in 1 Thessalonians have not proved convincing to scholarship at large for several reasons. First, they identify how Paul expresses sympathy regarding only one of the three traumas the letter addresses (suffering on account of persecution), without addressing whether and how Paul expresses sympathy regarding the other two traumas (bereavePlutarch, Cons. ux. 608C–E; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 101F–102A; SB XIV 11646, lines 6– 8; P.Oxy. I 115, lines 3–9; BGU III 801, lines 3–4; P.Hamb. IV 254; Menander Rhetor 2.9.413.5– 23; Pseudo-Demetrius, Epistolary Types 5.10–13. On this structure in the papyri, see Kotsifou, “‘Being Unable to Come to You,” 395. 207 Smith, Comfort One Another, 52. 208 Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 45. 209 Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 156.

220

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

ment and separation from their founders). If Paul followed convention, one would expect an expression of sympathy for each trauma. Second, the demarcation of 1 Thess 1–3 or 2:1–16 as lamentatio/συμπάθεια disregards substantial evidence that these units have other functions as well. While I grant that these sections contain lamentatio/συμπάθεια, they contain much more than that, which makes the categorization problematic. Third, previous analyses have approached Paul’s expressions of συμπάθεια only in light of the consolatory writings of ancient Greeks and Romans, without investigating how Paul’s Jewish contemporaries expressed συμπάθεια. In my view, Paul’s decisions about how to convey συμπάθεια cannot be fully understood without interrogating how his Jewish apocalyptic worldview informed those choices.

4.7.1 Expressions of Sympathy within Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish Consolation Within Greek and Roman practice, συμπάθεια usually consisted of an expression of the consoler’s grief at what had occurred, 210 and, if applicable, the mention of a time when the consoler had experienced the same sort of misfortune. 211 For example, “your tribulations have caused me such sorrow that I am myself in need of consolation,” 212 and “I grieved and I wept over the departed as I wept over Didymas” (P.Oxy. I 115.3–5). Only rarely would a consoler not express their personal sorrow about what had befallen their addressee. 213 In contrast, Hellenistic Jews routinely refrained from expressing grief at what had occurred in their written works of consolation. 214 Hellenistic Jewish consolers typically expressed sympathy by either referring to when they had experienced the same sort of misfortune as their addressees or naming others who had experienced or were currently experiencing traumas similar to their addressees. 215 They rarely lamented whatever calamities their readers were facing, 210 On the theory behind this expression of sympathy, see Aelius Theon, Prog. 2:117.17–25. For examples, see Cicero, Fam. 4.5.1; 5.14.2; 5.16.1; 5.18.1; Att. 12.10; Seneca, Ep. 63.1; Polyb. 2.2–3.5; Helv. 1.1; 2.1–5; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 101F–102A; BGU III 801, lines 3–4; P.Hamb. IV 254; Menander Rhetor 2.9.413.5–23; Pseudo-Demetrius, Epistolary Types 5.10–13. 211 E. g., Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Helv. 1.1; Cons. ux. 608C–E; SB XIV 11646, lines 6–8; P.Oxy. I 115, lines 3–9. 212 Cicero, Fam. 5.14.1 (Bailey, LCL). 213 To my knowledge, Cicero’s consolatory letter to his bereaved friend Brutus (Ep. Brut. 18) is the only extant example within non-Jewish and non-Christian Greek and Latin consolatory letters. Rather than expressing grief, Cicero reminds Brutus of his own past bereavement and how he “pulled himself together” at that time (18.1–2). 214 Offering sympathy in person was a different manner; one was expected to “mourn with those who mourn” (Sir 7:34; Rom 12:15). 215 Reference to experiencing the same sort of misfortune as their addressee(s): Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Seneca, Helv. 1.1; 1 Thess 2:1–16, esp. 2:1–2, 15–16; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608C–E; SB XIV 11646, lines 6–8; P.Oxy. I 115, lines 3–9.

4.7 Expressions of Sympathy

221

because a clear expression of grief on their part would work against the positive interpretations of their readers’ suffering they advocated. 216 If their readers were suffering justly on account of sin, and their pain was actually a “sign of [God’s] great benefaction” (μεγάλης εὐεργεσίας σημεῖον [2 Macc 6:13]), then it ought not to be mourned. If God has chastised his people less than they deserved and “for [their] good,” so that “they may not be condemned at the end and be tormented” (2 Bar. 78.5–79.3), their suffering should be an occasion not for grief but for “hope” (2 Bar. 78.6). 217 If endurance of hostility, deprivation, and even physical suffering has been the lot of God’s faithful people from time immemorial (Heb 10:32–12:3), why should the plight of God’s people be lamented, as if something strange was happening? For theological reasons like these, Hellenistic Jewish consolers typically did not express sorrow but reminded their readers of how God’s people elsewhere had suffered and were suffering. Using this form of sympathy, Hellenistic Jewish consolers sought to relativize the intensity of whatever their addressees were facing by arguing that they were not alone but part of a suffering community.

4.7.2 Paul’s Expressions of Sympathy in 1:6–3:10 Paul utilized multiple methods of sympathizing with his addressees in regard to each trauma they faced. With respect to their afflictions (θλίψεις [3:3]) and suffering because of their countrymen (ἐπάθετε [2:14]), Paul sympathizes by demonstrating that others suffered the same things: he, Silvanus, Timothy, the Lord, the Judean believers, and their prophets (1:6; 2:2–4, 14–16). As for the Thessalonians’ bereavement, Paul shows that the Judean churches were also bereaved of at least two of their prophets as a result of hostility from their own people (2:14–15). 218 In regard to their separation from their founders, Paul Reference to others who had experienced or were currently experiencing traumas similar to their addressee(s): Wis 3:10–5:23; 10:15–11:14; 18:1–4, 20–25; Seneca, Marc. 12.5–15.4; 16.3– 4; Polyb. 14.4–16.3; Helv. 9.4–10.1; 16.6–7; 19.4–7; 1 Thess 2:1–12, 14–16; Heb 11:4–12:4; 4 Ezra 10.9–12, 19–24; 2 Bar. 78–79; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118D–119D. 216 Paul does express grief over being separated from the Thessalonians (esp. 2:17–18). Fourth Ezra is a special case, since it narrates the process by which Ezra moves from lamentation over the destruction of Jerusalem, to being consoled by God, to being commissioned to comfort his people in 14:13. When Ezra tries to console the people (14:27–36), he refrains from lamentation. 217 All translations of 2 Baruch in this monograph are cited from A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 615–52. 218 Some have argued that Paul intends to convey sympathy concerning their bereavement by depicting himself and his cowriters as metaphorically bereaved of their readers in 2:17 (Hester, “Invention of 1 Thessalonians,” 277; Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 816). While this may be the case, it is doubtful that a metaphorical expression of sympathy like in 2:17 (Ἡμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, ἀπορφανισθέντες ἀφ’ ὑμῶν…) would have been as effective as Paul’s reminder in 2:14–15 that other churches had been bereaved because of persecution.

222

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

strives to demonstrate fellow feeling with his readers by presenting himself as longing for the Thessalonians and anxious about being apart from them (esp. 2:17–19; 3:1, 5), so anxious, in fact, that he needed consolation himself (esp. 3:7). 219 Why did Paul not express sorrow about the Thessalonians’ persecution and bereavement but did so about his separation from them? What theological and rhetorical factors influenced his respective choices? Paul’s reason for not expressing sorrow about the Thessalonians’ suffering at the hands of their countrymen, even to the point of death, derives from his apocalyptic worldview. For him, the affliction of believers was not a sign that things were going wrong but, paradoxically, a sign that things were going according to God’s plan. 220 In recounting Timothy’s mission, he explains that afflictions are an inescapable aspect of their corporate life as believers: “For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. For in fact, when we were with you, we repeatedly forewarned you, ‘We are going to be persecuted [μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι],’ as it indeed happened, and you know [it]” (3:3–4). If Paul and his coworkers “suffered earlier” (προπάσχω [2:2]), were “insulted” or “mistreated” (ὑβρίζω [2:2]), and were “severely persecuted” (ἐκδιώκω [2:15]) in their attempts to share the gospel, their converts could hardly expect to avoid suffering themselves. 221 In Paul’s rhetoric, the persecution experienced by the Thessalonians was not to be mourned, as it was a sign that they had correctly received the gospel and were following in the footsteps of their founders. Instead of expressing grief, Paul sympathizes with the Thessalonians’ afflictions and bereavement by reminding them that other believers had suffered and were currently suffering the same things as them. 222 In addition to narrating the 219 Paul abandons the typical first-person plural verbs of the letter to speak in the firstperson singular regarding his inability to bear not knowing how the Thessalonians were faring in his absence (3:5). In doing so, Paul presents himself as more in need of consolation than Silvanus, even though both are consoled by Timothy’s report (3:6–8). 220 For the persecution of the righteous in Second Temple Judaism, see 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); Smith, Paul’s Seven Explanations; Dumke, “Suffering of the Righteous.” 221 Whether the mistreatment referred to in 2:2 was merely verbal or included physical violence is impossible to know, as the verb ὑβρίζω can connote both. LSJ s. v. ὑβρίζω A.II.1 “trans., ὑ. τινά treat him despitefully, outrage, insult, maltreat” A.II.3 “in legal sense, commit a physical outrage on one.” 222 Scholars frequently acknowledge the consolatory function of such reminders without noting that this was a method of expressing sympathy. E. g., Holmstrand writes of 2:13–16, “his concern is to comfort and encourage the Thessalonians, who have been persecuted by their fellow countrymen (1:6; 2:14), and he does so by showing that this is the fate of the servant of God. In the same way, Jesus, the prophets, Paul, and the Judean churches – all of them Jews – have been persecuted by their fellow Jews” (Markers and Meaning, 43). Klauck calls 2:14 “a word of consolation” (Ancient Letters, 365). Analyzing 2:13–16 in terms of apocalyptic rhetoric, Watson writes, “The Thessalonians are given comfort in the knowledge of how their suffering fits into the larger plan of God and that the justice of God will soon prevail over their oppressors” (“Paul’s Appropriation,” 69).

4.7 Expressions of Sympathy

223

opposition that he and his coworkers faced (esp. 2:2–4, 15–16), Paul reveals to the Thessalonians that “the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus” suffered “the same things” (τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε [2:14]) as them, including mistreatment at the hands of their countrymen and bereavement. Paul’s method of expressing sympathy concerning the Thessalonians’ afflictions and bereavement has a robust theoretical basis in Greco-Roman consolation. Pseudo-Plutarch explains the intended consolatory effect of providing multiple examples of others who had suffered: It is clear that one who consoles [ὁ παραμυθούμενος] a person in grief [ὁ λελυπημένος] and shows that the calamity [τὸ συμβεβηκός] is both common [κοινόν] to many and less [ἔλαττον] than the calamities which have befallen others, changes the judgment [δόξα] of the one in grief [ὁ λελυπημένος] and gives them a similar assurance [πίστις] – that their calamity [τὸ συμβεβηκός] is less [ἔλαττον] than as great [ἡλίκον] as they were thinking. 223

In demonstrating that the calamity is “common to many,” the consoler seeks to convince their addressee that their afflictions are not as debilitating as they had thought. As Cicero advised Titius, “by recalling to mind what has befallen others, [we must] induce the reflection that what has happened to ourselves is nothing new.” 224 Hellenistic Jewish authors deployed this method to create camaraderie in suffering and conditions in which readers would accept arguments against grief. If a distressed person could be persuaded that countless others were suffering just like them, they would be more likely to view their circumstances as “tolerable.” 225 When offering sympathy about his separation from the Thessalonians, Paul vividly expresses emotional distress, comparing himself and his coworkers to orphans longing for their parents (2:17) and highlighting their worry (μηκέτι στέγοντες [3:1; cf. 3:5]). Whereas expressing grief about the Thessalonians’ persecution and bereavement would have created tension with Paul’s consolatory arguments regarding the significance of their suffering, Paul’s expression of grief about his absence contributes to his consolatory argument that his absence in no way indicates a lack of care for the Thessalonians. Paul’s own admission that he needed to be consoled when separated from the Thessalonians (esp. 3:7) thus exercises an apologetic function, that is, he really did want to see them. At the same time, Paul’s grief mirrors and legitimizes the Thessalonians’ need to be consoled in the absence of their founders.

223

Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 106C. Cicero, Fam. 5.16.2 (Bailey, LCL). 225 Speaking of arguments by example, Cicero writes, “arguments of this kind … prove that the circumstances at hand are indeed tolerable, since others have tolerated them and continue to do so” (Tusc. 3.57). 224

224

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

4.7.3 Conclusion: Expressions of Sympathy As an apocalyptic Jew who believed that tribulations were par for the course for God’s chosen people (3:3–4), Paul broke the norm of Greco-Roman consolation by not expressing any grief about his readers’ present afflictions and bereavement. This choice, however, was the norm for Hellenistic Jewish consolers who advocated positive interpretations of their addressees’ suffering. In relation to his absence from the Thessalonians, Paul does express grief and frustration, as a display of sorrow regarding this trauma contributes to the credibility of his consolatory arguments. What remains consistent in Paul’s expressions of sympathy across all three traumas is his use of examples of other people who have suffered in like manner as the Thessalonians.

4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief Past studies of consolatory exempla within 1 Thessalonians do not agree on the most basic presupposition of which figures function as such exempla in the letter. Chapa, who was the first to identify “consolation by exempla” in 1 Thessalonians, cautiously wrote, “it is possible that Paul’s examples of the suffering of Christ and the churches of Judaea (2.14–15) had such a consolatory intention.” 226 Smith greatly expanded the cast of exempla in 1 Thessalonians, proposing that Paul, Timothy, Jesus, and the churches of Judea serve as positive exempla and that “the outsiders who grieve” and “the hypothetical sham philosophers” of 2:1–8 are given as “anti-models.” 227 In unacknowledged tension with these claims, Smith also argues that the consolatory exempla generally occupy the bounds of 2:17–3:13: “the three large units (1:6–2:16; 2:17–3:13; 4:1–5:22) roughly correspond to the laudation, examples, and precepts sections of some ancient consolations.” 228 Within 2:17–3:13, Smith argues that Timothy, in particular, is presented “as a model for the community.” 229 Most recently, Luckensmeyer and Neil proposed that Paul is the positive exemplum of the letter and suggested a negative exemplum identified by neither Chapa nor Smith: “Because Paul shares in the misfortunes of the Thessalonians, he becomes an exemplum for the community: he is courageous (2.2), approved by God (2.4–6), gentle (2.7), selfless and tireless (2.8–9), and upright in behavior (2.10). By contrast, ‘the Jews’ (2.14–16) serve as a negative exemplum.” 230 226

Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158. Smith, Comfort One Another, 54–55. 228 Smith, Comfort One Another, 75–76. 229 Smith, Comfort One Another, 80–83. 230 Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 45. They do not discuss any positive exemplum other than Paul. 227

4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief

225

The disagreement in scholarship over which epistolary characters function as consolatory exempla is largely a consequence of two factors: (1) the presupposition that the exempla should constitute, and remain within, a distinct unit of the letter, and (2) a lack of clarity concerning the function and forms of consolatory exempla. Extant consolatory letters do not support the assumption that consolers grouped all of their exempla into one section of their letters. 231 When consoling his mother, Seneca first presents her as an example of “a heart that has been victorious over so many afflictions” (Helv. 2.2–3.2). Then, he lays out his plan of argument (4.1–3) before he offers himself as an example (5.2–5.6). Seneca’s examples of others who have conquered their calamities (9.4–10.1, 16.6–7, 19.4–7) appear paragraphs later and are separated from each other by consolatory arguments and praises of his mother’s character. Toward the end of his letter, Seneca returns to the theme of Helvia as an example when he urges her to give her bereaved niece Novatilla her “example” (exemplum [18.8]). Seneca’s use of consolatory exempla takes a similar pattern in his letter to Marcia. He lauds Marcia as “a model of ancient virtue” in how she handled her father’s death (Marc. 1.1–4), sets out the goals of his letter (1.5–2.1), and then proceeds to a positive and negative example of how to react to bereavement (2.2–3.2). After paragraphs of consolatory arguments, he brings up more examples (12.5– 16.4). As these letters show, exempla could occur anywhere in a consolatory letter. As for the second factor, neither Smith nor Luckensmeyer and Neil define the function of exempla in consolatory rhetoric, and the disparate exempla suggested by Chapa, Smith, and Luckensmeyer and Neil attest to a lack of scholarly consensus about the primary function of consolatory exempla. Cicero writes, “the point is not to list all the troubles people have experienced, but to describe the manner in which wise sufferers have endured them” (Tusc. 3.79). 232 Cicero’s comments cut to the heart of the distinction between consolatory exempla and expressions of sympathy that name others who have suffered. To express sympathy in suffering, the consoler needs only to demonstrate that others have suffered likewise, which Paul does in 2:14–16. When presenting consolatory exempla, the consoler must take it a step further and highlight how others who suffered like the reader rose to the occasion and conquered their circumstances. Cicero attests to this point, writing, “for the list of examples, it is offered … to encourage the mourner to resolve on enduring his misfortune, when he sees that many others have endured the same thing with calmness and selfcontrol” (Tusc. 3.60). In Chapa’s words, “consolation by exempla … was usually expressed by reminding the one in distress that he was not the only one to suffer 231

This is suggested by Smith (Comfort One Another, 75–76). For theoretical discussion, see Cicero, Tusc. 3.56–58. For examples, see Seneca, Polyb. 14.4–16.3; Helv. 9.4–10.1; 16.6–7; 19.4–7; Marc. 12.5–15.4; 16.3–4; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118D–119D. 232

226

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

that misfortune, but that other famous and noble men had also suffered it and borne their afflictions with nobility” (emphasis my own). 233 To fulfill the function of modeling how to properly respond to hardship, consolatory exempla often take the form of anecdotes about how esteemed figures processed loss or endured calamity. These anecdotes may include one or more actions of the model sufferer, how they thought about their predicament, and how they appeared to others. 234 When selecting exempla, consolers could choose well-known individuals, narrate their own behavior, or use the distressed reader’s past conduct as a exemplum of how to navigate affliction. 235 Consolers also issued negative exempla to dramatize the disastrous consequences of refusing to be consoled. 236 In either case, the consoler chose exempla whose predicaments closely mirrored the situation of their distressed addressee. 237 Given these parameters for how exempla function in ancient consolatory rhetoric, a positive exemplum in 1 Thessalonians would model “correct” responses to separation from loved ones, persecution, bereavement, or all of the above, while a negative exemplum would model “wrong” responses to one or more of these traumas. 238 On this logic, “the hypothetical sham philosophers” of 2:1–8 and “the Jews” of 2:14–16 do not serve as negative exempla. 239 “The outsiders who grieve” function as a negative exemplum, 240 albeit a scarcely developed one. As for positive models, the epistolary Paul, Timothy, and Silvanus clearly emerge as consolatory exempla because they model how to respond properly to each of the three traumas. 241 “The Lord” is also an exemplum be233

Chapa, “Is First Thessalonians,” 158. E. g., Seneca, Marc. 12.5–15.4; 16.3–4; Polyb. 14.4–16.3; Helv. 9.4–10.1; 16.6–7; 19.4–7; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118D–119D; Aelius Theon, Prog. 2:117.12–13. 235 On the past conduct of the distressed as an example in the consolations of Plutarch, Seneca, and the Wisdom of Solomon, see chapter 3, § 3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials. 236 Seneca, e. g., presents Gaius Caligula as a negative exemplum (Polyb. 17.3–6). See also Marc. 2.3. 237 E. g., a consoler writing to a bereaved person gives examples of other bereaved people: Seneca, Polyb. 14.4–16.3; Marc. 12.5–15.4; 16.3–4; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118D–119D. Bryan R. Dyer’s more general study of “exempla in Greco-Roman and Jewish literature” confirms that “an effective example had strong similarities to the context being addressed” (Suffering in the Face of Death: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Its Context of Situation, LNTS 568 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017], 154). 238 None of the scholars who have identified consolatory exempla in 1 Thessalonians have operated with this assumption. 239 Contra Smith, Comfort One Another, 54–55. Contra Luckensmeyer and Neil (“Reading First Thessalonians,” 45). “The Jews” who persecute the Judean churches in 2:14–16 model the “wrong” response to the gospel (rejection and persecution of believers), but Paul is not trying to dissuade the Thessalonians from rejecting the gospel and persecuting believers. 240 Smith, Comfort One Another, 54–55. 241 In this respect, 1 Thessalonians is similar to Cicero’s letter to Brutus (Ep. Brut. 18.1–2). See also chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22. 234

4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief

227

cause he demonstrated “joy” (χαρά) “in great affliction” (ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ [1:6]). By imitating this character trait of their Lord and their founders, the Thessalonian church (in its early days) additionally functions as an exemplum for how to deal with θλῖψις (1:6). 242 The churches of Judea and their prophets in 2:14–15 also serve as consolatory exempla because they model proper reception of the “word” as the “word of God” (2:13) and a willingness to suffer on account of it. Ancient consolers could explicitly direct their readers to imitate their examples of conquering affliction or leave the call to imitation implied. 243 Paul opts for the latter when he praises the Thessalonians for having already imitated (μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε [1:6; 2:14]) his positive exempla.

4.8.1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as Consolatory Exempla: Case Study on 2:1–16 Although I have argued above that Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy serve as exempla in the entire letter, 244 the scholarly debate about how the cowriters present themselves as models for the Thessalonians has focused on 2:1–12. This conversation has almost always been about Paul as a model, with the exemplary function of Silvanus and Timothy unacknowledged. According to scholars on one side of the debate, 2:1–12 is an apology that Paul wrote in response to real challenges to his authority, whether from within or outside of the Thessalonian church. 245 On the other side, which was initiated by Malherbe, Paul wrote 2:1– 12 “not in defense, but to provide in his own person an example of the sort of life he will encourage his readers to live later in the letter.” 246 Analyzing 2:1–12 as a portrait of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as consolatory exempla provides a way forward that can account for the best evidence marshaled by both sides of the debate. I argue that Paul’s self-conscious description of himself and his team is not a model for how his readers should live in general; it is a model for how 242 The generality of the term θλῖψις enables the model of the young Thessalonian church to apply to all of the problems facing Paul’s readers. Both their bereavement and their apparently involuntary and premature separation from their founders could be easily understood as components of the “afflictions” (θλίψεις [3:3]) plaguing them. 243 E. g., Seneca advises Polybius, “you must imitate the firmness of these in enduring and conquering sorrows” (Polyb. 17.1), and Helvia, “in your effort to restrain and suppress your sorrow your best course will be to follow the example of those women whose life you have always copied” (Helv. 16.7). For other explicit calls to imitation, see, Cicero, Fam. 4.5.4–5; Seneca, Marc. 4.1; Helv. 19.7; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 119D. For implicit suggestions to imitation, see Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Seneca, Polyb. 16.3; Marc. 12.5–16.4; Helv. 4.2–5.6. 244 See chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22. 245 E. g., see Traugott Holtz, “On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12,” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 319–39. 246 Malherbe, Letters, 154. Malherbe introduced this perspective to scholarship with his article “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to I Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17.

228

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

they ought to live in suffering and amid opposition, as slandered servants of the true God. In other words, Paul may be responding to real criticisms of his character in 2:1–12, yet he addresses them by composing a portrait of himself and his coworkers as models for how to think and act when persecuted, the precise type of models appropriate for his persecuted addressees. In this way, Paul accomplishes the aims recognized by both sides of the debate: he defends himself and his coworkers while modeling for his readers how they must respond when facing hostility on account of the gospel. This portrait is not contained within 2:1–12 but encompasses the entire letter. Nevertheless, a couple of remarks are in order concerning how the cowriters function as exempla in 2:1– 12, which I argue coheres with how they function as exempla in 2:13–16. First, the rhetoric of 2:1–16 depicts Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as ardent believers who stood strong in the midst of slander and hostility, not just Paul. 247 This point needs to be stressed, as the multiplicity of examples was thought to contribute to their effectiveness. While Paul does occasionally separate himself from his cowriters by writing in the first-person singular (2:18; 3:5; 5:27), he refrains from singling himself out when he narrates his past endurance of persecution in 2:1–12 and 2:14–16. The first-person plural verbs and pronouns in 2:1–16 serve the consolatory aim of demonstrating that many people have stood firm while suffering for the gospel. The general rule for consolatory exempla is “the more, the merrier,” because the more examples of people conquering their hardships a consoler could produce, the easier it would be, theoretically, to convince a distressed person that their calamity was not strange and they too could overcome it. According to Seneca, one of the “roles of the comforter” is to present “all the examples [omnia exempla] which could bring [the sufferer’s] mind to a state of calmness” (Polyb. 14.1). If Paul had written from himself alone (cf. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:1) and narrated only his own struggle for the gospel, it would be easier for his addressees to discount his experiences as an anomaly. Instead, Paul presents as many examples as the Thessalonians could remember, that is, he includes their entire team of founders. 248 Paul coalesces his own experiences of suffering with those of Silvanus and Timothy and rhetorically magnifies the extent of this shared experience of suffering and persecution. On historical grounds, it is doubtful that both Silvanus and Timothy were persecuted in Judea with Paul before arriving in Thessalonica, but Paul combines their individual histories and writes that the same “Judeans who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” also “severely persecuted” (ἐκδιώκω) “us” (ἡμᾶς [2:15]). 249 The resultant impression is that the cowriters’ 247 Contra Luckensmeyer and Neil (“Reading First Thessalonians,” 45) and Malherbe (Letters, 154), who recognize only Paul as an exemplum in 2:1–12. 248 Paul presents these examples as a reminder (e. g., 2:1: Αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί…). See also 2:10, 11. 249 The persecution of the “us” in 2:15 seems to have taken place in Judea, “since the first

4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief

229

suffering and mistreatment in Philippi (2:1–2) and the hostility they faced in Thessalonica (2:2) are only two recent episodes in a series of hardships they endured. Beforehand, they were “severely persecuted” in Judea (2:15). Now that they have left Thessalonica, they still remain “in distress and affliction” (3:7). Second, Paul chose what to include in his narrative of 2:1–12 based on what accusations had been made in his absence and what sort of modeling he believed the Thessalonians would need to spread the gospel in spite of hostility. 250 Paul depicts how he, Timothy, and Silvanus behaved in the past (2:1–12) “amid great struggle” (ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι [2:2]) to provide a template for how the Thessalonians should navigate their present “afflictions” (3:3). The cowriters display bold and inspired proclamation of the gospel in the midst of opposition (2:2). Irrespective of how people respond to their message, they demonstrate constancy in their work of proclaiming (κηρύσσω), exhorting (παρακαλέω), consoling (παραμυθέομαι), and insisting (μαρτύρομαι) that the Thessalonians live in a manner worthy of their God (2:9–12). In response to accusations of leading people astray and impure motives (2:3), they model indifference to “pleasing people” and a sole preoccupation with “pleasing God” (οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ [2:4]). They disregard the esteem of human beings (2:6) and find their confidence in how God had chosen and approved them to preach (2:4). The portrait of the harassed but faithful servants of God in 2:1–12 is intended both to defend Paul and his team from criticisms in Thessalonica (esp. 2:5–8) and to provide a paradigm for how members of the church might respond to harassment from outsiders who disapproved of their new allegiance to the God of Israel and his son Jesus (esp. 2:2–4, 9–12). Following this paradigm, they should continue on with the mission of the gospel, fixing their identity on God having chosen them and basing their self-worth on pleasing God alone. Third, Paul interweaves prophetic motifs into his narrative of the cowriters as exempla in chapter 2. Because scholarship has traditionally discussed the founders-as-models in 2:1–12 and not 2:13–16, analysis of how Paul may have drawn on the prophets in his portrait of the founders as exempla has focused on 2:3–4. 251 Yet Paul’s most dramatic use of the prophetic tradition in relation to the shared suffering of him, Silvanus, and Timothy is actually in 2:15–16, where two parts of the triad – killed ‘the Lord Jesus’ and ‘the prophets’” took place in Judea (Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure, 71). While Acts presents Silas/Silvanus as a prophet in the Jerusalem church (15:22, 32, 40–41), from what we can tell, Timothy conducted no mission work in Judea prior to arriving in Thessalonica with Paul. Rather, he joined Paul’s team in Lystra (Acts 16:1– 3). Historically, then, it would be an exaggeration for Paul to claim that he, Silvanus, and Timothy had been severely persecuted by Judeans in Judea (2:15). 250 The claims of 2:5–8 seem primarily motivated by the cowriters’ need to defend themselves. 251 E. g., Boring, I and II Thessalonians, 81–83; William Horbury, “I Thessalonians ii.3 as Rebutting the Charge of False Prophecy,” JTS 33 (1982): 492–508.

230

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

Paul follows up the claim that they were “severely persecuted” (2:15) with an assurance that God punished their persecutors: “But God’s [lit: the] wrath has finally come upon them” (2:16). 252 This assurance is a radical inclusion of prophetic consolation within the Greco-Roman rhetorical form of consolatory exempla. Greek and Roman consolers used positive exempla to show readers how they should respond to suffering. Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy do this (2:1– 12) but also show how God responds to the unjust suffering of his servants (2:14–16). In this way, they try to instill hope that God would intervene in their readers’ suffering, even as they model how they should comport themselves in the meantime. If God’s “wrath” (ὀργή) finally came upon the Jews who persecuted the Judean believers and their founders (2:14–16), the Thessalonians can trust that God will also judge those who harmed them.

4.8.2 Conclusion: Exempla for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief I have argued that ancient consolers used examples for the purpose of illustrating “right” and “wrong” reactions to the type of suffering faced by their addressees. Regarding the hotly debated functions of 2:1–12, I have proposed a way forward that problematizes the dichotomy of whether the rhetoric is defensive or merely paraenetic. Because the suffering of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy in 2:1–12 aligns with the type of suffering faced by their readers (both groups are slandered, harassed, and persecuted on account of the gospel), the rhetoric of 2:1–12 simultaneously defends Paul and his coworkers from criticism and models how the Thessalonians should respond to the criticism they face. According to Weima, “the body section of 1 Thessalonians (2:1–12) … opens with a description of Paul’s and his co-workers’ original ministry in Thessalonica that sounds … much more defensive and apologetic than sympathetic and consoling.” 253 When 2:1–12 is analyzed in terms of the functions of consolatory exempla, the unit can be both “defensive and apologetic” and “sympathetic and consoling.” If the Thessalonians follow the example of their founders, they will not worry about the disapproval of others (2:4–6) but will base their identity and confidence on the fact that God has chosen them (2:4), empowered them (2:2), and is calling them into his kingdom and glory (2:12).

252 This statement about God’s vindication is the last point of Paul’s narration of their past struggle for the gospel (2:1–12, 14–16), after which he takes up the new topic of their separation from the Thessalonians (2:17–3:13). Because 2:16 also functions as the conclusion of 2:13– 16, scholarship has missed how 2:15–16 forms an inclusio with 2:1–2 and thus frames its own unit, whose theme is the suffering of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy on account of preaching “the gospel of God” (2:2). 253 Weima, Comfort One Another, 483.

4.9 Implications

231

4.9 Implications This chapter has argued that 1 Thessalonians is an ancient letter of consolation (ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική) by epistolary genre. To supplement prior scholarship on the consolatory arguments within the letter, I have identified the expressions of sympathy, consolatory exempla, and consolatory exhortations by which Paul hoped to transform the behavior of the Thessalonians. I have demonstrated that Paul followed conventions of consolatory letters in his epistolary thanksgiving and displays sensitivity to effective rhetorical arrangement for a consolatory letter in the Greco-Roman tradition. My analysis of the consolatory rhetoric within 1 Thessalonians shows that Paul operated at the intersection of several overlapping traditions of consolation. One could call him a rhetorically astute prophetic consoler with a zeal for the gospel. He utilizes numerous Greco-Roman consolatory topoi and takes on the role of a moral philosopher in his efforts to dissuade the Thessalonians from grieving and persuade them to adopt behaviors that would hasten their recovery. At the same time, Paul often finds his voice in the consolation tradition of the biblical prophets and deploys their methods of cultivating hope for God’s timely intervention to save his people and punish their oppressors. And in a feat of cultural fusion, Paul interweaves and intertwines these threads of Greco-Roman and biblical consolation with his interpretation of the Jesus traditions he had received, all with an aim to console the Thessalonians’ grief, quell their anxiety, raise their confidence, and ultimately, impact their observable behavior. The cultural eclecticism of 1 Thessalonians is typical of the genre of ancient consolation, whose individual texts feature arguments and methods from competing philosophies. What is remarkable and unrecognized about 1 Thessalonians is that it is the earliest extant consolatory letter written by a Jew. Scholars have long taken for granted that 1 Thessalonians stands at the beginning of the tradition of Christian consolation, 254 but modern scholarship has not interpreted 1 Thessalonians as a Jewish letter of consolation. 255 Instead, most of the consolatory rhet254 E. g., Anthony C. Thiselton, 1 and 2 Thessalonians through the Centuries, BBC (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 116, 121–28; Littlewood, “Byzantine Letter of Consolation,” 23; Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 155–56. 255 E. g., in his 2009 survey of “Jewish consolation,” Holloway cites 1 Thessalonians once: 1 Thess 5:23 under “Consolation in Jewish Apocalypticism” as representative of the topos that God would ensure “a preservation of the righteous in their righteousness” (Coping with Prejudice, 110–11). In his 2017 commentary, Holloway interprets 1 Thessalonians under the rubric of “Consolation in Earliest Christianity” rather than “Jewish Consolation” (Philippians, 7–9). While Holloway studies “Jewish consolation” as an integral component of “Consolation in Earliest Christianity,” I have attempted to show that analyzing 1 Thessalonians first and foremost as a product of Hellenistic Judaism (rather than early Christianity) yields significantly better results in terms of elucidating its consolatory rhetoric.

232

Chapter 4: Paul’s Consolatory Letter to Thessalonica: 1 Thessalonians

oric in 1 Thessalonians escapes notice, and units within the letter that are deemed “consolation” are often fragmented into “Greco-Roman consolation,” on the one hand, and “Jewish consolation,” on the other. Holloway, for example, classifies 1 Thess 3:2–4 under the rubric of “Greco-Roman consolation” on account of “the Cyrenaic topos ‘nothing unexpected has happened’” and identifies 1 Thess 4:12–18 as “Jewish consolation, especially as it was developed in the apocalyptic tradition.” 256 In this chapter, I have sought to problematize the procedure of categorizing units of Paul’s rhetoric as “Greco-Roman consolation” or “Jewish consolation.” Greek and Roman consolers did not have a monopoly on the argument that nothing unexpected has happened (3:2–4). Centuries before Paul wrote, Jewish prophets had tried to console God’s people by arguing that God had said this would happen, which is precisely the argument that Paul is making in 3:3–4. 257 As for 4:12–18, I have argued that its consolatory rhetoric is not limited to “Jewish consolation,” as it includes the topos that many are watching the distressed (4:12) and promotes a response to bereavement that was highly valued by Greek and Roman philosophical consolers, to refrain from grieving and console one another (4:13, 18). My hope is that my analysis of Paul’s consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians might help to steer the scholarly conversation toward studying his rhetoric as a synthesis of Greco-Roman and biblical consolation, that is, as the consolatory rhetoric of a Hellenistic Jew. By “synthesis,” I mean that Paul’s methods, expressions of sympathy, arguments, and exhortations cannot be easily sorted into the three different bins of “Jewish consolation,” “Greco-Roman consolation,” and “Christian consolation.” 258 Paul’s advice that his distressed readers “strive eagerly to be calm” (4:11) and “rejoice always” (5:16) could be thrown into each bin, and that is the point – Paul operated at the intersection of multiple and overlapping traditions of consolation. Paul’s integration of gospel themes into his consolation is important, but we must not let the staggering influence of 1 Thessalonians in later Christian consolation occlude our vision from seeing Paul at home among other Hellenistic Jewish consolers. 256 While Holloway calls consolation “a major theme” in 1 Thessalonians, with the exception of citing 5:23, he lists only 3:2–4 and 4:12–18 as units in which consolation is apparent (Philippians, 9). 257 Jeremiah, for instance, warned that the Babylonians would invade Judah and take the people into exile, but God would grant the Babylonians sovereignty for only seventy years (Jer 25:1–14; cf. 29:10–14). In Zech 1:7–17, the prophet conveys the “comforting words” of the Lord that the seventy years announced by Jeremiah would soon be over (Zech 1:13; cf. 8:1– 23). The author of the visions in Dan 7–12 attempted to console the Jewish people being persecuted by Antiochus IV by revealing to them that their current suffering was an expected and inescapable season of history, foretold by God. 258 We can identify “Christian” elements of arguments (e. g., Jesus will return from heaven to rescue you), but these Christian elements are integrated into preexisting consolatory arguments from Hellenistic Judaism (e. g., God will rescue you).

Chapter 5:

Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem: Hebrews You have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, [the] heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to a festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are inscribed heaven, and to a judge, the God of all, and to the spirits of the righteous who have been perfected, and to the mediator of a new covenant, Jesus, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than Abel. 1

Using vivid description (ἔκφρασις), the author of Hebrews invites his readers to imagine themselves at the very entrance of the heavenly Jerusalem, able to gaze into the city of the living God and behold its blessed inhabitants (12:22– 24). According to him, this holy city that God had prepared for his people long ago, the city earnestly desired by Abraham and “all” the patriarchs and matriarchs (11:8–16), has been opened to God’s people by the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus. In celebration of this occasion, Hebrews announces that God’s promise that his people would inherit a better and heavenly city as their homeland has finally been fulfilled (11:13–16; 11:39–12:2). No longer is heaven populated merely by God, his son, and the angels that do their bidding (1:1–14). God’s people are now among the holy throng. The author of Hebrews directs his readers to gaze upon the “assembly of the firstborns” and “the spirits of the righteous who have been perfected” in heaven and to imagine that they too might join their number and inherit the heavenly Jerusalem as their true home. He invites them to come to terms with the transience of earthly cities and seek the “city to come” (13:14). Although they “have no enduring city” on earth (13:14), the city they are to inherit is eternal because it is located in an “unshakable kingdom” that can never be destroyed (12:28).

5.1 Circumstances of Composition The context in which the author of Hebrews formulated his claims about the heavenly Jerusalem is challenging to reconstruct, as his unconventional letter

1

Heb 12:22–24.

234

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

evinces very few clues of its circumstances of composition. 2 Lacking an epistolary prescript, it names neither the author nor the intended recipients. The epistolary postscript implies that the author was a member of the Pauline circle who planned to visit the addressees with Timothy (13:23), yet he remains anonymous. 3 The intended addressees could have been Jewish, gentile, or a mixed audience of Jews and gentiles. 4 The concrete geographical references so common in Paul’s letters are almost completely absent in Hebrews, leaving the location of composition and the intended destination also uncertain. Internal and external evidence point to somewhere in or near Rome as the most likely location of the intended audience. 5 The author conveys the greetings of “those from Italy” to his addressees (13:24), which could mean that the author is sending the greetings of Italians living outside of Italy back to their homeland. External evidence for Rome as the location of the recipients includes material from Hebrews in 1 Clement and affinities with the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Peter. However, the case for a Roman destination is not secure, as 13:24 might rather imply that the letter was written from Rome. 6 The only unequivocal data the author provides about his addressees is that they had survived social harassment and persecution on account of their confession in the past, which had culminated in the confiscation of their property and the imprisonment of some of their number (10:32–34). Despite the paucity of clear data concerning the historical circumstances behind Hebrews, the rhetoric employed by the author suggests that he wrote in response to a perceived set of problems. The most overt problem facing his addressees was continued social pressure and hostility from outsiders, which had caused a number of them to withdraw from their communal gatherings 2 Hebrews lacks an epistolary introduction but concludes like a letter (13:18–25). Although Hebrews arguably evinces a homiletic structure (see esp. Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, SubBi 12 [Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989]), the epistolary closing of 13:18–25 reminds us that its author chose to embed this form of oral communication within a letter. 3 Thirteen different people have been proposed as the author of Hebrews. Paul Ellingworth evaluates the arguments in support of each in The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3–20. The early attribution of the letter to Paul is untenable in light of significant differences in style and syntax from the authentic Pauline letters (David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 23–24). 4 My analysis does not settle this question. Craig R. Koester summarizes the major arguments in support of each position in Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 46–48. 5 For arguments for a Roman destination, see, e. g., Koester, Hebrews, 49–50; Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 20; William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47A (Dallas: Word, 1991), lviii–lx. 6 For evidence, see Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1989), 410 n. 79. The hypothesis for a Roman origin is held by deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 21–22.

5.1 Circumstances of Composition

235

(10:25). While there is no evidence that anyone had been killed on account of their confession (12:4), the author’s claim concerning the fear of death (2:14– 15) and his consoling visions of postmortem life (12:1–2, 22–24) suggest that he viewed his addressees as needing comfort concerning death. Hebrews’ repeated threats regarding the consequences of falling away (3:7–4:11; 6:4–8; 10:26–31) evince an author who also deemed apostasy to be a risk to his addressees. While the problems of malaise and persecution are obvious enough, I argue that Hebrews’ rhetoric presupposes another problem as well, namely, grief and theological disorientation caused by the loss of Jerusalem and the temple. I show, for example, that Hebrews’ interlocking claims about the heavenly Jerusalem are consolatory arguments intended to alleviate distress concerning the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by Titus and his legions in 70 CE. The author of Hebrews seeks to persuade his addressees that the earthly Jerusalem was never meant to be the eternal city of God’s people, for God had always planned to provide his children with something “better” when he inaugurated the “new covenant” (11:8–16; 7:11; 8:6). Current scholarship is divided over whether Hebrews was composed while the Jerusalem temple was still standing or after it had been destroyed, 7 with a number of scholars maintaining that we cannot know. 8 Regardless of one’s position on this issue, arguments for the date of composition tend to fall between 7 Composition before the destruction of the temple: e. g., Philip Church, Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews, NovTSup 171 (Boston: Brill, 2017), 14–16; Seth M. Simisi, Pursuit of Perfection: Significance of the Perfection Motif in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 101; Benjamin J. Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews, BZNW 222 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 84; Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 19; Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James, and Jude (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 27; Johnson, Hebrews, 38–40; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 20–21; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, liv–lv, lxii– lxvi; Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 29–33. Composition after the destruction of the temple: e. g., Schenck, New Perspective, 93–125; Eyal Regev, “What Has Been Changed in the Law of Hebrews?,” Bib 98 (2017): 582–99, esp. 598–99; Jason A. Whitlark, Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of the Letter to “the Hebrews”, LNTS 484 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 8–12; Rainer Kampling, “Sich dem Rätsel nähern. Fragen zu den Einleitungsfragen des Hebräerbriefes,” in Ausharren in der Verheißung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief, ed. Rainer Kampling, SBS 204 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 11–34, esp. 22; Gelardini, Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht, 109; Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews, SP 13 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 7–11; Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews,” 224– 31; Dieter Georgi, “Hebrews and the Heritage of Paul,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini, BibInt 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 239–44, esp. 243; HansFriedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 77; Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 25; Isaacs, Sacred Space, 67; Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 1:260. 8 Adopting the approach of “historical minimalism,” Ole Jakob Filtvedt writes, “Neither do we know if Hebrews was written before or after the fall of Jerusalem, a fact which means that we cannot take for granted that Hebrews is designed either to console for the loss of the temple or to prevent participation in its cult” (The Identity of God’s People and the Paradox of Hebrews,

236

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

60 and 90 CE. 9 My analysis of the consolatory rhetoric in Hebrews provides additional evidence in support of the hypothesis that it was composed after 70 CE. Existing arguments for this date of composition include (1) “the Letter explores the great issues of 70, the issues of cult, Temple, sacrifice, priesthood, atonement, and redemption,” 10 (2) the author’s “preoccupation with offering an alternative to Judaism’s sacred territory,” which “might be accounted for by its comparatively recent loss,” 11 (3) “the development of the high-priestly Christology [in Hebrews], which may have been facilitated by the end of the Jewish priesthood in Jerusalem,” 12 (4) the claim of 8:13 that the first covenant is “near disappearance” (ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ) “fits even better with a post-destruction date,” 13 (5) “the radical language of alienation from any earthly city and homeland [11:13–16] would most naturally fit the post-destruction context,” 14 (6) numerous points of contact between Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark, which may imply that “the author of Hebrews knew some form of Mark’s gospel,” 15 (7) the claim that “here, we have no enduring city” (13:14), 16 (8) Hebrews WUNT 2/400 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 24). See also Koester, Hebrews, 54; Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 9. 9 Mitchell, Hebrews, 7–11; Koester, Hebrews, 50–54. 10 Jacob Neusner, “Judaism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple,” Judaism 21 (1972): 313–27, esp. 320. Daniel C. Harlow characterizes these issues of 70 CE as follows: “After 70, Jews had to contend with several interrelated developments – the destruction of the second Temple, the end of the sacrificial cult, the dissolution of the priesthood, the cessation (or at least a radical diminution) of pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and the eventual transformation of the Holy City into a pagan city” (The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, SVTP 12 [Leiden: Brill, 1996], 74). 11 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 44. She summarizes her argument as follows: “It is the displacement felt by his addressees as a result of the actual loss of Jerusalem which seems to give rise to his need to present Jesus as making the necessity for such a place redundant. Hence, Jesus is shown to have gained access to the only sacred space worth having – heaven. That space is superior to any previously gained through entry into the promised land or into the inner sanctum of the cult place. Trusting in this, his readers should not hanker after the lost Jerusalem” (Sacred Space, 67). 12 Mitchell, Hebrews, 9, 26. 13 Schenck, New Perspective, 106. Eisenbaum writes, “The author’s conviction that the cult is obsolete may be derived from its already having disappeared as a result of the war. In other words, the author has reached his conclusions precisely because his ruminations about these matters happen in a world that is devoid of Jewish cultic institutions” (“Locating Hebrews,” 226). 14 Schenck, New Perspective, 108. 15 Mitchell, Hebrews, 11. 16 Schenck argues that 13:14 may be an allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem (New Perspective, 107). Whitlark argues the city in question is Rome (Resisting Empire, 113–14). Although Jared C. Calaway does not make a final decision either way, he cogently summarizes the debate: “The primary city in mind just after speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22–24) might be the earthly Jerusalem. The statement that they have no remaining city would be fitting after its destruction, or concurrently may be a jibe at the ‘eternal city,’ Rome. The destruction of the earthly city mirrors the emphasis on the heavenly city (11:13–16; 12:22–

5.1 Circumstances of Composition

237

appears to be an ancient synagogue homily for Tisha be-Av, which “commemorates … the destruction of the First and the Second Temple,” 17 and (9) Hebrews’ intention to replace the “the cultic reality, importance, and functions of the temple” with “a more or less spiritualized understanding … as the proper understanding of the biblical tradition and of the task of God’s people.” 18 To solve the problems of persecution, grief, and theological disorientation in the wake of 70 CE, the author of Hebrews writes a letter, as the influence of Paul’s letters had established letters as the chosen vehicle to solve theological problems and encourage beleaguered churches within early Christian literary culture. 19 By presenting himself as a traveling companion of Timothy, Paul’s trusted emissary and frequent cowriter, he adopts the persona of a Pauline coworker at the very center of the movement. 20 Though Paul is dead, the author of Hebrews carries on the Pauline legacy by writing a letter that interprets and 24) that God is preparing – one that cannot be destroyed – a thoroughly heavenward reorientation, which would offer consolation in the wake of the annihilation of the temple and Jerusalem” (The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and Its Priestly Context, WUNT 2/349 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013], 15). I argue that 13:14 was not intended as an allusion to a particular city but is a consolatory argument about the transience of all cities, commonly employed to ameliorate grief over the loss of a beloved city. See chapter 5, § 5.3.2 Everything Perishes and Everything That Remains Will Soon Perish. 17 Gelardini, “Hebrews, an Ancient,” 106. For further argument, see Gelardini, Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht. 18 Georgi, “Hebrews and the Heritage of Paul,” 243. 19 For the centrality of Paul’s letters in the development of “an early Christian literary culture in the first century,” see Margaret M. Mitchell, “The Emergence of the Written Record,” in Origins to Constantine, vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Christianity, ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 103–24; Mitchell, Paul and the Emergence, xiii–xvi. 20 Contra Clare K. Rothschild, who argues that “the author tailors the ἐπίλογος to convince readers he is Paul,” and furthermore, that “the author also works out Paul’s ἦθος through citations and allusions in Heb 1:1–13:19” (Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews, WUNT 235 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 65). I view the impressive parallels between Hebrews and authentic Pauline letters as the result of an author who learned how to write a pastoral letter from imitating Paul’s letters. As a student imitates their teacher, the author of Hebrews imitates Paul, but he does not claim to be Paul. He claims that he is an associate of Timothy, with whom he plans to travel to see the addressees (13:23). If he wanted to be perceived as Paul, it is hard to account for why he did not state his identity as Paul in a prescript or in the postscript, as did the authors of the pseudepigraphal Pauline letters (2 Thess 1:1; 3:17; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 4:18; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Tit 1:1). Most studies do not detect an attempt by the author of Hebrews to adopt the persona of Paul but still view the author as someone who interpreted Paul’s teaching for his own circumstances: e. g., deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 26; Georgi, “Hebrews and the Heritage of Paul,” 243; James W. Thompson, Hebrews, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 286; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, xlix. On the role of Timothy as Paul’s envoy, see Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys,” 641–62. Timothy appears as a cowriter in 2 Cor 1:1, Phil 1:1, 1 Thess 1:1, and Phlm 1:1. Of the pseudepigraphal Pauline letters, Timothy is listed as a cowriter in Col 1:1 and 2 Thess 1:1. It is impossible to know whether the author’s self-portrayal in 13:23 is an adopted persona or reflects the actual identity of the anonymous Paulinist author. The historical question of

238

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

presents anew Paul’s trusted words of consolation for a theological crisis that Paul never encountered, the destruction of Jerusalem and God’s earthly abode. 21 He not only imitated Paul’s consolatory rhetoric but updated and expanded Pauline tradition to address this new challenge. Less creativity was required to encourage his weary addressees to endure their trials in hope and faith, as Paul’s assurances of salvation and consolatory exhortation in 1 Thessalonians could easily be adapted to the specific circumstances of his addressees.

5.2 Previous Scholarship Previous discussion of consolation within Hebrews has clustered around five nodes: (1) its self-designation as a λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως in 13:22, (2) passages intended to comfort its readers, (3) its positive interpretations of suffering, (4) its exempla of faithfulness in suffering and death, and (5) the theory that Hebrews was written to comfort addressees about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. While noting that λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως could be translated “word of consolation,” scholars universally reject this option, usually in lieu of “word of exhortation.” 22 Nevertheless, scholars have detected specific passages with a consolatory aim: 6:9–12, 6:13–20, 10:32–36, and 12:4–13. 23 The so-called whether the author’s self-representation corresponded to reality is outside the scope of this inquiry. 21 I concur with Origen’s assessment of Hebrews, that “the expression and the composition are of someone who remembered [ἀπομνημονεύσαντός] the apostle’s teachings and who, so to speak, wrote an interpretation of [σχολιογραφήσαντός] what had been said by the teacher” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.13). LPGL defines σχολιογραφέω as “make notes on,” yet it can also be translated “to write an interpretation” because a σχόλιον is an “interpretation, comment, short note” (LPGL s. v. σχόλιον). 22 E. g., Johnson writes, “The translation ‘word of exhortation’ also captures something of the character of the speech (see Heb 6:18): the discourse has, after all, provided encouragement and comfort through its message of what God has done in Christ; but even more markedly, it has provided strong exhortation concerning what that gift requires of its recipients in terms of faithful obedience” (Hebrews, 357, cf. 320). However, Johnson translates 13:22 “word of encouragement” in his discussion of the “powerful encouragement” in 6:18 (Hebrews, 171). Koester writes of 13:22, “Paraklēsis could include both comfort (2 Cor 1:3–7) and admonition (Acts 15:31)” (Hebrews, 580). Attridge translates “message of exhortation,” while noting “the noun … can convey the sense of encouragement and exhortation, or that of comfort and consolation” (Hebrews, 408). 23 Heb 6:9–12: Nongbri, “Touch of Condemnation,” 265; Croy, Endurance in Suffering, 162; Übelacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis,” 342. Heb 6:13–20: Übelacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis,” 342. On Heb 6:18 as “consolation,” see Schmitz and Stählin, “παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT 5:796–97. Heb 10:32–36: Croy, Endurance in Suffering, 162. Übelacker identifies an aim “to encourage and comfort the readers” in the praises of 10:32–34 (“Paraenesis or Paraclesis,” 342). Heb 12:4–13: Übelacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis,” 342; Davis, Place of Paideia, 212–13, 241. Johnson (Hebrews, 320) and Schmitz and Stählin (“παρακαλέω, παράκλησις,” TDNT

5.2 Previous Scholarship

239

“comfort passages” of 6:9–20 and 10:32–36 follow stern warnings intended to engender fear (6:4–8; 10:26–31), illustrating the author’s “good rhetorical fashion.” 24 Among Hebrews’ positive interpretations of suffering, studies have focused on its claims that suffering is a vehicle to perfection (e. g., 2:10; 5:8–9; 6:1; 12:23), 25 a means of divine discipline and education (5:8; 12:4–11), 26 and a pathway to glory (e. g., 2:5–13; 12:1–2). 27 Hebrews’ models of faith and endurance amid opposition, suffering, and death have received substantial scholarly attention. 28 In sum, scholarship abounds in studies on consolatory themes in

5:796–97) limit their remarks to the author’s understanding of Prov 3:11–12 as a word of comfort or exhortation in 12:5. 24 Croy identifies 10:32–36 as a “‘comfort’ passage” that follows “the stern warning of 10.26–31” (Endurance in Suffering, 162). Nongbri writes of 6:4–12, “The author of Hebrews uses severe language, however, in good rhetorical fashion, following his threats with words of consolation to encourage his audience members to stand fast in their marginalized community” (“Touch of Condemnation,” 265). 25 E. g., Simisi, Pursuit of Perfection; Pamela M. Eisenbaum, “The Virtue of Suffering, the Necessity of Discipline, and the Pursuit of Perfection in Hebrews,” in Asceticism and the New Testament, ed. Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush (New York: Routledge, 1999), 331–53; David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’, SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). 26 E. g., Davis, Place of Paideia; Dyer, Suffering in the Face of Death; Ched E. Spellman, “The Drama of Discipline: Toward an Intertextual Profile of Paideia in Hebrews 12,” JETS 59 (2016): 487–506; Wolfgang Kraus, “‘Whom the Lord Loveth He Chasteneth’: About the Adoption of Prov 3:11f. in Hebr 12:5f,” in Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture: Studies in Honour of Johann Cook, ed. Randall X. Gauthier, Gideon R. Kotzé, and Gert J. Steyn, VTSup 172 (Boston: Brill, 2016), 323–35; Matthew Thiessen, “Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline,” NTS 55 (2009): 366–79; Croy, Endurance in Suffering; Charles H. Talbert, Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the New Testament and in Its Milieu (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991); Albert Vanhoye, “La souffrance educatrice. Heb 12, 5–7. 11–13,” AsSeign 52 (1974): 61–66. 27 E. g., Harold W. Attridge, “God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory,” in Essays on John and Hebrews, WUNT 264 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 308–19; Craig R. Koester, “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” CBQ 64 (2002): 103–23. 28 E. g., Dyer, Suffering in the Face of Death, 131–72; Ryan Shirck, “By Wisdom, by Faith, to Endure,” ResQ 59 (2017): 79–87; Matthew C. Easter, Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews, SNTSMS 160 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BibInt 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014); Loveday Alexander, “Prophets and Martyrs as Exemplars of Faith,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 405–21; Philip F. Esler, “Collective Memory and Hebrews 11: Outlining a New Investigative Framework,” in Memory, Tradition, and Text: The Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, SemeiaSt 52 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 151–71; William L. Lane, “Living a Life of Faith in the Face of Death: The Witness of Hebrews,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 247–69, esp. 257–69; Pamela M. Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context, SBLDS 156 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); Alan D. Bulley, “Death and Rhetoric in the Hebrews ‘Hymn to Faith,’” SR 25 (1996): 409–23; Michael R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988).

240

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

Hebrews, yet existing studies curiously do not engage with the theory or practice of ancient consolatory rhetoric. This lacuna in scholarship persists even among studies that argue that Hebrews was written to console its audience about the loss of the temple and the holy city in 70 CE. Advocates of this position include Kenneth Schenck, Gabriella Gelardini, Marie E. Isaacs, and Ceslas Spicq. 29 Among these, Schenck has most recently and extensively argued that “Hebrews was most likely written to console its audience in light of the temple’s destruction rather than to argue against its continued use.” 30 He identifies allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem in 8:13, 11:16, and 13:14 and notes that “Hebrews never actually tells the audience not to utilize the temple or its sacrifices,” such that “Hebrews is not so much arguing against the cultus as arguing for Christ in its absence.” 31 Schenck also persuasively debunks the claim that “the earliest Christians quickly came to see Christ’s death as a final replacement of temple sacrifices,” 32 a dictum that has hindered recognition of Hebrews’ consolatory rhetoric by its corollary assumption that early Christ-believers would not have grieved over the destruction of the temple. I enter the conversation by investigating the use of ancient consolatory rhetoric throughout Hebrews, beyond passages and themes already identified as consolatory. The present lack of such a study is evidence of how few scholars detect a primary consolatory purpose in Hebrews, since there is practically 29

Schenck, New Perspective, 93–125. In analyzing Hebrews as a synagogue homily for Tisha be-Av, Gelardini classifies it among the “comforting sermons [that] were required for the seven Sabbaths from Tisha be-Av to Yom Kippur” (“Hebrews, an Ancient,” 105). In her reconstruction, “the author of Hebrews may be speaking to Jewish slaves in Rome, exiled in the aftermath of the second Jewish War; that may be why he could not promise the return to the material city of Jerusalem and was left with the possibility of promising the heavenly one” (“Hebrews, an Ancient,” 107). Isaacs maintains that Hebrews was written to console addressees who “mourned the loss of Jerusalem” (Sacred Space, esp. 67, 77–78; Isaacs, Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary, RNT [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002], 12–13). According to Isaacs, in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, “a sense of loss, inevitably felt keenly by Jewish Christians, called forth from our author a reinterpretation of Judaism’s established means of access to God, replacing them by Christ and relocating sacred space in heaven itself – understood as the presence of God” (Sacred Space, 67). Spicq contends that the author (who he thought was Apollos) wrote to console his readers in the wake of the temple’s destruction (L’Épître aux Hébreux, 1:260, cf. 8–12). 30 Schenck, New Perspective, 21. 31 Schenck, New Perspective, 195, 108. 32 Schenck, New Perspective, 93. This assumption is represented, e. g., in Ribbens’s claim that “the Christ-event led the author to completely reevaluate the Levitical system” (Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult, 235). While I agree with the premise that contemplating the meaning of Jesus’s death would lead a Paulinist like the author of Hebrews to reevaluate the Levitical system, this claim must be balanced with the fact that the loss of the Levitical cult also provoked the author of Hebrews to reevaluate the Christ-event. My research suggests that the author of Hebrews reevaluated each in light of the other.

5.2 Previous Scholarship

241

universal acknowledgment that the author had attained a high level of rhetorical training. 33 In Cicero’s estimation, consolation was one rhetorical problem for which a speaker must become adept (De or. 3.30.118), and the inclusion of prescriptions for a consolatory speech in Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata (2:117.6–25) shows that training in consolatory rhetoric occurred at the elementary level. An author with advanced knowledge of rhetoric like the author of Hebrews would have known the standard means of persuasion to console people in distress. In analyzing how he employs consolatory rhetoric, my study identifies currently unrecognized consolatory arguments in Hebrews concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, demonstrates that the author utilized 1 Thessalonians as a model when composing 6:9–12 and 10:32–39, and contextualizes the author’s consolations concerning death within both the Pauline corpus and ancient consolation literature at large. Like other Hellenistic Jewish consolers, the author of Hebrews braids consolatory topoi from his Bible and Greco-Roman consolation. As a Paulinist believer, he also engages with, extends, and transforms the legacy of Pauline consolation to soothe his addressees regarding the traumas of his own day. In this sense, Hebrews is both a representative of Hellenistic Jewish consolation and a development out of and interpretation of Pauline consolation. Awareness that Hebrews contains well-attested ancient consolatory rhetoric regarding the loss of Jerusalem, the temple, a functioning high priesthood, and the Jewish sacrificial cult is highly significant for how one understands the central purpose of Hebrews. It requires the interpreter to abandon the longheld hypothesis that the author of Hebrews polemicized against the Jewish cult in order to dissuade his readers from participating in it. Instead, Hebrews’ consolatory rhetoric directs us to conceptualize its author as a Hellenistic Jew who sought to maintain the validity of Judaism when its holy city, sacrificial system, and temple were in ruins. The Scriptures and promises of the God of Israel could still be trusted. God was neither impotent nor absent. What appears to be an aberration from God’s plan, he argues, is actually an essential episode to give his children a “better” and “enduring” future. 34 Instead of focusing on what 33 The bibliography for Hebrews’ use of ancient rhetoric is enormous. Michael Martin and Jason Whitlark have recently analyzed the invention and arrangement of Hebrews in Inventing Hebrews: Design and Purpose in Ancient Rhetoric, SNTSMS 171 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018). Koester’s “Rhetorical Strategy” (Hebrews, 87–96) and deSilva’s “The Rhetorical Goal and Socio-rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews” (Perseverance in Gratitude, 39–71) provide helpful overviews of research. Spicq’s earlier explanation of rhetorical devices in Hebrews is excellent (L’Épître aux Hébreux, 1:351–78). Duane F. Watson summarizes the research from 1978 to 1997 in “Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles Since 1978,” CR 5 (1997): 175–207. 34 The author frequently uses the comparative adjective κρείσσων (“better”): 1:4; 7:19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 39–40; 12:24. In most cases, what he claims to be κρείσσων is superior precisely because it is lasting and not transitory, eternal rather than destructible. See discussion below in chapter 5, § 5.3.1 What You Lost Exists in Heaven, in an Even Better Form.

242

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

God’s people have lost, the author of Hebrews repeatedly directs his addressees’ attention to what they have gained: God has provided “something better” (κρεῖττόν τι [11:40]). To prove these theses, I first identify consolatory arguments and exempla in Hebrews intended to alleviate grief and resolve theological disorientation over the destruction of Jerusalem. Second, I demonstrate that the author of Hebrews was inspired by and even imitated Paul’s consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians in Heb 6:9–12 and 10:32–39 in his efforts to encourage his addressees to maintain their faith, hope, and joy under persecution. Third, I lay out how he attempted to resolve tensions and fill gaps in the Pauline corpus on the question of postmortem existence and created consoling visions of heaven to alleviate grief concerning death. 35 Fourth, I explicate the implications of recognizing the consolatory rhetoric in Hebrews by situating my results within contemporary scholarship on its date of composition, purpose, intended audience, relationship to the Pauline Letters, and rhetoric.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem When Hebrews is analyzed in light of the extant corpus of ancient consolatory literature, one finds numerous analogues to the following: the consolations of Jeremiah and Isaiah regarding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (LXX Jer 38; Isa 66), 36 Greek and Roman consolations concerning the loss of one’s city, whether as a result of its destruction (e. g., Seneca, Ep. 91) or because of exile (e. g., Plutarch, On Exile), 37 late first-century Hellenistic Jewish texts that explicitly seek to justify God in the wake of 70 CE (esp. 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 35 Margaret M. Mitchell’s comments on the author of James are also applicable to the author of Hebrews: “if this author knew some collection (four letters, or letters to seven churches), then he – like all readers of the Pauline corpus – was faced with multiple ‘Pauls’ and a complicated and tensive Pauline legacy he sought to steer in a particular direction” (“The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?,” in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, ed. Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg, LNTS 342 [London: T&T Clark, 2007], 75–98, esp. 79). 36 As Robert Kirschner notes in his analysis of apocalyptic and rabbinic responses to 70 CE, “the Babylonian conquest of 587 BCE had already acquainted Israel with the trauma of Israel’s devastation.… Carefully preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, the memory of the first destruction provided a frame of reference for the second” (“Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70,” HTR 78 [1985]: 27–46, 29). 37 For the philosophical consolatory tradition on exile, see Jan Felix Gaertner, “The Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” in Writing Exile: The Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity and Beyond, ed. Jan Felix Gaertner, MnSup 83 (Boston: Brill, 2007), 1–20; Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, “Later Greek Voices on the Predicament of Exile: From Teles to Plutarch and Favorinus,” in Gaertner, Writing Exile, 87–108; Jo-Marie Claassen, Displaced Persons: The Literature of Exile from Cicero to Boethius (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1999), esp. 77–102.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

243

3 Baruch, Sib. Or. 4), 38 and rabbinic consolations about the loss of the Jerusalem temple. 39 In my view, the density and strength of these parallels strongly suggest that the author of Hebrews formulated his rhetoric to comfort people whom he perceived to be grieving over the destruction of Jerusalem. I organize my analysis of his rhetoric below by consolatory argument, showing how each was utilized and shaped by voices preserved in the Septuagint, by Greek and Roman consolers, by Hellenistic Jews writing in the immediate decades following 70 CE, or by rabbis reflecting on the loss of the temple. These arguments include (1) what you lost exists in heaven, in an even better form, (2) everything perishes and everything that remains will soon perish, (3) this happened according to God’s plan, and (4) you have another form of atonement that is just as (or even more) efficacious than the forms of atonement you lost. Next, I demonstrate that the author of Hebrews utilizes exempla in the manner of ancient consolers who sought to comfort readers who had lost their city. In the process of elucidating Hebrews’ consolatory arguments and exempla, I illustrate how the author developed consolations and themes within the Pauline corpus to suit his post-70 CE circumstances.

5.3.1 What You Lost Exists in Heaven, in an Even Better Form Of all of the arguments ancient consolers employed to assuage the grief of loss, one of the most common was the argument that whatever the addressee lost

38 Fourth Ezra is usually dated to the reign of Domitian (e. g., Kenneth R. Jones, Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70: Apocalypses and Related Pseudepigrapha, JSJSup 151 [Boston: Brill, 2011], 48–56). Most scholars adopt a general “late first-century date” after 70 CE for 2 Baruch (Jones, Jewish Reactions, 87–89). Third Baruch is post-70 and dated to “the late first or early second century” (e. g., Harlow, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 10; Jones, Jewish Reactions, 120). Sibylline Oracles 4 is usually dated c. 80 CE (e. g., 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, ed. Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss in collaboration with Ruth A. Clements, AJEC 78 [Leiden: Brill, 2012], 181–239, esp. 222–23; Jones, Jewish Reactions, 178–80). For the efforts of these texts to justify God in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, see Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 199–264; Jones, Jewish Reactions; Dereck Daschke, City of Ruins: Mourning the Destruction of Jerusalem through Jewish Apocalypse, BibInt 99 (Boston: Brill, 2010), esp. 103–86; Alexander Kulik, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010); David E. Aune and Eric Stewart, “From the Idealized Past to the Imaginary Future: Eschatological Restoration in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 147–77; Harlow, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch; Frederick J. Murphy, “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” JBL 106 (1987): 671–83; Michael E. Stone, “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple,” JSJ 12 (1981): 195–204; Neusner, “Judaism in a Time of Crisis,” 315–17. 39 See, e. g., Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses”; Baruch M. Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity,” PAAJR 50 (1983): 37–61.

244

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

exists in heaven, in an even better form than what had existed on earth. 40 In the case of bereavement, one argued that the deceased was alive, happy, and with God/the gods in heaven and that their state in heaven is superior to what their state had been on earth. 41 According to Pseudo-Plutarch, one could cite “thousands of examples” under the heading that “existence after death is better [κρείττονος] than that in life” (Cons. Apoll. 115C). Seneca reminds Marcia that her deceased son is among those in heaven who have “changed for the better [mutatos in melius tuos]” (Marc. 25.3). A lost fragment of Aristotle quoted in the Consolation to Apollonius claims that those who have died have become our “betters and superiors [βελτιόνων … καὶ κρειττόνων]” (115C). In consoling his wife about the death of their daughter, Plutarch claims that children who die young have departed to “a better and more divine [βελτίονα καὶ θειοτέραν] destiny and region” (Cons. ux. 612A). 42 The Axiochus refers to the “heavenly ether” as “a better home [ἀμείνων οἶκος]” (372). Using the metaphor of a “house” for the human body, Paul issues a prospective form of the retrospective consolation that what you lost exists in heaven, in an even better form in 2 Cor 5:1: “For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a dwelling from God, a house not of human hands [οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον], eternal in the heavens [αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς].” The superiority of the heavenly over the earthly existence of a person may be based on several factors: they are living with the gods, 43 beyond the reach of evil and pain, 44 set free from the bonds of the body, 45 in their “true” or “natural” state, 46 purified of the stains and defilement of their mortal existence, 47 possessing knowledge of the mysteries of the universe, 48 and enjoying eternal peace. 49 This consolatory argument was also applied to beloved objects, buildings, and places. In the Testament of Job, Eliphas punctuates his lament over Job’s tremendous loss of wealth with the refrain, “where then is the glory of your 40 I use the word “heaven” here to designate the region of postmortem existence because it is the most common appellation within Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric. In Greek and Roman comparanda, this region might be called “the ether” (αἰθήρ [Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.20]) or “the heavenly ether” (ὁ οὐράνιος αἰθήρ [Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 366A]). For more specific place names given to the afterlife in consolation literature, see chapter 5, § 5.5 The Problem of Death. 41 See chapter 1, n. 131. 42 Cf. T. Job 47.3, which names “the heavens” as “the better world” (τὸν μείζονα αἰῶνα). 43 See chapter 1, n. 131. 44 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 370C–D, 371D, 372A; Seneca, Marc. 26.1–4; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 611C; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 101F. 45 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 370D; Seneca, Marc. 23.1–2; 24.5; Polyb. 9.3; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 611E–F. 46 E. g., Seneca, Marc. 24.5; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 611F. 47 E. g., Seneca, Marc. 23.1–2; 25.1. 48 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 370D; Seneca, Marc. 25–26; Polyb. 9.7–8. 49 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 370D; Seneca, Marc. 24.5.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

245

throne?” (32.1–12). Job, who is a king in this text, responds to his friend by claiming that his throne is located in heaven: “My throne is in the upper world [ἐν τῷ ὑπερκοσμίῳ], and its glory and majesty come from the right hand of the Father. The whole world will pass away and its glory will perish.… But my throne is in the holy land [ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ γῇ], and its glory is in the world of the unchangeable one [ἐν τῷ αἰῶνί … τοῦ ἀπαραλλάκτου]” (33.2–5). Job finds consolation in the loss of his earthly possessions by believing that his true throne exists in heaven, where its glory cannot fade. He further argues that his throne in the upper world is superior to the earthly throne he lost because it is located in a “kingdom” that will “exist forever” (33.6–9). When the Jewish people lost their holy city and temple in 70 CE, consolers in their midst utilized this common consolatory argument to assuage grief. The authors of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, and Sib. Or. 4 are united in the claim that what the Jewish people lost on earth exists in heaven, in an even better form. Fourth Ezra and 2 Baruch focus on the loss of Jerusalem as a whole, while 3 Baruch and Sib. Or. 4 apply this consolatory argument more specifically to the loss of the temple. In 4 Ezra, the Most High responds to the fact that Ezra is “sincerely grieved and profoundly distressed” about the destruction of Zion (10.39, 50) by granting him the ability to see and experience the glory and beauty of the heavenly Jerusalem, “the city of the Most High” (10.25–55). Michael E. Stone identifies Ezra’s vison of the heavenly Jerusalem as what finally comforts him after nights of lamentation: “The revelation of the future or heavenly city and the experience of it are the true comfort for his grief over Zion’s fall. From this point in the book Ezra ceases to mourn and becomes the recipient of eschatological revelations.” 50 The superiority of the heavenly Jerusalem to the earthly version is implied by the fact that it is built by God (10.25–55) and will be given to the righteous as a reward in the last days (7.26–28). The Lord “has called [the righteous] to heavenly kingdoms” (cf. βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον [Heb 12:28]), such that they must “flee from the shadow of this age” (2.36–38). In 2 Baruch, the Lord answers Baruch’s pained questions concerning what will happen if the Lord will “destroy [his] city and deliver up [his] country” by revealing to him that the earthly Jerusalem is not the Jerusalem he promised to protect (3.1–4.7). Yes, the earthly city “will be delivered up for a time” (4.1), but

50 Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia 41 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 336. Stone makes this point in his discussion of theodicy as well: “In an essential way, the response to the underlying issues [of theodicy] is given in the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem which comforts Ezra for Jerusalem’s present destruction and by the two dream visions which promise the destruction of Rome and the redemption and vindication of Israel” (Fourth Ezra, 36). Aune and Stewart concur, writing, “his vision of the established city in 10:25–27 is a visionary preview of the future revelation of the heavenly Jerusalem intended to comfort Ezra in his grief for the loss of the historical Jerusalem” (“From the Idealized Past,” 166).

246

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

“the city of which [God] said: ‘On the palms of my hands I have carved you’ [Isa 49:16]” is located in heaven: It is not this building that is in your midst now; it is that which will be revealed, with me, that was already prepared from the moment that I decided to create Paradise. And I showed it to Adam before he sinned.… I showed it to my servant Abraham.… And again I showed it also to Moses on Mount Sinai when I showed him the likeness of the tabernacle and all of its vessels. Behold, now it is preserved with me – as also Paradise. 51

Here the author of 2 Baruch attempts to deal with the trauma of 70 CE by claiming (contra Isa 49:16) that the city that God will never forsake is the heavenly Zion. The city that God had prepared from the beginning of time, of which the patriarchs were granted a special glimpse, is safe with God in heaven, so that one day the righteous might “receive the undying world which is promised to them” (2 Bar. 51.3; cf. 84.6, Heb 12:28). In his consolatory letter to the exiles, Baruch concisely states his perspective that the heavenly city they will receive is superior to the earthly Jerusalem they lost, writing, “that which we lost was subjected to corruption, but that which we receive will not be corruptible” (85.5). Third Baruch begins with Baruch weeping over the fate of Jerusalem and questioning why God allowed it to happen, “Lord, why did you set your vineyard on fire and lay it waste?” (1.1–2). God does not directly answer the questions asked but sends an angel to bring Baruch on a tour of the heavens. I agree with Gaylord that this tour answers the unstated question, “how can the proper relation between God and men be maintained without the sacrifices of the Temple?” 52 The answer, denoted as one of the “mysteries of God” (1.8), is that a temple exists in heaven that substitutes for the earthly cult. 53 Angels act as priests, Michael acts as high priest, and the prayers, virtues, and good deeds of people on earth take the place of sacrifices (11.1–16.3). 54 There is no explicit claim that the heavenly temple is superior to the lost Jerusalem temple in 3 Baruch, but comfort is found in the revelation that the heavenly temple is just as efficacious. Sacrifices are still being offered to God; they have merely taken a different form.

51

2 Bar. 4.3–6. H. E. Gaylord Jr., “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 653–79, esp. 659. 53 Church writes, “The response to this question is that the heavenly cultus is a substitute for the temple cultus, and consequently, for 3 Baruch, the Jerusalem temple is obsolete, and never needs to be restored” (Hebrews and the Temple, 221). On this point, see also Harlow, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 71–75. 54 See Daschke, City of Ruins, 185; Kulik, 3 Baruch, 306–29; Harlow, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 156. 52

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

247

In Sib. Or. 4, the sibyl reacts to the loss of the Jerusalem temple by arguing that God’s heavenly abode is superior to earthly temples (4.6–30). She proclaims that God “does not have a house [οὐδὲ γὰρ οἶκον ἔχει], a stone drawn up for a temple [ναῷ λίθον ἑλκυσθέντα], … but one which it is not possible to see from earth [ἀλλ’ ὃν ἰδεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπὸ χθονός], nor to measure with mortal eyes [οὐδὲ μετρῆσαι ὄμμασιν ἐν θνητοῖς], because it was not made by a mortal hand [οὐ πλασθέντα χερὶ θνητῇ]” (4.6–11). She disparages “all temples” and animal sacrifices in broad strokes (4.27–30), yet we must interpret this apparent hostility toward temple worship in conjunction with two facts. First, the only temples left when Sib. Or. 4 were composed were devoted to deities other than the God of Israel. Second, the sibyl speaks lovingly of the “great temple of God” in Jerusalem when she describes the horrors of war that left the temple burning and innumerable Jews slaughtered (4.115–129). 55 Her positive view of the Jerusalem temple in 4.115–129 is a signpost that the sibyl’s claim that God’s house is in heaven is a consolatory argument aimed to dissipate grief over the loss of its counterpart on earth. The consolatory thrust of Sib. Or. 4 problematizes the claim that it is an “anti-Temple-and-cult composition.” 56 If the sibyl is employing the conventional consolatory argument that the safe heavenly counterpart of the beloved lost person/place/thing is superior to its earthly version, she is not so much rejecting the temple as trying to preserve the reality of God’s temple when its tangible manifestation is no longer accessible. On my analysis, the consolatory argument that what you lost exists in heaven, in an even better form explains why the author of Hebrews is preoccupied with transferring earthly realities to the heavenly sphere and why he repeatedly emphasizes that the heavenly versions of Jerusalem, the sanctuary, the high priest, and atonement are superior to their earthly manifestations. Hebrews 10:34 unequivocally demonstrates that the author was aware of and employed this consolatory argument, making it both plausible and likely that he would utilize it elsewhere in his letter. Speaking of the former days of the community, he writes, “you welcomed the seizure of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you had a better and lasting possession [κρείττονα ὕπαρξιν καὶ μένουσαν]” (10:34). Here, the consolation for losing one’s possessions is the belief that one has a “better” possession in heaven that cannot be taken away. I argue that Hebrews utilizes the same argument to offer consolation for the loss of Jerusalem, the sanctuary, a functioning high priest, and the established means of 55 Church writes, “the way the temple is described as ‘the great temple of God,’ and the fact that Jerusalem and the temple are singled out for special mention, are significant indicators of a positive attitude to the temple” (Hebrews and the Church, 242). 56 Tuval calls Sib. Or. 4 “arguably the most anti-Temple-and-cult composition written in the Diaspora” (“Doing without the Temple,” 222). I am not aware of any scholar who recognizes a consolatory purpose in Sib. Or. 4.

248

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

atonement. The objection that Hebrews never explicitly states that they lost these things is surmountable, for the other post-70 CE Jewish comparanda do not always state the loss before offering the consolation. 57 To compensate for the earthly Jerusalem being in ruins, Hebrews argues that God has prepared a “heavenly Jerusalem” for his children, “the city of the living God,” which is “better” (κρείττονος) than any πατρίς on earth (12:22; cf. 11:16). Like 2 Baruch, Hebrews envisions that the patriarchs were given privileged glimpses of this heavenly city, “whose architect [τεχνίτης] and builder [δημιουργός] is God” (11:10, 13–16). In fact, the similarities between the consolatory strategy of 2 Baruch and Hebrews regarding the loss of Jerusalem are remarkable: both argue that the “real” or “better” Jerusalem is located in heaven, 58 that God showed it to the patriarchs, 59 and that God’s righteous ones will enter into it as their eternal inheritance. As the Most High consoled Ezra over the destruction of Jerusalem through a vision of the glory of the heavenly Jerusalem, the author of Hebrews seeks to comfort his readers about the loss of “Mount Zion” and “the city of the Living God” by giving them a glimpse of the “heavenly Jerusalem” where angels and righteous ones live forever with God and Jesus, their mediator (12:22–24). To comfort his readers about the temple’s destruction, the author of Hebrews argues that “the true tent” (τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς) is located “in the heavens” (ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), not on earth (8:1–2). The author of Hebrews calls the heavenly sanctuary “the greater and more perfect tent” (τῆς μείζονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς [9:11]). Like the sibyl, he bases its superiority on being fashioned by God and not mortals (Sib. Or. 4.8–11): the heavenly tent was pitched by “the Lord, not a mortal” (8:2), such that it is “not of human hands [οὐ χειροποιήτου], that is, not of this creation [τοῦτ’ ἔστιν οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως]” (9:11). Similarities between 2 Cor 5:1 and Heb 8:1–2 and 9:11 suggest that the author of Hebrews may have applied Paul’s consolation regarding the destruc-

57 E. g., 3 Baruch never mentions that the sacrificial cult had ceased but offers consolation for its loss by depicting a functioning and efficacious sacrificial cult in heaven. Likewise, 3 Baruch does not mention the loss of a functioning high priest as a source of grief but obviously seeks to ameliorate that trauma by assuring Baruch that Michael fulfills that role. See chapter 5, § 5.3.4 You Have Another Form of Atonement That Is Just as (or Even More) Efficacious Than the Forms of Atonement You Lost. 58 Referring to 2 Bar. 4.2–6, Andrew T. Lincoln writes, “Here the real Jerusalem is the heavenly, and this heavenly reality was shown only to a few most privileged people, the seer among them” (Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology, SNTSMS 43 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], 20). In the words of Sayler, “God assured Baruch that the earthly Jerusalem was only a shadow of its heavenly counterpart” (Have the Promises Failed, 66). 59 In 2 Baruch, visions of the heavenly city are granted to Adam, Abraham, and Moses. In Hebrews, Abraham is singled out in this regard (11:10), yet all of the patriarchs mentioned in 11:4–12 are implied as those “seeking” and “desiring” the heavenly city in 11:13–16.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

249

tion of the body to the temple, 60 but the prevalence of this consolatory argument renders it impossible to determine whether there was Pauline influence. As for the loss of a functioning high priest and the established means of making atonement through animal sacrifices, the author of Hebrews consistently applies the same consolatory argument: you have a high priest who makes atonement on your behalf in heaven, he is better than the earthly high priests you lost, and his atonement is better than the forms of atonement you can no longer participate in. 61 According to Hebrews, Jesus is a superior high priest because his high priesthood is not temporary but eternal: “he holds his priesthood permanently” (7:24; cf. 6:20; 7:3, 17, 20, 23–25). The superiority of his priesthood is underscored by the superior location of his ministry. Jesus acts as high priest within the “true” heavenly sanctuary rather than “a sanctuary made by human hands, a copy of the true one” (9:24). The atonement accomplished by Christ through offering himself as a sacrifice is deemed superior to the yearly sacrifices of the high priest on the Day of Atonement because Christ obtained “eternal redemption” (αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν) through one single offering of himself (9:11–14, 25–26). Paul’s letters do not share Hebrews’ claim that Jesus is a heavenly high priest who sacrificed himself, yet they contain the building blocks of Hebrews’ high priestly Christology. Paul interpreted Jesus’s death as a sacrifice for sin, 62 depicted the resurrected Christ as exalted in heaven at the right hand of God (Phil 2:9–11; Rom 8:34), and claimed that the exalted Christ “intercedes for” his followers there (ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν [Rom 8:34]). Although the portrait of Christ as a heavenly intercessor is a minor theme in the Pauline corpus, 63 the author of Hebrews elaborates this theme to compensate for the loss of a functioning high priest on earth. He identifies Christ’s intercession in Romans as the intercession of a high priest and argues that he is superior to high priests on 60 In 2 Cor 5:1, Paul uses the metaphors of an “earthly house” (ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία) and “tent” (τὸ σκῆνος) for the body and promises that should these “be destroyed,” we still have “a dwelling from God” (οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ), “a house not of human hands” (οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον), “eternal in the heavens” (αἰώνιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). The author of Hebrews utilizes this same consolatory argument regarding God’s earthly “tent” (σκηνή), assuring his readers that they have an eternal one “in the heavens” (ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), made by the Lord, “not of human hands [οὐ χειροποιήτου]” (8:1–2; 9:11). The shared cluster of motifs and the fact that σκῆνος and σκηνή are synonyms make it possible that the author of Hebrews applied Paul’s consolation regarding the destruction of the body to the destruction of the temple. 61 These consolatory arguments concerning the high priest and atonement raise questions about the ethnicity of the intended audience of Hebrews. Do these arguments presuppose a Jewish audience of Christ-believers? Might these arguments reflect the concerns of the Jewish author of Hebrews, even if he was writing to a predominately gentile audience? See chapter 5, § 5.6 Implications. 62 E. g., Rom 3:23–25; 8:3; 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Cor 5:21. 63 Romans 8:34 is the only instance in the Pauline Letters in which Christ is presented as a heavenly intercessor (Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 542).

250

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

earth on multiple accounts: (1) his superior sacrifice of himself, (2) his superior location of ministry in heaven, and (3) his eternal office of intercession. Mortal high priests will die, but “he is able to completely save those who approach God through him because he always lives [πάντοτε ζῶν] to make intercession on their behalf [εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν]” (7:25).

5.3.2 Everything Perishes and Everything That Remains Will Soon Perish Another common consolatory argument in situations of loss was that everything perishes and everything that remains will soon perish. If a consoler was treating the grief of bereavement, this argument took the form of reminders that everyone is going to die, and you will soon follow the one you lost. 64 If a consoler was dealing with the destruction of a beloved city, this argument became a claim that all cities are temporary and doomed to perish. In Seneca’s consolatory letter about the burning of Lyons, he describes the destructions of numerous cities and concludes, “They stand but to fall! This doom awaits them, one and all” (Ep. 91.9–12). 65 Seneca discusses the transience of the natural world, speaking of how “peaks of mountains dissolve” and how “places which once stood far from the sight of the sea are now covered by the waves,” concluding that “the works of nature are herself harassed; hence we ought to bear with untroubled mind the destruction of cities” (Ep. 91.11–12). When Jewish apocalyptic consolers applied the consolatory argument that everything perishes and everything that remains will soon perish to 70 CE, they went beyond Seneca’s claim that all cities are doomed to perish to argue that the entire cosmos is hastening to destruction. Within 4 Ezra, “the humiliation of Zion” is simply one aspect of “the age which is about to pass away” (6.20). Baruch consoles the people about “what has befallen Zion and what happened to Jerusalem” by revealing to them that “everything will pass away which is corruptible, and everything that dies will go away, and all present time will be forgotten” (2 Bar. 44.5, 9). 66 The seer urges the distressed to conceptualize the destruction of Zion as just one aspect of “the time in which the Mighty One shall shake the entire creation” (2 Bar. 32.1–2). The sibyl deploys this consolatory argument in ways represented by Seneca, on the one hand, and 4 Ezra and 64 E. g., Cicero, Fam. 4.5.4; 5.16.2; Seneca, Marc. 21; Polyb. 1.1–4; Ep. 63.15–16; 93.12; 99.7– 9; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 475C; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 110F, 113C–E. Extant funerary inscriptions bear a common version of this consolatory argument: Θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος, that is, “Take courage, no one is immortal.” See Simon, “Θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος.” 65 E. g., Seneca writes, “How often have cities in Asia, how often in Achaia, been laid low by a single shock of earthquake! How many towns in Syria, how many in Macedonia, have been swallowed up! How often has this kind of devastation laid Cyprus in ruins!” (Ep. 91.9). 66 Cf. 2 Bar. 31.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

251

2 Baruch, on the other. Like Seneca, she contextualizes the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of its temple, and the slaughter of many in “the great land of the Jews” (4.125–127) within a framework in which cities all over the Mediterranean are perpetually overthrown, burnt, and their inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved: Croton, Tyre, Delos, Bactria, Baris, Cyzicus, Rhodes, Corinth, Laodicea, Myra, and Antioch (Sib. Or. 4.82–140). 67 Like the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, the sibyl also announces that God will soon “burn the whole earth, and he will destroy every race of men and all cities and rivers at the same time, and the sea. And he will set everything on fire” (4.176–178; cf. 4.160–161). These texts disagree about how God will dissolve the material world, 68 but they are united in their effort to comfort readers about the loss of Jerusalem by arguing that the whole world is about to be destroyed anyway. The author of Hebrews utilizes the argument that everything perishes and everything that remains will soon perish to the same end as his Jewish apocalyptic contemporaries, to relativize the gravity of the loss of Jerusalem. If the whole created world is about to be lost, why mourn over the loss of one city? The transience of the created order in comparison to the permanence of the “unshakable kingdom” located in heaven (12:28) is a recurring theme in Hebrews. “The heavens” and “the earth” “will perish” (ἀπολοῦνται), but the Lord “remains” (διαμένεις) (1:10–12). The author captures the point of Seneca and the sibyl that all cities perish, writing, “Here, we have no enduring city [οὐ … ἔχομεν ὧδε μένουσαν πόλιν]” (13:14). Like the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, he directs his readers’ attention to a permanent city in heaven that will endure, “but we seek one to come [τὴν μέλλουσαν]” (13:14), a city he identifies as “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22). The author of Hebrews does not abandon Jerusalem to the dictates of human affairs and natural decay (as would Seneca) but sides with his Jewish apocalyptic contemporaries in claiming that God has preserved and will preserve Jerusalem, even if that Jerusalem is not the tangible city on earth people assumed was the focus of God’s protection. In his rhetoric, God “has promised” to once again “shake not only the earth but also the heaven,” such that all “created things” will be removed and only “things which cannot be shaken” (such as the heavenly Jerusalem) “will remain” (12:26–27). Paul’s imminent eschatological expectation would have provided fodder for these sorts of statements, but Paul never writes about the impermanence of cities on earth. When interpreted in light of Seneca’s consolations regarding the burning of Lyons and Jewish texts responding to the destruction of Jerusalem, Hebrews’ emphases on the transience of the created

67 To these specific cities can be added several summary statements concerning the destruction of cities: Sib. Or. 4.69, 84–85, 99–100, 132, 149. 68 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch do not envision a great conflagration like Sib. Or. 4.

252

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

order in general and of earthly cities in particular are shown to be consolatory commonplaces employed to comfort readers concerning the loss of Jerusalem.

5.3.3 This Happened according to God’s Plan The argument that this happened according to God’s plan is so ubiquitous in ancient consolatory rhetoric that it exists in innumerable iterations to fit with the specifics of any and every type of trauma. For this reason, I limit my analysis to how ancient Jews applied this consolatory argument to the circumstances of 70 CE and delineate its two most prominent expressions: (1) God had planned long ago for the holy city and the temple to be destroyed at the end of days, and (2) God never intended for the temple rites to be permanent. That unexpected traumas produce greater grief is a maxim in consolatory literature, expressed in Seneca’s letter about the burning of Lyons as follows: “not without reason has he [Liberalis] been shaken; for it is the unexpected that puts the heaviest load upon us. Strangeness adds to the weight of calamities, and every mortal feels the greater pain as a result of that which also brings surprise” (Ep. 91.3). Our sources suggest that the destruction of the Second Temple did come as a surprise to the Jewish people. 69 To deal with the shock that God did not miraculously save the day, numerous Jewish texts written after 70 CE took up the task of proving that God had intended for this to happen along. The Apocalypse of Abraham, usually dated sometime between 70 and 100 CE, describes the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE in considerable detail. 70 This text claims that God gave Abraham a vision of foreigners invading Jerusalem, burning its temple, and stealing its sacred objects (Apoc. Ab. 27.1–8). The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo chooses Moses as the recipient of divine revelation that the Jerusalem temple would fall (LAB 19.6–7). 71 Church writes of the viewpoint of LAB, “Even from the beginning, the temple was doomed to destruction.” 72 According to Josephus, Moses had predicted that the cities of the Jews and the temple would be lost “not once, but many times”: “Moses foretold, as the divinity revealed to him, that … their land would be filled with the armies 69 Schenck observes, “Josephus indicates that there was hope down to the very end that God would rush in and miraculously save,” citing B. J. 6.282–287 and 1.347 as evidence (New Perspective, 106). 70 Church writes, “Since the work recounts the destruction of the temple, it post-dates the events of 70 CE, although the precise date is elusive … a date late in the first century seems reasonable” (Hebrews and the Temple, 226). 71 For an extensive argument concerning the post-70 CE dating of Pseudo-Philo, see Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation, AGJU 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 199–210. Building on the work of Jacobson, Church discusses LAB as “an attempt to come to grips with this [70 CE] crisis” (Hebrews and the Temple, 233). 72 Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 236.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

253

of enemies, their cities razed to the ground, and their temple burnt to ashes” (A. J. 4.313). As the curses for disobeying the covenant in Deut 28 do not include the destruction of the temple, these are clearly post-70 CE expansions to traditions about Moses whose purpose is to argue that God had anticipated and planned for the destruction of the holy city and the temple. Within the Gospels, Jesus is the figure with divine foresight concerning the temple’s destruction, with the Lukan Jesus especially elaborating on the loss of Jerusalem. 73 As for rabbinic sources, the Midrash Tanḥuma Ki Tavo attributes to Moses divine foresight concerning 70 CE: “Moses saw with the holy spirit that the Temple is destined to be destroyed and the firstfruits are destined to cease.” 74 Another rabbinic text, Pirqe R. El. 5, posits that King David was the recipient of such revelation: “David, knowing that because of Israel’s iniquities the Temple was to be destroyed and that offerings were to cease, was distressed for Israel.” 75 Bokser has tabulated more examples in the rabbinic corpus that attest to the belief that God foreknew and foretold the destruction of the Second Temple. 76 This conviction was a result of the rabbis’ attempt to square their “belief in an all-powerful and all-knowing God” with the reality that the temple cult no longer existed. 77 They concluded that the cessation of temple sacrifices must have been divinely intended. According to Kirschner’s study on “apocalyptic and rabbinic responses to the destruction of 70,” “two basic theodicies emerged from the catastrophe of 70: divine transcendence and divine identification. According to the first, God engineered the Temple’s destruction; according to the second, he could not prevent it.” 78 The first theodicy is represented in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, of which Kirschner writes, “The destruction of Jerusalem is a divine dispensation to pave the way for the climax of human history. The destinies of peoples and nations are manipulated in accordance with God’s schema of redemption.… The fall of Jerusalem, as painful as it may be, is a providential sign that the awaited end is near. The destruction of the Temple signifies not the defeat of God but the hidden design of God.” 79 I agree with Kirschner’s analysis, as 2 Baruch claims that God “took away Zion to visit the world in its own time more speedily” (20.3). 80 According to 2 Baruch, Zion’s destruction was necessary so that it “may be restored forever” (6.9), “renewed in glory” (32.5), and “perfected into eternity” (32.5). 73

Mark 13:2, 14; Matt 23:37–24:2, 15; Luke 19:41–44; 21:5–6, 20–24; 23:28–31; John 4:21. Quotation from Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe,” 54. 75 Quotation from Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe,” 56. 76 Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe,” 54 n. 37. 77 Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe,” 61. 78 Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses,” 44. 79 Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses,” 37–38. 80 Murphy writes of 2 Bar. 20.2, “Zion’s fall is simply the beginning of the necessary end” (“Temple in Syriac Baruch,” 677). 74

254

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

Hebrews ought to be understood alongside 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch as a text that emphasizes God’s transcendence in order to help its readers cope with the reality of 70 CE. Kirschner’s comments concerning this theodicy in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are also applicable to Hebrews: “In the apocalyptic mind, the Temple’s destruction is not what it appears to be. Rather than cause for despair, it is a sign of the divine economy.” 81 The author of Hebrews argues the point that God had planned for the temple cult to cease through exegesis of Jeremiah. According to Hebrews, the author and his addressees were living in the latter days of which Jeremiah prophesied, a time in which the Lord had planned all along to make a “new covenant” with his people. 82 Jeremiah presents God’s intent to make a new covenant as a gracious solution to the problem that his people did not fulfill the Mosaic covenant (LXX Jer 38:32, quoted in Heb 8:9). The destruction of the Second Temple forced the Jewish people into the situation in which they could not fulfill all of the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. No longer could they atone for their sins through the blood sacrifices God had commanded. No longer could the high priest enter into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. The loss of Jerusalem and the temple suggested to many Jews that “the divine covenant appeared to be sundered.” 83 How could God expect his people to fulfill obligations that the Romans had rendered impossible to fulfill? To resolve this theological crisis, the author of Hebrews reasoned like his Jewish contemporaries and later rabbis – if we cannot fulfill the cultic obligations of the Mosaic covenant in the absence of the temple and if God is sovereign, then God must have intended for the cultic obligations of the Mosaic covenant (e. g., the blood sacrifices) to be temporary. For the author of Hebrews, Jer 38:31–34 offered a solution to the problem that God’s people could not fulfill their cultic obligations with the temple in ruins. 84 In his understanding of Jeremiah, God’s people need not worry, for they are living at “the end of the age” (9:26), and God had announced long ago that sacrifices for sin would no longer be required during this period of history (10:18). Interpreting God’s promise that under the new covenant he would “remember their sins no more” (Jer 38:34; cited in Heb 10:17), the author writes, “and where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no longer an offering for sin” (10:18). In essence, the author of Hebrews employs 81

Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses,” 44. LXX Jer 31:31–34, cited in Heb 8:8–12; 10:16–17. 83 Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses,” 27. See also the work of Gelardini, who argues that the destruction of the Second Temple indicated a “breach in the covenant” (Bundesbruch), which the author of Hebrews believed could be resolved by a messianic mediator and a final sin offering that could open the way to renewing the covenant (Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht, 389). 84 Mitchell asks an insightful question in this regard, “When he [the author of Hebrews] speaks of a new covenant, which stresses the interior over the exterior, is it because he wishes to challenge the efficaciousness of the old covenant, or is it because the disappearance of the external means of the ‘old’ now makes interiority a necessity?” (Hebrews, 27). 82

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

255

God’s words of consolation in Jer 38:31–34 to argue that God has revealed that his people no longer need what they lost. Hebrews’ quotations of and interaction with Jer 38:31–34 add to the evidence that Hebrews was composed after 70 CE. In his investigation of the use of Jeremiah in early Judaism and Christianity, Christian Wolff discovered that “the decisive point in time for the rediscovery of the Book of Jeremiah was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. After this catastrophe, Judaism turned to the great preacher of repentance, Jeremiah, but also to his consoling promises, and conveyed both aspects of the prophet’s proclamation to the young Christianity.” 85 According to Wolff’s research, Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant does not appear in early Jewish texts or the New Testament until Hebrews. 86 Strikingly, this prophecy is not quoted in other late first-century CE and early second-century CE Jewish sources; Justin’s Dial. 11 is the second earliest text to quote and interpret Jer 38:31–34. 87 In my view, this evidence suggests that the Paulinist author of Hebrews may have been motivated to explore the consolatory potential of this prophecy due to the influence of Paul’s concept of “the new covenant” in 1 and 2 Corinthians. 88 Paul does not quote LXX Jer 38:31–34, 89 but he utilizes the words ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη in recounting Jesus’s words over the cup: “This cup is the new covenant [ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη] in my blood” (1 Cor 11:25). It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jesus’s words allude to Jer 38:31, as it is the only verse in the Septuagint in which διαθήκη is modified by καινή. These words appear once more in the Pauline corpus, in 2 Cor 3:6, where Paul asserts that God made him and his addressees “ministers of a new covenant” (καινῆς διαθήκης), a covenant distinguished by “the spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα) rather than “the letter” (τὸ γράμμα). The author of Hebrews found this Pauline characterization of the “new covenant” well suited for comforting people about the loss of the temple, for they could not fulfill “the letter” of the Mosaic covenant even if they wanted to. He does not refer to the Mosaic covenant as the “old covenant” (ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη) as does Paul in 2 Cor 3:14, but the influence of 85 Translation my own. Christian Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum, TUGAL 118 (Berlin: Akademie, 1976), 192. 86 Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum, 146, 192. 87 Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum, 188. 88 If we are confident that the author of Hebrews was an interpreter of Paul and we have no evidence that other Jewish authors were utilizing LXX Jer 38:31–34 (MT 31:31–34) to ameliorate grief in the wake of 70 CE, then it is likely that Paul’s language of “the new covenant” incited the author of Hebrews to utilize Jeremiah’s prophecy in his own composition. Nevertheless, the author of Hebrews could have been motivated to apply LXX Jer 38:31–34 to his own situation (independently of Paul) by reflecting on how God had comforted his people in the past when Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed. In my mind, the theory of Pauline influence on this point is more plausible, but it remains a theory. For evidence that the author of Hebrews was an interpreter of Paul, see chapter 5, § 5.4 Imitating Pauline Consolation regarding Persecution. 89 Romans 11:27 is derived from Isa 27:9, not Jer 31:34.

256

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

2 Cor 3:1–18 on his conceptualization of “the first covenant” (ἡ πρώτη διαθήκη) is nonetheless palpable. 90 After quoting Jer 38:31–34, he utilizes the verb and participle forms of Paul’s adjective παλαιά to describe the Mosaic covenant: “In saying ‘new’ [ἐν τῷ λέγειν καινήν], the first [τὴν πρώτην] has become old [πεπαλαίωκεν]; and what is growing old [τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον] and aged is near destruction” (8:13). The author of Hebrews considered Paul’s formulations of “the new covenant” initiated in Jesus’s blood (1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:1–18) and Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant to be sources of consolation for addressees whose posttemple context rendered it practically impossible to fulfill the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. He focuses his attention on how Jeremiah attempted to help his people overcome the loss of Solomon’s Temple and applies Jeremiah’s consolation from hundreds of years earlier to his own situation of comparable loss. 91 In doing so, Hebrews maintains that this happened according to God’s plan.

5.3.4 You Have Another Form of Atonement That Is Just as (or Even More) Efficacious Than the Forms of Atonement You Lost The question of how to atone for one’s sins and the sins of the Jewish people loomed large in the “Jewish religious crisis” precipitated by the destruction of Jerusalem, for “atonement would not be won upon the broken altars.” 92 In the words of Eyal Regev, Jews were “searching for new modes of atonement instead of the sacrificial cult.” 93 Out of this practical inquiry emerged the consolation that you have another form of atonement that is just as (or even more) efficacious than the forms of atonement you lost. In place of animal sacrifices, the sibyl advocates repentant prayer and “words of praise” as the means of propitiating God (Sib. Or. 4.24–30, 166–170). The author of 3 Baruch presents this consolation by way of two arguments: (1) that prayer, virtuous living, and good works are acceptable offerings to God that can also atone for sin, and (2) that atonement is still being made on behalf of God’s people in heaven, where the angel Michael functions as a heavenly high priest who presents these offerings to God 90

See Heb 8:7, 13; 9:1–2, 15, 18; 10:9. The author of Hebrews is typical of late first-century Jews in reflecting on how God’s people made it through the trauma of the first destruction of Jerusalem. According to Robert J. Schreiter, remembering one’s past is one of the ways that “resilience manifests itself ” in groups that have survived trauma: “It manifests itself first of all by focusing upon narratives of the group from the group’s distant past that witness to its founding and having overcome adversity in those ancient times, as well as subsequent encounters with trauma-inducing events” (“Reading Biblical Texts through the Lens of Resilience,” in Bible through the Lens of Trauma, ed. Elizabeth Boase and Christopher G. Frechette, SemeiaSt 86 [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016], 193– 207, esp. 201). 92 Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses,” 27–28. 93 Regev, “What Has Been Changed,” 598. 91

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

257

(3 Bar. 11–14). To compensate for the loss of the Day of Atonement ritual, 3 Bar. 14 depicts a “Celestial day of Atonement”: “Unseen to the audience, Michael alone enters a hidden realm behind the door in order to intercede for the supplicants before God. Other angels are left outside, just as other priests are not allowed to enter the Holy of Holies.” 94 Both consolations regarding atonement offered by 3 Baruch are attested in rabbinic literature. A story about the first-century rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai illustrates the first: Once as Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was coming out of Jerusalem, Rabbi Joshua followed him, and beheld the Temple in ruins. Said R. Joshua, Woe unto us that this place, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for, is in ruins. Said [Rabban Yoḥanan] to him, My son, be not grieved. We have another atonement that is like it. And what is it? It is acts of lovingkindness, as it is said, “For I desire mercy (heṣed), not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6). 95

According to Neusner, this story epitomizes “the main outline of the Pharisaicrabbinic view of the destruction,” that is, “there was another means of reconciliation between God and Israel, so that the Temple and its cult were not decisive.” 96 In addition to the acts of loving kindness (gemilut ḥasadim) mentioned by Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, 97 the rabbis mention charity, prayer, the study of the law, repentance, fasting, suffering, and “various attitudes of the heart” as extracultic means of atonement. 98 In the earliest rabbinic sources, the Mishnah and Tosefta, the rabbis mention practices like these alongside sacrifices but do not present them as substitutes for sacrifice or as greater than sacrifice. 99 In these texts, the goal is to remind people that God has provided more than one means of atonement, such that atonement is still possible without the temple. Bokser has identified a shift in postmishnaic sources, wherein rabbis “expressly state 94 Kulik, 3 Baruch, 361. Church agrees with Kulik’s analysis, adding, “while the Day of Atonement ritual was no longer possible, there was a heavenly counterpart where Michael entered the celestial holy of holies and achieved atonement for the righteous” (Hebrews and the Temple, 224–25). 95 Abot de Rabbi Nathan, version A, 4. Translation from Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to ʾ Catastrophe,” 38. 96 Neusner, “Judaism in a Time of Crisis,” 324. 97 This is the text quoted above ( Abot de Rabbi Nathan, version A, 4). It is also cited by ʾ Regev, “What Has Been Changed,” 599; Neusner, “Judaism in a Time of Crisis,” 324. 98 Regev cites Sifre Re’eh 143 for the belief that “charity takes the place of some of the festival sacrifices” and b. B. Bat. 10b for the belief that “charity atones” (“What Has Been Changed,” 598). See also, Dan 4:24; Tobit 12:9. Regev writes, “Prayer and the study of Torah are termed ‘avoda, like the sacrificial cult. See t. Berakhot 3:1; b. Berakhot 32b; Sifrei ‘Ekev 41” (“What Has Been Changed,” 599). Everett Ferguson discusses the rabbinic literature on each of these “religious duties which availed the same as sacrifice or could be claimed to be superior to sacrifice” in “Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and Its Environment,” ANRW 23.2:1151– 89, esp. 1161–62. 99 Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe,” 40–47.

258

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

that the extra-Temple rites are better than the Temple ones … teachings claim that an extra-Temple practice replaces a Temple one, or a person can achieve the moral-religious purpose of a sacrifice through his own behavior.” 100 For example, “the one who does charity is greater than all the sacrifices” (b. Sukkah 49b), and “prayer is greater than all sacrifices” (b. Berakhot 32b). 101 The second consolation identified in 3 Baruch, that atonement is still being made in heaven for God’s people, is represented, for example, by the sage Rav (c. 250 CE), who “mentions that the angel Michael offers sacrifices on the altar in heaven” (b. Menaḥ 110a). 102 According to b. Ḥag. 12b, the heavenly Jerusalem is located in the fourth heaven, where “the temple and altar are built, and Michael, the great prince stands and offers up an offering upon it.” 103 Bet HaMidrash 5.63 states that “the celestial Temple has been erected in order to serve for the atonement of Israel after the destruction of the Temple.” 104 Hebrews’ perspective on atonement coheres remarkably well with the consolatory arguments issued by 3 Baruch and the rabbis in regard to the loss of the sacrificial cult. Like them, he argues that his readers have a heavenly high priest who makes atonement on their behalf in heaven, yet instead of the angel Michael, this high priest is Jesus, the Son of God (Heb 4:14). 105 Hebrews’ argument that Jesus is superior to angels (1:5–14) may be a reaction to the post-70 CE consolation that atonement was now being made for the people by angels in the heavenly temple. If this belief was widespread (which seems likely, as it is also attested in the Testament of Levi), 106 then the author of Hebrews may have felt compelled to clarify that Jesus, though acting as heavenly high priest, was not 100

Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe,” 57. Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe,” 47–50. 102 Regev, “What Has Been Changed,” 599. See also b. Ḥag. 12b, in which Rabbi Meir states that in the fourth heaven are “the (heavenly) Jerusalem, and the (heavenly) temple, and an altar is built, at which Michael the great prince stands and on which he offers sacrifice” (quotation from Kenneth A. Vandergriff, “Διαθήκη καινή: New Covenant as Jewish Apocalypticism in Hebrews 8,” CBQ 79 [2017]: 97–110, esp. 99). 103 Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 140. 104 Paraphrase and citation from Kulik, 3 Baruch, 362. 105 Darrell D. Hannah delineates the “tradition that Michael served as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary” in Jewish apocalyptic and rabbinic literature in Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 2/109 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 43–45, 100–103. Turning to Hebrews, Hannah argues that “the author of Hebrews envisions Christ in Michael’s office of heavenly high priest” (Michael and Christ, 150). 106 In the Testament of Levi, the Lord comforts Levi over the sins and injustice of men (2.4) by granting him a vision of the heavenly temple, in which angels offer sacrifices to the Lord on behalf of all the sins of ignorance committed by the righteous (3.4–5). Though the Testament of Levi in its current form has Christian glosses, “when it comes to the passage describing Levi’s ascent, there is good reason to think that we are dealing with some authentic ancient Jewish material” (Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 132). Philo also claims that angels function as “priests” in the heavenly temple (Spec. 1.66–67). Harlow argues, “Evidently, the image of heaven as a temple and of angels as priests was so fixed an element of the apocalyptic 101

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

259

an angel. 107 Hebrews also differs from 3 Baruch and the rabbinic corpus in its claim that the heavenly high priest made atonement only once for all time with the sacrifice of himself (7:27), a claim that makes sense only in light of the gospel. Despite the claim that Jesus won “eternal redemption” (αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν [9:12]) through his sacrifice, the author of Hebrews still directs his readers to extratemple means of sacrifice: Through him [Δι’ αὐτοῦ], let us offer up a sacrifice of praise [θυσίαν αἰνέσεως] continually to God, that is, the fruit of lips that praise his name. And do not forget doing good and sharing [εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας]; for God is pleased with such sacrifices [τοιαύταις θυσίαις]. 108

There is tension between these directions and the claim that Jesus’s single sacrifice is sufficient for total reconciliation with God (10:1–18, esp. 10:14). If Jesus’s sacrifice is enough to “have perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (10:14), 109 why are sacrifices of praise, good deeds, and generosity toward others also needed? Ellingworth downplays this tension, writing of 13:15–16, “Earlier in the epistle, the writer has so strongly insisted on the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice that he can now apply the same term to Christians’ response without any fear of confusion, or any suggestion that their good deeds automatically entail God’s favour.” 110 I disagree. The author’s dual insistence on the “ever-effective sacrifice of Christ” 111 and the necessity for his followers to offer sacrifices to God, however defined, is confusing. The author of Hebrews inherited this tension from Pauline tradition, which claimed Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice of lasting significance yet still encouraged believers to offer their bodies as a “living sacrifice” to God (Rom 12:1–2). 112 Paul, however, did not imagine Christ as a heavenly high priest presenting these tradition that the author of 3 Baruch could not dispense with it” (Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 72). 107 The relationship between angelomorphic Christology and Hebrews has remained a locus of scholarly debate. To my knowledge, I am making a new argument that the author of Hebrews applied Michael’s role as heavenly High Priest to Christ in reaction to the destruction of the temple. In addition to the important work of Hannah cited above, see also Georg Gäbel, “Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development, and Reception, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin, DCLY 2007 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 357–76; Gert J. Steyn, “Addressing an Angelomorphic Christological Myth in Hebrews?,” HvTSt 59 (2003): 1107–28, doi: 10.4102/ hts.v59i4.688; Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John, WUNT 2/70 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). 108 Heb 13:15–16. 109 Heb 10:14: μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους. 110 Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 722. 111 Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 282. 112 E. g., Rom 3:23–25; 8:3; 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Cor 5:21.

260

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

sacrifices of believers to God. The author of Hebrews’ dual insistence is most plausibly explained by post-70 CE theological creativity among Jewish writers who were seeking replacements for the forms of sacrifice no longer available to them. 113 Like the author of 3 Baruch and the rabbis, the author of Hebrews imagined a heavenly high priest who would present sacrifices of good deeds (acts of loving kindness), sharing with others (charity), prayer, and praise to God (Δι’ αὐτοῦ … ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν [13:15]). Because he believed that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah, he argued that this heavenly high priest was Jesus, whereas 3 Baruch and the rabbis asserted it was the angel Michael. The tension in the author’s thought on atonement is born from his conviction that Jesus did not merely offer the sacrifices of the people but also offered himself as an atoning sacrifice. While his claims about the finality and comprehensiveness of Jesus’s self-sacrifice are logically inconsistent with his view that believers ought to still offer bloodless sacrifices to God, they make sense for a Paulinist author who was attempting to quell anxiety about the inability of people to sacrifice to God in the most common way stipulated by the Jewish Scriptures, through blood sacrifices. On the one hand, he comforts by arguing that it was God’s “will” for Jesus’s offering of his own body to take the place of the blood offerings stipulated in the Torah (10:1–10, esp. 10:5–10). On the other hand, he consoles by reminding people that they can still sacrifice to God through means available to them: sacrifices of praise, good deeds, and sharing with others (13:15–16; cf. Rom 12:1–2). By combining multiple replacements for blood sacrifices in his letter, replacements explicitly denoted as “pleasing to God” (13:16) in contrast to the blood sacrifices that God neither “desired” nor “took pleasure in” (10:4– 8), the author attempts to alleviate any anxiety concerning atonement in the new reality without the temple. 114 When we compare Hebrews’ perspective on atonement and the temple cult with that of Paul, the hypothesis that the author developed his views in reaction to the loss of the sacrificial cult is underscored. Regev reminds us that “Paul

113 Of course, the idea of “spiritual sacrifice” predates 70 CE and is represented, e. g., in Greek and Roman philosophy, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Philo (Ferguson, “Spiritual Sacrifice,” 1151–59). What is different about spiritual sacrifice in Jewish texts after 70 CE is the combination of advocating spiritual forms of sacrifice with the claim that a heavenly high priest presents them to God in order to make atonement on behalf of the people. 114 I disagree with Michael D. Morrison’s hypothesis that “the only form of Judaism ever addressed in the epistle is a religion in which sacrifices are central – which implies that a postTemple Judaism, in which sacrifices have been de-emphasized and reinterpreted, is not yet an option for the readers. There is no hint that any sort of rituals could be effective in the absence of actual sacrifices” (Who Needs a New Covenant? Rhetorical Function of the Covenant Motif in the Argument of Hebrews, PTMS 85 [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2008], 179). On the contrary, Hebrews both “de-emphasizes” and “reinterprets” the “actual sacrifices,” with the result that Jesus’s death, praising God, performing good deeds, and sharing with others are presented as “effective” substitutes.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

261

never discredits the sacrificial cult,” and “Hebrews is the only NT text that sets out a clear, systematic alternative to the Temple; it is only in Hebrews that Christ takes the place of the high priest and the Temple cult.” 115 Paul’s firm belief that Christ provides atonement did not lead him to conclude that the temple sacrifices do not. 116 The author of Hebrews pushes the Pauline legacy in a new direction in his claim that now only Christ is an acceptable sin offering to God (10:1–8). 117 What changed? I submit that the author reasoned that Christ’s sacrifice was the only sin offering left since the temple cult was not operational. The author of Hebrews is quite frank about this status quo in 10:26–27: “For if we willingly sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins [οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία], but a fearful expectation of judgment.” Because offering sacrifices for sins was no longer an option, the author of Hebrews reasoned that people must either rely on Christ’s sacrifice or face judgment. Nevertheless, the overriding theme of his treatment of atonement is consolatory: the sacrifices of the new covenant are “better sacrifices” (κρείττοσιν θυσίαις [9:23]).

5.3.5 Consolatory Exempla of Sojourners Seeking a Heavenly Homeland If the author of Hebrews endeavored to offer consolation concerning the loss of Jerusalem, one would expect evidence of this purpose in 11:4–40, because consolers depicted exempla who could mirror crucial aspects of their addressees’ circumstances. 118 The philosophical consolatory tradition on exile, traced back to the Cynic philosopher Teles (fl. c. 235 BCE), routinely employs exempla to prove that the condition of being deprived of one’s city or homeland is bearable, because many great men of ages past excelled in this situation. In addition to Teles’s On Exile, the essays of Plutarch and Favorinus by the same title illuminate Hebrews’ use of exempla, particularly in 11:8–16. I argue that Hebrews deploys exempla in the manner of consolers who sought to comfort readers who had lost their homeland. When consoling people unable to return to their city or home, ancient consolers presented exempla of notable people who flourished while living else-

115 Eyal Regev, The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 95, 290. 116 Regev writes, “Nothing in his Temple imagery points to a rejection or conscious replacement of the Jerusalem Temple” (Temple in Early Christianity, 95). 117 The temporal qualifier is essential, for the author posits that the blood sacrifices stipulated by the Mosaic covenant were “necessary” in the past (9:22–23). For a fuller comparison of Hebrews’ “cultic Christology” with Pauline Christology, see Regev, Temple in Early Christianity, 280–81. 118 See chapter 4, § 4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief.

262

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

where, people like Odysseus, Ajax, Diogenes, and Heracles. 119 Though some of these figures were exiles (φυγάδες) in the sense that they were prohibited from returning home, others were people who voluntarily chose to leave their homelands, such as aliens (μέτοικοι), foreigners or strangers (ξένοι), and sojourners (μετανάσται). 120 Plutarch argues that “those who are most approved and most excellent live in a foreign country [ἐπὶ ξένης], not forced to depart, but departing of themselves” (Exil. 605B–C). Regardless of the specific reason why they could not return to their homeland, Plutarch presents exempla who accept their circumstances as willed by God and maintain a cheerful attitude: “All these and many others, after being banished from their homelands, did not despair nor throw themselves down in grief, but made use of their good dispositions, accepting their exile as a provision from Fortune, on account of which they are everywhere remembered even after death” (Exil. 605D). According to Plutarch, their willingness to accept their displacement as God’s will earned them farreaching fame. Favorinus similarly urges the exile to “look beyond himself and this world towards the gods and their benevolent guidance of the universe.” 121 The author of Hebrews utilizes these conventions of consolatory exempla offered to addressees who are unable to return to a beloved country or city. He broadly paints all of the patriarchs enumerated in 11:4–12 (οὗτοι πάντες [11:13]) as “strangers [ξένοι] and sojourners [παρεπίδημοι] on the earth” (11:13). Of these, he highlights Abraham’s voluntary decision to leave his home in obedience to God, even though he did not know where he was going (11:8). By Plutarch’s criteria, Abraham’s faith that God was guiding his journey and his willingness to obey the divine will would earn him a place among “the most approved and most excellent” (οἱ δοκιμώτατοι καὶ κράτιστοι) of those who live abroad (Exil. 605B–C). Abraham models trust in the yet unseen reality of a city built by God, a trust that enables him to view even the “promised land” (γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) “as a foreign land” (ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν) while he awaits the promised heavenly city (11:9–10). The author of Hebrews also uses Abraham’s example as a success story of living in a foreign land, for God’s promise that he would become the father of innumerable descendants began to unfold during his sojourn with the miraculous birth of Isaac (11:11–12). Hebrews’ depiction of the patriarchs as sojourners awaiting a heavenly city in 11:13–16 has particular affinities with Plutarch’s On Exile. Plutarch asserts that his addressee’s homeland is merely his “supposed homeland [νομιζομένης πατρίδος]” and urges him to conceptualize his true πατρίς as heaven (Exil.

119 E. g., Teles, 3.22H–23H, 28H; Plutarch, Exil. 601B–602B, 602D–603E, 604D–606C, 607B; Favorinus, Exil. 2–4. 120 φυγάδες: Teles 3.22H, 23H; Plutarch, Exil. 607A. μέτοικοι: Teles, 3.28H; Plutarch, Exil. 607A. ξένοι: Plutarch, Exil. 607A. μετανάσται: Plutarch, Exil. 607D. 121 Nesselrath, “Later Greek Voices,” esp. 107–8. See Favorinus, Exil. 8, 22, 27–29.

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

263

600E). 122 Drawing on Empedocles, Plutarch argues that “all of us here [on earth] are wanderers [μετανάστας] and strangers [ξένους] and exiles [φυγάδας],” since we are detached from our heavenly home while confined in mortal bodies (Exil. 607D–E). In this framework, a distressed person should experience less grief over their inability to access their earthly home if they can reconceptualize their true home as heaven. 123 Nesselrath hints at this theory for alleviating grief in describing how Plutarch attempts to refute the assumption that exile is a condition of suffering, writing, “the Platonist tries to raise man’s awareness to another world by comparison to which this earthly one shrinks to an insignificant temporary abode where such a thing as individual exile loses all importance.” 124 Favorinus follows Plutarch in this regard and concludes his essay on exile with the thought of departing from earth to ascend to heaven (Exil. 29). 125 The notion of earthly existence as a sojourn had broader currency than consolations on exile, also appearing in consolations to the dying, the bereaved, and Stoic reflections on mortality. Socrates encourages Axiochus, denoted as “really in need of consolation [πάνυ ἐνδεᾶ παραμυθίας],” with “the commonplace [τὸ κοινόν]” that “life [ὁ βίος] is a brief stay in a foreign land [παρεπιδημία]” (Ax. 365A–B). Pseudo-Plutarch urges Apollonius to stop grieving over his son’s death “because the time of sojourn [ἐπιδημία] in life is very short” (Cons. Apoll. 117F). In reflecting on the transience of human life, Marcus Aurelius similarly writes, “life [ὁ βίος] is a stay in a strange place [ξένου ἐπιδημία]” (Med. 2.17). 126 122 See esp. Exil. 600F–601B, 607D–E. Nesselrath paraphrases Plutarch’s thought as follows: “humans in fact do not really have a ‘natural’ home on this earth, they only acquire something which they regard as ‘home’ by using it, while their real home is in heaven” (“Later Greek Voices,” 93). Plutarch does not name the recipient of his essay, but scholars think it was probably Menemachus of Sardis, who was permitted to travel but not allowed to return home to Sardis (Phillip H. De Lacy, in Plutarch, Moralia, vol. 7, LCL, p. 513). 123 To be clear, I am not arguing that the addressees of Hebrews were originally from Jerusalem. Their attachment to and reverence for Jerusalem would have stemmed from its significance as the center of their religion. Diaspora Jewish texts frequently exhibit a nostalgia for and attachment to Jerusalem, “the mother city” (μητρόπολις) of Jews worldwide according to Philo (Legat. 281). In his study of “Paul’s diaspora politics,” Ronald Charles argues that “the concern for Jerusalem as an important symbolic center in the consciousness of most Hellenistic Jews was a clear and real indication of Jewish identity in the Mediterranean world in antiquity” (Paul and the Politics of Diaspora, [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014], 2, 9). On attitudes toward Jerusalem and its temple among diaspora Jews more broadly, see Jonathan R. Trotter, The Jerusalem Temple in Diaspora Jewish Practice and Thought during the Second Temple Period, JSJSup 192 (Leiden: Brill, 2019). 124 Nesselrath, “Later Greek Voices,” 99. 125 The text is fragmentary in this section, but this sense is clear enough. For the Greek text, see Adele Tepedino Guerra, L’esilio: Pap. Vat. Gr. 11 verso; Favorino di Arelate, TC 20 (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 2007), 122. 126 Citation from Jackson P. Hershbell, who infers that “the idea that life is a sojourn may be Orphic in origin” (Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus, SBLTT 21 [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982], 56).

264

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

Given the ubiquity of this consolatory argument in Greco-Roman culture, Hellenistic Jews intertwined the idea of life on earth as a sojourn with their biblical history in which Abraham was the sojourner par excellence. 127 In doing so, they applied Abraham’s self-designation in Gen 23:4 as a “foreigner” (πάροικος) and “sojourner” (παρεπίδημος) to the patriarchs as a whole – precisely what Hebrews does in 11:13. In LXX Ps 38:13, the distressed speaker prays that God would listen to his prayer and grant him reprieve, “for I am a foreigner [πάροικος] and a sojourner [παρεπίδημος] [B: on the earth] before you, just like all of my fathers [καθὼς πάντες οἱ πατέρες μου].” In contrast to Gen 23:4 but in coherence with Greco-Roman consolation, the psalmist applies the concept of sojourning at a cosmic level, representing all the Israelites as sojourners on earth. In the sight of God (παρὰ σοί [Ps 38:13]), earth is a temporary abode people pass through as if wandering through a foreign land. 128 Philo applies these themes in a more explicitly Platonic register, arguing from the examples of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac that “the wise man sojourns [παροικεῖ] in the body which our senses perceive [σώματι αἰσθητῷ] as in a strange land [ὡς ἐν ξένῃ]” (Conf. 79–81). According to Philo, the souls of these wise sojourners consider their homeland (πατρίς) to be “the heavenly region, in which they are citizens [τὸν οὐράνιον χῶρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύονται]” (Conf. 77–78). In contrast, they deem “the earthly region in which they sojourned [τὸν περίγειον ἐν ᾧ παρῴκησαν]” to be “a strange land [ξένην]” (Conf. 78). The similarities between Philo’s arguments in Conf. 77–81 and Hebrews’ claim in 11:13–16 that all the patriarchs considered themselves strangers (ξένοι) and sojourners (παρεπίδημοι) on earth seeking a heavenly homeland (πατρίς) are impressive. 129 Both authors conceptualize heaven as the eternal home of God’s people, whether distinguished by their wisdom, faith, or righteousness (cf. Heb 12:23). Both depict the patriarchs as longing for their heavenly home during their temporary sojourn on earth. Yet it is highly significant that the author of Hebrews specifies that the heavenly homeland desired by the patri127

See esp. Philo, Abr. 60–276; Migr. 100, 129, 143, 146, 171. BDAG s. v. παρά Β.2: “marker of one whose viewpoint is relevant, in the sight or judgement of someone … παρὰ τῷ θεῷ … in the sight of God.” 129 Ronald Williamson compiles numerous parallels between Heb 11:13–14 and Philo’s works (e. g., Agr. 65; Her. 26–27; Somn. 1.39; Conf. 81) and concludes, “There is, then, some verbal similarity between 11.13–14 and the passages from Philo cited above, but there is no fundamental similarity of ideas, and certain fundamental differences, e. g., the presence in Philo and the complete absence from Hebrews of the idea of the pre-existence of the soul” (Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews [Leiden: Brill, 1970], 326–28). While I do not dispute some differences, I disagree with the assessment that “there is no fundamental similarity of ideas.” The “verbal similarity” between Philo’s texts and Hebrews does convey similar ideas, as recognized by Attridge, who writes of Heb 11:13, “In the Hellenistic Judaism represented by Philo this understanding of the imagery of the alien is used extensively to interpret the biblical motif of the patriarchs as resident aliens” (Epistle to the Hebrews, 330). Attridge cites Conf. 81 as a parallel in n. 25 (Epistle to the Hebrews, 330). 128

5.3 Consolation concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem

265

archs is a city: God “has prepared a city [πόλις] for them” (11:16), a city he later identifies as “the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22). In his rhetoric, while Abraham “sojourned [παρῴκησεν] in the land of promise,” he “was waiting for the city with foundations [τὴν τοὺς θεμελίους ἔχουσαν πόλιν] whose architect and builder is God [ἧς τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς ὁ θεός]” (11:10). Hebrews’ focus on a heavenly city as the longed for πατρίς is unparalleled in comparanda that deploy this trope, yet it would have been the obvious choice for a consoler steeped in Paulinism who sought to alleviate grief over the loss of Jerusalem. In Galatians, Paul distinguishes between the earthly Jerusalem (τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ), which he identifies with the covenant made on Mount Sinai, and the heavenly Jerusalem (ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ), which he calls “our mother” and associates with the other unnamed covenant (4:22–31). The author of Hebrews could have easily inferred from Paul’s allegory that believers are not subject to the Mosaic covenant given on Mount Sinai and ought to identify with the heavenly Jerusalem over its earthly counterpart. His claim that God has prepared a heavenly homeland for his people (11:13–16) echoes Paul’s assertion in Phil 3:20 that “our commonwealth is in heaven” (ἡμῶν … τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει). In sum, the author of Hebrews appears to have braided several threads together in formulating his consolation concerning the heavenly city of Jerusalem as the promised πατρίς for God’s sojourning people: consolations concerning exile, consolations about the heavenly homeland and their manifestations in Hellenistic Judaism, the Pauline association of “children of the promise” (Gal 4:28) with “the Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:26), and Paul’s passing allusion to the heavenly πολίτευμα in Phil 3:20. The author’s decision to adapt the standard trope of a heavenly home to depict God’s people as sojourners awaiting the heavenly Jerusalem is evidence of his overriding concern to offer consolation to an audience who had lost and were longing for Jerusalem on earth. This point is supported by the fact that Plutarch and Favorinus direct those who have lost their πατρίς to turn their attention to heaven as their true πατρίς. In effect, the author of Hebrews deploys the example of the patriarchs in 11:13– 16 to model how to respond properly to the loss of one’s homeland – one ought to stop thinking about being barred from this or that earthly city and instead focus one’s desire on the “better” homeland in heaven that God has provided: “They desire a better [homeland] [κρείττονος ὀρέγονται], that is, a heavenly one [τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἐπουρανίου]” (11:16). Within Platonic consolation, if the distressed can focus their attention on the heavenly homeland they will eventually reach, they will realize that the home or city that they lost was merely “an insignificant temporary abode.” 130 Theoretically, this realization should bring

130

Nesselrath, “Later Greek Voices,” 99.

266

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

comfort by both mitigating the gravity of the loss and offering a “better” version of the lost home or city as a replacement.

5.4 Imitating Pauline Consolation regarding Persecution Aside from grief and anxiety stemming from the events of 70 CE, the community addressed by Hebrews had another problem – social harassment and persecution on account of their allegiance to the God of Israel and his son Jesus (esp. 10:32–34; 12:1–17). To address this issue, the author of Hebrews needed more than consolatory arguments; he needed to exhort his readers to hold on to their faith, hope, love, and boldness under pressure and to raise their confidence that they were capable of enduring their present trials. Fortunately for him, Paul had already written a consolatory letter to a church in the midst of affliction, 1 Thessalonians. I argue that the author of Hebrews utilized Paul’s consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians as a model in his own attempt to encourage the despondent among his address to hold on to their confession, irrespective of the afflictions that might ensue. Echoes of 1 Thessalonians are particularly resonant in Heb 6:9–12 and 10:32–39, both of which have been identified by scholars as passages intended to comfort the readers. 131 As recognized by Rothschild, Heb 6:10–12 contains the Pauline triad of faith, hope, and love. 132 While this triad occurs in several places in the Pauline and deutero-Pauline Letters, 133 numerous lexical links between Heb 6:9–12 and 1 Thess 1:2–6 suggest that the author of Hebrews utilized 1 Thess 1:2–6 when composing these verses. The amount of shared vocabulary between Heb 6:9–12 and 1 Thess 1:2–6 is impressive, including ἀγαπητοί/ἠγαπημένοι, ἔργον, πίστις, ἀγάπη, ἐλπίς, πληροφορία, and μιμηταί. Furthermore, the author of Hebrews deploys this vocabulary in ways that imitate Pauline usage in 1 Thessalonians, a fact that did not escape the notice of ancient scribes. The textual similarities between Heb 6:10 (τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν καὶ τῆς ἀγάπης) and 1 Thess 1:3 (ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης) resulted in several textual witnesses inserting τοῦ κόπου between καὶ and τῆς ἀγάπης in Heb 6:10, such that Hebrews would align with 1 Thessalonians. 134 One can hardly blame the scribes, for the author of Hebrews is assuring his readers that God “will not forget” their ἔργον and ἀγάπη and Paul was “remembering” 131 E. g., Nongbri, “Touch of Condemnation,” 265; Übelacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis,” 342; Croy, Endurance in Suffering, 162. 132 Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 110. Rothschild argues that the triad is not merely “traditional” but is “specifically Pauline.” I build on her work by arguing that Hebrews’ use of the triad in 6:10–11 is based on 1 Thess 1. 133 1 Thess 1:3; 5:8; 1 Cor 13:3; Gal 5:5–6; Col 1:4–5; Rom 5:1–5 (to a lesser extent). 134 These include: D2 K L 630. 1175. 1241. � bo.

5.4 Imitating Pauline Consolation regarding Persecution

267

before God the Thessalonians’ ἔργον τῆς πίστεως and κόπος τῆς ἀγάπης. Paul mentions the Thessalonians’ work of faith and labor of love as a prelude to his expression of confidence that they are “beloved” and elected by God (εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν [1:4]). The author of Hebrews hits the same notes in reverse order, beginning with an expression of confidence concerning their salvation that addresses them as “beloved”: “But concerning you, beloved [ἀγαπητοί], we are sure of better things which pertain to salvation [ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας]” (6:9). He then claims that God will not forget his addressee’s “work” and “love” (Cf. Heb 6:10; 1 Thess 1:3) before turning to exhortation in 6:11–12. His desire that all of his addressees “display the same zeal toward the full assurance of hope [τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος] until the end [ἄχρι τέλους]” (Heb 6:11) picks up on the theme of enduring hope in 1 Thess 1:3 (τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν) and utilizes Paul’s word choice of πληροφορία in 1 Thess 1:5 (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ … πληροφορίᾳ). The noun πληροφορία is rare in the New Testament, occurring only in 1 Thess 1:5, Col 2:2 (a text whose imitation of 1 Thessalonians is blatant), 135 Heb 6:11, and Heb 10:22. Not coincidentally, the occurrence of πληροφορία in Heb 10:22, like that in Heb 6:11, is embedded in a set of verses that contains the faith, hope, love triad (10:22–24). This suggests that the author of Hebrews derived this cluster of vocabulary from 1 Thess 1:2–5 as well. The author concludes his exhortation in Heb 6:12 by urging his addressees to “be imitators [γένησθε μιμηταί] of those who, through faith [διὰ πίστεως] and patience, inherit the promises.” This mirrors Paul’s claim that his readers “became imitators [μιμηταὶ … ἐγενήθητε]” of himself and his cowriters (1 Thess 1:6) and introduces πίστις as the last virtue of the Pauline triad (cf. 1 Thess 1:3). 136 As for Heb 10:32–39, the author imitates 1 Thess 1:2–10 in lavishly praising his addressees’ past behavior amid opposition when they had first accepted the 135 Similarities between Col 1:3–5 and 1 Thess 1:2–3 are routinely noted in commentaries, though few have argued that Colossians is literarily dependent on 1 Thessalonians. This balance is represented, e. g., in the conclusions of Paul Foster, who observes that “the introductory thanksgiving statement ‘we give thanks to God’ aligns with similar phrases in 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess. 1:2; 2:13),” but then cautions, “However, this may reflect knowledge of standard Pauline epistolary conventions rather than providing evidence of direct literary dependence” (Colossians, BNTC [London: Bloomsbury, 2016], 81). Jerry L. Sumney acknowledges that Col 1:4– 5 “contain[s] the Pauline triad ‘faith, hope, and love’” in precisely “the same order” as in 1 Thess 1:3, though he is reticent to conclude that there could be a relationship between Colossians and 1 Thessalonians, “since there is no compelling evidence that Paul was the first to put these three together, [such that] this combination may have been in use before Paul took it up” (Colossians: A Commentary, NTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008], 34). I am more persuaded by the arguments of E. P. Sanders that Colossians is dependent on the undisputed Pauline letters (“Literary Dependence in Colossians,” JBL 85 [1966]: 28–45). 136 Hebrews’ emphasis on patience is also in 1 Thessalonians (cf. διὰ … μακροθυμίας [Heb 6:12]; μακροθυμεῖτε [1 Thess 5:14]).

268

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

gospel in order to encourage them to endure their present trials with the same enthusiasm. 137 Ancient interpreters of Heb 10:32–39 recognized this means of persuasion as consolatory rhetoric: “He consoles them [παραμυθεῖται αὐτούς] through praises and exhortation [διὰ τῶν ἐγκωμίων καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως], and sets before them their zeal from the beginning [καὶ τὸν ζῆλον οἴκοθεν αὐτοῖς προσφέρει].” 138 The exhortation consists of the imperatives “remember the former days” (10:32) and “do not throw away your boldness” (10:35), which together frame the author’s laudation of their past behavior in 10:32–34. While praising the past noble conduct of the distressed was a common method of consolation, 139 a cluster of shared vocabulary and themes in 1 Thess 1:2–10, 2:14, 5:9, and Heb 10:32–39 leads me to conclude that the author of Hebrews utilized 1 Thessalonians as a model in crafting this portion of his letter. Hebrews characterizes “the former days” of the community as plagued by sufferings (παθημάτων [10:32]) and afflictions (θλίψεσιν [10:33]) using the same lexemes as does Paul when describing the period when the Thessalonians had first accepted the word (ἐπάθετε [2:14]; ἐν θλίψει [1:6]). Hebrews’ metaphor of these former hardships as a “great contest” (πολλὴν ἄθλησιν [10:32]) echoes Paul’s characterization of the suffering of himself and his coworkers in Thessalonica as a “great contest” (πολλῷ ἀγῶνι [2:2]). 140 The author of Hebrews characterizes the response of his addressees to their past hardships as one of endurance (ὑπεμείνατε [10:32]) and joy (μετὰ χαρᾶς [10:34]), which aligns with Paul’s representation of the Thessalonians’ behavior in past affliction as distinguished by joy (μετὰ χαρᾶς [1:6]) and an enduring hope in the Lord (τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν [1:3]). On a broader conceptual level, both Hebrews and 1 Thessalonians reiterate that the Lord will return soon in order to motivate persecuted readers to hold on (Heb 10:25, 37; 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; cf. 1:10, 3:13). In my view, the case that the author of Hebrews employed 1 Thessalonians in 10:32–39 is sealed by the remarkable similarities in syntactical structure, theme, and lexemes in Heb 10:39 and 1 Thess 5:9: Heb 10:39: ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς. But we are not of shrinking back unto destruction, but of faith unto the preservation of the soul.

137

See chapter 4, § 4.6 Consolatory Rhetoric in the Epistolary Thanksgiving. John Anthony Cramer, ed., Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum, 8 vols. (Hildsheim: Olms, 1967), 7:240. The source of this interpretation is unnamed. 139 See chapter 4, § 4.6.1 Ancient Consolers Sing the Praises of the Person in Distress: Form and Functions. 140 The nouns ἄθλησις and ἀγών are often used as synonyms. LSJ s. v. ἄθλησις 1. “contest” 2. “struggle.” LSJ s. v. ἀγών II. “contest” III. “struggle.” 138

5.5 The Problem of Death

269

1 Thess 5:9 ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὀργὴν ἀλλ’ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας… For God did not destine us for wrath, but for the acquisition of salvation…

The author of Hebrews imitates Paul’s consolatory rhetoric by setting up a clear us/them dichotomy and assuring his addressees that they are not among those headed for destruction (οὐκ … εἰς ἀπώλειαν [Heb 10:39]; οὐκ … εἰς ὀργὴν [1 Thess 5:9]) but are on their way to obtain salvation, what he calls “the preservation of the soul” (ἀλλὰ … εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς [Heb 10:39]; ἀλλ’ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας [1 Thess 5:9]). His word choice of ὑποστολῆς and πίστεως derives from his application of Hab 2:4 cited in 10:38: “My righteous one will live by faith [ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται],” and “if he shrinks back [καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται], my soul is not pleased with him [οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ].” The importance of Hab 2:4 in Pauline theology explains his choice of the verse, 141 but unlike Paul, he uses it for the purpose of consolatory exhortation. Whereas Paul quotes only ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (Rom 1:17; cf. Gal 3:11), the author of Hebrews utilizes the other half of Hab 2:4 as well, 142 with the result that God, the speaker, presents two ways by which the beleaguered addressees can live: they can either live by faith in the yet unseen fulfillment of God’s promise and preserve their souls or shrink back and ultimately be destroyed (10:38–39). By presenting no middle ground between these two extremes, the author of Hebrews enlists his readers’ fear of God’s judgment to motivate them not to abandon their faith. In praising their past conduct (10:32– 34) and expressing confidence that they are still among those who live ἐκ πίστεως (10:39), the author of Hebrews attempts to persuade them to endure their present sufferings with the same joy, boldness, and trust in unseen heavenly realities that they had at the beginning. Following the model set by Paul in 1 Thess 1:2–10, he rhetorically positions his readers on a pedestal to motivate them to adapt their present (unsatisfactory) behavior to align with the high esteem in which they were once held. In my mind, the combination of the evidence in 6:9–12 and 10:32–39 points to an author who was inspired by and sought to apply Paul’s consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians (esp. 1 Thess 1) to his own situation.

5.5 The Problem of Death Answers to the perennial human question of what happens after death seem to have been particularly urgent for Hebrews’ addressees. Although they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood (12:4), the numerous models of 141 See Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11. Rothschild writes, “Hebrews strongly signals a Pauline literary milieu by its citation of Hab 2:3–4” (Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 115). 142 He does not quote Hab 2:4 in the correct order, however. Hab 2:4 reads, ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται.

270

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

individuals in Heb 11 who remained faithful to the point of death suggest that the author sought to fortify his addressees such that they would neither fear death nor withdraw from the God of Israel and his son in an attempt to escape it. 143 Already in 2:14–15, the author makes the bold claim that Jesus sets people free from slavery “to the fear of death [φόβῳ θανάτου].” 144 The author of Hebrews attempts to release his readers from apprehension about dying by giving them a glimpse of postmortem life in heaven and assuring them that God’s faithful are (now) immediately granted access to the heavenly city upon the demise of their mortal bodies (9:27; 12:22–24). I argue that the author of Hebrews formulated his consolations concerning life after death in an effort to reconcile tensions and fill gaps in the Pauline corpus on this issue. The result was to push the Pauline legacy concerning life after death in a more Platonizing direction. The Pauline corpus does not speak with one voice about postmortem existence. In 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, Paul’s arguments about life after death revolve around Jesus’s parousia. When Jesus returns, the dead in Christ will be raised to new life with “spiritual bodies” and those still alive “will be changed” such that they also “put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:52–54). 145 In this framework, anyone who dies before the parousia is totally dead, enjoying no life whatsoever prior to the resurrection. In Philippians, the imprisoned Paul makes a different argument, that if he were to die, he would immediately be “with Christ” (1:23). In this letter, “to depart and to be with Christ” (τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι) is not only desirable, it is “exceedingly better by far” (πολλῷ [γὰρ] μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον) than remaining in the flesh (Phil 1:23–24). 146 Paul makes a similar argument in 2 Corinthians, that he would rather “depart from the body” (ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος) and “be home with the Lord” (ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον [5:8]). Paul’s extant letters never describe this superior life σὺν Χριστῷ that the faithful immediately experience after death. Paul vividly depicts the resurrection of the dead at Jesus’s parousia (1 Thess 4–5; 1 Cor 15) and even claims that he had once ascended into heaven (2 Cor 12:2–4), but he never describes heaven. This constituted a significant gap in knowledge 143 See Dyer, Suffering in the Face of Death; Lane, “Living a Life of Faith,” 247–69, esp. 257– 69; Bulley, “Death and Rhetoric,” 409–23. 144 Among scholars, Patrick Gray has most comprehensively investigated this theme in his chapter, “Freedom from Fear as a Christian Ideal in Hebrews,” in Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition, AcBib 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 109–86. See also deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 118–25; Koester, Hebrews, 232–40. 145 1 Cor 15:44: ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. See also 1 Thess 4:15–16; 1 Cor 15:21–23, 40–49, 51–54. 146 Holloway asserts that “the piling up of adverbial expressions here – πολλῷ γὰρ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον – is largely unprecedented” (Philippians, 95). Paul is as emphatic as possible in his claim that postmortem life with Christ is superior to life on earth.

5.5 The Problem of Death

271

for consolers in the Jesus movement, as descriptions of heaven were a standard component of consolations to the bereaved and those anxious about dying in Greco-Roman literary culture. In formulating his own views about postmortem life, the author of Hebrews attempted to fill this gap in the Pauline corpus and show why heavenly existence with Christ was, in Paul’s words, πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον (Phil 1:23). Yet before he could do so, he needed to reconcile the tensions in the Pauline corpus concerning the state of the faithful dead. His resulting views about the afterlife constitute a middle position between the Paul of Philippians/2 Corinthians and the Paul of 1 Thessalonians/1 Corinthians. Like Paul imagines in Phil 1:23 and 2 Cor 5:1–10, the author of Hebrews states that death is followed by immediate postmortem judgment of the soul or spirit: “it is ordained for human beings to die once, and after this, judgment” (9:27). 147 In line with Paul’s claims in 1 Thess 4–5 and 1 Cor 15, he conceives of Jesus’s second coming as the time of “salvation” for those awaiting him (9:28), yet unlike these texts, the faithful dead need not wait for Jesus’s parousia to experience salvation. In fact, Hebrews depicts heaven as already populated by the “assembly of the firstborns” and “the spirits of the righteous who have been perfected” (12:23), people such as Enoch, Abraham, and Moses among the notaries of faith mentioned in Heb 11. If the faithful dead are immediately with God and Jesus’s parousia is only for the salvation of the living, then what is the role of the resurrection? The author of Hebrews maintains a belief in resurrection from the dead as one of the elementary matters of faith (6:1–2), but he disassociates resurrection from the parousia and interprets resurrection in terms of Platonizing anthropology. 148 In God’s past acts of resurrection, the revivified dead inhabited fleshly bodies, such that they would die again (Heb 11:35; cf. 1 Kgs 17:23; 2 Kgs 4:32–37). The author presents this form of bodily resurrection as a thing of the past in contrast to the “better resurrection” (κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως) available to God’s people as a result of the way Jesus paved into heaven (11:35). It is “better” because it is the “spirit” of the deceased that is resurrected to eternal life in heaven (πνεύμασιν δικαίων [12:22]). 149 In Platonic thought, the superiority of the spirit over

147 I agree with Attridge’s interpretation of Heb 9:27: “The reference to the judgment (κρίσις) that follows death is not specifically to the eschatological judgment of apocalyptic tradition, but to the immediate postmortem judgment that was, in traditional Greek mythology, the fate of the soul” (Epistle to the Hebrews, 265). The belief that individuals immediately face judgment after death as spirits or souls accords with Platonic consolation (e. g., Plato, Resp. 614B–D). 148 It is striking that Hebrews never mentions the resurrection of believers at Jesus’s parousia. To assume that the author believed that a single general resurrection would occur at the parousia is an argument from silence. 149 Hebrews’ reference to the “spirits” of the righteous in heaven may be a development of Paul’s idea that the resurrected body is a “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν [1 Cor 15:44]).

272

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

the body, the eternal over the temporal, and heaven over earth is axiomatic. 150 In contrast to Paul’s idea of one general resurrection in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, the author of Hebrews conceives of innumerable resurrections, one for each person who dies and faces God’s judgment postmortem (9:27). 151 In my view, Hebrews’ conception is a deliberate attempt to synthesize Paul’s thinking on resurrection in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians with Paul’s belief in immediate postmortem reward and fellowship with Christ in Philippians and 2 Corinthians. The author may have arrived at this synthesis from 2 Corinthians, where the idea of being πρὸς τὸν κύριον once one is ἐκ τοῦ σώματος is followed by the reminder that “each person” (ἕκαστος) will appear before the judgment seat of Christ (5:8–10). As to the task of producing a vision of heaven that was teeming with consolatory potential, the author of Hebrews includes all the standard components of a description of heaven in consolatory literature: a place name (e. g., the Elysian Fields, the Islands of the Blessed, the highest heaven), 152 mention of the God or gods who dwell there, 153 mention of heaven’s other inhabitants (e. g., heroes, famous people, and family members), 154 and a claim that the deceased are looking down from heaven to observe those on earth. 155 Each of these components is included in Menander Rhetor’s prescriptions for a consolatory speech (παραμυθητικὸς λόγος), which offers the most essential elements of the genre. The author of Hebrews names the location as “Mount Zion and the city of the living God, [the] heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22; cf. 11:10, 16). He represents heaven as the heavenly Jerusalem in coherence with the popular 150 Plato’s Timaeus is the seminal work for Platonic cosmology. The superiority of the heavenly realm over the earth is also developed in Diogenes Laertius 7.148 and Cicero’s Nat. d. 2.17, 39, 42, 56 (citations from Jeffrey R. Asher, Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection, HUT 42 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 125). Asher summarizes Cicero’s argument in Nat. d. 2.17, “While the celestial realm is considered divine and better, the earth is classified as the lowest, shrouded in a layer of the thickest type of air” (Polarity and Change, 126 n. 82). 151 I thus disagree with David M. Moffitt, who argues that the “better resurrection” mentioned in 11:35 is a single event, “the eschatological resurrection,” which “entails a resurrection to a life that endures” (Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 187–88). This interpretation of the “better resurrection” coheres with the perspectives of Paul in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians but does not take adequate account of the fact that Hebrews depicts heaven as already inhabited by the spirits of the deceased righteous (12:22–23). Resurrection is not a single future eschatological event in Hebrews. 152 The Elysian Fields: e. g., Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.17; 2.11.421.17. Cf. Lucian, Luct. 7, 16. The Islands of the Blessed: e. g., Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 121F–D. Cf. Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 371C: “the land of the righteous.” The highest heaven: e. g., Seneca, Marc. 25.3. 153 E. g., Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.19–25; 2.11.421.17; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 121F. 154 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 371C–D; Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.17–19, 24–25; Seneca, Marc. 25–26; Polyb. 9.7–9; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 119F, 120B–C. Cf. Plato, Apol. 41. 155 E. g., Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.20–23; Seneca, Marc. 23.1–2; 25.3; 26.1–2; Polyb. 9.3.

5.5 The Problem of Death

273

consolatory argument that what you lost exists in heaven, in an even better form. 156 At the same time, he amplifies the consolatory thrust of this image by depicting the heavenly Jerusalem as “a festal gathering” (πανηγύρει [12:22]). This image of Jerusalem echoes God’s consolation to the exiles through the prophet Isaiah: Rejoice, Jerusalem, and celebrate a festival in her [πανηγυρίσατε ἐν αὐτῇ], all you who love her, rejoice exceedingly, all you who mourn over her [πάντες ὅσοι πενθεῖτε ἐπ’ αὐτῆς], so that you may nurse and be filled from her comforting breast [ἀπὸ μαστοῦ παρακλήσεως αὐτῆς].… As a mother will comfort [παρακαλέσει] someone, in the same way I will comfort you [παρακαλέσω ὑμᾶς], and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem [ἐν Ιερουσαλημ παρακληθήσεσθε]. 157

With these words, God announces that he will console those who mourn over the loss of Jerusalem by bringing them into Jerusalem where they will “celebrate a festival.” For those grieving over the destruction of the holy city, celebrating a festival in Jerusalem is as comforting as a distressed baby finally being able to nurse. Facing yet another destruction of Jerusalem, the author of Hebrews appears to have been inspired by the logic of God’s consolation in Isa 66:10–13, namely, to be consoled about Jerusalem, one should be in Jerusalem and celebrating a festival. While his addressees must wait until death to enter the heavenly Jerusalem and join its festival, they have already approached its gates (προσεληλύθατε [12:22]) and can take comfort now in the knowledge of what awaits them. As for the God and other beings dwelling in heaven, Hebrews mentions “a judge, the God of all,” and “the mediator of a new covenant, Jesus” (12:23–24), whom he envisions as seated at the right hand of the throne of God (12:2). Other inhabitants of heaven include “myriads of angels,” “the assembly of the firstborn who are inscribed in heaven,” and “the spirits of the righteous who have been perfected” (12:22–23; cf. 12:1). The vision of heaven in 12:1–2 complements the image of the heavenly city presented in 12:22–24 and gives further explanation of the denizens of heaven. The author presupposes that the worthy deceased from ages past, the “cloud of witnesses” (12:1) enumerated in Heb 11, look down upon the living from heaven and observe them as spectators. Seneca uses this motif in his consolation to Marcia, explaining that her son turns “his gaze upon the things of earth far below; for it is a pleasure to look back upon all that has been left behind” (Marc. 25.3). Seneca then exhorts her, “Marcia, always act as if you knew that the eyes of your father and your son were set upon you – not such as you once knew them, but far loftier beings, dwelling in the highest heaven” (Marc. 25.3). The author of Hebrews utilizes this same motif when he insists that he and his addressees “have so great a cloud of witnesses 156 157

See chapter 5, § 5.3.1 What You Lost Exists in Heaven, in an Even Better Form. Isa 66:10–12, 13.

274

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

surrounding [them]” (12:1). 158 Claiming that the distressed person was being watched by innumerable spectators was common in ancient consolation, as it was thought to motivate people to behave admirably under pressure. 159 These rhetorical crowds of witnesses could be portrayed as supportive or critical of the distressed. The author of Hebrews chooses witnesses who could sympathize with the plight of his addressees as they run the race of faith, for they had run the same race and made it to the finish line. Because the heavenly spectators of 12:1 are models of faith and endurance in suffering and death (11:4–40), they also function as symbols of hope that it is possible to maintain fidelity to God in trying circumstances and receive the promised reward of a lasting city built by God (11:10–16; 13:14). If they remained faithful and now live among the angels in the heavenly Jerusalem, then Hebrews’ addressees can do the same. The vision of Jesus enthroned in heaven after having endured the cross (12:1–2) is similarly intended to rekindle hope in the reality of the heavenly reward so that Hebrews’ addressees might recommit themselves to endurance and complete the race of faith. In creating the memorable images of the heroes of faith looking down upon the living (12:1–2) and of God’s heavenly city (12:22–24), the author of Hebrews not only filled a perceived gap in the Pauline corpus (no description of heaven), he also created visions of the unseen that could aid believers in a difficult task championed by Paul, that is, to walk “by faith, not by sight.” 160 For Paul, faith and hope in the unseen glorious future were essential to not “losing heart” in the midst of affliction:

158 Contra Catherine Playoust, who argues that the witnesses of Heb 12:1 “are not present in order to watch, encourage or bear witness to the race … the audience has the cloud of witnesses lying about them because they will all attain their perfection together, following in the train of Jesus’ entry into heaven” (“The Location of the Cloud of Witnesses (Heb 12:1): Complexities of Time and Space in Hebrews,” ABR 64 [2016]: 1–13, esp. 1). While I grant that 11:39–40 suggests that the witnesses enumerated in Heb 11 do not receive “the promise” of the heavenly homeland “apart from us” (χωρὶς ἡμῶν [11:40]), there is no reason to limit the referent of “us” to the author and intended addressees. Given the unequivocal presence of the spirits of perfected righteous folks in heaven (12:23), it makes more sense for the “us” to be a more general referent to “followers of Jesus” (author and addressees included). In this interpretation, the meaning of 11:39–40 would be that the witnesses did not enter heaven until after Jesus had paved the way. Since Jesus has already opened the new way into God’s presence in the heavenly Jerusalem (10:19–22), the heroes of faith can receive the promised heavenly homeland (11:39–40; cf. 11:13–16). My interpretation is thus contrary to Playoust’s argument that “the faithful of old” are not in heaven but surrounding the readers running the race, such that “they too have still not attained perfection” (“Location of the Cloud,” 9). On “the promise” of 11:39 being the promise of a heavenly homeland, see 11:8–16 and O’Brien, Letter to the Hebrews, 446. 159 See chapter 4, § 4.5.2 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:9–12, section d. The Goal of Impressing Witnesses in Consolatory Rhetoric. 160 2 Cor 5:7: διὰ πίστεως γὰρ περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ εἴδους.

5.5 The Problem of Death

275

Therefore, we do not lose heart [οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν] … for the present lightness of our affliction [τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν] produces for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we fix our eyes [σκοπούντων] not on what is seen [τὰ βλεπόμενα] but on what is unseen [τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα]; for what is seen is temporary [τὰ γὰρ βλεπόμενα πρόσκαιρα], but what is unseen is eternal [τὰ δὲ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια]. 161

In Romans, Paul also emphasizes hope in the unseen: “hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope [ἐλπίζομεν] for what we do not see [ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν], we eagerly wait with endurance [δι’ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα]” (8:24–25). While a person can hope in what they do not see (Rom 8:25), how exactly do they “fix their eyes” on “what is unseen” (2 Cor 4:18)? The author of Hebrews composed 12:1–2 and 12:22–24 precisely to provide believers with visual representations of the unseen on which they could fix their eyes in the midst of affliction (cf. σκοπούντων [2 Cor 4:18]; ἀφορῶντες [Heb 12:2]). 162 These visions of heaven are meant to prevent readers from “losing heart” (cf. 2 Cor 4:16) and increase their “faith,” since “faith [πίστις] is the reality of things hoped for [ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις], proof of things not seen [πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων]” (11:1). In conclusion, the author of Hebrews approached his task of offering comfort concerning death by (1) seeking to resolve tensions in the Pauline corpus concerning postmortem existence and (2) composing visions of heaven, an expected component of a consolatory speech in the Greco-Roman tradition. As a result of these efforts, Hebrews represents the spirit of the deceased as immediately facing judgment following the death of their body. Those spirits whom God judges favorably, “the righteous who have been perfected,” then enter the heavenly Jerusalem, where they will live forever in the “unshakable kingdom” (12:28) in the presence of God, their mediator Jesus, angels, and the righteous of ages past (12:22–24). Hebrews’ descriptions of heaven in 12:1–2 and 12:22–24 certainly function as a balm for the bereaved and those near death, but the author also uses them to reinvigorate the faith and hope of suffering believers in their heavenly reward, so that they will continue to run the course tread by Jesus, despite its concomitant hardships.

161

2 Cor 4:16–18. I commend Scott D. Mackie’s analysis of how the author of Hebrews uses “visually oriented rhetorical techniques” such as enargeia (ἐνάργεια) to empower suffering addressees (“Visually Oriented Rhetoric and Visionary Experience in Hebrews 12:1–4,” CBQ 79 [2017]: 476–97). Mackie rightly interprets Heb 12:1–4 as an ekphrasis, a designation I would also apply to the vision of heaven in 12:22–24. A central pillar of Hebrews’ consolatory method is to cultivate and increase the readers’ faith in unseen realities, so that they, like the heroes of old, might live “by faith” (πίστει) in trying circumstances and thus inherit what God has promised them (11:1–40; 6:12). 162

276

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

5.6 Implications The foregoing analysis of consolatory rhetoric in Hebrews has significant implications for current debates about its date of composition, purpose, intended audience, relationship to the Pauline Letters, and rhetoric. My research strengthens the case that the letter was composed after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple (70 CE) with new arguments. First, the author of Hebrews applies consolatory arguments from Jeremiah and Isaiah concerning the prior destruction of Jerusalem and the First Temple to his own situation. Second, Hebrews shares numerous consolatory arguments with late first-century Jewish texts reacting to the destruction of Jerusalem, especially 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, and Sib. Or. 4. Third, Hebrews utilizes several conventions of philosophical consolations on the loss of one’s city. Fourth, Hebrews prefigures rabbinic consolatory arguments about the loss of the temple. In terms of the purpose of Hebrews, my research contributes additional evidence to the growing body of scholarship that challenges the traditional view that Hebrews was written to dissuade “Jewish-Christians” from abandoning “Christianity” in order to return to “Judaism” and its reliance on the temple. 163 This traditional interpretation of Hebrews is predicated upon two arguments: (1) that the author conceived of Christianity as distinct from Judaism, such that believers in Christ were outside of Judaism, 164 and (2) that the temple was still standing when Hebrews was composed. My study destabilizes both of these pillars by showing that the arguments in Hebrews commonly interpreted as indicative of the author’s polemic against Judaism in favor of Christianity are, 163 E. g., O’Brien explains Hebrews’ audience as follows: “he is addressing a congregation comprising mostly Jewish Christians. They are apparently in danger of returning to a ‘reliance on the cultic structures of the old covenant’. This would involve a return to Judaism and an abandoning of the Christian community” (Letter to the Hebrews, 13). Eric F. Mason calls this “traditional understanding of the book” the “contra Judaism” position “to denote the reading of Hebrews that sees the author calling his audience away from Judaism.” According to Mason, this position “remains firmly entrenched in many circles” and “is especially common in English-speaking scholarship, often – but certainly not exclusively – among conservative Protestants, with proponents including F. F. Bruce, Donald A. Hagner, George H. Guthrie, and Ben Witherington, but also among Catholic scholars such as Barnabas Lindars and Raymond E. Brown” (“The Epistle (Not Necessarily) to the ‘Hebrews’: A Call to Renunciation of Judaism or Encouragement to Christian Commitment?,” in The Letter to the Hebrews: Critical Readings, ed. Scott D. Mackie, CRBS [London: T&T Clark, 2018], 389–405, esp. 390–92). This “contra Judaism” perspective on Hebrews has been especially developed by Lloyd Kim (Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Judaism, Supersessionism? [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2006]) and Iutisone Salevao (Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe, JSNT 219 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002], esp. 133). 164 This argument has been persuasively refuted by scholars such as Kenneth Schenck (New Perspective, esp. 1–130) and Richard Hays (“‘Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 151–73).

5.6 Implications

277

in fact, consolatory arguments utilized within Hellenistic and rabbinic Judaism to ameliorate grief about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. On the question of the ethnic composition of Hebrews’ intended audience, scholars who maintain that Hebrews was intended to console are in no more agreement with one another than the rest of scholarship. 165 I will not attempt to settle this complex question here but emphasize that Hebrews’ aim to comfort its readers about the loss of Jerusalem and the temple is not sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that its audience was Jewish. The fact that the author of Hebrews engaged with consolatory arguments used by his Jewish peers who did not believe Jesus was the Christ reveals something about his identity, but not necessarily something about the identity of his intended audience. Additionally, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE was not only traumatic for Jews but could have constituted a theological crisis for gentile Christ-believers as well. I add one new piece of evidence to supplement Schenck’s work on this topic. 166 According to numerous biblical prophecies, in “the last days” (cf. Heb 1:1–2), the nations would turn to worship the God of Israel and flood into the city of Jerusalem, bringing gifts to the temple. 167 These prophecies suggest a potential source of grief and theological disorientation for gentile Christ-believers after 70 CE, since the destruction of Jerusalem effectively jeopardized the hope that God’s stated plan for the last days could be fulfilled. Gentiles who converted to the worship of the God of Israel at this crucial juncture in history were now prevented from making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to bring their gifts to the temple. While some may have felt this loss in largely personal terms, others may have seen it primarily as a theological problem. How could God’s words be trusted when circumstances made it abundantly clear that there would be no glorious gathering of the gentiles into Jerusalem to participate in temple worship, at least not anytime soon? While one could solve this theological problem by trusting that the temple would be rebuilt (such that God’s promises could still be fulfilled at a later date), the author of Hebrews indicates no such hope. Instead, Hebrews solves the problem by reorienting the gaze of believers from earth to heaven. Perhaps his readers will never make a pilgrimage to the earthly Jerusalem, but he bids them to recognize that they are already on 165 Schenck argues for a gentile audience (New Perspective, 31–58). Gelardini hypothesizes that the intended addressees were “Jewish slaves in Rome, exiled in the aftermath of the second Jewish War” (“Hebrews, an Ancient,” 106–7). Isaacs argues the addressees were “Christians of Jewish origin” (Sacred Space, 67). Spicq develops the theory that the intended readers were Jewish priests who had converted to Christianity (L’Épître aux Hébreux, 1:221–31). For an overview of historical-critical scholarship from the past 150 years on the question of Hebrews’ addressees, see Matthew J. Marohl, Faithfulness and the Purpose of Hebrews: A Social Identity Approach, PTMS 82 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2008), 1–36. 166 Schenck, New Perspective, 31–58. 167 E. g., Isa 2:2–3; 60:3–16; 66:18–20; Jer 16:19; Zech 8:20–23; 14:16; Mic 4:1–2; Tob 13:11; Sib. Or. 3.772–776. Cf. Ps 22:27.

278

Chapter 5: Consoling in the Aftermath of the Destruction of Jerusalem

their way to the heavenly Mount Zion, where they can join the festival already taking place in the heavenly Jerusalem. By reinterpreting the nature of pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the author of Hebrews assures his readers that Jerusalem remains open and accessible to the nations, such that God’s promises through the prophets concerning the last days might still ring true. Of course, Hebrews’ vision of the heavenly Jerusalem would have also been a source of comfort for Jews who felt the pang of the loss of Jerusalem (as texts such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch suggest). This is just one example of how the consolatory arguments in Hebrews would have been broadly applicable to both Jewish and gentile believers, such that its consolatory rhetoric alone cannot determine the ethnic composition of its intended audience. As for the connection between Hebrews and the Pauline Letters, this study has provided new evidence of literary dependence between Hebrews and the Pauline Letters by demonstrating the textual relationship between Heb 6:9–12 and 1 Thess 1:2–6 and Heb 10:32–39 and 1 Thess 1:2–10. The author’s attempt to resolve tensions and fill gaps in the Pauline corpus on the question of life after death presupposes his familiarity with 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Philippians. Several of his consolatory arguments about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple illustrate his interpretation of Romans (esp. Rom 8:34; 12:1–2), Galatians (esp. Gal 4:22–31), and Philippians (Phil 3:20) to address this crisis. Current scholarship disagrees over whether there is a textual relationship between Hebrews and the authentic Pauline letters, with the “most common” position being “to identify Hebrews as a development of Pauline theology without positing literary dependence.” 168 In my perspective, the affinities between Hebrews and Pauline theology are most easily explained if the author of Hebrews had access to an early collection of the Pauline Letters. My research suggests that collection unequivocally included 1 Thessalonians, but seems to have also included Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians. In regard to the study of ancient rhetoric in Hebrews, my research points a new way forward through the debate concerning the relationship between the epideictic and deliberative rhetoric in Hebrews. 169 Consolation literature rou168 Koester, Hebrews, 55. Rothschild offers a recent overview of the debate and detailed argument that Hebrews reflects “literary reliance on Paul’s letters” (Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 63–118, esp. 116). 169 deSilva summarizes the state of the debate as follows, “The question is not whether Hebrews has elements of deliberative and epideictic oratory, but rather how the elements work together within this text” (Perseverance in Gratitude, 54). Some scholars argue that the deliberative rhetoric predominates (e. g., deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 54–56; Walter G. Übelacker, Der Hebräerbrief als Appell, ConBNT 21 [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989], 214– 29). Others maintain that the epideictic rhetoric is central (e. g., Harold W. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (λόγος παρακλήσεως): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistles to the Hebrews,’” in Essays on John and Hebrews, WUNT 264 [Tübingen: Mohr Sie-

5.6 Implications

279

tinely employs both species of rhetoric to achieve its aim: epideictic rhetoric to inspire people to emulate what is praiseworthy and avoid what is shameful, and deliberative rhetoric to persuade them to pursue the most advantageous course of action in the midst of distressing circumstances. Despite immense scholarly focus on ancient rhetoric in Hebrews, 170 my study is the first attempt to interpret the letter from the perspective of ancient consolatory rhetoric. I hope that my analysis of Hebrews’ use of consolatory rhetoric in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem and select aspects of the Pauline heritage will open the door to future studies concerning its consolatory exempla (esp. 5:7–10; 11:1–12:3) and consolatory rhetoric more broadly (esp. 12:1–17; 13:5–8), as well as the author’s interaction with the Pauline corpus in his processes of invention.

beck, 2010], 294–307, esp. 298; Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSup 90 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993], 375–87, esp. 378). In my perspective, Koester’s conclusion is most prudent: “Categorizing Hebrews as either deliberative or epideictic is finally not helpful … since classical handbooks recognized that the two forms of rhetoric were closely related and could occur in the same speech” (Hebrews, 82). 170 See chapter 5, n. 33.

Conclusion:

Hellenistic Jews at the Crossroads of Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation This monograph has investigated how Hellenistic Jewish authors attempted to comfort those living in the midst of and in the wake of persecution and violence. While previous scholarship has explored this question primarily in terms of the development of Jewish apocalypticism, afterlife beliefs, and theodicy during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, I have taken a more comprehensive approach by analyzing how Hellenistic Jewish authors engaged with ancient consolatory rhetoric. In response to the “lack of broad-based and in depth studies of Jewish rhetoric in the Hellenistic period,” 1 I have outlined the broad contours of Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric and examined its particular expressions in individual texts. Through focused case studies, I have argued that the authors of 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews engaged with diverse traditions of consolation within their biblical heritage and Greco-Roman culture in their attempts to offer comfort and instruction about how to live in distressing circumstances. Paul and the author of Hebrews also utilized oral Jesus tradition and the gospel in this endeavor. The results of this project demonstrate that analyzing select texts of Hellenistic Judaism from the perspective of ancient consolatory rhetoric is a highly productive approach that can contribute new knowledge to the study of Judaism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, of the Pauline Letters and Paulinism, and of ancient consolation at large. The primary contribution of this monograph to the study of Hellenistic Judaism consists of its demonstration of how Hellenistic Jewish authors employed and intertwined means of persuasion from both their biblical heritage and Greco-Roman literary culture in order to persuade suffering people to rise above their adversities and exhibit virtuous character in the midst of them. I have identified the characteristic ways in which Hellenistic Jewish consolers negotiated the tensions between and within biblical and Greco-Roman consolation (chapter 1). We have seen that Hellenistic Jewish authors frequently used consolatory rhetoric as a means to other ends, such as reasserting the justice, power, and goodness of the God of Israel in dire circumstances and persuading readers to obey God’s commandments when faithfulness to God appeared to be a li1

Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism,” 180.

282

Conclusion

ability rather than a boon. The authors of the texts under consideration in this monograph exerted their efforts to ameliorate grief as a mechanism through which they hoped to achieve their larger goals. The author of 2 Maccabees marshaled consolatory rhetoric in order to persuade his readers to obey God’s laws, irrespective of their circumstances. I highlighted how the author of 2 Maccabees navigated different biblical perspectives regarding God’s presence/absence and wrath/mercy in suffering and catastrophe. In the process, I refined the thesis that 2 Maccabees developed its theology of suffering from Deuteronomy. In contrast to previous studies that identified bodily resurrection as the position on the afterlife espoused by 2 Maccabees, I have argued that the author offers his readers multiple perspectives on postmortem life: both future bodily resurrection and immediate embodied life in heaven after death. This decision suggests that the author is not concerned with exactly how God will reward the faithful after death, but stresses that God will reward them postmortem. The consolatory rhetoric within the Wisdom of Solomon aims to convince readers that, contrary to appearances, God does reward faithfulness with life and punish apostasy with death. Whereas previous studies identified consolatory rhetoric in Wis 1:1–6:21 (esp. 3:1–3 and 4:7–20), I have argued that the author engages with consolatory rhetoric in 6:22–19:22 as well. Regarding 6:22– 11:1, I demonstrated that Pseudo-Solomon shares assumptions with Greek and Roman consolers about the relationship between grief and education and depicts Lady Wisdom in the role of “reason” (as seen in Greek and Roman consolations) and in the role of the God of Israel (as seen in Jewish consolations). Concerning 11:2–19:22, I argued that Pseudo-Solomon followed a common compositional practice in Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric, that is, he presents the past self of the distressed as an exemplum for navigating present adversity. I presented a new interpretation of the consolatory rhetoric in 3:1– 4:19, in which I made the case that the consolatory arguments about childlessness in 3:13–4:6 were intended to console parents whose children had been killed. In the process of studying the consolatory arguments in the Wisdom of Solomon, I discovered new evidence for the theory that it was composed in the wake of the 38 CE persecution in Alexandria. The date of the Wisdom of Solomon is a point of wide disagreement in scholarship. I hope that my study will bring scholarship closer to a consensus that it was written after 38 CE. As for the study of the Pauline Letters, I have established that 1 Thessalonians conforms to contemporary understandings of the genre of ancient consolation and contains all essential elements of the epistolary genre of the ἐπιστολὴ παραμυθητική in particular. In contrast to previous studies that identified consolatory rhetoric in 3:2–4, 4:13–18, and 5:1–11, I presented new evidence that the rhetoric, motifs, arguments, and exhortations of diverse streams of ancient consolation pervade every chapter of 1 Thessalonians. To supplement

Hellenistic Jews at the Crossroads of Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

283

existing scholarship on the consolatory arguments in 1 Thessalonians, I have analyzed the consolatory exhortations embedded in chapters 4–5. From this research, I proposed a new translation of the exhortation in 4:11 based on the usage of ἡσυχάζειν in consolatory contexts. My study of 1 Thessalonians has revealed Paul to be well versed in biblical and Greco-Roman traditions of consolation, both of which he intertwines with Jesus traditions in the service of his gospel. Paul delights in points of convergence between these traditions of consolation. When they do not converge, he often seeks to synthesize them, producing an amalgam in line with his own identity as a Hellenistic Jew committed to the gospel. In terms of the study of Paulinism, my analysis of the consolatory rhetoric in Hebrews demonstrates that there is a literary relationship between 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews. Echoes of 1 Thessalonians in Heb 6:9–12 and 10:32– 39 mount a strong case that the author of Hebrews utilized Paul’s consolatory rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians as a model in his own attempt to encourage the despondent among his addressees. Furthermore, the consolatory arguments in Hebrews against grief over the loss of Jerusalem and the temple constitute a solid basis for asserting that the author of Hebrews wrote after Paul’s death. I have argued that the author of Hebrews formulated his consolatory arguments in the heritage of Paul for this theological crisis that Paul never encountered, yet he also expanded the Pauline legacy to address the quotidian problem of the fear of death. I have argued that he formulated his consolations concerning life after death in an effort to reconcile tensions and fill gaps in the Pauline corpus on the question of postmortem existence. In doing so, he created consoling visions of heaven and pushed the Pauline legacy concerning life after death in a more Platonizing direction. To my knowledge, my study is the first to analyze Hebrews through the lens of ancient consolatory rhetoric. My results constitute significant contributions to answering the big-picture questions concerning Hebrews: its date of composition, purpose, intended audience, relationship to the Pauline Letters, and rhetoric. My research underscores the theory that Hebrews was written after 70 CE on account of (1) its application of biblical consolatory arguments concerning the prior destruction of Jerusalem and the temple to its own circumstances, (2) its utilization of numerous consolatory arguments attested in late first-century Jewish texts reacting to the destruction of Jerusalem, (3) its engagement with conventions of philosophical consolations on the loss of one’s city, and (4) its prefiguration of rabbinic consolatory arguments about the loss of the temple. My study bolsters the minority hypothesis that Hebrews was written to console its addressees about the loss of Jerusalem and the temple by detailing how the author employed ancient consolatory rhetoric to this end. The evidence of a pervasive attempt to comfort readers regarding the losses of 70 CE requires us to abandon the hypothesis that Hebrews was written to dissuade

284

Conclusion

“Jewish-Christians” from abandoning “Christianity” in order to return to “Judaism” and its reliance on the temple. The intended audience could have been Jewish, gentile, or a mix of Jews and gentiles. In each of these scenarios, grief and theological disorientation over the destruction of Jerusalem was likely. The author’s theology and rhetoric imply that he had access to a number of the Pauline letters, including 1 Thessalonians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians. Finally, my research has emphasized that the study of rhetoric in Hebrews should include engagement with ancient consolatory rhetoric. This monograph advances the study of ancient consolation broadly construed in several ways. First, this project has filled the gap in knowledge identified by Holloway: “a monograph length description of consolation in Second Temple Judaism remains a major desideratum.” 2 Second, this study has defined a new tradition of ancient consolation, Hellenistic Jewish consolation. I have described the characteristic features of Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric and identified its content: its vocabulary, expressions of sympathy, arguments against grief, and exhortations. My compiled set of data (appendix 1) showcases this content in Jewish texts from the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, the Bible, and Greco-Roman consolation literature. Third, past surveys of GrecoRoman and Jewish consolation literature have focused on the consolatory arguments with minimal attention to the expressions of sympathy and consolatory exhortations. My study has systematically examined the expressions of sympathy and consolatory exhortations within both Greco-Roman and Jewish consolation. Having surveyed a wide spectrum of consolatory writings by Hellenistic Jews in the course of this investigation, we can now identify the common threads that run through their diverse arguments and exhortations. Though their explanations for why God’s people suffer and die differ, they share the premise that God is in control and will benefit his people through hardship and death, even if they cannot see it yet. Hellenistic Jewish consolers attempted to counter the impression created by suffering that God is absent, impotent, or unfaithful by arguing that what appears to be contrary to God’s plan is actually within God’s plan to give his people a better future. They affirmed that God is present, powerful, and faithful. For the authors under consideration in this project, maintaining God’s faithfulness entailed asserting that God would reward his people after death and punish their persecutors. They disagree on the details regarding how, when, and where God would reward the faithful postmortem and punish their oppressors, but they emphasize that somehow God would execute justice. This point of concord among the authors of 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews highlights the overriding 2

Holloway, Coping with Prejudice, 105 n. 194.

Hellenistic Jews at the Crossroads of Biblical and Greco-Roman Consolation

285

concern with theodicy in Hellenistic Jewish consolation. Writing with a perpetual eye to maintaining the justice, goodness, and sovereignty of the God of Israel, these authors promote positive interpretations of suffering and death while fostering hope that God would soon deliver his faithful ones out of their suffering. In this respect, their consolation stands out from most of their biblical predecessors, who interpreted suffering and premature death negatively as the result of transgression against God, 3 and from that of their Greek and Roman counterparts, who argued that nothing could be done to change the situation. 4 I suggest several avenues for future research. First, there are numerous units of consolatory rhetoric in 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews that I did not analyze in this book because of space constraints. 5 These are ripe for analysis. Second, I have discovered that the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint not infrequently diverge in texts that pertain to consolation (e. g., Deut 32:36; Job 15:11). A detailed comparison of the Masoretic Text and Septuagint on the topic of consolation may prove fruitful. Third, the Philonic corpus contains a wealth of material on grief, joy, and consolation. My interaction with Philo’s writings on these topics is merely the tip of the iceberg, such that there are numerous opportunities for further research. Fourth, an inquiry into how Josephus engages with ancient consolatory rhetoric in retrospectively processing the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem would be illuminating. In closing, a word about the relationship between the case studies of this project and Christian consolatory rhetoric is in order. Although the authors of 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Thessalonians, and Hebrews were Hellenistic Jews, in the centuries after they wrote, their literary productions were preserved and valued not by Jews but by Christians. The rabbis rejected 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon because they were composed in Greek and written after the days of Alexander Great. 6 Meanwhile, the early Christians appropriated the Maccabean martyrs as their own and read the Wisdom of Solomon. 7 The Muratorian Canon even lists the Wisdom of Solomon among the books of the New Testament (lines 69–70). Despite the fact that the 3

See chapter 1, § 1.4.3 Rejection of Biblical Assumptions and Arguments. See chapter 1, § 1.4.2 Rejection of Greco-Roman Consolations. 5 E. g., 2 Macc 6:18–31; 9:1–29; 12:39–45; Wis 5; 6:15–20; Heb 6:15–20; 11:1–7, 17–38; 12:4–13; 13:5–6. I have not analyzed the arguments against grief (παραμυθίαι) regarding the Thessalonians’ persecution (3:3–4; 5:3), bereavement (4:13–5:11), and separation from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (esp. 2:17–3:13). 6 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 56. 7 See Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009); Raphaëlle Ziadé, Les martyrs Maccabées: De l’histoire juive au culte chrétien; Les homélies de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome, VCSup 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). See Larcher’s detailed examination of citations of the Wisdom of Solomon in early Christian literature (Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse, 36–63). 4

286

Conclusion

authors of 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon knew nothing of the gospel and what would become Christianity, in the subsequent centuries, their compositions joined with 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews to become cornerstones of Christian consolatory rhetoric. Because each of these texts, historically, has been interpreted primarily through the lens of Christianity, I have prioritized their earliest historical contexts and analyzed them as Hellenistic Jewish texts to provide a fresh vantage point for analysis. Though the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity had not yet occurred in the first century CE, Hebrews is often (and rightly) viewed as contributing to this eventual parting. Hebrews’ consolatory argument that the temple cult was no longer necessary was taken as evidence that God had planned for “Christianity” to supersede “Judaism.” 8 I have argued that the author of Hebrews had no intent to divorce followers of Jesus from Judaism but operated within Judaism. Nevertheless, his consolatory arguments had consequences. The use of Hebrews’ rhetoric in arguments for Christian supersessionism in the subsequent centuries underscores the importance of analyzing the rhetoric of Hebrews and other texts written by Hellenistic Jews in the early Jesus movement in their immediate historical contexts. This monograph has endeavored to elucidate the resources of Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric that sustained suffering followers of the God of Israel from the Maccabean era to the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. My hope is that some of my readers will build upon this research and join me in the conversation about how Jews in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods interpreted suffering, offered comfort, and encouraged laudable behavior in the midst of hardship.

8 E. g., James D. G. Dunn explains how Hebrews’ rhetoric “anticipated” Christian supersessionism: “This work … was probably written with a view to converts who hankered after the substantiality of the Temple cult (probably after the Temple’s destruction). But it meets the challenge by completely ignoring any hope for the Temple’s restoration and by disowning the whole priestly cult of Jerusalem as passé, a prefigurative shadow now wholly superseded by what Jesus accomplished in his death and resurrection. In thus establishing the new covenant, Jesus made the first covenant obsolete and abolished its regulations (Hebrews 8–10). Here is certainly anticipated the supersessionism that became such a dominant strand in later Christianity’s attitude to rabbinic Judaism (Barnabas, Melito, and beyond)” (“Jesus Movement,” EDEJ 802).

Appendices

Appendix 1:

The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric Below, I identify the most prevalent vocabulary, expressions of sympathy, arguments against grief, and exhortations within Hellenistic Jewish consolatory rhetoric, as well as the content of Greco-Roman consolatory rhetoric rejected by Hellenistic Jews. I do not include a section on the content of biblical consolatory rhetoric rejected by Hellenistic Jews, because Hellenistic Jewish authors did not unanimously reject any single expression of sympathy, consolatory argument, or exhortation from the Bible. This reflects the diversity within Hellenistic Jewish consolation literature. 1 Because Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint translation of the Bible, all citations of the Bible are from the Septuagint unless otherwise marked.

1. Vocabulary of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric 1.1

Pain, Suffering, and Grief

θλῖψις (affliction), θλίβω (to afflict, oppress), πάθημα (suffering), πάσχω (to suffer), θάνατος (death), ἀποθνῄσκω (to die), ἀγών (struggle, contest), φόβος (fear), φοβέομαι (to fear, be afraid), λύπη (grief), λυπέω (to grieve), πένθος (mourning), πενθέω (to mourn) κοπετός (lamentation), θρηνέω (to wail), κλαυθμός (weeping), κλαίω (to weep)

1.2

Consolation

παράκλησις (exhortation, encouragement, comfort, consolation), παρακαλέω (to encourage, exhort, comfort, console), παρηγορέω (to exhort, console), παραμυθία (consolation, comfort), παραμύθιον (comfort), παραμυθέομαι (to console, comfort)

1 For more on this issue, see chapter 1, § 1.4.3 Rejection of Biblical Assumptions and Arguments.

290

1.3

Appendix 1

Positive Interpretations of Pain and Suffering

ἀγάπη (love), ἀγαπάω (to love), παιδεία (discipline, education), παιδεύω (to discipline, educate), δοκιμάζω (to test), πειράζω (to test), γυμνάζω (to exercise, train), νουθεσία (admonition), νουθετέω (to admonish), ἔλεος (mercy)

1.4

Endurance or Deliverance from Pain, Suffering, and Grief

ὑπομονή (endurance, perseverance), ὑπομένω (to endure), θαρσέω/θαρρέω (to be courageous), ἡσυχάζω (to be calm), μακροθυμέω (to be patient), πίστις (faith, trust), πιστεύω (to believe), ἐλπίς (hope), ἐλπίζω (to hope), παρρησία (boldness), προσεύχομαι (to pray), εὐχαριστέω (to give thanks, be grateful), εὐχαριστία (thanksgiving), χαρά (joy), χαίρω (to rejoice), εὐφραίνω (to rejoice, be glad), ἀγαλλίασις (gladness, exceeding joy), ἀγαλλίαμα (joy, gladness), ἀγαλλιάομαι (to rejoice exceedingly, exult), σωτηρία (salvation, deliverance), σῴζω (to save), βοήθεια (help), βοηθός (helper), ῥύομαι (to rescue), ζωή (life), ζάω (to live), ἀφθαρσία (immortality), ἀθανασία (immortality), ἀνίστημι (to raise up), ἀνάστασις (resurrection)

2. Expressions of Sympathy (συμπάθεια) in Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric – Stating or describing one’s own grief over what has occurred. 2 – Referring to when the consoler had experienced the same sort of misfortune as the addressee(s). 3 – Naming others who have experienced or are currently experiencing traumas similar to those of the addressee(s). 4

3. Arguments against Grief (παραμυθίαι) in Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric 3.1

Arguments Specifically for Bereavement

– Death is an escape from the pain of life. 5 – Your departed loved ones had impeccable character. 6

2 3 4 5 6

See chapter 4, n. 210. See chapter 4, n. 211. See chapter 4, n. 215. See chapter 3, nn. 77–78. E. g., Wis 3:5–9; Menander Rhetor 2.11.420.9–421.14; chapter 3, n. 83.

The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric

291

– The excellence of a life should be measured not in years but in virtue. 7 – Our lives and the lives of others are given as loans from God, not as permanent possessions. 8 – Premature deaths are a sign of God’s love for the deceased. 9 – God’s justice extends beyond the grave, such that reward and punishment are postmortem realities. 10 – The soul is immortal and thus survives the death of the body. 11 – The pious dead are happy, living with God. 12 – God rewards the righteous with new life after death through resurrection. 13 – Separated loved ones will be reunited with those who have died. 14

3.2 – – – –

Arguments for Interpreting Suffering of Various Kinds, Including Bereavement

Their suffering was short. 15 Nothing unexpected has happened. 16 God has spoken concerning your current plight. 17 What happened was not your fault. 18

7 E. g., Cicero, Tusc. 1.109; Wis 4:8–9; Seneca, Marc. 24.1; Ep. 93.1–8; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 111A–D. Additional instances in Greek and Latin literature are listed by Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 137–38. 8 See chapter 3, n. 76. 9 E. g., Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 367B, 368A; Cicero, Fam. 5.16.4; Wis 4:10–12; Seneca, Marc. 22.3; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 111B, 117D–E, 119E, 121E. This consolatory argument contradicts the widespread biblical association of a long life with righteousness and a short life with impiety. E. g., Prov 10:27 reads, φόβος Κυρίου προστίθησιν ἡμέρας, ἔτη δὲ ἀσεβῶν ὀλιγωθήσεται. In his study of death in the Psalms, John Goldingay concludes that their authors “see human wickedness and divine wrath as the cause of early death” (“Death and Afterlife in the Psalms,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner, Part 4 of Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 61–85, esp. 84). See also Deut 30:15–16, 19–20; Jub. 23.8–9. See chapter 3, § 3.5.2 Consolation concerning the Apparent Deaths of Young People (4:7–19). 10 See chapter 1, n. 129. 11 See chapter 1, n. 130. 12 See chapter 1, n. 131. 13 See chapter 1, n. 132; chapter 2, § 4.7 God Rewards the Righteous with Life after Death. 14 E. g., 1 Thess 4:13–17; Seneca, Marc. 25.1–26.4; 4 Ezra 10.16. 15 See chapter 2, n. 112; § 2.4.8 God’s Wrath Is Short-Lived, but His Mercy toward His People Is Constant. 16 E. g., Ezek 39:23–24; Zech 1:7–17; Dan 7–12, esp. 9:24–27; Cicero, Tusc. 3.28–34, 57; Fam. 5.16.2; Philo, Spec. 2.46; Seneca, Marc. 9.1–5; Helv. 5.3; Ep. 24.15; 63.15; 91.4–9; 99.32; 1 Thess 3:1–4; 2 Bar. 83.4; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 474F–475A; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 112D–E. Cf. Seneca, Tranq. 11.6–12. See Holloway, “Nihil Inopinati Accidisse,” 433–48. 17 E. g., Isa 61; Jer 28:59–64; Ezek 37:1–14; 2 Macc 15:11–16; Bar 4:30–5:9; Cicero, Rep. 6.10–29; 1 Thess 3:3–4; 4:13–17; 5:3–4; Rev 1–22; 2 Bar. 68, 73–74. On prophecy as a vehicle for conveying God’s comfort to God’s people, see chapter 1, § 1.4.1 Compatibility. 18 E. g., Cicero, Fam. 5.17.5; Tusc. 3.52; Wis 11–19; 1 Thess 1–5; Josephus, B. J. 4.43; Pseudo-

292

Appendix 1

– Suffering is part of the human condition, from which no one is immune. 19 – Suffering is just punishment for sin. 20 – Suffering is God’s means of educating and disciplining (παιδεία, παιδεύω) you. 21 – Suffering is God’s means of testing (πειράζω, δοκιμάζω) you. 22 – Suffering is God’s means of perfecting (τελειόω) you. 23 – Your suffering is a sign of God’s approval and love. 24 – This adversity is a battle, and you are a soldier. 25 – This adversity is athletic training, and you are an athlete. 26

3.3 – – – –

Arguments for Interpreting the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple

What you lost exists in heaven, in an even better form. 27 Everything perishes, and everything that remains will soon perish. 28 This happened according to God’s plan. 29 You have another form of atonement that is just as (or even more) efficacious than the forms of atonement you lost. 30

Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 114C; Aelius Theon, Prog. 2:117.8–9. Cf. Pseudo-Demetrius, Epistolary Types 5.15. See chapter 3, § 3.5.1 Consolation concerning the Apparent Death of Adults by Torture (3:1–12), section b. Praising the Dead; Discerning God’s Purposes in Their Suffering (3:5–6). 19 E. g., Job 5:7; Eccl 2:23; 3:1–8; Cicero, Fam. 4.5.4; 5.16.2; 5.17.5; Seneca, Polyb. 1.4; Ep. 99.8–9; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 475C; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 103F–105F, 110F; PseudoDemetrius, Epistolary Types 5; Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.2–6. For more examples in Greek and Latin literature, see Moran, Consolations of Death, 10–18, 26–27. 20 E. g., Isa 40:1–2; Job 11:6; 2 Macc 6:12–17; 7:32–38; 12:40–45; Bar 4:6–16; 4 Ezra 14.27– 34; 2 Bar. 78.5; 79.1–3. For discussion, see chapter 2, § 2.4.1 Suffering Is Punishment for Sin. 21 See chapter 1, n. 118; chapter 2, § 2.4.2 God Disciplines His People with Calamities for Their Good. 22 See chapter 1, n. 119. 23 See chapter 1, n. 120. 24 E. g., Job 1:1–2:10; Prov 3:11–12; Jdt 8:27; Wis 4, 11–19; Seneca, Prov. 3.3–4; 4.7–8; Polyb. 2.7; 1 Thess 1–3; Heb 12:5–11; 2 Bar. 78.3; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 111B, 119E; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.29.47, 49; 2.1.39; 4.8.30, 32; Ench. 15. See Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 76–87. 25 See chapter 4, n. 129. 26 E. g., Philo, Ios. 26, 223; 1 Thess 2:1–2 (reference to consolers’ suffering); Heb 12:1–3; 4 Macc 6:9–10; 17:11–16; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.57; 4.10.10. Cf. T. Job 4.10; 27.2–5. See Croy, Endurance in Suffering, 40–70; Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif. 27 See chapter 5, § 5.3.1 What You Lost Exists in Heaven, in an Even Better Form. 28 See chapter 5, § 5.3.2 Everything Perishes and Everything That Remains Will Soon Perish. 29 E. g., Gen 45:5–11; 50:19–21; Dan 7–12; Wis 3:5; 11:9–11; 16:6; 1 Thess 3:3–4; 4 Ezra 7.14; 2 Bar. 78.5–6; Heb 12:5–11. Cf. Heb 2:10; 5:8–9. See chapter 5, § 5.3.3 This Happened according to God’s Plan. 30 See chapter 5, § 5.3.4 You Have Another Form of Atonement That Is Just as (or Even More) Efficacious Than the Forms of Atonement You Lost.

The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric

3.4

293

Arguments for Inspiring Confidence and Encouraging Laudable Behavior in Suffering

3.4.1 Arguments Based on Honor and Shame – You have already conquered hardship such as this and displayed admirable character and conduct in adversity. 31 – You (already) know what you need to know. 32 – Numerous witnesses are watching you and scrutinizing your behavior. 33 – You are an example whom others imitate. 34 – Others have suffered the same or much worse than you have suffered, and they bore their hardships with stalwart character. 35 – Prolonged grief over your current adversity is not worthy of your character. 36 – Prolonged grief is futile and harmful to both the mourners and their loved ones. 37 3.4.2 Arguments Based on God’s Character and Plans – – – –

God is with you. 38 God does not abandon his people. 39 God watches everything from heaven. 40 God is your comforter (e. g., ὁ παρακαλῶν [Isa 51:12]). 41

31

See chapter 3, § 3.7 A History of Victory over Similar Trials. Cicero, Fam. 4.5.4–5; Seneca, Polyb. 6.1; 14.4; 15.1; 1 Thess 1–5; Heb 10:32–34; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608A, 610D. 33 See chapter 4, § 4.5.2 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:9–12, section d. The Goal of Impressing Witnesses in Consolatory Rhetoric. 34 E. g., Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Seneca, Marc. 1.1–4; Polyb. 5.4–6.5; 11.6; Helv. 18.8; 1 Thess 1:6–8. 35 For the theory behind this consolatory argument based on positive exempla, see Cicero, Tusc. 3.56–60, 79; Seneca, Polyb. 14.1–2; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 469A; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 106C; Aelius Theon, Prog. 2:117.12–13. For examples of this argument, see 2 Macc 6:18– 7:41; 14:37–46; Cicero, Fam. 5.17.5; Wis 3:10–5:23; 10:15–11:14; 18:1–4, 20–25; Seneca, Marc. 12.5–16.4; Polyb. 1.4; 14.2–16.3; Helv. 9.4–10.1; 16.6–7; 19.4–7; 1 Thess 2:1–16; Heb 11:4–12:4; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 467E; 4 Ezra 10.9–12, 19–24; 2 Bar. 78.79; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118D–119D. See chapter 4, § 4.8 Exempla: Models for Navigating Hardship and Conquering Grief; Moran, Consolations of Death, 19–25. 36 E. g., Job 4:3–5; Cicero, Fam. 4.5.6; 5.16.5; Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Seneca, Marc. 1.1–5; 3.3–4; Polyb. 6.3–5; 7.4; Helv. 16.2–5; Ep. 99.2–3; 1 Thess 1:2–10; Heb 10:32–34; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F–609A, 609C–E. 37 See chapter 1, n. 87. 38 See chapter 2, n. 66. 39 See chapter 2, n. 65; § 2.4.3 God Does Not Abandon His People. 40 See chapter 2, § 2.4.4 God Watches Everything from Heaven. 41 E. g., Gen 3:5–7 (only in LXX; God is not depicted as a consoler in MT Gen 3:5–7); Job 38–42; Pss 22:4; 29:12; 45:2–3; 54:23; 93:19; 146:3; Isa 40:11; 41:27; 49:13; 51:3, 12; 66:12–14; 32

294 – – – – –

Appendix 1

God is your help (βοήθεια, βοηθός) and ally (σύμμαχος). 42 God rescues his righteous children out of adversity. 43 God punishes the wicked. 44 God will reunite you and your loved ones in the near future. 45 It will soon be over. 46

4. Exhortation (παραίνεσις) in Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric 4.1

Exhortation Specifically for Bereavement

– Take courage, no one is immortal (Θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος). 47 – Love others. 48 – Console others (e. g., παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους; παρηγόρησον τὸν ἀδελφὸν). 49 – Do not be idle, but attend to your habitual duties (professional, familial, societal, etc.). 50 Jer 38:15–40; Jonah 4:4–11; Bar 4:30; Sir 17:24; Wis 7:27; 8:9, 16; 2 Cor 1:4; Phil 4:6–7; 2 Thess 2:16–17; 4 Ezra 10.24; 12.4–8; 2 Bar. 54.4; T. Jos. 1.6–2.7. Cf. Philo, Det. 124. 42 E. g., Exod 14:13–14; Pss 32:20; 45:2–3; 117:6–7; Job 22:25; 2 Macc 8:23–24, 35–36; 9:5– 6; 10:16, 28–31; 11:6–13; 12:11, 16, 22, 28, 36–37; 13:17; 15:7, 21–24, 35; Wis 18:15–16; Heb 4:16; 13:6. Cf. Philo, Flacc. 170. See chapter 2, § 2.4.5 God Is Your Help and Ally. 43 E. g., Job 5:19–20; Ps 32:18–19; Sir 33:1; Wis 9:18; 10:1–11:1, esp. 10:9 (God’s Wisdom as rescuer); 1 Thess 1:10 (Jesus as rescuer). 44 Past punishment: e. g., Nahum; 2 Macc 9:5–28; Wis 11–19; 1 Thess 2:16. Present punishment: e. g., Philo, Flacc. 162–190. Future punishment: e. g., Isa 13–23; 34:1–35:10; 66:12–24; Jer 46:1–51:58; Ezek 25:1–32:32; Obad 1–16; Dan 7; 1 En. 96.1–3; cf. 97.1–2, 102–104; 2 Macc 7:17, 35–36; 9:5–29; Wis 1:7–10; 3:10; 4:3–6; 4:16–5:23; 18:5–8; Philo, Flacc. 115–123; 189; 1 Thess 5:1–11; 2 Thess 1:3–10; Rev 4–18; 4 Ezra 12.31–34; 13.21–50; 2 Bar. 82–83. Cf. Seneca, Const. 18.5. See discussion in chapter 2, § 2.4.6 God Punishes the Wicked. 45 This argument attempts to alleviate the pain of separation by directing the mind to contemplate near reunion. E. g., Isa 35; 49:21–22; 51:11; 66:12; Jer 37:18–19; 38:16–17; Zeph 3:20; Bar 4:23–5:9; Tob 5:21; 1 Thess 2:19–20; 3:11–13; 4:13–17; 4 Ezra 10.16; 13.39–50; 2 Bar. 78.7. 46 See chapter 2, n. 113. 47 See de Jáuregui, “‘Trust the God’: Tharsein,” 6–7; Joseph S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions, WUNT 2/121 (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 47–63; Pieter W. van der Horst, “Jewish Tomb Inscriptions in Verse,” in Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction, ed. P. W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 27–47, esp. 35–38; Simon, “Θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος,” 188–206. 48 E. g., Seneca, Marc. 5.6; 16.6–8; Polyb. 12.1; Helv. 18.7–8; 19.3; Ep. 63.12; 1 Thess 4:9–10. Cf. Philo, Abr. 196. See chapter 4, § 4.5.2 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:9– 12, section a. “You Are Taught by God to Love One Another (τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους) … but We Urge You … Excel More and More.” 49 E. g., Ezek 24:23; Seneca, Polyb. 5.5; 6.5; 12.2; 18.9; 1 Thess 4:18; 5:11; P.Wisc. II 84, col. 2, line 11; col. 3, lines 28–29. Cf. P.Oxy. I 115, line 2: “comfort yourselves.” 50 E. g., Cicero, Fam. 5.14.3; Ep. Brut. 18.2; Seneca, Polyb. 5.2; 8.1–4; Helv. 18.8; 1 Thess 4:11–12; 5:14; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608F (cf. 610A–B); Virt. mor. 449D–F; Pseudo-Plutarch,

The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric

295

– Resume normal care for your body (e. g., eat something, take off your mourning clothes, bathe). 51

4.2 – – – – – –

Exhortation for Suffering of Various Kinds, Including Bereavement

Moderate your grief. 52 Do not grieve (e. g., μὴ λυπεῖσθε; μὴ λύπῃς). 53 Endure (e. g., ὑπομένετε). 54 Be patient (e. g., μακροθυμεῖτε; μακροθύμησον). 55 Be calm (e. g., ἡσυχάζε; ἡσύχασον). 56 Be sober (e. g., νῆψον). 57

Cons. Apoll. 122F. For exempla in support of this exhortation, see 1 Thess 2:1–15; Seneca, Marc. 2.4; 14.1, 3; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118F. See chapter 4, § 4.5.2 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:9–12, section c. “Strive Eagerly … to Be Busy with Your Own Affairs [πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια] and to Work with Your Own Hands [ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς (ἰδίαις) χερσὶν ὑμῶν].” 51 E. g., 2 Sam 3:35; Bar 5:1–2; Josephus, A. J. 8.357; 4 Ezra 5.18; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 609F– 610B; Lucian, Luct. 24; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118B. Cf. 4 Ezra 10.4, in which refusal to be consoled manifests in refusing food and drink. 52 E. g., Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.2; Att. 12.10; Seneca, Marc. 3.4; Polyb. 4.3; 17.2; 18.5; Ep. 99.15; Ps.-Phoc. 1, 97–98; Philo, Abr. 257–260; QG 4.73; 4 Ezra 10.3; Josephus, A. J. 7.178; Plutarch, Cons. ux. 608C; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 102B–E. Cf. Plato, Resp. 603E; Cicero, Fam. 5.16.1; Philo, Ios. 26; Seneca, Helv. 1.4; 16.1. See “The Problem of ‘Appropriate Grief ’: Ἀπάθεια and Μετριοπάθεια,” in Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 81–123. 53 E. g., Aesop, Fab. 288; Gen 45:5; Jer 38:16; Ezek 24:22–23; Jub. 27.14, 18 (“do not weep”); 1 En. 92.2–3; 102.5; 1 Thess 4:13; 4 Ezra 10.15, 24; 12.46; Josephus, A. J. 7.204; 8.357; T. Zeb. 10.1–2; Lucian, Luct. 16; Galen, On Being Ungrieved; Menander Rhetor 2.11.421.16. Cf. Cicero, Tusc. 3.7.14–15; Sir 38:16–23; Let. Aris. 268; Seneca, Const. 8.3. For examples in the epitaphs, see Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin, 217–20. For overviews on the philosophical arguments against grief, see White, “Pathology and Cure of Grief (λύπη),” 221–49; Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 81–123. 54 E. g., Job 22:21; Ps 32:20; Lam 3:25–26; Philo, Mos. 1.199; Rom 12:12; Seneca, Marc. 15.3; Helv. 9.7; Mark 13:13; Matt 10:22; Heb 10:36; 12:7; 4 Ezra 10.15; Josephus, B. J. 4.40; PseudoPlutarch, Cons. Apoll. 103A. Cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.10.11–14; Ps 38:8; Seneca, Const. 9.4–5; T. Job 1.5; 4.6; 5.1; 21.4; 26.4–5; 27.4–7. Cf. the exhortation to “endure nobly” (γενναίως): SB XIV 11646, line 9–10; BGU III 801, line 5; Pseudo-Demetrius, Epistolary Types 5.17. On the history of this exhortation, see Chapa, Letters of Condolence, 40–41. 55 For μακροθυμέω, see, e. g., Bar 4:25; Sir 2:4; 1 Thess 5:14; Heb 6:15. 56 For ἡσυχάζω, see, e. g., Plato, Phaed. 117E; Resp. 604B, 604E, 605D; Euripides, Herc. fur. 98; Iph. aul. 973; Gen 4:7; Prov 15:15; Lam 3:26; Philo, Ios. 21; 1 Thess 4:11; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 113E–F. See also Ps 45:10 (σχολάσατε; relax!); Seneca, Marc. 12.5; 4 Ezra 2.24, 27. Cf. Jub. 19.3–4; Cicero, Fam. 6.1.4; Tusc. 3.60; Seneca, Tranq. 2.4; 10.4; Prov. 2.2; Const. 4.3; 6.3–8; 8.3; 9.3; Philo, Abr. 27, 257. See chapter 4, § 4.5.2 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:9–12, section b. “But We Urge You… to Strive Eagerly to Be Calm” (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν). 57 See chapter 4, § 4.5.3 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 4:13–5:11, section b. Consolatory Exhortation at the Intersection of Jesus Tradition and Greek Philosophy: “Let Us Keep Watch and Be Sober” (γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν).

296 – – – – – – – – – –

Appendix 1

Be courageous (e. g., θάρσει; εὐψύχει). 58 Do not be afraid (e. g., μὴ φοβοῦ; μὴ φοβεῖσθε; μὴ φοβηθῇς). 59 Do not retaliate against those who harm you. 60 Rejoice (e. g., χαίρετε; εὐφράνθητι). 61 Imitate the examples of people who have triumphed over adversity (e. g., μιμεῖσθε τὴν πίστιν [τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν] [Heb 13:7]). 62 Imitate how I handled/am handling adversity (e. g., μιμήσασθέ με [4 Macc 9:23]). 63 Set an example for others. 64 Turn your attention away from your troubles and toward good things. 65 Do not overlook what is good and beneficial in your adverse circumstances. 66 Fix your gaze upon heavenly realties, not earthly matters. 67

4.3

Exhortation Based on God’s Character and Plans

– Hope in the Lord to deliver you (e. g., ἔλπισον). 68 – Wait for the Lord to intervene on your behalf (e. g., ἀναμείνατε τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ [Sir 2:7]; ὑπόμεινον τὸν κύριον, ἵνα σοι βοηθήσῃ [Prov 20:9c]). 69 – Pray (e.g., προσεύχεσθε; εὔχου). 70 – Give thanks (e. g., εὐχαριστεῖτε). 71 58

See chapter 1, n. 90. E. g., Gen 21:17; 50:19–21; 1 Sam 4:20; Isa 35:4; 41:10–13; 54:4; 1 En. 102.4; 104.6; 2 Macc 7:29; 15:8; Sir 34:14; Cicero, Rep. 6.10; Heb 13:6; Rev 2:10; 4 Ezra 2.17; 10.55; 16.75. 60 See chapter 4, n. 146. 61 See chapter 1, n. 84, and chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22, section b. Exhortations to Constancy in Rejoicing, Prayer, and Thanksgiving. 62 For theoretical discussion, see Cicero, Tusc. 3.56–58. For examples, see Cicero, Rep. 6.16; Fam. 4.5.4–5; Seneca, Polyb. 14.4–16.3; 17.1; Helv. 9.4–10.1; 16.6–7; 19.4–7; Marc. 4.1; 12.5– 15.4; 16.3–4; Heb 6:12; 13:7; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 474D–E; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 118D–119D. Cf. 1 Thess 1:6 and 2:14 (μιμηταί). 63 E. g., Ezek 24:15–22; Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.1–2; Fam. 4.5.4; Seneca, Polyb. 13.2–14.1; 16.3; Helv. 4.2–5.6; 1 Thess 1–5; 2 Bar. 81; 4 Macc 9:23. Cf. 1 Thess 1:6 (ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε). 64 E. g., Jdt 8:24; Cicero, Ep. Brut. 18.2; Seneca, Polyb. 5.4; 1 Thess 1:6–10 (implied). Cf. 2 Macc 6:28, in which Eleazar states that he aims to leave a ὑπόδειγμα γενναῖον (“noble example”) with this death. 65 See chapter 3, nn. 98–100; chapter 4, n. 66. 66 Paul models this virtuous habit of identifying and naming the beneficial aspects of unfortunate circumstances in Phil 1:12–18, as does Seneca in Helv. 20.1–2. See also Plutarch, Exil. 600A, 604B–D, 605C–D; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 111F. 67 Cicero, Rep. 6.19, 23; Seneca, Exil. 9.2; Heb 12:1–2. Cf. 1 Pet 1:3–13. 68 See chapter 1, n. 103. 69 Chapter 1, n. 103. 70 See chapter 1, n. 106, and chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22, section b. Exhortations to Constancy in Rejoicing, Prayer, and Thanksgiving. 71 See chapter 4, § 4.5.4 The Meaning and Function of the Exhortation in 5:12–22, section b. Exhortations to Constancy in Rejoicing, Prayer, and Thanksgiving; Jdt 8:24; Wis 16:28–29; 59

The Content of Hellenistic Jewish Consolatory Rhetoric

297

– Repent. 72 – Remember past prophecies and God’s promises. 73 – Remember when God has helped or delivered his people in the past. 74

5. Content of Greco-Roman Consolatory Rhetoric Rejected by Hellenistic Jews 5.1

Rejected Expressions of Sympathy (συμπάθεια)

– Accuse the gods (esp. Fate and Fortune) of cruelty and injustice in laments about what had befallen the distressed person. 75

5.2

Rejected Arguments against Grief (παραμυθίαι)

– Death is not an evil. 76 – There is nothing to fear after death. 77 – Those who have died return to the same state (κατάστασις) in which they were before birth. 78 – The best thing is not to be born, and the next best thing is to die as quickly as possible. 79 – The deceased person does not want you to continue lamenting them. 80 – Mourning is feminine, weak, and not noble. 81 – Life is short, and we will soon also die, so we must give up mourning and live cheerfully. 82

1 Thess 5:18; Phil 4:6; Seneca, Ep. 99.4–5; Marc. 12.1–2; 13.3–4; 15.3; 16.3; Polyb. 10.1–6; 11.3; Heb 12:28; 4 Ezra 2.37; Plutarch, Tranq. an. 469E; Cons. ux. 610E–611C; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 106B. Cf. Seneca, Tranq. 11.2–3. 72 See chapter 1, n. 107. 73 See chapter 1, n. 104. 74 See chapter 1, n. 105. 75 E. g., Seneca, Polyb. 2.2–4.2; Helv. 2.4–5; Aelius Theon, Prog. 2:117.17–25; Menander Rhetor 2.16.413.5–23; 2.16.418.6–422.3; 2.16.435.9–13. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 99.3. For examples of lamentation in the epitaphs, see Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin, 177–205, 264. See chapter 1, § 1.4.2 Rejection of Greco-Roman Consolations. 76 See chapter 1, n. 100. 77 E. g., Lucretius 3.978–1024; Pseudo-Plato, Ax. 369C; Seneca, Marc. 19.4. 78 See chapter 1, n. 99. 79 See chapter 1, n. 96. 80 E. g., Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 121F; Seneca, Polyb. 5.1–3; Menander Rhetor 2.9.414.21. 81 See chapter 1, n. 142. 82 E. g., Seneca, Ep. 99.6–7; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 117F–118A.

298

Appendix 1

– The passage of time allays sorrows. 83 – Nothing can be done (to change the situation). 84

5.3

Rejected Consolatory Exhortation (παραίνεσις)

– Immerse yourself in studying philosophy. 85 – Be persuaded by reason to stop grieving now, rather than waiting for time to heal your grief. 86

83 E. g., Cicero, Fam. 4.5.6; 5.16.5–6; Seneca, Marc. 1.6; Ep. 63.5, 12; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 102B, 114F–115A. Cf. Menander Rhetor 2.11.418.25–31. 84 See chapter 1, n. 102. 85 E. g., Seneca, Polyb. 18.1; Helv. 17.3–5. 86 E. g., Cicero, Att. 12.10; Fam. 4.5.6; 5.16.5–6; Pseudo-Plutarch, Cons. Apoll. 112C; Pseudo-Demetrius, Epistolary Types 5.

Appendix 2:

Explanations for Why God’s Children and Their Enemies Suffer in the Wisdom of Solomon The table below displays the different ways that Pseudo-Solomon explains the suffering and death of God’s children versus their enemies. The suffering of enemies is interpreted as punishment for crimes, whereas the suffering of God’s children is interpreted as tests of faithfulness, warnings, and educational opportunities. Experience

God’s Children

Enemies of God’s Children

Violent death

Educating and testing for the purpose of ultimate benefit (3:1–9)

Ungodliness, injustice (4:16–19)

παιδεύω (3:5); πειράζω (3:5); δοκιμάζω (3:6)

Premature death

Protection from being deceived Parents are ungodly adulterers (3:16) by the evil world (4:11–12) The young person had already been perfected (4:13)

Parents are ungodly (4:3)

Divine rescue from evil because of God’s love (4:10, 14, 17) Thirst

Testing (11:9–10) Showing God’s children how God punishes their enemies (11:8) πειράζω (11:9); παιδεύω (11:9); δοκιμάζω (11:10); νουθετέω (11:10)

Punishment for the child-killing decree (11:7) κολάζω (11:5, 8); κόλασις (11:13); ἔλεγχος (11:7); βασανίζω (11:9)

300

Appendix 2

Experience

God’s Children

Enemies of God’s Children

Hunger

Showing God’s children how God torments their enemies (16:3)

Punishment for worshiping animals (15:18–16:1)

Teaching God’s children that God’s word sustains those who trust in him (16:25–26) Animal bites

κολάζω (16:1); κόλασις (16:2); βασανίζω (16:1, 4)

Reminding God’s children of God’s word (16:6, 11)

Punishment for worshiping animals (15:18–16:1)

Showing them that God’s word heals everything (16:12)

κολάζω (16:9)

νουθεσία (16:6)

Hail and fire storms

Unaffected

Punishment for refusal to know God (16:16) μαστιγόω (16:16)

Imprisonment

Oppressed by lawless people (17:2; 18:4)

Punishment for imprisoning God’s children (18:4)

Mass death

Testing (18:25)

Death of the firstborn: Punishment for killing the infants of the holy ones (18:5)

πεῖρα (18:25)

ἔλεγχος (18:5); τιμωρέω (18:8)

Death in the Red Sea: Punishment for killing the infants of the holy ones (18:5) Fulfillment of their remaining punishment (19:4) κόλασις (19:4); βάσανος (19:4)

Enslavement and loss of shared rights

Evil deeds of sinners (19:13)

Unaffected

Loss of sight

Unaffected

Punishment for afflicting their esteemed guests with terrible labors or sufferings (19:17)

Appendix 3:

Proposals for the Structure of 1 Thessalonians as a Letter of Consolation Christine Trotter I.

Letter Opening (1:1–10) 1:1 Epistolary Prescript 1:2–10 Epistolary Thanksgiving/Captatio Benevolentiae II. Letter Body (2:1–5:11) 2:1–16 Exempla of the Suffering and Slandered Servants of God 2:17–3:2 Sympathy and Consolation regarding the Absence of Their Founders 3:3–4 Consolation regarding Continuing Afflictions 3:5–13 Sympathy and Consolation regarding the Absence of Their Founders 4:1–12 Exhortation regarding Sanctification, Affliction, and Bereavement 4:13–5:11 Consolation and Exhortation regarding Bereavement and Its Effects on Survivors III. Letter Closing (5:12–28) 5:12–22 Exhortation: Recapitulation of How to Live in Affliction as Modeled by Their Founders 5:23–24 Assurance of God’s Protection 5:25–28 Epistolary Postscript David Luckensmeyer and Bronwen Neil 1 1:1 Opening 1:2–10 Laudatio (Expressed as Thanksgiving) 2:1–16 Lamentatio (συμπάθεια) 2:17–3:13 Self-Consolation 4:1–12 Exhortatio 4:13–5:11 Consolatio *Luckensmeyer and Neil do not account for 5:12–28. Jutta Bickmann 2 1:2–2:16 Establishing a Relationship 2:17–3:10 Reflecting on Experiences of Death 4:1–12 Strengthening the Church’s Identity 4:13–5:11 The Picture of the Abolition of All Separation *Bickmann does not account for 5:12–28.

1 2

Luckensmeyer and Neil, “Reading First Thessalonians,” 45–47. Bickmann, “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death,” 814–18.

302

Appendix 3

Abraham Smith 3 1:1–5 1:6–2:16 2:17–3:13 4:1–5:22 5:23–28

3

Exordium Consolatory Laudation Timothy, a Recent Consolatory Example Consolatory Precepts Peroration

Smith, Comfort One Another, 68–92.

Bibliography Primary Sources Aelius Theon. Progymnasmata. Translated by Michel Patillon and Giancarlo Bolognesi. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1997. Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric. Translated by J. H. Freese. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Bonner, Campbell, ed. The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek. SD 8. London: Christophers, 1937. Boudon-Millot, Véronique, and Jacques Jouanna, eds. Galien: Ne pas se chagriner. Collection des universités de France, publiée sous le patronage de l’Association Guillaume Budé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2010. Charles, R. H. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. Cicero. Brutus. Orator. Translated by G. L. Hendrickson and H. M. Hubbell. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. –. Letters to Atticus. Translated by E. O. Winstedt. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912–1918. –. Letters to Friends. Translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. –. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering. Translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. –. On Invention. The Best Kind of Orator. Topics. Translated by H. M. Hubbell. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949. –. On Old Age. On Friendship. On Divination. Translated by W. A. Falconer. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923. –. Tusculan Disputations. Translated by J. E. King. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Collins, John J. “Sibylline Oracles: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 317–472 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Cramer, John Anthony, ed. Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum. 8 vols. Hildsheim: Olms, 1967. Epictetus. The Discourses. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959–1961. Euripides. Bacchae. Iphigenia at Aulis. Rhesus. Translated by David Kovacs. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. –. Bacchanals. Madness of Hercules. Children of Hercules. Phoenician Maidens. Suppliants. Translated by Arthur S. Way. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912.

304

Bibliography

Field, Frederic. Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi: Interpretatio omnium epistolarum paulinarum. 7 vols. Oxford: Parker, 1849–1862. Gaylord, H. E., Jr. “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch.” Pages 653–79 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Guerra, Adele Tependino. L’esilio: Pap. Vat. Gr. 11 verso: Favorino di Arelate. TC 20. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 2007. Hanhart, Robert. Maccabaeorum liber II, copiis usus quas reliquit Werner Kappler. Septuaginta: VTG 9.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Hani, Jean. Consolation à Apollonios [de] Plutarque. ÉC 78. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1972. Hershbell, Jackson P. Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus. SBLTT 21. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Horst, Pieter W. van der. Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom. PACS 2. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. SVTP 4. Leiden: Brill 1978. Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by H. St. John Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, and Louis H. Feldman. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. –. The Jewish War. Translated by H. St. John Thackeray. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. –. The Life. Against Apion. Translated by H. St. John Thackeray. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. WGRW 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Klijn, A. F. J. “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch.” Pages 615–52 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Lucian. Translated by Austin M. Harmon. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919–1925. Marcus, Ralph, trans. Philo Supplement. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Emperor of Rome. Translated by C. R. Haines. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916. Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Metzger, Bruce M. “The Fourth Book of Ezra: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 517–59 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. O’Neil, Edward N., ed. Teles (The Cynic Teacher). SBLTT 11. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Ovid. Translated by J. H. Mozley. 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922–1977.

Bibliography

305

Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Pelletier, André, S.J., ed. Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate. SC 89. Paris: Cerf, 1962. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Plato. Euthyphro. Apology. Crito. Phaedo. Translated by Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy. LCL 36. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017. –. Republic. Translated by Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938. Pliny the Younger. Letters. Translated by Betty Radice. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Plutarch. Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. LCL. New York: Macmillan, 1914–1926. –. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt et al. 15 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–1969. Pseudo-Demetrius. Epistolary Types. Pages 30–41 in Ancient Epistolary Theorists by Abraham J. Malherbe. SBLSBS 19. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Pseudo-Dionysius. On Epideictic Speeches. Pages 362–81 in Menander Rhetor. Edited with translation and commentary by D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. Pseudo-Libanius. Epistolary Styles. Pages 68–81 in Ancient Epistolary Theorists by Abraham J. Malherbe. SBLSBS 19. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Quintilian. The Orator’s Education. Translated by Donald A. Russell. 5 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001–2014. Russell, D. A., and N. G. Wilson, eds. Menander Rhetor: A Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. Seneca the Younger. Epistles. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–1925. –. Moral Essays. Translated by John W. Basore. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928–1935. Septuaginta. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Staab, Karl. Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. NTAbh 15. Münster: Aschendorff, 1933. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91–108. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. 2 vols. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001. Tov, Emanuel, ed. The Book of Baruch: Also Called 1 Baruch (Greek and Hebrew). TT 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Vitelli, Claudius, ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis Consolationis fragmenta. Milan: Mondadori, 1979. Wilson, Walter T. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta: VTG 12, 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. –. Sapientia Salomonis. Septuaginta: VTG 12, 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962.

306

Bibliography

Secondary Sources Abart, Christine. “Moments of Joy and Lasting Happiness: Examples from the Psalms.” Pages 19–40 in Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions: Emotions Associated with Jewish Prayer in and around the Second Temple Period. Edited Stefan C. Reif and Renate Egger-Wenzel. DCLS 26. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Abel, Felix-Marie. Les livres des Maccabées. EtB. Paris: Gabalda, 1949. Adam, James. “Ancient Greek Views of Suffering and Evil.” Pages 190–212 in The Vitality of Platonism. Edited by Adela M. Adam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Adamiack, Richard. Justice and History in the Old Testament: The Evolution of Divine Retribution in the Historiographies of the Wilderness Generation. Cleveland: J. T. Zubal, 1982. Adams, Sean A. “Evaluating 1 Thessalonians: An Outline of Holistic Approaches to 1 Thessalonians in the Last 25 Years.” CurBR 8 (2009): 51–70. –. Greek Genres and Jewish Authors: Negotiating Literary Culture in the Greco-Roman Era. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020. –. “Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: Baruch 4:5–5:9 and Its Relationships with Jewish Scripture.” Pages 61–77 in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception. Edited by Sean A. Adams. DCLS 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Faith, Hope, and Interpretation: A Lexical and Syntactical Study of the Semantic Field of Hope in the Greek Psalter.” Pages 360–76 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Boston: Brill, 2006. Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 131–48 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Alary, Laura Dawn. “Good Grief: Paul as Sufferer and Consoler in 2 Corinthians 1:3–7; A Comparative Investigation.” PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2003. Alderink, Larry J., and Luther H. Martin. “Prayer in Greco-Roman Religions.” Pages 123– 27 in Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. Edited by Mark Kiley. London: Routledge, 1997. Alexander, Loveday. “Prophets and Martyrs as Exemplars of Faith.” Pages 405–21 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Alexander, Philip S. “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 1–25 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Alexiou, Margaret. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. Rev. ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Ambrose, Kimberly. Jew among Jews: Rehabilitating Paul. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Amit, Yairah. “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature.” VT 37 (1987): 385–400. Anderson, Gary A. A Time to Mourn, a Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991. Angel, Hayyim. “Prophecy as Potential: The Consolations of Isaiah 1–12 in Context.” JBQ 37 (2009): 3–10.

Bibliography

307

Armstrong, David. “‘Be Angry and Sin Not’: Philodemus versus the Stoics on Natural Bites and Natural Emotions.” Pages 79–121 in Passions and Moral Progress in GrecoRoman Thought. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. RMCS. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. Ascough, Richard S. “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community-Building Language in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.” JBL 123 (2004): 509–30. –. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Encountering the Christ Group at Thessalonike. PGNT 13. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014. Asher, Jeffrey R. Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection. HUT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Attridge, Harold W. “An ‘Emotional’ Jesus and Stoic Tradition.” Pages 77–92 in Stoicism in Early Christianity. Edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. –. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. –. “God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory.” Pages 308–19 in Essays on John and Hebrews. WUNT 264. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Paraenesis in a Homily (λόγος παρακλήσεως): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistles to the Hebrews.’” Pages 294–307 in Essays on John and Hebrews. WUNT 264. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Aune, David Charles. “Passions and Desires in the Pauline Letters: An Exploration of Paul’s Moral Psychology.” PhD diss., Brown University, 1995. Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. –. “Passions in the Pauline Epistles: The Current State of Research.” Pages 221–37 in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. –. “Prayer in the Greco-Roman World.” Pages 23–42 in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. –. The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Aune, David E., and Eric Stewart. “From the Idealized Past to the Imaginary Future: Eschatological Restoration in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 147–77 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Aus, Roger David. “Comfort in Judgment: The Use of Day of the Lord and Theophany Traditions in Second Thessalonians 1.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1971. Baltussen, Han. “Introduction.” Pages xiii–xxv in Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife. Edited by Han Baltussen. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013. –. “Personal Grief and Public Mourning in Plutarch’s Consolation to His Wife.” AJP 130 (2009): 67–98. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993. Bammel, E. “Preparation for the Perils of the Last Days: 1 Thessalonians 3:3.” Pages 91– 100 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. Edited by William Horbury and Brian McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

308

Bibliography

Bar, Shaul. I Deal Death and Give Life: Biblical Perspectives on Death. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010. Barclay, John M. G. “Conflict in Thessalonica.” CBQ 55 (1993): 512–30. –. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. –. “‘That You May Not Grieve, like the Rest Who Have No Hope’ (1 Thess 4:13): Death and Early Christian Identity.” Pages 131–53 in Not in the Word Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Edited by Morna D. Hooker. Rome: Benedictina, 2003. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Bartlett, John R. First and Second Books of the Maccabees. CBC 52–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Barton, Stephen C. “Eschatology and the Emotions in Early Christianity.” JBL 130 (2011): 571–91. Baslez, Marie-Françoise. “The Author of Wisdom and the Cultured Environment of Alexandria.” Pages 33–49 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLY 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Bauckham, Richard J. “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 80–95 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Becker, Adam H., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted. TSAJ 95. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Becker, Lawrence C. “Stoic Emotion.” Pages 250–75 in Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. Edited by Steven K. Strange and Jack Zupko. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Bedard, Stephen J. “Hellenistic Influence on the Idea of Resurrection in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” JGRChJ 5 (2008): 174–89. Bellia, Giuseppe. “Historical and Anthropological Reading of the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 83–115 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLY 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Berger, K. “Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede.” ZNW 65 (1974): 190–231. Berglund, Carl Johan. “Paul’s Rhetorical Efforts to Establish Good Will in First Thessalonians.” JSNT 44 (2022): 539–60. Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Bickerman, Elias J. “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr. (II Macc 1.1–9).” ZNW 32 (1933): 233–54. –. The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt. Translated by Horst Moehring. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Translation of Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung des makkabäischen Erhebung. Berlin: Schocken, 1937. Bickmann, Jutta. Kommunikation gegen den Tod: Studien zur paulinischen Briefpragmatik am Beispiel des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefes. Würzburg: Echter, 1998. –. “1 Thessalonians: Opposing Death by Building Community.” Pages 810–20 in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the

Bibliography

309

Bible and Related Literature. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Bird, Michael F. An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Bizzeti, Paolo. Il Libro della Sapienza: Struttura e genere letterario. RivBSup 11. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1984. Bjerkelund, Carl J. Parakalô: Form, Function und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen. BTN 1. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967. Black, David Alan. Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature. Rev. ed. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “We Rejoice in Our Sufferings.” Pages 45–55 in The Mystery of Suffering and Death. Edited by Michael J. Taylor. Staten Island: Alba House, 1973. Blischke, Mareike V. Die Eschatologie in der Sapientia Salomonis. FAT 2/26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Blomkvist, Vemund. Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary. TUGAL 170. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Bloomquist, L. Gregory. “Subverted by Joy: Suffering and Joy in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians.” Int 61 (2007): 270–82. Boers, Hendrikus. “The Form-Critical Study of Paul’s Letters: 1 Thessalonians as a Case Study.” NTS 22 (1976): 140–58. Bokser, Baruch M. “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity.” PAAJR 50 (1983): 37–61. Bons, Eberhard. “ΕΛΠΙΣ comme l’espérance de la vie dans l’au-delà dans la littérature juive hellénistique.” Pages 345–70 in Ce dieu qui vient. LD 159. Paris: Cerf, 1995. Borgen, Peder. “Introduction.” Pages 9–13 in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995. Boring, M. Eugene. I and II Thessalonians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015. Bosman, Hendrik L. “The Theological Paraphrasing of History: The Exodus Tradition in the Wisdom of Solomon.” HvTSt 68.1 (2012): art. 1329. doi: 10.4102/hts.v68i1.1329. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. –. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Braund, Susanna Morton, and Christopher Gill, eds. The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Breech, Earl. “These Fragments I Have Shored against My Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra.” JBL 92 (1973): 267–74. Brewer, Marilynn B., and Miles Hewstone, eds. Self and Social Identity. PSPsych. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. Brichto, Herbert C. “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – a Biblical Complex.” HUCA 44 (1973): 1–54. Bridges, Linda M. “Terms of Endearment: Paul’s Words of Comfort in First Thessalonians.” RevExp 96 (1999): 211–32. Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. WBC 45. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.

310

Bibliography

Brueggemann, Walter, and William H. Bellinger Jr. Psalms. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Buch-Hansen, Gitte. “The Emotional Jesus: Anti-Stoicism in the Fourth Gospel?” Pages 93–114 in Stoicism in Early Christianity. Edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels EngbergPedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Bulley, Alan D. “Death and Rhetoric in the Hebrews ‘Hymn to Faith.’” SR 25 (1996): 409– 23. Buresch, Carolus. “Consolationum a graecis romanisque scriptarum historia critica.” LSCP 9 (1886): 1–170. Burgess, Theodore Chalon. “Epideictic Literature.” Pages 89–248 in vol. 3 of Studies in Classical Philology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902. Burke, Trevor J. Family Matters: A Socio-historical Study of Kinship Metaphors in 1 Thessalonians. JSNTS 247. London: T&T Clark International, 2003. Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Translated by John Raffan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. Burkes, Shannon. God, Self, and Death: The Shape of Religious Transformation in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 79. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Wisdom of Solomon.” HTR 95 (2002): 21–44. Cairns, Douglas L. “Weeping and Veiling: Grief, Display, and Concealment in Ancient Greek Culture.” Pages 37–57 in Tears in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by Thorsten Fögen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Calaway, Jared C. The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and Its Priestly Context. WUNT 2/349. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Camp, Claudia V, and Andrew Mein, eds. ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible. LHBOTS 584. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Carmignac, J. “La théologie de la souffrance dans les hymnes de Qumran.” RevQ 3 (1961– 1962): 365–86. Carras, George P. “Jewish Ethics and Gentile Converts: Remarks on 1 Thess 4, 3–8.” Pages 306–15 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Cassell, Anthony K. Dante’s Fearful Art of Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Cavallin, Hans Clemens Caesarius. Life after Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead. Part 1. An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. ConBib NT Ser 7:1. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. Chaniotis, Angelos., ed. Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2012. Chapa, Juan. “Consolatory Patterns? 1 Thess 4,13.18; 5,11.” Pages 220–28 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. –. “Is First Thessalonians a Letter of Consolation?” NTS 40 (1994): 150–60. –. Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. PapyFlor 29. Firenze: Edizioni Gonnelli, 1998. Charles, Ronald. Paul and the Politics of Diaspora. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Cheon, Samuel. The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: A Study in Biblical Interpretation. JSPSup 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Cherniss, Harold. “The Sources of Evil according to Plato.” PAPS 98 (1954): 23–37. Chester, Andrew. Eschatology and Transformation in the Hebrew Bible. Vol. 1 of Future Hope and Present Reality. WUNT 293. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Bibliography

311

Cho, Ezra JaeKyung. The Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians in Light of Ancient Funeral Oration. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020. Church, Philip. Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews. NovTSup 171. Boston: Brill, 2017. Claassen, Jo-Marie. Displaced Persons: The Literature of Exile from Cicero to Boethius. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1999. Clarke, Ernest G. The Wisdom of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Coezter, Eugene. “A Spatial Analysis of the References to Heaven in 2 Maccabees.” BN 168 (2016): 105–15. Collins, John J. “The Afterlife in Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 119–39 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Part 4 of Death, Life-afterDeath, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death.” CBQ 36 (1974): 21–43. –. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. –. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Age.” HR 17 (1977): 121–42. –. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –. “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End.” Pages 129–61 in The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. Vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Edited by John J. Collins. New York: Continuum, 1998. –. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. –. “The Root of Immortality: Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom.” HTR 71 (1978): 177–92. Collins, John J., and Daniel C. Harlow, eds. The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, Raymond F. The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin and Development of the First Christian Generation. New York: Crossroad, 1993. –. “‘I Command That This Letter Be Read’: Writing as a Manner of Speaking.” Pages 319–39 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians. BETL 66. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984. Corbeill, Anthony. Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Corley, Jeremy. “Emotional Transformation in the Book of Baruch.” Pages 225–51 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2011. Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. Corrigan, John, ed. “Introduction: Emotions Research and the Academic Study of Religion.” Pages 3–31 in Religion and Emotion: Approaches and Interpretations. Edited by John Corrigan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

312

Bibliography

–. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Corrigan, John, Eric Crump, and John Kloos. Emotion and Religion: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000. Cosby, Michael R. The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988. –. “The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11.” JBL 107 (1988): 257–73. Cousar, Charles B. Philippians and Philemon: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Crenshaw, James L. Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. –, ed. Theodicy in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. 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: HarperCollins, 2004. Croy, N. Clayton. Endurance in Suffering: A Study of Hebrews 12:1–13 in Its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context. SNTSMS 98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. D’Alario, Vittoria. “La réflexion sur le sens de la vie en Sg 1–5: Une réponse aux questions de Job et de Qohélet.” Pages 313–29 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Danker, Frederick William. “Consolation in 2 Cor. 5:1–10.” CTM 39 (1968): 552–56. Daschke, Dereck. City of Ruins: Mourning the Destruction of Jerusalem through Jewish Apocalypse. BibInt 99. Boston: Brill, 2010. Davila, James R. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? JSJSup 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Davis, Phillip A., Jr. The Place of Paideia in Hebrews’ Moral Thought. WUNT 2/475. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Deane, William J. The Book of Wisdom. Oxford: Clarendon, 1881. De Bruyn, Theodore S. “Philosophical Counsel versus Customary Lament in FourthCentury Christian Responses to Death.” Pages 161–86 in Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities. Edited by Willi Braun. SCJ 16. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005. Deidun, T. J. New Covenant Morality in Paul. AnBib 89. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Denis, Albert-Marie. “L’Apôtre Paul, ‘prophète messianique’ des Gentiles: Étude thématique de 1 Thess., II,1–6.” ETL 33 (1957): 245–318. deSilva, David A. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SBLDS 152. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. –. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. –. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1935. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Conservative and Progressive Theology: Sirach and Wisdom.” CBQ 28 (1966): 139–54.

Bibliography

313

Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A. D. 220. London: Duckworth, 1977. Dimant, Devorah. “Resurrection, Restoration and Time-Curtailing in Qumran, Early Judaism, and Christianity.” RevQ 19 (2000): 527–48. Dodson, Joseph R. “Death and Idols in the Wisdom of Solomon.” JJS 67 (2016): 36–45. –. The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans. BZNW 161. New York: de Gruyter, 2008. –. “The Transcendence of Death and Heavenly Ascent in the Apocalyptic Paul and the Stoics.” Pages 103–15 in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination. Edited by Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Donfried, Karl Paul. “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence.” Pages 21–48 in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Orig. NTS 31 (1985): 336–56. –. “The Epistolary and Rhetorical Context of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12.” Pages 31–60 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “The Scope and Nature of the Debate: An Introduction and Some Questions.” Pages 3– 27 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “The Theology of 1 Thessalonians as a Reflection of Its Purpose.” Pages 243–60 in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, SJ. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Crossroad, 1989. –. “Was Timothy in Athens? Some Exegetical Reflections on 1 Thess. 3.1–3.” Pages 209– 19 in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Donfried, Karl Paul, and I. Howard Marshall. The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters. NTT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Doran, Robert. 2 Maccabees. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. –. “The Martyrs: A Synoptic View of the Mother and Her Seven Sons.” Pages 189–221 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by George W. E. Nickelsburg and John J. Collins. SCS 12. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980. –. “Second Maccabees and ‘Tragic History.’” HUCA 50 (1979): 107–14. –. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. CBQMS 12. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Downing, Gerald F. “Common Strands in Pagan, Jewish, and Christian Eschatologies in the First Century.” Pages 169–87 in Making Sense in (and of) the First Christian Century. JSNTSup 197. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Drozdek, Adam. Athanasia: Afterlife in Greek Philosophy. Spudasmata 137. Zürich: OLMS, 2011. Dumke, James Arthur. “The Suffering of the Righteous in Jewish Apocryphal Literature.” PhD diss., Duke University, 1980. Dunn, James D. G. “Jesus Movement.” EDEJ 799–803. Dupont, Jacques. SYN CHRISTO: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul. Bruges: Abbaye de Saint André, 1952. Dyer, Bryan R. Suffering in the Face of Death: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Its Context of Situation. LNTS 568. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Easter, Matthew C. Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews. SNTSMS 160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

314

Bibliography

Edwards, Matthew. Pneuma and Realized Eschatology in the Book of Wisdom. FRLANT 242. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Ehrenkrook, Jason von. “The Afterlife in Philo and Josephus.” Pages 97–118 in Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: End Time and Afterlife in Judaism. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Vol. 1 of Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2013. Eisenbaum, Pamela M. The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context. SBLDS 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. –. “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins.” Pages 213–37 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. –. “The Virtue of Suffering, the Necessity of Discipline, and the Pursuit of Perfection in Hebrews.” Pages 331–53 in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited by Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush. New York: Routledge, 1999. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Judith’s Path from Grief to Joy – from Sackcloth to Festive Attire.” Pages 189–223 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2011. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Ego, Beate. “God’s Justice. The ‘Measure for Measure’ Principle in 2 Maccabees.” Pages 141–54 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Edited by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 118. Boston: Brill, 2007. Elledge, C. D. Life after Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus. WUNT 2/208. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism 200 BCE–CE 200. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellis, Nicholas. The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/396. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Ellsworth, James D. “Agon: Studies in the Use of a Word.” PhD diss., The University of California at Berkeley, 1971. Elßner, Thomas R. “Emotions in Jerusalem’s Prayer: Baruch and Lamentations.” Pages 71–81 in Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions: Emotions Associated with Jewish Prayer in and around the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stefan C. Reif and Renate EggerWenzel. DCLS 26. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “The Concept of Paraenesis.” Pages 47–72 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen. BZNW 125. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. –. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. –, ed. Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Engel, Helmut. Das Buch der Weisheit. NSK-AT 16. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Enns, Peter. “Pseudo-Solomon and His Scripture: Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 389–414 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Bibliography

315

Erskine, Andrew. “Cicero and the Expression of Grief.” Pages 36–47 in The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. Edited by Susan Morton Braund and Christopher Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Esler, Philip F. “Collective Memory and Hebrews 11: Outlining a New Investigative Framework.” Pages 151–71 in Memory, Tradition, and Text: The Uses of the Past in Early Christianity. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. SemeiaSt 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Esteve-Forriol, José. Die Trauer- und Trostgedichte in der römischen Literatur. München: Schubert, 1962. Estrada, Bernardo. “The Last Beatitude. Joy in Suffering.” Bib 91 (2010): 187–209. Favez, Charles. “Consolatio.” Page 279 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. –. La Consolation Latine Chrétienne. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1937. Feldman, Emanuel. Biblical and Post-biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology. New York: Ktav, 1997. Feldman, Louis H. “The Septuagint: The First Translation of the Torah and Its Effects.” Pages 53–69 in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered. JSJSup 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Ferguson, Everett. “Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and Its Environment.” ANRW 23.2:1151–89. Part 2, Principat, 23.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1980. Fern, Sister Mary Edmond. The Latin Consolatio as a Literary Type. Saint Meinrad, IN: Abbey, 1941. Fernández Marcos, N. “The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job.” Pages 251–66 in The Book of Job. Edited by W. A. M. Beuken. BETL 114. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. Filson, Floyd Vivian. “‘The God of All Comfort’: II Corinthians 1:3–7.” ThTo 8 (1952): 498–501. Filtvedt, Ole Jakob. The Identity of God’s People and the Paradox of Hebrews. WUNT 2/ 400. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Finan, Thomas. “The Myth of the Innocent Sufferer: Some Greek Paradigms.” PIBA 9 (1985): 121–35. Finney, Mark T. Resurrection, Hell, and the Afterlife: Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism, and Early Christianity. New York: Routledge, 2016. Fiore, Benjamin, S.J. Review of Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians, by Abraham Smith. CBQ 59 (1997): 174. Fish, Henry Clay. “Excessive Grief at the Death of Friends.” Pages 82–93 in Masterpieces of Pulpit Eloquence Ancient and Modern. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1856. Fishbane, Michael. “Joy and Jewish Spirituality.” Pages 151–72 in The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. SBLDS 99. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. –. “Proverbs 3:11–12, Hebrews 12:5–6, and the Tradition of Corporeal Punishment.” Pages 291–317 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. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Floyd, Michael H. “A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch.” Pages 25–42 in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception. Edited by Sean A. Adams. DCLS 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016.

316

Bibliography

Focke, Friedrich. Die Entstehung der Weisheit Salomos. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. Foster, Paul. Colossians. BNTC. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Fowler, Alaistar. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean World from the Second Century A. D. to the Conversion of Constantine. Harmondsworth: Viking, 1986. Franke, Chris A. “‘Like a Mother I Have Comforted You’: The Function of Figurative Language in Isaiah 1:7–26 and 66:7–14.” Pages 35–55 in The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah. Edited by A. Joseph Everson and Hyun Chul Paul Kim. AIL 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Fredriksen, Paula. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. –. “‘What Parting of the Ways’? Jews, Gentiles, and the Ancient Mediterranean City.” Pages 35–63 in The Ways That Never Parted. Edited by Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed. TSAJ 95. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –. When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. Frick, Peter. Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria. TSAJ 77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Friedman, Richard E., and Shawna D. Overton. “Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence.” Pages 35–59 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Part 4 of Death, Life-after-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Friesen, Courtney J. P. “Paulus Tragicus: Staging Apostolic Adversity in First Corinthians.” JBL 134 (2015): 813–32. Gäbel, Georg. “Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 357–76 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development, and Reception. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin. DCLY 2007. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Gaertner, Jan Felix. “The Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity.” Pages 1–20 in Writing Exile: The Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity and Beyond. Edited by Jan Felix Gaertner. MnSup 83. Boston: Brill, 2007. Gager, John. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Gambetti, Sandra. The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction. JSJSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gammie, John G. “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre.” Semeia 50 (1990): 41–77. Garland, Robert. The Greek Way of Death. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. Garrett, Susan R. “Paul’s Thorn and Cultural Models of Affliction.” Pages 82–99 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Garrison, Roman. Why Are You Silent, Lord? BibSem 68. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. First and Second Thessalonians. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1998.

Bibliography

317

Gehman, Henry S. “The Theological Approach of the Greek Translator of Job 1–15.” JBL 68 (1949): 231–40. Gelardini, Gabriella. “Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological Interpretation.” Pages 92–112 in Deciphering the Worlds of Hebrews: Collected Essays. NovTSup 184. Leiden: Brill, 2021. –. “Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht”: Der Hebräer, eine Synagogenhomilie zu Tischa be-Aw. BibInt 83. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Georgi, Dieter. “Hebrews and the Heritage of Paul.” Pages 236–44 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Weisheit Salomos. JSHRZ 3.4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980. Getty, Mary Ann. “The Imitation of Paul in the Letters to the Thessalonians.” Pages 277– 83 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Gibson, Roy K., and A. D. Morrison. “Introduction: What Is a Letter?” Pages 1–16 in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography. Edited by Ruth Morello and A. D. Morrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU 42. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gilbert, Maurice. La Sagesse de Salomon: Recueil d’études. AnBib 189. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. –. “Sagesse de Salomon (ou Livre de la Sagesse).” DBS 11 (1986): 57–119. Gill, Christopher. “Positive Emotions in Stoicism: Are They Enough?” Pages 143–60 in Hope, Joy, and Affection in the Classical World. Edited by Ruth R. Caston and Robert A. Kaster. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Gillman, Neil. The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1997. Gitay, Yehoshua. Prophecy and Persuasion: A Study of Isaiah 40–48. Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1981. Glad, Clarence E. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy. NovTSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Glicksman, Andrew T. Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses. DCLS 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Goldingay, John. “Death and Afterlife in the Psalms.” Pages 61–85 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Part 4 of Death, Lifeafter-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees. AB 41A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Goodman, Martin. “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple.” Pages 27–38 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Goodrick, A. T. S. The Book of Wisdom. OCBC. London: Rivingtons, 1913. Grabbe, Lester L. Wisdom of Solomon. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Gräbbe, P. J. “The All-Surpassing Power of God through the Holy Spirit in the Midst of our Broken Earthly Existence: Perspectives on Paul’s Use of ΔΥΝΑΜΙΣ in 2 Corinthians.” Neot 28 (1994): 147–56.

318

Bibliography

Grappe, Christian. “Le Motif de l’Espérance en Hébreux: Son importance à la lumière de l’Ancien Testament, de la littérature intertestamentaire et en fonction de la place qui lui revient au sein de l’épître.” RHPR 98 (2018): 117–36. Grässer, Erich. An die Hebräer. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. Graver, Margaret R. “Anatomies of Joy: Seneca and the Gaudium Tradition.” Pages 123– 42 in Hope, Joy, and Affection in the Classical World. Edited by Ruth R. Caston and Robert A. Kaster. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. –. Cicero on the Emotions: Tusculan Disputations 3 and 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. –, ed. Seneca: Hardship and Happiness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014. –. Stoicism & Emotion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. –. “Philo of Alexandria and the Origins of the Stoic Προπάθειαι.” Phron 44 (1999): 300– 325. –. “The Weeping Wise: Stoic and Epicurean Consolations in Seneca’s 99th Epistle.” Pages 235–52 in Tears in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by Thorsten Fögen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Gray, Patrick. Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition. AcBib 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gregg, J. A. F. The Wisdom of Solomon: With Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. Gregg, Robert C. Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories. PMS 3. Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975. Grollios, Constantine C. Seneca’s Ad Marciam: Tradition and Originality. Athens: Christou & Son, 1956. Gruen, Erich S. “Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews.” Pages 238–74 in Hellenistic History and Culture. Edited by Peter Green. HCS 9. Berkeley: University of California, 1993. Guignet, Marcel. Les procédés épistolaires de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze comparés à ceux de ses contemporains. Paris: Picard, 1911. Gundry, Robert H. “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and the Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians.” NTS 33 (1987): 161–78. Gupta, Nijay K. “Paul and the Militia Spiritualis Topos in 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 13–32 in Paul and the Greco-Roman Philosophical Tradition. LNTS 527. Edited by Joseph R. Dodson and Andrew W. Pitts. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. Gutierrez, Pedro. La paternité spirituelle selon Saint Paul. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1968. Habicht, Christian. 2. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ 1. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976. Hachlili, Rachel. Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices, and Rites in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hafemann, Scott. “The Comfort and Power of the Gospel: The Argument of 2 Corinthians 1–3.” RevExp 86 (1989): 325–44. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. “Judith, Book of.” EDEJ 855–57. Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. WUNT 2/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Hanson, G. Walter. The Letter to the Philippians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Hansen, Mogens Herman. “The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography. Fact or Fiction?” Historia 42 (1993): 161–80.

Bibliography

319

Harlow, Daniel C. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity. SVTP 12. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Harnisch, Wolfgang. Eschatologische Existenz: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1. Thessalonicher 4, 13–5, 11. FRLANT 110. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Harrington, Daniel J. The Maccabean Revolt: Anatomy of a Biblical Revolution. OTS 1. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988. Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. “‘Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews.” Pages 151–73 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Heil, John Paul. “Those Now ‘Asleep’ (Not Dead) Must Be ‘Awakened’ for the Day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5.9–10.” NTS (2000): 464–71. Hellholm, David. “The Problem of the Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John.” Semeia 36 (1986): 13–64. Hennig, John. “The Book of Wisdom in the Liturgy.” CBQ 14 (1952): 233–36. Henten, Jan Willem van. “Judas the Maccabee’s Dream (2 Macc. 15:11–16) and the Egyptian King’s Sickle Sword.” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture 4 (2004): 8–15. –. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. JSJSup 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation.” Pages 63–86 in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the Talmud. Edited by Menachem Mor et al. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003. –. “Zum Einfluß jüdischer Martyrien auf die Literatur des frühen Christentums, II: Die Apostolischen Väter.” ANRW 27.1:700–723. Part 2, Principat, 27.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1993. Henten, Jan Willem van, and Friedrich Avemarie. Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2002. Herrero de Jáuregui, Miguel. “‘Trust the God’: Tharsein in Ancient Greek Religion.” HSCP 108 (2015): 1–52. Hester, James D. “Apocalyptic Discourse in 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 137–64 in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament. Edited by Duane F. Watson. SBLSS 14. Leiden: Brill, 2002. –. “The Invention of 1 Thessalonians: A Proposal.” Pages 251–79 in Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Parting of the Ways Reconsidered: Diversity in Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations in the Roman Empire, ‘a Jewish Perspective.’” Pages 47–61 in Interwoven Destinies: Jews and Christians through the Ages. Edited by Eugene Fisher. New York: Paulist, 1993. Hoffmann, Paul. Die Toten in Christus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zur paulinischen Eschatologie. NTAbh NF 2. Münster: Aschendorff, 1966. Hofius, Otfried. “‘Der Gott allen Trostes’: Παράκλσις und παρακαλεῖν in 2 Kor 1,3–7.” Pages 244–54 in Paulusstudien. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Hogan, Karina Martin. “The Exegetical Background of the ‘Ambiguity of Death’ in the Wisdom of Solomon.” JSJ 30 (1999): 1–24.

320

Bibliography

Hollander, H. W. and M. De Jonge. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Holloway, Paul A. “Bona Cogitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8–9.” HTR 91 (1998): 89–96. –. “Consolation, Greco-Roman Antiquity.” Pages 669–71 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. –. “Consolation, New Testament.” Pages 671–72 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. –. “Consolation, Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism.” Pages 672–73 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. –. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy. SNTSMS 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. –. Coping with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective. WUNT 244. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. “Gender and Grief. Seneca’s Ad Marciam and Ad Helviam matrem.” Pages 299–321 in Women and Gender in Ancient Religions: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Edited by Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll, Paul A. Holloway, and James A. Kelhoffer. WUNT 263. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Left Behind: Jesus’ Consolation of His Disciples in John 13,31–17,26.” ZNW 96 (2005): 1–34. –. “Nihil Inopinati Accidisse – ‘Nothing Unexpected Has Happened’: A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos in 1 Pet 4.12 ff.” NTS 48 (2002): 433–48. –. Philippians: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Holmstrand, Jonas. Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians. Translated by Martin Naylor. ConBNT 28. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1997. Holtz, Traugott. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKKNT 13. Zürich: Benziger, 1986. –. “On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12.” Pages 319–39 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Hooker, Morna D. “Concluding Reflections: ‘Our Gospel Came to You, Not in Word Alone, but in Power Also’ (1 Thess 1:5).” Pages 155–66 in Not in the Word Alone: The First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Edited by Morna D. Hooker. Rome: Benedictina, 2003. Hope, Valerie M. Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. Abingdon: Routledge, 2007. –. Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London: Continuum, 2009. Horbury, William. “I Thessalonians ii.3 as Rebutting the Charge of False Prophecy.” JTS 33 (1982): 492–508. –. “The Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 650–67 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by John Muddiman and John Barton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Horn, F. W. Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie. FRLANT 154. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Horst, Pieter W. van der. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE). CBET 2. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991. –. “Consolation from Prison: Mara bar Sarapion and Boethius.” Pages 193–203 in The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context: Proceedings of the Symposium Held at Utrecht

Bibliography

321

University, 10–12 December 2009. Edited by Annette Merz and Teun Tieleman. CHANE 58. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. “Jewish Tomb Inscriptions in Verse.” Pages 27–47 in Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction. Edited by P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Hubbard, David A. “Hope in the Old Testament.” TynBul 34 (1983): 33–59. Hübner, Hans. Die Weisheit Salomons. ATD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Hughes, Frank W. “The Rhetoric of Letters.” Pages 194–254 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 94–116 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Huidberg, Flemming Friis. Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament: A Study of Canaanite Israelite Religion. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Isaacs, Marie E. Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary. RNT. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. –. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTS 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Jackson, Paul Norman. An Investigation of Koimaomai in the New Testament: The Concept of Eschatological Sleep. MBPS 45. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1996. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation. AGJU 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. James, Joshua T. The Storied Ethics of the Thanksgiving Psalms. JSOTSup 658. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Janowski, Bernd. “Death, Dying II. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.” Pages 359–61 in vol. 6 of The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Japhet, Sara. “Theodicy in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.” Pages 429–69 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Jaquette, James L. Discerning What Counts: The Function of the Adiaphora Topos in Paul’s Letters. SBLDS 146 Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. –. “Life and Death, Adiaphora, and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies.” NovT 38 (1996): 30–54. Jay, Jeff. The Tragic in Mark: A Literary-Historical Interpretation. HUT 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Jew, Ian Y. S. Paul’s Emotional Regime: The Social Function of Emotion in Philippians and 1 Thessalonians. LNTS 629. London: T&T Clark, 2021. Jewett, Robert. “The Form and Function of the Homiletic Benediction.” AThR 51 (1969): 18–34. –. Review of Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians, by Abraham Smith. CRBR 9 (1996): 271–73. –. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. –. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. FFNT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Johanson, Bruce C. To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians. ConBNT 16. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987.

322

Bibliography

Johnson, E. Elizabeth. “Paul’s Reliance on Scripture in 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 143–62 in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. ECL 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Johnson, Norman B. Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. JBLMS 2. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society Press, 1948. Jones, Kenneth R. Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70: Apocalypses and Related Pseudepigrapha. JSJSup 151. Boston: Brill, 2011. Jordan, Mark. “Ancient Philosophical Protreptic and the Problem of Persuasive Genres.” Rhetorica 4 (1986): 309–33. Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 196. London: T&T Clark, 1995. Kampling, Rainer. “Sich dem Rätsel nähern. Fragen zu den Einleitungsfragen des Hebräerbriefes.” Pages 11–34 in Ausharren in der Verheißung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief. Edited by Rainer Kampling. SBS 204. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Kaplan, Ben. “Comfort, O Comfort, Corinth: Grief and Comfort in 2 Cor 7:5–13a.” HTR 104 (2011): 433–45. Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985. Kassel, Rudolf. Untersuchungen zur Griechischen und Römischen Konsolations-literatur. Zet 18. Munich: Beck, 1958. Katz, Steven. “Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A Reconsideration.” JBL 103 (1984): 43–76. Kaufmann, Yechezkel. Sefer Yehoshua. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970. Keck, Leander E. “New Testament Views of Death.” Pages 33–98 in Perspectives on Death. Edited by Liston O. Mills. Nashville: Abingdon, 1969. Kee, Howard C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Second Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 775–828 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Kelhoffer, James A. Persecution, Persuasion and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament. WUNT 270. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kieffer, René. “L’eschatologie en 1 Thessaloniciens dans une perspective rhétorique.” Pages 206–19 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Kierdorf, Wilhelm. “Consolatio as a Literary Genre.” Pages 704–6 in vol. 3 of Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World; Antiquity. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. 16 vols. Boston: Brill, 2003. Kim, Dong-Soo. “‘Encourage One Another’: Paul’s Message in 1 Thess 5:1–11.” KJCS 36 (2004): 61–71. Kim, Lloyd. Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Judaism, Supersessionism? Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2006.

Bibliography

323

Kim, Seyoon. “The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4.13–5.11.” NTS 48 (2002): 225–42. Kinneavy, James L. Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith: An Inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Kirschner, Robert. “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70.” HTR 78 (1985): 27–46. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Content and Exegesis. Translated by Daniel P. Bailey. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Klijn, A. F. J. “1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 and Its Background in Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 67–73 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by Morna D. Hooker and Stephen G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. Kloppenborg, John S. “James 1:2–15 and Hellenistic Psychagogy.” NovT 52 (2010): 37– 71. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. Rev. ed. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987. Koester, Craig R. “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise: Life in the Community for Which Hebrews Was Written.” HvTSt 61 (2005): 231–51. doi: 10.4102/hts.v61i1/2.444 –. “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity.” CBQ 64 (2002): 103–23. –. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Koester, Helmut. “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 158–66 in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Edited by Richard A. Horsley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. –. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. New York: de Gruyter, 2000. –. “1 Thessalonians – Experiment in Christian Writing.” Pages 33–44 in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays Presented to George Huntston Williams on His 65th Birthday. Edited by F. F. Church and T. George. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Kolarcik, Michael, S.J. The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1–6: A Study of Literary Structure and Interpretation. AnBib 127. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. –. “The Sage behind the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 245–57 in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World. FRLANT 219. Edited by Leo G. Perdue. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. –. “Sapiential Values and Apocalyptic Imagery in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 23–36 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. JSJSup 142. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill, 2010. –. “Universalism and Justice in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 289–301 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Konstan, David. The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Use of the Greek Bible in II Maccabees.” JNSL 25 (1999): 127– 38.

324

Bibliography

Kotsifou, Chrysi. “‘Being Unable to Come to You and Lament and Weep with You’: Grief and Condolence Letters on Papyrus.” Pages 389–411 in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World. Edited by Angelos Chaniotis. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2012. Kotzé, Gideon R. “Comments on the Expression of Hope in LXX Lamentations 5:19–22.” OTE 28 (2015): 121–53. Kraus, Wolfgang. “‘Whom the Lord Loveth He Chasteneth’: About the Adoption of Prov 3:11f. in Hebr 12:5f.” Pages 323–35 in Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture: Studies in Honour of Johann Cook. Edited by Randall X. Gauthier, Gideon R. Kotzé, and Gert J. Steyn. VTSup 172. Boston: Brill, 2016. Kreinecker, Christina M. “Emotions in Documentary Papyri: Joy and Sorrow in Everyday Life.” Pages 450–72 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul. Edited by Renate EggerWenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2011. Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. Krentz, Edgar M. “Πάθη and ’Απάθεια in Early Roman Empire Stoics.” Pages 122–35 in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. RMCS. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. –. “1 Thessalonians: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints.” Pages 287–318 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Kulik, Alexander. 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Kurzewitz, Christian. Weisheit und Tod: Die Ätiologie des Todes in der Sapientia Salomonis. TANZ 50. Tübingen: Francke, 2010. Laato, Antti. “Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 183–235 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Laato, Antti, and Johannes C. de Moor, eds. Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2003. LaBarge, Scott. “How (and Maybe Why) to Grieve like an Ancient Philosopher.” Pages 321–42 in Virtue and Happiness: Essays in Honour of Julia Annas. Edited by Rachana Kamtekar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Lambrecht, Jan. “A Structural Analysis of 1 Thessalonians 4–5.” Pages 163–78 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “Thanksgivings in 1 Thessalonians 1–3.” Pages 183–205 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. New York: Clarendon, 1987. Lamprecht, Liana. “Consolation of the Bereaved: Reflections on the Pastoral Care of the Early Church Fathers from a Postmodern Perspective.” AcPB 21 (2010): 61–81. Lane, William L. Hebrews 1–8. WBC 47A. Dallas: Word, 1991. –. Hebrews 9–13. WBC 47B. Dallas: Word, 1991. –. “Living a Life of Faith in the Face of Death: The Witness of Hebrews.” Pages 247–69 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Lange, Stella Louise. “The Wisdom of Solomon and Plato.” JBL 55 (1936): 293–302. Langille, Timothy. “Reshaping the Persistent Past: A Study of Collective Trauma and Memory in Second Temple Judaism.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2014. Larcher, Chrysostome. Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1969.

Bibliography

325

–. Le Livre de la Sagesse ou La Sagesse de Salomon. 3 vols. EBib 1. Paris: Gabalda, 1983– 1985. Lattimore, Richard A. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962. Latvus, Kari. God, Anger, and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings. JSOTSup 279. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Leaman, Oliver. Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy. CSRT 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Leaney, A. R. C. “The Eschatological Significance of Human Suffering in the Old Testament and in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” SJT 5 (1963): 286–301. Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998. Licht, Jacob. “Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance.” JJS 12 (1961): 95–100. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “History-Writing and History-Telling in First and Second Maccabees.” Pages 95–110 in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth DurhamTübingen Research Symposium (Durham, September, 2004). Edited by Stephen C. Barton, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, and Benjamin G. Wold. WUNT 212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan. “The Hermeneutics of Exodus in the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 97–116 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman. Edited by R. Roukema. CBET 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Lim, Kar Young. ‘The Sufferings of Christ Are Abundant in Us’ (2 Corinthians 1.5): A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Sufferings in 2 Corinthians. LNTS 399. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. SNTSMS 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Linebaugh, Jonathan A. God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation. NovTSup 152. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Littlewood, A. R. “The Byzantine Letter of Consolation in the Macedonian and Komnenian Periods.” DOP 53 (1999): 19–41. Loewe, Raphael. “Jerome’s Treatment of an Anthropopathism.” VT 2 (1952): 261–72. Lohr, Joel N. “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1–16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New Testament.” CBQ 71 (2009): 485–96. Luckensmeyer, David. The Eschatology of First Thessalonians. NTOA 71. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Luckensmeyer, David, and Bronwen Neil. “Reading First Thessalonians as a Consolatory Letter in Light of Seneca and Ancient Handbooks on Letter-Writing.” NTS 62 (2016): 31–48. Lüdemann, Gerd. “The Hope of the Early Paul: From the Foundation-Preaching at Thessalonika to 1 Cor 15:51–57.” PRSt 7 (1980): 195–201. –. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Translated by F. Stanley Jones. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Ludwig, Theodore M. “The Shape of Hope: Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation.” CTM 39 (1968): 526–41.

326

Bibliography

Luz, Ulrich. “Stages of Early Christian Prophetism.” Pages 57–75 in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. WUNT 2/286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Lyons, George. Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding. SBLDS 73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Mackie, Scott D. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT 2/ 223. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “Visually Oriented Rhetoric and Visionary Experience in Hebrews 12:1–4.” CBQ 79 (2017): 476–97. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Antisthenes and Odysseus, and Paul at War.” Pages 135–66 in Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity; Collected Essays, 1959–2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe. NovTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Repr. from HTR 76 (1983): 143–73. –. “Exhortation in First Thessalonians.” Pages 167–85 in Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity; Collected Essays, 1959–2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe. NovTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Repr. from NovT 25 (1983): 238–356. –. “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to I Thess ii.” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17. –. The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 32B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. “‘Pastoral Care’ in the Thessalonian Church.” Pages 229–45 in Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity; Collected Essays, 1959–2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe. NovTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Repr. from NTS 36 (1990): 375– 91. –. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Małunowiczówna, Leokadia. “Les éléments stoïciens dans la consolation grecque chrétienne.” StPatr 13 (1975): 35–45. Manfredi, Silvana. “The Trial of the Righteous in Wis 5:1–14 (1–7) and in the Prophetic Traditions.” Pages 159–78 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLY 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Manning, C. E. On Seneca’s “Ad Marciam.” MBCBSup 69. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Marohl, Matthew J. Faithfulness and the Purpose of Hebrews: A Social Identity Approach. PTMS 82. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2008. Marshall, I. Howard. “Election and Calling to Salvation in 1 and 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 259–76 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. –. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Martin, Hubert, Jr. and Jane E. Phillips. “Consolatio ad Uxorem, Moralia 608A–612B.” Pages 394–441 in Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz. SCHNT 4. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Martin, Michael Wade, and Jason A. Whitlark. Inventing Hebrews: Design and Purpose in Ancient Rhetoric. SNTSMS 171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Martin, Troy W. “Emotional Physiology and Consolatory Etiquette: Reading the Present Indicative with Future Reference in the Eschatological Statement in 1 Peter 1:6.” JBL 135 (2016): 649–60. Marxsen, Willi. “Auslegung von 1Thess 4,13–18.” ZTK 66 (1969): 22–37.

Bibliography

327

–. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. ZBK. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979. Mason, Eric F. “The Epistle (Not Necessarily) to the ‘Hebrews’: A Call to Renunciation of Judaism or Encouragement to Christian Commitment?” Pages 389–405 in The Letter to the Hebrews: Critical Readings. Edited by Scott D. Mackie. CRBS. London: T&T Clark, 2018. Mazzinghi, Luca. “Wis 19:13–17 and the Civil Rights of the Jews of Alexandria.” Pages 53–82 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLY 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. McDowell, Markus. Prayers of Jewish Women: Studies of Patterns of Prayer in the Second Temple Period. WUNT 2/211. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. McGehee, Michael. “A Rejoinder to Two Recent Studies Dealing with 1 Thess 4:4.” CBQ 51 (1989): 82–89. McGlynn, Moyna. Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom. WUNT 2/139. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. McGuire, R. P. “The Early Christian Funeral Oration.” Pages vii–xxi in Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Ambrose. FC 22. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953. McNeel, Jennifer H. Paul as Infant and Nursing Mother: Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Identity in 1 Thessalonians 2:5–8. ECL 12. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Meeks, Wayne A. “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity.” Pages 17–27 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. –. “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity.” Pages 687–705 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 Siebeck, 1983. Merk, Otto. “1 Thessalonians 2:1–12: An Exegetical-Theological Study.” Pages 89–113 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Merklein, H. “Der Theologe als Prophet: Zur Funktion prophetischen Redens im theologischen Diskurs.” NTS 38 (1992): 402–29. Miller, Robert J. “Immortality and Religious Identity in Wisdom 2–5.” Pages 199–213 in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack. Edited by Elizabeth A. Castelli and Hal Taussig. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Mineur, Jacques le. La Joie dans Saint Paul. Paris: Lethielleux, 1950. Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. SP 13. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007. Mitchell, Jane F. “Consolatory Letters in Basil and Gregory Nazianzen.” Hermes 96 (1968): 299–318. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Concerning ΠΕΡΙ ΔΕ in 1 Corinthians.” NovT 31 (1989): 229– 56. –. “The Emergence of the Written Record.” Pages 103–24 in Origins to Constantine. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Christianity. Edited by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. –. “The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism?” Pages 75–98 in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James. Edited by Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg. LNTS 342. London: T&T Clark, 2007.

328

Bibliography

–. “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” JBL 111 (1992): 641–62. –. Paul and the Emergence of Christian Textuality: Early Christian Literary Culture in Context. 2 vols. WUNT 393. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. –. “Reading Rhetoric with Patristic Exegetes: John Chrysostom on Galatians.” Pages 333– 55 in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –. Review of The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Abraham J. Malherbe. RBL 6 (2004): 36–48. –. “1 and 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 51–63 in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Moffitt, David M. Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. NovTSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Momigliano, Arnaldo. “The Second Book of Maccabees.” CP 70 (1975): 81–88. Montefiore, Claude G. Ancient Jewish and Greek Encouragement and Consolation in Sorrow and Calamity. Self-published, 1917. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012. Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. AB 44. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Moran, Sister Mary Evaristus. The Consolations of Death in Ancient Greek Literature. Washington, DC: National Capital Press, 1917. Morello, Ruth, and A. D. Morrison, eds. Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Morgan, Michael L. “Mercy, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 137–57 in Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian. Edited by David Konstan and Charles L. Griswold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Morrison, Michael D. Who Needs a New Covenant? Rhetorical Function of the Covenant Motif in the Argument of Hebrews. PTMS 85. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2008. Moss, Candida R., and Joel S. Baden. “1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 in Rabbinic Perspective.” NTS 58 (2012): 199–212. Muenchow, Charles A. “Consolation: An Old Testament Perspective.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1983. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Munck, Johannes. “1 Thess. i. 9–10 and the Missionary Preaching of Paul. Textual Exegesis and Hermeneutic Reflexions.” NTS 9 (1963): 95–110. Murphy, Frederick J. “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” JBL 106 (1987): 671–83. Murphy, Roland. “Death and Afterlife in the Wisdom Literature.” Pages 101–16 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Part 4 of Death, Life-after-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “‘To Know Your Might Is the Root of Immortality’ (Wis 15, 3).” CBQ 25 (1963): 88–93. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Mustakallio, Katariina. “Roman Funerals: Identity, Gender, and Participation.” Pages 179–90 in Hoping for Continuity: Childhood, Education, and Death in Antiquity and

Bibliography

329

the Middle Ages. Edited by K. Mustakallio, J. Hansks, H.-L. Sanio, and V. Vuolanto. Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2005. Nanos, Mark D., and Magnus Zetterholm, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the FirstCentury Context to the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Nauck, Wolfgang. “Freude im Leiden: zum Problem einer urchristlichen Verfolgungstradition.” ZNW 46 (1955): 68–80. Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther. “Later Greek Voices on the Predicament of Exile: From Teles to Plutarch and Favorinus.” Pages 87–108 in Writing Exile: The Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity and Beyond. Edited by Jan Felix Gaertner. MnSup 83. Boston: Brill, 2007. Neufeld, Thomas R. Yoder. ‘Put on the Armour of God’: The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians. JSNTSup 140. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Neusner, Jacob. “Judaism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple.” Judaism 21 (1972): 313–27. Newsom, Carol A. “‘The Consolation of God’: Assessing Job’s Friends across a Cultural Abyss.” Pages 347–58 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTSup 373. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Newsom, Carol A., with Brennan W. Breed. Daniel. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Nicholl, Colin R. From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1– 36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. –. “Judgment, Life-after-Death and Resurrection in the Apocrypha and the Non-apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 141–62 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Part 4 of Death, Life-after-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. HTS 56. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. –. “Space and Time, Body and Psychē in 1 Enoch and 2 Maccabees.” BN 168 (2016): 117– 27. Niederwimmer, Kurt. The Didache: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Niese, Benedictus. “Kritik der Beiden Makkabäerbücher Nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der Makkabäischen Erhebung.” Hermes 35 (1900): 268–307. Nongbri, Brent. “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12.” NovT 45 (2003): 265–79. O’Brien, Julia Myers. Nahum. RNBC. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. O’Brien, Peter Thomas. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. NovTSup 49. Leiden: Brill, 1977. –. The Letter to the Hebrews. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Ochs, Donovan J. Consolatory Rhetoric: Grief, Symbol, and Ritual in the Greco-Roman Era. SRC. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993. Ogle, Marbury B. “The Sleep of Death.” MAAR 11 (1933): 81–117. Olbricht, Thomas H. “An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 216–36 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe.

330

Bibliography

Edited by David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. –. “Hebrews as Amplification.” Pages 375–87 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Olley, John W. “‘No Peace’ in a Book of Consolation. A Framework for the Book of Isaiah?” VT 49 (1999): 351–70. Olyan, Saul M. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. On Chong-Gossard, James H. Kim. “Mourning and Consolation in Greek Tragedy: The Rejection of Comfort.” Pages 37–66 in Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife. Edited by Han Baltussen. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013. Pahl, Michael W. Discerning the ‘Word of the Lord’: The ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. LNTS 389. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Palme, Bernhard. “The Range of Documentary Texts: Types and Categories.” Pages 358– 94 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Papathomas, Amphilochios. “Ein neues Zeugnis frühchristlicher griechischer Kondolenzepistolographie.” Tyche 13 (1998): 195–206. Park, Joseph S. Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions. WUNT 2/121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Parsenios, George L. Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature. NovTSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. “‘Paramythetikos Christos’: St. John Chrysostom Interprets John 13–17.” GOTR 47 (2002): 215–36. Parsons, Mikeal C. Review of Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians, by Abraham Smith. PRSt 25 (1998): 287–88. Parsons, Peter. City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish: Greek Lives in Roman Egypt. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007. Paton, L. B. “The Problem of Suffering in the Pre-exilic Prophets.” JBL 46 (1927): 111–31. Peake, Arthur S. The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament. London: Epworth, 1947. Perdue, Leo G. “Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 341–71 in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Vol. 2 of Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 10. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. The Social Character of Paraenesis and Paraenetic Literature.” Semeia 50 (1990): 5–39. –. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East. SBLDS 30. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “Paul the Jew Was Also Paul the Hellenist.” Pages 273– 300 in Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Carlos A. Segovia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews.’ SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Pfitzner, Victor C. Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature. NovTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967.

Bibliography

331

Pham, Xuan Huong Thi. Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 302. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Playoust, Catherine. “The Location of the Cloud of Witnesses (Heb 12:1): Complexities of Time and Space in Hebrews.” ABR 64 (2016): 1–13. Plevnik, Joseph. “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.” CBQ 46 (1984): 274–83. –. “1 Thess 5, 1–11: Its Authenticity, Intention and Message.” Bib 60 (1979): 71–90. Pobee, John S. Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul. JSNTSup 6. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1985. Pollock Lynch, Gay Ord. “‘Why Do Your Eyes Not Run like a River?’ Ritual Tears in Ancient and Modern Greek Funerary Traditions.” Pages 67–82 in Holy Tears: Weeping in the Religious Imagination. Edited by Kimberley Christine Patton and John Stratton Hawley. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Pomeroy, Sarah B., ed. Plutarch’s Advice to the Bride and Groom and A Consolation to His Wife: English Translations, Commentary, Interpretive Essays, and Bibliography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Porter, Stanley E. “Resurrection, the Greeks, and the New Testament.” Pages 52–81 in Resurrection. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Porter, Stanley E., and Sean A. Adams, eds. Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. PS 6. Boston: Brill, 2010. Porter, Stanley E., and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. SymS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Portier-Young, Anathea E. Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Price, Bennett J. “‘Paradeigma’ and ‘Exempla’ in Ancient Rhetorical Theory.” PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1986. Pritchett, W. Kendrick. Essays in Greek History. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1994. Pulleyn, Simon. Prayer in Greek Religion. OCM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Reese, James M. Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences. AnBib 41. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. –. “A Semiotic Critique: With Emphasis on the Place of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Literature of Persuasion.” Semeia 50 (1990): 229–42. Regev, Eyal. The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019. –. “What Has Been Changed in the Law of Hebrews?” Bib 98 (2017): 582–99. Reider, Joseph. The Book of Wisdom: An English Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957. Reinach, Salomon. “De l’origine des prières pour les morts.” REJ 41 (1900): 161–73. Ribbens, Benjamin J. Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews. BZNW 222. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Richard, Earl J. First and Second Thessalonians. SP 11. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995. Richards, Kent H. “Death: Old Testament.” ABD 2:108–9. Riede, Peter. Trost, der ins Leben führt: Ein Beitrag zum Menschen- und Gottesverständnis des Alten Testaments. BibS(N) 138. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013. Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Translated by Doug Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

332

Bibliography

Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. –. “1 Thess 5:12–28: A Case Study.” Pages 367–83 in The Society of Biblical Literature One Hundred Eighth Annual Meeting Book of Seminar Papers. 2 vols. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Rothschild, Clare K. Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews. WUNT 235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Runia, David T. “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 576–604 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Rush, Alfred C. Death and Burial in Christian Antiquity. CUASCA 1. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1941. Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC–AD 100. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964. Salevao, Iutisone. Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe. JSNT 219. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Samellas, Antigone. Death in the Eastern Mediterranean (50–600 A. D.): The Christianization of the East: An Interpretation. STAC 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Sanders, E. P. “Literary Dependence in Colossians.” JBL 85 (1966): 28–45. Sanders, Jack T. “The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in Letters of the Pauline Corpus.” JBL 81 (1962): 348–62. Sanders, James A. Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-biblical Judaism. CRDSB 28. Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1955. Sayler, Gwendolyn B. “2 Baruch: A Story of Grief and Consolation,” SBLSP 21 (1982): 485–500. –. Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch. SBLDS 72. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Scaer, Peter J. The Lukan Passion and the Praiseworthy Death. NTM 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Scarpat, Giuseppe. “Ancora sull’autore del Libro della Sapienza.” RivB 15 (1967): 171–89. –. Libro della Sapienza. 3 vols. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1989–1999. Schaberg, Jane. “Major Midrashic Traditions in Wisdom 1, 1–6, 25.” JSJ 13 (1982): 75– 101. Schenck, Kenneth. A New Perspective on Hebrews: Rethinking the Parting of the Ways. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019. Schimmel, Solomon. “Gratitude in Judaism.” Pages 37–57 in The Psychology of Gratitude. Edited by Robert A. Emmons and Michael E. McCullough. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Schlueter, Carol J. Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2:14– 16. JSNTSup 98. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Schmidt, Brian B. “Memory as Immortality: Countering the Dreaded ‘Death after Death’ in Ancient Israelite Society.” Pages 87–100 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Part 4 of Death, Life-after-Death, Resurrection, and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Schmitt, Armin. “Der frühe Tod des Gerechten nach Weisheit 4, 7–19 und die griechischrömische Konsolationsliteratur.” Pages 204–22 in Der Gegenwart verpflichtet: Studien zur biblischen Literatur des Frühjudentums. Edited by Christian Wagner. BZAW 292. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.

Bibliography

333

Schnocks, Johannes. “The Hope for Resurrection in the Book of Job.” Pages 291–99 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by M. A. Knibb. BETL 195. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Schorn, Stefan. “Tears of the Bereaved: Plutarch’s Consolatio ad uxorem in Context.” Pages 335–65 in Tears in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by Thorsten Fögen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Schreiter, Robert J. “Reading Biblical Texts through the Lens of Resilience.” Pages 193– 207 in Bible through the Lens of Trauma. Edited by Elizabeth Boase and Christopher G. Frechette. SemeiaSt 86. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Schubert, Paul. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. BZNW 20. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Divine Punishment in Second Maccabees: Vengeance, Abandonment, or Loving Discipline?” Pages 109–16 in Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran; Festschrift für Hermann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by U. Mittmann-Richert, F. Avemarie, and G. S. Oegema. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. –. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Scourfield, J. H. D. Consoling Heliodorus: A Commentary on Jerome Letter 60. OCM. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. –. “The De Mortalitate of Cyprian: Consolation and Context.” VC 50 (1996): 12–41. –. “Towards a Genre of Consolation.” Pages 1–36 in Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and Its Afterlife. Edited by Han Baltussen. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2013. Sedley, David. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Seeley, David. “Narrative, the Righteous Man, and the Philosopher: An Analysis of the Story of the Dikaios in Wisdom 1–5.” JSP 7 (1990): 55–78. Sevenster, Jan N. Paul and Seneca. NovTSup 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Shepkaru, Shmuel. “From after Death to Afterlife: Martyrdom and Its Recompense.” AJSR 24 (1999): 1–44. –. Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Shirck, Ryan. “By Wisdom, by Faith, to Endure.” ResQ 59 (2017): 79–87. Siber, Peter. Mit Christus Leben: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Auferstehungshoffnung. ATANT 61. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971. Sihvola, Juha, and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, eds. The Emotions in Hellenistic Philosophy. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1998. Simian-Yofre, H. “‫נחם‬.” TDOT 9:340–55. Simisi, Seth M. Pursuit of Perfection: Significance of the Perfection Motif in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016. Simkovich, Malka Z. “Greek Influence on the Composition of 2 Maccabees.” JSJ 42 (2011): 293–310. Simon, Marcel. “Θάρσει οὐδεὶς ἀθάνατος: Étude de vocabulaire religieux.” RHR 113 (1936): 188–206. Skehan, Patrick W. “Isaias and the Teaching on the Book of Wisdom.” CBQ 2 (1940): 289– 99.

334

Bibliography

–. “The Literary Relationship of the Book of Wisdom to the Earlier Wisdom Writings.” Pages 173–236 in Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom. CBQMS 1. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971. Small, Brian C. The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews. BibInt 128. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden: Brill, 1976. –. Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Smith, Abraham. Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Smith, Barry D. Paul’s Seven Explanations of the Suffering of the Righteous. StBL 47. New York: Lang, 2002. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. JLCRS 14. CSHJ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Sorabji, Richard. Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. –. “Stoic First Movements in Christianity.” Pages 95–107 in Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. Edited by Steven K. Strange and Jack Zupko. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Spellman, Ched E. “The Drama of Discipline: Toward an Intertextual Profile of Paideia in Hebrews 12.” JETS 59 (2016): 487–506. –. “When Hope Screams: Learning How to Suffer as Sons from the Book of Hebrews.” SwJT 53 (2011): 112–34. Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épître aux Hébreux. EBib 1–2. 2 vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953. –. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Stanford, William B. Greek Tragedy and the Emotions: An Introductory Study. Boston: Routledge, 1983. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Starr, James, and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, eds. Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. BZNW 125. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Stears, Karen. “Death Becomes Her: Gender and Athenian Death Ritual.” Pages 139–55 in Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond. Edited by Ann Suter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1974–1984. Steyn, Gert J. “Addressing an Angelomorphic Christological Myth in Hebrews?” HvTSt 59 (2003): 1107–28. doi: 10.4102/hts.v59i4.688. –. “Some Possible Intertextual Influences from the Jewish Scriptures on the (Moral) Language of Hebrews.” Pages 311–29 in Moral Language in the New Testament. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. Van der Watt. WUNT 2/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Still, Todd D. Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbors. JSNTSup 183. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.

Bibliography

335

Stoebe, H. J. “‫ נחם‬nḥm pi. to comfort.” TLOT 2:734–39. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia 41. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. –. “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple.” JSJ 12 (1981): 195–204. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Strange, Steven K. “The Stoics on the Voluntariness of the Passions.” Pages 32–51 in Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. Edited by Steven K. Strange and Jack Zupko. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. WUNT 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. –. “The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and Christian Tradition.” EC 4 (2013): 7–40. Suggs, Jack M. “Concerning the Date of Paul’s Macedonians Ministry.” NovT 4 (1960): 60–68. –. “Wisdom of Solomon 2:10–5: A Homily Based on the Fourth Servant Song.” JBL 76 (1957): 26–33. Sullender, R. Scott. “Saint Paul’s Approach to Grief: Clarifying the Ambiguity.” JRH 20 (1981): 63–74. Sumney, Jerry L. Colossians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Sun, Chloe. “Consolation, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.” Page 669 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Sutcliffe, Edmund F. Providence and Suffering in the Old and New Testaments. London: Nelson, 1953. Suter, Ann, ed. Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Swancutt, Diana M. “Paraenesis in Light of Protrepsis: Troubling the Typical Dichotomy.” Pages 113–53 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen. BZNW 125. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. –. “Pax Christi: Romans as Protrepsis to Live as Kings.” PhD diss., Duke University, 2001. Tabb, Brian J. Suffering in Ancient Worldview: Luke, Seneca, and 4 Maccabees in Dialogue. LNTS 569. London: T&T Clark, 2017. Talbert, Charles H. Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the New Testament and in Its Milieu. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Taylor, R. J. “The Eschatological Meaning of Life and Death in the Book of Wisdom I–V.” ETL 42 (1966): 72–137. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959. Repr., with a preface by John J. Collins, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. Theron, L. “Progression of Thought in Seneca’s ‘De Providentia.’” AC 13 (1971): 61–72. Thiessen, Matthew. “Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline.” NTS 55 (2009): 366–79. Thiselton, Anthony C. 1 & 2 Thessalonians through the Centuries. BBC. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Thom, Johan C. Review of The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Abraham J. Malherbe. RBL 6 (2004): 33–36.

336

Bibliography

Thompson, James W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. CBQMS 13. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982. –. Hebrews. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Thompson, Leonard. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Thompson, Michael E. W. “Where Is the God of Justice?”: The Old Testament and Suffering. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. “Stoicism as a Key to Pauline Ethics in Romans.” Pages 15–38 in Stoicism in Early Christianity. Edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava. Happiness in Premodern Judaism: Virtue, Knowledge and WellBeing. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2003. Tomes, Roger. “Heroism in 1 and 2 Maccabees.” BibInt 15 (2007): 171–99. Tomson, Peter J. Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. WUNT 418. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Trotter, Jonathan R. The Jerusalem Temple in Diaspora Jewish Practice and Thought during the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 192. Leiden: Brill, 2019. –. “2 Maccabees 10:1–8: Who Wrote It and Where Does It Belong?” JBL 136 (2017): 117– 30. 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 in collaboration with Ruth A. Clements. AJEC 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Übelacker, Walter G. Der Hebräerbrief als Appell. ConBNT 21. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989. –. “Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case.” Pages 319–52 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. BZNW 125. New York: de Gruyter, 2004. Ulmer, Rivka. “Consolation, Rabbinic through Modern Judaism.” Pages 673–75 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Uprichard, R. H. E. “Exposition of 1 Thessalonians 4.13–18.” IBS 1 (1979): 150–56. Vandergriff, Kenneth A. “Διαθήκη καινή: New Covenant as Jewish Apocalypticism in Hebrews 8.” CBQ 79 (2017): 97–110. Vanhoye, Albert. “La souffrance educatrice. Heb. 12,5–7. 11–13.” AsSeign 52 (1974): 61– 66. –. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. SubBi 12. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989. Vermeule, Emily. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Vílchez Líndez, José. Sapienza: Traduzione e commento. CB. Rome: Borla, 1990. Von Moos, Peter. Consolatio: Studien zur mittellateinischen Trostliteratur über den Tod zum Problem der christlichen Trauer. 4 vols. München: Fink, 1971–1972. Vorster, Willem S. “Stoics and Early Christians on Blessedness.” Pages 38–51 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Bibliography

337

Vos, Craig Steven de. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities. SBLDS 168. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Vos, Johan S. “Philippians 1:12–26 and the Rhetoric of Success.” Pages 274–83 in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Anders Eriksson and Thomas Olbricht. ESEC 11. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Walbank, Frank W. “History and Tragedy.” Historia 9 (1960): 216–34. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Ware, James. “Moral Progress and Divine Power in Seneca and Paul.” Pages 267–83 in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. RMCS. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. Watson, Duane F. “Paul’s Appropriation of Apocalyptic Discourse: The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 61–80 in Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse. Edited by Greg Carey and L. Gregory Bloomquist. Saint Louis: Chalice, 1999. –. “Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles Since 1978.” CR 5 (1997): 175–207. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Watts, Rikki E. “Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the New Exodus.” TynBul 41 (1990): 31–59. Webber, Robert D. “The Concept of Rejoicing in Paul.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1970. Weber, W. “Die Komposition der Weisheit Salomos.” ZWT 48 (1904): 145–69. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings. JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. –. Review of Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians, by Abraham Smith. JETS 40 (1997): 482–83. Weisengoff, John P. “Death and Immortality in the Book of Wisdom.” CBQ 3 (1941): 104–33. –. “The Impious of Wisdom 2.” CBQ 11 (1949): 40–65. Weiss, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Weiss, Johannes. Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A. D. 30–150. 2 vols. Translated by Frederick C. Grant. New York: Harper & Row, 1959. Repr. of The History of Primitive Christianity. 2 vols. New York: Wilson-Erikson, 1937. Welborn, L. L. “Paul and Pain: Paul’s Emotional Therapy in 2 Corinthians 1.1–2.13; 7.5– 16 in the Context of Ancient Psychagogic Literature.” NTS 57 (2011): 547–70. –. “Paul’s Appeal to the Emotions in 2 Corinthians 1.1–2:13; 7.5–16.” JSNT 82 (2001): 31–60. Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SCS 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. White, John L. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter Body in the Non-literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle. SBLDS 2. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972. –. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. White, L. Michael. “The Pathology and Cure of Grief (λύπη): Galen’s De indolentia in Context.” Pages 221–49 in Galen’s De indolentia: Essays on a Newly Discovered Letter.

338

Bibliography

Edited by Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson. STAC 88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. White, Stephen A. “Cicero and the Therapists.” Pages 219–46 in Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers. Edited by J. G. F. Powell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Whitlark, Jason A. Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of the Letter to “the Hebrews.” LNTS 484. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Wilcox, Amanda. The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome: Friendship in Cicero’s Ad Familiares and Seneca’s Moral Epistles. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2012. Wiles, Gordon P. Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of Paul. SNTSMS 24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Wilk, Florian. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. FRLANT 179. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Williamson, Clark M. “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Int 57 (2003): 266–79. Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Wilson, Marcus. “The Subjugation of Grief in Seneca’s ‘Epistles.’” Pages 48–67 in The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. Edited by Susan Morton Braund and Christopher Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Wilson, Stephen A. “Cicero and the Therapists.” Pages 219–46 in Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers. Edited by J. G. F. Powell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Wimmer, Anselm. “Trostworte des Apostels Paulus an Hinterbliebene in Thessalonich (1 Th 4, 13–17).” Bib 36 (1955): 273–86. Winston, David. “Philo of Alexandria on the Rational and Irrational Emotions.” Pages 201–20 in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. RMCS. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. –. “Theodicy in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 525–45 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by Antti Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. New York: Doubleday, 1979. Winter, Bruce W. “The Entries and Ethics of Orators and Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:1–12).” TynBul 44 (1993): 54–74. Witherington, Ben, III. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James, and Jude. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007. –. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. –. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Wolff, Christian. Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum. TUGAL 118. Berlin: Akademie, 1976. Worp, Klaas A. “Letters of Condolenz in the Greek Papyri: Some Observations.” AnPap 7 (1995): 149–54. Wright, Jacob L., and Michael J. Chan. “King and Eunuch: Isaiah 56:1–8 in Light of Honorific Royal Burial Practices.” JBL 131 (2012): 99–119. Wuellner, Wilhelm. “The Argumentative Structure of 1 Thessalonians as Paradoxical Encomium.” Pages 117–36 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by Raymond F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990.

Bibliography

339

Wypustek, Andrzej. Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Periods. MnS 352. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Xeravits, Géza G. “The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5–5:9.” Pages 97– 133 in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception. Edited by Sean A. Adams. DCLS 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. –. “Take Courage O Jerusalem”: Studies in the Psalms of Baruch 4–5. DCLS 25. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Yarbro Collins, Adela. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Yeo, K. K. “The Rhetoric of Election and Calling Language in 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 526–47 in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps. JSNTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Young, Robin Darling. “The ‘Woman with the Soul of Abraham’ Traditions about the Mother of the Maccabean Martyrs.” Pages 66–81 in “Women like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Zeitlin, Solomon. The Second Book of Maccabees. Translated by Sidney Tedesche. JAL. New York: Harper, 1954. Zeller, Dieter. “The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor.” SPhiloA 7 (1995): 19–55. Zerbe, Gordon M. Non-retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. JSPSup 13. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Ziadé, Raphaëlle. Les martyrs Maccabées: De l’histoire juive au culte chrétien; Les homélies de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome. VCSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Zimmerman, Frank. “The Book of Wisdom: Its Language and Character (Continued).” JQR 57 (1966): 101–35. Zurawski, Jason M. “Hell on Earth: Corporeal Existence as the Ultimate Punishment of the Wicked in Philo of Alexandria and the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 193–226 in Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: End Time and Afterlife in Judaism. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Vol. 1 of Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2013. –. “Paideia: A Multifarious and Unifying Concept in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 195–214 in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman. EJL 41. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.

Index of References 1. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1–3 1–4 2:7 2:17 3:5–7 4:5 4:6–7 4:7 4:8–17 5:24 15:15 16:13 21:17 23:2 23:4 24:67 25:8 27:45 31:38 35:17 35:29 37:12–36 37:32–35 37:34 39–50 42:36 43:14 45:5 45:5–11 45:16–20 45:20 47:1–12 50:10 50:19–21

1–2 107 51 161 107 31 82, 293 41 180 180 179, 180, 295 56 107 2 3, 119, 119 108 37 98, 110 72 71 71 66, 296 59 47 143 / 144 264 21 28 37 98 121 115 121 115 34 90 37 98 181 21 28 47 143 / 144 141 121 115 121 115 29 77, 295 53 292 29 142 142 142 47 143 / 144 292 29, 296 59

Exodus 1 2:11

141 143

2:23–25 2:25 3:7 3:7–10 3:17 7:16–17 10:21–23 10:24 10:27 14:13 14:13–14 17:1–7 17:2 17:2–3 17:4 23:26 34:6–7

73 72 71 112 73 73 137 139 165 139 164 139 165 34 90, 35 92 294 42 134, 136 137 137 137 119 111 86

Leviticus 19:31 20:6 20:20 20:20–21 20:21 20:27 26:16–33

45 136 45 136 120 119 111 120 45 136 66 50

Numbers 17:6–15 17:10 17:11 20:29 21:4–9 21:5 21:6 21:6–7 21:7

134 149 150 189 105 134 134 149, 149 201 135 156 134

342 Deuteronomy 4:31 71 65 5:16 37 5:33 125 127 6:2 125 127 7:12–14 119 8 114 8:1 114, 125 127 8:2 43 119, 114, 114 85 8:2–5 146 190 8:3 114 85 8:5 42 118, 43 119, 114 8:16 43 119, 114, 114 85 18:10–11 45 136 20:3–4 79 28 253 28:1–14 41, 57 28:4 119 111 28:7 79 28:11 119 111 28:15–68 41 30:1–3 92 30:8–16 41, 57 30:15 106 30:15–16 106, 291 9 30:15–20 106, 114, 125 127, 153 30:16 8 30:17–18 106 30:17–19 41, 106 30:19–20 37, 106, 291 9 30:19 107 31:6 71, 71 65 31:8 71, 71 65 31:16–17 70, 91 32:1–43 73 32:10 43 119 32:15–35 73 32:19–20 91 32:23 66 32:23–36 75 32:25 121 115 32:35 74 32:36 73, 74, 74 72, 75, 285 32:37–42 73 32:43 74 34:8 47 143, 189 105

Index of References

Joshua 24:33

66, 66 51

Judges 2:14 2:18 3:10 3:28 4:7 4:14 6:1 6:13 7:14–15 11:40 13:1 21:2

66 51 74 72 80 93 80 93 80 93 80 93 66 51 71 66, 72, 72 67 80 93 47 144 66 51 47 144

1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms) 14:12 80 93 15:33 121 115 17:47 80 93 28:19 45 136 2 Samuel (2 Kingdoms) 1:11 47 144 1:12 47 144 1:17 47 144 3:32 47 144 3:35 295 51 5:19 80 93 10:1–2 21 28 12:16–25 21 28 15:30 47 144 17:8 121 115 17:46 80 18:18 124 126 19:1–2 47 143 / 144 19:3 47 143 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms) 3 103 46 3–9 104 50 3:1 104 4:29–34 103 46 4:29–5:18 104 49 8:46 66 51 10:1–13 103 46, 104 49 11 103

343

1. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

17:17–24 17:23 18:13 19:1–18 22:27

44 271 42 42 42 114

2 Kings (4 Kingdoms) 2:3–11 23 2:19 121 115 2:21 121 115 4:18–37 44 4:32–37 271 13:20–21 44 20:1–7 39 106 20:18 123 122 21:14 66 51 24:12 123 122 24:15 123 122 1 Chronicles 5:20 7:20–23 13:18 16:11 28:9

38 103 21 28 38 103 206 167 70 62

2 Chronicles 1–9 9:1–9 9:1–12 9:22–23 12:5 15:2 16:10 16:8 20:15 24:20 24:20–22 24:24 28:5 30:7 35:24

104 49 103 46 104 49 103 46 70 62 70 62 42 114 80 93 80 70 62 42 66 51, 75 66 51 66 51 47 143

Nehemiah 9:28 9:31

70 62 / 63 71 65, 88

Esther 4:1–3 4:3 14:6

47 144 47 143 66 51

Job 1:1 1:1–2:10 1–2 1:20 1:1–2:10 1:13–22 1:18–19 1:20 2:5–8 2:11 2:11–12 2:12 3:11–19 3:13 3:13–26 4:3–5 5:7 5:17–26 5:19–20 6:14 7:1 7:3–4 7:7–10 7:9 8:4 8:5–6 8:5–7 9:17 9:21 10:7 10:16 10:20–22 10:21 11:6 11:6–19 11:13–19 12:4 13:18 13:24 14:6 14:12 15:11

145 292 24 43 123, 145 47 144 42 117 145 145 47 144 145 47 144 8 47 143 43 124 45 133 43 293 36 292 19 41 294 43 146 37 145 43 126 43 124 64 39 106, 206 166 39 107, 42 145 145 187 145 187 146 43 124 43 126 64, 292 20 39 107, 42 64 145 187 145 187 145, 147 146 43 124, 43 126, 45 64, 285

344 16:9 16:10 16:12 16:17 16:22 17:3–5 22:5–11 22:12 22:21 22:23–28 22:25 24:1–12 27:5–6 27:9–10 27:13 27:14–15 27:20 29:14 30:14 30:20 30:21 30:22 31:6 33:9 33:10 33:12–13 34:21–24 38–42 42 42:17 Psalms 1:1–6 6:5 9 9:9–10 15 15:8–11 16:7 17:3 17:31 21:1 21:5–6 22 22:4 22:27 24:20

Index of References

146 146 146 145 187 43 124 145 64 73 71 295 54 39 106 / 107, 42, 64 76 82, 80, 294 42 147 145 187 145 145 145 145 145 187 146 145, 147 146 146 145 187 145 187 146 147 73 71 31 81, 293 41 146 189 37 98

106 58 45 137 21 28 71 66, 72 68, 128 141 201, 201 149 202 151 106 58 38 103 38 103 38 103 72 38 103 21 28 31 82, 71 66, 293 41 277 167 38 103

25:1 26:12 27:7 29 29:12 30 30:2 30:7 30:9 30:25 31 31:7 31:10 31:11 32 32:18–19 32:20 32:21 33 33:2 33:5 33:7–8 33:18–21 33:19–21 33:20–23 33:23 34(35):12 36 36:5 36:28 36:40 38:8 38:13 40:3 41:6 41:12 42:5 45 45:2–3 45:10 48:20 54 54:23 55:4 55:12 61:9 70:14 71:15

38 103 66 51 38 103 21 28, 208 173 31 82, 293 41 208 173 38 103 72 71 45 137 34 90 201 201 38 103 201 21 28, 201, 201 149 294 43 38 103, 76 82, 201, 295 54, 294 42 201 208 208 208 174 208 174 208 208 38 103 38 103, 208 120 114, 121 114 21 28 38 103 71, 71 65 / 66, 72 68, 128 141 38 103 295 54 264 66 51 38 103 38 103 38 103 21 28 31 82, 76 82, 293 41, 294 42 295 56 43 126 21 28 31 82, 293 41 38 103 38 103 38 103 38 103 204 160

345

1. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

87:1 87:10 88:6 88:6–12 88:10–12 89:13 91:14 93 93:12 93:14 93:19 94:17 95:14 102:6–8 102:8–9 104:4 104(105):28 105:41 107:6–7 114 115 116 115:17 117 117:6–7 117:18 118:121 122:5–6 137 137:3 139:9 143:3 146 146:3

39 106 39 106 45, 46 45 133 45 137 74 72 38 103, 71 66 21 28 42 118 71 66, 72 68, 128 141 293 41 45 133 71 65 86 88 39 106, 206 167 139 165 66 51 76 82 208 173 208 173 208 173 45 133, 45 137 21 28, 208 173 294 42 42 118 66 51 73 71 208 173 206 167 66 51 45 133 21 28, 208 173 31 82, 293 41

Proverbs 2:18–19 3:11–12 3:12 10:27 12:21 15:15 17:3 20:9c 22:3

43 126 42 117, 146 190, 239 23, 292 24 42 118, 151 291 9 41 183, 295 56 43 119 38, 38 103, 296 42 118

Ecclesiastes 2:22–23

37

2:23 3:1–8 7:15 8:14 9:1–3 9:5 9:10 12:7

292 19 292 19 43 123 43 123 43 123, 144 45 45 135 112 76

Song of Songs (Canticles) 4:2 121 115 6:6 121 115 Isaiah 1:5–9 2:2–3 8:19 10:5–15 12:1 13–23 14:4–25 15:2 15:3 20:2 22:12 22:12–13 26:14 26:16 26:19 27:9 32:11–12 34:1–17 34:1–35:10 35 35:4 39:7 40–55 40:1–2 40:2 40:31 40:11 41:10 41:10–13 41:17 41:27 42:16 47:8 47:9

69 60 277 167 45 136 59 20, 67 87 81 100, 294 44 59 20 47 143 / 144 47 144 47 144 47 144 47 145 43 126 42 118 44, 44 132 255 89 47 144 81 100 294 44 294 45 296 59 123, 123 122 21 28 292 20 59 20, 67 38 103 293 41 71 66, 72 68, 128 141 296 59 71 65 293 41 71 65 121 114 121 114

346 49:13 49:16 49:20 49:20–25 49:21 49:21–22 50:11 51:3 51:11 51:12 52:1–2 52:13–53:12 53 53:3 53:4–5 53:5 53:8 53:9 53:12 54:1 54:1–3 54:1–17 54:4 54:4–17 54:7 54:7–8 54:9–10 56:3–5 56:3–6 56:5 57:1 59 59:16–18 59:17 60:3–16 61 61:1–3 62:3 64:7 66 66:10–11 66:10–12 66:10–13 66:12 66:12–14 66:12–24 66:13 66:18–20

Index of References

293 41 246 122 120 122 122, 123 117 100, 193 122, 294 45 117 100, 193 122 293 41 294 45 293, 293 41 29 59 20, 144 115 90, 151 144 43 123, 115 90 144 43 123, 115 90, 144 144 144 33 84, 122 122, 123 122 119, 123 296 59 122 70 70 63, 85 112, 87 38 104 122, 122 119, 123, 123 123 123 122, 123 43 123, 144 194 146 194, 194 126 277 167 291 17 31 81 154 66 51 242 33 84 273 157 273 193 122, 294 45 293 41 294 44 273 157 277 167

Jeremiah 2:1–37 3:12 6:26 7:28 9:17 12:7 15:6–7 15:7 15:13–14 15:14 16:19 20:2 20:7 21:10 22:25 24:8 25:1–14 28:59–64 29:10–14 29:26 30:14 31:18–20 31:31–34 31:34 33:5 33:20–23 36:7–13 37–40 37:15 37:18–19 38 38:15 38:15–17 38:15–40 38:16 38:16–17 38:18 38:31 38:31–34 38:32 38:34 39:28 40:5 41:2 46:1–51:58 48:5

69 60 88 47 143 / 144 69 60 47 144 70, 70 63 66 50 / 52 121 115 66 50 / 52 66 51 / 52 277 167 42 114 42 114 66 51 / 52 66 51 / 52 66 51 / 52 232 257 291 17 232 257 42 114 69 60 69 60 254 82 255 89 66 50 / 52 42 39 106 21 28 42 114 294 45 242 45 136 46, 84 294 41 29 77, 295 53 117 100, 193 122, 294 45 42 118 255 254, 255, 255 88, 256 254 254 66 51 / 52 66 50 / 52 66 51 / 52 81 100, 294 44 47 144

347

1. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

Lamentations 1:1 47 144 1:1–2 47 144 1:20 121 115 2:10 47 144 3:19 182 3:25–26 38 103, 181–182, 295 54 3:26 179, 295 56 Ezekiel 5:15 7:18 7:21 8:12 9:9 11:9 16:39 18:32 21:17 22:13–16 23:18 23:28 24 24:14 24:15–22 24:17 24:17–23 24:21 24:22 24:22–23 24:23 25:1–32:32 26:20–21 33:11 36:12 36:13 36:14 37 37:1–14 39:23 39:23–24 Daniel 4:24 6:6 6:9 6:11 6:12

69 60 47 144 66 51 / 52 70 63, 72, 73 71 70 63, 72, 73 71 66 51 / 52 66 51 / 52 1 66 50 / 52 66 50 / 52 69 60 66 51 / 52 188, 189, 189 106, 190, 212 191 296 63 47 144 47 144 190 191 29 77, 189, 190, 295 53 189, 190, 191, 294 49 81 100, 294 44 43 126 1 121 115 121 115 121 115 21 28 291 17 66 51 / 52 291 16

257 98 206 165 206 165 206 165 206 165

6:14 7 7–12 7:22 7:27 9:3 9:7 9:14 9:16 9:18 9:24–27 12 12:1–4 12:2–3 12:3

206 165 294 44 21 28, 56, 232 257, 291 16, 292 29 117 117 47 144 87 87 87 87 291 16 44 129, 81 23 44, 44 132, 112 79 117

Hosea 5:10–15 6:2 9:12 9:14

66 50 44 121 115 119 111, 121 115

Joel 1:2–2:27 1:5 1:8 1:8–14 1:9–10 1:11 1:13 1:14 2:12 2:21–22

69 60 47 144 47 144 47 145 47 143 47 144 47 144 47 144 47 144 35 92

Amos 4:6–12

69 60

Obadiah 1–16

81 100, 294 44

Jonah 4:4–11

31 82, 294 41

Micah 1:8 1:16 4:1–2 5:10–15

47 143 / 144 47 144 277 167 66 50

348

Index of References

6:13 7:7

66 50 38 103

3:15–17 3:16–20 3:20

71 66, 72 68, 128 141 35 92 294 45

Nahum 1:2 1:7

81 38 103

Haggai 2:4–5 2:5

71 66, 72 68, 128 141 35 92

Habakkuk 2:3–4 2:4 2:13 3:16 3:16–19 3:18

269 141 201 148, 269, 269 142 201 201 201 33 34, 201

Zephaniah 3:1–8

69 60

Zechariah 1:7–17 1:13 8:1–23 8:13–15 8:20–23 9:1 12:10 14:16

232 257, 291 16 232 257 232 257 35 92 277 167 73 71 47 144 277 167

2. Deuterocanonical Books Tobit 3:1 5:18–6:1 7:15–16 7:17 10:3 10:7 12:9

47 143 / 144 4 14 4 14 34 90 47 143 / 144 47 144 257 98

Judith 4:9 4:9–12 4:11 4:11–12 7:19–20 7:21–22 7:25–27 7:30 8:9 8:12–27 8:17 8:24 8:24–27 8:25–27 8:27 11:1–3 11:17

47 144 39 106, 205 47 144 47 144 207 207 207 34 90, 35 92, 71, 71 65, 89 207 4 14 38 103, 39 106, 206 166, 207 296 64 / 71 207 43 119 42 117, 151, 292 24 34 90 206 165

12:5–6 13:3 13:11–14 15:14–16:17 16:24

206 165 206 165 88 207 189 105

Wisdom of Solomon 1–5 6 20, 23, 44 129, 81 101, 152 1–6 95 10, 106 58 1:1 107, 104 51, 105, 107 1:1–6:21 12, 107, 96, 97 15, 98–99, 99 21, 105, 105 57, 106, 107, 152, 282 1:5 127, 129 1:7–10 294 44 1:9 116 1:12 106 107 1:13 1, 3, 108 67 1:13–15 44 130 1:15 2–3, 106 58, 108 67, 113 2:1–24 108 68 2:1–3 110 2:1–5 129 142 2:1–4:9 114 87 2:2–3 49 153 2:10 148 2:12 125

2. Deuterocanonical Books

2:12–20 2:19–20 2:21–5:23 2:22 2:22–24 2:22–3:9 2:23–25 3–5 3:1 3:1–3 3:1–4 3:1–9

3:1–12 3:1–4:19 3:1–5:23 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5

3:5–6 3:5–9 3:6 3:7–12 3:7–8 3:7–9 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:10–12 3:10–13 3:10–5:23 3:11–12 3:12 3:13 3:13–14 3:13–15 3:13–19 3:13–4:6 3:14 3:16 3:16–19

128 139 148 44 130, 108 67 108 108 129 1, 3 32 110, 112, 116 12, 45 133, 96, 96 14, 112 77, 282 44 131, 50 158, 82 104, 109, 110 2, 98, 99, 105, 112, 116, 118, 119, 120, 124, 151, 152, 154, 299 108 68, 109, 116, 120, 125 12, 107, 99, 108 68, 124–125 42 116, 108 110, 110 69, 111 110, 111, 112 110, 113, 114 5 16, 42 118, 85 112, 114, 115, 116, 116 94, 117, 149 201, 153 215, 292 29, 299 43 119, 97 15, 109, 113, 115, 149 290 6 113–114, 116 94, 299 110 124 116, 116 95, 117 100 115, 117 112, 115, 116, 117, 154 108, 117 108, 117, 125, 294 44 110 69, 116 116 293 35 117 121 117 122–123 120 124 99, 108 68, 109, 119, 120, 124, 125 282 122–123 124, 299 124

3:17 3:17–18 3:18 3:18–19 3:19 3:19–4:1a 4 4:1 4:1–2 4:1–6 4:1–11 4:3 4:3–5 4:3–6 4:5 4:6 4:7–14 4:7–16 4:7–17 4:7–19 4:7–20 4:8 4:8–9 4:9 4:10 4:10–12 4:11–12 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:16–19 4:16–5:14 4:16–5:23 4:17 4:17–18 4:19 4:20–5:14 4:20–5:23 5 5:1–14 5:4 5:9–14 5:15 5:15–16 5:17–23

349 124 121 117 116 95 124 121, 124 121 42 117, 292 24 120–121, 121 117, 122 123, 124. 152 98, 99, 108 68, 109, 119, 120, 124, 125 45 133 299 124 124, 294 44 124 116 95, 124 2 105, 124 152 98, 99, 108 68, 109, 118, 120, 125 12, 96, 282 118 119, 291 7 118 119, 299 119, 291 9 299 43 120, 119, 299 299 116 95 124 124, 152, 299 51 294 44 147, 299 98, 99 153, 153 215, 282 108 68 116 95 285 5 152 110 69 106 58, 124 106 58, 114, 154 2, 51, 147, 154 141, 147

350

Index of References

104 50 104 51 104 104 51 105 104 104 51, 105 6 20, 285 5 104 51, 105 55 99, 99 21, 125, 130 126 12, 282 105 55 129 142 103, 129 142 129 103 129 130 5 16 129, 147, 294 41 125 6 20, 34 90, 129, 135, 140 31 82, 125, 126 130, 129, 147, 294 41 8:11 103 8:13 6 20 8:16 125, 129, 130, 147, 294 41 8:16–17 6 20 8:19–20 38 9:8 104 50 9:10–12 105 55 9:18 126, 140, 294 43 9:18–10:21 38 105 10:1–14 126 10:1–11:1 126, 129, 148 197, 294 43 10:1–19:22 6 20, 130–131, 134 10:3 148 10:5–14 133 155 10:9 126, 294 43 10:10–14 128 137 10:13–14 71 66 10:14 130 10:15 105, 133 155, 135 10:15–21 144, 148 197 10:15–11:1 126 10:15–11:3 135 10:15–11:14 293 35 6–9 6:1 6:1–8 6:2 6:4 6:4–5 6:9 6:15–20 6:21 6:22–10:21 6:22–11:1 6:22–19:22 6:25 7:1–9:18 7:7 7:21 7:22 7:23 7:25 7:26 7:27 8:1–21 8:7 8:9

131 151, 133, 135 128, 135 138 42 117, 98, 111, 291 18, 292 24, 294 44 11:1 137, 282 11:1–19:22 99, 99 21, 133, 154 11:1–14 38 105, 97 16, 128 138, 131, 131 151, 136–138, 148 197 11:2–19:22 282 11:4 39 106, 134, 135, 136, 138 11:5 149 201, 151 211, 299 11:6–7 128 139 11:6–8 136 11:7 137, 148, 299 11:8 136, 151 211, 299 11:8–9 151 11:8–10 97 15 11:9 42 118, 116 94, 136, 150, 151 211 11:9–10 5 16, 43 119, 137, 146, 299 11:9–11 292 29 11:10 136, 138, 299 11:12 128, 135 11:12–13 136 11:12–14 152 11:13 149 201 11:14 133 155, 136–137, 138 11:15–12:2 146 191 11:16 151, 151 211 11:23 146, 150 11:23–12:27 146 191 11:24 150 11:24–26 147 11:26 150 12:3–11 146 191 12:4 146 12:14–15 151 211 12:19 133 155 12:19–21 133 155 12:20 151 211 12:20–22 97 15 12:22 5 16, 42 118, 87 116, 116 94, 146, 150, 151, 151 211 12:22–24 110 69 12:23 150, 151 211 12:23–27 93 13:1–9 129 142 13:10–15:17 129 142 10:15–19:22 10:17 10:20 11–19

2. Deuterocanonical Books

14:11 14:22 15:1 15:5 15:8 15:8–11 15:11 15:14 15:14–15 15:16 15:18 15:18–19 15:18–16:1 16:1 16:1–4 16:1–19:22 16:2 16:2–4 16:2–19:22 16:3 16:3–6 16:4 16:5 16:5–14 16:6 16:7 16:9 16:10 16:11 16:11–12 16:12 16:13 16:16 16:17 16:20 16:20–24 16:20–29 16:21 16:23 16:24 16:24–29 16:25 16:26 16:26–28 16:27–28

110 69 128 146, 150 110 69 96 14 112 76 51 110 69, 128, 133, 133 155 110 69 112 76 128 93 300 150, 151 211, 300 128 138, 148 197 97 16 133 155, 149 201 / 202, 150, 151 211 134 38 105 149 202, 300 97 15 150–151, 151 211, 300 148, 149, 149 201 128 138, 134–135, 148 197, 149 201 85 112, 116 94, 134, 135, 151, 153 215, 292 29, 300 149 151 211, 300 133 155, 135 156, 146, 149 85 112, 97 15, 134, 135, 149 201, 151, 153 215, 300 151 134, 300 135 156 135, 300 133 155 133 155 149 202 135 133 155 133 155 133 155, 135, 149 201 128 138, 148 197 149 202 133 155, 135 151 39 106, 135

16:28 16:28–29 17:1 17:1–2 17:1–18:4 17:2 17:2–18:4 17:3–10 17:3–21 17:6 17:10 17:11 17:12 17:14 17:17 17:18 17:18–19 17:19 18:1 18:1–2 18:1–4 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:5 18:5–8 18:5–19 18:5–25 18:6 18:7 18:8 18:9 18:10 18:13 18:14 18:14–16 18:15–16 18:17 18:20 18:20–22 18:20–25 18:21 18:21–22 18:22 18:24

351 135 296 71 128 138 131, 131 151, 138, 148 197, 152 98, 128 137, 133, 133 155, 138, 140, 141 171, 148, 300 98, 140 139 128, 135 128, 135 141 128, 135, 138 96 14 128, 135 141 139, 141 171 139 141 139 135, 141 141 172, 293 35 139, 139 164, 140–141 139 98, 133 155, 138, 138 162, 139, 140, 148, 300 128 139, 133 155, 137, 148, 300 147, 294 44 147 149 133 155, 135 133 155, 135, 154 135, 135 158, 147, 148, 148 198, 151 211, 300 133 155, 135 128, 135, 147 147 141 147 294 42 128, 135 97 15, 133 155, 134, 150 205 195 129 128 139, 134, 148 197, 293 35 135, 150 205 39 106, 150 204 135, 141 170, 150 204 / 205 150 204

352 18:25 18:25–19:1 19:1–12 19:2 19:3 19:4 19:5 19:6 19:9 19:13 19:13–16 19:13–17 19:14 19:14–16 19:16 19:17 19:22

Sirach 2:1 2:1–18 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:10 2:10–11 4:17 7:34 14:16 15–17 16:1–2 16:3 17:24 17:27–28 22:12 28:17 30:21–23 30:23 33:1 34:14 38:9 38:9–23 38:16–23 38:16–17 38:17–23

Index of References

134, 150 205, 300 85 112, 153 215 148 197 133 155 128, 135 300 133 155 128 137, 133 155 149 142 173, 300 148 93, 131, 141–142, 142 173, 144, 152 141–142, 142 173 98 128 137, 142–143 133 155, 144. 300 71 66, 72 68, 93, 93 1, 97, 133 155, 148, 148 195, 152, 154

43 119 4 15, 32 295 55 43 119 32, 38 103 38 103, 296 71 65 71 151 10 31, 220 214 29 106 58 121 117 121, 121 117 31 82, 294 41 45 137 189 105 29 33 87 29 32, 38 103, 41, 294 43 296 59 39 106, 206 166 4 15 29 77, 295 53 48 33 87, 34

38:18–23 41:8–9 44:16 48:24–25 49:10

32 121 117 119 108 31 81 31 81

Baruch 2:6–3:8 3:4 3:13 4:5 4:5–5:9 4:6 4:6–16 4:21 4:21–22 4:22–25 4:23–5:9 4:25 4:27 4:27–5:9 4:28 4:29 4:30 4:30–35 4:30–5:9 5:1 5:1–2

39 107 46, 84 41 35, 35 92 20, 25 35, 69 61 43 121, 64 45, 292 20 35, 35 92, 39 106, 206 166 38 103 85 113 294 45 295 55 35, 35 92, 39 106, 206 166 117 100, 193 122 39 107 35 34 90, 35 92, 294 41 35 291 17 29 295 51

Bel and the Dragon 38 71, 71 66, 72 68, 128 141 1 Maccabees 1:42 1:45 1:48 1:56–57 1:60–61 2:61

55 55 55 55 55 38 103

2 Maccabees 1:1 1:1–2:18 1:1–9 1:7–9 1:10 1:10–2:18 2:16–18

57, 58 57, 62 57 62 57, 58 57 62

2. Deuterocanonical Books

2:19–32 2:19–15:39 2:25 2:26 2:28 2:32 3:1 3:1–3 3:1–15:37 3:2–3 3:37–39 4:7 4:16–17 4:30–34 4:34 4:35–38 4:37 4:39–50 5–7 5:5 5:5–10 5:6 5:7–10 5:10 5:11–13 5:11–14 5:15–16 5:15–17 5:17 5:17–20 5:20 5:21 5:24–26 6–7 6:1 6:1–2 6:1–5 6:6 6:7–9 6:7–10 6:8–9 6:10 6:11 6:12 6:12–16 6:12–17 6:13

59, 62 11, 57, 60 62, 63 43 60 60 60 67, 89 66 49, 90 59 90 57 8 83 105 65 67 83 81 83 105 68 85 83 105 68 90 81 67 68 56 4, 90 68 90 65 46, 85, 85 112 5, 68, 70, 71 71 68 56 4, 68, 83 44 132, 112 79 55 68 55 55 56 57 68 55, 67 67 42 118, 55 1, 57, 68, 69, 90 43 122, 69 5, 6 20, 43 121, 68, 87–88, 115, 292 20 69, 221

6:13–15 6:16

6:18 6:18–31 6:18–7:41 6:18–7:42 6:18–7:2 6:30 6:30–31 6:31 7 7–15 7:1–8:5 7:2 7:5–6 7:5–38 7:5–8:5 7:6 7:6–38 7:7 7:9 7:10 7:11 7:13 7:14 7:16 7:17 7:18 7:19 7:20 7:20–21 7:21 7:22–23 7:23 7:27–29 7:29 7:31 7:32 7:32–33 7:32–38 7:33 7:34–36 7:35 7:35–36

353 69, 85 42 118, 55 1, 69, 70, 71, 71 66, 72, 85, 86, 87–88, 91, 128 141 68 67, 285 5 293 35 5, 5 16, 6 20, 56, 57 42 116 82 104 82 34 90, 82 104 / 105, 83 105 44 129, 45 134, 59, 60, 74 86 73 55 73 76 90 38 104, 60, 72, 72 71, 74, 74 72 / 74, 75, 75 74 / 75 75 83 105 75, 82 34 90 75, 82 83 105 75, 82 70, 72, 76, 91 75, 82, 294 44 42 116, 65, 76 75 34 90, 35 34 90 75 89 75, 82, 86 75 75, 82, 86, 296 59 75 42 116, 65, 76, 87 69 43 121, 115, 292 20 42 118, 43 122, 68, 69, 74 74, 76, 85, 85 113 75 72, 74, 75 76, 82 294 44

354 7:36 7:37 7:37–38 7:38 7:40 8–15 8:2–4 8:4 8:5 8:5–15:27 8:5–15:37 8:12–23 8:16 8:16–23 8:16–15:36 8:17 8:18 8:18–20 8:19 8:19–20 8:20 8:21 8:23 8:23–24 8:24 8:25–27 8:26–28 8:27 8:29 8:35 8:35–36 8:36 9:1–29 9:4–29 9:5 9:5–6 9:5–28 9:5–29 9:7–12 10:1–8 10:4 10:16 10:18–31 10:25–28 10:26 10:28 10:29 10:30–31

Index of References

75, 82, 85, 85 112 55, 87 75, 86 65, 76, 86, 87 83 105 76, 81, 85 86, 86 114 65, 67, 75 86, 87, 88 90 86 76 79 79 76 78, 79 77, 78 79 77 38 105 77 79 76 81, 79 294 42 76 81 80 66 49 86 74 74 76 81 294 42 66, 66 49, 78 6 20, 285 5 81 72 295 42 294 44 294 44 82 57 9 42 118, 67, 68 76, 76 81, 77 88, 295 42 76 81 76, 77 88 66 49 80 80 80

11:6 11:6–10 11:6–13 11:7 11:10 11:13 12:6 12:11 12:15 12:16 12:22 12:22–23 12:28 12:36 12:36–37 12:38 12:39–42 12:39–45 12:40–45 12:42 12:44–45 12:45 13:3–8 13:10 13:10–12 13:10–15 13:12 13:14 13:15 13:17 14:15 14:34 14:37–46 14:46 15:1–4 15:2 15:6–24 15:7 15:7–19 15:7–18 15:8 15:8–9 15:8–24 15:9 15:11 15:11–16 15:12 15:12–13

77 88 76, 80 76 81, 295 42 79 76 81 78 90, 80 77 88 76 81, 295 42 38 105, 76, 77, 77 88 295 42 72, 76 81, 295 42 80 77 88, 295 42 76 81 76, 77 88, 295 42 80 66 49, 79 6, 39, 65, 82, 84, 285 5 43 121, 292 20 65 112 79 44 129 81 205, 206 166 39 106, 77 88 76 205 79, 80 77 76 81, 295 42 76, 77 88 91 6, 293 35 82, 83 105, 84 80 72 76 76 81, 78, 295 42 6 20 79 77, 79, 296 59 38 105 79 38 104, 60 83 78 83 83

355

3. Pseudepigrapha

15:14 15:15 15:16 15:21 15:21–24 15:22 15:24 15:25–27 15:26–27 15:32–35 15:35 15:38–39

46, 46 139, 50 158, 78 89, 82, 83, 83 105, 84, 89, 91, 112 79 83 106 83 78 89, 83 80 77 88, 295 42 77 78 77 88 39 106, 205 162 81 76 81, 295 42 59

1 Esdras 1:30 6:14 8:68 8:69 8:74 9:7

47 143 / 144 66 51 47 144 47 143 66 51 66 51

15:12–16

5:7–9 5:13 5:25 5:50–51 6:1–17 6:18–29

39 106, 205 164 39 106, 205 164 39 106, 205 164 39 106, 205 164 39 106, 205 164 205 164

2 Esdras 1:6 11:4

205 47 143 / 144

4 Maccabees 1:4–6 1:11 1:18 5:23 6:1–11 6:9–10 7:14 9:23 15:23 17:11–16 18:9

34 90 34 90 34 90 34 90 34 90 292 26 43 120 34 90, 296, 296 63 34 90 292 26 121 114

3 Maccabees 1:28 205 164

3. Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 27.1–8 252 2 Baruch 3.1–4.7 4.1 4.2–6 4.3–6 6.9 19.4 20.2 20.3 30.1–5 31 32.1–2 32.5 44.5 44.9 50.2–3

245 245 248 58 246 51 253 29, 117 100 253 80 253 50 158 250 66 250 253 250 250 44 132

50.2–51.16 51.3 52.7 54.4 68 73–74 78–86 78–79 78.3 78.5 78.5–6 78.5–79.3 78.6 78.7 78.79 79.1–3 81 81.4 82–83

44 129, 81 101 246 29 31 81, 32 82, 294 41 291 17 291 17 4 14, 21 28, 169 39 221 215 42 117, 292 24 43 121, 64 45, 292 20 292 29 221 221 38 104, 294 45 293 35 43 121, 64 45, 292 20 296 63 31 81 294 44

356

Index of References

82.2–83.6 83.4 83.5 84–85 84.6 84.10 85.10

85 113 291 16 29, 117 100 39 107 246 39 106 85 113

3 Baruch 1.1–2 1.3–4.7 1.8 4.1 11–14 11.1–16.3 14

246 117 100 246 29 257 246 257

1 Enoch 83–90 91–104 91.11–17 92.2–3 93.1–10 96.1–3 97.1–2 98.5 102–104 102–108 102.4 102.4–103.4 102.5 102.5–103.4 102.6–103.15 103.1–4 103.9–104.6 104.2 104.4 104.6 108 108.8–9 108.9 108.13

56 114 87 56 29 77, 34 88, 44 132, 294 53 56 294 44 294 44 119 111 44 129, 81 101, 294 44 44 132, 112 79 34 90, 35 92, 296 59 45 134 29 77, 294 53 34 88 114 87 46 114 86 34 90, 35 92, 117 34 90, 35 92 296 59 44 129, 81 101, 114, 114 87, 153 114 87 43 119, 115 117

4 Ezra 2.16 2.17 2.23

44 132 296 59 44 132

2.24 2.26 2.27 2.30 2.31 2.34 2.36–37 2.36–38 2.37 2.42–47 5.18 6.20 7.14 7.26–28 7.32 7.57–58 7.75–101 7.88–99 7.96 8.51–55 9.25 9.38–10.24 10.3 10.4 10.9–12 10.15 10.16 10.19–24 10.24 10.25–27 10.25–55 10.39 10.50 10.55 12.4–8 12.31–34 12.46 12.46–47 13.21–50 13.39–50 14.13 14.27–34 14.27–36 14.35 16.52 16.73 16.75

295 56 44 132 295 56 33 84 44 132 38 103, 85 113 33, 33 84 245 297 71 117 100 295 51 250 29, 117 100, 292 29 245 44 132 195 129 44 129, 81 101 50 158 112 77 117 100 39 106 4 14 295 52 295 51 221 215, 293 35 29 77, 34 88, 295 53 / 54 44 132, 291 14, 294 45 221 215, 293 35 29 77, 32 82, 294 41, 295 53 245 50 245 245 245 296 59 32 82, 294 41 294 44 29 77, 34 90, 295 53 35 92 294 44 294 45 31 81 43 121, 64 45, 292 20 4 14, 39 107 44 132 85 113 43 119 296 59

357

3. Pseudepigrapha

Jubilees 4.23 17.17–18 19.3–4 19.3–9 23.8–9 27.14 27.18 46.11–49.23 48.14

119 108 43 119 295 56 43 119 291 9 29 77, 295 53 29 77, 295 53 139 165 137 161

LAB (Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo) 19.6–7 252 Letter of Aristeas 268 4 15, 29 77, 48, 112 77, 295 53 232 199 146 232–233 39 106 233 206 166

4.69 4.82–140 4.84–85 4.99–100 4.115–129 4.125–127 4.132 4.149 4.160–161 4.166–170 4.176–178 4.179–192

251 67 251 251 67 251 67 247 251 251 67 251 67 251 256 251 44 132

Testament of Asher 1.3–5 106 58 Testament of Benjamin 6.4 33 84

Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 1 49, 295 52 36 49 150 59 49 150 59–69 4 15 69 49 150 97–98 49, 49 152 97–121 4 15 105–108 44 130 106 112 76 115 44 130

Testament of Job 1.5 295 54 4.6 295 54 4.10 292 26 5.1 295 54 21.4 295 54 24.1 38 103 26.4–5 295 54 27.2–5 292 26 27.4–7 295 54 32.1–12 245 33.2–5 245 33.6–9 245 47.3 244 42 52 44 130

Psalms of Solomon 2.7 70 7.3 66 51 13.7 69 61

Testament of Joseph 1.6–2.7 32 82 2.6–7 43 119 8.5 33 84

Sibylline Oracles 3.772–776 277 167 4.6–11 247 4.6–30 247 4.8–11 248 4.24–30 256 4.27–30 247

Testament of Levi 2.4 258 106 3.4–5 258 106

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 5.11–14 42 115

Testament of Zebulun 10.1–2 29 77, 34 88, 44 130, 50 158, 295 53

358

Index of References

4. Dead Sea Scrolls Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385) frag. 2–3 44 132, 112 79

Rule of the Community (1QS) III, 18–IV, 26 106 58

5. Ancient Jewish Writers Artapanus 23

139 166

Josephus, Flavius Antiquitates judaicae 1.231 44 130, 46, 50 158, 84 2.307–310 139 165 4.313 253 7.178 4 14, 21 28, 295 52 7.201–204 4 14 7.204 29 77, 295 53 8.21 104 8.21–60 104 49 8.22–34 103 46 8.42–49 103 46 8.165–175 104 49 8.355–357 4 14, 21 28 8.357 29 77, 295 51, 295 53 11.238 34 90 11.241 34 90 12.8 143, 143 176 15.241 63 18.16 44 128 18.18 44 130 Bellum judaicum 1.347 252 69 2.153–158 44129–131 2.165 44 128 2.487 142, 143 176 3.372–376 44 129 / 130 3.432–437 189 105 4.39–48 4 14, 193 4.40 21 28, 295 54 4.42 190 109, 194 4.43 291 18 6.282–287 252 7.320–388 4 14

7.343–357 18.14

44 130 44 129 and 132

Contra Apionem 1.8 3 2.35 142 175, 143 176 2.38 142 2.42 142 2.42–43 142 175 2.218–219 44 132 Philo De Abrahamo 27 296 56 60–276 264 127 196 294 48 201–208 33 85, 33 85 257 49, 296 56 257–260 296 52 258 34, 44 130 / 131, 45 133, 50 158, 108 65 258–260 48–49 260 190 458 34 De cherubim 86 33 85 De confusione linguarum 77–78 264 77–81 264 78 264 79–81 264 81 264 129 De congressu eruditionis gratia 170–174 149 171 150

359

5. Ancient Jewish Writers

Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 49 44 130 / 131, 45 133, 50 158, 110 71 124 32 82, 294 41 120–125 33 85 In Flaccum 53 54 54–62 62 62–65 68 72 74 74–75 75 78–80 82 84 84–85 95–96 96 97 115–123 116–119 117 121 162–190 170 173 189

143 179 137 118 118, 137, 144 118 118 151, 151 211 140, 141 171 139 109, 139, 151 151 151 211 109, 151, 151 211 109 109, 153 107 59, 109, 151, 151 211 144 183 294 44 139 168 109, 139–140 144 183 294 44 294 42 109 294 44

De fuga et inventione 54–61 44 130 / 131, 45 133, 50 158 De gigantibus 14 44 130 / 131, 50 158 14–15 108 65 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 3 33 85 276 44 130 / 131, 45 133, 50 158, 111 315 33 85 De Iosepho 16 18–20 21

181 181 179, 181, 295 56

26 223 264

292 26, 295 52 292 26 44 130 / 131, 45 133, 50 158

Legatio ad Gaium 124 118 125 118 102 125–126 118 128 118 130 118 180 143 281 263 123 366 143 371 143 179 Legum allegoriae 3.129–132 48 3.217–219 33 85 De migratione Abrahami 100 264 127 129 264 127 143 264 127 146 264 127 156–157 33 85 171 264 127 189–190 113 81 De vita Mosis 1.8 29 77 1.143–145 139 165 1.146 138 1.199 38 103, 295 54 2.288 111 72 De mutatione nominum 169–178 33 85 De opificio mundi 77 108 65 135 108 65 De plantatione 38 33 85 14 38 De posteritate Caini 39 44 130 / 131, 45 133, 50 158

360

Index of References

De praemiis et poenis 27 33 85 31–35 33 85 50 33 85 166 46, 84

De somniis 1.71 1.135–138 1.151–152 2.249

De providentia 2.53 150, 150 206

De specialibus legibus 1.66–67 258 106 1.271 33 85 1.197 113 2.46 291 16 2.46–48 33 85 3.54–55 33 85 3.207 111 72

Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 4.15–19 33 85 4.73 49 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 5 45 133 5–10 44 130 / 131, 50 158

33 85 38 108 65 33 85

6. New Testament Matthew 5:11–12 5:12 5:38–48 7:13–14 10:22 10:34–35 23:34 23:37–24:2 24:13 24:15 24:42–43 24:42–51 24:43 24:49 25:13

33 84, 175 59, 202–203 33, 203 175 59, 199 146 106 58 295 54 177 67 160 12 253 73 192 120 253 73 193 121 / 123 193 192 120 193 123 193 121

Mark 13:2 13:13 13:14 13:33 13:35 13:36 13:37

253 73 295 54 253 73 192 120 192, 192 120 192 192, 192 120

Luke 6:22–23

33 84, 175 59, 202

6:23 6:27–36 12:37 12:37–46 12:45 12:51–53 18:1 18:1–8 18:7 18:7–8 18:8 19:41–44 21:5–6 21:20–24 21:36 23:28–31

33 175 59, 199 146 192 120, 193 121 / 123 193 193 123 177 67 205–206 39 106, 175 59, 205 205 205 205 253 73 253 73 253 73 39 106, 175 59, 192 120, 206 253 73

John 4:21

253 73

Acts 6:8–8:1 11:19–30 13:1–15:41 15:22 15:32 15:40–41 16:1–3

160 12 175 57 175 57 229 249 229 249 229 249 229 249

361

6. New Testament

17:1–10 17:1–15 18:1–5 18:12–17 23:8

158 7 158 4 158, 158 4 / 5 157 2 44 128

Romans 1:1 1:17 3:23–25 5:1–5 8:3 8:24–25 8:25 8:34 11:27 12:1–2 12:12 12:14 12:15 12:19–21

228 201 148, 269, 269 141 249 62, 259 112 266 133 249 62, 259 112 275 275 249 63, 278 255 89 259, 260 33 84, 295 54 199 146 10 31, 220 214 199 146

1 Corinthians 5:7 249 62, 259 112 9:6 175 57 10:6 174 10:6–11 190 107 10:11 174 11:25 255–256 13:3 266 133 14:1 210 177 14:1–40 210 177 14:3 210, 210 177 14:5 210 177 14:39 210 177 15 271 15:21–23 270 145 15:44 270 145, 271 149 15:52–54 270 16:13–18 197 2 Corinthians 1:1 237 20 1:3–7 238 22 1:4 32 82, 206 167, 294 41 3:1–18 256 3:6 255 3:14 255

4:16 4:16–18 4:17–18 4:18 5:1 5:1–10 5:7 5:8 5:8–10 5:21 12:2–5

275 275 161 85 113, 116 96 275 244, 248, 249 60 / 62 271 274 160 270 272 259 112 270

Galatians 1:1 1:18–19 1:21 2:1 2:9 2:13 3:11 4:22–31 4:26 4:28 5:5–6

228 174 174, 175 57 175 57 175 57 175 57 201 148, 269, 269 141 265, 278 265 265 266

Ephesians 1:1

237 20

Philippians 1:1 1:12–18 1:23 1:23–24 2:9–11 3:1 3:20 4:4 4:4–7 4:6 4:6–7 4:8–9

237 20 296 66 271 270 249 33 84 265, 278 33 84 33 39 106, 297 71 32 82, 204 161, 294 41 117 100

Colossians 1:1 1:3–5 1:4–5 2:2 4:18

237 20 267 135 266 133, 267 135 267 237

362

Index of References

1 Thessalonians 1:1 157 3 1:1–10 170, 170 44 1–3 26 61, 42 117, 172, 219–220, 292 24 1:2 200, 212 180, 213 182 1:2–3 200, 217 1:2–5 192 1:2–10 5 16, 131 151, 163, 165, 169, 170 44, 212–218, 213 181 / 182, 214 189, 293 36 1:2–5:11 172, 198 1:3 165, 166, 167, 213 182, 218 1:3–8 168 1:4 209 1:5 166, 213 182 1:5–6 160 13 1:6 158, 160 13, 166, 170, 179, 191, 201, 213 182, 217–218, 221, 227, 296 62 / 63 1:6–7 197, 197 144, 216–217 1:6–8 167, 293 34 1:6–10 6 20, 186, 212, 213 182, 214, 218, 296 64 1:6–11 217 1:6–3:10 221 1:7 186, 217–218 1:8 186, 218 1:8–10 218 1:9 167, 213 182 1:9–10 38 103, 157, 161, 167 1:10 161, 168 33, 182, 203 154, 213 182 2:1 212 2:1–2 6 20, 229, 230 252, 292 26 2:1–8 224–226 2:1–12 164 22, 165, 167, 170, 172, 213 182, 228–230, 230 252 2:1–15 296 50 2:1–16 169, 172, 219–220, 227–230, 293 35 2:1–3:10 169, 213 181 2:1–5:11 170, 170 44 2:2 158, 166, 184, 199, 222, 222 221, 229, 230 252 2:2–4 221, 223, 229 2:3 161 15, 229

2:3–4 2:4 2:4–6 2:5–8 2:6 2:7–8 2:9 2:9–12 2:12 2:13 2:13–16 2:13–20 2:14 2:14–15 2:14–16

2:15 2:15–16 2:16 2:17 2:17–18 2:17–19 2:17–3:10 2:17–3:11 2:17–3:13 2:18 2:18–3:2 2:18–3:13 2:19 2:19–20 3:1 3:1–3 3:1–4 3:1–10 3:2 3:2–3 3:2–4 3:2–5 3:3

229 229–230 230 229, 229 250 229 166 30 184, 198 229 190, 198–199, 203 154, 230 200, 213 182, 227 42 116, 179, 191, 203 154, 222 222, 228–229 6 20 158, 159 7, 160, 221, 222 222, 223, 227, 296 62 159–161, 209, 221, 221 218, 224, 227 38 105, 158 7, 159, 165, 168, 172, 221, 223, 225–226, 228, 230, 230 252 160 12, 184, 199, 222, 228, 228 249, 229 249, 230 170, 213 182, 229, 230 252 163 19, 213 182, 230, 294 44 170, 200, 221 218, 223 158, 163 19, 221 216 222 163 19, 164 22 167 163, 198, 224, 230 252, 285 5 158 3, 200, 228 171 170 163 19, 209, 213 182 117 100, 168 33, 200, 203 154, 294 45 158, 158 5, 222, 223 158 171 48, 199 161 166 161, 199 12, 162, 162 18, 169, 173, 183, 232, 232 256, 282 159, 171, 172, 179 166, 166 29, 171, 197, 201, 217, 221, 227 242, 229

6. New Testament

3:3–4

3:3–5 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:6–7 3:6–8 3:6–10 3:7 3:9 3:9–10 3:10 3:11–13 3:12 3:13 4–5 4:1 4:1–2 4:1–8 4:1–12 4:1–13 4:1–5:11 4:1–5:12 4:2 4:3 4:3–6 4:3–8 4:8 4:9 4:9–10 4:9–12 4:9–13 4:9–5:22 4:10 4:10–11 4:10–12 4:11

4:11–12 4:11–13

161, 162, 163 19, 168, 171, 191, 203 154, 209, 222, 224, 232, 285 5, 291 17, 292 29 166 38 104 158 3, 198, 222, 222 219, 223, 228 163 19, 165, 213 182 190 165, 222 219 158 5 172, 197, 200, 201, 222–223, 229 201 213 182 200 117 100, 163 19, 200, 294 45 165, 166, 198, 199 166, 203 154, 212 180, 213 182 44 129, 164, 165, 172, 173– 174, 283 167 31, 168, 171 47, 176 62 167, 171, 183 164 23 164, 173, 198 170, 172 162 18 26 61 167 31, 168, 183, 210 197, 211 211 167 31, 171 47, 199 167 31 168, 177 164 26, 165, 166, 168, 171, 177, 211, 294 48 6 20, 164, 164 23, 173, 175, 176, 176 62, 210 164 23, 179 212 176 62, 177–178 174 32 165 26, 166, 176, 178–185, 194, 199, 211, 212, 232, 283, 295 56 171, 183 89, 185, 295 50 166, 172

4:11–18 4:12 4:12–18 4:13

4:13–14 4:13–17 4:13–18

4:13–5:11

4:14 4:14–17 4:14–18 4:14–5:10 4:15–17 4:16 4:17 4:17–18 4:18

5:1–3 5:1–4 5:1–5 5:1–11 5:2 5:2–4 5:3 5:3–4 5:4–5 5:4–10 5:5 5:6 5:6–7 5:6–8 5:7 5:8

363 199 174, 176, 183, 185–186, 212, 232 232, 232 256 29 77, 48, 161, 165 26, 166, 168, 171, 172, 173, 176, 181, 186, 188–190, 193–194, 211, 212, 217, 232, 295 53 157, 157 1 32, 34, 45 134, 168 33, 291 14, 291 17, 294 45 12, 159, 162, 162 18, 168, 179, 187–191, 193, 203 154, 212 179, 282 6 20, 162, 163 19, 165, 170, 171, 173, 186–188, 193, 211 178, 213 182, 285 5 159 10 172, 210 194 44 132 117 100, 161, 187, 189, 209 168, 171 188 188 32, 164 23, 165 26, 170, 172, 173, 186, 188, 210–212, 232, 294 49 194 195 172 12, 162, 162 18, 168 33, 186– 188, 192, 282, 294 44 168 186 163 19, 168, 285 5 209–210, 291 17 194 203 154 168 164, 164 23, 170, 172, 175, 188, 191–194, 191 111, 211 193, 211 173, 195 130 172, 193 38 103, 164, 164 23, 165, 170, 172, 188, 191–195, 191 111, 195 129, 211, 212, 213 182

364 5:8–9 5:9 5:9–10 5:9–11 5:10 5:11

5:12 5:12–13 5:12–15 5:12–22 5:12–28 5:13 5:14 5:14–15 5:14–22 5:15 5:16 5:16–18 5:17 5:18

5:19 5:19–20 5:19–22 5:20 5:21 5:21–22 5:22 5:23 5:23–24 5:23–28 5:27

Index of References

168 5 16, 168, 195 172, 186, 188, 209 159, 188 168, 210 32, 164 23, 165 26, 168, 170, 172, 173, 186–190, 192, 210–212, 295 49 198 172, 197, 198–199 165, 165 27, 166, 198–199, 211 6 20, 164, 170, 170 44, 172, 173, 173 54, 195–211 170 166 171, 190, 199, 207 170, 210, 295 55 197–199 172, 197 166, 175, 199 33 84, 165 26, 166, 175, 201– 203, 217, 232 172, 199–201 39 106, 165 26, 175, 204–206, 211 165 26, 173, 197, 200, 203, 206–209, 207 170, 211, 213 182, 297 71 160, 165 27, 166, 209, 211 161, 209–210 209–211 160, 165 27, 209, 211 210 165 27, 210 210 231 255, 232 256 168 33, 203 154, 213 182 170 44 158 3, 169, 228

2 Thessalonians 1:1 237 20 1:3–10 294 44 2:16–17 32 82, 294 41 3:17 237 20

1 Timothy 1:1 2:2 6:12

237 20 178 195 129

2 Timothy 1:1

237 20

Titus 1:1

237 20

Philemon 1:1

237 20

Hebrews 1:1–2 1:1–14 1:3 1:4 1:5–14 1:10–12 2:5–13 2:10 2:14–15 3:7–4:11 4:14 4:16 5:7–10 5:8 5:8–9 5:9 6:1 6:1–2 6:4–8 6:4–12 6:9 6:9–12 6:9–20 6:10 6:10–11 6:10–12 6:11 6:11–12 6:12 6:13–20 6:15 6:15–20

277 233 5 16 241 34 258 251 239 43 120, 239, 292 29 235, 270 235 258 294 42 279 239 239, 292 29 43 120 239 271 235, 239 239 24 267 238, 238 23, 241, 242, 266, 269, 278, 283 239 266–267 266 132 266 267 267 267, 267 136, 275 162, 295 62 7 23, 238, 238 23 295 55 6 20, 285 5

6. New Testament

6:18–20 6:20 7:3 7:11 7:17 7:19 7:20 7:22 7:23–25 7:24 7:25 7:27 8:1–2 8:2 8:6 8:7 8:8–12 8:9 8:13 9:1–2 9:11 9:11–14 9:12 9:15 9:18 9:22–23 9:23 9:24 9:25–26 9:26 9:27 9:28 10:1–8 10:1–10 10:1–18 10:4–8 10:5–10 10:9 10:14 10:16–17 10:17 10:18 10:19–22 10:22 10:22–24 10:25 10:26–27 10:26–31

38 103 249 249 235 249 241 34 249 241 34 249 249 46, 84, 250 259 248, 249 60 248 235, 241 34 256 90 254 82 254 236, 240, 256 256 90 248, 249 60 249 259 256 90 256 90 261 117 241 34, 261 249 249 254 270, 271–272, 271 147 38 103, 271 261 260 259 260 260 256 90 259, 259 109 254 82 254 254 274 158 267 267 235, 268 261 235, 239

10:32 10:32–34 10:32–36 10:32–39 10:32–12:3 10:33 10:34 10:35 10:36 10:36–37 10:37 10:37–38 10:38 10:38–39 10:39 11:1 11:1–7 11:1–12:3 11:4–12 11:4–40 11:4–12:4 11:8 11:8–16 11:10 11:10–16 11:11–12 11:13 11:13–14 11:13–16 11:16 11:17–38 11:32–38 11:35 11:37 11:39 11:39–40 11:39–12:2 11:40 12:1 12:1–2 12:1–3 12:1–4 12:1–17 12:2 12:4

365 268 131 151, 234, 266, 268, 269 238, 238 23, 239, 239 24 5 16, 6 20, 241, 242, 266–269, 278, 283 221 268 241 34, 247 268 295 54 85 113 268 38 104 269 269 268–269 275 285 5 5–6 20, 279 248 59, 262 261, 274, 275 162 221 215, 293 35 262 233, 236, 261, 274 158 248, 248 59, 265, 272 274 262 262, 264, 264 129 264 129 233, 236, 248, 248 59, 262, 264–265, 274 158 240, 241 34, 248, 265, 272 285 5 42 116 5, 241 34, 271, 272 151 42 115 274 158 241 34, 274 158 233 242, 274 158 273–274, 274 158 185 93, 235, 239, 274–275, 295 67 292 26 275 162 266, 279 273 235, 269

366 12:4–11 12:4–13 12:5–11 12:7 12:7–11 12:22 12:22–23 12:22–24

12:23 12:23–24 12:24 12:26–27 12:28 13:5 13:5–6 13:5–8 13:6 13:7 13:14

Index of References

5, 5 16, 239 6, 7 23, 238, 238 23, 285 5 42 117, 29224 / 29 295 54 42 118 248, 251, 265, 271–273 272 151, 273 45 133, 117 100, 233, 233 1, 235, 248, 270, 272, 274–275, 275 162 43 120, 239, 264, 271, 274 158 273 241 34 251 233, 246, 251, 275, 297 71 38 104 6 20, 71 66, 72 68, 128 141, 285 5 279 34 90, 294 42, 296 59 295 62 233, 236, 236 16, 237 16, 240, 251, 274

13:15 13:15–16 13:16 13:18–25 13:22 13:23 13:24

260 259, 259 108, 260 260 234 2 238, 238 22 234, 237, 237 20 234

1 Peter 1:3–13 1:6

17 14 117 100, 296 67 9 29

2 Peter 2:15

106 58

Revelation 1–22 2:10 3:10 3:19 4–18

291 17 43 119, 85 113, 296 59 43 119 42 118 294 44

7. Rabbinic Works

ʾAbot de Rabbi Nathan version A, 4 257 95 / 96

b. Sukkah 49b

b. B. Bat 10b

257 98

Bet HaMidrash 5.63 258

b. Berakhot 32b

258

Genesis Rabbah 45.4 119 111

b. Ḥag. 12b

258, 258 102

Pirqe R. El. 5

253

b. Sanh. 93b

123 123

Sifre Re’eh 143

257 98

258

8. Early Christian Writings Ambrose De exc. Sat. 1.3

Barnabas 18–20 117 100

106 58

367

9. Papyri

Basil Epistulae 5.2 269.2

Jerome 117 100 117 100

Epistulae 60.7.3 108.1.2 118.4.1

117 100 117 100 117 100

Clement of Alexandria John Chrysostom

Paedogogus 1.1.1–2

102

Didache 1–6

106 58

Gregory of Nazianzus Epistulae 165 Orations 7 18

26, 27 62

Hom. 1 Thess 3.2 27 62 6 171 46 Muratorian Canon lines 60–70 285 Paulinus of Nola Epistulae 13.6

117 100

15 7 15 7

9. Papyri BGU III 801 lines 3–4 219 206, 220 210 line 5 295 54 P.Oxy. I 115 line 2 lines 3–5 lines 3–9 lines 9–10

34 90, 294 49 220 220 211 / 215 38 102

P.Wisc. II 84 col. 2, line 11 col. 2, lines 16–18 col. 3, lines 28–29 col. 3, lines 35–38 col. 3, lines 40–42

294 49 38 102 294 49 194 38 102

SB XIV 11646 lines 6–8 219 206, 220 211 / 215 line 9 34 90 lines 9–10 295 54

10. Greco-Roman Literature Aelius Theon Progymnasmata 2:115.20–22 101 36 2:116.22–26 101 36 2:116.27–117.4 101 36 2:117.4–6 101 36

2:117.6–25 2:117.8–9 2:117.9–12 2:117.12–13 2:117.15–16 2:117.17–25 2:117.24–25

101 36 292 18 64 45 226 234, 293 35 34 87 36 93, 220 210, 297 75 197 141

368 2:117.25–29 3:117

Index of References

101 36 101

Aesop Fabulae 288

39 108, 204 161, 295 53

Apollonius of Tyana Epistulae 55 58

4 14, 15 7 4 14, 15 7

Aristotle Ethica nicomachea 1.10.11–14 295 54 3.6.1–3.9.7 34 91 Rhetorica 1–2

174 55

Bacchylides v. 160

37 96

Catullus 96

4.5.2–3 4.5.4 4.5.4–5 4.5.5 4.5.6

4.13 4.13.4 4.13.7 5.14.1 5.14.2 5.14.3 5.16 5.16.1 5.16.2 5.16.4 5.16.5 5.16.5–6 5.17.5 5.18.1 6.1.4

112 77 250 64, 292 19, 296 63 227 243, 293 32, 296 62 215 196 47 142, 171 46, 185 93, 190 109, 197 140, 214 189, 215 194, 293 36, 298 83 / 86 15 7 47 142, 190 109 34 90, 197 140 220 212 218 206, 220 210 184, 294 50 15 7 218 206, 220 210, 250 64, 295 52 223 224, 291 16, 292 19 112 77, 119 107, 291 9 171 46, 214 189 / 193, 215 195, 293 36 298 83 / 86 291 18, 292 19, 293 35 34 90, 220 210 34 90, 295 56

De natura deorum 2.17 272 150 2.39 272 150 2.42 272 150 2.56 272 150

15 7

Cicero

De oratore 3.30.118

241

Epistulae ad Atticum 12.10 15 7, 218 206, 220 210, 295 52, 298 86

De republica 6.10 34 90 6.14–29 44 130 / 131, 50 158

Epistulae ad Brutum 18 15 7, 220 213 18.1–2 214 189 / 192 / 193, 218 206, 220 211 / 213 / 215, 226 241, 227 243, 293 34 / 36, 294 50, 296 63 18.2 185, 185 93, 186 95, 197 140, 215 194 / 196, 295 52, 296 64

De senectute 5 119 109

Epistulae ad familiares 4.5 15 7 4.5.1 218 206, 220 210

Tusculanae disputationes 1.11.24 112 77 / 78 1.34.83–86 112 77 1.47.115 119 107 1.48.115–116 112 77 1.48.116 112 78 1.93 112 76 1.109 118 103, 291 7

369

10. Greco-Roman Literature

1.113 1.114 1.114–115 3–4 3.7.14–15 3.24 3.28–34 3.33 3.52 3.52–61 3.56–58 3.56–60 3.57 3.58 3.59–60 3.60 3.61–64 3.66 3.76 3.79 3.82 4.6.12–7.14

119 106 119 106 37 96 15 7 295 53 126 134 291 16 117, 177 66 116, 291 18 126 130, 225 232, 296 62 293 35 172 51, 223 225, 291 16 130 130 144 130, 180, 225, 295 56 126 33 87 16 11, 117 130, 134, 196, 225, 293 35 127, 129 33 34, 202 152

Diogenes Laertius 7.148 7.156–157 10.22 10.125 10.139

272 150 50 160 202 152 49 153 49 153

Epictetus Diatribai 1.29.47 1.29.49 2.1.39 2.18.29 3.5.14 3.22.57 4.8.23 4.8.30 4.8.32 4.10.10

292 24 292 24 292 24 39 108 33 84, 202 152 292 26 33 84, 202 152 292 24 292 24 292 26

Enchiridion 15 292 24

Demosthenes Orations 60.19

Euripides 80

Diodorus Siculus 1.1.1–4 90 120 1.3.5 90 120 16.1.1 62 Dio Chrysostom De aegritudine (Or. 16) 16.4 127 135 16.6–7 195 129 16.7–8 39 108 De exilio (Or. 13) 13.9–10 39 108 Oration 27 27.8–9

103

Hercules furens 95–99 179 98 179 76, 295 56 Iphigenia aulidensis 950 180 970–974 180 973 180 77, 295 56 Favorinus De exilio 2–4 8 22 27–29 29

262 119 262 121 262 121 262 121 263

370

Index of References

Fronto

Marcus Aurelius

De nepote amisso 1, 2 15 7

Meditations 2.17 263 6.42 39 108 9.40 39 108

Ad Verum Imp. Epistulae 2.9 15 7 2.10 15 7

Sententiae 425

Herodotus 1.31

Menander 118 104

119 106 Menander Rhetor

Homer Iliad 1.446–456 2.410–431 24.549 24.549–551

204 204 34 90 15 7

Horace Carmina 2.9

15 7

Letters of Phalaris 10 4 14, 27 62 103 4 14 Lucian How to Write History 9 62 37 De luctu 7 16 17 24

44 131, 272 152 44 131, 295 53 112 77 295 51

Lucretius 3 3.970–973 3.973–975 3.973–1024 3.978–1024

2.9.413.23–414.30 2.9.413.5–23 2.9.413.25–29 2.9.414.2–6 2.9.414.7–10 2.9.414.16–20 2.9.414.16–23 2.9.414.17 2.9.414.17–19 2.9.414.19–25 2.9.414.20 2.9.414.20–23 2.9.414.21 2.9.414.24–25 2.11.418.6–422.3 2.11.418.25–31 2.11.418.26 2.11.420.9–421.14 2.11.421.14–33 2.11.421.15–18 2.11.421.16 2.11.421.17 2.11.422.2–4 2.16.413.5–23 2.16.418.6–422.3 2.16.435.9–13 Onasander

49 153 112 76 37 98 37 101 49 154, 112 77 / 78, 297 77

The General 1.13 76 1.13 77

27 62 27, 219 206, 220 210 112 77, 202 292 19 112 77 44 131 44 130, 50 158, 111 74 272 152 272 154 272 152 244 40 84 110, 272 155 297 80 272 154 36 93 298 83 27 290 6 27 27 62 295 53 272 152 / 153 39 108 297 75 297 75 36, 297 75

371

10. Greco-Roman Literature

Ovid Amores 3.9

Pliny the Younger 15 7

Plato Apologia 40C 40C–41C 41

44 130, 111 84 111 272 154

Gorgias 523A–526D 111 73 523–527 49 155 Phaedo 69C 108B–C 113D–114B 113D–114C 117E

34 91 49 155 50 156 49 155, 111 73 179, 182 88, 296 56

Respublica 379A–380C 427E–430C 603E 603E–604D 604A 604B 604E 605D 614B–D 614B–621B 614B–621D 614C–615C 614C–616B 615A–616B 617D–621B 617E

39 34 91 295 52 182 185 94 182 86, 295 56 182 86, 295 56 47 142, 182 87, 190 109, 295 56 271 147 111 73 49 155 50 50 50 156 50 157 39

Timaeus 42D 69C–D

39 39

Epistulae 1.12 3.7 3.21 5.5 5.16 7.19 8.1 8.5.2

15 7 15 7 15 7 15 7 15 7 15 7 15 7 117 98

Plutarch Consolatio ad uxorem 608A 293 32 608C 295 52 608C–D 113 83 608C–E 219 206, 220 211 / 215 608F 171 46, 184, 185 93, 215 194 / 198, 294 50 608F–609A 214 189, 293 36 608F–609E 214 192 / 193 609A 132 609A–D 131 151 609A–E 171 46, 215 198 609B–C 34 87 609C–E 185 93, 214 189, 215 194, 293 36 609D 132, 215 609D–E 215, 216 609E 132 609E–610A 34 87 609F–610B 295 51 610A–B 183 90, 294 50 610D 293 32 610E 117 98, 207, 208 610E–F 177 66 610E–611C 206 168, 297 71 611C 244 44 611C–612A 34 90, 44 130, 50 158, 111 74 611E–F 244 45 611F 244 46 612A 244 612B 197 140 Marcius Coriolanus 35 39 110

372 De exilio 599B–C 600A 600B 600E 600F–601B 601B–602B 602D–603E 604B–D 604D–606C 605B–C 605C–D 605D 606F 607A 607B 607D 607D–E

Index of References

32 296 66 34 90 263 263 122 262 119 262 119 296 66 262 119 262 296 66 262 33 84 262 120 262 119 262 120 263, 263 122

Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 1101A 47 147 De sera numinis vindicta 555F–556A 117 101 De tranquillitate animi 467E 293 35 469A 293 35 469D 202 469D–470A 33 84 469E 297 71 474C 39 108 474D–E 296 62 474F–475A 291 16 475C 250 64, 292 19 477A 116 Polybius 9.2.6

5.17 11

295 54 102, 102 40

Pseudo-Dionysus On Epideictic Speeches 6.283 44 130 / 131, 50 158 7.2 77 85 Pseudo-Libanius Epistolary Styles 5 102 41 25 102 41 65 39, 39 108 Pseudo-Plato Axiochus 365A–B 365D 366A 366D–369A 366D–369B 367B 367C 368A 369C 369C–370A 370B–372A 370C 370C–D 370D 371A–E 371A–372A 371C 371C–D 371D 372 372A

263 37 99 / 101 44 130 / 131, 50 158, 244 40 119 107 112 77 / 78 118 105, 291 9 119 106 118 105, 291 9 37 101, 297 77 84 111 44 130 / 131, 50 158, 84 111 113 81 111, 244 44 244 45 / 48 / 49 111 74 44 129 272 152 111, 272 154 244 44 244 111, 111 74, 244 44

62 37 Pseudo-Plutarch

Pseudo-Demetrius Epistolary Types 5 102, 102 40, 292 19, 298 86 5.10–13 219 206, 220 210 5.15 292 18

Consolatio ad Apollonium 101F 244 44 101F–102A 219 206, 220 210 102A 26 58 102A–B 196 139

10. Greco-Roman Literature

102B 102B–E 102C 103A 103B–106B 103B–107C 103F 103F–105F 104D–105A 106B 106C 107D–110E 108A–D 108E 108F 109A–B 109F–110A 110E 110F 111A–D 111B 111D 111F 111F–113B 112C 112D 112D–E 112E–113B 113A 113A–B 113C–E 113E–F 114B–C 114C 114D 114F–115A 115B 115C 115C–E 115D–E 116A–B 116D–F 116E 117 117A 117D–E 117E 117F

103 47, 298 83 295 52 48 295 54 112 78 112 77 129 292 19 103 47 206 168, 297 71 124, 130 143, 223 223, 293 35 37 100, 84, 84 111 44 130, 50 158 112 77 119 106 119 106 37 99 27 62 250 64, 292 19 291 7 119 107, 291 9, 292 24 118 27 62, 103 47, 296 66 34 87 127, 129, 298 86 103 47 291 16 190 108 47 142, 127, 190 109 127, 128 250 64 182 84, 295 56 112 78 115, 292 18 33 84, 202 298 83 37, 44 131, 50 158, 103 47 244 37 96 112 77 112 76, 117 98 103 47 127 112 77 127 119 107, 291 9 112 78 34 87, 190 108, 263

373

117F–118A 297 82 118B 295 51 118D–119D 130 145, 221 215, 225 232, 226 234 / 237, 293 35, 296 62 118F 184, 295 50 119A 127 119D 227 243 119E 34 87, 118, 291 9, 292 24 119F 112 78, 272154 119F–121E 111 74 119F–121F 44 130, 50 158 120A–C 113 83 120B–C 272 154 120E–121E 44 129 120F 111 121E 118 105, 291 9 121E–122A 197 140 121F 44 131, 50 158, 272 153, 297 80 121F–D 272 152 122F 184, 295 50 202E 206 168 Quintilian Institutio oratoria 6.4.14 171 45 Rhetorica ad Herennium 1 174 55 Seneca De constantia 4.3 295 56 6.3 195 6.3–8 195 131, 295 56 6.8 195 8.3 295 53 / 56 9.3 33 84, 295 56 9.4–5 295 54 14.3–4 199 146 18.5 294 44 Epistulae morales 10.4 39 108, 39 109 23.3–4 33 84, 202 152 24.15 291 16 24.18 84 111

374 54.4–5 59.2 59.7–8 59.14 59.14–18 59.16–17 63 63.1 63.5 63.11–12 63.12 63.15 63.15–16 66.5 77.11 77.12 82.5 91 91.3 91.4–9 91.9 91.9–12 91.11–12 91.21 93 93.1–8 93.3–4 93.3–5 93.4 93.10 93.12 94.21 94.39 95.34 95.65 99 99.1–2 99.2 99.2–3 99.3 99.3–4 99.4–5 99.6 99.6–7 99.7–9 99.8–9 99.10–11 99.10–12

Index of References

37 99 / 101, 50 33 84, 202 195 129 / 131 202 33 84, 202 152 202 15 7 218 206, 220 210 298 83 176, 176 65 294 48, 298 83 197 140, 291 16 250 64 33 84, 202 152 39 109 39 109 195, 195 131 15 7, 242 252 291 16 250 65 250 250 112 77 15 7 118 103, 291 7 33, 202 113 83 119 109 44 131 250 64 101 101 27, 101 101 15 7 47 142, 190 109 167 293 36 36 93, 214 189, 297 75 33 84 206 168, 297 71 33 87 297 82 250 64 292 19 112 78 112 77

99.14 99.15 99.26 99.30 99.32

34 90 48, 295 52 47 146 84 111 195 129, 291 16

De exilio 9.2

296 67

Ad Helviam matrem de consolatione 1.1 218 206, 220 210 / 211 / 215 1.2 196 139 1.4 295 52 2.1–5 218 206, 220 210 2.2 132, 216 199 2.2–5 131 151 2.2–3.2 225 2.3 132 2.4–5 36 93, 132, 297 75 3.1 195 129 4.1–3 225 4.2–5.1 33 84, 202 152 4.2–5.6 227 243, 296 63 5.2–5.6 225 5.3 195 129, 291 16 9.4–10.1 130 145, 221 215, 225, 225 232, 226 234, 293 35, 296 62 9.7 295 54 15.4 34 90, 195 129 15.4–16.5 214 193 16.1 295 52 16.2–5 171 46, 214 189, 293 36 16.6–7 130 145, 221 215, 225, 225 232, 226 234, 293 35, 296 62 16.7 227 243 17.3–5 298 85 18–19 117 98 18.1–19.4 176 64, 177 66 18.2 33 84, 202 18.7–8 177, 294 48 18.8 177, 225, 293 34, 294 50 19.3 294 48 19.4–7 34 90, 130 145, 221 215, 225, 225 232, 226 234, 293 35, 296 62 19.7 34 90, 185 93, 197 140, 215 196, 227 243 20.1–2 296 66

375

10. Greco-Roman Literature

Ad Marciam de consolatione 1.1 34 90, 131 151, 132, 185 93 1.1–2 215 194, 216 1.1–4 225, 293 34 1.1–5 171 46, 214 189 / 192 / 193, 293 36 1.5 131 151, 132 1.5–2.1 225 1.6 298 83 2.1 197 139 2.2–3.2 225 2.3 226 236 2.4 184, 295 50 3.3–4 171 46, 214 189 / 193, 216 196, 293 36 3.4 295 52 4.1 227 243, 296 62 5.6 176 64, 177 66, 294 48 6.2 33 87 9.1 171 46 9.1–5 291 16 10.4 195 129 10.5–11.5 112 77 / 78 12.1–2 117 98, 206 168, 297 71 12.2 177 66, 206 12.5 295 56 12.5–15.4 130 145, 221 215, 225 232, 226 234 / 237, 296 62 12.5–16.4 225, 227 243, 293 35 13.3–4 206 168, 297 71 14.1 184, 295 50 14.3 184, 295 50 15.3 206 168, 295 54, 297 71 16.2–4 34 90 16.3 206 168, 297 71 16.3–4 130 145, 221 215, 225 n, 232, 226 234 / 237, 296 62 16.6–8 177 66, 294 48 16.8 177 19.4 297 77 19.5 37 99 / 100, 112 77 20.4–6 112 77 21 250 64 21.1 112 77 21.6 38 102, 39 109 22.1–3 112 77 22.1–7 119 107 22.3 291 9

23.1–2 23.3–5 24–26 24.1 24.1–4 24.5 24.5–26.7 25–26 25.1 25.1–26.4 25.3 26.1–2 26.1–4 26.3

44 130, 50 158, 84 110, 111 74, 244 45 / 47, 272 155 119 50 159 118, 291 7 113 83 244 45 / 46 / 49 44 130, 50 158, 111 74 244 48, 272 154 244 47 291 14 84 110, 185 93, 244, 272 152 / 155, 273 84 110, 272 155 244 44 34 90

Naturales quaestiones 2.35.1–2 39 109 Ad Polybium de consolatione 1.1–4 250 64 1.4 292 19, 293 35 2.1 33 87 2.2 36 2.2–3.2 113 83 2.2–3.5 218 206, 220 210 2.2–4.2 36 93 / 95, 297 75 2.7 36, 292 24 4.1 33 87, 36 4.2–3 112 77 / 78 4.3 295 52 5–8 117 98 5.1–3 297 80 5.2 184, 294 50 5.4 216–217, 217 201, 296 64 5.4–5 33 84 5.4–6.5 185 93, 215 194 / 196, 293 34 5.5 294 49 6.1 34 90, 186, 293 32 6.1–2 47 142, 215, 215 197 6.1–5 185 6.2 186, 190 109, 95 129 6.2–3 186 6.3 215, 215 198 6.3–5 214 189, 293 36 6.4–5 186 6.5 294 49

376 7.4 8.1–4 9.2–3 9.3 9.4–7 9.7–8 9.7–9 10.1–6 10.4–5 10.6 11.1–3 11.3 11.6 12–13 12.1 12.2 13.2–14.1 14.1 14.1–2 14.2–16.3 14.4 14.4–16.3 14.5 15.1 16.3 16.4 16.5 17.1 17.2 17.3–6 18.1 18.5 18.5–6 18.7 18.9 28.6–8

Index of References

293 36 177 66, 294 50 84 111 44 130, 50 158, 84 110, 111 74, 244 45, 272 155 112 77 244 48 44 130, 50 158, 111 74, 272 154 206 168, 297 71 112 76 33 84, 177 66, 202 33, 202 34 90, 206 168, 297 71 293 34 117 98 176 64, 177 66, 294 48 294 49 296 63 32, 103, 228 130, 293 35 293 35 293 32 130 145, 221 215, 225 232, 226 234 / 237, 296 62 34 90 293 32 227 243, 296 63 36 38 102, 39 109 227 243, 296 62 295 52 226 236 298 85 48, 295 52 47 146 186 294 49 197 140

De providentia 2.2 183, 295 56 3.3–4 292 24

4.7–8 6.1–5

292 24 33 84, 202 152

De tranquillitate animi 2.4 33 84, 295 56 10.4 295 56 11.2–3 297 71 11.6–12 291 16 Sophocles Oedipus coloneus 1225 37 96 Statius Silvae 2.6

15 7

Stobaeus 2.7.2

102 39

Teles On Exile 3 3.22H 3.22H–23H 3.23H 3.28H 6–7

15 7 262 120 262 119 262 120 262 119 / 120 15 7

Thucydides 1.22.4

62 37

Xenophon Epistulae 3

4 14

Index of Modern Authors Abart, Christine 201 Abel, Felix-Marie 58, 59, 61 Adam, James 3 Adams, Sean A. 20 Alary, Laura Dawn 17, 20 Alderink, Larry J. 204 Alexander, Loveday 239 Alexander, Philip S. 6 Ambrose, Kimberly 5 Amit, Yairah 61, 67–68 Anderson, Gary A. 19 Angel, Hayyim 21 Ascough, Richard S. 187, 213 Asher, Jeffrey R. 272 Attridge, Harold W. 234, 236, 238, 239, 259, 264, 271, 278 Aune, David E. 100, 204, 243, 245 Babbitt, Frank Cole 37, 182 Baltussen, Han 15, 16, 101, 115, 131 Bammel, E. 206 Bar, Shaul 41, 43 Barclay, John M. G. 95, 159, 161, 187 Bar-Kochva, Bezalel 58, 61, 62, 63 Bartlett, John R. 59, 61 Baslez, Marie-Françoise 94 Basore, John W. 36, 195 Becker, Lawrence C. 31 Bellia, Giuseppe 95 Bellinger Jr., William H. 208 Berglund, Carl Johan 164, 213 Best, Ernest 162, 176 Bickerman, Elias J. 55, 57, 58, 61 Bickmann, Jutta 17, 21, 103, 105, 128, 162, 163, 173, 211, 221, 301 Bird, Michael F. 5 Bizzeti, Paolo 99 Black, David Alan 196 Blischke, Mareike V. 94, 95, 97 Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth 45 Blomkvist, Vemund 27

Bokser, Baruch M. 243, 253, 257–58 Bons, Eberhard 82 Borgen, Peder 3 Boring, M. Eugene 157, 160, 162, 176, 178, 187, 192, 196, 209, 229 Boyarin, Daniel 6 Braund, Susanna Morton 31 Breech, Earl 20 Breed, Brennan W. 55 Brewer, Marilynn B. 133 Brichto, Herbert C. 45 Bruce, F. F. 276 Brueggemann, Walter 208 Bulley, Alan D. 239, 270 Bultmann, Rudolf 9 Buresch, Carolus 16 Burgess, Theodore Chalon 76, 77 Burkes, Shannon 2, 94, 97, 144, 145 Cairns, Douglas L. 30 Calaway, Jared C. 236 Camp, Claudia V. 91 Cassell, Anthony K. 138 Cavallin, Hans Clemens Caesarius 34 Chan, Michael J. 122–23 Chaniotis, Angelos 30 Chapa, Juan 6, 15, 17, 25, 26, 28, 29, 38, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 173, 184, 186, 187, 194, 211, 212, 213, 214, 219, 224, 225, 226, 295 Charles, Ronald 263 Cheon, Samuel 95, 97, 130–31, 135, 139, 142, 143 Cherniss, Harold 3 Cho, Ezra JaeKyung 15, 17, 162, 163, 169 Church, Philip 235, 243, 246, 247, 252, 257 Claassen, Jo-Marie 242 Coezter, Eugene 72 Collins, John J. 2–3, 21, 22, 58, 94, 108, 113, 152

378

Index of Modern Authors

Collins, Raymond F. 6, 160 Corley, Jeremy 20 Cosby, Michael R. 239 Crenshaw, James L. 2 Croy, N. Clayton 7, 69, 238, 239, 266, 292 D’Alario, Vittoria 145 Daschke, Dereck 243, 246 Davila, James R. 95 Davis, Phillip A., Jr. 7, 238, 239 Deane, William J. 96, 126 De Bruyn, Theodore S. 18 deSilva, David A. 7, 99, 101, 216, 234, 235, 237, 270, 278 Dibelius, Martin 196 Dillon, John M. 2, 150 Dodson, Joseph R. 95, 97, 125, 126, 147, 149 Donfried, Karl Paul 158, 159, 162, 211 Doran, Robert 7, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 72– 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 82–83, 91 Drozdek, Adam 30 Dumke, James Arthur 2, 148, 203, 222 Dunn, James D. G. 286 Dyer, Bryan R. 226, 239, 270 Easter, Matthew C. 239 Edwards, Matthew 94, 97 Ehrenkrook, Jason von 108 Eisenbaum, Pamela M. 5, 235, 236, 239 Egger-Wenzel, Renate 19–20 Ego, Beate 82, 138 Elledge, C. D. 34, 44, 46, 82–83, 108 Ellingworth, Paul 234, 235, 259 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 27, 31, 101 Engel, Helmut 7, 95, 96 Enns, Peter 95, 97, 111, 131 Erskine, Andrew 16 Esler, Philip F. 239 Estrada, Bernardo 203 Favez, Charles 18 Feldman, Louis H. 3 Ferguson, Everett 257, 260 Fern, Sister Mary Edmond 15 Filtvedt, Ole Jakob 235 Finan, Thomas 3 Fish, Henry Clay 18

Fitzgerald, John T. 34, 199, 292 Floyd, Michael H. 20 Focke, Friedrich 99 Fredriksen, Paula 5–6 Frick, Peter 150 Friedman, Richard E. 40, 43, 44, 45 Friesen, Courtney J. P. 179 Gäbel, Georg 259 Gaertner, Jan Felix 242 Gager, John 5 Gambetti, Sandra 96 Gammie, John G. 99 Garrison, Roman 2, 97 Gaventa, Beverly Roberts 162, 187, 191, 192, 196 Gehman, Henry S. 146 Gelardini, Gabriella 5, 7, 235, 237, 240, 254, 277 Georgi, Dieter 94, 95, 235, 237 Getty, Mary Ann 160 Gieschen, Charles A. 259 Gilbert, Maurice 99 Gill, Christopher 31 Glicksman, Andrew T. 95, 97, 125, 126 Goldingay, John 291 Goldstein, Jonathan A. 7, 46, 58, 59, 63, 67, 74, 83 Goodrick, A. T. S. 143 Grabbe, Lester L. 94 Grässer, Erich 235 Graver, Margaret R. 15, 16, 30, 48, 116, 202 Gray, Patrick 270 Green, Gene L. 162, 187, 191, 209 Gregg, J. A. F. 104 Gregg, Robert C. 18, 25, 27, 36, 48, 115, 126, 231, 295 Grollios, Constantine C. 16, 130 Gruen, Erich S. 55, 56 Guignet, Marcel 24–26 Gundry, Robert H. 162, 165 Gupta, Nijay K. 159, 191 Habicht, Christian 58, 61 Halpern-Amaru, Betsy 20 Hani, Jean 17, 37, 130, 182 Hannah, Darrell D. 258, 259

Index of Modern Authors

Hansen, Mogens Herman 76 Harlow, Daniel C. 236, 243, 246, 258 Harrington, Daniel J. 55 Hays, Richard 276 Heil, John Paul 187, 191 Hellholm, David 22, 27 Henten, Jan Willem van 58, 59, 62, 72, 78 Herrero de Jáuregui, Miguel 34, 39 Hester, James D. 162, 187, 221 Hewstone, Miles 133 Himmelfarb, Martha 6 Hoffmann, Paul 187 Hofius, Otfried 17 Hogan, Karina Martin 107 Holloway, Paul A. 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22–23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 39, 81, 96– 97, 103, 117, 162, 163, 170, 176, 177, 184, 202, 203, 204, 231, 232, 270, 284, 291 Holmstrand, Jonas 213, 222 Holtz, Traugott 196 Hooker, Morna D. 212, 213 Horbury, William 95, 229 Horst, Pieter W. van der 17, 21, 96, 108, 139, 140, 294 Hübner, Hans 94 Hughes, Frank W. 24 Isaacs, Marie E. 5, 7, 235, 236, 240, 277 Jacobson, Howard 252 James, Joshua T. 208 Janowski, Bernd 2 Japhet, Sara 64 Jaquette, James L. 162, 163, 187, 188 Jay, Jeff 61, 80 Jew, Ian Y. S. 162, 170, 187 Jewett, Robert 174, 175, 189, 249 Johanson, Bruce C. 161, 162, 187, 217 Johnson, E. Elizabeth 189 Johnson, Luke Timothy 7, 235, 238 Jones, Kenneth R. 243 Jordan, Mark 101 Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel 285 Kaminsky, Joel S. 65, 66 Kampling, Rainer 235 Kaplan, Ben 17

379

Kasher, Aryeh 143 Kassel, Rudolf 16 Katz, Steven 6 Kaufmann, Yechezkel 67 Kelhoffer, James A. 222 Kennedy, George A. 101 Kierdorf, Wilhelm 13, 18, 24 Kim, Dong-Soo 187 Kim, Lloyd 276 Kirschner, Robert 242, 243, 253–54, 256 Klauck, Hans-Josef 162, 163, 170, 212, 222 Klawans, Jonathan 258 Klijn, A. F. J. 221 Kloppenborg, John S. 203 Knox, John 157, 158 Koester, Craig R. 234, 236, 238, 239, 270, 278 Koester, Helmut 158 Kolarcik, Michael, S.J. 95, 97, 105, 108, 143 Kooij, Arie van der 7, 59–60 Kotsifou, Chrysi 17, 219 Kraus, Wolfgang 239 Kreinecker, Christina M. 9 Kulik, Alexander 243, 246, 257, 258 Kurzewitz, Christian 95, 97, 99 Laato, Antti 2–3, 64, 150 LaBarge, Scott 16, 48, 84 Lamprecht, Liana 18 Lane, William L. 234, 235, 237, 239, 270 Lange, Stella Louise 150 Larcher, Chrysostome 7, 94, 95, 96, 114, 121, 145 Lattimore, Richard A. 15, 36, 44, 50, 295, 297 Latvus, Kari 65 Leaney, A. R. C. 2 Levine, Lee I. 59 Lichtenberger, Hermann 58, 59 Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan 97 Lincoln, Andrew T. 248 Linebaugh, Jonathan A. 94, 135 Littlewood, A. R. 18, 231 Lohr, Joel N. 180, 181 Luckensmeyer, David 6, 17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 162, 163, 169, 173, 187, 211, 213–14, 219, 224–26, 228, 301

380

Index of Modern Authors

Lüdemann, Gerd 157 Luz, Ulrich 210 Mackie, Scott D. 275, 276 Malherbe, Abraham 6, 7, 17, 101, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 176, 178, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 194, 196, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 227, 228 Małunowiczówna, Leokadia 18 Manfredi, Silvana 144 Manning, C. E. 16, 119 Marohl, Matthew J. 277 Marshall, I. Howard 159, 161, 178, 196 Martin, Hubert, Jr. 16 Martin, Luther H. 204 Martin, Michael Wade 241 Martin, Troy W. 9, 17 Mason, Eric F. 276 Mazzinghi, Luca 94 McDowell, Markus 204 McGlynn, Moyna 94 McGuire, R. P. 18 Mein, Andrew 91 Metzger, Bruce M. 33 Miller, Robert J. 97, 152 Mitchell, Alan C. 235, 236, 254 Mitchell, Jane F. 18, 25, 26, 28, 169 Mitchell, Margaret M. 26, 63, 101, 158, 161, 164, 165, 197, 237, 242 Moffitt, David M. 272 Momigliano, Arnaldo 58, 59, 62 Montefiore, Claude G. 22 Moore, Carey A. 46 Moor, Johannes C. de 2–3, 150 Moran, Sister Mary Evaristus 15, 34, 44, 50, 112, 292, 293 Morgan, Michael L. 88–89 Morrison, Michael D. 260 Muenchow, Charles A. 19 Munck, Johannes 213 Murphy, Frederick J. 243, 253 Murphy, Roland 113 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 158 Nanos, Mark D. 5 Nauck, Wolfgang 203

Neil, Bronwen 6, 17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 162, 163, 169, 173, 187, 211, 213–14, 219, 224–26, 228, 301 Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther 242, 262, 263, 265 Neufeld, Thomas R. Yoder 191 Neusner, Jacob 236, 243, 257 Newsom, Carol A. 19, 55 Nicholl, Colin R. 161, 165, 187, 188 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 34, 61, 82, 91, 106, 114, 115 Niederwimmer, Kurt 106 Niese, Benedictus 60 Nongbri, Brent 7, 238, 239, 266 O’Brien, Julia Myers 81 O’Brien, Peter Thomas 212, 235, 274, 276 Ochs, Donovan J. 9, 16 Olbricht, Thomas H. 279 Olley, John W. 21 Olyan, Saul M. 19 On Chong-Gossard, James H. Kim 15 Overton, Shawna D. 40, 43, 44, 45 Pahl, Michael W. 165 Palme, Bernhard 17 Papathomas, Amphilochios 17 Park, Joseph S. 294 Parsenios, George L. 17, 18 Parsons, Peter 17 Paton, L. B. 2 Peake, Arthur S. 2 Perdue, Leo G. 95, 99, 100 Peterson, David 239 Pfitzner, Victor C. 194, 195, 292 Pham, Xuan Huong Thi 19 Phillips, Jane E. 16 Playoust, Catherine 274 Plevnik, Joseph 187, 191, 195 Pobee, John S. 159 Pollock Lynch, Gay Ord 30 Pomeroy, Sarah B. 16, 132 Portier-Young, Anathea E. 55, 56, 83 Pritchett, W. Kendrick 76, 77 Pulleyn, Simon 204 Reese, James M. 1, 24, 94, 99, 106 Regev, Eyal 235, 256, 257, 258, 260–61

Index of Modern Authors

Reider, Joseph 126 Ribbens, Benjamin J. 235, 240 Richard, Earl J. 162, 187, 192, 195, 196 Richards, Kent H. 2 Riede, Peter 19, 21 Riesner, Rainer 159 Roetzel, Calvin J. 196 Rothschild, Clare K. 237, 266, 269, 278 Runia, David T. 150 Russell, D. S. 21 Salevao, Iutisone 276 Sanders, E. P. 267 Sanders, Jack T. 212 Sanders, James A. 2, 115 Sayler, Gwendolyn B. 20, 248 Scarpat, Giuseppe 7, 94, 95, 96 Schaberg, Jane 117 Schaper, Joachim 74 Schenck, Kenneth 7, 235, 236, 240, 252, 276, 277 Schlueter, Carol J. 159, 229 Schmidt, Brian B. 120, 124 Schmitt, Armin 7, 96 Schmitz, Otto 7, 22, 28–29, 39, 74, 238 Schorn, Stefan 16, 31 Schreiter, Robert J. 256 Schubert, Paul 212, 213 Schwartz, Daniel R. 58, 59, 61, 62, 71, 74, 86, 91, 285 Scourfield, J. H. D. 4, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26 Seeley, David 144 Sevenster, Jan N. 39, 194 Shepkaru, Shmuel 82 Shirck, Ryan 239 Sihvola, Juha 31 Simian-Yofre, H. 19 Simisi, Seth M. 235, 239 Simkovich, Malka Z. 24, 59 Simon, Marcel 34, 250, 294 Skehan, Patrick W. 122, 144, 145 Small, Brian C. 239 Smallwood, E. Mary 96, 107, 118, 139, 143 Smith, Abraham 6, 17, 25, 162, 163, 169, 173, 197, 211, 213, 214, 219, 224, 225, 226, 302 Smith, Barry D. 203, 222 Spellman, Ched E. 239

381

Spicq, Ceslas 7, 24, 235, 240, 277 Stählin, Gustav 7, 10, 22, 28–29, 39, 74, 238 Stewart, Eric 243, 245 Steyn, Gert J. 259 Still, Todd D. 159 Stoebe, H. J. 19 Stone, Michael E. 243, 245 Stowers, Stanley K. 7, 25, 26, 100, 103, 162, 212 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 114, 259 Suggs, Jack M. 122, 144 Sumney, Jerry L. 267 Sun, Chloe 19 Sutcliffe, Edmund F. 2 Swancutt, Diana M. 100–102, 104 Talbert, Charles H. 239 Taylor, R. J. 37, 97 Tcherikover, Victor 55, 61 Thiessen, Matthew 239 Thiselton, Anthony C. 231 Thompson, James W. 237 Thompson, Leonard 22 Thompson, Michael E. 2 Tomson, Peter J. 6 Trotter, Jonathan R. 57 Tuval, Michael 243, 247 Übelacker, Walter G. 7, 238, 266, 278 Vandergriff, Kenneth A. 258 Vanhoye, Albert 234, 239 Vílchez Líndez, José 95 Von Moos, Peter 15 Vos, Craig Steven de 158, 161, 174 Walbank, Frank W. 60–61 Wanamaker, Charles A. 162, 187, 192, 213 Watson, Duane F. 14, 187, 191, 211, 222, 241, 281 Watson, Francis 135 Watts, Rikki E. 21 Weber, W. 99, 125 Weima, Jeffrey A. D. 163, 168, 230 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich 235 White, John L. 212 White, L. Michael 16, 295

382

Index of Modern Authors

Whitlark, Jason A. 235, 236, 241 Wilcox, Amanda 16 Williamson, Clark M. 5 Williamson, Ronald 264 Wilson, Marcus 16 Wilson, Stephen A. 16 Wilson, Walter T. 49 Wimmer, Anselm 163 Winston, David 3, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 118, 119, 123, 126, 137, 150, 152, 291 Witherington III, Ben 159, 162, 171, 176, 178, 191, 192, 196, 209, 218, 235, 276 Wolff, Christian 255 Worp, Klaas A. 17

Wright, Jacob L. 122–23 Wypustek, Andrzej 15 Yarbro Collins, Adela 22 Yeo, K. K. 178 Zeitlin, Solomon 59 Zeller, Dieter 108 Zerbe, Gordon M. 140–41, 175, 199 Zetterholm, Magnus 5 Ziadé, Raphaëlle 285 Zimmerman, Frank 94 Zurawski, Jason M. 97, 107, 151

Subject Index admirers 186, 215 admonition 10 30, 28, 36 93, 151, 167 31, 171 47, 174, 196 139, 197, 207, 238 22, 290 afterlife 11, 30, 34, 34 89, 40, 43 125, 44–45, 49–51, 82–83, 91, 108 66, 244 40, 271, 281–282 Alexandria 2, 5, 11–12, 48 148, 93–98, 107– 115, 118, 122, 125, 134, 137, 139 167, 140– 145, 150–152, 154, 282 Aristotle 48, 188, 244 atonement 39, 150 204, 236, 243, 247–249, 254, 256–261, 292 behavior 4, 9–11, 13, 19, 24, 26–27, 30, 47, 61, 89, 90 120, 97, 165–168, 171–172, 174, 182, 185–187, 189, 194, 197–200, 206, 208, 210, 212, 215, 218–219, 224, 226, 231, 258, 267–269, 286, 293 belief 8, 30, 34, 38, 40–46, 49–51, 57, 60, 64, 72–73, 75, 82–85, 89, 91, 96 15, 106, 108 66, 110, 115, 119 111, 126–127, 134, 146, 247, 253, 257–258, 261, 271–272, 281 bereavement 8, 11, 47–49, 56, 98, 120– 121, 123–124, 127, 132, 162–163, 166 30, 170–179, 181–184, 186–191, 193, 197, 207, 209, 212, 215, 217, 220–227, 232, 244, 250, 285 5, 290–291, 294–295, 301 boldness 266, 268–269, 290 calm 10–11, 32, 130, 165 26, 166, 171, 176, 178–183, 185–186, 194–195, 202, 210– 212, 216, 225, 228, 232, 290, 295 Christianity 6, 231 255, 255, 276–277, 284, 286 confidence 64, 73, 78–79, 132, 134, 140, 153, 167–168, 172, 194, 201, 208, 215, 217, 229–231, 266–267, 269, 293 courage 10, 29, 32, 34–35, 71, 75, 89, 98, 129, 132, 135, 215–216, 224, 250 64, 290, 294, 296

Crantor 14 7, 115, 115 91 Cynics 102, 261 Cyrenaics 3, 14, 16, 232, 282, 290 discipline 42, 43 122, 55, 60, 66, 68–69, 76– 77, 85, 87–88, 113–114, 115 90, 116 94, 118, 146, 150–151, 203, 239, 290, 292 20. See also education. discouragement 40, 56 7 education 93, 125–129, 150–151, 239, 299 Egypt 11–12, 56 5, 57–58, 71 71, 73, 78 89, 93–95, 102, 104, 109, 111–112, 116, 127–128, 131, 133, 135, 137–143, 146– 148, 153–154 Elijah 2 3, 42, 44 Enoch 2 3, 114–115, 119, 271 Epicurean 1 2, 3, 14, 16, 47, 49–51 encouragement 7 23, 8–9, 13, 19, 35, 38, 60, 62–63, 73–74, 76–77, 83, 85, 89, 100, 112–113, 125, 130, 133, 138, 146, 157, 161, 166 30, 173, 176, 186–188, 192, 195, 199, 201, 208, 210, 217, 218 205, 222 222, 225, 227, 237–238, 239 24, 242, 259, 263, 266, 268, 274 158, 276 163, 283, 286, 289, 293 endurance 11, 221, 228, 239, 268, 274– 275, 290 eternal life 34 89, 113–114, 271 example (exempla; exemplum) 24 44, 32, 34 90, 35, 98, 122–123, 126, 129–131, 134–135, 163, 165, 170, 172, 184, 219, 224–231, 238, 242–243, 261–262, 279, 282, 293 35, 295 50, 301 faith 21 30, 31, 35, 157, 161, 165–167, 171, 191–195, 199, 211, 213 182, 217–218, 238, 242, 262, 264, 266–269, 271, 274–275, 290 fear 2, 12, 35, 37, 49–50, 60, 71, 76, 79, 84, 98, 124, 127–128, 132, 135, 137, 141,

384

Subject Index

145, 159, 166–167, 181, 207, 209, 216– 218, 235, 239, 259, 261, 269–270, 283, 289, 297

justice 2, 34, 36–38, 44, 49–50, 64, 67, 71, 81, 85–86, 91, 104 50, 105, 138 163, 151, 191, 205, 281, 284–285, 291

gospel 63, 161, 165–168, 170, 174, 177, 178 68, 183, 192, 200, 209, 212, 213 182, 218, 222, 226 239, 228–232, 259, 268, 281, 283, 286 gratitude 32. See also thanksgiving. grieving 10, 13, 18, 24 45, 32–35, 48, 106, 145, 154, 161, 163 20 / 21, 166, 173, 181, 186, 189–190, 193, 194, 196 139, 211, 213, 214 189, 218, 231–232, 243, 263, 273, 298

lamentation 25–26, 36, 47–49, 127–128, 181, 190, 200, 202, 218 206, 221 216, 245, 290, 297 75 love 5, 42, 71, 88, 103, 105, 107, 114, 117, 118, 147, 150, 152, 157, 165–167, 176– 178, 191–192, 194–195, 198–199, 211, 213 182, 216–218, 266–267, 273, 290, 291, 291 9, 292, 292 24, 294, 294 48, 299

Hellenistic Judaism 3, 3 11, 23, 30, 34, 115 90, 232 258, 265, 281 help 38, 39, 57, 60, 68, 73, 74, 76–80, 86, 96, 103, 105, 130, 138, 147, 148, 185, 199, 254, 290, 294, 297 honor 30, 35, 56, 76, 90, 105 55, 107, 124, 132, 152, 177, 190 108, 215–216, 218, 293 hope 22 36, 23, 29, 35, 38, 38 103, 39, 44, 45, 59, 63, 64, 73–74, 75, 78, 87, 89, 91, 93, 96 15, 104, 105, 110, 117, 132, 134, 140, 154, 157, 165–167, 181, 186, 187 97, 191– 195, 200, 201 150, 202 151, 207–208, 211, 213 182, 217–218, 221, 230–232, 238, 242, 266–268, 274–275, 277, 285, 290, 296 imitation 102 43, 104, 160 13, 190, 213 182, 217, 227, 237 20, 238, 242, 266–269, 293, 293 34, 296, 296 62 / 63 immortality 1–2, 22 36, 34, 49–51, 106 58, 108, 110, 113, 117, 120 112, 123, 153, 270, 290 Jesus 5–6, 24, 33, 46, 157, 159–161, 164– 167, 174–175, 183, 185, 188, 191–194, 200–206, 209–212, 213 182, 216, 217, 218, 219, 223, 224, 228, 229, 231, 234, 236 11, 248–249, 253, 258–260, 266, 270–275, 277, 281, 283, 286 joy 9–10, 19, 20 25, 33 85, 35, 125, 129, 147, 157, 166–167, 169, 197, 200–203, 213, 216–218, 227, 242, 247, 268–269, 285, 290

mercy 11, 36, 43 122, 55, 60, 69, 75, 85–89, 91–92, 146, 146 191, 150, 201 150, 257, 282, 290 messiah 24, 157, 160 12, 260 Middle Platonism 2, 37, 94 mourning 4 15, 8, 13, 19, 19 23, 29, 34, 47– 48, 122, 127, 131, 135, 166 30, 173, 181, 188–190, 189 105, 196 139, 205, 289, 295, 297, 297 82 nonretaliation 140–141, 166, 175, 175 59, 199, 199 146, 296, 296 60 patience 86, 88, 130, 267, 267 136, 290, 295 Peripatetics 3, 14, 16, 47–48 persecution 1–4, 4 12, 8, 11, 21 30, 33, 40, 42, 56 5, 58–59, 65–67, 72, 80, 86–87, 91, 93, 95–98, 107, 114–115, 118, 125, 134, 137, 141, 144–145, 152–153, 152 12 / 13, 157– 159, 159 10, 160 12, 161–162, 163 19, 168, 171, 173, 176, 178, 182, 184, 197, 199, 202–203, 218 205, 221 218, 222–223, 222 220, 226, 226 239, 228, 228 249, 234–235, 242, 266–267, 281–282 Philodemus of Gadara 1 2 Plato 1 2, 3, 49–51, 111, 150, 179, 182–183, 185, 272 Platonic consolation 2, 3, 14, 265, 271 147 Platonic philosophy 3, 49–51, 150, 272 150 Platonism/Platonist(s) 2 5, 49–50, 270– 271, 283 praise – as a strategy of consolation 30, 34 90, 113, 118, 121, 132, 167, 167 31, 171, 171 46, 213–218, 225, 227, 238 23, 268

Subject Index

– with God as the object 45, 208, 256, 259–260 prayer 39–40, 39 106 / 108, 46, 66, 77, 82, 86– 88, 98, 109, 129 142, 135–136, 138–139, 141 170, 148 197, 150 204, 165 26, 172, 175, 199–200, 204–208, 211, 256–260, 264, 290, 296 prophecy 21, 21 29 / 30, 23 81, 32, 209–210, 210 177, 255–256, 291 17 prophet(s) 20 25, 31–32, 42, 45 136, 70, 75, 77, 83, 104, 122–123, 137, 160, 193 122, 201, 229 249, 232 257, 273 punishment 5, 37, 39, 42–44, 42 113 / 116, 50–51, 60–61, 64–70, 65 47, 66 50, 71 64, 74–77, 81, 85, 89–90, 96, 99, 106, 109, 115–117, 120, 137, 138 163, 139, 193–194, 291–292, 294, 294 44, 299–300 rejoicing 32, 33, 35, 43, 165 26, 166, 172, 175, 175 59, 199–203, 232, 273, 290, 296, 296 61. See also joy. repentance 39, 42–43, 61, 64, 109, 146 191, 215, 255, 257, 297, 297 72 rescue 33, 39, 68, 73, 129–130, 151, 154, 167, 201, 201 150, 205 164, 208, 232 258, 290, 299 resurrection 11, 22 36, 34, 34 86, 44–45, 44 127, 75, 82–85, 91, 193, 270–272, 272 151, 282, 286, 290–291 reward 29, 33, 37–38, 43–45, 51, 82–84, 89, 96, 97 15, 106–107, 112–113, 122, 129 142, 142, 153–154, 203, 245, 272, 274–275, 282, 284, 291 salvation 18 20, 31, 35, 42, 61, 122, 138, 154, 165, 168, 174, 182, 186, 188, 191, 194–195, 203 154, 211, 218, 239, 267, 269, 271, 290 savior 129, 149, 201 Second Temple Judaism 10, 23, 30–31, 201, 203–204, 204 159, 216, 222 230, 284 self-control 98, 129, 130, 132, 135, 140, 183, 188, 194, 215, 225. See also sobriety.

385

shame 30, 35, 132, 166 30, 171 46, 215–216, 216 199, 275, 293 sin 5, 39, 41–43, 60, 64–70, 76, 85, 90–91, 115–116, 119, 119 111, 134, 137, 144–145, 180–181, 191, 221, 249, 254, 256, 261, 292, 292 20 sobriety 191, 191 111, 193–195 soul(s) 1 2, 2, 22 36, 29–30, 34, 38, 44, 46, 46 139, 49–51, 63, 70, 76, 82 104, 83, 84, 84 111, 107–108, 110–112, 112 76, 113 80 / 82, 123, 151, 152, 182, 196 139, 201 150, 202 151, 208, 264, 264 129, 268–269, 271, 271 147, 291, 291 11 spectators 56 4, 110 69, 185 93, 186, 215, 217, 273–274. See also witnesses. Stoicism, Stoic(s) 3, 14, 16, 47–51, 94, 126, 183, 188, 194, 194 126, 202 152 / 153, 263 sympathy 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 24–26, 28–30, 35–36, 51, 74, 163, 163 21, 165, 168–170, 218–225, 218 206, 220 210 / 214, 221 218, 222 222, 231–232, 284, 289, 290, 297, 301 temple (destruction of the) 191, 205, 235, 235 7, 237 16, 240, 249 60, 252, 252 70, 253, 255 88, 258, 259 107 test 32, 114–115, 134, 136, 149, 151, 203, 209 thanksgiving 172, 199–200, 207–208, 212–218, 290, 301. See also gratitude. theodicy 2, 8, 51, 64 44, 68, 86, 97, 97 16, 150, 150 206, 245 50, 253–254, 281, 285 torture 4, 4 12, 42, 67, 74, 75, 96, 99, 109– 117, 148, 150–151, 153–154 virtue 34–35, 101, 119–125, 130, 132, 135, 137–138, 183, 188, 194, 202 152, 214, 216–217, 225, 267, 291, 291 7 weeping 48–49, 246, 289 witnesses 124, 176, 185–186, 212, 218, 273–274, 293