With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin (Biblical Tools and Studies) 9789042942745, 9789042942752, 9042942746

Citation preview

Biblical Tools and Studies 

“W

ith Gentleness and Respect”: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin Edited by

Eric F. Mason Mark F. Whitters

PEETERS

“WITH GENTLENESS AND RESPECT”: PAULINE AND PETRINE STUDIES IN HONOR OF TROY W. MARTIN

BIBLICAL TOOLS AND STUDIES Edited by B. DOYLE, G. VAN BELLE, J. VERHEYDEN KU Leuven

Associate Editors G. BAZZANA, Harvard Divinity School – A. BERLEJUNG, Leipzig K.J. DELL, Cambridge – J. FREY, Zürich – C.M. TUCKETT, Oxford

Biblical Tools and Studies – Volume 40

“WITH GENTLENESS AND RESPECT”: PAULINE AND PETRINE STUDIES IN HONOR OF TROY W. MARTIN

EDITED BY

ERIC F. MASON AND MARK F. WHITTERS

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2020

Cover: Τῆς καινῆς Διαθήκης ἅπαντα. Εὐαγγέλιον Novum Iesu Christi D.N. Testamentum ex bibliotheca regia. Lutetiae: ex officina Roberti Stephani, 1550. in-folio. KU Leuven, Maurits Sabbe Library, P225.042/F° Mt 5,3-12

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN 978-90-429-4274-5 eISBN 978-90-429-4275-2 D/2020/0602/115 © 2020, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 1. Introduction Eric F. MASON, Judson University, and Mark F. WHITTERS, Eastern Michigan University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

 2. Troy W. Martin: Soul of a Scholar, Heart of a Shepherd Avis CLENDENEN, emerita, Saint Xavier University, and Jenny L. DEVIVO, Saint Xavier University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

GALATIANS AND ROMANS  3. Recent Research on the Rhetorical Analysis of Galatians David E. AUNE, emeritus, University of Notre Dame . . . . . .

19

 4. The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians 1:10 – Persuading God A. Andrew DAS, Elmhurst University . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

 5. Holding Up the Old Self to Mockery: A Study of Crucifixion and Shame in Romans 6:1–6 P. Richard CHOI, Andrews University . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

 6. Earth’s Cry and Travail: Habakkuk’s Other Influences on Romans Laurie J. BRAATEN, emeritus, Judson University . . . . . . . . .

75

 7. A Samaritan Background for Paul’s Letter to the Romans? Mark F. WHITTERS, Eastern Michigan University . . . . . . . .

99

 8. Wine Abstinence in Romans 14:21 and Ancient Jewish Dietary Practice Charles H. COSGROVE, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary 119 OTHER PAULINE TEXTS AND TRADITIONS  9. Paul’s Critique of Rhetoric: “Mere Words” and “Real Power” in 1 Thessalonians 1:4–5, 1 Corinthians 1:17–2:5, and 1 Corinthians 4:18–21 Christopher FORBES, Macquarie University, Australia . . . . . . 139

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10. ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ as Sobriquet in the Undisputed Letters of Paul Clare K. ROTHSCHILD, Lewis University . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 11. Moving Beyond the Impasse in the Debate about the Authorship of Ephesians George LYONS, emeritus, Northwest Nazarene University . . . . 207 12. “Paul,” “Peter,” and Slaves: Texts and Contexts Todd D. STILL, Truett Seminary, Baylor University . . . . . . 231 13. The Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter to Philemon: Can We Learn Anything from Early Christian Interpreters? D. Francois TOLMIE, University of the Free State, South Africa 241 1 PETER 14. The Body and Abuse, Power and Submission, Honor and Shame: Imitating Christ and Articulating the Gospel in 1 Peter Duane F. WATSON, emeritus, Malone University . . . . . . . . 265 15. “You Have Been Born Anew”: Philo and the Image of New Birth in 1 Peter Nancy PARDEE, Greenberg Center for Jewish Studies, University of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 16. “Fear God, Honor the Emperor”: Rhetoric and Philosophy in 1 Peter 2:13–17 Russell B. SISSON, Union College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 17. Waters of Salvation: 1 Peter 3:20–21 Jenny L. DEVIVO, Saint Xavier University . . . . . . . . . . . 335 18. The “Conscience” Conundrum of 1 Peter 3:21 – Insights from the Epistle to the Hebrews? Eric F. MASON, Judson University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 BIBLIOGRAPHIES 19. The Writings of Troy W. Martin: An Annotated Bibliography, 1989– 2019 Teresa J. CALPINO, Loyola University Chicago . . . . . . . . . 363 20. COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 21. CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 22. INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 23. INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445

ABBREVIATIONS

1 Apol. 1 Clem. 1 En. 1QH 1QM 1QpHab 1QS 2 Apol. 2 Bar. 2 Clem. 3 Bar. 3 En. 4 Regn. 4Q372 4QBera,b 4QDibHama 4QFlor 4QSama 11Q19 11QPsa AB ABD Abod. Zar. ABR ABRL AcBib ACCS Acts Phil. ACW Aet. Adol. poet. ael. Adul. am. AF Ag. Ap. AGJU Agr. Alex. Amat.

Justin Martyr, First Apology 1 Clement 1 Enoch Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) Milḥamah (War Scroll) Pesher Habakkuk Serek Hayaḥad (Rule of the Community) Justin Martyr, Second Apology 2 Baruch 2 Clement 3 Baruch 3 Enoch Dio Chrysostom, De regno iv Apocryphon of Joseph Berakhot, copies a and b (Blessings; 4Q286–287) Dibre Hame’oroth, copy a (Words of the Luminaries; 4Q504) Florilegium (4Q174) Samuel, copy a (4Q51) Temple Scroll Psalms, copy a (11Q5) Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Avodah Zarah Australian Biblical Review Anchor Bible Reference Library Academia Biblica Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Acts of Philip Ancient Christian Writers Philo, De aeternitate mundi Plutarch, Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat Plutarch, De adulatore et amico Ktāb al-Tarīkh Abū ’l Fatḥ Josephus, Contra Apionem Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Philo, De agricultura Plutarch, Alexander Plutarch, Amatorius

X

AnBib Andr. Aneb. ANET ANF Ann. Ant. Ant. rom. ANTC Antid. AOAT Apoc. Mos. Apocr. Ezek. Apol. arg. Aris. Ex. As. Mos. Asc. Isa. AUSS Autol. b. B. Bat. Bapt. BBR BCH BDAG

BDB BDF BECNT Bell. gall. Ben. Ber. BETL BHT Bib BibInt

ABBREVIATIONS

Analecta Biblica Euripides, Andromache Porphyry, Epistula ad Anebonem Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. 1885–1887. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Tacitus, Annales Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae Dionysious of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Isocrates, Antidosis (Or. 15) Alter Orient und Altes Testament Apocalypse of Moses Apocryphon of Ezekiel Plato, Apologia; Tertullian, Apologeticus Argumentum (section in ancient commentaries that precedes comments on individual verses) Aristeas the Exegete Assumption of Moses Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 6–11 Andrews University Seminary Studies Theophilus, Ad Autolycum Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra Tertullian, De baptismo Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Caesar, Bellum gallicum Seneca, De beneficiis Berakhot Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation

ABBREVIATIONS

BibInt BJS BLit BNP

XI

Biblical Interpretation Series Brown Judaic Studies Bibliothèque liturgique Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Edited by Hubert Cancik. 22 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002–2011. BR Biblical Research BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CAH Cambridge Ancient History Cap. ex inim. util. Plutarch, De capienda ex inimicis utilitate CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953– . CD Damascus Document CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Cels. Origen, Contra Celsum CEV Contemporary English Version Char. Theophrastus, Characteres Cher. Philo, De cherubim Claud. Suetonius, Divus Claudius Colloq Colloquium Comm. John Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Joannis Comm. Matt. Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei Comm. Phlm. Commentary on Philemon (Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyprus) Comm. Rom. Origen, Commentarium in Romanos Comp. Med. Loc. Galen, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos ConcC Concordia Commentary Conf. Philo, De confusione linguarum Congr. Philo, De congressu eruditionis gratia Conj. praec. Plutarch, Conjugalia Praecepta Contempl. Philo, De vita contemplativa Contr. Seneca (the Elder), Controversiae Corp. herm. Corpus hermeticum CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Ctes. Aeschines, In Ctesiphonem CTJ Calvin Theological Journal DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DDD2 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Decal. Philo, De decalogo Def. orac. Plutarch, De defectu oraculorum Demon. Lucian, Demonax Det. Philo, Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat Deus Philo, Quod Deus sit immutabilis Deut. Rab. Deuteronomy Rabbah

XII

Dial. Diatr. Did. DPL DSD EBib Ebr. ECC EDEJ EDNT EKKNT Ench. Ep. ErIsr ESEC ESV Eth. nic. Euthyd. EvQ Exod. Rab. ExpTim FCB FOTL Fug. Gen. Rab. Geogr. Gig. GKC Gorg. Gosp. Bart. GPBS GRBS GWN Haer. HALOT

HBT HCSB Her. Hist.

ABBREVIATIONS

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho Epictetus, Diatribai (Dissertationes) Didache Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Dead Sea Discoveries Etudes bibliques Philo, De ebrietate Eerdmans Critical Commentary Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990– 1993. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Epictetus, Enchiridion Demosthenes, Epistulae; Euripides, Epistulae; Plato, Epistulae; Pliny (the Younger), Epistulae; Seneca, Epistulae morales Eretz-Israel Emory Studies in Early Christianity English Standard Version Aristotle, Ethica nicomachea Plato, Euthydemus Evangelical Quarterly Exodus Rabbah Expository Times Feminist Companion to the Bible Forms of the Old Testament Literature Philo, De fuga et inventione Genesis Rabbah Strabo, Geographica Philo, De gigantibus Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arther E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Plato, Gorgias Gospel of Bartholomew Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies God’s Word to the Nations Bible Irenaeus, Adversus haereses (Elenchos) The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. Horizons in Biblical Theology Holman Christian Standard Bible Philo, Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Herodotus, Historiae

ABBREVIATIONS

Hist. Rom. HNTC Hom. Hom. 1 Cor. Hom. Phlm. HThKNT HTR HTSt HUCA IBC IBHS ICC IDB IEJ Ign. Eph. Ign. Pol. Ign. Rom. Ign. Smyrn. Ign. Trall. Il. Inst. Int Ios. Is. Os. JAAR JANER JAOS JB JECS JETS Jos. Asen. JOTT JR JRS JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOTSup JTS Jub. J.W. KEK KJV LAE

XIII

Livy, History of Rome Harpers New Testament Commentary Ps.-Clementine, Homiliae John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam i ad Corinthios John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Philemonem Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George A. Buttrick. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon, 1962. Israel Exploration Journal Ignatius, To the Ephesians Ignatius, To Polycarp Ignatius, To the Romans Ignatius, To the Smyrnaens Ignatius, To the Trallians Homer, Ilias Quintilian, Institutio oratoria Interpretation Philo, De Iosepho Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of the American Oriental Society Jerusalem Bible Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Joseph and Aseneth Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics Journal of Religion Journal of Roman Studies Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Jubilees Josephus, Bellum judaicum Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (MeyerKommentar) King James Version (Authorised Version) Life of Adam and Eve

XIV

LCL LEC LEH Leg. Legat. Let. Aris. Life Ling. LNTS LSJ LSTS Lucil. LXX m. Mart. Isa. Mart. Pol. Mem. Migr. MM Mor. Mos. MT Mut. NA27 NA28 NAB Nat. NCB NEB NEchtB Neot NETS NIB NICNT Nid. NIDB NIGTC NIV NKJV NovT

ABBREVIATIONS

Loeb Classical Library Library of Early Christianity Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Philo, Legum allegoriae Philo, Legatio ad Gaium Letter of Aristeas Josephus, Vita Varro, De lingua latina Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Library of Second Temple Studies Seneca, Ad Lucilium Septuagint Mishnah Martyrdom of Isaiah Martyrdom of Polycarp Xenophon, Memorabilia Philo, De migratione Abrahami Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London, 1930. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Plutarch, Moralia Philo, De vita Mosis Masoretic Text Philo, De mutatione nominum Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 27th ed. Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 28th ed. New American Bible Pliny (the Elder), Naturalis historia New Century Bible New English Bible Neue Echter Bibel Neotestamentica New English Translation of the Septuagint The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999–2004. New International Commentary on the New Testament Niddah New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009. New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version New King James Version Novum Testamentum

ABBREVIATIONS

NovTSup NPNF1 NRSV NS NTAbh NTD NTL NTOA NTS Num. Num. Rab. Od. [Oec.] OECS OECT OLA Opif. Or. OrChrAn OTL OTP Peregr. PG PGL PGM Plut. Pol. Pol. Phil. Post. P.Oxy. Praem. Praep. ev. Prob. Protr. PRSt Pss. Sol. PTS Pyth. orac. QE QG R&T RBS Rect. rat. aud.

XV

Supplements to Novum Testamentum The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 14 vols. 1886–1889. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. New Revised Standard Version New Series Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Library Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Plutarch, Numa Numbers Rabbah Homer, Odyssea Ps.-Aristotle, Oeconomica Oxford Early Christian Studies Oxford Early Christian Texts Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Philo, De opificio mundi Dio Chrysostom, Oration Orientalia Christiana Analecta Old Testament Library Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Lucian, De morte Peregrini Patrologia Graeca [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca]. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Patristic Greek Lexicon. Edited by Geoffrey W. H. Lampe. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by Karl Preisendanz. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–1974. Aristophanes, Plutus Aristotle, Politica Polycarp, To the Philippians Philo, De posteritate Caini Oxyrhynchus papyri Philo, De praemiis et poenis Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit Aristotle, Protrepticus Perspectives in Religious Studies Psalms of Solomon Patristische Texte und Studien Plutarch, De Pythiae oraculis Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin Religion and Theology Resources for Biblical Study Plutarch, De recta ratione audiendi

XVI

ABBREVIATIONS

[Reg. imp. apophth.] Plutarch, Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata Res. Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis Resp. Plato, Respublica ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevQ Revue de Qumran RGRW Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Rhet. Aristotle, Rhetorica [Rhet.] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ars rhetorica RNT Regensburger Neues Testament RSV Revised Standard Version RVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten Sacr. Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini Sanh. Sanhedrin Sat. Juvenal, Satirae SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies Seb. Shevi’it SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles SIG Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by Wilhelm Dittenberger. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1915–1924. SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sobr. Philo, De sobrietate Somn. Philo, De somniis SP Sacra Pagina Spec. Philo, De specialibus legibus ST Studia Theologica StudBib Studia Biblica SubBi Subsidia Biblica SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Hans Friedrich August von Arnim. 4 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1924. SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigraphica SymS Symposium Series Syr. d. Lucian, De syria dea t. Tosefta T. Job Testament of Job T. Jud. Testament of Judah T. Levi Testament of Levi T. Naph. Testament of Naphtali T. Reu. Testament of Reuben TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2018.

ABBREVIATIONS

THKNT Tib. TLG TNTC TS TSAJ TUGAL TWNT TynBul TZ UBS5 VCS Vict. Virt. VT VTSup WBC WGRW WTJ WUNT WW y. Yebam. ZAW ZECNT ZNW

XVII

Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Suetonius, Tiberius Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. Edited by Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Texts and Studies Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–1979. Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 5th ed. Variorum Collected Studies Hippocrates, De victu (Περὶ διαίτης) Philo, De virtutibus Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Writings from the Greco-Roman World Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word and World Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

1 INTRODUCTION

This Festschift honors Troy W. Martin for his illustrious (and ongoing) career as a biblical scholar and professor. We were pleased to surprise Troy with the announcement of this project at the 2018 Midwest Region meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Oriental Society at Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana. This occurred just weeks before his sixty-fifth birthday and just minutes after he delivered a keynote address as our SBL Regional Spotlight speaker, a slot that honors outstanding senior scholars in the area. We are deeply indebted to Sheryl Martin, Troy’s wife, for her abundant assistance with this endeavor at various stages. Also, we are grateful to Paul Peeters and Joseph Verheyden for their enthusiasm for this project that made possible its publication in the Biblical Tools and Studies series. Often a Festschrift is a celebratory volume of essays written by students in honor of their beloved graduate school advisor and doctoral dissertation director. Sometimes, however, circumstances demand that admirers of a different sort come together to honor someone to whom they are deeply indebted in other ways. Troy W. Martin is the kind of person who prompts this second sort of response. Troy has invested his career teaching in an undergraduate setting, nurturing young scholars in a different but equally vital context, even if relatively few follow their mentor into the vocation of academic biblical studies. Yet Troy has powerfully and positively shaped lives and careers of multitudes of biblical scholars in countless ways. The contributors to this volume represent scores of others who have learned much from Troy about things like rhetoric, Paul and 1 Peter, and even obscure ancient medical texts. But we are equally (or even more) grateful for how he encourages us in our own academic and broader life pursuits; devotes great amounts of his time and effort to establish, strengthen, and in some cases even rescue endeavors that provide so many opportunities for others; and how he models what it means to be an outstanding scholar and a genuinely good, warm, decent person whom we are all proud to call – to echo his own characteristic term – our friend.

2

E. F. MASON – M. F. WHITTERS

The title of this Festschrift is “With Gentleness and Respect”: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin. The opening phrase comes from 1 Pet 3:16, and “with gentleness and respect” captures eloquently Troy’s own demeanor. As such, it serves as a fitting title for a book in his honor. The volume opens and closes with direct tributes to Troy as a person and as a scholar. The first chapter is a biographical treatment titled “Troy W. Martin: Soul of a Scholar, Heart of a Shepherd.” It is coauthored by Avis Clendenen, Troy’s long-time colleague and collaborator at Saint Xavier University in Chicago, and Jenny L. DeVivo, who studied there with Troy as an undergraduate and now has followed him into the academic vocation as a scholar of Petrine literature. (Najeeb T. Haddad, another former undergraduate student of Troy at Saint Xavier who recently completed his doctoral work on Paul, has assisted with the indices for this volume.) The concluding chapter, by Teresa J. Calpino, testifies to Troy’s voluminous scholarly publications and influence. It is titled “The Writings of Troy W. Martin: An Annotated Bibliography, 1989–2019.” In between, sixteen articles address topics in texts central to Troy’s own scholarly interests in the Pauline literature and 1 Peter. The first six articles concern Galatians and Romans. David E. Aune explores “Recent Research on the Rhetorical Analysis of Galatians.” Starting with Richard Longenecker’s analysis of the pioneering work of Hans Dieter Betz and George Kennedy, Aune considers the strengths and weaknesses of eleven interpreters of Galatians who have approached the book via rhetorical criticism since the year 2000. He concludes that these interpretations often advocate for an “all or nothing” approach to rhetorical criticism instead of a more careful and thoughtful use of the theory. Next, A. Andrew Das argues in “The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians 1:10 – Persuading God” that Paul confronts the Galatians in 1:10 with a high-stakes decision: will they heed him or his opponents? If Paul cannot “persuade” his recipients to follow him, then he will persuade God to enforce the curse that he had invoked (Gal 1:9). Curse rituals – potent rhetoric in the ancient contexts – seek to move the deity to act. Das thus parts company with most modern interpretations that suggest that pleasing God and people is what Paul means in this context. P. Richard Choi explores crucifixion as a public sociological event in “Holding Up the Old Self to Mockery: A Study of Crucifixion and Shame in Romans 6:1–6.” When Paul uses the crucifixion as a metaphor for baptism and conversion, according to Choi, it implies that believers can so objectify their former (sinful) lives that they despise and scorn what they once were. This psychological space allows them to achieve victory over sin and death. No wonder then that the cross is Paul’s “boast.”

INTRODUCTION

3

Laurie J. Braaten addresses a timely issue in his article titled “Earth’s Cry and Travail: Habakkuk’s Other Influences on Romans.” Braaten suggests that interpreters have traditionally overlooked the parallels in the prophetic text and the epistle that make Earth and humanity partners in the divine economy. Noticing Paul’s use of Habakkuk in Rom 1:17, he suggests that Rom 8:22 (“all creation groans and suffers labor pains together”) also echoes Habakkuk’s message and provides a summary of the whole letter’s concern for the Earth and its resources. The article by Mark F. Whitters titled “A Samaritan Background for Paul’s Letter to the Romans?” raises a contextual question: Even though the Samaritans were present in many New Testament documents, why is there no mention of them in Paul’s letters? Whitters contends that Paul makes use of literary interpretive traditions about the Samaritans when he addresses the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in Rom 9–11. Besides two specific passages (Rom 9:25–26 and 10:19–20) that served as standard prooftexts for argumentation in earlier generations, Whitters offers a historical context for the relevance of the Jewish-Samaritan controversy in first-century Rome. He proposes that the Jewish-Samaritan discourse supplied a language for Paul’s discussion of Jews and Gentiles. Finally, in “Wine Abstinence in Romans 14:21 and Ancient Jewish Dietary Practice,” Charles H. Cosgrove raises the question of why the “weak” of Rom 14 refuse to drink wine. After considering evidence from several Second Temple period Jewish sources, from others in the first century world, and from the rabbis, he concludes that the weak of Paul’s Romans audience adopt a Danielic model of abstinence from the rich food and wine of the gentiles to mark a religio-moral boundary. The next five articles address other Pauline texts and traditions. Christopher Forbes considers “Paul’s Critique of Rhetoric: ‘Mere Words’ and ‘Real Power’ in 1 Thessalonians 1:4–5, 1 Corinthians 1:17–2:5, and 1 Corinthians 4:18–21.” Forbes notes that even though Paul employed rhetorical techniques in his writings, his oft-repeated message about “mere words” and “real power” cannot be reduced to bare form and human discourse. Forbes instead asserts that Paul claims to have worked apostolic signs, wonders, and miracles to prove the effectiveness of his rhetorical discourse – even if such claims might cause discomfort for modern Pauline commentators. In “ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ as Sobriquet in the Undisputed Letters of Paul,” Clare K. Rothschild argues that Paul uses the term satan not to refer to a malevolent celestial power (as in much of Second Temple period Jewish literature and the New Testament Gospels) but instead to denote a human rival (in line with usage of similar language in Psalms). After reviewing the history of

4

E. F. MASON – M. F. WHITTERS

scholarship on Satan, use of the term in numerous literary fields, and especially its appearance in seven passages in the undisputed Pauline letters, she concludes that use of this sobriquet by Paul most likely is directed at his rival apostle Peter (and perhaps was echoed later in Mark 8:33). George Lyons makes a case for not taking sides in a perennial debate in his article titled “Moving Beyond the Impasse in the Debate about the Authorship of Ephesians.” He fears that when commentators take entrenched positions, they tend either to marginalize the canonical importance of Ephesians (for non-Pauline advocates) or to minimize the uniqueness of its ideas (for the pro-Pauline advocates). He argues instead that neutrality about this question best suits the inconclusive evidence – and forces the reader to grapple with the actual text. In “‘Paul,’ ‘Peter,’ and Slaves: Texts and Contexts,” Todd D. Still examines the several discussions of slaves and slavery that appear in both 1 Peter and the (undisputed and disputed) Pauline texts and concludes his study with a series of reflections about what the biblical authors do and do not say. While these texts provide the only New Testament voices about slavery and admittedly do offer more dignity and inclusion to slaves than other extant contemporary comments on their status, it remains true that the Pauline and Petrine authors – like scores of subsequent generations of their interpreters – fail to offer the explicit condemnation of the institution that modern readers might desire. In a similar vein, D. Francois Tolmie considers interpretation of Philemon in the writings of various early Christian fathers in his chapter titled “The Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter to Philemon: Can We Learn Anything from Early Christian Interpreters?” Tolmie surveys treatments of the letter in the writings of Ambrosiaster, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrus, noting especially the different ways they fill in the narrative “gaps” of Onesimus’s situation and their varying assessments of Paul’s rhetorical strategy. While some aspects of their interpretations seem problematic for modern readers, others deserve renewed consideration. The remaining five chapters address issues in the interpretation of 1 Peter. Duane F. Watson brings a social-scientific approach to the epistle in “The Body and Abuse, Power and Submission, Honor and Shame: Imitating Christ and Articulating the Gospel in 1 Peter.” Watson proposes that the author seeks to “clarify honor and shame based on the teaching and example of Christ,” as modeled in “the unique relationship of honor and shame within the Godhead and subsequently between the Godhead and humanity.” Watson explains how Jesus’s own experience of and response to suffering is presented

INTRODUCTION

5

as a model for slaves and wives in 1 Peter, but he also considers the challenges of reading this discussion in a modern cultural context. Nancy Pardee addresses 1 Peter’s numerous metaphors of birth, childhood, and familial relationships in her chapter titled “‘You Have Been Born Anew’: Philo and the Image of New Birth in 1 Peter.” She concludes that “the image of divine rebirth ([re-]begetting), accomplished via the ‘seed’ of God, delivered by the Word (Logos) of God, and resulting, ideally, in virtuous behavior, is a representation of the Christian liminal experience influenced by Jewish Hellenistic philosophy as seen in Philo.” She also considers the broader context of birth (and related) language in a wide range of Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian texts. In “‘Fear God, Honor the Emperor’: Rhetoric and Philosophy in 1 Peter 2:13–17,” Russell B. Sisson examines the link between the civic and household responsibilities enjoined in the epistle. Sisson concludes that “the reason for accepting the authority of governing officials and honoring the emperor is not primarily apologetic, that is, to avoid arousing suspicions which might lead to persecution” but instead is “theological, in line with Jewish and Christian ideas about God’s ways of maintaining order in the world,” even if “it is presented in a form that closely parallels Stoic thinking about the well-being of souls, moral community, and social order.” Jenny L. DeVivo investigates how to understand the author’s conception of the flood (and its link to baptism) in her article titled “Waters of Salvation: 1 Peter 3:20–21.” She argues that ultimately the interpretative decision hinges on “the understanding of διά in the phrase δι᾽ ὕδατος and the idea of the flood as divine salvation.” DeVivo notes a great divide between scholars who read διά in an instrumental sense (thus salvation through or by means of water) and those who find instead a locative sense (through the destructive water, such that salvation instead comes via the ark), and she perceives that interpretative decisions on this matter sometimes are dictated by theological presuppositions. DeVivo concludes with a defense of the instrumental approach. Finally, Eric F. Mason considers a different issue in the same passage in “The ‘Conscience’ Conundrum of 1 Peter 3:21 — Insights from the Epistle to the Hebrews?” The phrase ἀλλά συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν in 1 Pet 3:21 presents three major interpretive issues: (a) how to understand the word usually translated as “conscience”; (b) whether baptism is understood as an “appeal” or else as a “pledge” made by the believer; and (c) whether this act is the product of a “good conscience” or something done in order to obtain one. Mason notes that numerous interpreters appeal to

6

E. F. MASON – M. F. WHITTERS

passages in Heb 9–10 for illumination of this passage in 1 Peter, and he considers the potential implications of such for interpretative issues. With this volume we wish to express our deep appreciation to our friend Troy W. Martin for the many ways he has been a blessing to us. Judson University Eastern Michigan University

Eric F. MASON Mark F. WHITTERS

2 TROY W. MARTIN: SOUL OF A SCHOLAR, HEART OF A SHEPHERD

A scholarly Festschrift honors a person with a highly productive, stellar career. This kind of “celebratory volume” brings together notable academics whose own careers influenced or were influenced by the honoree. The introductions to such volumes often provide only a brief foray into the wider life beyond scholarly productivity of the one being honored, but this Festschrift dedicates a chapter whose single purpose is to explore the character and qualities of Troy Wayne Martin. The following reflections arise from a faculty colleague, Avis Clendenen, and a former student (and now also colleague), Jenny L. DeVivo. We have consulted with each other, other colleagues, former students, and Troy’s family in composing these reflections about the man behind the lifework being celebrated through this Festschrift. We hope our efforts contribute a special dimension to this volume in Troy’s honor. The editors’ invitation for a biographical introduction from our personal perspective demonstrates that this volume intends to celebrate multiple facets of Troy’s career. The challenge in memoir-like writing is to avoid a sentimentalism that borders on eulogy. Mark F. Whitters shares with us that it would be difficult to discuss Troy’s character and accomplishments without inadvertently promoting Troy’s canonization! The aim of this chapter, then, is neither eulogy nor canonization, but a more humble effort to provide a flavorful seasoning for what is to follow in these rich pages of essays. We place Troy in his life’s broader context as teacher-scholar, mentor-friend, brother-churchman, and husband-father. These personal reflections about Troy arise from knowing him during his many years of service as a faculty member at Saint Xavier University in Chicago. We also include some reflections from his family members who provide the home and hearth wherein he produces such marvelous works.

8

A. CLENDENEN – J. L. DEVIVO

REFLECTIONS FROM

A

COLLEAGUE

My collegial relationship with Troy spans a quarter century. We have both spent the majority of our academic careers as colleagues in the Religious Studies department at Saint Xavier University in Chicago. Troy anchors the Bible courses within the Religious Studies curriculum and I developed the practical theology sequence. Troy’s academic interests and scholarly agenda have always been hermeneutically technical, my interests and contributions more ministerial. Troy’s life is shaped by a continuous connection and commitment to Protestant Christianity. He is an ordained Church of the Nazarene minister and elder within his community of faith. His west Texas roots are revealed by his accent, Southern gentlemanliness, and outdoorsy, fix-it style. I locate myself on the more progressive, feminist continuum of Roman Catholicism. For a number of years I was a member of the women’s religious community, the Sisters of Mercy, that founded and sponsors Saint Xavier University. Troy has been happily married to Sheryl for more than forty years. Together they raised two daughters, and now as grandparents they can testify to the lessons learned from the joys and sufferings that flow from their call to married love. All of this is to say that there is every reason that Troy and I might not have connected, every reason to imagine that differences in background, interests, lifestyle, politics, religious denomination, and more might have shaped a cordial albeit superficial relationship as colleagues. Preparing these reflections provided an opportunity to explore why we became academic collaborators, project partners, coauthors, team teachers, co-ministers, and friends. I am convinced that it has something to do with his integration of intellectual drive and focus as a biblical scholar with the heart of a shepherd. Hermeneutical quests sharpened his interpretive skills and never dampened his conviction that the ancient Word is ever new. In that sense Troy Martin, the meticulous scholar of New Testament studies, is also Troy Martin, the tender pastor who genuinely cares how his scholarly work impacts the experience of the faith. I came to this conviction about Troy long ago and put it in writing weeks before receiving the following reflection from his daughter Amie: “What I’m really proud of is that my father has the heart of a pastor. In all of his studies, he passionately seeks to discover how his research can benefit the church and lives of everyday people.” Chuck Gibson, a longtime friend in the Martins’ local congregation, speaks similarly: “When I think of how to describe Troy, the first word that comes to mind is ‘Christian.’ Not a nominal Christian who accepts conventional precepts of Christianity, but a Christian who seeks the real truths of the Bible and holds himself to them.”

TROY W. MARTIN: SOUL OF A SCHOLAR, HEART OF A SHEPHERD

9

It has been said that when Pope John XXIII was asked why he took on the monumental task of bringing the Roman Catholic Church into the modern era through the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, he simply replied that he wanted to make the human sojourn on earth a little less sad. Troy moves within this dynamic as well. A review of his monumental scholarly undertakings leaves a certain breathlessness about the commitment to study ancient medical texts or the long-suffering labors required to interpret arcane passages in the New Testament. In the forty years that Gibson has known Troy, he is impressed that Troy’s pursuit of a first-century perspective is not an abstract intellectual exercise. Gibson notes, To understand clearly and fully what the Bible actually says is to understand God’s ongoing revelation to us and how it impacts our lives. Questions such as, “What would the first-century person have understood when a specific verb was used?” “How does a root Greek word properly translate into English, and how does this enhance our understanding of what was said?” To Troy these apparently academic exercises are a search for the truth contained in the Bible.

With equal enthusiasm and precision of research, Troy moves from ancient text to issues in our time. Taking on the perplexing issues of fractured relationships, the quest for a forgiveness that heals, narcissism and abuse in the experience of Christian marriage today, he has produced articles, books, and YouTube videos with the same verve for truth and Christian hope. For Troy, probing an ancient text or puzzling over a postmodern human dilemma are realities cut from the same cloth. These avenues of inquiry and productivity are indeed aimed at making the human sojourn on earth less sad and, oh, so interesting. Troy possesses a rare integration of scholarly precision and pastoral application and offers an elegant witness to the possibility of the combination of such sensitivities for other biblical exegetes, theologians, teachers, colleagues, scholars, friends, sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers. In short, the great pioneer of depth psychology, Carl Jung, believed that each human personality is seeded with the potential to become an integrated – individuated – self in such a way that one can experience becoming a wise old man and a wise old woman.1 A mapping of Troy’s journey suggests to me that he is on 1. As we mature, each woman or man holds the potential to integrate fully as a human personality in such a way that the feminine within the masculine personality and the masculine within the feminine personality develop to create in each of us, whether woman or man, an integration of the opposite. Individuation is about becoming whole. Sadly, this is far too rare an occurrence in human experience. Wisdom is a longed-for attribute and becomes especially available in old age. To say that Troy is becoming “a wise old man and wise old woman” is to celebrate wise ways of being truly a whole person. It is the highest of compliments in an era when there is so much fragmentation and distortion in our quest for human wholeness.

10

A. CLENDENEN – J. L. DEVIVO

the trajectory to become a wise old man and a wise old woman. Troy takes seriously Paul’s charge to the community at Corinth, “show that you are a letter of Christ … written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor 3:3 NRSV). This capacity to tackle a problem with heart and to take on the task with verve – without losing the human touch – is why his wife Sheryl comments, When you ask this wife to reflect on the character of her faithful husband of forty-plus years, you are in for a memory-filled, emotional journey! Just thinking about who Troy is, what shaped him, who influenced him, who inspired him, and how he has become to be the man and scholar he is today brings me to tears … tears of gratitude, faith, love, perseverance, and hope.

She goes on to reflect: If he sees a problem in our family, he immediately goes to work on how to resolve that problem. He will research, think all day, stay up at night, talk to others, or do whatever it takes to come up with some reasonable solution. Our girls and I know that if we have a problem, Troy will not rest until he helps us come up with some reasonable solution together. I have seen this “fixer” characteristic in Troy a thousand times over when it comes to a problem in Scripture. When he encounters a word, a phrase, or a passage of Scripture that doesn’t make sense, he will not rest until he finds a reasonable explanation. That is why when I wake up in the middle of the night, and he is not next to me, I know he is in his office working on yet another unrelenting problem with the text. I am convinced that his only true rest will come when he enters God’s heavenly kingdom and sits at the feet of Jesus to continue his questioning!

There is a congruency in Troy that enables these personal disclosures to fit and form an appropriate biographical tribute in such a scholarly volume. In addition to my own experience of Troy, I have observed his interactions and interventions as a member of the academic community over the course of many years. While Jenny DeVivo will identify ways in which Troy contributed to the growth and sustenance of the Midwest Region Society of Biblical Literature and the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, a few words on how Troy’s exegetical training has impacted university faculty life is worth noting. I sometimes think that Troy’s textual work with Paul’s letters in analyzing the rifts and rivalries of those early Christian communities uniquely prepared him for academic citizenry in the postmodern American academy! His capacity to dissect disputes, identify polemics, demand evidence, expect authenticity, interrogate the circumstances, relish the rhetorically persuasive, face puzzling problems, and sympathize with the audience are trademark Dr. Troy Martin. And, then importantly, he is conscious to display a manner and tone in speaking so as to avoid the harshness that leaves hearts cold. While a gifted

TROY W. MARTIN: SOUL OF A SCHOLAR, HEART OF A SHEPHERD

11

preacher, Troy is not inclined to make the mistake that a faculty gathering is an ecclesial moment, even within the context of a faith-based university. He does not fall prey to preaching an argument in an academic setting. He can argue a point without any sense of didactic imposition or demeaning the other. When challenged, Troy will thoughtfully consider how his words, no matter how logical, may have landed wrongly and admit his part in a collegial misunderstanding. Colleagues in the academy refer to him as a “stand-up guy” in terms of his intellectual honesty and integrity, even at the cost of resultant personal hardship. Many of his colleagues admire these qualities and how he holds himself to a standard of discourse and professionalism so needed amid the incivilities and coarseness that mark and mar the academy in our time. Those who know him well marvel that the meticulous craftsman of textual interpretation is equally adept at installing a new kitchen countertop, fixing plumbing problems, or putting on a new roof. Troy’s daughter Amie reflects: As I grew, my father demonstrated with his very life the love that he taught me. I watched how he took time for anyone and everyone, regardless of their race or social status – the cashier at the grocery store, the clerk at the post office, and our elderly neighbors, to name just a few. Not only did he take time for people, he poured out his life for them. He mowed countless lawns, installed cabinets and whole kitchens, and taught Bible studies to average churchgoers. Nothing was ever beneath him, and he never asked for any compensation. In these ways, he is someone who not only teaches about Scripture, he embodies it.

There is a selfless generosity that is a hallmark of Troy’s character. He maintains personal and professional priorities that are not mutually exclusive, thereby nourishing authentic relationships in the midst of achieving tasks so essential to his lifework. Many find they need to pit one set of priorities against the other. This is not so with Troy, precisely because of his hard-won efforts at a more integrated way of living the many dimensions of his vocation. Sheryl comments, Time and time again, I have watched him drop what he was doing to help someone else. Whether it be counseling someone with a problem, installing a countertop for a friend, cutting firewood for someone who needs it, taking a friend grocery shopping, presiding over weddings or funerals, reviewing a book or article for a friend, or writing a letter of recommendation, Troy will consistently give of his time to help others.

How many fathers would long to hear the following from a daughter? Andrea reflects: I could understand there was something different about him, but didn’t realize the far-reaching effects of his talents, abilities, and personality until I was much

12

A. CLENDENEN – J. L. DEVIVO

older. My understanding of his effect on others deepened dramatically when Dad walked through the darkest and most complicated time of life with me. His grace, love, advice, encouragement, and research to understand and articulate my situation saved my life. When I think back about all the time I was missing him during my childhood when he was working, studying, and counseling others, he was, I think, unknowingly preparing to save his daughter’s life. I had finally experienced what many others experienced with Troy W. Martin, and I was and always will be so thankful and proud to call him my dad.

Both of Troy’s siblings, his sisters Pam and Susan, highlight Troy’s response to their father’s unexpected and debilitating cerebral hemorrhage in 1980 as a transformational time for their family. Pam remembers of that time, “It was as if we had all fallen into quicksand and the harder we tried to get out, the stronger the hold the quicksand had on us.” Susan recounts that Troy’s immediate response was to withdraw from his life as a young pastor, move his family back to the small town of Seagraves, farm the land, and save the crops. It is this witness to focused commitment and unswerving loyalties that showed the way out of the quicksand. Susan identifies Troy Wayne’s compassionate action as having an enormous influence on the remainder of her life. She remarks, “I was just fourteen years old when illness struck our family and forever changed the course of all of our lives. I will always be grateful for Troy’s sacrifice for our family.” A lighter family story that has become a Martin legend takes place when Troy’s daughters were young and Troy was on carpool duty one day. He overheard the backseat chatter among a number of young girls settle on what their respective fathers did for a living. Troy’s daughter Amie chimed in that her father was a doctor. Animated conversation ensued until Amie felt the need to offer further clarification, “Oh, no, not that kind of doctor. My dad is the kind of doctor that doesn’t help anyone.” Clearly this has not been the case with Dr. Troy Martin, who indeed has been and is a doctor who does help and even heal others. These reflections and the ones to follow are about the man behind the myriad of words produced over decades. This is Troy as we know him. The legendary Hebrew Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann remarked once that one ought never to leave the text without wrenching a blessing from it.2 In our struggle not to eulogize or canonize, it remains truthful to say that Troy Wayne Martin has imbibed the sacred scrolls and embodies the living text from which we have wrenched blessing upon blessing.

2. Walter Brueggemann, Awed to Heaven, Rooted in Earth: Prayers of Walter Brueggemann (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 81.

TROY W. MARTIN: SOUL OF A SCHOLAR, HEART OF A SHEPHERD

13

REFLECTIONS FROM A FORMER STUDENT Fred Craddock, one of the most influential preachers in the last half century, is often credited with the statement that he initially envisioned that his call to ministry would play out as a magnificent, $100 bill kind of experience. There would be one great moment when he would be called upon to give it all for Jesus. In time he realized his call was really about the quotidian mundanity of studying, preaching, lecturing, meetings, and other unremarkable events. He realized that he needed to take the $100 bill to the bank and cash it in for quarters. He returned the $100 to God in quarters, here and there in little, ordinary measures of faithfulness.3 This is what Troy does in his work, although God gave Troy much more than $100, because he returned four hundred quarters long ago. Troy spent several dollars in quarters on me. I met him when I was an eighteen-yearold undergraduate majoring in Religious Studies at Saint Xavier University. I would often stop by his office to talk, and whether or not this was during posted office hours, I do not think I ever noticed. Despite the enormous load of work I now understand he had waiting, he would be patient, welcoming, and kind as I voiced my musings and questions on the Bible, God, living a Christian life, and chatting about anything else on my mind. Troy was my first and only professor of the Bible during my undergraduate studies at Saint Xavier. In the beginning I knew nothing more about the Bible other than how to find a passage. I quickly became fascinated by the Bible and began to see that there were countless layers to consider and each one had a different way of illuminating the text. Although Troy’s formal obligations to me as a student ended with my undergraduate degree completion, he has continued to help me grow as a scholar. From the time I began attending national and regional academic conferences, Troy has been sure to introduce me to everyone he knows and tells them about my research interests so that my network would expand. On the morning of my doctoral defense, Troy met me at the door, leaving his house at 7:00 a.m. and driving more than sixty-five miles to be sure he was there on time for my 10:30 a.m. defense. After my director declared my defense successful, Troy congratulated me with a hug and handed me several sheets of notes with suggestions about 3. Variations of this story attributed to Craddock appear in numerous sermons posted online, sometimes with a $100 bill and at other times a $1000 bill. Unfortunately we have found no online sermon that cites a printed source for this exact statement. A similar story, however, may be found in Fred B. Craddock, Craddock Stories, ed. Mike Graves and Richard F. Ward (St. Louis: Chalice, 2001), 155. We are indebted to Rev. Gregory P. Lucas for this reference.

14

A. CLENDENEN – J. L. DEVIVO

ways to strengthen various arguments, further points of consideration, and the name of someone to contact regarding publishing my dissertation. Despite his gentleness and patience, Troy’s students learn very quickly that his Bible classes are not easily dismissible. His multiple-choice questions at first glance appear easy until one gazes at the ten options for each answer. The Saint Xavier student newspaper, “The Xavierite,” once featured a oneframe cartoon of a student taking one of Troy’s tests with a thought bubble showing options A–J! As if the test options were not enough of a challenge to ensure one really knew the material, papers were graded as exactingly as a laser beam. His handwritten responses on the paper included challenges to logic, punctiliousness of research, and grammar. Every grammatical error received a deduction and an explanation of the error. No deduction was ever subjective, and any attempt to regain points was futile. No English professor demands the precision of grammar, style, and research that Troy expects. Such rigor and exactitude would take most professors days of grading, but every paper was assessed and returned by the next class meeting. On such occasions Troy had grading marathons. Early one morning I went to look for him in his office. As I was walking down the hall, he spotted me and said, “Oh, good morning, Jenny.” I turned around to see him leaving the bathroom at the end of the hall, wearing a robe and carrying his toothbrush! He would stay up long into the night grading and then sleep for a few hours on his office floor. Without any irony he would express that he was so grateful when the university carpeted the floors! The author of the Gospel of Matthew writes that the “greatest among you will be your servant” (23:11 NRSV). I do think this describes Troy well; he is one of the finest human beings I have ever met, and people with whom I have spoken about Troy agree. His friend and fellow biblical scholar Holly Hearon says that “Troy is one of the most gracious and generous people I have ever had the pleasure to know.” She adds that the sum of her experiences with Troy “leaves me grateful for knowing Troy and well convinced that he is worthy of being honored by his colleagues.” If greatness can be measured by service, Troy’s more than forty-page curriculum vitae indicates the incredible amount of service he has provided to the scholarly guild. The amount of service on his CV is epochal, but Troy has given much more service than could be listed in such a medium. His colleagues and friends know he provides much more service in friendship, collegial encouragement, and advice. Of all the adjectives that could be used to describe Troy, trendy is not one of them. Lowell Handy, another biblical scholar and friend, says “Troy

TROY W. MARTIN: SOUL OF A SCHOLAR, HEART OF A SHEPHERD

15

has always been very concerned about doing serious text-oriented research, which flows in and out of fashion in our field. His dedication to maintaining high-quality research despite pressure in the field to go with the current ‘in’ thing should be commended.” This does not mean that Troy is unwilling to consider new ideas, methods, or is using obsolete methods. “Troy has had a fairly wide-ranging latitude on approaches and conclusions that he welcomes and supports in research. The capacity for tolerance of conflicting factions has been, for me at least, a mark of a real scholar.” The Chicago Society of Biblical Research (CSBR) is greatly indebted to Troy. He served as the treasurer from 1995 until 2000 and as president in 2006–2007, but the society is particularly appreciative to him for his work as editor of its venerable journal Biblical Research. Not only did Troy work tirelessly to publish a backlog of issues, but he also arranged for the journal to be digitized with ATLASerials, providing the CSBR with additional revenue and allowing contributors’ excellent work to be accessible to a wider community of scholars online and around the world. The sixtieth volume of Biblical Research, dated 2015, was Troy’s last as editor. He laid the groundwork to get the journal up-to-date on its publication schedule, digitized it, increased its public exposure, and stabilized it before imparting the editorial responsibilities to others. For this he was honored by CSBR in 2017 as the journal’s first editor emeritus. Troy’s encouragement of colleagues and mentoring of new scholars has also shown itself in the Midwest Region Society of Biblical Literature. In addition to serving as the regional coordinator (2000–2004), vice president (2004–2006), and president (2006–2008), his advice, guidance, and decisions made during his years of leadership were significant in fostering the growth and future of the regional organization, which eventually had the largest SBL attendance and programming of the society’s eleven regions in North America. In 2007 Troy (in conjunction with other regional leaders) inaugurated the Student Religious Studies Conference (SRSC) in order to encourage development of the next generation of biblical scholars. It is an invaluable opportunity for undergraduate, seminary, master’s, and pre-dissertation doctoral students to participate actively in a regional conference in the supportive context of their peers and academic mentors. The conference takes place before the Midwest Region SBL conference begins and remains the only one of its kind among the regions of the SBL. The SRSC is a tangible example of the mentoring and encouragement Troy gives to new scholars and longtime colleagues. He encourages participation at conferences, gives publishing advice, reports job postings to those

16

A. CLENDENEN – J. L. DEVIVO

who are looking for employment, provides guidance regarding professional growth as a scholar, and offers encouragement about how someone’s research might be expanded into a larger work. Dinner at the Martins’ home is a fond annual tradition for leaders and invited speakers of the Midwest Region SBL meeting whenever we meet in Bourbonnais, Illinois. Troy and Sheryl cook dinner and open their home to receive a growing number of guests. In 2016 there were three large tables and at least thirty people present, each one welcomed as if a dear old friend and guest of honor. Over the years I have learned that there is no need to ask permission to bring extra guests – just give them the address and the time, and send them to the Martins’ home. In 2016 I brought four undergraduates from my former university to the SRSC. I introduced my students to Troy, and in the same breath as, “Nice to meet you,” he invited all four of them to that evening’s dinner. There is always room and an abundance of food, warmth, and welcome to all who are blessed to be guests at his table. These dinners provide an illustration of the person Troy is in every aspect of his life. Whether meeting an old friend of many decades or someone brand new to him, Troy’s generosity of heart, capacity for welcome, and warmth of friendship are true to his authentic personality. From the time I met Troy in 1995, he has always concluded his emails, “Your friend, Troy.” Troy, all of us who contributed to this volume claim you as a friend, and our lives have been vastly enriched by your friendship. Thank you.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS From his birth in Seminole, Texas, in 1953, son of Troy Sibbley and La Valta Ruth Martin, Troy Wayne Martin can look back with satisfaction on what he has accomplished and how he helped others accomplish their goals. A meticulous scholar with a pastoral heart: this is a volume in his honor. Let us all wrench a blessing from such a life! emerita, Saint Xavier University Saint Xavier University

Avis CLENDENEN Jenny L. DEVIVO

GALATIANS AND ROMANS

3 RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

The 1980s and 1990s were a fertile period for the development of new critical approaches to the interpretation of the biblical text. One of these newer methods, rhetorical criticism, was introduced by Hans Dieter Betz and George A. Kennedy. It has had a widely influential impact on New Testament epistolary literature, particularly in the United States. Betz, a New Testament scholar, introduced the method to scholarship through his influential commentary on Galatians,1 while Kennedy, a classicist and specialist in GrecoRoman rhetoric, produced the first introduction to the rhetorical critical method.2 There are, of course, many other scholars who have had great influence in the theory, shape and development of types of rhetorical criticism, including Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Vernon Robbins, and Wilhelm Wuellner.3

1. Hans Dieter Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975): 352–79; and Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). For a summary of the influence of Betz on the rhetorical criticism of the New Testament, see Troy W. Martin, “Hans Dieter Betz: Ur-Ancestor of New Testament Rhetorical Criticism,” in Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism, ed. Troy W. Martin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 13–43. For introductions to various developments and applications of rhetorical criticism, see the following: Duane Watson and A. J. Heuser, eds., Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method, BibInt 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Duane Watson, The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographical Survey (Dorset, UK: Deo, 2006); Mark Nanos, ed., The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2002); Troy W. Martin, ed., Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014). 2. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). For a discussion of Kennedy’s influence, see C. Clifton Black, “Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism: The Kennedy Family,” in Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism, ed. Troy W. Martin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 51–78. 3. The work of these three scholars, along with that of Betz and Kennedy, is discussed in Martin, Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism.

20

D. E. AUNE

In this essay, written in honor of my esteemed colleague and friend Troy Martin, I would like to explore the impact of rhetorical criticism on the study of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians from ca. 2000 to 2015. In general, rhetorical criticism has seemed to me to be on the wane in New Testament studies, and this essay is an attempt to evaluate how that critical method has been used more recently on Galatians, the one letter in the New Testament subject to more rhetorical criticism than any other letter. While this essay is not per se a review of rhetorical criticism as used by Betz, I thought it useful to begin with a succinct section on the positive and negative receptions of his work after thirty years in the view of Richard N. Longenecker, a scholar who himself has produced a rhetorical-critical commentary on Galatians.4 Following that section I have included a lengthy discussion on recent commentaries on Galatians as well as monographs on the rhetoric of Galatians from ca. 2000 to 2015. While this section makes no attempt to be complete, it does function as a relatively representative sample of how New Testament scholars have confronted the challenge of the rhetorical analysis of Galatians. LONGENECKER’S EVALUATION OF BETZ ON GALATIANS In Longenecker’s 2009 essay evaluating Betz’s commentary on Galatians after thirty years, he first begins with a section on what Betz has taught New Testament scholars: (1) Betz has taught New Testament scholars the importance of the formal features and compositional structures of New Testament letters; (2) Betz has directed attention to the importance of the literary, cultural, and rhetorical environments of the Greco-Roman world for biblical interpretation; and (3) Betz has emphasized the importance of Greco-Roman diachronic rhetorical features.5 Longenecker elaborates on the last point: As influenced by Heinrich Lausberg’s analyses and classifications of classical rhetoric, Hans Dieter Betz argued that Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is best understood in terms of forensic or judicial rhetoric. Building on his earlier studies of classical rhetoric, George Kennedy composed various paradigmatic studies for the application of classical rhetorical conventions to the writings of

4. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990). 5. Richard N. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary and a Retrospective Word of Commendation with Some Criticisms, Thirty Years after the Commentary’s Publication,” BR 54 (2009): 11–23.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

21

the NT and proposed contra Betz that Galatians and many other NT letters must be understood in terms of deliberative or advising rhetoric.6

Despite the widespread influence of Betz’s commentary, Longenecker maintains that the modern study of rhetoric in relation to the analysis of New Testament literature is still in its infancy.7 From the perspective of Betz, Galatians is an apologetic letter closely conforming to the genre of forensic rhetoric, a type of diachronic rhetoric addressed to a jury or a judge to defend or accuse someone with regard to certain past actions. However, in Longenecker’s judgment, Betz’s attempt to interpret all of Galatians in terms of forensic rhetoric is not completely successful. His thesis does work well for the first two chapters of Galatians, where Paul accuses his opponents of perverting the gospel (1:7) and then defends himself against their charges (1:10). Paul’s heated denials in these chapters (1:1, 11–12, 16–17, 19–20, 22; 2:5, 6, 17, 21) indicate that the imagery of a judicial proceeding is an appropriate way of understanding this section of Paul’s argument.8 Longenecker quotes me in defense of the view that there was a mixing of rhetorical genres in antiquity: Aune has aptly pointed out that an eclectic use of these types and categories occurred frequently among the orators and authors of the day and that a mixing of the rhetorical genres and modes of persuasion often took place among orators trying to carry out their respective purposes in addressing various audiences.9

Another major criticism that Longenecker raises against Betz’s treatment of Galatians is that Betz uses parallels from Greek and Roman rhetoric in a strictly genealogical way without considering their use in other types of Greek and Roman literature nor conceding that their appearance in Galatians is analogical rather than strictly genealogical in character.10 Finally, Longenecker denies that Betz’s claim that Galatians can be seen in its entirety as an example of Greco-Roman forensic rhetoric. I am much more opposed to viewing Galatians as an example of Greco-Roman deliberative rhetoric as Kennedy does, largely because of the letter’s climactic exhortatio in 5:1–6:10.11

6. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary,” 15. 7. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary,” 16. 8. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary,” 17. 9. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary,” 17, referring to David E. Aune, “Rhetorical Genres,” in The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 419–20. 10. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary,” 18. 11. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary,” 19.

22

D. E. AUNE

RECENT COMMENTARIES

AND

RHETORICAL ANALYSES OF GALATIANS

One way of gauging the impact that rhetorical criticism has had on New Testament scholarship more recently is by considering its role in commentaries on Galatians and monograph-length discussions of the rhetoric of Galatians that have appeared since 2000. It must be admitted that most of these commentaries, whether originating in the United States or Europe, show little enthusiasm for the emphasis on the rhetorical criticism of Galatians reflected in the influential commentary by Betz and those who saw the interpretive value of the method such as Longenecker.12 By 2000 the initial interest in the kind of rhetorical criticism advocated by Betz and Kennedy had cooled off considerably. Richard B. Hays (2000) In the introduction to his extensive commentary on Galatians in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Richard B. Hays includes a section entitled “Galatians as Deliberative Rhetoric.”13 He maintains that any educated person in Hellenistic antiquity, including Paul, would have received training in how to structure a speech in order to influence an audience. After briefly referring to Betz’s proposal that Galatians should be read as an “apologetic letter,” he goes on to observe that “there is an emerging consensus that the rhetorical genre of Galatians is not primarily judicial but deliberative; it belongs to a category of rhetoric whose aim is to persuade the audience to follow a certain course of action.”14 Hays maintains, however, that Paul was not slavishly following a rhetorical handbook, but rather used rhetorical strategies that “were simply in the air” of the culture in which Paul lived.15 Hays proposes an outline of Galatians that is very similar to those suggested by many other commentators: (1) The Letter Opening (1:1–10), (2) A Narrative Defense of Paul’s Gospel (1:11–2:21), (3) Counterarguments against the Rival Missionaries (3:1–5:1), (4) Pastoral Counsel to the Galatians (5:2–6:10), (5) Postscript: The Cross and New Creation (6:11–18).16 Hays maintains that Gal 1:11–12 is the thesis that Paul defends in Gal 1:13–

12. Longenecker, Galatians. 13. Richard B. Hays, “The Letter to the Galatians,” NIB 11:181–348. Hays discusses rhetoric on pp. 188–89. 14. Hays, “Galatians,” 11:188. 15. Hays, “Galatians,” 11:189. 16. Hays, “Galatians,” 11:199.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

23

2:21.17 In Hays’s view, the narrative should not therefore be read solely as a defense speech, since one of its important functions is that Paul is presenting himself as a model of how to live faithfully to God.18 A few brief critical comments are in order: (1) Hays claims that any educated person in Hellenistic antiquity would have been trained in how to structure a speech, that Paul himself was well-versed in such rhetorical matters, and that the rhetorical strategies used by Paul “were simply in the air” of the culture during that time.19 Was Paul trained in rhetoric or not? This is a debated issue in New Testament scholarship; some argue that Paul was indeed formally trained in rhetoric,20 while others take the polar opposite opinion and argue that he was not.21 (2) Hays claims that there is “an emerging consensus that the rhetorical genre of Galatians is not primarily judicial but deliberative.” While it is true that categorizing Galatians as a deliberative letter once was more broadly accepted than the apologetic letter category, it now appears to be acceptable to very few. (3) Hays maintains in the introduction to his commentary that Galatians is a deliberative letter, yet parts two and three are labeled with the very judicial-sounding phrases “a narrative defense” and “counterarguments against the rivals.” How do these sections cohere with the proposal that Galatians is a deliberative work? (4) Deliberative rhetoric has a structure widely agreed upon in the ancient world, but Hays never reveals what that structure is, nor does he connect it with the major structural divisions he finds in the letter. Dieter Kremendahl (2000) In Die Botschaft der Form: Zum Verhältnis von antike Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief, written at Marburg under the direction of Wolfgang 17. Hays, “Galatians,” 11:210. 18. Hays, “Galatians,” 11:213. 19. Hays, “Galatians,” 11:189. 20. Christopher Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” NTS 32 (1986): 1–30, esp. 22, 24; C. J. Classen, “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSup 90 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 265–91; C. J. Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, WUNT 128 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 29–44; Terrance Callan, “The Style of Galatians,” Bib 88 (2007): 496–516. 21. See, for example, three publications by Ryan S. Schellenberg: “τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου: Revisiting Patristic Testimony on Paul’s Rhetorical Education,” NovT 54 (2012): 354–68; “Rhetorical Terminology in Paul: A Critical Reappraisal,” ZNW 104 (2013): 177–91; and Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13, Early Christianity and Its Literature 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013).

24

D. E. AUNE

Harnisch, Dieter Kremendahl investigates the relationship between epistolography and rhetoric in Galatians, plausibly arguing that both approaches are essential for understanding the letter.22 In the lengthy first chapter, the author examines the distinctive epistolary features of Galatians. He identifies 5:2–6 and 6:11–15 as legal subscriptiones, reflecting the juridical character of the letter, a view he thinks is supported by an oath formula (1:20), the threat of punishment by a traditional curse (1:8–9) and blessing (6:16), and reference to a contractual agreement (2:7–8). In the second chapter, Kremendahl discusses the various possibilities for the genre of Galatians, concluding that it is an apologetic letter. Then he asks how two incompatible kinds of text, an apology and paraenesis, could be combined, an issue he discusses at great length in the third chapter. Kremendahl first discusses the rhetorical arrangement of Galatians: i.e., exordium (1:6–12), narratio (1:13–2:21), argumentatio (3:1–5:1), and paraenesis (5:13–6:10). He then argues that Galatians is actually a combination of two speeches combined in one letter. The first is an apologetic letter (1:6–5:6) containing an exordium (1:6–12), a narratio (1:13–2:21), and an argumentatio (3:1–5:1), followed by a peroratio (5:2–6). The second speech (5:7–6:17) consists of an exordium (5:7–12) and a section of paraenesis (5:13–6:10), followed by a peroratio (6:11–17). Kremendahl speculates that Paul ended the original letter with an autograph (originally the autograph at 6:11 was placed in 5:2). After a Diktierpause, Paul reread the letter and added a second speech (5:7–6:15) containing the paraenesis (5:13–6:10) as an epistolary postscript, the order of which cannot be analyzed rhetorically.23 While Kremendahl’s analysis is the only one of those considered that maintains the view of Betz that Galatians is an apologetic letter, he does so at too high a cost, basing the presence of the rhetorically challenging paraenesis in 5:13–6:10 on the entirely speculative scenario that demands in part a pause in dictation. Despite the fact that Kremendahl basically agrees with Betz that Galatians is essentially an apologetic letter, Betz himself was not impressed.24 22. Dieter Kremendahl, Die Botschaft der Form: Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief, NTOA 46 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). 23. See E. Stange, “Diktierpausen in den Paulusbriefen,” ZNW 18 (1917): 109–17. Since it would have taken Paul hours to compose each letter (e.g., Romans would have taken over eleven hours), he must have stopped dictating them several times depending on the length of the letter. Galatians is discussed on p. 115, and Stange thinks that a pause in dictation probably occurred at Gal 5:2. 24. Hans Dieter Betz, Review of Die Botschaft der Form: Zum Verhältnis von antike Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief, by Dieter Kremendahl, JTS 53 (2002): 238–41.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

25

Moisés Silva (1996, 2001) Interpreting Galatians, by Moisés Silva, is not a commentary per se, but rather a monograph on the language, literature, history, and theology of Galatians and their significance for exegesis.25 The second edition in 2001 is essentially a reprint of the first edition, with a few corrections and an appendix on Gal 3:6–14. In a review of the commentaries on Galatians by both Betz and F. F. Bruce published in 1983, Silva expresses a cautious appreciation for the former’s rhetorical analysis of Galatians: My initial reaction was one of considerable skepticism, since Galatians bears all the marks of an urgent, passionate letter.… As one works through the commentary, however, it is difficult to avoid the force of the evidence. In contrast to other attempts at innovative outlines, Betz’s ideas as a rule confirm the intuitions of our finest scholars. Moreover, some of the parallels between Paul’s arguments and Quintilian’s advice are simply too obvious to be disregarded.26

Silva repeated this reaction in Interpreting Galatians: “My own initial response to Betz’s analysis was one of skepticism, yet as I worked with it my reservations became fewer. Most of his judgments … tend to confirm, or at least are compatible with, widely accepted exegetical interpretations.”27 One noteworthy criticism that Silva makes of Betz’s commentary is that the author’s knowledge of Hellenistic literature and culture has led to a de-emphasis of Paul’s Jewish background.28 In Interpreting Galatians, Silva observes that by using Latin terminology in constructing an outline of Galatians, Betz encourages the reader to assume a much more purposeful rhetorical technique than can be demonstrated to have been the case.29 He then maintains that “for the time being, detailed rhetorical analyses have failed to contribute significantly to our understanding of Paul’s letters.”30 He observes that the values of structural and rhetorical analyses force the reader to identify and provide reasons for all of the connections in the argument.31 Silva opts for using the modern development of discourse analysis as an appropriate way of analyzing the literary structure of Galatians (and other Pauline letters).32

25. Moisés Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). 26. Moisés Silva, “Betz and Bruce on Galatians,” WTJ 45 (1983): 371–85, here 377– 78. 27. Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 93. 28. Silva, “Betz and Bruce on Galatians,” 81. 29. Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 94. 30. Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 94–95. 31. Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 95. 32. Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 81–89.

26

D. E. AUNE

D. Francois Tolmie (2005) Persuading the Galatians, by D. Francois Tolmie, a revised Ph.D. dissertation accepted by the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa, is what the author calls a text-centered rhetorical analysis of a Pauline letter, by which he means “an approach which aims to analyze the ways in which a text is used to persuade its audience.”33 After reviewing various rhetorical analyses of Galatians influenced in one way or another by the 1979 commentary on Galatians by Betz (whose approach Tolmie labels “rigid”), the author concludes that “no uniform approach to rhetorical analysis can be discerned in the rhetorical studies discussed.”34 The typical approach to rhetorical analysis, he maintains, is based on the choice of a particular rhetorical model. While most concerned New Testament scholars prefer ancient rhetorical models (despite the fact that there was no unified rhetorical system in antiquity), only a few have chosen modern rhetorical approaches.35 In either case the model is often “stretched” to fit the text in a subconscious attempt to justify the use of a particular model. Tolmie rejects both approaches and chooses rather “to reconstruct Paul’s rhetorical strategy from the text itself.”36 His procedure is first to identify the dominant rhetorical strategy in each section of text, followed by a detailed analysis of Paul’s rhetorical strategy in each particular section, sometimes focusing on the type of arguments, sometimes distinguishing between the dominant rhetorical strategy and supportive rhetorical strategies, yet always focusing on rhetorical techniques used by Paul to enhance the effectiveness of his communication.37 Further, Tolmie judges that a change in rhetorical strategy is the most important guideline for demarcating sections, thus he arrives at no less than eighteen discrete sections of text.38 In one such section, Gal 2:11–21, Tolmie argues that Paul is “recounting his version of the incident at Antioch in order to show how he stood firmly for ‘the truth of the gospel.’”39 How helpful is this? The fact that this methodological discussion is devoid of footnotes indicates that Tolmie has developed this approach independently. A few critical remarks are in order: (1) By rejecting both ancient and modern models for rhetorical criticism, which he thinks nudges scholars in 33. D. Francois Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centered Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter, WUNT 2/190 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 1. 34. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 1–19 (quotation 19). 35. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 24. 36. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 27. 37. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 28–29. 38. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 29. 39. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 83.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

27

a deductive direction (i.e., making the text fit the models), Tolmie advocates an inductive method which he thinks justifies the label “text-centered descriptive analysis,” i.e., using the text itself as a starting point resulting in a methodological eclecticism. The problem with this is that everyone who reads and interprets a text brings with him or her an interpretive strategy that is unconsciously imposed on the text. The virtue of using a model is that this subjective element is brought into the light and made the subject of control. By rejecting conventional types of rhetorical criticism, Tolmie deludes himself into thinking that he reads the text objectively. (2) Tolmie’s argument that there was no standard rhetorical approach in antiquity is exaggerated.40 The reality is that rhetorical theories can be arranged on a bellshaped curve, with widespread agreement on some matters of central important and more diversity in some details. (3) Tolmie claims that most rhetorical systems enable one to describe the phenomena in the text in very accurate “terms.” If this is so, why reject both ancient and modern models? (4) If rhetorical models are problematic since they can be “stretched” (according to Tolmie) to account for everything found in the text, is not that primarily a tendency of sophomoric practitioners of rhetorical criticism?41 Gordon D. Fee (2007) Gordon Fee, an experienced exegete and author of six other commentaries on New Testament books, published Galatians: A Pentecostal Commentary in 2007.42 Fee explicitly rejects a formal rhetorical reading of Galatians in favor of an informal reading of its argument as a letter, an approach similar to that of Tolmie. Fee mentions the view of Betz that Galatians is an example of the so-called “apologetic letter genre” and the fact that Betz was followed by several others who tried to “impose rhetorical categories” on Galatians.43 For Fee, Galatians is a letter intended to be read aloud in the churches of Galatia to people who had little or no knowledge of classical rhetoric.44 He continues: “This does not mean, of course, that Paul could not have used such rhetorical patterns; but it is not clear that finding such patterns will help us sit among the Galatians, as it were and hear Paul any better.” A major weakness of the rhetorical critical approach to Galatians, he argues, is the fact

40. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 25. 41. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 24. 42. Gordon Fee, Galatians: A Pentecostal Commentary (Dorset, UK: Deo, 2007). 43. Fee, Galatians, 6. 44. Fee, Galatians, 7.

28

D. E. AUNE

that rhetorical critics disagree about how that should be done. Fee’s biggest problem with rhetorical criticism is that it tends to mislead readers with regard to how Galatians functions as a letter.45 He maintains that “Paul works from a pattern of argument from Scripture, application and appeal,” and therefore Fee intends to follow these patterns in Paul’s extended “argument” with the Galatians. A few critical comments are in order: (1) If New Testament scholars abandoned any critical method simply because various scholars have come to very different interpretive results, no critical method would long survive. (2) Contrary to Fee, attempts to persuade an ancient audience to accept a certain point of view are not dependent on the knowledge the audience had of Greco-Roman rhetoric. (3) If Paul could have used “rhetorical patterns” as Fee admits, that would constitute an integral part of his communication strategy that cannot therefore be ignored. (4) New Testament scholars live in a world quite different from that of the first-century Galatians, so all reading strategies involve, to one degree or another, the imposition of modern presuppositions on ancient texts.46 (5) The structure of the letter form in the New Testament, whether the letters of Paul or the papyrus letters from Greco-Roman Egypt, reveal very little about how such documents should be interpreted; how helpful is it for an exegete to distinguish, as John White has done, between (a) body-opening, (b) body-middle, and (c) body closing?47 In response to White’s book, Hendrikus Boers observed that the formal characteristics of the central section of Paul’s letters remains unclear.48 Further,

45. Fee, Galatians, 7. 46. In a 1957 essay, Rudolf Bultmann asked whether exegesis without presuppositions was possible (“Ist voraussetzunglose Exegese möglich?,” in Glauben und Verstehen: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Rudolf Bultmann, 4 vols. [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962], 3:142–50; originally published in TZ 13 [1957]: 409–17). He maintained that in one sense it was possible, if by the phrase “without presuppositions” we mean not presupposing the results of exegesis beforehand. In a more important sense, however, he concludes that ultimately “there cannot be any such thing as presuppositionless exegesis” because of the individuality, biases, gifts, and weaknesses of the interpreter. Bultmann was overly optimistic about the ability of interpreters to control their presuppositions, since they are unconsciously as well as consciously held. The “observer effect” in physics means that the observation of certain systems cannot be made without affecting what is being observed. In our case it is difficult for scholars investigating ancient religions to avoid projecting modern alien presuppositions onto the ancient texts they are interpreting. 47. John L. White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle, SBLDS 2 (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972). 48. Hendrikus Boers, “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters: 1 Thessalonians as a Case Study,” NTS 22 (1974): 140–58, esp. 145.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

29

virtually any kind of text could be framed as a letter (e.g., the Revelation of John, though it is primarily an apocalypse).49 Thomas R. Schreiner (2010) In this commentary on Galatians, part of the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, the author includes a relatively short introductory section on structure, including two subsections: “Rhetorical Criticism” and “Epistolary Features.”50 The section on rhetorical criticism is restricted to a summary and negative critique of the rhetorical analysis of Galatians by Betz in his 1979 commentary on Galatians. Schreiner begins positively, saying that the analysis of Betz is “enormously interesting” and that the plausibility of his analysis is immediately evident. One of the chief benefits of the application of rhetorical criticism by Betz is that it is a reminder how carefully the Pauline letters are structured and composed. Nevertheless, he finds Betz’s proposal doubtful for several reasons: (1) The exordium in Gal 1:6– 11 hardly elicits the good will of the audience, and there is no attempt to establish a rapport for the readers. (2) Much of Galatians is paraenesis (5:1– 6:10), which has no place in rhetorical handbooks. (3) Betz provides no examples of apologetic letters with which one might compare Galatians. (4) Betz completely ignores the Jewish background of Paul in the analysis of Galatians. (5) Betz sees Galatians modeled after magical letters of antiquity, “but such a comparison is improbable since magical letters are remarkably different from Galatians.”51 (6) Schreiner is also unhappy with those who regard Galatians as a deliberative letter, since there is a question about how precisely it conforms to that Greek rhetorical pattern. (7) Rhetorical criticism of the Pauline letters suffers from the problem of imposing a form on the letters that does not fit them precisely. (8) Finally, though Paul was probably familiar with Greek rhetoric to some extent, it is doubtful that Paul used rhetorical handbooks to structure letters since they were in fact designed for structuring speeches, not written discourse. Turning to the subject of “Epistolary Analysis,” Schreiner argues, as have many others who reject the utility 49. Jeffrey T. Reed, “The Epistle,” in A Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330 B.C. – A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 171–91, esp. 172–76. Reed observes: “If a text indicates (usually at the beginning) that it is written between two or more spatially separated individuals (real or imaginary), the body of the letter might contain anything” (174). 50. Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 52– 59. 51. Schreiner, Galatians, 54.

30

D. E. AUNE

of rhetorical criticism, that “the task of the interpreter is to trace Paul’s argument carefully, letting the text itself dictate the structures.”52 He finally concludes, with respect to both rhetorical and epistolary analysis, “Galatians does not conform to any structure precisely.”53 There are several weaknesses in Schreiner’s critique: (1) His objection that the exordium does not function as a generic exordium included to make the audience feel good suggests that he is unaware of the variety of ways in which exordia function and also suggests that he has not read the appropriate section of Betz’s commentary with care.54 (2) Betz is fully aware of the fact that paraenesis plays only a marginal role in the rhetorical handbooks, though it does play a major role in philosophical letters.55 Nevertheless, this is a weakness of Betz’s analysis, which other critics have also pointed out. (3) The charge that Betz does not provide any examples of apologetic letters from antiquity is clearly wrong, since Betz does offer the example of Plato, Epistle 7, along with the comments of Arnaldo Momigliano.56 (4) The charge that Betz “completely ignores the Jewish background of Paul” is contradicted by the presence of nearly ninety citations to the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the rabbinical literature.57 Schreiner himself is open to the charge of neglecting the Greek background to the Pauline letters. In reality, scholars cannot be specialists in all areas of ancient study, so there will necessarily be lacunae in the resources they bring to the interpretation of New Testament texts. (5) Since magical letters are so different in structure from Galatians, it would be helpful to know what comparative analyses Schreiner is referencing. While I do not think comparing Galatians to magical letters is at all illuminating, Schreiner bases his criticism on no evidence at all. (6) Schreiner’s criticism of deliberative analyses is too simplistic to require comment. (7) The criticism that rhetorical criticism is used in a cookie-cutter manner is belied by the fact that there are many rhetorical analyses of Galatians (and other Pauline letters) following Betz, but few of them are in agreement. (8) The observation that rhetorical handbooks were designed for crafting speeches, not written discourse, is correct to a certain extent. However, there were many written speeches, such as those by Isocrates, that were never intended to be delivered orally. 52. Schreiner, Galatians, 56. 53. Schreiner, Galatians, 57. 54. Betz, Galatians, 44–56. 55. Betz, Galatians, 253–54. 56. Betz, Galatians, 15. See also Demosthenes, Ep. 2, and Euripides, Ep. 5. 57. This count is based on the index of passages found in Betz, Galatians, 341–42, which is incomplete.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

31

Martinus de Boer (2011) In 2011, Martinus de Boer published Galatians: A Commentary, in which he makes this statement in the introduction: Each of the sections and subsections has a discernible rhetorical function, but the present commentary regards it as important to distinguish the thematic content from the rhetorical function of the material. This commentary focuses on Paul’s message to the Galatians, even if the two cannot be separated (see further Excursus 5).58

In Excursus 5, de Boer discusses “The Genre of Galatians and Paul’s Use of Rhetorical Forms and Conventions,” where he argues that outlining Galatians as if it were a speech in an epistolary wrapper is “probably misguided.”59 While some parts of Galatians may reflect aspects of forensic, deliberative, or epideictic rhetoric, to classify the whole letter as one or another of these rhetorical genres “probably” distorts its character.60 De Boer agrees with J. Louis Martyn (his Doktorvater) that in Paul’s “evangelistic argument,” rhetoric plays a role, but “the gospel itself is not fundamentally a matter of rhetorical persuasion,” and he regards Galatians as an intensely apocalyptic sermon.61 Apart from pp. 66–71, the term “rhetoric” virtually never occurs in the commentary. Again, a few critical observations are in order: (1) What de Boer claims to do here is to separate the husk (rhetorical function) from the kernel (thematic content), even though he concedes that “the two cannot be separated.” If the two cannot be separated, how can he proceed? (2) In criticizing the view that Galatians is a speech in an epistolary wrapper, de Boer ignores the fact that in antiquity virtually any genre could be framed as a letter, even speeches. (3) In referring to Martyn’s view that even though rhetoric plays a role in Galatians, the gospel is not basically a matter of rhetorical persuasion, de Boer is essentially using theological presuppositions to devalue the use of rhetorical criticism.

58. Martinus de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 14–15. 59. De Boer, Galatians, 66–71, esp. 69. 60. De Boer, Galatians, 70. 61. De Boer, Galatians, 71. Martyn’s own commentary on the book is Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1997).

32

D. E. AUNE

Douglas J. Moo (2013) Douglas J. Moo published a well-received commentary on Galatians in 2013.62 Though the author has very little to say about the rhetorical analysis of Galatians, he does make this observation: Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was very important in the Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day, and we can assume that Paul, educated in that world and seeking to persuade people accustomed to rhetorical practices, would have naturally employed those practices in his letters. Galatians, focused as it is from start to finish on arguing a single basic point, offers a particularly attractive opportunity for rhetorical analysis.63

However, because of the fact that some commentators have argued that Paul used forensic rhetoric in Galatians, others that he used deliberative rhetoric, and still others that he used a combination of the two, Moo maintains that Galatians does not fit neatly into any of the rhetorical categories. This is confirmed for Moo by the fact that early interpreters show no particular interest in the rhetorical form of Galatians.64 So, even though Paul may have used some rhetorical conventions in his argument, Moo concludes that attempting to analyze and interpret Galatians in terms of ancient rhetoric has only limited value.65 A few short observations: (1) Despite Moo’s reasonable statements linking Paul and Greco-Roman rhetoric in the section quoted above, judging by the rest of the commentary, Moo finds no particular utility in pursuing any kind of rhetorical analysis of Galatians, since he does not find it particularly helpful in interpreting the letter. (2) While Moo is technically correct in stating that early Christian interpreters of the New Testament were not particularly concerned to categorize Galatians (or any of Paul’s other letters) in terms of the three primary rhetorical genres – actually, ancient literary critics rarely analyzed written speeches in terms of the tria genera causarum – that does not mean that they did not use their rhetorical training to identify and interpret various rhetorical features and devices of Paul’s letters. (3) Since the ancient rhetorical handbooks and written speeches contain hundreds of examples of various rhetorical devices, structures, and arguments, modern New Testament scholars ignore these texts at their peril.66 Judging by the paucity of 62. Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013). 63. Moo, Galatians, 62–63. 64. Moo, Galatians, 63. 65. Moo, Galatians, 63. 66. See the following: Stephen Andrew Cooper, “Narratio and Exhortatio in Galatians according to Marius Victorinus Rhetor,” ZNW 91 (2000): 107–35; Malcolm Heath, “John Chrysostom: Rhetoric and Galatians,” BibInt 12 (2004): 369–400.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

33

references to Greco-Roman literature in Moo’s commentary (just fourteen), Moo is unaware of the rich Greco-Roman resources available to Pauline interpreters. Andrew Das (2014) Andrew Das’s extensive commentary on Galatians includes a chapter on “Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Epistolary Analysis: The Structure of Galatians.”67 After reviewing the analysis of Betz’s proposal that Galatians is a forensic speech in an epistolary frame, Das briefly summarizes some of the criticisms that scholars leveled at Betz’s rhetorical analysis. Among the criticisms was the view that Betz relied too much on the rhetoric of Cicero, Quintilian, and the Rhetorica ad Herennium rather than the Greek rhetoric of Aristotle, which “made a far deeper impression on Hellenistic culture.”68 Further examinations of examples of ancient apologetic letters given by Betz (e.g., Plato, Epistle 7; Isocrates, Antidosis) by Longenecker and Philip Kern concluded that, unlike Galatians, these were not in fact real letters. Further, some scholars proposed that Galatians is an example of deliberative rhetoric, and yet others identified it as epideictic rhetoric. Das concludes: “In short, no one has demonstrated that Galatians’ style befits that prescribed by any of the ancient species of rhetoric.”69 After concluding that no two analyses of the rhetorical structure of Galatians are in agreement, Das concludes: “The lack of exegetical yield in determining the species of rhetoric or the rhetorical structure of the Pauline letters renders such efforts of dubious value.”70 Turning to the issue of Paul’s level of training in rhetoric, Das maintains that no one has yet made a convincing case that Paul was formally trained in rhetoric.71 For one thing, the kind of Greek that Paul wrote was not the Greek of the orators, and so it is not surprising that early Christian writers do not acclaim Paul as a rhetorician.72 Therefore, “the attempt to classify Galatians as a particular species of rhetoric is a mistaken application of the ancient handbooks.”73 After considering proposals to interpret Galatians in the light of epistolary theory, the author closes with this statement: “Epistolary analysis has not reached a point to be of sure value for the interpreta-

67. A. Andrew Das, Galatians, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2014), 48–68. 68. Das, Galatians, 51. 69. Das, Galatians, 53. 70. Das, Galatians, 56. 71. Das, Galatians, 61. 72. Das, Galatians, 61–63. 73. Das, Galatians, 63.

34

D. E. AUNE

tion of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.”74 Finally, at the end of this chapter he has some concluding reflections: while Galatians does not conform to any one species of rhetoric, “nevertheless, the apostle is well aware of the use of rhetoric in his day.”75 Further, “even if not at the level of formal rhetoric, Paul draws on rhetorical devices in making his case.”76 Throughout the rest of the commentary Das does refer to many rhetorical features of Paul’s argumentation and also makes many references to classical authors as well as to Greco-Roman rhetorical writings. Here are a few observations of Das’s views on attempts to analyze Galatians rhetorically: (1) The view that Betz relied too heavily on first century BCE and first century CE rhetorical authors in preference to Aristotle overlooks two important facts. First, rhetorical theory was not static in antiquity and went through many developments, suggesting that a diachronic or historical analysis is preferable to a synchronic or systematic analysis. Second, despite the ready availability of Aristotle’s Rhetorica in modern libraries, that work was neither widely known nor available in the late Hellenistic period, by which time it had become somewhat of an historical relic.77 Cicero had probably read it by 55 BCE and makes this revealing observation: “I am not indeed astonished in the slightest degree that the philosopher [Aristotle] was unknown to the teacher of oratory for he is ignored by all except a few of the professional philosophers” (Topica 1.3, LCL). (2) Running through Das’s discussion is the assumption that different results from the application of particular critical methods somehow disqualifies the method itself. This criticism is rooted in philosophical skepticism and leads to the rejection of the validity of critical methods in all fields of study. Which field of study has a methodology to which all members of the enterprise subscribe and whose work in consequence shows lockstep agreement? (3) The value of rhetorical and epistolary analysis based on ancient practices surely lies in the fact that they are attempts to use emic rather than etic categories, i.e., the perspective of an ancient insider in contrast to the perspective of a modern outsider.

74. Das, Galatians, 66. 75. Das, Galatians, 67. 76. Das, Galatians, 68. 77. See David E. Aune, “Aristotle’s Rhetorica,” in The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 62; Heath, “John Chrysostom: Rhetoric and Galatians,” 369–70: “The salience of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in modern scholarship compounds the problem: there is a constant temptation to fall back on a text which, though familiar to us, was not representative even in the fourth century BCE and never had currency in later times as a teaching text or an authoritative guide to theory.”

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

35

That, of course, does not disqualify the critical use of modern theoretical perspectives such as discourse analysis. Marion L. Soards and Darrell J. Pursiful (2015) The commentary by Marion L. Soards and Darrell J. Pursiful is a very attractive and well-written volume designed for pastors and students of the Bible.78 The authors give no indication of the role that rhetorical criticism has played in the interpretation of Galatians since the mid-1970s. The authors cite the commentary by Betz about forty times, almost always in connection with a variety of interpretive issues, but with virtually no references to the role of rhetoric in interpreting the letter, either in terms of the genre of Galatians or the kinds of arguments that Paul uses in the letter, which were current in his day. They do mention the two kinds of evidence Betz cites in analyzing Paul’s argument in Gal 2;79 they also quote Betz’s view that Gal 2:6–10 constitutes the center of Paul’s “statement of the facts,” though they do not explain what role that a “statement of the facts” (the narratio) plays in ancient oratory. Turning to Soards and Pursiful’s use of Longenecker’s 1990 commentary on Galatians, they cite the work about thirty times, with just one citation referring to Paul’s use of a scriptural text to introduce an argument.80 No mention at all is made of Ben W. Witherington’s social-rhetorical commentary on Galatians.81 Given the audience for which this commentary is intended, it is not particularly surprising that the work exhibits little or no impact of the rhetorical critical analysis of study of Galatians. However, since the rhetorical criticism of Galatians focuses on how and why Paul constructs the arguments that he does in the letter, surely it ought to affect how people read and understand the text in 2015.

78. Marion L. Soards and Darrell J. Pursiful, Galatians, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2015). 79. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 96. 80. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 30 n. 20. 81. Ben W. Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

36

D. E. AUNE

Peter Oakes (2015) In the introduction to Peter Oakes’s commentary on Galatians in the Paideia series, the author includes a section on “The Structure of Galatians.”82 At the most basic level Oakes analyzes the epistolary structure of Galatians, dividing the text up into three parts: opening (1:1–10), body (1:11–6:10), and closing (6:11–18).83 While the opening and closing sections have a few formulaic epistolary features, the body of the letter contains few if any formulaic elements of the bodies of Greek letters. Turning to an analysis of the body, the most complex section of the three, Oakes looks for indications of genre, especially grammatical ones and also the presence of discourse markers signaling the beginning and ending of sections. He divides the body of Galatians into three sections: (1) narrative (1:11–2:21), “For you have heard about …”; (2) argument (3:1–4:11), “For it is written that …”; and (3) instructions with argument (4:12–6:10), “Be like me.”84 He further decides that each of these three sections can be further divided symmetrically into three parts: narrative (1:11–24; 2:1–10; 2:11–21); argument (3:2–14; 3:15–29; 4:1–11); and instructions with argument (4:12–20; 4:21–5:13a; 5:13b–6:10). Oakes then includes a brief discussion on “Structure and Ancient Rhetoric.” After providing a thumbnail summary of the rhetorical analysis of Galatians by Betz as an apologetic speech in which Paul defends himself against accusations, Oakes observes that most scholars who have analyzed Galatians in formal rhetorical terms prefer to categorize it as a deliberative speech, i.e., a speech given to persuade a particular group of people to take a specific course of action. However, whether analyzed as judicial or a deliberative speech, the structure of Galatians remains much the same, though some labels are changed, i.e., probatio in juridical rhetoric becomes confirmatio in deliberative rhetoric. In comparing his own more general approach to the more formal rhetorical analyses of Galatians, Oakes observes: How valuable the formal rhetorical approach to structure is depends on the extent to it which it sheds light on Paul’s discourse in ways that would not be seen by analyzing it in more general terms. My conclusion so far has been that that we need to be aware of specific rhetorical moves that ancient orators tend to make, according to rhetorical handbooks and recorded speeches, but that

82. Peter Oakes, Galatians, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 27–28. 83. Oakes, Galatians, 23–24. 84. Oakes, Galatians, 24–26.

RECENT RESEARCH ON THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF GALATIANS

37

there is not enough evidence to distinguish the structures of Paul’s letters as being ones specifically used in rhetorical handbooks.85

This is a very original, thoughtful, and well-organized commentary in which the author, like many others, does see the benefit of approaching Galatians with a specific rhetorical model in mind. Rather, he focuses on the arguments that Paul uses, looking for the general techniques exercised in crafting arguments rather than the specific techniques drawn from ancient rhetorical handbooks. SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS The focus of this essay has been on the role that rhetorical criticism has played in commentaries on Galatians (a total of eight, by Hays, Fee, Schreiner, de Boer, Moo, Das, Soards and Pursiful, and Oakes) and monographs on the rhetorical structure of Galatians (a total of three, by Kremendahl, Silva, and Tolmie) that have appeared since 2000. Two comparatively recent German commentaries on Galatians were unavailable to me, and I intentionally excluded consideration of a number of short nonacademic commentaries as well as essays on the rhetorical criticism of Galatians.86 Most of the authors of commentaries (Fee, Schreiner, de Boer, Moo, and Das) include short summaries and largely negative critiques of the use of rhetorical criticism in the analysis of Galatians. (Das is an exception in that he devotes a twentypage chapter to “Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Epistolary Analysis: The Structure of Galatians.”) Just two of the authors are convinced of the value of applying rhetorical criticism to Galatians: Hays and Kremendahl. Hays categorizes Galatians as a deliberative letter, which he mistakenly regards as a widely held view. However, Hays does not provide a supportive analysis of the deliberative rhetorical structure of Galatians. Kremendahl is the one author of those considered that, in partial continuity with Hans Dieter Betz, regards Galatians as basically an apologetic letter. Most of the commentaries advocate an all or nothing-at-all approach to rhetorical criticism, i.e., either Galatians as a whole belongs to a specific rhetorical genre (juridical, delibera-

85. Oakes, Galatians, 28. 86. The German commentaries are Wilfried Eckey, Der Galaterbrief: Ein Kommentar (Neuchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlags, 2010); and Walter Klaiber, Der Galaterbrief, Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013). Nonacademic commentaries include Brendan Byrne, Galatians and Romans (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2010); and David K. Huttar, Galatians: The Gospel according to Paul, Deeper Life Pulpit Commentary (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 2001).

38

D. E. AUNE

tive, or epideictic), or rhetorical criticism offers little or nothing for the interpreter. However, there are scores of rhetorical devices found in the Pauline letters which were advocated in the rhetorical handbooks and treatises on rhetoric that the interpreter ignores to his or her own detriment. I began this review with the assumption that rhetorical criticism was more widely used than it in fact seems to be, at least in the eleven works that I evaluated. I found this somewhat surprising, particularly because there are many articles that have appeared since 2000 that deal with rhetorical criticism in a much more nuanced and constructive fashion, as a method worthy of pursuit if appropriately used.87 I was also struck by how shallow and uninformed many of the critiques of rhetorical criticism seem to be, including several instances in which the authors seem not to have read what Betz actually said in his commentary on Galatians. Several authors were concerned that Betz had either deemphasized or completely neglected the Jewish background of Galatians, a criticism which I found a bit wide of the mark given the fact that Betz cites Jewish literature nearly ninety times. I suspect that most of the authors of the works I consulted are themselves more familiar with the Jewish setting of the New Testament than they are with the Greco-Roman context in which all of the books of the New Testament were written. The indices of most of the commentaries I consulted betray little knowledge of the wealth of contextual information available in Greco-Roman literature and inscriptions; this suggests that these works are largely outside their comfort level. emeritus, University of Notre Dame

David E. AUNE

87. Here are just a few samples: Michael F. Bird, “Reassessing a Rhetorical Approach to Paul’s Letters,” ExpTim 119 (2008): 374–79; Callan, “The Style of Galatians”; C. J. Classen, “Kann die rhetorische Theorie helfen, das Neue Testament, vor allem die Briefe des Paulus, Besser zu Verstehen?,” ZNW 100 (2009): 145–72; Heath, “John Chrysostom: Rhetoric and Galatians”; Peter Lampe, “Rhetorical Analysis of Pauline Texts – Quo Vadit?” in Paul and Rhetoric, ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 3–21.

4 THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

Always attuned to Paul’s rhetoric within its larger Greco-Roman setting, Professor Troy Martin has been keenly interested over the years in the interpretation of Galatians. These interests converge in the interpretation of Gal 1:10: Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπουϛ πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην. Specialists have debated how to translate the first two sentences of the verse. Putting aside the third sentence (“If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ”), the first two sentences present quite an array of interpretive difficulties: the connection of 1:10 to the preceding and following verses, whether the ἤ is copulative or disjunctive in Paul’s initial question, the translation of πείθω in that initial question, the use of rhetoric to both flatter and persuade, and the Greco-Roman milieu of Paul’s thought.1 Ultimately, interpreters have differed on whether Paul envisions a genuine effort to persuade, especially if he imagines somehow persuading God.

THE RELATIONSHIP

OF

GALATIANS 1:10 TO ITS CONTEXT

Many commentators follow the NA28 text in identifying Gal 1:10 as the beginning of a new section of the letter.2 A stronger candidate, however, is Gal 1:11 with its disclosure formula γνωρίζω ... ὑμῖν (“I want you to know”). The new section with Gal 1:11, however, does not depart starkly from what precedes, as the introductory γάρ (“for”) indicates.3 Similarly, 1. Biblical translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 2. E.g., Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, HThKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 62. 3. Nestle-Aland28 has γάρ at the beginning of 1:11 (‫א‬1 B D* F G 33 it copsa), but δέ has the support of strong external witnesses as well (ो46 ‫*א‬2 A D1 K L P Ψ Byzantine syr copbo). The correctors of Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬must be given due weight as members of the original

40

A. A. DAS

a sharp disjunction between 1:10 and the prior verses is not likely either. Galatians 1:10 continues the line of thought of 1:6–9 (rightly reflected by the formatting of the UBS5 text).4 Paul links 1:10 to 1:9 by the connecting particle γάρ (“for”) as a clarification, if not a natural inference from the strong statements of 1:8–9 (BDF §452).5 Another key link between 1:9 and 1:10 is the word “now” (ἄρτι). In 1:9 Paul emphasizes “Now I say again” (ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω), even as he begins 1:10 with the word “now” (ἄρτι). In an oral culture, the Galatians would naturally connect the “now” of 1:10 to the earlier “now” of 1:8–9 and the latter’s warning of a potential curse as they heard the letter being read.6 Since Gal 1:11 returns to the gospel proclamation of 1:9, some interpreters view 1:10 as a parenthesis.7 Not only does 1:10 connect to what precedes, quite unlike a parenthesis, 1:10 also connects to what follows. However one interprets the juxtaposition of God and people in 1:10a, that juxtaposition presages the God-human contrast in 1:12. Thus, Gal 1:10 serves a transitional role between 1:6–9 and the thesis stated in 1:11–12.8

scriptorium, and B is often contaminated in the Pauline corpus with “Western” readings, which may be the case in 1:11; see Moisés Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 45. Paul employs δέ in the disclosure formula γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί elsewhere (1 Cor 15:1; 2 Cor 8:1) when introducing a new section; see Johan S. Vos, “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1–2,” HTR 87 (1994): 1–16, here 11 n. 44; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 20, 22. Whereas δέ would signal a break from the intervening 1:10, a γάρ would connect this verse to the gospel preaching in 1:9. γάρ (“for”) appears to be the more difficult reading. A scribe may have wanted to bring the disclosure formula in 1:11 into conformity with 1 Cor 15:1 and 2 Cor 8:1 in more clearly signaling a shift in topic. Also, Paul uses γάρ in 1:10, 12, and 13. Scribes tended to switch γάρ to δέ (1:11; 4:25c; 5:17b; 6:5), and not the reverse (a switch from δέ to γάρ occurs only in 3:20 and 4:18 in 33). The two instances of γάρ in 1:10 may have motivated a scribe to make a switch in 1:11 to δέ; see Silva, Explorations, 46, 47 n. 9. 4. E.g., Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 33; Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 83 (ultimately). 5. Burton, Galatians, 31. J. Louis Martyn (Galatians, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 137) deprives that connection of its force because of what appears to him as an unlikely idea: that Paul would be calling on God to effect a curse. Note the links between 1:10 and 1:8–9. Paul would be calling God’s curse upon himself were he “now” to preach in a manner that merely pleased people. 6. Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1907), 51–53. Zahn therefore takes v. 10 with vv. 6–9, with v. 11 beginning a new unit; so also Udo Borse, Der Brief an die Galater, RNT (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1940), 52. 7. E.g., Moo, Galatians, 83. 8. Rightly Martyn, Galatians, 136–37.

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

41

THE SENSE OF THE CONJUNCTION AND THE TRANSLATION OF THE FIRST QUESTION The initial question in Gal 1:10 may be answered differently depending on whether the Greek particle ἤ that appears between “people” and “God” is translated with a conjunctive/copulative sense (“and”) or with a disjunctive sense (“or rather”).9 That leads to four possible answers to Paul’s question: (1) (2) (3) (4)

“Obviously, Paul, you are trying to please both people and God” “Of course you are not trying to please either people or God” “You are trying to please people, but not God” “You are trying to please not people but rather God.”10

The verb πείθω is understood here as a synonym of the verb ἀρέσκω in the second and final sentences of the verse. Indeed, the majority of English translations take πείθω in the first question as synonymous with ἀρέσκω in the second question, that is, to please or to seek approval: NRSV: “Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval?” RSV: “Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God?” HCSB: “For am I now trying to win the favor of people, or God?” NIV: “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God?” ESV: “For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God?” JB: “So now whom am I trying to please – man, or God?” CEV: “I am not trying to please people. I want to please God.” GWN: “Am I saying this now to win the approval of people or God?”

Many commentators follow the translations in this regard.11 Thus the second question of 1:10 – ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; (“Am I seeking to please 9. As a copulative conjunction, see BDF §446 and BDAG; on a disjunctive conjunction, see Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), §§2163C, 2856, 2860. 10. For these four options, see Sam K. Williams, Galatians, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 41. Williams, however, translates the verb differently. Some scholars have contended that the verb πείθω only governs the first part of the initial question and that the words ἢ θεόν (“or God”) anticipate the verb ἀρέσκειν in the following clause; thus the verb is translated differently when in relation to God: “Am I now persuading men or seeking the favor of God?” Cf. BDF §479.2 for this figure, and Albrecht Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 2nd ed., THKNT (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984), 26–27; Mußner, Galaterbrief, 63; noted by Kjell Arne Morland, The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel, ESEC 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 155 n. 61. Borse (Galater, 51) prefers implied verbs such as “obey” or “serve” in the second part of the question. This approach is unlikely: Paul juxtaposes ἀρέσκειν with human beings, even as he juxtaposes πείθω with human beings. To have an understood ἀρέσκειν for πείθω in the initial question ruins the rhetorical effect of the explicit change of verb. 11. Among the commentators who take πείθω as “seek the favor of” or “please” are Burton, Galatians, 30–31; Longenecker, Galatians, 18; Friedrich Sieffert, Der Brief an die Galater, 6th ed.

42

A. A. DAS

people?”) – would serve as a partial restatement of the initial question: Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπουϛ πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; (“Am I seeking to please people or God?”). Since the restated question focuses solely on people with an understood answer of “no,” then the fourth translational option would be the most likely: “You are trying to please not people, but rather God.”12 Paul views people-pleasing in the parallel questions as negative. The advantage of this approach is that the addition of “or God” in the initial question is not meaningless but rather crucial: Paul, of course, wishes rather to please God.13 Thus the entire verse would effectively be a rebuttal of the charge of people-pleasing.14 Despite the popularity of taking both verbs in 1:10 as referring to peoplepleasing, Paul uses the first, πείθω, in a positive sense in 2 Cor 5:11, the only other instance of the transitive form of the verb in his extant corpus. Most English translations render the verb in 2 Cor 5:11 as “persuade.”15 With John Bligh: “It is hard to find a parallel where πείθω means ‘to win the favour of.’”16 Tellingly, the Liddell-Scott lexicon does not list “flatter,” “seek human approval,” or “please” among the various ancient Greek uses of this verb. The BDAG lexicon lists for πείθω “convince,” “persuade,” “win over,” but also, tentatively, “strive to please” (Acts 12:20; 14:19, and perhaps Gal 1:10, but BDAG refers back at this point to the translation “persuade”). The BDAG entry confuses two very different meanings when it includes both “win over” and “strive to please” under 1c. “Win over” can be a near-synonym of “persuade.” “Strive to please” (or “seek the approval of”) bears a rather different and ultimately unlikely meaning. BDAG lists Gal 1:10 as possible evidence for the verb πείθω as “strive to please.” The lexicon also cites 2 Macc 4:45; Acts 12:20, and 14:19 – and, as the only first-century CE nonbiblical source, Josephus, Ant. 4.123; 8.256. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899), 50. Peter Oakes in his recent commentary (Galatians, Paideia [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015], 46) does not seem to distinguish between the two verbs. He does raise another possible translation of πείθω as “persuade” but uses both “persuade” and “seek to win the approval of” interchangeably; so also Martyn Galatians, 138–39; Hans Lietzmann, An die Galater, HNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 6 (apparently); Ragnar Bring, Commentary on Galatians (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961), 35–36. 12. Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 47–48; George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding, SBLDS 73 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 136–46, esp. 138–39. Both contended that the “or” must be disjunctive rather than copulative, with a contrast of behavior toward God with behavior toward human beings. 13. See the articulation of this logic in Moo, Galatians, 83. 14. Oakes, Galatians, 46. 15. E.g., KJV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, GWN. The JB has a synonymous expression: “win people over.” The NEB, however, has “appeal to.” 16. John Bligh, Galatians in Greek (Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1966), 85.

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

43

The BDAG entry cites the work of Brian Dodd, who had pointed to 2 Macc 4:45; Matt 28:14; and Acts 12:20.17 None of these passages provides the promised evidence for translating πείθω as “strive to please” or “seek the approval of.” In 2 Macc 4:45, Dorymenes is enlisted to go persuade the king, who subsequently changes his mind in the next verse. Matthew 28:14 refers to the elders’ persuasion of the governor not to take action against the soldiers. In Acts 12:20 the people of Tyre and Sidon persuade Blastus, the king’s chamberlain. “Seek the approval of” and “strive to please” do not work as translations in these instances. The sense of πείθω in Acts 14:19 is to “win over” in the sense of to “persuade” and not to “please” or to “seek approval.” Likewise, Thackeray (LCL) translates the Josephus references as: “to persuade God … to bind these people under a curse” (Ant. 4.123) and “entreated God to grant them victory” (8.256). The vast majority of the uses of this verb in antiquity refer to the act of persuasion. The translation of the verb as “seek human approval,” i.e., as a synonym of the verb in the next clause (ἀρέσκω), is lexically dubious and unnecessary in Gal 1:10.18 Marion Soards and Darrell Pursiful stress that the second question in 1:10 restates the first and places the emphasis where it belongs: on the error of seeking to please human beings.19 Their claim would have been more plausible had the two verbs (πείθω and ἀρέσκω) lexically overlapped. The second question in Gal 1:10 drops ἢ τὸν θεόν (“or God”) and changes the verb – further evidence that the second question (ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; “Or am I seeking to please people?”) is not a parallel restatement of the first (Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπουϛ πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; “For am I now trying to persuade people or God?”).20 Mußner is right to stress the ἤ (“or”) before ζητῶ (“am I seeking”).21 Ultimately, the focus of 1:10 is not on seeking to please people but rather on the legitimate persuasion of people and/or God. Genuine persuasion is the point of the first question, and people-pleasing of the second. Immediately after Paul broaches the concept of “persuasion,” he must clarify himself against a possible misinterpretation. Persuasion had both 17. Brian J. Dodd, “Christ’s Slave, People Pleasers and Galatians 1.10,” NTS 42 (1996): 90–104, here 90 n. 1. Dodd (104) thus concluded his analysis: “[T]here is no evidence [that Paul was charged with being a people pleaser], and the text has been made sense of without resorting to this historical reconstruction.” 18. With Williams, Galatians, 41. 19. Marion L. Soards and Darrell J. Pursiful, Galatians, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2015), 31; so also Moo, Galatians, 84. 20. Rightly, e.g., Moo, Galatians, 83. 21. “Der Begriff πείθειν muß von ἀρέσκειν unterschieden werden” (Mußner, Galaterbrief, 63).

44

A. A. DAS

positive and negative connotations to the ancients, who often criticized the devolution of rhetorical practice from a genuine attempt at persuasion to mere entertainment or – even worse – deception.22 The “people-pleaser” or “flatterer” was a figure regularly lambasted in antiquity.23 Paul’s audience could potentially view his attempt to “persuade” (πείθω) as an exercise in people-pleasing, in which case the answer to his initial question would have to be “No!” Paul therefore does not answer his initial question and immediately asks another question that will clarify the matter: “Am I trying to please people?” Note that Paul does not ask: “Am I seeking to please people or God?”24 Of course he wants to be a God-pleaser, but people-pleasing is too easily conceived of as flattery and rhetorical entertainment (cf. the negative implications of ἀρέσκω in 1 Thess 2:4 – Paul seeks to please God).25 Paul responds to his second question: “If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.” Paul’s attempt to persuade stems from genuine motives. Those who find the weight of the verse entirely in the denial of people-pleasing have overlooked the fact that the denial of people-pleasing is a clarification that flows out of the question of whether Paul’s persuasion is genuine or mere flattery.26 Thus the four possibilities for the initial question should be translated differently: (1) (2) (3) (4)

“Obviously, Paul, you are trying to persuade both people and God” “Of course you are not trying to persuade either people or God” “You are trying to persuade people, but not God” “You are trying to persuade not people but rather God.”27

22. Plato, Gorg. 452E–453A; Euthyd. 289D–290A: genuine rhetoric is persuading people; Apol. 17A–18A; 18D; 1 Cor 2:4; Gal 5:7–8; Col 2:4; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 54–55. 23. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 2.7.13; 4.6.1; Theophrastus, Char. 5; Athenaeus, 6.255A-B; Plutarch, Adul. am. 1 (Mor. 48E); 37 (Mor. 74E); Philo, Migr. 111; Pss. Sol. 4; Betz, Galatians, 55. 24. Williams (Galatians, 41) rightly notes the absence of “or God” and the change in verb that clearly distinguishes the second question from the first; contrary to James D. G. Dunn’s mere counterassertion (The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993], 49–50). 25. Martyn (Galatians, 137–40) stresses the divine-human antinomies of the letter as evidence that Paul is indeed seeking to persuade/please God; followed by François Vouga, An die Galater, HNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 25–26. 26. Contra Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 31; Moo, Galatians, 84. 27. Williams, Galatians, 41. David A. deSilva (The Letter to the Galatians, NICNT [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2018], 131 n. 36) presses the grammar of ἤ (“or”) too hard in order to eliminate this possibility – in a rhetorical question (!); cf. 2 Cor. 8:21. Craig S. Keener (Galatians: A Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019], 67–68) thus recognizes the grammatical possibility of persuading both people and God.

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

45

Many commentators view the first and fourth options as unlikely if the first question of 1:10 is understood in terms of persuasion. As Douglas Moo wonders: “What would it mean to ‘persuade God’?”28 Likewise Soards and Pursiful: “Paul labors among humans; he does not labor in an effort to win God over to some cause or position. If Paul seeks to persuade, it is certainly humans, not God, whom he attempts to convince.”29 When the question is understood in terms of persuasion rather than peoplepleasing or flattery, the third option would seem more plausible (“You are trying to persuade people, but not God”). Ultimately, Paul is trying to persuade the Galatians to take a course of action in writing his letter. Persuading people of the truth of the gospel was Paul’s business.30 He employs a play on the πείθ- word group in Gal 5:7–10 that may be translated: “Who hindered you so that you are not persuaded regarding the truth? That persuasion is not from the one who called you.31 A little leaven leavens the whole batch of dough. I myself am persuaded in the Lord about you that you will not think otherwise.” Paul is contrasting his own labors to persuade the Galatians with the dissuasive efforts of the rival teachers. One attempt to persuade is “in the Lord” and “regarding the truth,” while the other is not. Paul’s persuasion stems legitimately from “the one who called you,” God.32 Paul is trying to drive a wedge between the Galatians and the rivals with their alternative gospel message. The pronouncement in 1:8–9 of a supernatural curse is a highly effective means of dissuading the Galatians from following these Jewish Christian teachers. In fact, in 2 Cor 5:11, ἀνθρώπους πείθομεν, the persuasion of people, is the gospel preacher’s purpose. Paul is attempting to persuade the Galatians (contrary to Option 2) since the persuasion of God (Options 1 and 4) seems inexplicable. Once an attempt to persuade God is ruled out, Option 3 – persuading human beings – would be the only viable 28. Moo, Galatians, 83. Moo adds (83): “The unusual nature of this language is revealed in the fact that nowhere else in the LXX or the NT does πείθω in the active take ‘God’ as an object,” but see Josephus, Ant. 4.123. 29. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 30–31. 30. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 84. Martyn’s emphasis on divine-human antinomies (Galatians, 139–40), a legitimate observation in many Galatian passages, led him to conclude that Paul is not in the business of persuading people. He seeks only to please God. Martyn was assuming that the two verbs are virtually synonymous here. 31. This is the first known instance of this word (πεισμονή) in Greek literature and may refer either to persuading activity or to the condition of being persuaded. The word is not used elsewhere in the NT. 32. As Betz (Galatians, 55 n. 108) points out, in Second Temple tradition only the inspired person (here Paul) is able to persuade in any real sense (Let. Aris. 266; Philo, Fug. 139; Somn. 1.191; Virt. 217).

46

A. A. DAS

possibility. The social setting of Paul’s comments, however, adds another dimension to the analysis – that leads back to Option 1.

PERSUADING HUMAN BEINGS IN ITS SOCIAL CONTEXT In Gal 1:9–10 Paul declares, “Now I say again, if anyone preaches a gospel to you other than the gospel you received, let him be accursed! Am I now persuading people?” The ancient audience would interpret the “now” of 1:10’s persuasion in light of the curse in the preceding sentence, a warning doubly emphasized in Gal 1:8–9. The specter of a curse is potent rhetoric, especially for the Galatian audience. In a world obsessed with supernatural agencies and magic, many of their friends and family members – and likely they too as recent converts – feared the power of curses.33 The connection between curses and magic is ancient. The Egyptians from the second millennium BCE cursed their enemies by means of execration texts that were often inscribed on clay dolls that could be smashed, thereby unleashing awful magical effects. The frightening instrument was still in use centuries later. Sixteen small human figures made of lead and bound in chains of lead, iron, or bronze were discovered in southern Palestine at Tell Sandahannah/Marissa from the second century CE. The site also includes fifty limestone tablets with Greek magical curses.34 Another common practice from the fifth century BCE was to take lead sheets that had curses pronounced on them against enemies (tabellae defixionum), roll the sheets up, pierce them with a nail, and then leave them in wells or graves. This instrument was in use throughout the firstcentury Greco-Roman world, from Greece and Italy in the west to Egypt and Palestine in the east.35 33. Wolfgang Speyer, “Fluch,” RAC 7:1160–1288, here 1222–28, tracing the magical and divine power of curses back to Homer, a view that persisted even after and alongside a more rational approach that emerged in the fourth century BCE; see Morland, Rhetoric, 157. On the widespread fear of being cursed, see, for instance, John G. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 137 (no. 47), 188– 91 (nos. 89–91), 225 (no. 120), 246–47 (no. 137); Wolfgang Blümel, ed., Die Inschriften von Knidos, Part 1, Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 41 (Bonn: R. Habelt, 1992), 86– 103 (nos. 147–59 from the Demeter sanctuary in Cnidus). 34. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Magic in the Biblical World,” TynBul 34 (1983): 169–200, here 186–87. 35. Yamauchi, “Magic,” 185; J. M. R. Cormack, “A ‘Tabella Defixionis’ in the Museum of the University of Reading, England,” HTR 44 (1951): 25–34; G. W. Elderkin, “An Athenian Maledictory Inscription on Lead,” Hesperia 5 (1936): 43–49; G. W. Elderkin, “Two Curse Inscriptions,” Hesperia 5 (1936): 382–95; Eric G. Turner, “A Curse Tablet from Nottinghamshire,” JRS 53 (1963): 122–24.

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

47

The distinction between magic and religion is not always clear.36 In Greek culture, curses were demonic entities that took on a life of their own.37 The gods seemed quick to curse, smiting offenders with maladies ranging from blindness, to madness, to problems with the genitals (cf. Gal 5:12), to even a death-like condition.38 Curses infected victims with an evil, poisonous substance with destructive effects that began inside the body and then threatened the individual’s surrounding environment.39 Not only were the Galatians familiar with curses from their GrecoRoman world, they had begun to learn about the curses of the one, true God. In Gal 3:10 the Jewish Christian rivals were attempting to persuade the Galatians on the basis of Deut 27:26, in the context of Deut 27–30, to obey Moses’s law lest they incur God’s curse (κατάρα).40 Paul quotes the passage only because he must but concludes the exact opposite: those who rely on the law are under a curse. He effectively turns the specter of the law’s curse back precisely on those who had initially invoked it to frighten the Galatians.41 Of course, this is not the first time in the letter that Paul warns of a curse on the rival teachers. The rhetorically potent language in Gal 1:6–9 anticipates this later logic in 3:10. Paul’s “curse” logic would have been clear despite the use of a term that stems from the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism. The Greek word ἀνάθεμα (Gal 1:8–9) was chosen by the Septuagintal translators to render the Hebrew ‫( חרם‬herem; also translated by ἐξολεθρεύω). One reads in Deut 7:26 LXX: “Do not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, or you will be set apart for destruction [ἀνάθεμα] like it. You must utterly detest and abhor it, for it is set apart for destruction.” The abhorrent thing in Deut 7:26 is presumably an item dedicated to an idol, but even entire cities with their inhabitants and contents, should they be abhorrent to God, must be annihilated (Josh 6:17–18; see also Zech 14:11). The destruction of what is 36. Gager, Curse Tablets, 24–25; H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought (London: SCM, 1961), 27; Yamauchi, “Magic,” 175. 37. Speyer, “Fluch,” 1196; Morland, Rhetoric, 157; Johannes Hempel, Apoxysmata: Vorarbeiten zu einer Religionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1961), 75. 38. Clinton E. Arnold, “‘I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief,” NTS 51 (2005): 429–49, here 434. 39. Morland, Rhetoric, 158. Curses could therefore penetrate the body (e.g., in biblical literature, Num 5:27; Ps 109:18). 40. On the composite wording of what is primarily from Deut 27:26, see A. Andrew Das, Galatians, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia 2014), 312–13. 41. On Paul’s use of and response to the rivals’ scriptural texts, see A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 23–26.

48

A. A. DAS

abhorrent serves as a proper sacrifice to the true God (Lev 27:28–29). Once the abhorrent thing has been sacrificed, “the LORD may turn from his fierce anger and show you compassion” (Deut 13:17 [LXX 18] – a verse situated in a context warning against false teachers).42 God will visit the people with wrath if what is cursed remains in their midst (Josh 7:1, 11–13; 22:20; 1 Chr 2:7). Paul pronounces God’s curse on anyone who departs from the gospel message.43 The Hebrew Bible originally demanded execution of the offenders (Deut 13:6–9). Second Temple Jews had replaced execution with the practice of exclusion from the community upon pronouncement of the curses.44 Although nonbiblical Greek employs ἀνάθεμα for votive offerings, the clear syntagmatic vocabulary associated with a curse would have been clear to the gentile hearers of Paul’s letter.45 The “curse” word groups represent charged rhetoric in the Galatian context. The rivals were seeking to persuade with that language, and now so also is Paul. Although Paul begins his repeat warning in Gal 1:9 with what “we have said before,” he quickly modulates to “now I say again” – the first person singular. Paul solemnly repeats what “we” previously had said. The ancients commented on this rhetorical device.46 The shift in pronouns would signal a sense of genuine emotion behind his concerns.47 Either the Galatians accept Paul’s preaching as divinely authoritative (and act on the danger), or else they reject his preaching. The stakes are high. If the Galatians reject Paul’s message, they will share the curse that stands over the rival teachers.48 42. Deuteronomy 13:2–6, 7–11, and 13–18 consist of three conditional clauses with an accusation of apostasy and the punishment, including in one instance an anathema (ἀνάθεμα); see Ulrich B. Müller, Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament, SNT 10 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1975), 196–200: a prophetic judgment oracle in Gal 1:6-9; on the similarities with Deut 13, see Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding, WUNT 2/43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 70–73; Morland, Rhetoric, 92–95. 43. See also Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 12:3; Paul uses the term in connection with people. 44. William Horbury, “Extirpation and Excommunication,” VT 35 (1985): 13–38, esp. 27– 30; Morland, Rhetoric, 95–96, 159–60; contra Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 87–88. 45. BDAG; MM – with one exception (a first or second-century CE inscription from Megara that uses the term for a curse). 46. Quintilian, Inst. 6.2.27–36; 6.2.2–26; 8.3.88; 9.2.104; Aristotle, Rhet. 3.7.11. 47. Robert A. Bryant, The Risen Crucified Christ in Galatians, SBLDS 185 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 131. 48. Morland (Rhetoric, 237) writes: “Therefore, the Galatian churches are given a difficult choice. They cannot ignore this demand when the curses have been uttered. They have to choose between the authority of Paul and the authority of the opponents. In the former case they will have to regard the opponents as seducers; in the latter case they will have to regard Paul as a false curser, who is hit himself by curses which he illegitimately speaks against others.

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

49

Any who associate with the rival teachers would be endangering themselves and their households. The only proper response to cursed teachers in view of Paul’s warning in 1:6–9, echoed in 3:10, would be to exclude the rival teachers from the Galatian assemblies, which is exactly what he demands in Gal 4:30.49 With his conditional sentences in 1:8–9, the apostle avoids cursing the rivals directly. He leaves that to God, but he also invites the Galatians to verify whether the rival instructors are contradicting the gospel message and to consider the dire consequences.50 To summarize, the dangerous, potentially deadly power of curses was very real and frightening for Paul’s ancient audience. The invocation of the present danger (“now”) of a curse in 1:8–9, to which Paul returns “now” in 1:10, is highly effective and wonderfully contextualized rhetoric, designed to dissuade the Galatians from a dangerous course of action. Paul is indeed attempting to persuade human beings.

PERSUADING GOD Had Paul had in mind only the persuasion of people, he would not have added the unnecessary words “or God” in the first question of 1:10, and yet many specialists struggle to understand how Paul could ever have countenanced the persuasion of God. This is a greater problem for the modern than for the ancient. The clue is in the connection between Gal 1:10 and the curses of 1:8–9. To summarize briefly what follows: (1) The pronouncement of a curse is similar to the pronouncement of a spell, which entailed the persuasion of supernatural forces to act. (2) The effectiveness of a curse depends on expert authorities who are able to harness the power of a god by ritual acts of persuasion, sometimes even identifying themselves with the god. (3) Curses are often effectively prayers or appeals for a god to act. (4) The passive form of many curses implies the hidden agency of a supernatural power. (5) The covenant agreements in the ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible assume a divine witness who would enforce the covenantal curses. (6) Biblical After the reading of the letter, the Galatian churches cannot go on keeping close contact with both parties of the conflict.” 49. John A. Ziesler (The Epistle to the Galatians, Epworth Commentaries [London: Epworth, 1992], 5) went so far as to translate cursed as “banned,” a possibility considered by Ben W. Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 83–84; see also Morland, Rhetoric, 90–92. 50. D. J. Armitage, “An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis with Reference to Galatians 1,8–9,” Bib 88 (2007): 365–92, here 392.

50

A. A. DAS

curses required divine consent for their effectiveness. (7) Jews in Paul’s day continued to view curses as requiring divine consent and activity. In the context of Paul’s invocation of a divine curse in the prior verses (1:8–9), the notion of persuading God would be natural and comprehensible. 1. First Enoch 95:4 decries the illegitimate attempt by wicked persecutors to pronounce anathemas to afflict the righteous. The reference appears to be the practice of cursing, “probably to the accompaniment of magical formulae, incantations and spells.”51 Anathemas and their remedies brought to the minds of the ancient a supernatural world of powerful forces. Some have therefore likened the action of a curse to “word-magic.”52 Plato explains that “persuading gods” was the job of the Greco-Roman magician. In the context of harming and injuring others, “they are masters of spells and enchantments that constrain the gods to serve their end” (Resp. 364C, LCL). 2. Some scholars have classified curses as performatives, that is, as effective in themselves in creating a new reality quite apart from a divine agent.53 The notion that curses are effective in themselves, however, is unlikely. Supernatural involvement is required. Curses are often uttered in the firstperson on the basis of the speaker’s own authority.54 This does not exclude the supernatural agent. Across cultures, people distinguish the curses and blessings of saints, experts, or ritual authority figures (e.g., Balaam in Num 22–24) from the words uttered by an average person or novice, words unlikely to have any effect and not to be feared. The unleashing of supernatural forces and realities depends on the authority and expertise of the speaker. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus declares that since he is from above, he is able to curse people (8.1–2; cf. 4.2). In Acts 17:13–16, a demon does not recognize the authority of some Jewish exorcists. The priest or ritual specialist must know how to harness the power of a spirit or god.55 51. Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 297. He adds: “The ‘woe’ is on ‘sinners’ who issue such anathemas with the intention of ‘loosing’ them, i.e., ‘undoing’ the spell. Because of their sins, however, there will be no ‘remedies’ … available to them to undo their curse or spell.” 52. Josef Scharbert, “‫’ ׇא ׇלה‬ālāh,” TDOT 1:261–66, here 265: the magical aspects of a curse have receded because of the involvement of Yahweh, who may or may not follow through on the curse. 53. Morland, Rhetoric, 16–17; J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). In Judg 17:1–6, a woman uttered a curse on a thief that could not be retracted. She later had to counteract the curse with a blessing; cf. Prov 26:2. 54. David Frankfurter, “Curses, Blessings, and Ritual Authority: Egyptian Magic in Contemporary Perspective,” JANER 5 (2005): 157–85, here 157, 159, 160. 55. Frankfurter, “Curses,” e.g., 180 (the thesis of Frankfurter’s essay).

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

51

Some first-person spells include the expert’s identification with a god, e.g., “Retreat murderers! I am Horus,” or “I am Isis,” or “I myself am god.”56 Explicit identifications with a god in first-person curses offer evidence that these curses are grounded in the power and authority of a hidden supernatural agent. Paul reflects these social realities as well. At the same time he warns the Galatians of a curse, he is clear about his qualifications. He has been called by God through Christ (Gal 1:1, 11) and, with an emphatic word order, is “Christ’s slave.” In the Greco-Roman world, a slave acted with the full authority of his or her master. Paul closes the letter again emphasizing his close association with Christ; he bears on his body the marks of Christ (Gal 6:17). In a well-known first-century practice, people would dedicate themselves to a god in order to benefit from that god’s protection. They might wear a brand as devotees of the god or goddess.57 In the magical papyri from antiquity, a man claims to be carrying (βαστάζειν) the mummy of Osiris (as an amulet) and warns his opponents against bringing a complaint against him (κόπους παρέχει; cf. Gal 6:17).58 Like the mark on Cain in Gen 4:15 (cf. Ezek 9:4; Rev 7:2–4; 3 Macc 2:29–30), those who cause problems for Paul and his gospel fall under a curse. The marks of Christ function as the equivalent of a talisman that warns of serious consequences. Paul is under the protection of his master. As the apostle writes in Gal 2:19–20: “I have been crucified with Christ. I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” Properly credentialed, Paul warns of a curse in 1:8–9. 3. While other curses in the Mediterranean world do not take the form of first-person pronouncements, spells and tablets regularly explicitly request supernatural beings to actualize a curse. The curse is not effective of itself.59 The Greco-Roman expert may appeal to Hekate, Persephone, daimones, or 56. Frankfurter, “Curses,” 177; Louvre E. 14.250 [text 109] in Stephen Emmel, David Frankfurter, Marvin Meyer, Robert Ritner, Stephen H. Skiles, and Richard Smith, “Curses,” in Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, ed. Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 183–225, here 218–22. 57. E.g., Herodotus, Hist. 2.113: the plural noun refers to the sacred marks that deliver the individual to the god; the individual may not be touched. See also Lucian, Syr. d. 59. Jeremy W. Barrier downplayed religious tattooing in favor of slave branding, which was more amenable to his postcolonial reading; see “Marks of Oppression: A Postcolonial Reading of Paul’s Stigmata in Galatians 6:17,” BibInt 16 (2008): 336–62. 58. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies, trans. Alexander Grieve, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909), 349–60. Deissmann concluded that Paul is referring to “protective-marks”; followed by O. Betz, “στίγμα,” TDNT 7:663; and John Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of St Paul’s Epistle, Householder Commentaries (London: St Paul, 1969), 497. 59. Frankfurter, “Curses,” 176.

52

A. A. DAS

another god or gods to accomplish the curse.60 “The curse is therefore in a sense a prayer for justice addressed to a deity.”61 Paul invokes the one God. 4. Many curse formulas in biblical contexts employ the passive form of a verb, which implies a concealed agent. Sheldon Blank counters that there is no supernatural agent behind curses worded with passive verbs.62 Blank overlooked the fact that in a monotheistic context, God would be the presumed agent. “A society which recognized but a single source of power could use passival constructions in its imprecations (and prayers), without there being any question as to the agent who rewards and punishes.”63 The passive voice therefore placed emphasis on God or an agency endowed by God with unusual power.64 A curse is not, contrary to Blank, “automatic or self-fulfilling, 60. Wolfgang Wiefel, “Fluch und Sakralrecht: Religionsgeschichtliche Prolegomena zur Frühentwicklung des Kirchenrechts,” Numen 16 (1969): 211–33, here 216–17; Frankfurter, “Curses,” 174; Jean-Baptiste Frey, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. (New York: Ktav, 1975), 1:385 (no. 526); Anne Marie Kitz, “An Oath, Its Curse and Anointing Ritual,” JAOS 124 (2004): 315–21, esp. 316–19 (Akkadian curses); David R. Jordan, “Two Curse Tablets from Lilybaeum,” GRBS 38 (1997): 387–96; Jordan, “New Greek Curse Tablets (1985–2000),” GRBS 41 (2000): 5–46, here 5; e.g., 21, 26, 28, 29. A Coptic curse calls on the “God of heaven and earth” to render effective a curse; see British Museum Oriental Ms. 5986 in Robert K. Ritner, “An Eternal Curse upon the Reader of These Lines (With Apologies to M. Puig),” in Ancient Egyptian Demonology: Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic, ed. P. Kousoulis, OLA 175 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 3–24, here 3. Ritner (“An Eternal Curse,” 3–24) documents several Egyptian curses that call upon gods, spirits, demons, ghosts, and other supernatural entities. See also, e.g., Yale 1800 and Yale 882(a) [texts 106–7] in Emmel et al., “Curses,” 215–17 – these instances are typical of the full collection of texts in Emmel et al., “Curses”; see the discussion and examples in John G. Gager, “Curse Tablets and Binding Spells in the Greco-Roman World,” in The Meaning of Magic: From the Bible to Buffalo Bill, ed. Amy Wygant, Polygons: Cultural Diversities and Intersections 11 (New York: Berghahn, 2006), 69–87, here 82–83; and Gager, Curse Tablets, 175, 178–99: spirits, daimones, and deities are the agencies that stand behind curses. On curses as prayers for justice, see also Jürgen Blänsdorf, “The Defixiones from the Sanctuary of Isis and Mater Magna in Mainz,” in Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza 30 Sept.–1 Oct. 2005, ed. Richard L. Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón, RGRW 168 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 141–89, here 152–55, 164, with examples of curse texts on 166–68, 172–77, 180–88; Henk S. Versnel, “Prayers for Justice, East and West, New Finds and Publications Since 1990,” in Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza 30 Sept.–1 Oct. 2005, ed. Richard L. Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón, RGRW 168 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 275–354, here 275–82, 323–421, with further examples of curse texts that call upon the gods on 283–321. 61. Turner, “Curse Tablet,” 122. 62. Sheldon Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” HUCA 23 (1950– 1951): 73–95, here 77–78. 63. Herbert Chanan Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, SBLMS 13 (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1963), esp. 212–13, here 213. 64. Charles Sherlock, “The Meaning of ḤRM in the Old Testament,” Colloq 14 (1982): 13–24, here 18; Brichto, Problem, 215.

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

53

having the nature of a ‘spell’” that is capable of bringing about the result of which it speaks.65 Curses were effectively prayers to Yahweh to act.66 Curses explicitly addressed to God should be considered parallel to curses in the passive construction.67 The fact that even angels stand under the threat of the curse in Gal 1:8–9 reinforces the divine agency that stands behind Paul’s words. 5. The biblical curse is based on ancient covenantal models. Only the Jews used ἀνάθεμα as a word for a curse.68 The word is used in Deut 13:13– 18 in an “if-you” construction in a context of apostasy and false prophets/ teachers.69 The bulk of the covenantal curses, however, are in Deut 27–30, but ἀνάθεμα is not employed there. Nevertheless, Josephus (Ant. 4.309– 310) interprets the use of ἀνάθεμα in Deut 13:13 in light of Deut 27–30. Paul makes a similar connection when he returns to the language of curse in Gal 3:10 and quotes from Deut 27–30. The association of ἀνάθεμα with the later Deuteronomic covenantal curses appears to have emerged by the time of Paul.70 Other parallels between Gal 1:6–9 and Deut 13 include: (a) Gal 1:6: “turn away from the one who called you” (μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντοϛ ὑμᾶς) Deut 13:6 LXX: πλανῆσαί σε ἀπὸ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ Deut 13:11: ἐζήτησεν ἀποστῆσαί σε ἀπὸ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ Deut 13:14: ἀπέστησαν πάνταϛ (b) Gal 1:9: “contrary to what” (παρ’ ὅ) Deut 13:14 LXX: παράνομοι 65. Blank, “Curse,” 78. 66. Scharbert, TDOT 1:265; followed by Brichto, Problem, 12–13. In Ezek 17:19, Yahweh acknowledges the duty to guarantee a treaty sworn in Yahweh’s name. The curse of Num 5:21 is a prayer for Yahweh to act. Yahweh could not be forced to act (see 1 Kgs 8:31– 32/2 Chr 6:22–23; Wiefel, “Fluch,” 216–17). Scharbert adds (1:266): “One must ask God to put the curse into operation”; followed by Sherlock, “Meaning,” 17; Frankfurter, “Curses,” 175–76. Jewish curses uttered against grave violation in Asia Minor frequently and explicitly mention God’s agency; see Johan J. M. Strubbe, “Curses Against Violation of the Grave in Jewish Epitaphs of Asia Minor,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. Willem van Henten and Peter Willem van der Horst, AGJU 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 70–128, here 106–27; David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, Vol. 2, The City of Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 304–6. 67. On curses attributed to God, see Gen 3:14–15; 3:17–19; 4:11–12; Deut 28:65–68. In these instances the passive curses are interrupted by God’s speech in the first person; see Blank, “Curse,” 79. 68. Morland, Rhetoric, 151. 69. Morland, Rhetoric, 86, 92. 70. Morland, Rhetoric, 151.

54

A. A. DAS

(c) Gal 1:9: “let him be accursed” (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω) Deut 13:16, 18 LXX: ἀνάθεμα Deut 27–30: metonymous expressions of curse71 Most ancient Near Eastern treaties include a list of gods who were serving as witnesses of the agreement should a party break the covenantal oath.72 In biblical literature, the activity of the one true God would be assumed as the divine agency in a covenantal curse. 6. Biblical curses required the consent of the Lord.73 Elijah cursed “in the name of the Lord” in 2 Kgs 2:24, even as Goliath cursed David by his gods in 1 Sam 17:43. David responded that Goliath’s gods would have no effect on him since the Lord is more powerful (1 Sam 17:45–47). Curses are ineffective apart from the will of God, as Balaam realized in Num 22–23, esp. 22:12; 23:8. God enforced the curse uttered by Jotham in Judg 9:20, 56–57 (cf. 9:23–24, 39–55). Saul pronounced a curse in 1 Sam 14:24, 28, but Jonathan was nevertheless spared. Again, a curse is not automatic.74 The imprecatory psalms often explicitly call upon God to realize curses (Pss 12:3; 58:6; 69:24; 83:9, 13–16; 109:20). Revelation 22:18–19 identifies God as the agent of a curse upon anyone who alters the words of the book. 7. Many Jews in Paul’s day continued to view curses as dependent on God’s consent and activity, which would need to be secured by the one uttering the curse. Josephus in the late first century narrates Balaam’s request in Num 22–24 to curse Israel: “Let us erect yet other altars and offer sacrifices like unto the first, if perchance I may persuade God [εἰ πεῖσαι τὸν θεόν] to suffer me to bind these people under a curse” (Ant. 4.123, LCL, emphasis mine; cf. the same language in Ant. 8.255–256). Balaam is seeking to persuade God to endorse the curse, which is essential for the curse to be effective. Israel’s enemies ultimately failed to obtain God’s permission or consent (οὐκ ἐπένευσε) to curse the Israelites (Ant. 4.124).75 In another example from Josephus, in Ant 5.31: “As for the city … he [Joshua] pronounced 71. Morland, Rhetoric, 151–52. 72. Yamauchi, “Magic,” 182. 73. On the ineffectiveness of curses that are uttered contrary to the will of God, see Mark Mercer, “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse: A Study of 2 Kings 2:23–25,” Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology 21 (2002): 165–98, here 183–87. 74. See the discussion of this text in Mercer, “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse,” 185–86. East Semitic curses openly called on the deities “to approve of and effect curses,” whereas West Semitic curses with their characteristic passive construction assumed God’s action in effecting the curse (thus, when made explicit, God is the subject of the finite forms of the verb in Gen 5:29; 12:3; and twice in Mal 2:2); see Christopher Wright Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament, SBLDS 95 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 36. 75. Sandnes, Paul – One of the Prophets, 54–55.

THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS 1:10 – PERSUADING GOD

55

imprecations [ἀράς], that if he laid foundations of walls he should be bereft of his firstborn and if he completed the walls he should lose the youngest of his sons. Nor was this curse [ἀράς] unregarded by the Deity, but in the sequel we shall recount the calamity which it entailed” (LCL; emphasis mine). Earlier in the first century, Philo (Mos. 2.199) writes: “Answer me, thou man, Does anyone curse [καταρᾶται] God? Then what other god does he call on to make good the curse [ἀράς], or is it clear that he invokes the help of God against Himself?” (LCL; emphasis mine). In Mart. Isa. 5:9: “And Isaiah answered and said, ‘If it is within my power to say, “Condemned and cursed be you, and all your hosts, and all your house!”’” (trans. M. A. Knibb, OTP; emphasis mine). Each of these authors views curses as ineffective of themselves apart from God’s favor and activity. Thus, the pronouncement of a curse would have been viewed by many Greeks, Romans, and Jews as an attempt to persuade God to act. The initially odd mention in Gal 1:10 of “persuading God” (“now”) makes sense when read alongside Paul’s present solicitation of divine punitive action in 1:9 (“now”). Paul is indeed persuading God to wrath against the contrary teachers and thereby persuading the Galatians to avoid them.76 Paul carries the Galatians into God’s presence with the “amen” of 1:5. Now he invokes God’s presence in their midst again in 1:8–9 as he hands the rival instructors over to God.77 The conditional sentence and the first person plural subject of 1:8 (note the cosenders in 1:2) indicate that Paul is not himself cursing the Galatians but is warning them of the consequences of a course of action contrary to the gospel he preached. God is the agency behind the third person imperatives in 1:8–9. Paul is invoking God to enact the curse. When Paul speaks of persuading God in 1:10, the language would have been readily comprehensible to the Galatians.

CONCLUSION Paul left people-pleasing behind the moment he began to follow Christ. Hence the “still” (ἔτι) of Gal 1:10 is most likely in reference to his preconversion past when he sought to gain acclaim by advancing in the law beyond his peers (Gal 1:14). Paul was formerly a people-pleaser, just as the Galatian 76. Moo (Galatians, 83 n. 7) faults Witherington (Grace in Galatia, 85) and Sandnes (Paul – One of the Prophets, 54–55) for thinking that Paul is hoping to persuade God to carry out the curse, but he overlooks the divine agency behind a curse and, in his summary judgment, does not actually address Sandnes’s evidence. 77. Martyn, Galatians, 107.

56

A. A. DAS

rivals are as they encourage the Galatians to follow the law’s precepts. By trying to please their fellow Jews, the rivals hope to escape persecution (6:12– 13). Even the Galatians themselves are acting as “people-pleasers” in yielding to the rivals’ message and pressure tactics (4:17, 29).78 The connection of 1:10 to 1:8–9 is clear: Since Paul will suffer a curse upon himself should he preach a different gospel, no one should claim that he is a mere peoplepleaser. His attempts to persuade flow from positive motives. By invoking anathemas, the apostle is calling on God to enact the curse upon those who depart from the gospel. He is also attempting to persuade the Galatians to adhere to that gospel and to reject the rival message. “Am I seeking to persuade people or God?” With his rhetorical question Paul is signaling to the Galatians a genuine attempt to persuade them – in the very presence of God whom he calls as his witness (Gal. 1:20). Elmhurst University

A. Andrew DAS

78. Paul courageously stands against those who speak contrary to the truth of the gospel (2:5) – even Peter (2:11–14), the one who comes across as the real people-pleaser, ironically, in his hypocrisy; see Dodd, “Christ’s Slave,” 102.

5 HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY: A STUDY OF CRUCIFIXION AND SHAME IN ROMANS 6:1–6

The verb σταυρόω (“I crucify”) is never used metaphorically in pre-Christian Greek literature – whether poetic, philosophical, or theological.1 It is used primarily in the literal sense of putting up a post or other protective stockades.2 As a technical term for crucifixion, namely the cruciform execution, its occurrences are “rare,” limited only to Josephus (e.g., Ant. 2.77; 17.295), Polybius (1.86), Diodorus Siculus (16.61), and Strabo (Geogr. 14.1.39).3 The verb ἀνασταυρόω occurs more frequently in Greek literature outside of the New Testament, but in the New Testament it only occurs in Hebrews (cf. 6:6).4 The noun σταυρός occurs more frequently than its verbal counterpart, but the references are mostly to “an upright stake” or “fencing.”5 It refers to the cruciform execution only in a small number of cases, as in the case of σταυρόω.6 After a comprehensive study of ancient Greek authors on the subject of crucifixion, Gunnar Samuelsson notes with some regret: “What is left of the hundreds of references [to σταυρόω and σταυρός] is only a handful of texts which offer modest information on the punishment.”7 While John Granger Cook is able to cite hundreds of Latin texts that mention 1. According to John Granger Cook, crucifixion was often used in cursing. See John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, WUNT 327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 52–57. Although one could argue that using the cross in a curse formula qualifies as metaphorical, it is more likely that a curse (such as “Go to an evil cross!”) was both meant and taken literally. 2. J. Schneider, “σταυρός, σταυρόω, ἀνασταυρόω,” TDNT 7:572–84, here 581. 3. Schneider, TDNT 7:581. 4. Schneider, TDNT 7:583. 5. Schneider, TDNT 7:572. 6. Schneider, TDNT 7:572. 7. Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, WUNT 310 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 143.

58

P. R. CHOI

the cross and crucifixion as direct references to the cruciform execution, he makes the following cautionary statement regarding their Greek counterparts σταυρόω and σταυρός: “The Greek terminology for ‘cross,’ ‘stake,’ and ‘crucify,’ ‘impale,’ or ‘suspend’ is ambiguous at times. One must pay careful attention to the context.”8 In other words, there are very few occurrences of σταυρόω and σταυρός in ancient Greek sources that refer unambiguously to the cruciform execution. It is important, however, to note that in none of these cases do we encounter the type of metaphorical usage of the cross and crucifixion that we find in Paul. This dearth of Greek references to crucifixion cannot be explained merely on the basis that crucifixion was a method of execution used mostly in the Roman period. For some types of crucifixion were practiced as far back as the Persian period, or possibly even earlier.9 Cook, who offers an impressive number of references to the cross from the New Testament period and onward, can make only an educated guess on its usage in literature before the New Testament: “Since one can demonstrate that σταυρός could have a cruciform sense beginning with the NT period, there is no overwhelming reason for doubting that the same meaning existed in some texts prior to the NT.”10 There was a general mood of reluctance on the part of ancient Greek authors to include the mention of crucifixion or the cross in their writings. As a punishment reserved mostly for slaves or rebels, this gruesome method of execution does not appear to have been a subject of interest to their Greek audiences. The verb συσταυρόω (“I crucify with”), the term found in Rom 6:6 (the text of our discussion), is completely absent from any Greco-Roman literature – whether Christian or non-Christian – outside of the New Testament, where it appears five times, all in the passive voice.11 Three of these occurrences are depictions of the crucifixion of the malefactors with Jesus in the Gospels (Matt 27:44; Mark 15:32; John 19:32). They merely describe how the three were crucified together at the same time and do not appear to carry any overt theological significance. The remaining two occurrences of the term are found in Paul (Rom 6:6; Gal 2:19), and they are loaded with theological significance. It follows, then, that it was Paul who coined (or perhaps adopted 8. Cook, Crucifixion, 4; for the exhaustive references found in Latin literature, see pp. 51– 139. 9. Schneider, TDNT 7:573. Neither Cook nor Samuelsson includes any texts from the Persian period; their discussions begin with the Greeks. 10. Cook, Crucifixion, 6. 11. Neither Cook (Crucifixion, 4–15) nor Samuelsson (Crucifixion, 271–80) mentions συσταυρόω or Rom 6:6 in their otherwise exhaustive discussions of the Greek terminology of crucifixion.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

59

from the Jesus tradition) the term συσταυρόω to express his unique theological takes on the cross. Latin authors – especially Cicero – make numerous references to crucifixion. In his Verrine Orations, a series of speeches he wrote around 70 CE against the notorious governor of Sicily, Cicero argues why crucifixion should not be used on Roman citizens. He stresses the humiliating nature of the execution, likening it to public torture. He writes in Verr. 2.5.163: Have all these things come in the end to mean so little that in a Roman province, in a town whose people have special privileges, a Roman citizen could be bound and flogged in the marketplace by a man who owed his rods and axes to the favour of the Roman people? When the fire and hot metal plates and the like were brought to torture him, even if his agonized entreaties, his pitiful cries could not stay your hand, was your soul untouched even by the tears and the loud groans of the Roman citizens who then stood by? You dared to crucify any living man who claimed to be a Roman citizen?12

Here Cicero offers two reasons why he objects to crucifying a Roman citizen: excruciating pain and dishonor. Seneca the Elder seems to share the same sentiment as Cicero. In his Controversiae 7.6.1, Seneca describes crucifixion as a punishment reserved for slaves who have committed reprehensible acts. He writes: A tyrant gave permission to slaves to kill their masters and rape their mistresses. The chief men of the state fled; among them one who had a son and a daughter set off abroad. Though all the other slaves raped their mistresses, this man’s slave kept the girl inviolate. When the tyrant had been killed, the chief men returned, and crucified their slaves. But this man manumitted his slave, and gave him his daughter in marriage.13

Then in 7.6.3, Fulvius Sparsus mocks the man who gave his daughter’s hand in marriage to a slave: “Your son-in-law has deserved crucifixion just because of his marriage. – An excellent son-in-law, whose main claim to fame is that he is not one of the crucified.” As we shall see, this close connection between crucifixion and mockery in both Cicero and the elder Seneca sheds important light on Paul’s use of crucifixion as a metaphor of mockery in his theology. At the same time, as already noted, no one outside of the Pauline corpus uses the noun “cross” nor the verb “crucify” metaphorically in a philosophical or theological sense. These words are practically always used to denote the literal capital punishment by means of either a cross or a stake. 12. Translations of Cicero are from the LCL edition by L. G. H. Greenwood. 13. Translations of Seneca the Elder are from the LCL edition by Michael Winterbottom.

60

P. R. CHOI

THE MECHANICS OF CRUCIFIXION Modern historians concur on the gruesome and extremely humiliating nature of crucifixion, but they differ sharply from their ancient counterparts in that they mostly focus on the physical aspect of the suffering.14 Archeologists have remarkably found only two bone specimens that belong to the remains of crucified victims.15 The most important specimen comes from an area northeast of Jerusalem known as Givʻat ha-Mivtar. It was found in one of the three tombs discovered during an excavation by V. Tzaferis in June 1968.16 The specimen is dated by Tzaferis to between 5 CE and 70 CE, which puts it roughly in the timeframe of the New Testament era. The specimen comes from Ossuary 4 or Tomb 1 and basically consists of two heel bones penetrated by a single iron nail, with a flat piece of acacia or pistacia wood on either side of the bones. 17 The bone specimen also includes parts of the broken leg bones (tibiae and fibulae). Dr. N. Hass, affiliated with Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical School, filed a report on the specimen as follows: “Both the heel bones were found transfixed by a large iron nail. The shins were found intentionally broken. Death caused by crucifixion.”18 This specimen of heel bones has been used to determine the precise manner and posture in which victims would have been crucified. N. Haas, Y. Yadin, and Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles have carefully studied the specimen but produced three different explanations on how the victim may have been crucified. Haas suggests an open position in which “the feet were jointed almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, the right one overlapping the left.”19 Yadin’s model is a bit more complicated and slightly difficult to visualize. He suggests a bowlegged model in which the victim’s legs were parted but the feet were joined together at the heels by being transfixed by a nail so that they could be “attached to two plaques of wood, acacia near the end of the nail, and 14. See Cook, Crucifixion, 418–26, for discussion of how ancient authors focused on the shame, rather than physical pain, of the cross in their mockeries toward Christians who believed in a crucified God. 15. Emanuela Gualdi-Russo, Ursula Thun Hohenstein, Nicoletta Onisto, Elena Pilli, and David Caramelli, “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2018), https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0631-9. 16. V. Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs at and near Givʻat ha-Mivtar,” IEJ 20 (1970): 18–32. 17. J. Naveh, “The Ossuary Inscriptions from Givʻat ha-Mivtar,” IEJ 20 (1970): 33–37. 18. N. Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Givʻat ha-Mivtar,” IEJ 20 (1970): 42 19. Haas, “Anthropological Observations,” 58.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

61

olive near its point, and the nail was then bent backwards to secure the attachment. The man then was fixed to the cross by being hung by his parted legs over the top of the cross.”20 Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles suggest yet another model of crucifixion, in which the victim’s feet were each nailed to the sides of the upright of the cross rather than joined together at the heel. Joel B. Green seems to sum up the discussion best when he writes: “No standard form of crucifixion was uniformly practiced.”21 Based on Josephus, J.W. 5.449–451, Green further observes that “the method of crucifixion was subject to the whims of military leaders.”22 Cook writes: “The crucified were placed in different poses.”23 In other words, it seems to have been left up to the executioners to exercise their imagination in devising the most painful and humiliating positions in which to place their crucified victims. It follows, then, that it is not possible to determine the precise posture in which Jesus would have been crucified. In any case, though, it is clear that crucifixion was one of the most horrendous and gruesome methods of execution devised in the ancient world, regardless how one reconstructs the postures of the crucified victims. Also, the fact that crucifixion was carried out in full view of the spectators and that the bodies of the victims could be left on the cross to be devoured by scavenging birds and animals and to rot away made this form of death especially offensive and appalling. Strikingly missing, however, in modern investigations of crucifixion is how this gruesome manner of death impacted the victim’s psychology and sociological self-awareness. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CRUCIFIXION Early church fathers do not appear to have thought of crucifixion metaphorically, as a mystical union with Christ. Cyril of Alexandria may be an exception. He writes: “We were crucified with Christ at the moment when his flesh was crucified, because it somehow included universal human nature in itself.”24 Ancient authors outside of the New Testament – whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan – simply do not seem comfortable using crucifixion as 20. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 129. 21. Joel B. Green, “Crucifixion,” DPL 197–99, esp. 198. 22. Green, “Crucifixion,” 198. 23. Cook, Crucifixion, 427. 24. Gerald L. Bray, ed., Romans, 2nd ed., ACCS 6 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 154.

62

P. R. CHOI

a theological or philosophical metaphor. As already noted, Paul’s use of the cross as a metaphor of baptism in Rom 6 is unique among ancient authors. But he does not appear to be thinking of a mystical union with this metaphor. The origins of the notion of mystical union probably go back to modern scholars of the history-of-religions school, who first suggested a link between the baptismal motif in Rom 6 and the initiation rites of Hellenistic mystery religions.25 Yet today, many commentators simply assume that Paul’s notion of union between the believer and the crucified Christ through the rite of baptism is mystical in nature.26 But when one considers that no such understanding of the crucifixion exists even in the New Testament outside of Paul, one needs to carefully reexamine this assumption. First, the concept of being crucified with Christ through baptism seems to originate with Paul. Second, the passion narrative about the two thieves crucified with Jesus seems to be in some way behind Paul’s notion that baptism is an act of being crucified with Christ. Third, the passion tradition about the two thieves found in the Gospels seems to represent an older layer that precedes Paul. Given these possibilities, there should be a fresh look at Paul’s intention in what he hoped to accomplish when he borrowed the term συσταυρόω from the passion narrative. One possibility is that in Rom 6:6 (cf. Gal 2:20) Paul is thinking of the shame associated with the cross and the psychological impact that such association would have had on baptized believers. Although such a psychological approach is possible and even tempting, it finds little support in the writings of the fathers. The disclosure formula “do you not know?” in Rom 6:1 indicates that Paul felt that his readers already knew the baptismal tradition under discussion.27 If baptismal candidates in the early church underwent a psychological preparation in which they internalized the shame of crucifixion, we would certainly find traces of such information in the writings of the church fathers. Yet, for example, Justin Martyr knew of no such practices in his description of the way baptismal candidates were prepared. In fact, it is remarkable how in 1 Apol. 61 he makes no reference at all to crucifixion in his description of baptism: As many as are persuaded and believe that the things we teach and say are true, and undertake to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and ask God with fasting for the remission of their past sins, while we pray and fast with them. 25. See James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., WBC (Dallas: Word, 1988), 1:308–11, for a summary of discussion on Paul and the mystery cults of Isis and Osiris. 26. Mark A. Seifrid, “In Christ,” DPL 433–36, esp. 435; Peter T. O’Brien, “Mysticism,” DPL 622–25, esp. 624; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 139. 27. Dunn, Romans, 1:308.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

63

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again in the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.28

Thus, although a psychological explanation of συσταυρόω is tempting, it is probably not an option for Rom 6. In fact, the earliest Christian commentators seem to understand Rom 6:6 in theological and ethical terms.29 For example, Tertullian, in his On Resurrection of the Flesh 47, equates the crucifixion in Rom 6:6 with “amendment of life.”30 This ambiguous phrase “amendment of life” is a bit mystifying, but it probably means amending one’s previous sinful life. And Origen, in his Commentary on the Epistle of Romans, only speaks of the removal of the “stains of sin in everyone which must be cleansed by water and the Spirit” and does not mention crucifixion.31 Perhaps a more promising possibility is a sociological approach that understands crucifixion as a public event in which the victim’s social status is destroyed by means of mockery. It has already been discussed above that in the vast repertoire of Greek literature the verb συσταυρόω occurs only in Romans, Galatians, and the passion narratives of the Gospels where Jesus is described as crucified with the two bandits (Matt 27:44; Mark 15:32; John 19:32). Of particular interest to our current discussion is that mockery is front and center in the descriptions of Jesus’s crucifixion in Mark and Matthew to the exclusion of all other considerations. In Mark 15:27–32, we see a rather narrow focus on mockery. In this account, the passers-by hurl the first mockery at Jesus. And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him [συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν αὐτῷ] also taunted him.32

We again see the same focus on mockery in Matt 27:41–44. In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe 28. St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies, translated with introduction and notes by Leslie William Barnard, ACW (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 66. 29. Bray, Romans, 152–54. 30. Cited in Bray, Romans, 152. 31. Cited in Bray, Romans, 152. 32. Biblical translations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.

64

P. R. CHOI

in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” The bandits who were crucified with him [συσταυρωθέντες σὺν αὐτῷ] also taunted him in the same way.

In both narratives, there is no discussion of the physical pain, as terrifying as it was. The descriptions of crucifixion consist only of the mockery. In other words, the descriptions of the crucifixion in Mark and Matthew throw the spotlight on the sociological significance of the event, how Jesus’s perceived social standing as the alleged Messiah and king of Israel was destroyed by his exposure to public mockery. The gospel writers do not show any interest in other aspects of the crucifixion, such as the bodily posture of Jesus – how he was positioned on the cross – or his facial expressions or bodily movements that may offer windows into the nature of his bodily pain and what was going through his mind at the time. That is simply not within the purview of their interest. Instead, the narratives zoom in on the sociological dimension of the suffering, recalling in vivid details the mocking words that were uttered to humiliate Jesus and to destroy any claim he might have had of being a messiah or a king, or even of his special relationship to God.

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MOCKERY AND CRUCIFIXION Jayne Raisborough and Matt Adams’s article on the sociological significance of mockery offers insightful suggestions on the function of this practice.33 Although the article is about the use of mockery by the white middle class against the white working class, it nevertheless sheds important light on three key sociological functions of mockery that are relevant to our current discussion. Raisborough and Adams argue that, as a social mechanism, the function of mockery is (1) to create class distinctions,34 (2) to attach “moral stigma” to those it targets,35 and (3) to create safe spaces for denigrating and reinterpreting the social status of those targeted.36 As a mechanism of class distinction, mockery opens up social distance between the mockers and their targets. In the case of the white middle class, they laugh and poke fun at the poor taste, grubby lifestyle, and unrefined manners of the white working class, thereby reclassifying them and dismissing them as an “other.” As a 33. Jayne Raisborough and Matt Adams, “Mockery and Morality in Popular Cultural Representations of the White, Working Class,” Sociological Research Online 13 (2008), http:// www.socresonline.org.uk/13/6/2.html#bourdieu1984. 34. Raisborough and Adams, “Mockery and Morality,” 1.1–2. 35. Raisborough and Adams, “Mockery and Morality,” 4.4. 36. Raisborough and Adams, “Mockery and Morality,” 1.2; 5.2.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

65

mechanism of attaching moral stigma to its targets, mockery makes those who are targeted feel not only morally inferior but morally responsible, and even guilty, about their ways of life, such as how they dress, speak, eat, and entertain themselves. Finally, as a mechanism for creating safe spaces of denigration and reinterpretation, mockery shifts the “interpretive register” from “serious to levity,” thereby opening up spaces in which those being targeted could be pushed out or pushed down into an inferior strata in the universe of social hierarchies and values.37 These three social functions of mockery offer important insights on the crucifixion narratives of the Gospels. In the Markan narrative (15:27–32), we can identify all three of these functions. One can see Mark’s “class consciousness” in vv. 27, 31, and 32, where the author lists four classes of people who mocked Jesus: the passers-by, i.e., the hoi polloi (v. 27); the priests and scribes (v. 31); the Roman soldiers who crucified him (v. 32a); and the bandits who were crucified with him (v. 32b). Only the mockeries of the first two classes are cited. Their words denigrate Jesus and demote him from a higher layer of social hierarchy, if he did indeed claim it, to the lowest. The passers-by mock him: “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” (vv. 29– 30). Their aim is to bring down the social status of Jesus from a powerful miracle worker who is able to build the temple in three days to a merely powerless victim. Mockery is their tool of choice. The mockeries of the priests and scribes make the same point, except more clearly, as they explicitly mention the elevated social status of Jesus – the Savior (“he saved others”), the Messiah, and the king: “He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe” (vv. 31–32). Jesus the revered Savior, the Messiah, and King is mercilessly brought down to the level of weaklings who cannot help themselves. These mockeries also attach moral stigma to Jesus, in a way comparable to the second sociological function discussed by Raisborough and Adams. Jesus is taunted not only as a weak person who is unable to save himself, but also as an imposter whose words no longer have power. Furthermore, the mockeries create a safe space for denigration and reinterpretation of social status. Jesus is firmly nailed to the cross and condemned by the Roman authorities, opening up a space where the mockers can use levity and insult at the foot of the cross to denigrate and to offer a rude reinterpretation of the work and words of Jesus. The intent is to utterly diminish their importance and value. 37. Raisborough and Adams, “Mockery and Morality,” 52.

66

P. R. CHOI

Matthew’s crucifixion narrative (27:41–44) also falls in line with these three sociological functions of mockery. The Matthean account does not mention the passers-by or the rebuilding of the temple, but it expands the list of the Jewish elites to “the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders,” and injects the higher social status of the Son of God into the mockery: “He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son’” (v. 43). In this story, Jesus’s demotion in terms of class and status is remarkable because the mockery tries to bring him down from the highest level of being “God’s Son” to the level of a helpless criminal on the cross. Also in terms of moral stigma, the divine Sonship that Jesus allegedly claimed is mocked as a blasphemy, characterizing the suffering of Jesus as a divine punishment. Furthermore, the mockery opens up a new interpretive space by means of levity and insult by which the very mission and identity of Jesus (cf. 4:3, 4, 6; 8:29; 14:33; 16:16; 26:63–64) is denigrated and reinterpreted, resulting in greatly diminished significance.

CRUCIFIXION IN ROMANS 6:1–6 It is my contention that the verb συνεσταυρώθη in Rom 6:6 should be understood in light of the same sociological functions as in Matt 27:44 and Mark 15:32. The point of the metaphor is mockery, not simply a union. The baptized believers are crucified with Christ by becoming targets of the same mockery that Christ endured on the cross, on the three levels just discussed. This reading of συσταυρόω fits well into the context of Rom 6:1–6. Verse 1 opens with the question of whether one should continue to sin so that grace may abound. Paul vehemently denies this possibility in v. 2 with μὴ γένοιτο. Then he follows up in vv. 3–6 with an explanation of why this is the case. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized [ἐβαπτίσθημεν] into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried [συνετάφημεν] with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him [σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν] in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him [συνεσταυρώθη] so that the body of sin might be destroyed [καταργηθῇ], and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (emphasis mine)

In this quick-paced argument, there are four loaded images that occur before we meet συνεσταυρώθη (“we have been crucified with him”) in v. 6.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

67

They are: “we have been baptized” (ἐβαπτίσθημεν) in v. 3, “we have been buried with him” (συνετάφημεν) in v. 4, “we have been united with him” (σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν) in v. 5, and “the body of sin might be destroyed” (καταργηθῇ) in v. 6. The baptism in v. 3 recalls the believer’s participation in the death of Christ though this rite. Then the images of burial in v. 4 and union (σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν) in v. 5 explain the meaning of this participation as a transfer from the realm of death to the realm of life. Finally, the metaphor of crucifixion in v. 6 reveals that this transfer consists of the destruction of the believer’s sinful body on the one hand, and freedom from slavery to sin on the other. An important point to note here is that the images of baptism, burial, and union in vv. 3–5 all imply a destructive process. This is evident from the way Paul uses the metaphor of crucifixion in v. 6, which brings the argument of vv. 3–5 to a completion. Crucifixion represents a deconstructive rather than a constructive process because “the body of sin” is destroyed as a result of that action, and at the same time, one is set free from sin. It is not difficult to see that these actions – destruction and emancipation – are deconstructive in nature. For they are actions by which the sinful body of the baptized person and his or her former relationship to sin experience a violent destruction. Verse 7 further reinforces this deconstructive character of the crucifixion experience: “For whoever has died is freed from sin.” The three sociological functions of mockery set forth by Raisborough and Adams are helpful in clarifying the sociological aspect of Paul’s deconstructive concept of crucifixion in Rom 6. Paul implies the first of these functions, that of creating distance or class distinction, in the notion that the crucifixion of the “old self” results in a newly elevated, morally superior self. As the white middle class uses mockery to put distance between itself and the white working class in Raisborough and Adams’s discussion, such language of crucifixion creates a class distinction of sort between the baptized and those who are still under the sway of the flesh, namely, the old self. James D. G. Dunn notes that the pronoun “our” in “our old anthropos” represents “the societal and salvation-history dimension.”38 This overtone of “societal” or class difference is perhaps nowhere clearer than in the language of slavery found in vv. 6–7: the old self is “enslaved” and the new is “freed.” The intent of this slavery language is hard to miss. Its aim is to place the old ἄνθρωπος in a much inferior class than the new ἄνθρωπος of the baptized, whom Paul interestingly also calls “slaves,” i.e., “slaves of righteousness” (vv. 18–19). He describes his metaphor of slavery as speaking 38. Dunn, Romans, 1:318.

68

P. R. CHOI

“in human terms” (v. 19). His point is hard to miss. By belonging to Christ, their new risen and powerful master, the baptized belong to a higher class of “slaves” who “walk in newness of life” and share “in a resurrection like his” (vv. 4–5). One sees this social distance that baptism creates more clearly in Rom 13:12–14, where Paul reminds “the Roman believers of earlier baptismal experiences”:39 the night is far gone, the day is near. Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

The second sociological function of attaching a moral stigma to the target is also present in Rom 6. The disclosure formula of v. 3 (“do you not know?”) implies that a common understanding exists between Paul and his community over the meaning of baptism. To be crucified with Christ through baptism means to become a target of stigma by society at large. This point may not be immediately evident in Rom 6, but it is in Gal 6, where Paul writes: “May I never boast of anything except the cross [τῷ σταυρῷ] of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified [ἐσταύρωται)] to me, and I to the world…. From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks [τὰ στίγματα] of Jesus branded on my body” (Gal 6:14, 17). Both the verb and noun forms σταυρόω and σταυρός occur in this passage. In addition, Paul explains their meaning as carrying τὰ στίγματα in his body. Paul evidently understands the meaning of being crucified in terms of being branded and shamed by society for preaching Christ.40 Justin Martyr sums up the mockery Christians endured from the Roman world for worshiping Christ, a crucified deity: Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who was also born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the time of Tiberius Caesar; and we will show that we worship Him rationally, having learned that He is the Son of the True God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third rank. For they charge our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man second place after the unchangeable and eternal God, begetter of all things.41 39. Robert K. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary on the Book of Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 827; but Dunn (Romans, 2:793) expresses skepticism: “the reference back to baptism is less justified exegetically and less helpful than it might be.” 40. See BDAG 945, s.v. “στίγμα”: “the master put a στίγμα on his slave … Paul is most likely alluding to the wounds and scars which he received in the service of Jesus.” 41. St. Justin Martyr, 31; cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 418–30.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

69

The use of the passive voice in both Rom 6:6 and Gal 6:14 is significant in this regard. The passive verb συνεσταυρώθη in Rom 6:6 appears to indicate that a stigma is being attached to the baptized, but this point is admittedly ambiguous. The passive ἐσταύρωται in Gal 6:14 clarifies this ambiguity, where Paul uses the verb in reference to both himself and the world, i.e., the society at large. According to this passage, the mockery goes both ways. Paul and the baptized are mocked with Christ like the thieves who were crucified with him, but they turn around and attach a moral stigma to the world and return the mockery. For example, Paul calls the old self “the body of sin,” or in Dunn’s words, something that belongs “to the age ruled by sin.”42 According to Halvor Moxnes, the gist of Paul’s “argument in chapter 6 is the way he contrasts former ‘shame’ with present ‘holiness.’”43 Paul attaches a moral stigma to those who belong in the “old” past and shames them, classifying them as those who await utter destruction at the hand of God. He in fact writes: “So what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed?” (Rom 6:21; emphasis mine) Of course, this is a warning or a rebuke and not exactly a mockery, but when he uses expressions like “ashamed,” it is not difficult to sense his sneers and contempt on the pagan world. In fact, he does not only look upon the pagan world with contempt but upon “all things” that compete with Christ – indeed, even Judaism with its religious patriotism and observance of circumcision – as σκύβαλα, “garbage” (Phil 3:8; cf. vv. 3–6). The third function of mockery – that of creating a safe space in which to denigrate – also applies. Once again, like the second, this function may not be immediately evident in Rom 6, but also not fully concealed to the careful reader. According to Mark 15:29–30, “Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!’” These passersby could mock Jesus because they felt that he could not free himself from the cross and harm them. They were creating a safe space in which to denigrate Jesus with their mockery. Paul seems to employ a similar type of denigration in Rom 6:6. “The old self is crucified,” he writes, and as a result, the baptized are “no longer enslaved to sin” and their sinful body is destroyed. The statements “no longer enslaved” and “destroyed” imply that there is no need for the baptized to fear 42. Dunn, Romans, 1:320. 43. Halvor Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: In Tribute to Howard Clark Kee, ed. Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 201–18, esp. 214.

70

P. R. CHOI

the tyranny of the old self anymore. Yet the old self is a kingly figure like the sin itself that doles out death. “The wages of sin is death,” he writes (v. 23). Paul can speak both boldly and contemptuously about the old self because, with crucifixion of the old, a safe space has been created for the baptized to denigrate and dismiss its power and tyranny as a thing of the past, and at the same time, to boast of their new exalted status in Christ. Admittedly there is no direct mockery in Rom 6, but Paul implies it when he reminds the baptized that there is no need to fear sin or death. He writes: “consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God” (Rom 6:11). With these words, he renders powerless the fear that sin and death once inspired. Given that the cross is closely associated with public mockery and shaming in the ancient world, it is reasonable to assume that this type of safe space for new discourse has been created by means of mockery – by holding up the old self to contempt. As already noted, the motif of mockery in Rom 6 is not on the surface for all to see. The main reason is that we no longer live in a world where crucifixion and its shameful and gruesome death is commonplace. So the phrase “crucified with Christ” is sometimes romantically interpreted as a metaphor of mystical union between Christ and the believer. But it is not difficult to see the mockery in Rom 6 if one reimagines the manner in which one is crucified with Christ to be like the bandits who were crucified with him to be mocked with him by a jeering crowd of spectators. After all, many of Paul’s gentile converts used to mock and revile Christ, perhaps not unlike the apostle himself (cf. 1 Tim 1:13), but now, like the penitent bandit of Luke’s gospel, they confess: “We indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong” (Luke 23:41).

CONCLUSION According to Dietmar Neufeld, mockery is a literary context for revelation in the Gospel of Mark.44 Rome was “a culture of visibility” where notions of public honor and shame determined how one went about one’s everyday life.45 Those who deviated from society’s norms and expectations became targets of public mockery. So an important priority in life for many in the empire was to avoid mockery. Mark uses Rome’s high visibility culture as a 44. Dietmar Neufeld, Mockery and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel, LNTS 503 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014). 45. Neufeld, Mockery and Secretism, 4.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

71

stage upon which the reader can view and judge the actions and words of Jesus. Neufeld writes: “He [the author of Mark] adopted the narrative method of secretism with social surroundings of mockery to make visible Jesus’ activity, teaching and execution to the Roman listening public.”46 Mark’s intent is to provide a test that reveals who is honorable, Jesus or his audience.47 Neufeld’s observations about mockery in ancient Rome are closely related to those of Raisborough and Adams’s three sociological functions of mockery discussed above: (1) create class distinctions, (2) attach “moral stigma” to its targets, and (3) create safe spaces to denigrate and reinterpret the social status of those targeted. Paul and the authors of Mark and Matthew wrote in the context of Rome’s culture of visibility with their shared cultural assumptions about crucifixion. As a result, the baptismal formula συνεσταυρώθη in Rom 6:6 has a sociological significance similar to that found in Mark 15:32; Matt 27:44; and John 19:32, the only three places where the term “crucified with” (συσταυρόω) occurs outside of Paul’s letters. These writers were fully aware that baptized believers became targets of public mockery because of their association with a crucified messiah. But they made clear that they were not ashamed or afraid of the mockery (cf. Mark 8:38; Rom 1:16). Paul writes with confidence in 2 Cor 13:4: “He was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God.” For Mark, mockery reveals and vindicates Jesus’s honorable character.48 And in Rom 6:1–6, subjecting oneself and one’s “old” carnal self to mockery gives rise to a new spiritual self. For Paul, the mockery of the cross functions as a hermeneutical tool with the distance it creates between the mocker and the mocked. With the new meaning and taxonomy of matters that result from the process of reinterpretation, Paul declares: “The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal 6:14). He becomes a target of mockery and shame by his association with the crucified Christ. He also returns the favor of mockery to the world and redefines it in the process. Those baptized may safely imitate Paul. They are crucified with Christ through baptism because it exposes them to public mockery. Then as the mocked ones, they are asked to muster the courage to abandon the world that mocks them. For they reveal its true character in the process. In ancient Roman society, executions became popular public events that attracted mockers. Crucifixion attracted terrifying forms of public mockery. What stands out in Paul’s theology is that, by 46. Neufeld, Mockery and Secretism, 11. 47. Neufeld, Mockery and Secretism, 9, 37–38, 177–79. 48. Neufeld, Mockery and Secretism, 181.

72

P. R. CHOI

embracing the crucifixion of Christ as the power of God (1 Cor 1:18, 24; cf. Rom 1:16), he brings the believer into the social “register” of the public shaming of Christ. In the context of Rome’s “culture of voyeurism,” the cross was problematic for many because of the public mockery it drew rather than the physical pain it caused.49 The remains from the victim from Givʻat ha-Mivtar and its studies by Dr. N. Haas and Professor Y. Yadin give us a window into the excruciating physical pain that crucifixion generated for the victims. But even such pain might be more bearable if it could be endured away from the public eye.50 This is Cicero’s concern in Verrine Orations 2. A dignified Roman citizen should not have to undergo the public humiliation of crucifixion. The pain and cruelty of public mockery, not only for the victim but also for all associated with him or her, made crucifixion a deeply feared experience. Modern interpreters of Paul who are perhaps not privy to the terror of such public mockery and gloating turn either to the physical pain or to the different types of participation in and union with the death and resurrection of Christ for their interpretations of Rom 6:6.51 Romans 6:6 represents more than a baptismal language of union with Christ. It represents a language of shame and mockery. The cross, as already noted, was a lightning rod of public shaming in the Roman Empire. Paul’s contemporaries never used it as a religious symbol of union. Paul and his audience were painfully aware of what the cross meant socially, how baptism tied them to a crucified messiah, and invited insult from society. What is enlightening about Rom 6:6 is that Paul transposes this idea to a new register of meaning. The baptized believers turn the mockery of the world into a mockery of their “old selves.” The result is the differentiated language of “slavery to sin” in v. 6b and of being “set free from sin” in v. 7. The mockery of the old self leads to an enlightenment about one’s relationship to sin. Sin is a master who rules over humans (vv. 12, 14) and doles out death as wages (6:23). It is fear that keeps those enslaved chained to sin. But when a person is crucified with Christ through baptism, this menacing force of sin loses steam because the things that are most feared in life have happened – the mockery, the jeers, the slander, and death. In other words, by participating in the shame of the 49. Neufeld, Mockery and Secretism, 174. 50. Neufeld, Mockery and Secretism, 176. 51. See Sorin Sabou, Between Horror and Hope: Paul’s Metaphorical Language of Death in Romans 6:1–11, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 5–43, for a comprehensive survey of literature on the question of death and resurrection in Rom 6:1– 11.

HOLDING UP THE OLD SELF TO MOCKERY

73

cross through baptism, one’s prior “old self” becomes differentiated from the totality of one’s person and only it becomes the object of mockery. The result is that one loses the fear of the old self and the sin that it embodies should it resurface in one’s life. This safe space that the crucifixion of baptism effects between one’s old and new selves, as well as the new revelations that emerge concerning the true character of one’s “old self,” imply the mockery that lurks in the background. They lose the fear of sin and death that hold humanity captive, as they are set free to belong to Christ. My contention in this essay is that the tool through which Paul accomplishes this feat is mockery. That which once held us captive is now the “old self” that is held up to mockery. Andrews University

P. Richard CHOI

6 EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL: HABAKKUK’S OTHER INFLUENCES ON ROMANS

Now, more than ever, the groaning Creation of Rom 8:22 has gained a hearing from people of faith. We live on a fragile planet that is reaping the consequences of years of excessive consumption and greed. Among other things, the creation is suffering due to overpopulation, pollution, and global climate change. Understandably, much recent attention has been devoted to this passage as people of faith look for biblical resources that instruct us in proper conduct toward God’s creation. In earlier studies I translate the expression πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει as “all creation groans together and suffers labor pains together.” Paul employs here two commonly used expressions from the Scriptures.1 Those studies offered many examples from the prophetic literature, but Habakkuk was neglected. A careful reading of Habakkuk, however, reveals that not only are creation’s groaning and labor pains mentioned, but also a concern for the natural world and its abuse by humans is a central issue throughout the book.2 Paul’s reliance upon Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 as a key text in Romans suggests the possibility that the apostle may have been influenced by Habakkuk at other points in his letter, including Rom 1:18–32 and 8:18–39 where creation plays a prominent role. The aim of this study is to explore this and 1. Laurie J. Braaten, “All Creation Groans: Romans 8:22 in Light of the Biblical Sources,” HBT 28 (2006): 131–59; and Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament for Liberation in Romans 8” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, CA, 19 November 2011; http://www.academia.edu/25663082/Earth_Communitys_Lament_for_ Liberation_in_ Romans_8). 2. See Laurie J. Braaten, “Violence Against Earth: Moving from Land Abuse to Good Neighbor in Habakkuk” (http://www.academia.edu/25683647/Violence_Against_Earth_ Moving_from_ Land_Abuse_to_Good_Neighbor_in_Habakkuk). This is a revised and expanded version of “Violence to Earth: Oppression and Impoverishment of Earth Community in Habakkuk” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA, 22 November 2015).

76

L. J. BRAATEN

other points of contact between Habakkuk and Romans, and especially to determine to what extent Paul was influenced by Habakkuk’s message regarding nature. I will begin with an overview of Habakkuk’s message and how nature plays a central role in it. Then various passages in Romans will be examined to determine in what ways Habakkuk may have influenced Paul’s thought.

VIOLENCE AGAINST EARTH IN HABAKKUK Violence against Earth is a significant issue in the book of Habakkuk.3 Although the reader encounters this message primarily in negative terms as accusations against those who abuse Earth, this is an indicator of a concern for the fate of Earth in the prophet’s proclamation. A summary of contents of the book will place this message in context.4 The Message of Habakkuk 1:2–2:5 The first division of Habakkuk (1:2–2:5) contains a dialogue between the prophet and the LORD. In the first interchange (1:2–4), Habakkuk accuses YHWH of not listening or responding to his intercessions on behalf of an unnamed group of righteous innocents (‫הצדיק‬, v. 4) who have suffered violence (‫חמס‬, vv. 2–3), destruction (‫שד‬, v. 3), recurrent injustice, and a corrupt court system (v. 4) at the hands of wicked Judean leaders.5 YHWH’s 3. Throughout this study I will employ some of the methods and vocabulary of “Ecological Hermeneutics” and “Earth Bible Principles” developed by the Earth Bible Project. An important starting place is for the reader to recognize that Nature, or Earth, is an acting subject with intrinsic worth, and not just as a stage for the human drama, or a storehouse to satisfy human needs and wants. As such, Earth is capitalized (unless ground or territory is in view) and referred to with personal pronouns (Earth is a feminine noun in Hebrew and Greek). Earth is conceptualized here as comprising only nonhuman Creation since she is portrayed as acting either with or against humans. Yet Earth is technically a single biotic community comprising all life and substances, organic and inorganic, from which humans cannot be separated. The term we employ for this interconnected biotic community is “Earth community.” See Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger, Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, SymS 46 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 1–8. I suggest that God is included within this Earth community; see Laurie J. Braaten, “Earth Community in Hosea 2,” in The Earth Story in the Psalms and Prophets, ed. Norman C. Habel, Earth Bible 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 185–203, esp. 186– 89. 4. In this section I will draw heavily upon my longer study (Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 3–28), where a more thorough treatment can be found. 5. The term ‫ צדיק‬connotes the innocent who are falsely accused of crimes (cf. Exod 23:7– 8; see BDB, HALOT), hence my translation “the righteous innocent.”

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

77

response in 1:5–11 indicates that a divine work has already been initiated, but when the prophet proclaims the message it will not result in the people’s faithfulness to God (1:5).6 The point is illustrated by a rehearsal of the violent deeds of the Babylonians, who have been utilized for divine judgment against the Judean oppressors (1:6–11). Yet their actions only perpetrate further violence (‫חמס‬, v. 9) against both humans and Earth (vv. 9–10).7 Furthermore, the Babylonians’ deeds are grounded in idolatry, since they determine their own standards of justice and their own power is their god (vv. 7, 11). The second interchange (1:12–2:5) begins with Habakkuk’s complaint that a pure God cannot tolerate immoral solutions (1:12–13). The prophet also recites the mighty acts of Babylon to illustrate how their intervention will only perpetrate further violence against the righteous innocent (‫צדיק‬, v. 13), since they treat humans (‫ )אדם‬as fish for the catching (vv. 14–15a). As Habakkuk comes to grips with the fact that a hasty divine intervention through sinful and idolatrous humans (1:15b–17; cf. v. 11) brings unacceptable collateral damage, he declares that he will await a more suitable response to his cries (2:1). His conclusion essentially agrees with the implications of YHWH’s opening statement (1:5) regarding such acts as being objectionable, and not instilling faith in God. YHWH now tells the prophet to wait (patiently) for the vision of deliverance he seeks (2:2–5). Habakkuk is to write the vision for proclamation, which can be summarized as “the 6. “You will not have faith (pl.) when it is told” (‫)לא תאמינו כי יספר‬. God’s response throughout Hab 1:5 contains second person plural verbs, indicating that the prophet and people are being addressed. The interpretation of the phrase under consideration is problematic since the verb ‫ תאמינו‬has no object. It is usually interpreted as signifying that when the prophet announces how God is (and will be) utilizing Babylon, the people will not “believe” Habakkuk’s message. I interpret the term as “have faith in, trust, be faithful to” YHWH (as the implied object). For people having faith after God’s acts of deliverance, see Exod 14:31; for lack of faith after divine acts (similar to this passage), see Ps 78:22. For examples of YHWH as the implied unexpressed object of the hiphil of ‫( אמן‬as here), see Exod 4:31; Isa 7:9; 28:16. The LXX provides a literal translation of the Hebrew, with no expressed object for ὃ οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε. The Pesher to Habakkuk (1QpHab II, 1–16) usually glosses ‫ תאמינו‬as if it were “believe/have faith in (‫)תאמינו ב־‬,” viz., regarding the traitors of the last days ‫“( לוא האמינו בברית אל‬they did not believe in the covenant of God,” II, 2–3); ‫“( לוא יאמינוא בשומעם‬they will not believe when they hear,” ΙΙ, 6–7, a possible exception); and of the Kittim, ‫ולוא האמינו בחוקי] א[ל‬ (“They will not believe in the precepts of G[od], II, 14–15), and the reconstructed ‫ולוא] יאמינו‬ ‫“( בדברי[ מורה הצדקה מפיא אל‬they do not [believe in the words of] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God,” II, 2–3). For text and translations, see Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–1998), 1:12–13. 7. In view of Hab 2:6–20, especially vv. 8, 17, the use of Earth’s resources for siege ramps (2:9–10) against fortified cities is considered a violation against both humans and Earth; see Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 11–12.

78

L. J. BRAATEN

righteous will live by/in his [God’s] faithfulness,” and the arrogant evildoers will fail (vv. 4–5).8 Violence against Earth in the Woes, Habakkuk 2:6–20 The second division of the book (2:6–20) is Habakkuk’s initial response to YHWH’s promise of salvation. It comprises five woes pronounced against the arrogant and oppressive evildoers who will fall under God’s judgment for their violence against the innocent. The woes here are congruent with the woe oracle structure found elsewhere.9 Each of Habakkuk’s oracles follows a similar pattern, with some minor variations. They begin with an accusation against perpetrators of injustices (vv. 6b, 9–10, 12–13, 15, 19a), followed by the announcement of punishments which fit the offenses.10 Sometimes these are ironic reversals where the oppressed turn the tables on their oppressors (vv. 7–8, 11, 13, 16–17, 18, 19b). The woes are interrupted by two doxologies (vv. 14, 20), which function as a contrast to the idolatry of the wicked (vv. 18–19; cf. 1:16).11 The woes express Habakkuk’s certainty regarding YHWH’s judgment on the wicked, which will initiate the promised faithfulness that will grant life to the righteous (2:4). Stated another way, the woes indicate how the prophet anticipates that his previous intercessions regarding the deliverance of the oppressed righteous (1:2–4; 1:12–2:2) will be fulfilled. The woes are probably not meant to be comprehensive; rather, they offer a few representative examples of the types of injustices that Habakkuk expects God to correct. It is significant that included 8. For the interpretation of ‫ וצדיק באמונתו יחיה‬as referring to God’s faithfulness, see my commentary on Habakkuk in Laurie J. Braaten, “Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,” in Laurie J. Braaten and Jim Edlin, Nahum–Malachi: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2019), 17–213, here 116–17. This translation regards the ‫ ב־‬as multivalent, “by/in.” In the context of Habakkuk’s opening complaint (1:2–4), I interpret the expression ‫( יחיה ב־‬word order changed) to indicate not only the righteous living dependent upon God’s faithfulness (i.e., surviving), but also their living in God’s faithfulness, or blessing (i.e., thriving); cf. Deut 30:16–18; Ezek 20:11, 13, 21; Neh 9:29. 9. The interjection ‫“( הוי‬Woe!,” “Alas!”), characteristic of woe oracles is adapted from funeral or mourning contexts. Woe oracles (or sayings) function to indicate the doom of the object of judgment as inevitable. See Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. Hugh Clayton White (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 190–94; and Eugene W. March, “Prophecy,” in Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. John H. Hayes (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1977), 141–77, esp. 164–65. 10. I interpret the oppressors of the woes to be the subjects of the complaints earlier in the book, i.e., Judean leaders (1:2–4) and Babylonians (1:5–11). 11. For a more comprehensive treatment of the geocentric issues in Hab 2:6–20, see Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 4–16.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

79

with the concerns for mistreated humans (primarily 2:6–7, 8a, 9–10, 12– 13) we also find explicit reference to injustices toward nonhuman Creation. We will now examine some of these more carefully. The accusation clauses in the woes include a twice-repeated refrain condemning violence (‫ )חמס‬against humans and Earth. Habakkuk 2:8b and 17c read ‫מדמי אדם וחמס־ארץ קריה וכל־ישבי בה‬, “On account of human bloodshed and violence toward Earth, a habitation, and all who live within.”12 This repeated refrain is significant. First, Habakkuk likens violence against Earth to murder. Second, the prophet sees humans as liable to divine judgment for specific offenses against Earth: destruction of forests and animal habitat. Third, v. 17a indicates that this offense against Earth includes violence (‫)חמס‬ against Lebanon and destruction (‫ )שד‬of animals. These terms are found in chapter one (Hab 1:2, 3, 9), connecting the violence and destruction against righteous humans there with destruction against Earth here. A concern for Earth is also found in 2:15–16, the introduction to the woe which v. 17 concludes. This is seemingly a pronouncement against people who make their neighbors drunk so they can engage in voyeurism. Yet this interpretation does not fit contextually with the accusations of the other oracles, and it is incongruent with the other accusations in this particular woe.13 These problems are solved if v. 15 is read in light of common imagery found elsewhere in the Scriptures. First, to make someone drunk is a figure of speech for rendering an enemy (or an object of divine punishment) incapacitated and subject to defeat and plunder (Isa 51:17–20; Jer 13:12–14; 25:15–29; 48:26; Pss 60:3–5 [ET 1–3]; 75:9 [ET 8]).14 Likewise, exposing someone’s nakedness sometimes connotes humiliating an enemy (Isa 20:3– 4; cf. Amos 2:16). The threat of exposing a city’s or country’s nakedness to the world appears often in the prophets (e.g., Jer 13:24–27; Ezek 16:39; 23:29; Nah 3:5–6). The punishment of making a country drunk, followed by self-stripping, is found in Lam 4:21. Drinking and stripping are applied to Earth in similar ways. Earth is sometimes described as thirsty (Isa 41:18; 44:3; Jer 48:18; Ezek 19:13); she has a mouth and is capable of swallowing 12. Although the term ‫ קריה‬is often translated as “town” or settlement (Hab 2:12, see HALOT), in vv. 8 and 17 it is in apposition to Earth, and in v. 17 it refers to forested Lebanon, which suggests a more general habitation, or “habitat,” and not just human dwellings (e.g., NRSV). For other examples of the concluding phrase ‫“ וכל־ישבי בה‬all who live within (or, in it/her)” modifying Earth, or Land (‫)ארץ‬, see Hos 4:3; Amos 8:8; 9:5; Nah 1:5. 13. For a fuller discussion, see Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 7–9. 14. James M. Scott, “A New Approach to Habakkuk II 4–5A,” VT 3 (1985): 330–40, esp. 338; cf. J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 124. It is particularly relevant to Habakkuk that Babylon is singled out for making all the earth drunk in Jer 51:6–7 (cf. Rev 14:8; 17:2; 18:3).

80

L. J. BRAATEN

(e.g., Num 16:30–35; 26:10; cf. Isa 5:14; Rev 12:16). When Earth swallows shed blood, she is negatively affected (Gen 4:10–11). Earth can be made drunk by the bloodshed of war (Jdt 6:4; cf. Isa 49:26; Rev 17:6 where this is applied to humans). Earth is also depicted as clothed with vegetation and animals (Ps 65:12–13 [ET 13–14]). Devegetation is sometimes expressed as exposing the nakedness of Earth. Hosea depicts the punishment of Land, YHWH’s bride, as devegetation and removal of sheep (wool) – expressed in terms of the stripping and exposing of Land’s nakedness (Hos 2:3 [ET 5], 9–13 [ET 11–15]).15 Elsewhere, human spying to determine a land’s vulnerability to attack is described as looking at the nakedness of the land (‫ראות‬ ‫את־ערות הארץ‬, Gen 42:9, 12). In light of this background, Hab 2:15 is an accusation against empire builders for weakening, stripping, and thereby humiliating the forests of Lebanon (cf. v. 17). It is likely that Lebanon is only one example among many and that other abused woodlands (or natural habitats) are also in view. Oppressors have cut down and plundered forests for their self-aggrandizing building projects mentioned in the first, second, and third woes.16 This not only exposes the barren soil to the shame of erosion and desertification, but as noted, it also robs animals of their rightful habitat (vv. 8, 17), forcing them to flee as refugees. According to v. 15, these exploited regions and displaced animals should be considered neighbors rather than objects of abuse. We find here a significant answer to the well-known quandary, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). The forested mountains and their animal inhabitants are our neighbors, and as such are intrinsically valuable members of the entire Earth community, who are owed respect and support.17 The woes illustrate the types of violence (Hab 1:2, 3, 9) that Habakkuk earlier complained were being committed against the righteous (1:4, 13, see above), then it follows that Earth is among the righteous innocent on behalf of whom the prophet has cried out to YHWH (‫אזעק אליד‬, Hab 1:2). Furthermore, this strongly suggests that Earth is among the righteous innocent who are granted life by the faithfulness of God according to Hab 2:4. 15. See Braaten, “Earth Community in Hosea 2,” 191–93. 16. It is noteworthy that the third woe (vv. 12–13) begins with a denunciation of building cities by bloodshed, and it is followed (or concluded) by a doxology proclaiming that Earth is covered with the knowledge of YHWH’s glory (v. 14). This juxtaposition suggests that this bloodshed directly detracts from the knowledge of YHWH on Earth. In light of vv. 8 and 17, another way this knowledge of YHWH is defaced is by those who plunder forests and destroy habitat (see below). 17. This discussion employs the Ecological Hermeneutical Principles of intrinsic worth, interconnectedness, and mutual custodianship. See Habel and Trudinger, Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, 2. For further development of this neighbor theme, see Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 9, 25–26.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

81

The Groaning and Travail of Earth in Habakkuk 2–3 Earth’s Voice: The Cry of Stone and Testimony of Wood, Habakkuk 2:11–20 The reader finds an explicit reference to Earth’s voice expressed in the cries of Stone (‫ )אבן‬and the testimony of beams of Wood (‫ )כפיס מעץ‬in 2:11.18 The root employed for Stone’s cry is ‫זעק‬, which frequently connotes the cry or inarticulate groaning of the oppressed that is often heard and attended to by God (e.g., Exod 2:23; 3:7; 22:22 [ET 23], 26 [ET 27]). Such a cry is also found in public ceremonies invoking the deity in mourning.19 It appears in the opening statement of Habakkuk (1:2), where the prophet speaks of his past crying for help (‫ )אזעק‬on behalf of the oppressed. Wood also speaks concerning the misdeeds of the wicked (‫)יעננה‬.20 The root employed is ‫ענה‬, which sometimes connotes testimony in a lawsuit (Exod 20:16; 23:2; Deut 19:16, 18).21 Elsewhere in the Bible we find Earth crying out for help. Job expresses the possibility of Land crying out against him for injustices (Job 31:38) – a cry Job assumes he would have heard and been held accountable to. The crying (or mourning) of Earth is found often in the prophets as a response to human sin or divine punishment as the consequence of such sin (e.g., Hos 4:3; Joel 1:5–20; Isa 24:4–9; Jer 12:10– 13; see below on Hab 3:2).22 When Earth mourns, humans are expected to hear this cry and respond (Jer 10:10–11) by identifying with Earth, then mourn (and groan) with her, and repent of their sin that caused Earth’s demise.23 Given his cultural context, it is doubtful that Habakkuk would present this speech as merely a personification of Nature. Creation has a voice, although 18. For the principle of voice, see Habel and Trudinger, Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, 2. Stone, Wood, and Hills are capitalized because they denote subjects who represent Earth. 19. For mourning terminology and the relationship between mourning ceremonies for the dead and other public ceremonies during times of community crises, see Saul M. Olyan, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 19–110. 20. I interpret the suffixed pronoun ‫ ־ה‬as a collective referring to the misdeeds mentioned above. For the feminine suffixed pronoun referring to the verbal idea in a preceding sentence, see GKC §135p. 21. For Nature called to testify as a witness, see Deut 4:32; 30:19; 31:28; cf. Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2; Jer 6:19; Mic 1:2; in 1 Macc 2:37, Nature testifies against (μαρτυρεῖ) injustice. 22. See Katherine M. Hayes, “The Earth Mourns”: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic, AcBib 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 1–204; Laurie J. Braaten, “Earth Community in Joel 1–2: A Call to Identify with the Rest of Creation,” HBT 28 (2006): 113–29; Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 131–59. 23. This sequence of events is best illustrated in Joel 1–2. See Braaten, “Earth Community in Joel 1–2,” 116–27. For the Ecological Hermeneutical step of identification, see Habel and Trudinger, Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, 4–5.

82

L. J. BRAATEN

one different from a human voice (cf. Ps 19:2–5 [ET 1–4]).24 If there is a voice in Hab 2:11, should the reader also expect to hear it here? Although John Calvin considered it a personification, he proposed that the next verse contains the teaching of Stone and Wood. This fits contextually.25 Yet there is no reason to limit that voice to v. 12. I propose that the speech of Stone and testimony of Wood continue until the end of the chapter (v. 20). If this is an accurate reading, then the last three woe oracles are uttered by Earth. The prophet pronounces the first two woe oracles, which invoke a mourning context (see above). In the last three, the woe oracles are intensified since they are spoken by actual mourners who represent Earth.26 It also sets the stage for Habakkuk’s prayer of lament which follows (see below). In context, Earth’s groans are due to the violence she has suffered because of deforestation to support pretentious and profligate building projects, including the construction of siege ramps.27 At first glance, the polemic against speechless idols of Wood and Stone in vv. 18–19 seems to suggest that Earth cannot actually speak, and that the voices reported in v. 11 are merely personification.28 But it is possible to see v. 11 as the interpretive key to v. 19 and to read v. 19 as sarcastic.29 Indeed, 24. See Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 1, 5–6; and Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 10–14. 25. Calvin initially seems to suggest that v. 12 is the “answer” of Wood. He continues by suggesting that both Stone and Wood are personified and function to “awaken our insensibility,” for mute Stones and Wood can be called upon to teach everyone who refuses to listen to warnings through the prophets or the voice of God. See John Calvin, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, vol. 4 of Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. John Owen (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1848); repr. in Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 15:104–5. This view that v. 12 is Wood’s answer is also held by Adam Clarke, Isaiah― Malachi, vol. 4 of The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament, new corrected ed. (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1823), 745; cf. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, 122. Neither cites Calvin as his source. 26. This may explain why the refrain regarding violence against Earth of v. 8 is repeated in v. 17. The first is spoken by the prophet, the second is repeated and intensified by Earth. Such repetition drives home to humans the seriousness of their offenses against neighbor Earth. 27. See above, and Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 6, 8, 11–12. 28. This view is maintained by Rachel Schafer, “Sentient or Silent? The Personification of Stones and Wood in Habakkuk 2” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Baltimore, MD, 24 November 2013), 9, 16, 18–19; and Calvin, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, 105. 29. Contra Schafer, “Sentient or Silent?,” 9, 16, 18–19, who interprets v. 19 as the “hermeneutic key to interpreting Hab 2:11,” although we are in essential agreement with her regarding the issue at stake. She observes that this verse connects the idolatry of v. 19 with the injustices found in the passage. She also notes that the silence of Stone and Wood should be connected with the silence and worship of all Earth before YHWH in Hab 2:20 (“Sentient or Silent,” 10, 16–17).

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

83

the contrast between the two passages is intentionally ironic: Humans refuse to respond to the complaints of oppression voiced by Stone and Wood, while they supply their own voices to Wood and Stone idols in order to support self-serving oppressive deeds.30 The passage is bracketed by the term ‫ירה‬, “teach, teacher,” which serves to convey the irony. On the one hand, idolaters use their images as a foil to express and support their own goals. The voice that oppressors hear through an idol is their own justification of unjust idolatrous causes, hence the image becomes a false teacher (‫מורה שקר‬, v. 18). On the other hand, the woe against trying to force noncompliant and speechless (‫ )דומם‬Wood and Stone to speak (v. 19) contains the seemingly contradictory statement “It is teaching!” (‫)הוא יורה‬.31 Once again the reader reflects: What do they teach? First, when forcibly manipulated into images and called upon to speak in support of unjust human causes, their silence itself is instructive (Hab 2:18–19). Silence is a refusal of Earth community to support idolatry and oppression, tacitly instructing humans to avoid both. Second, it teaches that images are not gods that can be depended upon for divine guidance.32 Finally, it serves as an example of a proper stance before the Creator – Earth’s reverential silence before YHWH (v. 20).33 This final point deserves further development. The speaking, silence, and resistance demonstrated by Wood and Stone are for the sake of restoring balance in Earth community.34 They appeal to God, resist idolatry, and essentially warn humans to act justly and find their proper place in Earth community. They also serve as examples of proper behavior. Humans are expected to join the cries of Wood and Stone against injustices and idolatry, actions that harm all members of Earth community. The doxologies uttered by Stone and Wood in 2:14 and 20 function similarly, as examples of an appropriate deportment before the Creator. Verse 14 30. The context of the polemic against idolatry in a passage denouncing oppressive acts suggests that the two are connected, although it is not explicitly stated that idolatry is the underlying cause and justification. Note the similar association between Babylonian violence (Hab 1:5–17) and idolatry where the connection is obvious (see vv. 11, 15–17). 31. Because of this apparent contradiction, ‫ הוא יורה‬is often interpreted as a rhetorical question; see NRSV, NIV. But there is no interrogative particle indicating that it is a query, and it is contextually appropriate when translated as a sarcastic statement. The singular subject and participle refer back to the idol (‫פסל‬, ‫ )מסכה‬of v. 18. 32. Calvin states that by their silence the wood and stone teach that they are not gods; see Calvin, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, 123. 33. For a fuller discussion on the voice of Stone and Wood, see Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 11–16. 34. For the principle of resistance, see Habel and Trudinger, Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, 2.

84

L. J. BRAATEN

proclaims that “Earth is filled with the knowledge of YHWH’s glory” (my translation).35 Verse 20 portrays YHWH in the holy temple, before whom all Earth is to be silent. Reading the doxologies together suggests the divine presence is in YHWH’s cosmic temple which encompasses the entire created order.36 Hence Wood and Stone’s silence when called upon to support idolatry serves as an example to all Earth community of a proper reverence before the Lord of Creation as the prelude to worship. Therefore, these Earth-uttered doxologies not only resist idolatry, but they also mentor (teach, v. 19) humans by offering a positive role model of the appropriate response of silence and awe before the Creator.37 We now turn to the travail of Creation in Habakkuk. Labor Pains of Earth, Habakkuk 3:2–19 Mentoring by Earth is further exemplified in Hab 3. This prayer (Hab 3:1) contains the classic features of a lament, or complaint psalm.38 The petition and anticipatory praise sections which open and conclude this lament in vv. 2 and 16 are bracketed by the term ‫רגז‬, “trembling.” Since the final clause of v. 2 is usually obscured by interpretation problems, I offer a more literal rendering of the whole to place it in context: O YHWH, I have heard of your fame, I am in awe,39 O YHWH, of your work. As the year40 approaches, revive it, 35. The context suggests that ‫ תמלא הארץ לדעת את־כבוד יהוה‬is a present or ongoing reality, hence the prefixed verb ‫ תמלא‬should be translated as either a past or present; see IBHS §§31.2–31.3. 36. The temple in Jerusalem was designed as a replication or microcosm of the created order, where God is manifested; see, e.g., Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–98, esp. 282–91; and his Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 78–99. See also Ps 78:69; Isa 66:1–2. One implication of our reading above is that all Earth is considered “holy” by God’s presence. Levenson observes that Isa 6:3 depicts the manifestation of God in the world, as God is enthroned in the temple (“Temple and World,” 289–90). 37. This teaching or mentoring for the sake of balance suggests the Earth Bible Principle of mutual custodianship: “Earth is a balanced and diverse domain where responsible custodians can function as partners with, rather than rulers over, Earth to sustain its balance and a diverse Earth community” (Habel and Trudinger, Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, 2). 38. A discussion of the structure of this psalm and its characteristic as a lament may be found in Braaten, “Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,” 94–95, 135–47. Compare Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk, VTSup 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 16–20; Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2, FOTL 22 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 155, 637–38. 39. Due to ancient graphic similarities between ‫ י‬and ‫ו‬, it is possible to read ‫“( יראתי‬I fear, am in awe”) as ‫“( וראתי‬I have seen”). Both readings fit the context. 40. I propose an original ‫שנם‬, a singular ‫ שן‬with final enclitic ‫–ם‬. This was later mistakenly updated to ‫( שנים‬see the MT) when an ancient copyist understood it as a defectively written (archaic) plural.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

85

As the year approaches, make (it) known, As the womb trembles, remember (it) [‫]ברגז רחם תזכור‬.41

The “trembling womb” of the last clause indicates labor pains, a common ancient West Asian image connoting an ongoing or impending crisis. It often signifies a state of panic that renders an individual or group terrified, weak, or incapacitated.42 A few places indicate that Earth experiences labor pains (‫ )חיל‬at the appearance of YHWH who will bring judgment upon Earth community (Pss 77:17 [ET 16]; 96:9; 97:4; 114:7). Here the trembling womb signifies the labor pains of Earth – alluded to again in v. 10 in connection with the writhing (‫ )חיל‬of Hills. Compare vv. 6–7, where various terms for shaking and trembling connote awe and fear before the Divine Warrior.43 The prophet’s experience as he rehearses the past mighty acts of God is similar to what occurred when the exploits of Babylon were recounted in 1:6–17. It is once again apparent that when God is prevailed upon to act hastily, Earth community suffers collateral damage. In this case the whole course of Nature is disrupted and disturbed.44 Therefore Earth’s labor pains not only signify the ongoing crises depicted throughout the book, but also the impending crisis that will result if the Divine Warrior intervenes immediately 41. The familiar translation “in wrath may you remember mercy” (NRSV, cf. NIV) follows the LXX, which translates ‫ רגז‬as ὀργῇ, “wrath.” This rendering is based on a late Aramaic cognate that finds only weak support in the Hebrew. Furthermore, ‫ רגז‬also appears in Hab 3:7, 16 (twice), always with the meaning “tremble” (see below). Note that in those places the LXX translates with passive forms of πτοέω, “to be terrified, tremble” (see LEH). The word ‫ ַר ֵחם‬is vocalized as a piel infinitive in the MT; we read it as the noun ‫ר ֶחם‬.ֶ For my translation “as the womb trembles,” cf. Baruch Margulis, “The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Reconstruction and Interpretation.” ZAW 82 (1970): 409–42, esp. 412–14; also Haak, Habakkuk, 81–82. 42. See D. R. Hillers, “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News,” ZAW 77 (1965): 86–90; and Claudia D. Bergmann, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1–18, BZAW 382 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), esp. 48–50, 56–163, 215–17; cf. Conrad Gempf, “The Imagery of Birth Pangs in the New Testament,” TynBul 45 (1994): 119–35. The imagery emphasizes intense pain and panic; an actual or metaphorical birth is usually not the point. 43. Such trembling is found elsewhere in Scripture, e.g., in Exod 19:18; Judg 5:4–5; Pss 29:8–9; 97:4; 114:7; 1 Chr 29:30. See Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “The Trembling of Nature during the Theophany,” in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures, AOAT 204 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1980): 173–89. Since they are made of goats’ skins, the trembling tents of Hab 3:7 represent Earth in much the same way as Stone and Wood from houses represent her in Hab 2:11. 44. See vv. 5–9, 10a–b, 15. For damage to Earth due divine intervention, see Norman Habel, An Inconvenient Text: Is a Green Reading of the Bible Possible? (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2009), 11–36, 79–114; and Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 20–21, 25–26. In Habakkuk, divine damage to Earth is explicitly regarded as unfortunate collateral damage, as indicated by the implied negative answer to the rhetorical question of 3:8.

86

L. J. BRAATEN

in an anticipated year, or day of YHWH.45 As in the case of Earth’s speech and example in 2:12–20, Creation responds to God correctly, that is, in the only way possible under divine threat – in awe and trembling deference before God.46 What was suggested above regarding Earth (represented by Stone and Wood) being an example for humans is explicitly demonstrated in the response of the prophet in Hab 3. Indeed, in 3:16–19 the prophet appears to be following the model of the entire expanse of Nature reacting to the appearance of YHWH. As a counterpart to Earth’s trembling womb of v. 2, the prophet replicates shaking in his own body in v. 16, where the term ‫רגז‬ occurs twice.47 It begins within the prophet’s belly (‫)בטן‬, a term that sometimes connotes a womb.48 The prophet shakes from head to toe – literally his lips quiver, his bones rot, and underneath he trembles. This corresponds to the comprehensive shaking of Earth, particularly in vv. 6–7 and 10a. Note also that in vv. 10b–11 the created order is affected by God from top to bottom.49 As in the case of Nature, the prophet moves from trembling to deference. Habakkuk resolves to cease from his (short-sighted) intercession and await the divine work according to the LORD’s schedule (3:16– 17). Just as all Creation responds to the divine glory with praise (3:3), the prophet also concludes by rejoicing in the LORD (3:18–19). As the people’s representative in 3:16–19, the prophet announces his silent waiting for God and anticipatory worship of YHWH, whom he considers worthy to be praised until God fully delivers Earth community. The lesson has been learned, and the prophet has fully identified with the mourning Earth – he will now pray and worship properly, and he can now model this to others. In summary, by God’s help Habakkuk has learned to abandon his impatient short-sighted prayers and to identify with the groaning and travailing Earth. 45. The “day of adversity” (‫ )יום צרה‬in 3:16 is equivalent to the “year” of 3:2. I interpret these expressions as synonymous with the day of YHWH. Furthermore, the day of YHWH can be any significant time of intervention, and not just a unique future event; see citations in Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 18–19 n. 38, cf. Braaten, “Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,” 145. For the day of adversity associated with labor pains see Bergmann, Childbirth, 115–26, 160–61. 46. Deference is the counterpart to God’s disruption of the cosmos (3:3, 6–7, 10c–11); see Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 19–20. 47. In fact, v. 16 and v. 2 are bound by a triple inclusio. Both open with “I heard” (‫)שמעתי‬, both mention trembling within, and both anticipate a year/day; see Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 19. 48. Cf. Bergmann, Childbirth, 161. For birth pang imagery applied to males, see Isa 21:3; Jer 4:19; 22:23; 30:6; 48:41; 49:22; 50:43; Ps 48:5–7 [ET 4–6]. 49. See Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 19–20.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

87

HABAKKUK’S INFLUENCE ON ROMANS We have seen above that the book of Habakkuk has a central place for Earth. We will now note some points of contact between Habakkuk and Romans that suggest an influence on Romans. Faithfulness: Paul’s Adaptation of Habakkuk 2:4 The first and most obvious influence is Paul’s adaptation of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17. We will explore two related questions regarding Paul’s integration of this text into Romans. One is the extent Paul incorporated Habakkuk’s context with the citation of Hab 2:4. The other is the possible relationship between the life promised in Rom 1:17 and the groaning Creation of Rom 8:22. We proceed by noting that Hab 2:4 is introduced in Rom 1:17b with the phrase καθὼς γέγραπται (“as it is written,” NRSV), indicating that it is an explanation of the immediately preceding statements of vv. 16–17a. Verse 17a reads δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ [i.e., τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, v. 16] ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. The term δικαιοσύνη … θεοῦ (“righteous deed of God”) is synonymous with δύναμις … θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν (“power of God for salvation”) of v. 16.50 In v. 16 this salvation is παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (“for everyone who has faith”). The sequence “the power of God for salvation for everyone who has faith” (v. 16) ending with “the righteous deed of God” (v. 17a) is also repeated succinctly in the phrase ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (v. 17b).51 In context, the meaning of the last phrase can be paraphrased “from the faithfulness [of God’s act in Christ], for the faithful [human response].”52 At this point Paul glosses ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν with his adaptation of Hab 2:4, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. Paul’s citation agrees with neither the MT nor the LXX, since he omits a possessive pronoun with πίστεως.53 50. δικαιοσύνη … θεοῦ is literally “righteousness of God.” In the Hebrew Bible, God’s righteousness (‫צדקה‬, LXX δικαιοσύνη) often connotes divine acts of deliverance, e.g., Judg 5:11; 1 Sam 12:7; Isa 46:13; 51:6; 56:1; Ps 71:2, 15–16. 51. I interpret this as an appositional clause, cf. Rom 12:1; see BDF §480.6. 52. Compare Rom 3:22, δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, which I paraphrase, “the righteous act of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who exercise faith.” For this interpretation of Rom 3:22, see Leander Keck, “‘Jesus’ in Romans,” JBL 108 (1989): 443–60, esp. 452–57. 53. The MT reads ‫באמתו‬, “by his faithfulness.” The LXX reading ἐκ πίστεώς μου substitutes μου (“my”) for the expected αὐτοῦ (“his”). While this might be a case of orthographic confusion between final ‫“( ו‬his”) and ‫“( י‬my”), it is more likely interpretive; the LXX clarifies that faithfulness belongs to God (i.e., it is a subjective genitive), and not to the righteous one.

88

L. J. BRAATEN

I suggest that Paul omitted the pronoun so that he could use the single term πίστεως to represent both the faithfulness of God and the faithful human response, as found in the previous line.54 Although Hab 2:4 cannot be interpreted in that manner per se, if read in conjunction with Hab 1:5 it is implied. We saw above that Hab 1:5 states that people will not have faith if they hear a prophetic message of divine intervention through Babylon. This no doubt refers to the plight of the innocent righteous, whose commitment to God may weaken during times of adversity. The context implies that there are also those who are not currently faithful who need to become so. This suggests that one feasible outcome of Habakkuk’s prophetic activity was that Judean oppressors (Hab 1:2–4) would become faithful to YHWH, resulting in a reformation of their behavior.55 Likewise, the message of God’s faithfulness (Hab 2:4) might even inspire faithfulness in the wicked, resulting in their identification with the righteous. It would also be easy for a reader familiar with the biblical tradition to equate this faithfulness of God in Christ that makes people righteous with “righteousness,” that is, God’s righteous deed.56 If Paul understood Habakkuk in this manner, it is evident how the dialogues of Hab 1:2–2:3 influenced Paul’s choice of Hab 2:4 as a theme verse for Romans: the faithfulness of God enables those who respond faithfully I reject the view that πίστεώς μου is an objective genitive signifying human faith in “me” (God), since a literal rendering of the Hebrew would have been more congruent with that understanding. Furthermore, the objective genitive with πίστις is unattested; see Keck, “‘Jesus’ in Romans,” 453. 54. Since the LXX tradition overwhelmingly favors the interpretation “God’s faithfulness,” Paul could have claimed support in the ambiguous Hebrew text of Hab 2:4 as indicating both divine and human faithfulness; see n. 53 above, and cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., WBC (Word: Dallas, 1988), 1:45–46, 48–49. The same adaptation of Hab 2:4 is found in Gal 3:11, indicating that this was the standard way Paul cited Hab 2:4. Perhaps the apostle in his oral proclamation frequently employed the text in a manner similar to Rom 1:17. Paul’s frequent quotation and adaptation of the LXX was necessary for the sake of his Greek audience, but this does not preclude Paul’s thorough knowledge of the Hebrew text. This could be compared to a professor who reads the NRSV aloud in an English Bible survey course, yet she draws on her knowledge of the original languages to comment on the text or even adapts her oral reading based on her knowledge of the original. Training in the interpretation of Hebrew Scripture would be congruent with Paul’s self-identification as a devoted Pharisee (Phil 3:5; cf. Gal 1:14) and is supported by Luke’s identification of Paul as a student of Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3; cf. 23:6; 26:5). See Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 136–37 n. 13. 55. One way this could have taken place is for the wicked to overhear the prophet’s public intercessions on behalf of the righteous. For “enemies” of the persecuted righteous overhearing public prayers of lament, see Gerald T. Sheppard, “Theology and the Book of the Psalms,” Int 46 (1992): 143–55, esp. 145–47. 56. See above for a discussion of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

89

to live.57 Furthermore, if Paul interpreted the Babylonian oppressors (Hab 1:5– 17) among those who can be moved by God’s faithfulness,58 then we have the contrasting pair Judeans and Babylonians as the counterpart to (and possibly the source for) Paul’s Jew and Greek merismus in Romans (Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 3:9; 10:12).59 We will return to the relationship between Rom 1:17 and Rom 8:22 later. Idolatry as the Source of Wickedness Another point of contact between Habakkuk and Romans comes immediately after Paul cites Hab 2:4. Paul presents sinful humanity as suppressing the truth about God and turning to idolatry and wickedness (1:18–32). This truth about God can be understood through the created order. Paul refers to God’s showing humans the divine Nature or eternal power as God being made known (γνω-) through Creation (1:20).60 Paul charges that the revealed God, expressed as “the glory of the immortal God [τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ],” is exchanged for an “image resembling a mortal human being [φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου]” (1:23 NRSV). Paul concludes the section by enumerating his list of immoral and violent deeds that result from this idolatry. There appears to be broad dependence on Hab 2 in this passage. First, the woes of Hab 2:6–17 present a series of evil deeds that are rooted in idolatry (2:18– 19). The antithesis to this idolatry is stated in two doxologies (2:14, 20). The first doxology states that “Earth is filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord” (my translation; LXX ἐμπλησθήσεται ἡ γῆ τοῦ γνῶναι τὴν δόξαν 57. Paul also uses similar grammatical forms of πιστ– as in the LXX text of Habakkuk. Both begin with a verbal form for the faith humans do or do not have, πιστεύσητε in Hab 1:5 and πιστεύσητε in Rom 1:16. Both use the noun πίστεως to connote divine and human faithfulness (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17). 58. The Pesher to Habakkuk interprets the lack of faith in 1:5 as applying both to the unfaithful among the community (those against the Teacher of Righteousness), and the Kittim (its gloss on the Chaldeans, 1:6). See n. 6 above on Hab 1:5. Habakkuk does not directly offer repentance to the Judean oppressors, much less to the Babylonians. The closest the book of Habakkuk comes to such a universalism is in the doxologies of 2:14 and 20. Zephaniah (the next prophecy in the Book of the Twelve) mentions other nations as worshiping YHWH (Zeph 2:11; 3:9–10). Presumably, however, whenever divine judgment is announced there is an underlying assumption that if people repent, perhaps the LORD will turn and forgive them (Joel 2:1–14; Jonah 3:4–4:2). 59. Such contemporizing of Babylon or Edom as the Greeks or Romans is well-known in Second Temple Jewish biblical interpretation. The Pesher to Habakkuk on Hab 1:5–17 engages in such interpretive updating when it identifies the Chaldeans as the Kittim, a code word for the Romans in 1QpHab II, 12–VI, 12. 60. τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 19; cf. γνόντες τὸν θεὸν, v. 21; τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες, v. 32.

90

L. J. BRAATEN

Κυρίου). This is the only passage in Jewish Scriptures where “the knowledge of God’s glory” is said to be revealed through Creation.61 It is significant that Paul uses the same terms, knowledge and glory (Rom 1:19–20, 23), in his discussion of God’s revelation in Creation as the antithesis of idolatry. These and other points of contact between Hab 2 and Rom 1 are noteworthy, and they can be summarized as follows. The first and most obvious is how the topics of condemnation of wickedness and idolatry follow shortly after the statement ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως … ζήσεται. Second, Habakkuk and Paul declare that the nature of God (including the divine glory) can be known through Creation, and this results in the worship of the true God. Third, both indicate that those who do not worship the Creator and turn to idols glorify themselves and commit violence against others.62 Fourth, Habakkuk and Paul indicate that when the created order is worshiped as an idol, humans accept and act on lies. Fifth, offences against Earth are a shared concern. We saw above how they are mentioned in Hab 2:6–20. Although Paul has no direct verbal links with Habakkuk at this point, he alludes to other passages where futility and idolatry appear in close proximity to land abuse.63 One of these texts is Hos 4, which we mentioned above as a classic example of Earth mourning due to human sin – a topic Paul takes up in Rom 8:22. This and other direct links between Rom 1 and 8 will be explored below. It is also noteworthy that idolatry, bloodshed, and sexual immorality are the three things that are often said to defile Land in the Hebrew Bible.64 These are all found in Rom 1:18–32.65 These similarities between Hab 2:6–20 61. Habakkuk 2:14 seems to combine Isa 11:9 and 6:3. In the MT it is almost an exact quotation of Isa 11:9, with the exception of “glory.” The mention of YHWH’s glory in conjunction with the fullness of Earth is found in Isa 6:3. Knowing God through the glory of historical deeds is found in Exod 14:4, 17–18. 62. Sylvia Keesmaat also notes several points of correspondence between Hab 2 and Rom 1. She maintains that Hab 2 and Rom 1 attest the role of idolatry in the interplay between greed, shame, and profanity and the destruction of Creation. See Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Land, Idolatry, and Justice in Romans,” in Conception, Reception, and the Spirit: Essays in Honor of Andrew T. Lincoln, ed. J. Gordon McConville and Lloyd K. Pietersen (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 90–103, esp. 92–93. See now also Keesmaat and Brian J. Walsh, Romans Disarmed: Resisting Empire/Demanding Justice (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2019), 144–46, 217–22; cf. 163– 66, 169 and often. This engaging work appeared too late for full consideration in this essay. 63. Ps 106:20, 24; Jer 2:5–11; Hos 4:1–19. See Keesmaat, “Land, Idolatry, and Justice,” 93. 64. E.g., Lev 19:29; Num 35:33, Ps 106:36–39; Jer 2:1; cf. Hos 4:1–3; see Tivka FrymerKensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399–414, esp. 406–12. It is interesting to compare these with the prohibitions of the apostolic decree in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25. 65. Many of the contemporary sins that Paul condemns here are associated with land abuse in the Jewish Scriptures. He undoubtedly encountered Roman land abuse throughout the empire; see Keesmaat, “Land, Idolatry, and Justice,” 94–100.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

91

and Rom 1 immediately after Paul refers to Hab 2:4 seem to be more than coincidental; they suggest Paul’s intentional adaptation of Hab 2. Violence Against Earth: Creation Groans and Is in Labor Pains Other points of contact are found in Paul’s declaration that “all Creation groans and suffers labor pains together until now” (my translation).66 As I have shown elsewhere, the phrase depends on two well-known expressions from the Scriptures, and we have seen above that Habakkuk mentions both of them.67 The first point of contact is Earth groaning or mourning due to the effects of ongoing human sin, which may include God’s concomitant judgment on that sin (discussed above).68 In the prophetic passages the elements of Earth that are mourning are usually listed individually (e.g., Hos 4:3; Joel 1:5–20). Habakkuk 2:11 names Stone and Wood as crying out and testifying. Paul captures this idea with πᾶσα (“all”) and the συν– prefix; all Creation “groans together” (συστενάζει). Furthermore, the Hebrew Bible often presents the various parts of Creation as languishing due to human sin; Hab 2:12–19 mentions violence and abuse humans commit against Earth.69 66. πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν. The κτίσις is the realm of Nature visible to humans (Earth and Sky), as in Rom 1:20. An older view that κτίσις refers to non-Christians does not find support in Romans, e.g., Hildebrecht Hommel, “Das Harren der Kreatur,” in Sebasmata: Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum frühen Christentum, vol. 2, WUNT 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 127–40, esp. 136–40 (an article originally published in 1953). Furthermore, the common interpretation reflected in the translation “groaning in labor pains” (e.g., NRSV) assumes a verbal hendiadys, and that the main point of the passage is Creation’s travail. I have argued that the verbs should be translated independently, and the primary point of the passage is the groaning of a mourning Creation due to the effects of ongoing human sin on Creation. The reference to labor pains is another way of articulating the Creation’s suffering. See Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 131–59; and Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 4–5. My identification of a mourning Earth tradition in Rom 8:22 has been accepted by Jonathan Moo, “Romans 8.18–22 and Isaiah’s Cosmic Covenant,” NTS 54 (2008): 74-89, esp. 83-84; and Richard Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation, Sarum Theological Lectures (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 95–101, 193 n. 69. 67. Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 131–59. For a critique of the view that Paul is referring here to a “messianic woes” (or “birth pangs of the messianic age”) tradition, see Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 134–35 n. 7; Gempf, “The Imagery of Birth Pangs,” 125–26; also Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 517, although with different conclusions regarding Paul’s primary source for a groaning and travailing Creation. 68. See Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 141–52; and Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 6–7. Paul’s “until now” (ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν) indicates that Creation’s suffering is due to an ongoing and pervasive condition. The focus here is on God’s judgment upon this ongoing human sin, probably to emphasize that through and beyond this judgment God can offer hope for Creation (8:20) along with human hope (vv. 24–25). See Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 147. 69. E.g., Hos 4:3. The Hebrew term for mourn, ‫אבל‬, is multivalent: it connotes both “drying up” and “mourning.” See Hayes, The Earth Mourns, 12–18.

92

L. J. BRAATEN

Paul summarizes by stating that Creation is enslaved to decay (τῆς φθορᾶς, v. 21),70 and indicates this is due to God’s judgment on ongoing human sin (v. 20).71 As we observed above, Hab 2:6–20 condemns humans for violence against Earth, which includes destruction of forests, erosion of soil, and displacement and death of animals. In response, Earth (represented by Stone and Wood) cries out in mourning and accusations of injustices and idolatry (2:11–20). Like Habakkuk, Paul does not explicitly state that the Creation is mourning (as e.g., Hos 4:3); rather, he states it is groaning.72 The second point of contact is the reference to “labor pains,” which as we saw above is a common expression for suffering or a crisis. Habakkuk’s prayer refers to the labor pains of Earth: the trembling womb (3:2), trembling Earth (6–7), and writhing Hills (10). Paul does not list the elements of Creation in travail as Habakkuk does, but once again he conveys a similar idea with (a double duty) πᾶσα and the συν– prefix; all Creation “suffers labor pains together” (συνωδίνει). It is noteworthy that Habakkuk is the only prophet who clearly mentions offences against Earth in conjunction with a mourning Earth and labor pains in close proximity.73 If Paul relied on a source for bringing together the mourning Earth and the travail of Creation, the most likely candidate is Habakkuk.74 For Habakkuk, idolatry is the root problem underlying the violence against Earth community that results in Earth groaning and in labor pains.75 While Habakkuk makes this point within a relatively brief space, the topic is spread out over eight chapters in Romans, so the connection is not as obvious. 70. Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 6, 8. Paul’s use of φθορᾶς may be influenced by Isa 24:3; see Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 145–47. 71. See above, and nn. 67 and 69. 72. The LXX translates ‫ תזעק‬as βοήσεται in Hab 2:11. Other passages use different terms to represent mourning groans. Paul prefers συστενάζει since cognates of στενάζω appear in significant passages in the LXX; see Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 152–53. 73. Mourning groans and labor pains are sometimes associated in human crises (e.g., Isa 13:6, 8). Jeremiah 4:23–31 brings together the mourning Earth (v. 28) and groaning during labor pains (ὅτι φωνὴν ὡς ὠδινούσης ἤκουσα τοῦ στεναγμοῦ σου, v. 31), although the latter is applied to Zion, not Earth; see Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 139–41. Joel 1:8–13 also refers to both the mourning Earth (see Braaten, “Earth Community in Joel 1–2,” 116–23) and human birth pains (2:6). The shaking of the heavens and Earth in 2:10 is too general to be considered labor pains imagery, as conceded by Bergmann, Childbirth as a Metaphor, 124–25. In fact, references to the labor pains of Earth are rare outside of the Psalms mentioned earlier (Pss 77:17 [ET 16]; 96:9; 97:4; 114:7). For prophetic texts that likely employ birth pang imagery, primarily in respect to people or cities, see Bergmann, Childbirth as a Metaphor, esp. 115–26, 160–61 (on Hab 3). 74. Since the birth pang imagery is found in the Hebrew and not the LXX of Hab 3:2 (see discussion in n. 41), Paul would have had to be familiar with the Hebrew text to recognize this reference in Habakkuk (also see n. 54 above). 75. See above, and Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 22, and nn. 62–63 above.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

93

As we saw above, Paul’s list of sins in Rom 1 is derived from biblical texts that associate idolatry and other sins with an abuse of Nature that leads to a mourning Earth. Paul’s list of wrongdoings in Rom 1 is replaced by the comprehensive terms “sin” and “transgression” in Rom 2–8. In Rom 8:20–22 Paul then assumes his readers understand that Creation is groaning because of God’s response to this ongoing human sin that has been discussed up to this point.76 Consequently, in his discussion of sin throughout Romans, the abuse of Creation lies barely under the surface, and the path leads directly back to idolatry. Earth Community Groans and Prays Together After Paul introduces the groaning and travailing of Creation in Rom 8:22, he immediately moves into a discussion of the groans of believers awaiting final redemption and how they can properly pray with God’s (the Spirit’s) help (8:23–27, see below). Paul proceeds by immediately comparing the groaning together of all Creation to the corporate groans of believers waiting for bodily redemption (v. 23).77 This is to be awaited patiently in hope (vv. 24–25).78 In the meantime, believers in their weakness do not know how to pray as they ought (v. 26). They need the help of the Spirit, who is aware of the misdirected human heart and therefore intercedes for them according to God’s will (v. 27).79 The implication is that when left to themselves, the corporate groaning of the believers for final redemption (vv. 23– 25) may include improper prayers, including an impatient waiting for divine intervention that does not fully reflect God’s will.80 This lack of patience 76. See above; for what Paul assumes his readers “know” (οἴδαμεν γάρ) in Rom 8:22, see Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 2–3, 6. Throughout Keesmaat and Walsh, Romans Disarmed, there are discussions of Paul’s allusions to social injustices in the Roman Empire that contribute to Creation’s destruction and groaning, e.g., 161–76. 77. ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν, “we groan among ourselves,” not “inwardly” per NRSV. See C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–1979), 1:418–19. This corporate groaning is the counterpart to all Creation groaning together of v. 22; see Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 7–8. 78. Those cut off from the community by death, a crisis, or sin are reincorporated back into the community by corporate mourning rites; see Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 1–19; 46– 61; and Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 137–39, 145–52. 79. In the context of Creation groaning due to God’s punishment of human sin and humans praying amiss, it is apparent that the one who searches the heart (ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας), i.e., God or God’s spirit (cf. Ps 139 [LXX 138]:1, 7, 23–24, although terms differ from Romans), knows that human motives are not pure (e.g., Jer 17:9–10; 23:26; Ps 64:6–7 [ET 5–6]), and that therefore they need the aid of the Spirit to pray properly for God’s will (cf. 1 Cor 2:10–13). 80. See Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 7–8.

94

L. J. BRAATEN

with God’s completion of redemption is no doubt connected with the issue that began the whole discussion: the children of God can expect to suffer in this age while they await the completion of their glorification (vv. 17–18; cf. Rom 5:1–5). Prayers according to God’s will (vv. 26–27) address the big picture, that is, they take into consideration what God wants for all members of Earth community – human and nonhuman alike. In other words, the groaning of humanity with Creation (vv. 23–25) is not enough until it is transformed by the Spirit into humankind’s groaning on behalf of Creation (vv. 26–27). This unusual discussion about misdirected and impatient prayers bears a remarkable similarity to depiction of Habakkuk’s impatient intercessions for hasty divine intervention. As we saw above, the prophet’s prayers for God’s quick intervention to save God’s people proved not to take into account the consequent violence against Earth. Whether in response to such prayers God chooses to join in historical processes such as the Babylonian conquests, or God intervenes directly as the Divine Warrior, the solution is no better than the problem, and may even make it worse. Innocent members of Earth community, humans and Nature, will suffer. Habakkuk learned that the glory of God revealed in Creation (Hab 2:14) is inconsistent with the mighty acts of the warrior God that he rehearses in his prayer (3:3–15).81 Rather, he was taught to identify with Creation and its cries against injustice and idolatry (Hab 2:11–19). In the meantime, aware of God’s glory in Creation (2:14), he ceases his prayers for divine violence and honors God quietly in Creation’s cosmic temple (Hab 2:20). As a faithful follower, he identifies with the labor pangs of Creation (Hab 3:16) and waits patiently while he continues to worship YHWH in times of hardship (3:17–19). Paul offers analogous ways to overcome the anthropocentric prayers that involve quick solutions for humans but lack sufficient concern for Creation. Since they were faced with suffering and persecution (Rom 8:17–25, 31–39; cf. 5:3–5; 12:12–19), Paul may have been concerned about the collateral damage to Creation if the Roman Christians were to pray for a hasty divine intervention, either through the actions of the Roman Empire (cf. 13:1–7) or directly, i.e., through a speedy return of the Lord. Paul implies that the children of God can be reconciled to their suffering by reminding them that the groaning of all Creation anticipates their own groaning (Rom 8:18–23).82 81. Braaten, “Violence Against Earth,” 25–26. 82. The rhetoric of Paul’s argument indicates that he assumed his readers are already aware of the scriptural traditions of a mourning and travailing Creation, and also of the prophetic calls to take notice, repent, and identify with this mourning community. See Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 2–3, 6–9.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

95

He also infers that human suffering makes the children of God more aware of the suffering of the created order, through their shared labor pains.83 There is a clear identification with Earth indicated here. Paul also specifies how to pray patiently according to God’s will. The children of God suspend their own wisdom and defer to the indecipherable prayers of intercession (groanings) of the Spirit on behalf of the saints (v. 27). Paul concludes with a paean on the depths of God’s loving redemption through Christ, which overcomes all adversity (vv. 31–39), which bears similarities to the conclusion of Habakkuk (see above).84 Although Paul develops his material in his own way, it appears that he is following the broad pattern of the message of Habakkuk. Earth Community Living by the Faithfulness of God The discussion about a connection between the key verse in Rom 1:17 and the broader context of the groaning and travailing Creation of 8:22 has been suspended until now. We have already seen how in Habakkuk that Creation (Earth) was among the righteous innocents for whom the prophet prayed. As a result, I propose that the life promised the righteous living by and in God’s faithfulness (Hab 2:4) is granted to Earth as well as humans. We find something similar in Romans if we follow the progression of thought in Rom 1–8. In Rom 1, Paul initiates a discussion on the problem of human sin that is rooted in an idolatrous misuse of Creation. For the next several chapters Paul discusses how the faithfulness of God addresses the problem of human sinfulness. Beginning in Rom 8:19 the situation is reversed; Paul introduces the topics of the effects of human sin (through divine punishment) on Creation and how God’s faithfulness addresses the problem.85 83. Readers may be tempted to find allusions to an anticipated new birth for Creation and believers in the labor pain imagery, yet, as mentioned above, that is not how the metaphor is employed. Furthermore, when Paul speaks of God’s children here, adoption (υἱοθεσία) is in view; see Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; cf. Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5; see also Gempf, “The Imagery of Birth Pangs,” 123–24. 84. For the mixed implications of this doxology in Rom 8:31–39 for Creation, see Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 10. 85. One way this reversal is signaled is by the use of cognates of ματαιότητι. In Rom 1:21, humans who worship and misuse Creation become ἐματαιώθησαν (vain, futile, foolish) in their thinking, resulting in sin. In Rom 8:10–21, human sin brings God’s judgment upon Creation, resulting in Creation being subjected to ματαιότητι, manifested as death and decay. Furthermore, the “futility” in Rom 8:20 brings to mind the link between land abuse, mourning Earth, and idolatry in Rom 1; see above and Keesmaat, “Land, Idolatry, and Justice,” 97–98. Hommel misses the point of v. 20 by essentially equating the two uses of futility in Romans. He identifies ἡ κτίσις as the heathen world (see n. 66) and refers to other passages where the futility of idolatry is mentioned (Hommel, “Das Harren der Kreatur,” 139). Jewett suggests

96

L. J. BRAATEN

Through God-instilled hope (v. 20), Creation anticipates freedom “from the slavery of decay” (my translation of ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, v. 21; see above). Although the wording is not used, this release from decay to freedom can best be described as a transition from death to life. This whole process is analogous to the experience of the children of God (Rom 6:15– 23), who by God’s grace can be freed from being “slaves of sin” (δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, my translation, 6:17) to being enslaved to righteousness (6:18– 19).86 This takes place by their identification with the death and resurrection of Christ (6:7–8), which brings the children of God from death to life (6:11, 21–23).87 The new life offered in Rom 6 is no doubt developed directly out of the promise of new life (or living) through the faithfulness of God in Rom 1:17. Likewise, the life implied for Creation in Rom 8 is certainly the promised life of Rom 1:17. Romans 8:18–25 demonstrates how God’s faithfulness is at work for the created order just as Rom 6:5–23 shows how it is available for the children of God. Granted, there are major differences concerning why humans and Creation need God’s faithfulness to bring about (or restore) life. On the one hand, humans bring death on themselves through sin.88 On the other hand, innocent Creation suffers death due to the effect human sin has on Earth (see above).89 Yet both are promised the faithfulness of God to address the destructive force of sin. Humans are expected to exercise faith in Christ and walk according to the Spirit in response to the offer of life. Creation’s ultimate hope is in God as it groans and suffers in labor pains. Yet Creation finds God’s faithfulness conveyed through humans who live out of God’s faithfulness (Rom 1:17–6:23), who walk (or live) in the Spirit when Rom 8:20 repeats the “futility” cognate of 1:21 that “it seems likely that Paul has in mind the abuse of the natural world by Adam and his descendants” (Romans, 513). Regarding Adam and a curse on the ground, see below nn. 89–90. 86. Note that in the passages discussed above, both Rom 6 (about humans; cf. Rom 7) and Rom 8 (about Creation) use cognates of “slavery” (δοῦλ–) to connote a condition under sin which leads to types of death. 87. Paul signifies this life with both verbal and nominal cognates of ζω–; for verbal (including participle) forms, see Rom 6:8, 11, 13; for noun forms, see vv. 4, 22, 23. 88. However one interprets Rom 5:12, particularly the ἐφʼ ᾧ clause, Paul is not placing the blame for sin upon Adam and thereby contradicting his discussion about human culpability for ongoing sin developed throughout the rest of the letter. Romans 5:13–21 (which interrupts the incomplete sentence begun in v. 12) is Paul’s attempt to avoid such a misunderstanding when he introduces Adam and Christ as representatives of life under sin or under righteousness (see Rom 6:1–23). 89. For a critique of the view that Paul has in mind a primeval fall of Nature see Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 135–37. The curse on Adam’s interaction with arable land (‫)האדמה‬ is a component of the curse on Adam (Gen 3:17), not an independent curse on Creation. If anything, it is another way of expressing the same concern present in the mourning Earth passages: human sin negatively affects the earth. This curse is not a onetime primeval edict; it indicates a repeated and ongoing problem.

EARTH’S CRY AND TRAVAIL

97

(8:1–17), and who suffer with and join in with Creation’s groaning90 – which through the Spirit become inarticulate intercessions on behalf of Earth (8:18– 27).91 As mentioned above, this also involves humans abandoning quick solutions to their problems and shortsighted anthropocentric prayers which are potentially harmful to Creation. Paul’s concern for Creation and his implication that Creation is a significant partaker of God’s faithfulness according to Rom 1:17 suggest that, as in Habakkuk, Paul viewed Earth and humans as bound together in a single Earth community sustained by mutual support. Humans are condemned for exploiting Nature without reserve. Instead, they are admonished to live together under the faithfulness of God, and they are expected to be faithful to one another. In other words, Earth and humans are essentially neighbors.92 Although Paul does not explicitly refer to Earth as neighbor, his general concern for Creation is certainly congruent with Habakkuk’s identification of Earth as neighbor (Hab 2:15–17). It is even possible to read Paul’s placement of Creation within God’s salvific purposes as suggesting that Creation is an important family member of the household of God alongside the human children of God.93 If Paul’s presentation infers that Earth is our sister and neighbor, then Earth should be included in Paul’s ethical injunctions in Rom 12–13.94 Reading from the perspective of neighbor Earth, God’s people are admonished to love Earth with mutual affection (12:10), contribute to Earth’s needs (12:13), join her in prayer and rejoice and cry with her (12:12, 15; cf. Rom 8:22– 27), live in harmony with her (12:16) – in short, to nurture Earth and do her no harm. If Earth seems to be our enemy when it unleashes its powers (e.g., natural disasters), then we do not retaliate; rather, we are enjoined to pray for Earth and still seek her good (12:17–21). Above all, we fulfill torah by loving neighbor Earth as ourselves (13:8–10). 90. The implication in Rom 8:18–39 is that one source of human suffering is Creation distorted due to human sin. The way through this suffering is for humans to identify with the mourning Earth and join the mourning community, comprising God, Earth, and humans. At that point they can repent of their sins that have caused Earth’s demise, and then anticipate God’s deliverance. See Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 157–59, also 137–39; and n. 78 above. 91. This is discussed above. For God hearing and responding to inarticulate groaning, see Exod 2:23–25; for a discussion on how such groanings function in mourning in the Hebrew Bible and Rom 8, see Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 137–39, 152–53. 92. See Braaten, “Earth Community’s Lament,” 11. 93. See Braaten, “All Creation Groans,” 155–57. 94. See David G. Horrell, Cherryl Hunt, and Christopher Southgate, Greening Paul: Rereading Paul in a Time of Ecological Crisis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 195– 97, who consider the implications of Pauline thought in Rom 8:19–23 and Col 1:15–20. They maintain that when we extend Paul’s “other-regarding ethic” to nonhumans, it is “an imaginative step … that moves beyond the substance, but … not fundamentally against the grain, of Paul’s thought” (195).

98

L. J. BRAATEN

CONCLUSION Since there are a number of points where Romans is very similar to Habakkuk, we can safely conclude that Paul adapted Habakkuk for his own purposes. The citation of Hab 2:4 is the most obvious. Paul’s discussion of idolatry in a context that mentions the knowledge and glory of God attests topics found together only in Habakkuk. Likewise, the combination of the Earth mourning tradition with Earth’s labor pains is found elsewhere only in Habakkuk. We have also observed many other points where Paul reflects an influence from Habakkuk, although he developed and adapted the material to fit his own context. It is now apparent that Paul was much more dependent upon Habakkuk than is often recognized. Other scholars have shown how the devastation of Land by the Roman Empire provides a background for Paul’s statements about Creation in Rom 8.95 Even in light of what Paul considered to be the nearness of God’s final salvation (Rom 13:11–14), Paul expresses a grave concern for the ongoing demise of Creation at the hands of humans. Paul urges his readers to attend to Earth’s groans, identify with her suffering, join her in intercessory prayers, and adopt practices that will lead to life for all of Earth community. After the passing of two millennia with Earth continuing to suffer exploitation and abuse from human greed, Paul’s admonitions are all the more relevant. How much more are we now enjoined to respond to God’s faithfulness in ways that nurture Earth, and allow her to experience God’s faithfulness and life? emeritus, Judson University

Laurie J. BRAATEN96

95. See the summary in Keesmaat, “Land, Idolatry, and Justice,” 98–101. 96. For Troy W. Martin, whom I have had the honor of knowing for the past four decades as distinguished classmate, colleague, scholar, friend, and οἰκοδεσπότης δίκαιος. May the Lord continue to enlighten your way in the days to come.

7 A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

There is nothing controversial about claiming that Jesus and his earliest followers had significant contact with Samaritans. The presence of Samaritans in Roman-era Palestine is a well-established fact of both text and archaeology. A more questionable matter is whether the missionary followers of Jesus encountered Samaritans outside their native land. Even more speculative is how much contact someone like Paul had with Samaritans in his travels, writings, and mission. I will argue that Paul utilized an interpretive tradition addressed to ethnic identity issues between Judeans and Samaritans. The recipients of the Letter to the Romans were so familiar with this interpretive tradition’s positions and polemics that Paul did not need to mention how the memory of this tension between the two groups applied to the Roman context. In fact, it was to Paul’s benefit to keep the issue unspoken so that he could draw out implications that applied to the current relationships between Jews and Gentiles without destabilizing the church’s status in Rome. I will proceed along three lines of explication. First, I will give a brief exegesis of two passages, Rom 9:25–26 and 10:19–20, to reveal that Paul has the Judean-Samaritan strife in mind. Second, I will speculate on how Paul would have known about the interpretive tradition and how he might have encountered Samaritanism in his mission and travels. Third, I will suggest a social and historical context that might explain why Paul would bring up this extraneous controversy in a non-Palestinian setting, namely, Rome around the years 58–60 C.E. The part of the Letter to the Romans that deals with ethnic relations – in this case Jews and Gentiles – is chapters 9–11. In this section of the text, Paul makes an argument that Jews and Gentiles have an eschatological identity as coheirs of salvation. The image that Paul settles on in chapter 11 is a domesticated olive tree (καλλιέλαιον, 11:24) onto which the Gentiles have been grafted. Paul twice says that the Gentiles are by nature from a wild stock

100

M. F. WHITTERS

(ἀγριέλαιος, 11:17, 24), but now by their faith they are receiving the lifegiving sap from the tended tree.1 Thus, Paul implies that not only do the two groups share an eschatological destiny, but they belong together in some kind of ecclesial life. Paul does not spell out here the exact nature or organizational dimension of their shared common life. Rather, the overall context for his grafting references has to do with how to reconcile conflicting ethnic or racial identities, Jew and Gentile.2 But what does he mean by either group in Rom 9–11? When he speaks of them as coheirs or comembers of the ecclesial community, he mostly avoids using narrow and stereotypical terminology for their identities.3 For example, he vaguely refers to one side as “my brothers, my kinfolk according to the flesh” (9:3), and then more generally for the rest of this section on ethnic relations he specifies the group as “Israel,” the “Israelites,” or “children of Israel” (9:27). Twice he calls them “Jews” (9:24; 10:12), but far more often (eleven times) he uses broader terms as if to be as inclusive as possible in his argument. It leaves the categorically-inclined reader less clear about the target of his rhetoric: who exactly are the Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, Israel, children of Israel, and others? Beyond the rhetorical quest for synonyms, the fluidity of his referents suggests that Paul himself is begging questions and open to broader definitions.4

EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 9:25–26 AND 10:19–20 The first passage that fits the Judean-Samaritan interpretive tradition is Rom 9:25–26, and I will offer a wider context to give some perspective: 1. The image of Israel as a domesticated sapling that could be nurtured and transplanted was common in Second Temple Jewish literature. A sampling of such readings includes Jer 11:16– 17; Ezek 17:3–9; Hos 14:5–7; Jub. 1:16; 7:34; 16:26; 21:24; 36:6; 2 Bar. 36. Paul simply extends this agricultural image to grafting and hybridization. 2. In general, see Mark Kinzer, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2014), who imagines how the image applied to community life in the early church and how it might work today. Kinzer of course is thinking of interethnic relations, while this paper proposes an intraethnic background for Paul’s teaching. 3. For ethnic nomenclature in this passage and in other Second Temple texts, see Jason A. Staples, “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25–27,” JBL 130 (2011): 371–90, esp. 374–78. For epigraphic nomenclature, see Philippe Bruneau, “Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne,” BCH 106 (1982): 466–504, esp. 478– 79. 4. Interestingly, Josephus also show such equivocation when the need arises for him to define “Jew/Judean” in flexible ways. See Daniel R. Schwartz, Judeans and Jews (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), 48–61. Ethnic labels are not fixed for writers like Paul and Josephus because institutions that impose standards for canon, doctrine, and practices do not yet exist. Modern scholars adopt their institutional labels anachronistically.

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

101

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory – including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved’” [Hos 2:23]. “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called children of the living God” [Hos 1:10]. And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us, we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.” (Rom 9:22–29)5

My contention is that Paul’s reference to Hosea’s words is significant, both because of who the prophet is (a resident of Samaria) and the audience’s likely association with the ethnic group who would be most readily identified with those whom the prophet addressed as “not my people” (the wayward inhabitants of Samaria later regarded as Samaritans).6 What would cause the recipients of Paul’s letter to make this comparison? The original background for Hos 2:23 and 1:10, noted above, was the division between north and south, Israel and Judah, a history that went back at least as far as Solomon and probably further.7 Hosea, a prophet in the north, predicts that God – who had denied his responsibility, literally his paternity [Lo-ruhamah, 2:25; cf. Hos 1:6] for the northern tribes – would show in the future his care and love for them. Similarly the tribes in the south, once expelled from the Sinai covenant and no longer God’s people [Lo-ammi, 2:23; cf. 1:9] would experience the same divine turnaround. 5. All biblical quotations are taken from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. 6. See 2 Kgs 17:24–33 for the foundational passage branded upon the Samaritans of Paul’s day. For a discussion of Samarian/Samaritan terminology, see Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 14–16. Since the present study chiefly concerns the Roman era, I use “Samaritan” to identify the group that Paul is assuming in Rom 9–11. 7. The age-old claim of Shechem finds echoes throughout the Tanakh, regardless of how one dates the various sources. When Abraham first sets foot in the promised land, he builds an altar in Shechem (Gen 12:6–7); when Joshua returns and takes control of this land, he builds a monument and binds the twelve tribes to a covenant in Shechem (Josh 24:25–28); when Abimelech declared himself the first king, it was at Shechem that he consolidated his kingdom (Judg 9:1–6); when Rehoboam asserted his rights as successor to Solomon, and when his rival Jereboam challenged him, Shechem was the place where the conflict played out (1 Kgs 12). The claims of Jerusalem most likely reflected the sympathies of the biblical scribes responsible for the Tanakh (most prominently assumed in the book of Deuteronomy), but no one familiar with the background stories of the Bible could ignore the importance of Shechem in the transmission or the interpretation of the Scriptures. In general, see G. Ernest Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).

102

M. F. WHITTERS

On the level of the text, however, Paul’s reversed biblical sequence, Hos 2:23 before 1:10, is at least curious. For that matter, why does he even see the need to quote 1:10 at all, when 2:23 would do? One could argue that 1:10 containing the line, “Yet the number of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered,” neatly leads to his quotation of Isa 10:22, but why does he then leave these words out? In the context of Hosea, these words would go far to establish a prima facie case for the inclusion of the Gentiles – his central thesis. Below, I will suggest that Paul is adhering to a familiar pattern related to the Samaritans of Shechem, whereby race is joined to place. This pattern will appear like a proverbial trope in a number of quotations considered below. Moreover, while it may be mere coincidence that Paul adheres to this order of wording and semantic usage, or there may well be another reason for his reversed Hosea order, it is at least suggestive that the second quote adds a specific term: “place” (τόπος). This word often is a Shibboleth in the Jewish Scriptures, referring to the long-running dispute between Jews and Samaritans about the location for centralized worship, either Mount Zion or Mount Gerizim. The most obvious references for the background of the dispute rest in the more than thirty occurrences of τόπος in the book of Deuteronomy, most of which address the topic of centralized sanctuary.8 Intriguingly, one might find similar code language use for τόπος in the New Testament surrounding the life of Stephen (Acts 6:13–14; 7:7, 49; cf. 7:16). At any rate, Paul knows the Hosea passages by heart and probably assumes his audience knows them as well. His next reference from Isa 10:22 relies on the line not quoted by him in Hos 1:10 about the “sands of the sea.” The composite picture of Hosea and Isaiah applies well to Paul’s topic of Jew and Gentile relations because Paul hopes his readers know yet another allusion, that “the sands of the sea” expression resonates with Abraham, father of the nations (Gen 13:16; 17:2–8; 22:17). Once Abraham comes to mind, it is easy for Paul for to make a connection of “not my people” and “not beloved” to the Gentiles, for he had earlier in the letter (Rom 4) dealt with Abraham’s relation to Jews and Gentiles. However, I would suggest that Paul and his recipients are already engaged in the semantic echoes of this topic, one that features a group fighting for inclusion as children of Abraham, claiming their chosen status and cultic access exactly like the “Jews,” and whose homeland exactly matches Hosea’s: the Samaritans of Shechem – and precisely in this order of race and place 8. For background on how the noun “place” took on cultic significance, and how the book of Deuteronomy used it, see Sandra L. Richter, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy,” VT 57 (2007): 342–66.

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

103

as mentioned above. In fact, the connection between them and the Jewish Scriptures was less tenuous in the minds of Paul’s audience than what brought together Jews and Gentiles in current-day Rome. The next passage, Rom 10:19–20, makes this speculation about Paul’s use of interpretive tradition more credible: Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry” [Deut 32:21]. Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” [Isa 65:1].

In this passage, Paul cites a classic Second Temple text referred to as the Song of Moses. Jewish commentators often found in this composition a template for their eschatological views and for answers to insoluble religious and political questions. Rather than doing my own exegesis on the line from the Song of Moses cited above, it is better to delve into the interpretative traditions that explain why Paul cited it in the first place. What would the audience have understood from Deut 32:21 in this context? Simply stated, Paul seems to teach that Moses predicted “Israel” would reject the gospel that would come to it. Others, lacking “nation” status (compared to Israel’s ancestry, cf. Deut 32:18) and “foolish” (compared to Israel’s education or teaching, cf. Deut 32:2), would serve as provocateurs for Israel’s return to its relationship with God. This scenario implies the need for a retrograde people to receive the gospel Paul preaches. Below I will offer an interpretation that emerges from Second Temple literary development based on this line from the Song of Moses. To state what I have already pointed out above, there was a strong impulse for the Roman recipients of Paul’s letter to imagine “not a nation” and “foolish nation” to be the Samaritans. Paul simply channeled the current of this existing tradition into a newer and greater sea of interpretation that addressed Jewish-Gentile relations. The second citation above from Isa 65:1 (in Rom 10:20) does not play as much into this paper’s topic because that passage is more applicable to Jewish-Gentile relations, but the reference cannot wholly skirt the popular understanding that Samaritans were misguided and deluded.9 Paul’s use of Isa 65:1 allows him mainly to focus on a bigger rift than the one between a restored people (“Israel”) and natives of the land (the Samaritans). Both Rom 9:25–26 and 10:19 are constituent parts of a block of material spanning 9:6–10:21. Here Paul retells the story of Israel from Abraham 9. The second passage from Isa 65:1, however, does not entirely leave out a concern for the remnant from the north (Samaria), as its context plainly shows in 65:9.

104

M. F. WHITTERS

to Isaac, to Jacob, to Moses, to the prophets and the exile. It is this context that allows both references to speak about the formation of Israel as a people, but these two texts raise a more particular matter of what is the range of meaning for “not my people”/“not beloved” and “not a nation”/ “foolish nation”? It is this broader question that I will address for the rest of my paper.

THE SAMARITANS

AS A

CIPHER

FOR

GENTILES

For Paul, the background for both pairs of Hosea epithets is likely the Song of Moses (Deut 32) and its allegorical depiction of a fickle Israel as the beloved object of divine attention.10 As mentioned above, this speech contains the line that Paul quotes in Rom 10:19. The poetic name that Deut 32–33 LXX gives for Israel is ὁ ἠγαπημένος, often translated as “beloved one” or “darling one,” the same phrase that Hosea addresses to his consort in Hos 1–2 LXX. To understand Paul’s use of Deut 32:21, one can consult at least four other roughly contemporary references known among Second Temple Jews. All four deal with the Samaritans and point to a background interpretive tradition that explains Paul’s exegetical assumptions. One account comes from T. Levi 6–7 and concerns the biblical account of the rape of Dinah (Gen 34). Though the dating of Testament of Levi’s final editing is debated, most suggest that the bulk of the material is late Hellenistic.11 The author is at pains to justify the violent behavior of its hero Levi by associating Dinah’s rapist with Shechem. Why would this ancient location matter? Because Shechem is shorthand for those who revere the city’s sanctuary at Mount Gerazim instead of Mount Zion. The vitriol laced into the story leads up to the pronouncement in line with Deut 32:21 about “not a nation” and “foolish nation”: “From this day forward shall Shechem [the Samaritans] be called a city of imbeciles” (T. Levi 7:2) That this final charge is something like a proverb will be seen in other passages below. In addition, the order of Shechem as a person representing a race comes before his identity as a city. As I notice above in Paul’s use of 10. Paul frequently and explicitly draws upon these final words of Moses in the latter half of Romans (10:6–8, 19; 12:19; 15:10), though for the most part Paul is not using the LXX as we have it but likely instead uses a different Greek Bible tradition or a testimonia with its own phrasing. See Martin C. Albl, “And the Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, NovTSup 96 (Leiden: Brill, 1999). 11. See the introduction to the text by H. C. Kee in OTP 1:777–78. Even if the lines noted above are post-Pauline, they still suggest a robust literary tradition concerning Jewish-Samaritan relations.

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

105

Hosea, it is race before place: Shechem is a metonym for the perpetrator of the crime, then the place of his origin (“city”) comes next.12 The second relatively contemporary example to consider for identifying Samaritanism with Deut 32:21 is 4Q372 1, often considered to be a sectarian prayer dated to the early Herodian period.13 While the text is at best fragmentary, the assumptions forming the background narrative for the prayer lays hold of the same polemics that the “foolish people” are the Samaritans. The key lines are as follows: 10

And in all this, Joseph was cast into lands he did not [know Among a foreign nation and dispersed. All their mountains were empty of them … [and fools were dwelling in their land … 12 and making a high place upon a holy mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy.14 11

It is not crystal clear why Samaritans earn this opprobrium, but it probably has something to do with the claim that Mount Gerizim is the divine sanctuary sanctioned by the Torah. The legible fragments seem to imply that if Joseph is in exile, then the Samaritan claim to be descendants of Joseph, Jacob’s son, is ludicrous, and so its claim for the divine sanctuary and Israelite genealogy is illegitimate and offensive.15 The theological rationale for ridiculing Samaritanism may assume that the Samaritans’ claims and presence would eventually provoke the return of the true residents of Samaria, the lost northern tribes, as predicted by the prophets about the latter days (e.g., Jer 30:3; 31:2–6; 33:7).16 First-century voices accepted and affirmed that the lost tribes would come back – these include the likes of Jesus (e.g., Matt 10:16; 15:24), “Baruch” (2 Bar. 77–87), and even Paul (e.g., Rom 11:26a). Once 12. For Samaritans/Shechem as the obvious target of such rhetoric, see John J. Collins, “The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans,” HTR (1980): 91–104, esp. 96. 13. The fuller name applied to this text is 4QNarrative and Poetic Composition. For discussion, see Eileen Schuller “4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,” RevQ 14 (1990): 349–76; Matthew Thiessen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile,” DSD 15 (2008): 380–95. 14. Translation from Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 163. 15. For the Samaritans’ assertion that they are descendants of Joseph, see John 4:12; Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 13.26 (PG 14:445A; Gen. Rab. 94:6). James D. Purvis (“Joseph in the Samaritan Traditions,” in Studies on the Testament of Joseph, ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg Jr., SCS 5 [Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975], 147–53) refers to many Samaritan texts for this self-understanding. For the northern tribes’ claim to be descendants of Joseph, there are abundant biblical references: Ps 77:16; 78:67; 80:2; 81:5; Amos 5:6, 15; 6:6; Ezek 37:15–23; Zech 10:6–10; cf. T. Naph. 5–6. 16. Theissen, “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile,” 389–95. Theissen concludes that the text teaches that as long as the Samaritans are in the land, the prophecies cannot come to pass. Thus by this measure, the Samaritans are not truly members of Israel, since the ten tribes are still abroad. The Samaritans are simply a temporary and necessary evil until the eschatological restoration.

106

M. F. WHITTERS

again it worth noticing the word order for the lines, “fools [Samaritans] were dwelling in their land [Samaria, and specifically Shechem] … making a high place upon a holy mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy.” Note also the use of the word “place,” as a possible code word. The third and often cited reference establishing Shechem as the target for the Song of Moses passage is Sir 50:25–26: “Two nations my soul detests, and the third is not even a people: Those who live in Seir, and the Philistines, and the foolish people that live in Shechem.” Most likely, the text concerns the ethnic threats surrounding Judea, like the Idumeans to the south (Seir), the Hellenized coastal dwellers to the west (Philistines), and the Samaritans to the north (Shechem). The typical epithets associated with Samaritans as “not even a people” and “foolish people that live in Shechem” are employed in line with Deut 32:21. One might also speculate that Ben Sirach’s word choice for “detests” intentionally is in the semantic range of “provoke” and “arouse” (cf. Deut 32:19, 21), although the words are not the same in either Hebrew or Greek. Like Rom 9:25–26, both lines follow the normal pattern of people, then place. Ben Sira’s words raise many questions: Does he mean that they are not part of the people of Israel, or that they are simply ignorant about what it means to be an Israelite? Is he indicting the sanctuary near Shechem? The LXX version reads differently, substituting “those who settled on Mount Samaria” as the first clause, thus those whom the Assyrians transplanted and so not a part of the people of Israel, while perhaps the third clause represents true but misguided members of Israel who live in Shechem.17 In either case, the whole piece, Hebrew or Greek, is a slur against the Samaritans. At least one and possibly two other sources make the connection between Samaritans and the foolish people, and both of these also roughly coincide with Paul’s era. The first is Josephus.18 He reflects hostility toward the Samaritans, though a careful reading cannot determine whether he finds common ethnic identity with them in spite of their faults. He seems to be influenced by polemics that cast aspersions on the Samaritans, yet their racial or ethnic identity is not necessarily separate from the Judeans. Josephus twice scorns the Samaritans’ fair-weather sympathies: when it goes well with the Jews, the Samaritans claim to be related; otherwise they deny it. 17. See Knoppers, Samaritans, 15; Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, TSAJ 129 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 10–11. 18. In general, see Pummer, Samaritans; Knoppers, Samaritans; and Gary N. Knoppers, “The Samaritan Schism or the Judaization of Samaria? Reassessing Josephus’s Account of the Mt. Gerizim Temple,” in Making a Difference: Essays on the Bible and Judaism in Honour of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, ed. D. J. A. Clines, I. K. Richards, and J. L. Wright, Hebrew Bible Monographs 49 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 163–78.

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

107

When they [the Samaritans] see the Jews prospering, they call them their kinsmen, on the ground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to them through their origin from him, but, when they see the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing whatever in common with them nor do these have any claim of friendship or race, and they declare themselves to be aliens of another race. (Ant. 9.291, LCL) For such is the nature of the Samaritans, as we have already shown somewhere above. When the Jews are in difficulties, they deny that they have any kinship with them, thereby indeed admitting the truth, but whenever they see some splendid bit of good fortune come to them, they suddenly grasp at the connexion with them, saying that they are related to them and tracing their line back to Ephraim and Manasseh, the descendants of Joseph. (Ant. 11.341, LCL)

Still, in spite of his best efforts to discredit the Samaritans, he also concedes them to be a sibling people, sharing the identity of the Jews, when he explains how they ingratiated themselves to Alexander the Great (Ant. 11.323). In Josephus’s account, Sanballat, leader of the Samaritans, urges Alexander to recognize that if the Jews are divided into two factions (Judean and Samaritan), Greek hegemony would only benefit from their rivalry. This is a startling concession in light of Josephus’s characteristic chauvinistic haughtiness toward the Samaritans. Josephus claims that Shechem, as “mother city” for Samaria, was a magnet for “apostate” Jews (Ant. 11.340); later (Ant. 11.346–347) he reinforces this point by saying that transgressors of ceremonial law from Jerusalem fled to Shechem as a refuge city when they felt unfairly prosecuted by fellow Judeans.19 This is probably another subtle jab at Samaritanism’s claims for Gerizim, rival to Jerusalem’s Zion, and not because it was all that important as a population center. It is a way of doubly incriminating the Samaritans as a people with a false religion and as an attractive destination for renegades and lawbreakers.20 It was bad enough that wayward Judeans fled to Shechem, but Josephus also records that its residents called themselves “Sidonians” (Ant. 11.344) and thus identified themselves as transplants from the days of the Persians and Medes (12.257–264). This pejorative label essentially meant “foreigner.”21 19. Etienne Nodet (A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah, trans. E. Crowley, JSOTSup 248 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 137) calls these emigrating Jews “dissidents” to mainstream Judean ideology. 20. A triply incriminating charge was that their nation stood as a bogeyman for the rape of Dinah, the foundational story about ethnic purity for Judeans (cf. T. Levi 6–7; 4Q372 1). 21. Theodotus, another Hellenistic-era Jewish writer, devotes an epic poem to the rape of Dinah, whose perpetrator Shechem is labelled the son of Hermes (frag. 1; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.22.1). The point is to emphasize their foreign contamination as non-Jews so as to marginalize and denigrate them.

108

M. F. WHITTERS

For Josephus, this probably refers to their reputation as a mixed population that inhabited Samaria since Assyrian times, and it points to their cultural accommodations with dominant foreign rulers like Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes, and later the Romans. When all the evidence is compiled, it is most likely the case that the interpretive tradition that began at Deut 32:21 about “no people” and a “foolish people” leaves its mark on Josephus’s writings. For him, the Samaritans are justly maligned no matter what their ethnic origins are. The second Roman-era source is a little more oblique: Philo. For him, the city of Shechem represents the city of worldliness and distraction, although his allegorical take-away does not permit us to speculate very much on whether he considered its inhabitants Jews. Philo is more interested to assert that the journey toward wisdom is a pilgrimage every Israelite must figuratively make with Jacob and his sons – and this route goes directly through Shechem. Thus, Philo’s allegory challenges his readers to avoid the rape of Dinah, by avoiding the pitfalls of Shechem’s “irrational being” [given to] “folly and nursed in shamelessness and effrontery … [attempting] to corrupt and defile the judgement faculties of the understanding” (Migr. 223–225, LCL). In Dinah’s case, restoration to a right mind – her virginal state – was possible through the intervention of her brothers, themselves stirred to relentless action against foolishness.22 One might detect in Philo’s interpretation of Shechem an allegorical fulfillment of Deut 32:21, where a foolish people provoked anger and restitution for beloved Israel. The Samaritans are not the prime target, but they are certainly the referent that makes the allegory work. PAUL’S USE OF

THE

SAMARITAN INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

Now we return to Paul. What conclusion might Paul draw from this interpretive trajectory that would serve him in his communication with the Romans? Where would he put the Samaritans in the taxonomy of peoples? What inherited caricature of the Samaritans contributes to his ultimate conclusion that the God-fearing Gentiles, “of wild stock,” are grafted into the “domesticated” tree of Israel? While many of the sources project a derogatory perspective toward Samaritans, which may be summed up concisely as the assumption that they 22. If Philo also is borrowing from interpretive tradition, his view, according to this passage, would seem to be that Jews dabbling in Samaritanism could be restored to the faith because the Samaritans never really lost their Jewishness.

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

109

are ethnically mixed and spiritually foolish, there is no clear-cut verdict that they are decidedly Gentile or Greco-Roman non-Jews. They are more or less a tertium quid, something between, which Paul could profitably cite as a model for Jew-Gentile relations in the community of believers at Rome. If this is true, it helps to explain Paul’s flexible nomenclature when speaking about the Jews as Israelites or the children of Israel: he means more than Judeans as a religious ethnicity and less than any generic resident (Romans, Greeks, Sidonians, Arabs, etc.) whose origins are Palestinian. Below I will suggest several reasons why Samaritanism served as a model for Paul’s repertoire on the theme of inclusiveness, but it was also sensitive enough a topic that he dare not address it directly. First of all, the binary position between the Jewish and Samaritan factions was not as hardened as the polemical documents might indicate. There certainly were times of violence and strife, such as in the late second century BCE when John Hyrcanus invaded Samaria and rampaged through the Gerizim sanctuary. Yet as the biblical record illustrates (and as Josephus observes), there were numerous voluntary transmigrations, intersections due to pilgrimages and religious outreaches, and residential and political exchanges that made ethnic and religious separation impossible.23 In the first-century world, as is evident in the pages of the New Testament, Jews and Samaritans lived in close proximity, and natives in the land simply made their peace with this social reality. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37) and Johannine account of Jesus’s conversation with the woman at the well in Shechem (John 4) may have made protagonists out of the unlikely candidates, but their stories were grounded in the reality that neither faction could avoid regular contact. See, for example, Luke 9:52, 10:33, 17:11–16 for Samaritans having various interactions with Judea, Judeans, and “Jewish” residents. Nor does there seem to be a definitive break between the two groups in the next century, at least to the extent that rabbinic documents grasp the historical facts on the ground; and it is always a question about how far they were removed from Israelite status. None of the rabbis, of course, endorses 23. For a sampling of biblical-era interchanges between Samarians and Judeans, see Jer 41:5; Ezra 4:1, 12–14; Neh 3:33–34; 4:1–2, 13–28. For an overview and a political interpretation of the relationship between residents of the two areas, see Hayim Tadmor, “Judah,” in The Fourth Century B.C., ed. D. M. Lewis, John Boardman, Simon Hornblower, and M. Ostwald, 2nd ed., CAH 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 261–96, esp. 286–90. Otherwise, see Knoppers, “Schism,” 173; Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period, ed. S. Fine (London: Routledge, 1999), 118–60, esp. 139.

110

M. F. WHITTERS

the Samaritans, whom they call “Cutheans,” yet they do not come to a consensus about what is the relationship between Jew and Samaritans.24 The fact is that though late Jewish literature often mentions the Samaritans, the rabbis show limited understanding and curiosity about them.25 About the only thing the reader can conclude from the Tannaim is that the Samaritans are on par with the ignorant ‘am ha’aretz, the people of the land: both groups are Jews, but they are far from observant. The Mishnah speaks of R. Eliezar’s hardline position that “one who eats the bread of the Samaritans [Cutheans] is like the one who eats swine,” but the more venerated R. Akiva pointedly refuses to draw this comparison by explicitly banning Eliezar’s view (m. Seb. 8.10). In general, the talmudic literature expresses no unanimous verdict about their status, and on balance prefers to sketch interrelationships based on individual cases and places. Nonetheless, the rabbis leave an impression that the Samaritans who live among them are Israelites and not Gentiles, even if those who live abroad in uncontrolled religious environments (such as Rome) are suspect.26 No one endorses the Samaritans – they are always by various degrees separated from bona fide Jewish practices. The one absolute judgment comes in the third century, when R. Abbahu categorically rules that the Samaritans of Caesarea are non-Jews. Yet, even so there is obviously much interaction between Jew and Samaritan in other places outside Caesarea if we accept the literary contexts of later talmudic texts. They hint at a social environment where Jews and Samaritans fraternized in such things as lending money, leasing land, and storing goods. Ancient Jews might dislike Samaritan Sabbath practices, their Passover matzah, and their graveyards, but usually their taxonomy gave Samaritans a tertium quid status.27 24. “Cuthean” is the ethnic slur that identifies the Samaritans with the migrants whom the Assyrians transplanted from “Cuth” in Babylonia (2 Kgs 17:24, 30). 25. In fact, though the early rabbis are obviously encountering Samaritans often, their comments are surprisingly spare in their knowledge of the “Cuthean” way of life. The rabbis do not even appear curious, and they essentially associate the Cutheans with the ignorant people of the land. For a survey of rabbinic references to the Samaritans, see Yitzhak Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan, Judah and Samaria Publications 7 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008). All of the quotations from the Talmud come from Magen’s book. 26. Magen, Samaritans, 72. 27. Reinhard Pummer, “Religions in Contact and Conflict: The Samaritans of Caesarea among ‘Pagans’, Jews and Christians,” in Samaritan Researches, Volume V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, Studies in Judaica 10 (Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2000), 3:29– 53, esp. 47–48. The alternative designation as tertium quid may not be any more positive, as other voices may testify. For example, the Judeans in John 8:48 charge that Samaritans are

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

111

Abroad and in uncontrolled environments, especially among Greco-Romans, it was a different story. As mentioned above, Josephus was most vexed about Samaritans when they lived among Greco-Romans and set aside their distinctive ethnic claims and lifestyle. The aforementioned R. Abbahu excommunicated the Samaritans in Caesarea for precisely this reason.28 Tensions particularly mounted when both groups competed for recognition from the Gentile powers for their respective temples at Gerizim and Jerusalem. Recognition brought privileges and protections, as Josephus reports about Alexander the Great’s different reactions to the claims for both sites (Ant. 11.321–322, 340–345; cf. Ptolemy II Philadelphus’s benefices granted to the Jerusalem temple in Let. Aris. 37). Similarly, in diaspora environments, rivalry over allegiances to Gerizim or Jerusalem often resulted in violence between the two groups requiring Gentile political intervention (Ant. 13.74– 79).29 Roman sources, on the other hand, did not make much of the differences between these sibling rivals who hailed from Palestine, if they noticed them at all in far-flung places.30 There is no imperial reference to Samaritans as a people until Historia Augusta in the late fourth century CE, and even then they are regarded as an Egyptian religious sect, not a nation.31 Not until the Justinian Code in the sixth century was there something on the books about the Samaritans as a distinct ethnic group. possessed by demons, and the minor Babylonian Talmudic tractate Kutim (Samaritans) declares that Samaritans are no longer welcome in the “Israelite” community unless “they recant Mt. Gerizim and accept Jerusalem.” See Isaac Kalimi, “Zion or Gerizim? The Association of Abraham and the Aqeda with Zion/Gerizim in Jewish and Samaritan Sources,” in Samaritan Researches, Volume V, ed. Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey, Studies in Judaica 10 (Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2000), 2:32–46, esp. 44. 28. “Your fathers [in Samaria] did not spoil their conduct, but you [in Caesarea] have spoiled your behavior” (y. Abod. Zar. 5:44d; quoted by Magen, Samaritans, 71). Thus, when the Samaritans migrated among the Romans, they assimilated culture and religion so much that they “spoiled” their Jewishness. 29. The Aramaic correspondence called the Elephantine Papyri illustrates a counter-example of Jews who did not have the same hostility toward Samaritans. They appealed both to Jerusalem and to Samaritan officials for aid to rebuild their temple. See ANET 491–92. This exchange of letters, however, considerably predates the hostile relations between Jews and Samaritans that especially arose after the reign of John Hyrcanus. 30. It is hard to know what to make of Origen’s observation that the Samaritans were singled out for persecution after the ban on circumcision was dropped against Jews (see Cels. 2; Comm. Matt. 10, both cited by Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age [70-640 C.E.] [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989], 743 n. 11). For one thing, he is speaking of a later time – much later than Paul – and perhaps it only applied to his area (Caesarea) where tensions already existed. 31. See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–1984), 2:637–41.

112

M. F. WHITTERS

The extent of Judean-Samaritan commingling abroad is unknown, both because of a lack of literary evidence and also because the archaeological record does not easily distinguish between their architectures and lifestyles.32 For ancient Romans as for modern-day historians, there was no easy way of telling them apart. In foreign settings, the Samaritans and Judeans alike often blended together as “Israelites.”33 The only other way of telling the two apart was through inscriptions, and of these there are few with clear marks of Samaritan identity. The most that can be said about these findings is that Samaritan inscriptions have been found near synagogues, but what kind of synagogue cannot be surmised.34 It may well be that Samaritans and Judeans attended the same synagogues in diaspora communities or shared buildings due to residential proximity. The second basic reason for suggesting that Paul used the interpretive tradition that dealt with the Samaritans is that Paul probably would have encountered them himself in his travels among the communities of believers mentioned in the New Testament. For this assumption, we have the implications of Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of John. While these New Testament sources also carry with them questions of historicity and dating, they still provide likely first-century witnesses that some Samaritans were connected to the early missions of Jesus and his disciples. Surely, these Samaritan followers of Jesus would have sympathized with as much ecumenism as the interpretive tradition would allow.35 As far as can be ascertained, the Samaritans did not accept into their canon the Hebrew prophets like Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, the voices that hinted at an inclusive faith community. Yet they would have resonated with the way Paul and Jesus distilled their message into a theme of reunification of the twelve tribes and the concomitant union of Samaria and Judah. Samaritans always subscribed to the idea that they were valid heirs of the land and legitimate offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the woman at the Samaritan well asserted, Jacob was their father who gave to Joseph the land they lived in and used. At any rate, their attitude toward 32. Epiphanius, a native of Palestine (ca. 375 CE), confirms that Samaritans set up their own synagogues in Neapolis, but they “mimic all the customs of the Jews” (“Against Massalians,” Panarion 80.1.6). Also see Pummer, “Synagogues.” 33. Alan D. Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 197–217, esp. 201. 34. In general, see Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Synagogues.” 35. Knoppers (Samaritans, 211) claims that Jesus considered the Samaritans neither GrecoRoman (pagan) nor Jewish, but as an ethnic group in between. This evaluation does not differ from that of the talmudic rabbis.

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

113

the ethnic identity of their southern siblings, the Judeans, is mostly unknown but probably less negative as gauged by available evidence.36 It is even possible that Paul spent time with Samaritans as he traveled. Caesarea would be the leading candidate to consider this hypothesis as reasonable. The author of Acts 21:8 identifies Caesarea as the city of residence of the leading evangelist among the Samaritans, Philip, whose place served as Paul’s guesthouse. Caesarea was also a stop for Paul during his periodic pilgrimages to Jerusalem (e.g., 18:22). From the aforementioned R. Abbahu came the judgment that the Samaritans in Caesarea were “spoiled” as Jews because of their dealings with the Roman people there. He claimed that the Samaritans in Caesarea were more numerous than the Jews and Gentiles combined (y. Abod. Zar. 1, 2, 23–28, 39c). Also, the Samaritans were upper-class members (officium) of Caesarean society, probably the type of people Paul encountered during his extended period of incarceration before his journey to Rome.37 In general, the Samaritans were quick to abandon Samaria for Roman cities abroad, so Caesarea and coastal areas were natural options.38 From later sources it is clear that Samaritans not only became Hellenized and Romanized more eagerly than their Jewish counterparts, but they may have deviated more easily as well from their faith-based moorings.39 Since the Samaritans had no centralized sanctuary and pastoral authorities after the Hasmonean invasion, the religious practices became more and more decentralized and unregulated. This meant that they could more easily adapt, but this also made them more likely stir up resentment among more accountable and 36. Knoppers, Samaritans, 3–4 n. 7, and 225–27. The evidence uncovered, however, is too late or meager. 37. Pummer, “Religions,” 3:32. See Acts 24–26 for Paul’s long-term stay in Caesarea while kept in Roman hands. 38. Pummer (“Religions,” 3:46), backed by Knoppers (Samaritans, 225–27), suggests that Samaritans were closer to Roman sensibilities and generally assimilated more readily than rabbinic Jews. The Samaritan chronicle Ktāb al-Tarīkh Abū ’l Fatḥ (= AF) reports that the violence done to the Samaritans at the time of the Maccabeans caused “widespread emigration in reaction” so that Samaritans began “sailing away in ships to the ends of the earth” (AF 108, quoted by Crown, “Samaritan,” 204). Legitimate concerns may be raised about the reliability of AF, however, not least of which that its earliest manuscripts date from the fourteenth century. Nonetheless, many of AF’s observations resonate well with those of clearly ancient authorities and probably reflect ancient sources. For a list of scholarly perspectives on AF, see Pummer, “Samaritan Synagogues,” 149 n. 19. See also Alon, Jews, 742–46. 39. The evidence for this possibility is late, cited by M. Avi-Yonah from Byzantine and Samaritans sources, “The Samaritans in Romano-Byzantine Times,” ErIsr 4 (1956): 34– 47 [Hebrew], cited by Crown, “Diaspora,” 213. For earlier evidence, see the allegations of Josephus above and the discussion of pastoral structures of first-century Roman synagogues below.

114

M. F. WHITTERS

increasingly rabbinical Jews.40 Because the Samaritans lacked both regionalized religious authorities outside of their native land and centralized standards for halakic observance as eventually laid out for their counterparts by the Mishnah or Talmud, they often drifted into other belief systems.41 Thus, Paul traveled to sites (Tarsus, Crete, Rome) that were known by contemporary and later sources to be populated by Samaritans, and many of the Samaritans may have converted to faith in Jesus – precisely the picture the New Testament portrays about early apostolic activity among them.

THE CONFLICT THE SAMARITANS BROUGHT TO PAUL’S RECIPIENTS Third, and more speculatively, the city of Rome may have experienced troubles with Samaritan cults and consequent quarrels with observant “Jews.” If Caesarea was a destination for enterprising Samaritans and Judeans, it is safe to assume that Rome would be the next destination in their social climb.42 In successive passages, Josephus seemingly confirms this tendency for both Judeans (Ant. 18.81–84) and Samaritans (Ant. 18.85–89) as they interacted with Romans. The author of the Samaritan chronicle Ktāb al-Tarīkh Abū ’l Fatḥ perhaps fancifully mentions that Samaritan sources suggest that Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius had Samaritan wives.43 Moreover, the city of Rome may have experienced troubles with the commingling of Judean and Samaritan residents. Patristic sources report that a Samaritan cult figure named Simon Magus, who probably lived in the time of Paul, traveled extensively around the Mediterranean and created a sensation wherever he went. While it is unclear what Simon Magus claimed about himself, his primary audience, the Samaritans, might have been seeking their taheb (deliverer), whose divine confirmation necessitated miracle-working.44 40. Crown, “Samaritan,” 207. Crown believes that the Samaritans stirred up jealousy by claiming to be Jews in front of the Romans to obtain benefits and privileges. 41. Crown, “Samaritan,” 201. Crown says that in contrast to the rabbis who set up diaspora centers like that in Babylon, the Samaritans did not have such centers. There were no intervening officers or intermediate institutions for them. Their religious allegiance was to Gerizim alone. 42. The Samaritans already had been doing mercenary service for other empires, so it not unlikely that they did the same for the Romans. Especially inviting were seafaring opportunities as Phoenician and Greek maritime networks collapsed. Many Samaritans came into contact with the imperial administration in Neapolis, and they obtained administrative transfer to Rome where they settled (Crown, “Samaritan,” 207–9). 43. Crown (“Samaritan,” 209 n. 81) cites AF for his source. 44. Various patristic authors, including Origen (ca. 200), Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 300), Jerome (ca. 350), and Epiphanius (ca. 375), identify Dositheus as another Samaritan cult figure

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

115

The earliest report about Simon is in Acts 8:9–11. The Samaritans audaciously proclaim that Simon was the embodiment of “power of God that is called Great.” Perhaps this was on par with the divine identity that the apostles were claiming for Jesus. Before disappearing from the Acts of the Apostles, Simon Magus confronted the official representatives of the Jerusalem church, Peter and John, when he sought to purchase divine powers for his own advantage. This ominous request tars him with the sin of simony in ecclesial history, the man Simon Magus attached to the desire for supernatural power. More relevant for this paper, Simon reappears in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, all of whom live within a century of Paul, and who are closely in touch with early church traditions emanating from Rome. Here I will focus on Justin Martyr, an intriguing example of the second-century Roman world because he himself was from the Samaritan homeland but lived in Rome when he wrote. Justin agrees with this account of Simon Magus when he notes how susceptible the audiences of Rome were to heretical religion: Simon, a Samaritan from the village called Gitthon, … in the time of Claudius Caesar, through the art of the demons who moved him, performed magical deeds in [the] royal city of Rome and was thought to be a god and was honoured as a god with a statue. This statue was raised up [in the sacred island precinct of the Tiber] with this inscription in Latin: ‘To Simon the Holy God.’ And nearly all the Samaritans and a few from other nations even now still confess him to be the first [emanation of] god, and worship him. (1 Apol. 26.2–5)45

Echoes of Justin’s account can be found in Irenaeus (Haer. 1.23.1) and Tertullian (Apol. 13.9), and all are generally consistent with the portrayal of Simon Magus in Acts. Simon’s notoriety might give clues about how to take Rom 9:25–26 and 10:19–20. Although we do not know about the internal factions among Jews and Samaritans in those days, it is not hard to imagine that Simon Magus created such controversy among Roman citizens that the Emperor Claudius (fl. 41–54) expelled all Jews, including Samaritans, from the city sometime in the 40s CE because of squabbling over who or what the Messiah (or roughly contemporary with Simon. Reinhard Pummer (The Samaritans: A Profile [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015], 125–27) concludes that Dositheus was like a few Samaritan sectarians in antiquity who raised strident views and likely voiced messiah-like claims for himself. 45. Translation from Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, OECT (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 147–49. Irenaeus (Haer. 1.23.2) adds that Simon’s cult had connections with the Phoenician world and venerated a woman from Tyre as a divine emanation, something reminiscent of Josephus’s claim that Samaritanism had ties with the Phoenician (Sidonian) world.

116

M. F. WHITTERS

Chrestus) was.46 The notoriety and exotic identity of Simon Magus would only have reinforced Roman fears that religious fringe groups and sects would tear apart their carefully balanced society. Tacitus (Ann. 15.44) and others (cf. Suetonius, Nero 16; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.29) give witness to this attitude in their recollection of strange religious movements and Nero’s ease (fl. 54–68) in vilifying fanatic followers of Chrestus for their alleged burning of Rome. Rome’s civil authorities and mobs were known for taking action against cults and superstitions, especially against those that had foreign origins. Bacchanalia was a secret and exotic cult from the East that attracted large numbers of Roman citizens, destabilizing the established pantheon and late Republican ideals.47 The appearance of messianic factions two hundred years later would have raised similar fears, now intensified by the emperor’s need for internal unity. The repression of the Bacchanalia cells represented a precedent for the treatment of Simon Magus and his fawning clique. More relevant for Paul’s time and background, Josephus mentions that the teaching of four Jews about the laws of Moses fomented internal squabbles in Rome and caused the banishment of four thousand Jews during the reign of Tiberius (fl. 14–37; Ant. 18.81–84).48 A century later, Dio Cassius records evidence for a similar or the same event: “As the Jews had flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he [Tiberius] banished most of them” (57.18.5a).49 The successor emperor Claudius himself had presided over a pitiless crusade against the Druids that began as a campaign in the days of Augustus.50 Though the campaign against the Druids was waged abroad, even more dangerous would be strife in Rome about whether Simon Magus (or Jesus) could be an incarnate deity. Jewish disruptions were increasingly a concern of the first-century empire in other Mediterranean cities, and naturally the Romans would have been careful to snuff them out either by expulsion or execution. Claudius’s expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 CE should be seen in this light. There are few sources for the expulsion order against Roman Jews (Acts 18:2; Suetonius, Claud. 25.4; Orosius, Historiarum adv. paganos 7.7.6.15-16). 46. For internal divisions among Samaritans in the Mediterranean world, see Jarl Fossum, “Sects and Movements,” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 293–389. 47. See Livy, Hist. Rom. 39.8. In this early case, the Senate passed senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, restricting Bacchic practices to small groups with special licenses. 48. In general, Josephus showed sensitivity to Roman fears about Jewish extremism by subtly shifting the blame for the Jewish Revolt from religious causes like messianism to bandits and hotheads. See Schwartz, Judeans, 53. 49. Roman statements alluding to the problems that Jews caused are found in Suetonius, Tib. 36; Dio Cassius 57.18.5a; and Tacitus, Ann. 2.85; cf. Seneca, Ep. 108.22. 50. Julius Caesar, Bell. gall. 6.16; Strabo, Geogr. 4.4.5; Tacitus, Ann. 14.30.

A SAMARITAN BACKGROUND FOR PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS?

117

Suetonius simply says, “He [Claudius] expelled the Judeans/Jews who were continually in tumult at the instigation of Chrestos” (Judaeos assidue tumultantes impulsore Chresto Roma expulit). The Judeans/Jews disputed over Chrestos (or perhaps messiahship), according to Suetonius, provoking a massive dragnet operation against all Jews in the city, driving out the likes of Aquila and Prisca, Jews from Pontus, and companions of Paul. A hint that Jews eventually crept back into Rome comes from Dio Cassius (60.6.6), but he also implies that they could not reconstitute in assemblies (synagogues?) as collegiae. Taken together, these few sources taken together may spell out the context for Paul’s Letter to the Romans: a group of Gentiles and Jews set up their own new form of social organization, the house church (or perhaps ecclesiae) instead of a synagogue.51 Two factors make Claudius’s decree relevant to Paul’s later audience. First, there is no mention of a mediating authority to intercede for the synagogues of Rome as there were in other imperial cities. Normally in the eastern half of the Roman empire, Jews had a particular legal standing and structure known as politeia, and their governing officials, the ethnarch and gerousia, gained official recognition from imperial authorities. It is therefore quite conceivable that Rome’s loose pastoral structure allowed for sectarian missionaries like Aquila or Simon Magus to promulgate their message easily. Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier comment about the implications of this historical setting: This [lack of pastoral oversight among Roman Jews] means that Christian preachers could have made headway in individual synagogues, without meeting concerted resistance. If some synagogues accepted with tolerance the proclamation that Jesus was the Messiah while others rejected it, there may very well have been a squabble among the Roman Jews over Christ and no centralized authority to settle it.52

My suggestion then is that Rome’s new collegiae or congregations might also have included Samaritans when they slipped back into the city after the zeal to expel Jews wore out. In fact, it is possible to imagine that these disputes about messiahship had direct links to Palestine’s religious scene. In Acts 6–7, it is the Synagogue of the Freedmen that opposes Stephen, a group that oddly voices anti-Samaritan sentiments (e.g., 6:13–14 opposed to Stephen’s views found in 7:16, 48–49).53 If the Jews who persecuted him were emancipated 51. According to Rom 16:3, Aquila is back in Rome and serving the church there. 52. Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome (New York: Paulist, 1983), 101. In general, see Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate, ed. Karl P. Donfried, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 85–101, esp. 91–92, 93–94. 53. Stephen’s odd “theology” has been noticed elsewhere as being Samaritan in sympathy. For background see Martin H. Scharlemann, Stephen: A Singular Saint, AnBib 34 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968).

118

M. F. WHITTERS

slaves (“Freedmen”) of Roman origins going back to Pompey’s measures to keep peace between Rome and Judea, then this may be yet another reason for their hyper-Judean zeal, in addition to their opposition to the messiahship of Jesus. Furthermore, one wonders about the connections between Stephen and Philip, the pioneer missionary to Samaria (Samaritan Israelites?) and colleague to Stephen – who himself settled in the aforementioned city of Caesarea.54 Is it possible that they both represent a sympathetic front of the Seven toward Samaritan inclusion? Second and more briefly, since imperial authorities did not distinguish between Samaritans and Judeans, it is no wonder that they steamrolled everyone involved in the messianic movement, any pan-Israelite follower of Jesus or Simon. All were subject to Claudius’s expulsion. Gentiles could more easily blend in with their Roman cultural roots and remain. Paul’s Letter to the Romans arrives a decade later and after Claudius’s death, when the reign of Nero rendered the earlier expulsion order a dead letter. By now, returning Jews have reconstituted either as house churches or restructured synagogues with a new issue threatening their stability: Gentiles and Jews gathered together and pledged allegiance to Jesus as messiah. Paul’s allusion to Deut 32:21 and the other passages related to the Samaritans must have hit home with recently resettled Jews and Samaritans who had fought over Israelite ethnicity in past generations. They also might have remembered wrangling over the validity of messiah figures. Paul’s irenic words could have had some pastoral applications for the situation on the ground in Rome. He wanted to assist the Gentile converts to live together with Jews and not make the mistake of the infighting that Judeans and Samaritans experienced a decade earlier with dire results. The new template was Jew and Gentile joined together as the wild stock grafted onto the tended olive tree, all reminiscent of the transplant group forcibly resettled by King Shalmaneser IV (fl. 745–722 BCE) in Samaria, mixing in with remnant Israelites. In terms of Paul’s prophetic musings, all that was left to fulfill was for the fullness of the Gentiles to be grafted into the productive olive tree so that all the tribes of Israel would reunite and be saved. Eastern Michigan University

Mark F. WHITTERS55

54. These very points are raised by F. F. Bruce, “The Romans Debate – Continued,” in The Romans Debate, ed. Karl P. Donfried, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 175– 94, esp. 178–79. 55. ‫( רב־אדם יקרא איש חסדו ואיש אמונים מי ימצא׃‬Prov 20:6): Troy Martin, friend and colleague.

8 WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21 AND ANCIENT JEWISH DIETARY PRACTICE

Troy Martin has been a model of scholarly devotion to detail in ferreting out the sociocultural matrices that inform early Christian literature. He knows that details count, and I hope that I measure up to his example in offering him this exploration into a tangled subject about a very small thing that may, nonetheless, carry real significance for understanding conflicts among Jesus-following Jews and gentiles. I refer to wine-abstention, one of the selfregulating principles of the “weak” as they are called in Rom 14. Paul says that the weak observe certain days (v. 5), eat only vegetables (vv. 2 and 21), and do not drink wine (v. 21). Interpreters have devoted only modest discussion to the last of these, wine avoidance, and there is also no consensus about it. Since Paul uses the terms κοινός and καθαρός in describing the dispute (14:14, 20), the weak are clearly operating within a Jewish dietary framework. Hence, they are likely Jewish Christians, but they may also include gentiles formerly attached to the synagogue.1 The strong, then, are probably gentiles for the most part, but may include “liberal” Jewish Christians. We cannot be certain whether it was Paul or some of the Roman Christians who introduced the labels “weak” (in faith) and “strong.” The terms seem to express value judgments and are, therefore, perspectival; they may also be rhetorically calculated. More neutral labels might be proposed for the sake of even-handed historical reconstruction, but I will use Paul’s words for convenience and to avoid confusion. The Jewish orientation of the weak has led interpreters to adduce a number of Jewish texts from the Second Temple period to document Jewish avoidance of wine. The examples are quite diverse, and not all of them entail the judgment that wine (or the specific wine in question) is unclean. Jews in 1. See Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 71.

120

C. H. COSGROVE

different times and places varied widely in their attitudes to wine, and those who avoided it – whether as a blanket rule or circumstantially – did so out of a variety of rationales. One suggestion is that the weak avoided wine because of its linkage with idolatry through libations.2 That sounds plausible, but it has less support in Second Temple Jewish literature than one might suppose. Moreover, if wine’s linkage with pagan idolatry was the issue for the weak, was it a general association of wine with idolatry (because gentiles used wine in libations) or something more specific, a direct connection between idolatrous acts and the specific wine a Jew might purchase or be served? Paul’s opening statement in addressing the conflict – “Welcome the one who is weak in faith, but not for arguments about opinions” (Rom 14:1) – indicates that the two groups did meet together, whether on a regular basis or not.3 Unlike Paul’s description of the conflict at Antioch (Gal 2:11–13), there is no hint that the weak were separating themselves from the gentile believers. It appears, then, that the weak avoided wine as a general rule, even when supping with other Christ-believers (the strong) and not as a situation-specific rule for, say, banquets hosted by pagans (assuming they would even have attended such). Was the basis of their abstention that they regarded all wine in Rome as εἰδωλόθυτον, analogous to pagan market meat (see that category in 1 Cor 8:1), or did some other concern motivate them? In fact, Jews did not treat wine as εἰδωλόθυτον, a relatively new word that referred especially to sacrificial flesh (see 4 Macc 5:2).4 Another suggestion is that the weak were ascetics of some sort.5 This has been most ably argued by Mark Reasoner, who also recognizes that the use 2. James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., WBC (Dallas: Word, 1988), 2:827; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 3 vols., EKKNT (Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–1982), 3:96; Jewett, Romans, 869–70 (speaking of Jewish “ascetic” practice that might have been motivated by the association of wine with pagan religion); John M. G. Barclay, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews, WUNT 275 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 39. 3. The references to disputes (14:1) and the overall description of tensions suggests that the weak and strong regularly or at least occasionally share common meals together. The use of the verb “welcome” (the middle form προσλαμβάνεσθαι) in Rom 14:1 supports this interpretation. See Jewett, Romans, 835–36; A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 49–50. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are by the author. 4. Note also the following teaching from one of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles, which also assumes that εἰδωλόθυτον is food, not drink: “Do not impair your mind with wine and do not drink immoderately. Do not consume blood and do not eat what is offered to idols [εἰδωλόθυτον]” (Sib. Or. 2.95–96, drawing some or all of this from Pseudo-Phocylides). 5. Max Rauer, Die “Schwachen” in Korinth und Rom nach den Paulusbriefen (Freiburg: Herder, 1923), 164–69 (identifying the weak as former gentile gnostics who have retained their ascetic gnostic diet after embracing faith in Christ); see also Raoul Dederen, “On Esteeming One Day Better Than Another,” AUSS 9 (1971): 16–35, esp. 19–23; Heinrich Schlier,

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

121

of the terms κοινός and καθαρός in the immediate context favors some kind of Jewish purity concern. This leads him to conclude that the weak seek to maintain purity through ascetic practice.6 The question of wine is only a small part of Reasoner’s study, and he does not examine the broad range of Jewish texts that deal with it. He does note that Philo attributed wine abstinence to the Therapeutae (see Contempl. 74 with 34 and 37), that Josephus interpreted Daniel’s austere diet in ascetic terms (Ant. 10.194), that certain imprisoned Jewish priests at Rome subsisted on figs and nuts in order to preserve their piety (Josephus, Life 14), that James abstained from wine and other intoxicating drink (according to Hegesippus, as quoted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.5), and that the Testament of Isaac describes the patriarch as a wine abstainer (4.5).7 These passages are of limited value. Philo interprets the wine-abstinence of the Therapeutae as an example of their self-control and their conception of themselves as priests serving in God’s temple; the specific motivation of the priests at Rome is not stated. Nor does Hegesippus mention the motivation of James. The Testament of Isaac associates the dietary austerity of Isaac with his rigor in fasting and prayer, not with a purity concern. Reasoner also finds indications in Romans that the strong likely ate to excess (from the weaks’ point of view at least) and may have been sexually lax. The weak, he speculates, probably associated meat and wine not only with idolatrous acts (sacrifice and libations) but with the gluttony and sexual license of gentiles.8 As we will see, the idea that some Jews believed wine was an important part of the immoral lifestyle of gentiles, and for that reason was impure, has significant support in certain ancient Jewish texts. A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY The Holiness Code of Leviticus uses the same terminology for “purity” in its rules about inherently impure foods and those that concern transferable impurity (defilement) through touch. For example, Lev 11:8 classes the flesh of pigs (for eating) and their carcasses (for touching) as unclean (Hebrew ‫ ;טמאים‬Greek ἀκάθαρτα), and Lev 15:2–12 uses the same word in declaring that a man with a “discharge” is unclean. Ancient Israelites of the First Temple Der Römerbrief, HThKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 403–6; Ernst Käsemann, Romans, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 368; A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 32–34. 6. Mark Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1–15.13 in Context, SNTSMS 103 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 73, 101, 129–31, 136–37. 7. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, 129–31. 8. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, 66–70, 72–73.

122

C. H. COSGROVE

period may have recognized a difference between these kinds of uncleanness, but they did not work out separate terminologies for making that distinction. Nor is there full clarity in First or Second Temple sources about whether all creatures that are unclean for eating also transfer their uncleanness to the eater through contact.9 A division of types of uncleanness seems to be assumed by the rabbis, however, for they order transferable impurity but not unclean foods under Tohorot (‫)טהרות‬. Also worth noting is that ancient Jews did not distinguish through their terminology (nouns or adjectives) between physical impurity and moral impurity, although the different contexts in which the language of purity is used suggest such a distinction to us. For example, the Hebrew Bible applies the language of impurity to what we think of as the moral realm, declaring that sexual transgressions, idolatry, and murder defile the people and the land (Lev 18; Lev 20:3–5 and Ezek 36:17–18; Num 35:30–34). We might classify such uses of purity language as metaphorical, but there is no indication that the ancients made that conceptuallinguistic distinction.

TESTIMONY FROM THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD Wine is connected explicitly with pagan libations in only two pre-Mishnaic texts. One is the expanded Greek version of Esther, in which the protagonist declares that she has “not eaten at Haman’s table,” or “honored the king’s feast or drunk the wine of libations” (Add Esth 4:17x [14:17]).10 The Greek version of Esther does not say whether someone like her would also have avoided wine sold in a gentile market as distinguished from wine served at a gentile’s table after a libation ceremony. The second text is in Joseph and Aseneth, where Aseneth, in an act of despair or renunciation, throws her entire supper and tableware out the window. The author-narrator calls the food “sacrifices” and speaks of “wine vessels for their libations” (10:13). This, too, is circumstantial and says nothing about how the author-narrator regards food and wine sold in the market. In both texts the focus is pagan meals. 9. There is some evidence of differentiation. In Lev 11, certain animals banned for consumption are called ‫( שקץ‬an “abomination”), instead of ‫“( טמא‬impure”), implying that they are banned for food but do not cause impurity. Yet there is no complete consistency. For a discussion, see Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 67–69. 10. On this, see David M. Freidenreich, Foreigners and Their Food: Constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 35 with n. 11.

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

123

Daniel Some pre-Mishnaic texts mention Jewish refusal of gentile foods. In the book of Daniel Jewish men turn down the Babylonian king’s opulent foods and subsist on vegetables and water (1:12, 15–16). The question of foods permitted or forbidden according to Leviticus does not come up. The difference between what Daniel and company eat and what the royal court enjoys is a distinction between austerity and luxury, a minimal diet of water and vegetables versus the wine and the sumptuous courses of a royal dinner. Moreover, this difference is religio-moral. Daniel adheres to an “ascetic” diet because he does not want to be polluted – μὴ ἀλισγηθῇ – by the royal food and wine (1:8). The uncommon verb ἀλισγέω can be used in a ritual sense (Mal 1:7, 12) but also a moral one, as in Sirach: “If a man looks at the table of another, his course of life is not well reasoned. He pollutes himself in the other’s food” (Sir 40:29 LXX).11 The pollution here derives from covetousness or some other fault in the man; it is not a fault in the food. The word ἀλισγέω is applied differently in Daniel, which implies that the food is a source of pollution, a threat to the moral purity of Daniel and company in a place of foreign temptations represented by the king’s rich food and wine.12 This interpretation is reinforced by evidence later in the narrative. The story of a royal festival in Dan 5 links wine as an intoxicant with sacrilegious and idolatrous behavior. If there is a connection between this story and Daniel’s refusal of wine as a religio-moral pollutant, it is not that gentiles make libations from wine – libations are nowhere mentioned in Daniel – but that “under the influence of wine,” the king commands that the gold and silver vessels from the temple in Jerusalem be brought in so that he and his corevelers can drink from these objects. And as they drink they praise the Babylonian gods. If there is a connection between this and wine as a polluting drink in chapter 1, it is the diaspora lesson that Jews should avoid drinking wine, lest they too be tempted into sacrilegious, even idolatrous, behavior. It may go without saying for Daniel’s author and readers that to embrace gentile fare usually means eating and drinking with gentiles, with the accompanying risk of sliding down the slippery slope of assimilation. Hence, a number of specialists in ancient Judaism construe the reference to Daniel’s 11. The verb appears in one other place in the Septuagint: in Malachi with reference to priests who defile both themselves and the altar by offering blemished sacrifices (Mal 1:7, 12). The verb’s cognate noun appears in Acts 15:20 in the expression “pollutions of idols.” 12. That the food is rich and sumptuous is implied not only by its being expressly the king’s food but also by the test whereby the health of those who eat the king’s food is compared with the health of Daniel et al., who consume only vegetables and water (Dan 1:10– 16.).

124

C. H. COSGROVE

diet as a literary means of expressing a general concern for preserving Jewish identity in a Hellenistic environment. Regulation of food marks a religiomoral boundary. It stands for social distance from gentiles and their lifestyle, and the book of Daniel sets forth young men who carefully and courageously keep themselves on one side of that boundary.13 There is no indication in Daniel of concerns like those of certain rabbis in late antiquity, who ruled that gentile wine should be shunned because libations are performed during its production or that certain gentile foodstuffs should be avoided because forbidden substances may have been incorporated into otherwise acceptable foods during processing by gentiles.14 The relevant passages in Daniel speak of the king’s food but without any reference to libations or to the cooks, cooking, or any matters of preparation. Before leaving Daniel, it is worth noting Josephus’s interpretation. He finds an example of both moral purity and ascetic rigor in “the young men, their souls having been kept clean (καθαρῶν) and also pure (ἀκραιφνῶν) for learning and their bodies better toned for work” (Ant. 10.194). The accent in Josephus is on the diet’s role in the training of mind and body. Nevertheless, Josephus is also alert to the purity concern in Daniel, a purity of soul, he calls it. Presumably, he uses the word καθαρός as a reflection of μὴ ἀλισγηθῇ in Dan 1:8. Since Josephus’s purpose is not to build social barriers between Jews and gentiles, he does not treat the story as cause for a blanket rule against wine consumption, even in a diaspora setting. But that is clearly the interest of Daniel itself, and we can easily imagine how the book of Daniel would have been read by someone without Josephus’s apologetic interest and accommodating stance toward Greco-Roman life, someone who regarded the gentile world as thoroughly corrupt. Tobit In the book of Tobit, the pious protagonist declares that when he was in exile in Assyria he avoided “the breads of the gentiles.” He does not explain why, except to describe his habit as a matter of piety (Tob 1:10–13). Certainly the author does not mean that Tobit purchased no food from the gentile markets and ate only what he raised himself. Tobit is an exemplary character. If he avoided gentile food stuffs altogether, then the author would be 13. See John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 146; Jordan D. Rosenblum, Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 37–38. 14. Regarding concerns about gentile food processing in later periods, such as in Tannaitic writings (m. Abodah Zarah in particular), see Freidenreich, Foreigners and Their Food, 52–57.

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

125

suggesting that Jews should not purchase or consume any food sold or produced by gentiles, which would have been quite impractical in a diaspora setting.15 Hence “gentile foods” probably has a narrower sense. Fitzmyer assumes that only foods forbidden by biblical law are in view,16 but it may be that the author of Tobit was thinking about foreign contamination and assimilation along the same lines as the author of Daniel. This is suggested by the pairing of Tobit’s diet with his marriage in the passage. He did not eat gentile food, and he married a woman of his own kin (rather than a foreign wife). Jubilees The book of Jubilees forbids eating with gentiles and otherwise associating with them on the grounds that gentiles are unclean because of their idolatrous practices: “Separate yourselves from the gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs, and do not become associates of theirs; for their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are contaminated, despicable, and abominable. They slaughter their sacrifices to the dead. And to the demons they bow down …” (Jub. 22:16–17).17 Jubilees says nothing about gentile food being unclean. Instead, the point is that one should not associate with gentiles because they are wicked. Likewise in the gospels, the Pharisees are depicted as criticizing Jesus for eating with sinners and tax collectors (Mark 2:15–16 // Luke 5:30 // Matt 9:10–11; Luke 7:34 // Matt 11:19; Luke 15:2). These persons are not gentiles, but their immoral lives (in the Pharisees’ opinion) make them unfit to eat with. It is important to note that nothing is said in the gospels or in Jubilees about food or wine posing a problem for Jews if it is produced, processed, or sold by gentiles.18 Judith Dietary practice in the book of Judith presents special challenges for interpretation, owing to the complex way in which the references to food are integrated into the narrative and linked with a wider set of activities in 15. If Tobit was composed in Judea and not in the diaspora, then what the protagonist reflects is a Palestinian Hebrew’s idea of proper behavior in the diaspora. 16. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 113. 17. O. S. Wintermute’s translation in OTP 2:98. 18. In the same vein, the Jewish-Christian Pseudo-Clementine Homilies proscribes eating food with gentiles not because their food is impure but because they are immoral (Hom. 13.4).

126

C. H. COSGROVE

the camp of the enemy. Judith goes to the headquarters of the general Holofernes, even eats and drinks with him (Jdt 12:16–20); but she refuses the food he offers, calling it a σκάνδαλον to eat his food (12:2). To avoid this offense, she carries with her to his tent not only her own victuals but her own vessels (10:5; 12:2). The rationale for Judith’s control of her food and dinnerware is not immediately apparent and admits more than one explanation. Moreover, since references to her dietary practice are confined to descriptions of her interactions with Holofernes, it is impossible to say whether Judith represents someone who would have scrupled at consuming gentile food or drink from a gentile market. One explanation for Judith’s refusal of Holofernes’s food and serving ware is that she regards them as unclean because they belong to a gentile, the assumption being that gentiles are unclean and their impurity transfers to their things.19 But if physical contact with gentiles or things belonging to them is Judith’s concern, how does she remain untainted by the other contacts with gentiles mentioned or implied by the story – being lifted up by Holofernes’s slaves after she prostrates herself before him (10:23) and reclining in his tent on lambskins provided by his attendant (12:15)? An answer may be supplied by the following narrative detail: “She went out each night to the valley of Bethulia, and bathed at the spring in the camp. After bathing, she prayed.… Then she returned purified, and she stayed in the tent until she ate her food toward evening” (12:7–9 NRSV). One might infer that daily contact with the lambskin blankets and other objects in the tent have a polluting effect because they have been touched by gentiles and that Judith bathes in order to remove this uncleanness. But it is also possible that she bathes as a matter of custom before her prayers and evening meal and not because she imagines that her contacts with gentiles and their things have polluted her.20 Jews bathed after being rendered unclean by certain contacts or occurrences having nothing to do with gentiles. The Temple Scroll from Qumran prescribes bathing after certain activities mentioned in Leviticus as causing impurity (11Q19 XLV, 7–17), and this method for removing impurity was probably practiced by Jews outside of Qumran as well. Moreover, we have evidence of Jews bathing or washing their hands before praying and eating (Let. Aris. 304–306; Josephus, Ant. 12.106 and War 2.128–129; Sib. Or. 3.591–595).21 Mark 7:1–5 is of 19. So Monika Hellmann, Judit – eine Frau im Spannungsfeld von Autonomie und göttlicher Führung (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992), 130. 20. This observation is also made about Judith by Gedalia [Gedalyahu] Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 202. 21. On handwashing, see Tomas Kazen, Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 113–35.

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

127

special interest here. The passage refers to Pharisees washing before eating, washing when they return from the marketplace, and cleansing “cups, pots, and bronze vessels” (v. 4). According to Mark, then, Pharisees believe that the ordinary physical contacts of daily life cause the hands to be “defiled” – at least for eating – as well as the vessels one uses. The Matthean parallel also speaks of unwashed hands being defiled for eating (Matt 15:1–20). And in Luke 11, when Jesus visits the house of a Pharisee for dinner, the host is shocked when Jesus does not first wash (Luke 11:38). It is difficult to reconstruct the precise rules and assumptions of the practices of handwashing and bathing in these texts, but the use of the term κοινός in Mark indicates that the ablutions are ritual purifications, not efforts at simple hygiene. One can reasonably infer that Pharisees (and others especially devoted to purity) assumed that when they visited the market they knowingly or unknowingly came in contact with things capable of transferring impurity to them, such as the incidental touch of a menstruating woman. Likewise at home, their persons and their utensils occasionally came in contact with such pollutants. These contacts imparted no sinfulness and posed no threat to the recipient’s religiomoral status, but some Jews thought they should cleanse themselves of such physical impurities before praying or eating. If Judith represents a practice of purity along these lines, she bathes in preparation for prayer and before her evening meal as a rule of life. She brings her own cooking utensils to ensure that she eats from purified (washed) tableware. Judith also brings her own food to the tent of Holofernes. According to 10:5, this food consists of wine, oil, parched grain, dried fruit, and “pure breads” (ἄρτων καθαρῶν). The last expression may refer to the quality of the bread, but Thomas Hieke suggests that the expression “pure breads” is a way of associating her food with the Bread of the Presence, which is placed on a pure table (Lev 24:5–9).22 In that case, she goes to the camp of Holofernes as a kind of priest, representing the people of Israel and purifying herself for her special ritual task (more on this below).23 Does Judith’s refusal of the king’s food represent the view that even to eat discriminatingly of food offered by gentiles – abstaining from pork, rabbit, shellfish, etc. – entails the risk that some permitted foods may happen to contain forbidden substances as a result of processing or preparation by gentiles, and that, to avoid this risk, a pious person simply avoids all gentile food as a matter of principle? This explanation would be more persuasive if 22. See Thomas Hieke, “Torah in Judith,” in A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith, ed. Géza G. Xeravits, DCLS 14 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 99. 23. The expression “pure breads” (ἄρτων καθαρῶν) appears in the description of Judith’s personal provisions in 10:5, but in a list of other foodstuffs that are not so categorized. The adjective may mean no more than bread made from very fine, pure flour.

128

C. H. COSGROVE

the narrator had given us some definite clue that devotion to the Levitical food laws is what Judith models. But in 12:2 she does not call the king’s food an “abomination” (βδέλυγμα) or something “unclean” (ἀκάθαρτος) – these being the categories of Lev 11. She uses the word σκάνδαλον, a strong word but not a Levitical term for forbidden food. Moreover, had a concern about food preparation been operative for the author of the Judith story, that could have been signaled through a reference to the king’s cooks or the cooking, etc. The Epistle of Aristeas contains a reassuring stipulation about that with reference to its royal banquet (Let. Aris. 181–182), but there are no explicit or even subtle allusions in Judith to preparation of the food as the concern. The Greek word σκάνδαλον carries the sense of a trap or temptation, as well as a fault or stain. In the Septuagint it is used to translate both ‫מוקש‬ (“snare,” “trap”) and ‫“( מכשול‬stumbling-block”), sometimes with a moral connotation. These words overlap in meaning and either would have been evocatively multivalent of a kind of trap or temptation in the Judith narrative, particularly given that the book of Judith is a story of sex and assassination. The general wants to possess her sexually; she intends to kill him. Readers can imagine the king interpreting Judith’s word σκάνδαλον to mean that if she eats his food and consumes his wine, she is liable to give herself to him. Readers can also imagine that Judith uses this word with her own meaning – that the food is a trap because to accept his hospitality would morally obligate her not to harm him (at least while she is his guest). Moreover, the expression “his delicacies” (12:1) can symbolize more broadly the enticements of the gentile world as threats to Jewish identity. If it has that connotation here, Judith’s refusal of those delicacies marks a social boundary between herself and the world of foreigners. She models the boundarymaintenance that protects against assimilation. All of these meanings can operate at the same time. There is still another way to frame Judith’s self-regulation in the story. As we have noted, the expression “pure breads” may suggest that Judith is not only a model of strict Jewish piety in a foreign environment but also a kind of priest. This interpretation has been set forth in two variations, the one by Hieke already mentioned and another by Amy-Jill Levine. Levine observes that ablutions were made by priests before they performed their duties in the temple (Exod 29:4; 30:18–21). If we understand Judith’s killing of Holofernes as a kind of priestly act of sacrifice, then her bathing, prayer, care in her diet, and use of her own utensils can be viewed as part of her ritual preparation for that act. This is how Levine understands the story. Weaving together Judith’s actions with other features of the narrative, she argues that

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

129

the initial ritualized killing, which included the purification and festive garbing of the celebrant, her sexual abstinence, the painless slitting of the victim’s throat … the aid of the assistant in disposing of the parts, the retention of a portion of the sacrifice for the community [the general’s head], and the efficacy that such an offering brings to Israel as a whole is given its full value only when the account – and the vessels, the canopy, and the general’s head – become part of the communal celebration [in ch. 16].24

This does not mean that Judith is a priest in any literal sense, only that her actions are given a priestly coloring to enhance the sense of killing as a sacred ritual act. Given the multiple possibilities for interpreting Judith’s behavior, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the attitude toward gentile wine reflected in the book of Judith, particularly when it comes to the significance of this story for Jewish dietary practices in diaspora settings. Specifically, it is impossible to say whether Judith stands for a refusal to consume food or wine of gentiles or only the food or wine of the enemy, and whether purity concerns are attached to her dietary care. One thing we can say: she does not stand for abstention from wine per se, for she drinks wine.

THE RABBIS Peter Lampe infers that the weak at Rome abstained from wine in a precautionary way because they could not be confident that the wine they purchased in the market did not come from wine makers or wine merchants who had performed libations from a vat or amphora.25 Now, in the only two places where “libation wine” is specifically mentioned in Second Temple sources, it is connected with pagan meal contexts, not pagan markets or wine production. Therefore, it appears that the plausibility of Lampe’s interpretation rests entirely on rabbinic evidence – specifically rabbinic accuracy or realism in Abodah Zarah about gentile practice. Before turning to the relevant section of that tractate, I will first describe the interesting suggestion of Peter Tomson that the rabbis regarded gentiles as inherently impure, making their lands impure. On these assumptions, Tomson argues that rules regarding transferred impurity did not apply in 24. Amy-Jill Levine, “Sacrifice and Salvation: Otherness and Domestication in the Book of Judith,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, and Susanna, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 208–23, esp. 221. 25. Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, 2nd ed., WUNT 2/18 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 57.

130

C. H. COSGROVE

the diaspora because purity was regarded as impossible in gentile territories.26 Diaspora Jews avoided foods designated by Leviticus as inherently unclean, of course, such as pork and shellfish; but, Tomson says, they made no effort to regulate themselves for transferred impurity because they were in a perpetual state of uncleanness by virtue of living among gentiles. In making his case, Tomson relies in part on Gedalia Alon, who maintains that the rabbis regarded gentiles as inherently unclean.27 Alon points to rabbinic opinion about the impurity of objects belonging to gentiles, for example, the requirement that even unused vessels purchased from gentiles should be cleansed before use (t. Abod. Zar. 8.2).28 He also notes rabbinic prohibitions of gentile foodstuffs that, through processing, were liable to contain things prohibited by Levitical law. Alon believes that originally gentile bread, oil, wine, preserved and stewed edibles, and certain other prohibited food items were disallowed “only on account of gentile uncleanness,” but he notes that the prohibition “did not extend to all articles of food and drink capable of absorbing uncleanness and that the Halakha was not completely consistent.”29 To the extent that such a view prevailed before the destruction of Jerusalem, as Alon maintains (but without any direct evidence), it is difficult to imagine that it was adhered to by Jews in diaspora settings where they did not have their own sources of food. Alon himself does not go into the question whether Jews traveling or residing outside of Israel suspended their purity practices. That is Tomson’s inference. As we have seen, some Jews in diaspora settings did separate themselves from commensality with gentiles as a matter of moral purity. But Tomson’s point is that Jews in the diaspora did not guard against physical contacts with gentiles and gentile objects, and they did not purify themselves after such contacts, because purity rules did not hold in the diaspora. Hence, if they abstained from wine it was not because it was handled by gentiles but only for some more specific reason, such as a connection with idolatry. That said, Alon’s thesis that the rabbis regarded gentiles and their lands as inherently impure has not been widely embraced by other specialists, and the whole question remains much debated. As far as available evidence informs us, consuming fruits and vegetables acquired from gentiles did not carry any risk of transferred impurity. Moreover, 26. Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles, CRINT 3/1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990), 228–29. 27. Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World, 146–65 (dealing with the idea and its pre-70 provenance). 28. Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World, 153, 181. 29. Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World, 181–82.

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

131

even if the articles were regarded as transferring impurity, this would not have imposed any special problem; it would have meant no more than that purification was required before one could perform certain ritual acts. Yet at some point, probably well after the end of the first Jewish war, Palestinian rabbis – at least some of them – adopted a blanket rule against Jewish consumption of gentile wine. The earliest reference to this view is in a story in Sipre Numbers about the dangers of drinking with gentiles, which begins by observing that there was a time when “wine of non-Jews was not yet forbidden to Jews” (Sipre Num. 131). We are not told when the blanket prohibition was adopted. Sipre Numbers dates to perhaps the late third or early fourth century. The rabbis seem to contemplate three categories of wine according to source: wine produced by gentiles, wine produced by Jews with gentiles, and wine produced solely by Jews. Rabbinic opinions in the Mishnah and Tosefta focus on the conditions that must obtain in the second category in order to permit use of the wine by Jews. The discussions proceed under the assumption that gentiles are prone to make libations at any time and from any bit of wine that happens to be at hand. For example, section 4.10 of m. Abodah Zarah treats questions of gentile connections with a vat of wine that an Israelite might wish to purchase or use. Such a vat is prohibited for Jews in the following cases: if a gentile is standing near a vat of wine on which he has a lien; if a gentile falls into the vat and climbs out; if a gentile measures it with a reed; if a gentile uses a reed to remove a hornet from it; and if a gentile pats down the froth on the mouth of a jar of wine. In all these situations – so the rabbis theorize – a gentile might touch the wine, spill a bit of it, say a prayer, and in that way effect a libation. Other sections of the tractate deal with the same concern under other circumstances that might occasion the same activity (see m. Abod. Zar. 4.8–11; 5.3–6). Thus, the rabbis distinguish between the juice of the grapes before it drips into the vat during processing and after it drips into the vat. Juice in the vat counts as wine that can be the subject of a libation, and on the basis of this distinction the rabbis work out rules pertaining to the supervision of gentiles in wine presses. Specifically, a Jew is not to use wine produced under circumstances where a gentile has been left alone with the juice in the vat because one must assume that the gentile made a libation and thus tainted the whole vat.30 30. This view is nicely summarized in Jacob Neusner, The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism, vol. 3: Seder Neziqin (Binghamton, NY: Academic Studies of the History of Judaism, 2000), 385. He supplies the relevant Abodah Zarah passages from the Mishnah and Tosefta.

132

C. H. COSGROVE

Some rabbinic opinions express a more liberal view and prohibit wine only if an Israelite has knowledge that a libation was in fact made. We can also imagine a stricter view, one that prohibited Jewish use of any wine processed or handled by gentiles, even under continual Jewish supervision, on the grounds that the Jewish consumer could not be certain that supervisors were always sufficiently vigilant or perceptive. But we have no specific evidence of that stricter opinion. Nor do we know when the idea first arose that a whole vat of wine was prohibited if some little libation was made from it during production. It is worth noting that the rabbis do not raise questions about the agricultural products of pagans even though every product of gentile agriculture that a Jew might purchase in the market had been dedicated to pagan deities through a harvest celebration. Likewise, small private gardens were thought to be under divine care, and the appropriate religious rites were performed to the deities of the fields, arbors, and gardens. The wine festival known as the Vinalia Urbana held on April 23 honored Venus, as well as Jupiter. But Venus was also regarded as protectress of gardens. Hence, at the wine festival known as Vinalia Rustica (celebrated on August 19), vegetable gardens were dedicated to Venus. We have explicit testimony about this from Varro, who states that during the Vinalia Rustica a temple was dedicated to Venus, gardens were dedicated to her, and vegetable gardeners held a festival, apparently as part of the larger Vinalia (Ling. 6.20). Moreover, Pliny, citing Plautus, says that “gardens are under the care of Venus” (hortos tutelae Veneris; Nat. 19.19).31 The rabbis were surely aware of these things in a general way, yet they saw no problem with Jewish consumption of gentile produce. It seems likely, then, that rabbinic regulation of wine-drinking moved backward, so to speak, from a rule against consuming wine at a pagan dinner party (because of the ceremonial libations) to ideas about sneaky gentiles making surreptitious libations when working in Jewish wine production. For had the reasoning started from a reflection on connections between wine production and pagan religion, we would expect to see discussion of grape harvest festivals, too, and also parallel discussions of other agricultural products. But what appears 31. The idea that Venus was a goddess of vegetables was not indigenous to the Romans. See P. T. Eden, “Venus and the Cabbage,” Hermes 91 (1963): 448–59, esp. 451. One might infer from the fact that Pliny finds it necessary to cite Plautus (third/second century BCE) that it was not widely known that vegetable growers regarded Venus as their divine patroness. In view of the other evidence, however, it is more likely that Pliny is simply giving the earliest source he knows for the association of Venus with the garden, the implication being that it is an old and well-founded tradition that gardens belong to Venus.

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

133

to have happened is that the rabbis began from the question of wine at a pagan dinner party, assumed that libations were always made (which was probably not as common as they assumed), applied this assumption to cases where gentiles were guests of Jews and had to be watched lest they should make a libation from the wine, then worked backward to the prior question of wine production.32 For practical reasons no doubt, the rabbis did not extend the logic further back to libations at harvest festivals, for if a whole harvest of grapes could be tainted by a libation, then the entire harvest of any agricultural product could be tainted by a libation or other dedicatory act, making all gentile produce off limits for Jews, a completely impractical rule. It is not surprising, then, that consuming fruits and vegetables sold by gentiles was never prohibited in any Jewish legal opinion.33 It is to be emphasized that there is no mention in Greek or Roman sources of libations being made in connection with wine-making, such as the dedication of a vat of wine to a deity. The rabbis assume such practices in their case examples, but the rabbinic rules about wine-making were formulated when Jews were no longer dealing with paganism as a significant problem and had little or no first-hand knowledge of pagan practices.34 This would explain why they make the outlandish assumption that gentiles are obsessed with libations and will make a libation at the drop of a hat from the least bit of wine. It is also possible that the cases to which the rules are applied are meant not realistically but only hypothetically and for the sake of a legal logic that has taken on a life independent from practical cases. Before leaving the rabbis, we should note the more general prohibition of “gentile wine” in the story in Sipre Num. 131, mentioned above. To the extent that this cautionary tale implies a rationale for the prohibition, it does not suggest that gentile wine is inherently unclean or tainted by idolatry. Wine in the story stands for drinking with gentiles, which leads to marrying them, which in turn leads to abandoning the God of Israel for pagan gods.35 32. On the frequency of libations, see Charles H. Cosgrove, “Banquet Ceremonies Involving Wine in the Greco-Roman World and Early Christianity,” CBQ 79 (2017): 299–316. 33. See Günter Stemberger, “Forbidden Gentile Food in Early Rabbinic Writings,” in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba, ed. Benedikt Eckhardt, JSJSup 155 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 220. 34. Gary G. Porton, Goyim: Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, BJS 155 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 242. Whether the rabbis themselves mean to be giving abstract hypotheticals or practical rules is a separate question. Neusner thinks the latter (Neusner, Seder Neziqin, 385). 35. On the topic, see David Kraemer, “Problematic Mixings: Foods and Other Forbidden Substances in Rabbinic Legislation,” in Review of Rabbinic Judaism: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern 8 (2005), 35–54, esp. 50; Stemberger, “Forbidden Gentile Food in Early Rabbinic Writings,” 223.

134

C. H. COSGROVE

THE WEAK

AT

ROME

Paul implies that the weak abstained from wine as a general rule of life, not a situation-specific rule dependent on particular circumstances, such as a dinner party where libations were made. From what we have seen, the category of impurity in Paul’s day included different varieties. Certain foods proscribed by Leviticus were impure, and to consume them was a violation of God’s law. Wine, however, was not among these proscribed substances. One could also enter a state of impurity through physical contact with certain objects, such as a corpse or menstrual blood. Removal of this kind of impurity was accomplished through a bath, which implies that the stain was conceived as physical. Acquiring this kind of transient impurity was not a sin or a threat to one’s identity. There was also an impurity contracted through associations with people and activities deemed sinful, and this impurity was indeed seen by some as a danger to one’s Jewish identity and devotion. Among the things that posed this danger were certain foods: meat offered to idols (εἰδωλόθυτον), wine dedicated to a foreign god through libations (the “wine of libations” in the Greek Esther), and, for Jews like Daniel, gentile food and wine as enticements to assimilation. A word about εἰδωλόθυτον is in order at this point. In both Jewish and Christian sources, εἰδωλόθυτον refers specifically to animal flesh from a temple sacrifice. Jews and Christians do not place pagan wine in the category of εἰδωλόθυτον.36 Also, no Christian writer of the first several centuries suggests that Christians should not drink wine purchased from pagans because wine production entails libation ceremonies. This silence is telling. Indeed, there is no mention of gentile wine as a problem for Jews in the sole text from the diaspora that addresses the question of gentile handling of banquet food to be consumed by Jews. According to Letter of Aristeas, the king saw to it that his cooks prepared the banquet victuals for the Jewish scholars in accord with Jewish requirements. Since there were toasts at this banquet, wine was consumed; but it did not occur to the Jewish author of this fictional story to say anything about this gentile wine or to suggest that the Jewish guests drank water because wine supplied by a pagan king had been the subject of libations during production. That is a rabbinic fancy, not a diaspora Jewish belief. Apart from the rabbinic hypotheticals in m. Abod. Zar. 4.8–11; 5.3–6, there is no mention in ancient sources of libations in connection with production of wine. 36. For the Jewish conception of εἰδωλόθυτον, see 4 Macc 5:2–3, which shows that Hellenistic Jews understood εἰδωλόθυτον specifically in terms of eating (μιαροφαγῆσαι). On the Christian uses of the term, see Cosgrove, “Ceremonies Involving Wine,” 315.

WINE ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14:21

135

It is perfectly consistent with this that in the two prerabbinic texts where Jewish authors link wine with libations, the connection is not with wine per se but with wine served at a meal where, the author assumes, it was customary to make libations: the “wine of libations” at the king’s feast in Greek Esther, and the “wine vessels for libation” among Aseneth’s supperware. Prohibitions against consuming libation wine were situation-specific, applicable to wine at a meal where libations were poured. Since adherence to a situation-specific prohibition would not explain the general abstinence from wine observed by the weak at Rome, Tomson concludes that they must have “refrained from eating with gentile brethren who had meat or wine, even though the latter did not consider these sanctified to the gods” because “as long as the gentiles did not abstain from meat and wine, these Jews were unable to accept that idolatry was really excluded.”37 This assimilation of the Romans situation to that of the Antioch church of Gal 2 assumes that the weak at Rome refused to eat with the strong/nonabstaining gentile believers, which Paul does not say or imply about the Roman situation. In fact, he implies the opposite. The view of wine expressed in Daniel would explain the position of the weak at Rome, who did sometimes meet with the strong in community meal settings where no one was pouring libations, and who abstained from wine in general as a rule of life. It would also explain why Paul does not interpret their reason for abstinence from meat as a concern about εἰδωλόθυτον, a word he uses in 1 Corinthians but nowhere applies to the concern of the weak in Romans. Their meat abstinence was general, like their abstinence from wine. And a further clue to its meaning is the diet they choose instead: vegetables and water. Their avoidance of meat and wine expressed an ascetic diet, but this asceticism was motivated by the view that meat and wine are unclean. That is the Danielic view. The Danielic model may also provide the most plausible explanation of the diet of the imprisoned Jewish priests at Rome who subsisted on figs and nuts in order to preserve their piety (Josephus, Life 14). It is unlikely that the Romans were feeding them meat, a luxury good, or were performing libation ceremonies before giving them their wine. More likely, the priests interpreted their situation according to its nearest biblical analogue – Daniel and the other Jewish men in captivity in Babylon – and on that basis adopted a comparable diet. Whether the Danielic model also influenced James’s abstention from wine (Hegesippus apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl.. 2.23.5) or that of the Therapeutae (Contempl. 34 and 74), or informed the representation of the 37. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 244.

136

C. H. COSGROVE

patriarch in Testament of Isaac (4:5), is difficult to say, since these instances of wine abstention may reflect ascetic views of bodily appetites and have nothing to do with marking practical or symbolic boundaries with gentiles and gentile ways. Of course, the two types of rationale are not incompatible, since marking a boundary with the world can entail ascetic control of the appetites as lures into worldly desires and associations. If something like the Danielic model motivated the dietary rigor of the weak, then Paul confronted a novel diaspora situation in which Jewish believers in Jesus did in fact socialize (eat) with gentiles – at least with gentile Christ-followers – but abstained from meat and wine as a rule of life in order to preserve their religio-moral purity. This would explain why Paul affirms that the weak “honor the Lord” when they avoid meat and wine (Rom 14:6) but declares that the Jewish believers at Antioch were not behaving in line with the gospel when they stopped eating with the gentiles (Gal 2:11–14). In Paul’s eyes, refusing to eat with gentiles violates the gospel; refusing to eat what they eat does not. Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary

Charles H. COSGROVE

OTHER PAULINE TEXTS AND TRADITIONS

9 PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC: “MERE WORDS” AND “REAL POWER” IN 1 THESSALONIANS 1:4‒5, 1 CORINTHIANS 1:17–2:5, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 4:18‒21

Over the last thirty-five years, a consensus has developed that Paul’s selfpresentation can be understood by comparison with the travelling rhetorical, philosophical, and religious teachers within his environment known as Sophists. Further, since the publication of Hans Dieter Betz’s 1979 Hermeneia commentary on Galatians, “rhetoric” has come to mean all things to all people. Broadly defined, rhetoric is the art of the persuasive use of language. Technically, the term means the articulated systems of genres and tropes developed by modern literary critics or their antecedents, the Sophistic practitioners and theoreticians of classical and Hellenistic rhetoric. With Paul’s letters, we now discuss their rhetorical genre, their various rhetorical techniques, or the rhetoric of a particular passage or theme. We see Paul as a critic of ancient rhetoric, and also as a practitioner of that rhetoric (e.g., in 2 Cor 12‒13). These alternatives illustrate Paul’s own rhetoric of cultural liminality and capacity for cultural respectability. More subtly, we have learned to recognize his less consciously articulated use of ancient rhetorical tropes and techniques. We study various Pauline passages as rhetoric of authority, power, or legitimation.1 Several passages have been read as the rhetoric of patriarchal authority.2 1. Charles A. Wanamaker, “A Rhetoric of Power: Ideology and 1 Corinthians 1‒4,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict, ed. Margaret E. Thrall, Trevor J. Burke, and James K. Elliott, NovTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 115‒37. 2. See, e.g., Elizabeth A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991); or Charles A. Wanamaker, “The Power of the Absent Father: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 4:14‒5:13,” in The New Testament Interpreted: Essays in Honour of Bernard C. Lategan, ed. Cilliers Breytenbach, Johan C. Thom, and Jeremy Punt, NovTSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 339–64, esp. 348‒50.

140

C. FORBES

Two passages in which Paul forcefully rejects any dependence on rhetoric (1 Cor 1:17‒2:5; 4:18‒21) have been analyzed for their rhetoric. This is perfectly acceptable. Rejection of some forms of rhetoric in favor of others is a long-standing rhetorical move. But one important feature of these passages, and the related 1 Thess 1:4‒5, has received little scrutiny. This is the Pauline antithesis between “mere words” and “real power.” Strikingly, in 1 Cor 4:19 Paul claims that on his return to Corinth, he will “find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power [οὐ τὸν λόγον τῶν πεφυσιωμένων ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναμιν].” The antithesis is, of course, rhetorical. For this very reason we need to understand the nature of the contrast. What kind of words is Paul deprecating? What kind of power is he valorizing? How far would he take the contrast? First we must examine three passages where the contrast between words and power is strongest, before turning to some related passages. WORDS AND POWER 1 Thessalonians 1:4‒6 For we know, brothers and sisters beloved by God, that he has chosen you, because our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction [οὐκ … ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ]… (1:4–5)3

Here the contrast between “words” and “power” is not antithetical, but developmental. Paul knows that God chose the Thessalonians because the gospel came to them not only with words, but also with power, the Holy Spirit, and deep conviction. Robert C. Tannehill argues that what “power” means here is the ability to have joy in the midst of affliction.4 Gregory K. Beale asks whether “with deep conviction” is what “with power” really means.5 Is Paul referring to God’s power, expressed in the conversion of the Thessalonians?6 Beale argues: 3. Or, “with full power.” See Raymond F. Collins, Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians, BETL 66 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984), 59 n. 50. Biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. 4. Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ, BZNW 32 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 100‒104. 5. Gregory K. Beale, 1‒2 Thessalonians, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 51‒52. Similarly, F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 14, argues that in the expression “not in words alone, but in power,” the phrase “words alone” means “speech unaccompanied by the convincing power of the Holy Spirit.” 6. Thus William C. Robinson, Jr., “Word and Power (1 Corinthians 1:17‒2:5),” in Soli Deo Gloria: New Testament Studies in Honour of William Childs Robinson, ed. James McDowell Richards (Richmond: John Knox, 1968), 68‒82, esp. 77.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

141

Since deep conviction is in apparent parallelism with power and Holy Spirit, they also likely refer to internal realities. That the descriptions of 1:5 are associated generally with good works and not specifically with astounding externally expressed supernatural works is also apparent from 1:6.… joy as a godly reaction to suffering is just as supernatural as miraculous works such as healing, raising the dead and prophesying.… because the preaching of the Gospel was delivered with such power that it did not return void (1:4‒5; cf. Is. 55:11). Paul knew that such powerful preaching was accomplishing God’s effective call to the elect in Thessalonica.7

Beale’s interpretation minimizes the causal aspect of power, and associates it with preaching, particularly in bringing internal conviction. It was powerful words, rather than “not only words” but also power. This is not how Paul normally uses the term “power.” Power is an external reality, God’s power in general (Rom 1:20; 9:17, 22; 2 Cor 4:7; 12:9), saving power (1 Cor 1:18, 24), power expressed in the raising of Jesus (2 Cor 13:4; Phil 3:10), the power of the Holy Spirit (on its own, Rom 15:13; or with apostolic signs and wonders, Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12), power to raise the dead (1 Cor 6:14), or miracle-working power (1 Cor 12:10, 28‒29; Gal 3:4‒5). Such power may be the cause of deep conviction, but should not be reduced to its own effects.8 What does Paul mean by power, and how does it relate to “the Holy Spirit and deep conviction”? Ernest Best comments that “the Gospel can be described as the power of God … as can the cross … it is God’s power because it effects what it proclaims.”9 Although reasonable, this does not do justice to the words/power contrast. Abraham J. Malherbe points out that “a philosopher would have said that he had come not only with word but with deed … Paul, by contrast, draws attention to God’s initiative and 7. Beale, 1‒2 Thessalonians, 51–52. He quotes F. F. Bruce: “deep conviction” refers to “a deep inward persuasion of the truth of the Gospel, a token of the Holy Spirit’s work in their hearts, more impressive and more lasting than the persuasion produced by spectacular or miraculous signs” (Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 14). Bruce immediately adds, “Such signs there no doubt were in the earliest stages of their new life, as there were in other Pauline churches … but it is not to them that appeal is made here.” Is it not? 8. Thus, correctly, Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 48: “but also in power, both with the Holy Spirit and with full conviction … Since all three are introduced by en, are interconnected by kai, and form a contrast with the preceding en phrase (‘in word’), the following conclusions are reached and incorporated above: (1) the three terms in question are not synonymous expressions, (2) the major contrast is between ‘word’ and ‘power,’ and (3) the last two terms stand in apposition to power and describe two of its aspects: its divine source (‘the Holy Spirit’) and its effect on the apostolic ministry (‘full conviction’).” 9. Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC (London: Harper & Row, 1972), 75.

142

C. FORBES

power.”10 This is a useful contrast, but it leaves the nature of “power” undefined. Charles A. Wanamaker comments: From passages like Gal. 3:5 and especially Rom. 15:18f. and 2 Cor. 12:12f. we know that Paul’s apostolic work was accompanied by manifestations of power. He does not tell us in 1 Thess. 1:5 in what the manifestation of “power” consisted. In Rom. 15:18f., however, he speaks of Christ working through him for the conversion of the Gentiles ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων (“in power of signs and wonders”). We should probably understand δύναμις (“power”) in 1 Thess. 1:5 in a similar way as referring to the miraculous signs and wonders that accompanied the preaching of the gospel. In this context we may perhaps think of the gifts of the Spirit that Paul enumerates in 1 Cor. 12:8‒10 as manifestations of what the apostle meant by power.11

Wanamaker brings together the congregational “gifts of the spirit,” including ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων (1 Cor 12:10), with Paul’s understanding of the “signs of an apostle.” First Thessalonians 1:5 suggests that only the second is in focus. Compare the formulation of Jacob Jervell: “δύναμις is linked to the word and yet is not itself word. It is scarcely to be construed here other than as usual, that is, as miraculous power.… This interpretation is also confirmed by a comparison with Rom. 15:18‒19.”12 Malherbe comments: This particular form of antithesis … expresses a difference between the two members of the expression, with the stress on the second, positive manner [sic: member?]. The second member is not in contrast to the first, but embraces it, 10. Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 58. Malherbe cites Seneca (Ep. 108.35‒37), Dio Chrysostom (Or. 70.6), and Lucian (Peregr. 19; Demon. 3). We might add Philo (Det. 35‒40), where those who have only rhetoric (the Sophists) are contrasted with those who, though virtuous, are yet unskilled in rhetoric, and thus fall prey to sophistry. Both are contrasted (Det. 41‒44) with the complete man, who can ably defend his moral stand. Moses (with Aaron, Moses’s articulation personified) is the example. Paul’s contrast is very different. 11. Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 79. Similarly, Margaret M. Mitchell argues that “Paul insists that preaching was not the sole means by which the gospel was communicated, but that the gospel came to them also through the persuasive means of miracle (dynamis, also ‘power’), the Holy Spirit, and the great conviction of its teller himself” (“1 and 2 Thessalonians,” The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, ed. J. D. G. Dunn [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 51–63, here 52). Mitchell’s idiosyncratic interpretation of the final phrase is unconvincing. 12. See his “The Signs of an Apostle: Paul’s Miracles,” in The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History, ed. Jacob Jervell (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1984), 77–95, esp. 92‒93. Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) argues similarly: “This type of affirmation is made over and again in the NT, where the authors describe how the proclamation of the Gospel was confirmed powerfully by the miracles wrought through the Holy Spirit …” (95); “The verse recalls how miracles were manifested along with the preaching of the gospel in Thessalonica …” (96).

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

143

and the stress implies that the writer will shortly clarify the second member … Paul here uses the antithesis for stress rather than contrast.13

Similarly Wanamaker suggests, “The οὐ μόνον … ἀλλὰ καὶ … formula is used here then for intensification, not contrast.”14 Gordon D. Fee translates “not in word alone, but also with power, namely, with the Holy Spirit and full conviction.”15 “Power,” then, is defined as “with the Holy Spirit and full conviction.” Though this is reasonable, the intensification of the contrast requires more. With Trevor J. Burke, I would argue that “the ‘power’ Paul is referring to is most likely the ‘signs and wonders’ (cf. Rom. 15.19) or miracles which accompanied his preaching and authenticates his ministry. In other words, ‘word’ (v. 5a) and ‘deed’ (v. 5b) go hand in hand.”16 Burke, however, avoids this conclusion when he says: “Paul’s proclamation as missionary, however, came with lasting effects and with the Spirit’s power to change lives … the power at work through Paul’s preaching was none other than the dynamic, life-changing and personal presence of the Holy Spirit.”17 Burke returns the focus to Paul’s words, and power is internalized in the experience of the Thessalonians as the consequence of those words. In the passage, however, “power” is a second, coordinate factor producing Paul’s 13. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 111‒12. 14. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 79, citing Dieter W. Kemmler, Faith and Human Reason: A Study of Paul’s Method of Preaching as Illustrated by 1‒2 Thessalonians and Acts 17, 2‒4, NovTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1975). 15. Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 40‒41. See his similar discussion in The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 28‒37. Here Fee regularly formulates “power” in terms of “the power in his (Paul’s) preaching the Gospel,” Paul’s “Spirit-empowered proclamation” or “Spirit-anointed preaching.” Thus he defines “power” as “words.” He adds: “Whether this language also presupposes accompanying ‘signs and wonders’ is less certain. Very likely it does that as well. That is, even though the primary referent … is to Paul’s Spirit-empowered proclamation of Christ … his Spirit-empowered word was regularly accompanied by Spirit-empowered miracles as well” (35‒36). 16. Trevor J. Burke, “The Holy Spirit as the Controlling Dynamic in Paul’s Role as Missionary to the Thessalonians,” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner, LNTS 420 (London: T&T Clark, 2011) 142‒57, esp. 146. Similarly, James A. Kelhoffer (“The Apostle Paul and Justin Martyr on the Miraculous: A Comparison of Appeals to Authority,” GRBS 42 [2001]: 163‒84, esp. 171) suggests that “the mention of ‘full conviction’ (πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ) seems to imply that the proclamation (ἐν λόγῳ) of Paul and others was confirmed by some kind of miraculous manifestation (ἐν δυνάμει) occurring through the activity of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, comparison with passages like Rom 15.19 … warrants interpreting ἐν δυνάμει as a reference to miracles.” Similar views are expressed by Craig A. Evans, “Paul the Exorcist and Healer,” in Paul and His Theology, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 363‒79, esp. 364‒65, who notes (365 n. 5) the number of commentators who resist the reference to the miraculous. 17. Burke, “The Holy Spirit,” 147 (emphasis mine).

144

C. FORBES

certainty that God has chosen the Thessalonians (1:4): “we know … that he has chosen you, because our message of the Gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power …” Commentators struggle to identify what Paul means by “power” here.18 In various ways, many identify power as one concomitant of Paul’s preaching. Two points suggest the way forward: (a) The passage is primarily about Paul’s certainty in the genuineness of the Thessalonians’ faith, and his reasons for that certainty. Some relate to internal spiritual experiences of the Thessalonians at and since conversion (“full conviction,” cf. Rom 4:21; 14:5[?]; Col 2:2; 4:12), while others (“power,” “the Holy Spirit”) may or may not. (b) The combination of “power” and “the Holy Spirit” recurs in Paul, in apposition with “words” and “wisdom” in several contexts. 1 Corinthians 1:17‒2:5 My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power [οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖ(ς) σοφίας (λόγοις) ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως], so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. (2:4–5)

The textual complexities of this passage are well-known; detailed discussion is unnecessary.19 Readings vary, but in most cases, the passage contrasts “words” or “wisdom” and “a demonstration of the Spirit and power/the Spirit’s power.” There is something qualified as speech and something not explicitly so qualified.20 Further, the contrast is between that which is merely 18. N. T. Wright, for example, comments, “Whatever it was that the Spirit was doing, it worked” (Paul and the Faithfulness of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013], 918). 19. See the summary of Pheme Perkins, First Corinthians, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 52–53. 20. “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (NIV); “not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (NRSV); “not with the persuasiveness of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (NRSV note); “not with the persuasion of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 88 and n. 2). Fee’s 2nd edition (2014, here pp. 92–93; all subsequent references are to this edition) follows the NIV in its text but argues for the translation “the persuasion of wisdom” in n. 181; likewise Jean Héring, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, trans. Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J. Allcock (London: Epworth, 1962), 15. Lars Hartman, “Some Remarks on 1 Cor. 2:1‒5,” SEÅ 34 (1974): 109–20, esp. 112 n. 22, lists others who take this view. See also Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1975), 546; and Anthony C. Thiselton (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000]): “My speech and my proclamation were not with enticing, clever words, but by transparent proof brought home powerfully by the Holy Spirit, that your

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

145

persuasive and that which is rigorous proof. Various commentators note that ἀπόδειξις (only here in the New Testament) is a term for proof in rhetoric,21 but seem unaware that it is also the standard term for convincing proof in philosophy (Quintilian, Inst. 5.10.7, and generally). Recently Bruce W. Winter has argued that Paul has deliberately subverted the threefold oratorical proofs of ἦθος, πάθος, and ἀπόδειξις, replacing ἦθος and πάθος with “weakness, fear and much trembling,” and rhetorical ἀπόδειξις with an ἀπόδειξις of a different kind altogether.22 However acceptable this may be, the point is clear. Paul contrasts “mere words” or “mere persuasion” (however persuasive), and “real proof” in terms of power, linked with the Spirit.23 Scholars take several approaches to the passage. Most note the earlier occurrences of “words” and “power” (and cognates) in the complex interplay of divine and human foolishness and wisdom, power, and weakness, in chapter 1.24 Several argue that the “demonstration of the power of the Spirit” means the fact of the conversion of the Corinthians. William C. Robinson argues that “Paul referred to the fact that they responded to his preaching with faith. This is the evidence of the power of God.”25 He argues this in association with Gal 3:1‒5 and 1 Thessalonians. Similarly, F. F. Bruce argues “demonstrations of the power of the Spirit” means “the faith should not rest on human cleverness but on God’s power” (204, italics mine). An exception to this general pattern is the suggestion of Murray J. Harris, in personal discussion: “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with (words which were) a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” Such a view seems to be behind the formulation of James C. Paget, who suggests: “in 1 Corinthians 2.4 Paul contrasts artful, persuasive talk (associated with his opponents) and his own preaching ‘with power and the spirit’” (“Miracles in Early Christianity,” The Cambridge Companion to Miracles, ed. Graham H. Twelftree [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011], 131‒48, here 135). 21. Timothy H. Lim, “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, but in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power,” NovT 29 (1987): 137–49, esp. 147 and n. 27; and Fee, First Corinthians, 100 n. 211. 22. Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 159. 23. The linkage is variously argued to be an hendiadys: e.g., C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (London: Black, 1971), 65; Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 120. An interesting verbal parallel for the linkage of πνεῦμα and δύναμις is found in Plutarch, Pyth. orac. 402b, where Sarapion speculates that the prophetic πνεῦμα has deserted the shrine, and the Pythia has lost her δυνάμεις. The parallel is more apparent than real. The πνεῦμα in question is (in Plutarch’s view) an impersonal vapour or current. The Pythia’s δυνάμεις are her prophetic abilities. 24. See 1 Cor 1:18 (my translation), “the word of the cross … [which is] the power of God”; 1:24, “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God;” 1:26, “not many [of the Corinthians] were powerful,” etc. 25. Robinson, “Word and Power,” 76. A similar position is taken by Charles M. Horne, “The Power of Paul’s Preaching,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 8 (1965): 111‒ 16.

146

C. FORBES

power of the Spirit applying the message to the hearers’ conscience.”26 Marie E. Isaacs comments that Paul’s contrast is “between mere words and the power of Christian preaching,” and translates the passage: “The word I spoke, the gospel I proclaimed, did not sway you with subtle arguments; it carried conviction by spiritual power.”27 Fee argues that “their very coming to faith demonstrated that it [Paul’s preaching] did not lack power … it refers to their actual conversion, with its concomitant gift of the Spirit … the evidence lies with the Corinthians themselves and their own experience of the Spirit.”28 Ben W. Witherington concurs: If we bear in mind that the standard definition of rhetoric in Quintilian’s day was the dynamis (“power”) of persuasion (Inst. Or. 2.15.2–4) and that Dio Chrysostom refers to the gift of eloquence simply as dynamis (Or. 33.3), this passage becomes clearer. Paul says that the “proof” he offered of the truth of the gospel about Christ crucified was not in the form of formal rhetorical proofs, but came from the experiential proof that the powerful Spirit had changed the Corinthians’ lives when he preached.29

Recently, David E. Garland argues: The proof of this power is not the audience’s round of applause for the preacher’s oratorical art but their changed lives and the formation of a new community. Paul is not talking about “deeds of power” (12:28) or “signs and wonders” attending his preaching (Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12), but their conversion (1 Thess. 1:5‒6; Fee 1994: 920). Were he referring to miracles, he would have used the plural (Parry 1926: 50).30

I cannot see how the fact of the Corinthians’ conversion can be the foundation for certainty about their conversion. Paul could not offer proof of the Corinthians’ changed lives until their lives had, in fact, changed. The logic of the passage requires a different view. 26. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971), 37. Compare his The Letters of Paul: An Expanded Paraphrase (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 71, where the passage is rendered “it was attended by the powerful conviction produced by the Spirit.” 27. Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit (London: Heythrop, 1976), 90. 28. Fee, First Corinthians, 100. 29. Ben W. Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 125. A similar view is taken by Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner in The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 118. Their formulation is that “power here is about moral conviction, not miraculous display.” Similarly Ian W. Scott argues “the Spirit of God offers Paul’s audience a powerful demonstration, a ‘proof’ of the Gospel’s truth by strengthening and reorienting the listeners’ moral will” (Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009], 34). 30. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 87.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

147

Various commentators argue that the “demonstration of the Spirit and power” may refer to the gifts of the Spirit among the Corinthians. Hans Conzelmann is cautious: Many exegetes are for taking πνεύματος and δυνάμεως as objective genitives. Then Paul would be adopting almost exactly the position of the Corinthians. It is easier to take them as possessive genitives. To be sure, this can also be understood in the sense of the Corinthians: by their gifts of the Spirit they prove the truth of their views.… Paul, too, holds the ecstatic phenomena and the miracles that take place in the community to be workings of the Spirit. But in his eyes these phenomena are subject to the eschatological proviso … [that] when Paul presents himself as a pneumatic, then he points to his “weakness” (2 Cor 12:6ff.).31

True in general, but not this time. Here Paul argues, not for his own pneumatic status, but for the genuineness and success of his preaching among the Corinthians. To prove that, he points both to his weakness, fear and trembling (v. 3), and to the “demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (v. 4). More confidently, Fee says the “demonstration of the Spirit’s power” most probably means the Corinthians’ conversion, and their experience (after conversion) of the gifts of the Spirit, and “the Spirit’s power, power to transform lives” rather than “the signs and wonders spoken of in the next letter (2 Cor. 12.12.)”32 The phrasing, however, seems to be against this. Paul’s preaching came to them with the Spirit’s power, so that their faith might be based on that. The experiences of charismata came later. Fee argues that “the true alternative to wisdom humanly conceived is not ‘signs’ but the Gospel, which the Spirit brings to bear on our lives in powerful ways.”33 This overinterprets Paul in a manner which Fee’s own text-critical conclusions reject. The gospel came with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. Its success was not itself that demonstration. Anthony C. Thiselton’s view is not entirely clear: “My speech and my proclamation were not with enticing, clever words, but by transparent proof brought home powerfully by the Holy Spirit, that your faith should not rest on human cleverness but on God’s power.”34 This still leaves the nature of the power in “powerfully” unclear. Thiselton claims: “the rhetorical background makes it virtually certain that Paul gives 31. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 55. 32. Fee, First Corinthians 101, 100. The case is strongly restated in his God’s Empowering Presence, 91‒93. 33. Fee, First Corinthians, 101. 34. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 204 (emphasis mine).

148

C. FORBES

rhetorical or logical demonstration or transparent proof a distinctive turn by ascribing such proof ultimately to the agency of the Holy Spirit as effective power.”35 This implies that “God’s power” works through “rhetorical or logical demonstration,” bypassing Paul’s antithesis completely. Thiselton continues: “Spirit and Power … is a classic Pauline hendiadys.… The epexegetical and power identifies the Spirit as the powerful Spirit of God.’”36 In his footnote, Thiselton comments: “Alluding to the self-effacing aspect of the Spirit, [C. Clare] Oke speaks of God’s revelation ‘by shadows and footfall rather than by indubitable presence. An obtrusive God … would not be Godlike.’”37 This is not what Paul is saying. “Demonstration of the powerful Spirit” does not sound unobtrusive to me. Several commentators put considerable effort into demolishing the alternative possibility that Paul is referring to “the signs of a (true) apostle … σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ δυνάμεσιν” (2 Cor 12:12). Though this view goes back as far as Lietzmann, I have found only four recent authors who accept it: Richard B. Hays, Richard A. Horsley, Gregory J. Lockwood, and Winter.38 After a useful survey of patristic interpretations, Thiselton argues: “[C.] Senft puts forward the compelling point that if these two contexts are confused it produces a logical contradiction with the force of Paul’s argument in 2:3‒5. Conzelmann notes, ‘Miracles … do not prove the truth of the word of the cross, but … are subject to the criterion of the cross.’”39 Where is the contradiction to which Thiselton alludes? As for Conzelmann’s lapidary claim, for Paul miracles are certainly subject to the criterion of the cross, as are all things. But if miracles and the word of the cross are not set up as an antithesis, what then? Roy E. Ciampa and Brian J. Rosner make a strong related case: 35. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 220 (emphasis mine). 36. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 222 (emphasis original; the italicized words are printed in bold font in the commentary). 37. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 222 n. 439. 38. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 36; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 54; Gregory J. Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2000), 86. Lockwood has it both ways: “Through the powerful, Spirit-filled word of the cross, God had planted his church among the Corinthians. Moreover, as was true of Paul’s ministry everywhere in the Mediterranean region, Christ had worked through him ‘in word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit of God.’” Similarly, see Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists, 159. This view is also taken in passing by Karl P. Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 239. 39. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 222.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

149

In the context of his own personal weakness, the demonstration of the Spirit’s power is seen in the Corinthians’ conversion, as the Spirit applies the word of the gospel, Christ and him crucified, to their hearts: “the evidence lies with the Corinthians themselves and their own experience of the Spirit as they responded to the message of the gospel … Power here is about moral conviction, not miraculous display.”40

The arguments against my interpretation, then, are: (1) One would expect the plural, δυνάμεις, rather than the singular, if miraculous deeds were intended (cf. Rom 12:28; 1 Cor 12:29; Gal 3:5). (2) The contrast with 1:22‒23, “Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified,” seems to rule out an argument based on “signs.” (3) Paul would fall into the trap of arguing on his opponents’ ground if he were to base his case on miracles. Though these arguments have force, I am not convinced. First, the singular ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως seems to point to a particular incident, perhaps related to the conversion of the Corinthians, rather than an ongoing pattern (as with charismata). But that argument cannot be decisive for the question of the nature of the “power.” Second, the contrast with 1 Cor 1:22 is not Paul’s last word on “signs.” In v. 24 he reconfigures both “power” and “wisdom.” In 2:6 he is willing to reappropriate “wisdom,” and in Rom 15:19 and 2 Cor 12:12 he shows no discomfort with “signs (and wonders).” Perhaps it is the demanding of and the seeking for (αἰτοῦσιν … ζητοῦσιν) signs and wisdom that are problematic, not the signs and wisdom themselves. If there is an apostolic “wisdom not of this age,” might there also be a demonstration of the Spirit’s power “not of this age”? Third, it need not weaken Paul’s stance to refer to a foundational experience of “spiritual power,” mediated by himself and shared by the Corinthians. His primary concern in chapters 1‒4 is Corinthian factionalism. The Corinthian demand for proof of Christ speaking powerfully through Paul (2 Cor 13:3) comes from a later stage of dispute. Even there, he is content to rely on power (even signs, wonders and power!) in weakness. Why not here as well? Finally, does “power” in this context (“a demonstration of the power of the spirit”) inherently mean “moral conviction”? Ciampa and Rosner propose 1 Thess 1:5 as a parallel.41 But for Paul, “power” was overwhelmingly an external reality. It might be the cause of moral conviction, but the power that produces moral conviction is not itself the conviction it produces. 40. Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 118. 41. Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 118.

150

C. FORBES

Two minor questions arise: (1) ἀπόδειξις is a well-known rhetorical and philosophical term. Is the combination with πνεύματος or πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως paralleled in other literature? I know of only one related usage in the papyri, in PGM IV.2445. This describes a “Spell of attraction: … in its many demonstrations (it) has been marvelled at for having no failure in these matters.”42 Though this shows that ἀπόδειξις could also be used in a nonphilosophical context, it is ἀπόδειξις only, without πνεύματος or δυνάμεως. This is not a useful parallel to the Pauline usage. (2) Ciampa and Rosner, among others, suggest that in 1 Cor 2:1‒5 and context there is an echo of Zechariah 4:6 (“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts”) … which helps establish the character of Paul’s preaching and some of the details of interpretation … Intriguingly, Paul and Zechariah are both layers of foundations of a new temple (Zech. 4:6-10; 1 Cor. 3:10-11; cf. the Corinthians as a temple – 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16–18; and Paul as a temple worker – 1 Cor. 9:13–14). Combined with some shared terms (viz. spirit, wisdom and power) … an echo of Zechariah 4:6 in this section of 1 Corinthians reinforces Paul’s emphasis on his founding work among the Corinthians being in weakness and yet exhibiting divine power.43

This is an intriguing suggestion, but it is not demonstrable. The antitheses in Paul and in Zechariah, though superficially similar, are ultimately incompatible. Zechariah has “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit.” Paul’s contrast is between words, on the one hand, and power and the Spirit together, not antithetically, on the other. Though it is perfectly true that for Paul “the message about the cross … is the power of God” (1 Cor 1:18), this power is also demonstrated in other associated ways, including “(deeds of) power” (Rom 9:17; 15:18‒19; 1 Cor 12:10, 28‒29; 2 Cor 6:7(?); 12:12; Gal 3:5; cf. 2 Thess 2:9). The formulation of Bert J. Lietaert Peerbolte is justified: The display of power Paul gave must have been connected to his understanding of the Spirit. Somehow Paul must have done something different from just preaching the gospel … We may safely infer that Paul did so not merely by preaching, for the word δύναμις clearly refers to a more than just verbal activity.44 42. Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 82‒83. 43. Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 112, citing, among others, H. H. Drake Williams. 44. Bert J. Lietaert Peerbolte, “Paul the Miracle Worker: Development and Background of Pauline Miracle Stories,” in Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment, ed. Michael Labahn and Bert J. Lietaert

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

151

1 Corinthians 4:18‒21 But some of you, thinking that I am not coming to you, have become arrogant. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power [οὐ τὸν λόγον … ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναμιν]. For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power [οὐ γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ’ ἐν δυνάμει]. What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick …?

Despite 1 Cor 1‒4 attracting detailed attention over recent years, 4:18‒ 21 has “slipped under the radar.” Commentators note the thinly disguised threat and the assertion of metaphorical patriarchal authority. Many go no further.45 Larry L. Welborn deals well with the style of the passage as “deliberative rhetoric,” with a wealth of parallels to persuasive tactics of ancient orators, but he adduces no parallels for the threat at the end of the passage.46 Neither does Margaret M. Mitchell.47 Raymond F. Collins discusses the passage at length. Nonetheless, his only comment on the threat is: Paul uses an apocalyptic motif to confound the inflated self-esteem of the Corinthians.… That the kingdom of God is in power and not in word provides a further hermeneutical key to Paul’s disavowal of reliance upon rhetorical technique in order to convey his message.48

The metaphor of the stick/rod is discussed, with useful cultural background, but no hint of what the metaphor refers to. If the Corinthians do not respond positively, as Paul hopes they will, what precisely is Paul threatening to do? Not all commentators are comfortable with the antithesis between “words” and “power” here. Karl L. Schmidt says “we catch the sense if we paraphrase: The Kingdom of God does not consist in the power of man but in the Word

Peerbolte, LNTS 288 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 180‒99, esp. 195‒96. The second part of Lietaert Peerbolte’s quotation refers to 1 Cor 4:20. 45. Examples include Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 73; Wanamaker, “A Rhetoric of Power,” 115‒37; and Wanamaker, “The Power of the Absent Father,” 339‒64. See also Trevor J. Burke, “Paul’s Role as ‘Father’ to his Corinthian ‘Children’ in Socio-Historical Context (1 Corinthians 4:14‒21),” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict: Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Keith Elliott, NovTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 95‒113. 46. Larry L. Welborn, Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 56–58. The same is true in his insightful “Μωρὸς γένεσθω: Paul’s Appropriation of the Role of the Fool in 1 Corinthians 1–4,” BibInt 10 (2002): 420‒35. The mention of the contrast between the fool and the “man of power” is intriguing, but undeveloped. 47. Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 81‒83. 48. Collins, First Corinthians, 196‒202.

152

C. FORBES

of God.”49 George Johnston’s critique is harsh but fair: “that sounds very like a Reformed Churchman’s attempt to interpret Paul along a single line.”50 John S. Ruef says, “Paul is not concerned here to set words over against deeds. He is rather concerned with the effect of the words and the deeds.”51 This blunts Paul’s antithesis. It would be true of 1 Thess 1:5 (οὐκ … ἐν λόγῳ μόνον), but not here. Conzelmann asks, “Is Paul setting himself up after all as a spiritual strong man? However, he has not forgotten that δύναμις appears in weakness. The power in virtue of which he will put them to the test is no other than the power indicated in 2:1ff.”52 What power is Conzelmann referring to? The power of Christ crucified, of weakness, fear, and trembling (2:3)? A demonstration of the spirit and power (2:4)? Faith resting on the power of God (2:5)? Conzelmann avoids the question. William D. Spencer’s survey concludes: Paul’s display of his life of suffering as an imitation of Christ is his power, a power that is lacking in others who merely talk in place of sharing in Christ’s sufferings.… Paul concludes this pericope with a challenge to others who may oppose him that they match his example with equal catalogues and not with mere talk … People could not remain arrogant if they were to compare their own lifestyles with Paul’s most difficult life.53

Spencer’s discussion misses Paul’s implied threat. Fee, also unsatisfactorily, suggests that “what power they have” probably means “the powerful, dynamic presence of the Spirit among them to save and to sanctify … the true power of the Spirit … gives people birth to new life in Christ.”54 Paul cannot be threatening a contest of sanctified Christian character. What would that 49. Karl L. Schmidt, “βασιλεία,” TDNT 1:564-593, sections D–F, 574–93, 583 n. 76. 50. George Johnston, “‘Kingdom of God’ Sayings in Paul’s Letters,” in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare, ed. Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), 143–56, esp. 149. 51. John S. Ruef, Paul’s First Letter to Corinth, PNTC (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977), 36 (emphasis mine). 52. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 93. 53. William D. Spencer, “The Power in Paul’s Teaching (1 Cor. 4:9‒20),” JETS 32 (1989): 51–61, quotations from 54, 60, and 61. 54. Fee, First Corinthians, 208. The material is repeated verbatim in God’s Empowering Presence, 119‒20. Similarly Garland, 1 Corinthians, 148, comments that Paul “has acknowledged that they [the Corinthians] are enriched ‘in word’ (1:5) and wants that word to be subject to the word of the cross (1:18), from which comes the true, spiritual power to transform peoples’ lives.” Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 195, comment that Paul’s visit “will not be to admire the Corinthians’ speech but to inspect their effectiveness in life … Here, as in 2:4‒5, the contrast is between mere words or rhetorical artistry, and the power of God to change lives and destinies.” Likewise, Robert S. Nash (1 Corinthians, SHBC [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2009], 131) argues that “Paul intends here a contrast between the ‘kingly rule’ he said the

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

153

even mean? He is threatening action. Simon J. Kistemaker suggests that “the power they have” means their “influence.” This is reasonable, but his suggestion, citing Robert W. Funk, that Paul’s “rod” is “a word of power,” and that Paul will “correct the people with the authoritative Word of God,” misses the antithesis altogether. Not words, but power.55 Likewise, Lockwood recently argues: While his opponents were impressed by anyone with “the gift of the gab” (cf. 1 Cor 2:1, 4), the apostle was more interested in whether they were upholding the word of the cross … “For,” he explains, “the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power” (4:20).… The Corinthians have a choice. They can persist in arrogant opposition to their father in Christ and to the word of the cross he preaches. But if they do so, he warns, they can expect his anger and public rebuke when he comes.56

His anger and public rebuke? Just more words? Despite undoubted erudition in his treatment of the passage, Thiselton simply says: While other meanings [for δύναμις] do occur later in the epistle, whenever the contrast is with “mere speech” the emphasis lies on effectiveness in life as against mere rhetoric … he will not allow moral cowardice to relieve him from taking matters firmly in hand, if such has to be done.57

There is nothing about what Paul may actually do. Thankfully, a few commentators take the bull by the horns. Hays comments: In a breathtakingly bold conclusion to this section of the letter, Paul calls their bluff and threatens unnamed but ominous consequences if they persist in their rebellion against his authority. When he arrives, there will be a showdown: He will “find out not the rhetoric [logon] of these puffed-up ones but their power.” The contrast is exactly the same as in 2:4‒5 – on one side rhetorical artistry, on the other the power of God.… This at least means that he will expose the superficiality and falsehood of the arrogant Corinthian arguments. It probably means more than that, however, for “the kingdom of God consists not in rhetoric but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20). Presumably Paul expects that if necessary God will unleash some manifestation of the power of the Spirit that will humble the arrogant ones.58 Corinthians claim (4:8) and the authentic rule of God evidenced in self-giving service.” All these miss the threat implied in Paul’s words. 55. Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 150. Robert W. Funk’s Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 288, suggests that “he [Paul] contrasts λόγος as mere talk, prattle with λόγος as δύναμις: … he will learn what power their language has … [Paul will] come with a rod, i.e., with λόγος δυνάμεως (word of power) ….” This reverses the clear sense of the passage. 56. Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, 156‒57. 57. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 376‒79. 58. Hays, First Corinthians, 75.

154

C. FORBES

Likewise, Karl P. Donfried argues that by “power” Paul “appears to be referring to the powerful deeds which accompanied his apostolic preaching. This is certainly the case in 2 Cor. 12.12 …”59 More recently, Joseph A. Fitzmyer notes that John Chrysostom thought Paul meant “the power of working miracles,” but he comments, without argument, that this is “a meaning that does not suit this context.”60 If such “powerful deeds” are what Paul intended, we are no longer in the realm of Paul the skilled rhetorician. We are dealing instead with Paul the grimly confident wonder-worker. He undoubtedly believed that God’s power was made perfect in his own weakness, but also believed that, in that weakness, God could, and would, act with power. He would prefer to come with love and a gentle spirit, but if necessary, he would come with a rod. In this context, he cannot simply mean more words. RELATED PASSAGES Other passages in Paul breathe a similar atmosphere, and they may put meat on the bones of the suggestion of Hays and Donfried. 1 Corinthians 5:3‒5 Though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

This so-called “Pauline excommunication” bears comparison with our passages in this context. Both the terms (my) “spirit” and “power” are used here. Though the passage and the sanction Paul wants imposed remain obscure, the tone is far removed from the world of educated rhetorical discourse. Paul is “present in spirit” though physically absent. He has already passed judgement, and his spirit will be present σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν 59. Karl P. Donfried, “The Kingdom of God in Paul,” in The Kingdom of God in TwentiethCentury Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 175–90, esp. 180. 60. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 225‒26. Citing various commentators, Fitzmyer prefers to interpret the “power” as the power of “winning men over to a Christian life … or … the power of the Gospel … or possibly the power displayed in Paul’s sufferings in imitation of Christ.” Do these suggestions suit the context better than Chrysostom’s proposal?

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

155

Ἰησοῦ, when that judgement is given social (and other?) force. The atmosphere reminds one more of the world of the magical papyri than of the lecture hall or agora.61 2 Corinthians 6:4‒7 As servants of God we have commended ourselves in every way … holiness of spirit [or: with the Holy Spirit], genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God [ἐν λόγῳ ἀληθείας, ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ]; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left …

This passage is the only case in Paul of a conjunction of λόγος and δύναμις which is not essentially antithetical.62 Here “the power of God” and its “weapons of righteousness” could well take the form of words. 2 Corinthians 10:4‒5 For the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power [δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ] to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God …

Here it can be argued that, despite the antithetical structure, “weapons … (with) divine power” actually does mean words. The most obvious way to demolish arguments is with other arguments.63 This conclusion is less clear in subsequent passages. 2 Corinthians 12:11‒12 I have been a fool! You forced me to it. Indeed you should have been the ones commending me, for I am not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with

61. See most recently David R. Smith, ‘Hand This Man Over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5, LNTS 386 (London, T&T Clark, 2008). 62. For a parallel to Paul’s language here see Philo, Post. 52: “Cain’s buildings are demonstrative arguments [λόγοι οἱ ἀποδεικνύντες]. With these, as though fighting from a city wall, he repels the assaults of his adversaries” (LCL). 63. Mark Strom, “Conversing Across the Ages” (PhD diss., University of Western Sydney, 1995), 107, makes the point that here Paul reverses a popular commonplace. Seneca the Elder (Contr. 6.3‒8) described virtues as “the walls which guard the wise man … lofty, impregnable, godlike.” Paul, by contrast, “inverted the intent of the image. Instead of viewing reason as a citadel repelling the onslaughts of emotion and passion, now the knowledge (gnosis) of God was set to demolish every stronghold of argument (logismous) to make them obedient to (the gospel of) Christ.” See the published version of his thesis, Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 62, 110.

156

C. FORBES

utmost patience [τὰ μὲν σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου κατειργάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ], signs and wonders and mighty works [σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ δυνάμεσιν].

This crucial passage requires careful handling. Paul makes it clear his words in 11:16‒12:10 are not to be taken at face value. The facts may be as stated, but the implied value judgements are folly, forced upon him by the lack of judgement of the Corinthians. “I am not at all inferior [οὐδὲν γὰρ ὑστέρησα]” is a forceful example of litotes,64 and “even though I am nothing [εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι]” is complex irony, and positively biting. If Paul is “nothing,” the “superapostles” are less than nothing. But whatever inversions of value the passage suggests the Corinthians have made or should make, from Paul’s perspective one thing is clear. His Corinthian opponents will be unable to deny that “the signs of an apostle were performed among you with utmost patience [ἐν πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ],” which presumably means more than once! The dense terminology here – “signs of an apostle, signs and wonders and mighty works” – is clearly emphatic. 2 Corinthians 13:2‒4 If I come again, I will not be lenient – since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful in you [ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν]. For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God [ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ]. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God [ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ].

Note again the rich use of power terminology. Paul makes this threat in the context of 2 Cor 12:12 with its signs, wonders, and mighty works (δυνάμεις). C. K. Barrett argues that “Paul had in fact no weapon at all except the truth, the Gospel applied to the situation.”65 This falls back on words again, and ignores power. At a more popular level, Paul W. Barnett argues that “Paul will not come in the supposed power of visions or ecstasy but in the power of a godly man ‘in Christ’ who will exhort, judge and grieve over the unrepentant.”66 Likewise Colin Kruse says, “Paul has in mind the power of

64. See the definition of Galen O. Rowe, “Style,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 121–57, esp. 128: “the emphatic affirmation of something by denying its opposite.” 65. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., BNTC (London: Black, 1979), 334. 66. Paul W. Barnett, The Message of 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 186.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

157

Christ revealed in disciplinary action.”67 The question remains. What will Paul do? How will he enforce his will? How will the power of Christ be demonstrated to the Corinthians? Wanamaker suggests: “Paul has no power and therefore no authority unless it is recognized and acknowledged by the Corinthians, and his only means for achieving this recognition and acknowledgment in the circumstances that prevailed was through his rhetoric.”68 I have argued similarly, but I added: One important exception to these generalizations is Paul’s striking consciousness of his own role as a miracle worker, or “man of power.” On several occasions in his congregational letters Paul forcefully contrasts “mere words” with “real power” … Clearly he believes that as a last resort he does have the power (expressed how?) to act decisively in communal affairs.69

It is clear that Paul is warning the Corinthians such decisive action is impending. 2 Corinthians 13:10 This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority [ἐξουσία] – the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down [καθαίρεσιν].

Here there is no explicit use of “power” terminology, but note that the passage follows directly on the previous one. Thus I find Ralph P. Martin unconvincing when he describes this passage as a “threat of a severe reprimand.”70 Victor Paul Furnish argues: Paul’s specific reference here to the power of God corresponds with his concern to refute the claims of his rivals in Corinth that their apostleship is validated by their miraculous powers and ecstatic experiences … Over against this,

67. Colin Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, TNTC (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 218. 68. Charles A. Wanamaker, “‘By the Power of God’: Rhetoric and Ideology in 2 Corinthians 10‒13,” in Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins, ed. David B. Gowler, L. Gregory Bloomquist and Duane F. Watson (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2003), 194‒221, 209. A similar point is thoughtfully made by S. Scott Bartchy, “‘Stickless’ in Corinth: How Paul Sought to Recover His Authority,” in To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and Its Social World in Honor of John H. Elliott, ed. Stephen K. Black (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014), 27‒44. 69. Christopher B. Forbes, “Ancient Rhetoric and Ancient Letters: Models for Reading Paul, and Their Limits,” in Paul and Rhetoric, ed. J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 130 and n. 64. 70. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 488.

158

C. FORBES

Paul has described God’s power as disclosed only through the weakness and suffering of apostles (4:7ff.), and through their dedication to the service of others (5:12‒15).71

With the exception of the term “only,” this comment fits the Pauline context. God’s power cannot be reduced to the context of weakness in which it is experienced. But the contrast with Paul’s opponents in Corinth is not as Furnish suggests. Is there any direct evidence that Paul’s opponents claimed to be miracle workers? Paul may ironically compete with them in visions, but the only evidence that they claimed to work miracles is that Paul makes this claim (2 Cor 12:11‒12).72 Again we see the apologetic distancing of Paul from the miraculous. Paul polemically claims that God‘s power is disclosed through weakness, in a situation where weakness has been ridiculed. He does not claim that God’s power is only disclosed through weakness. He threatens power. THE NATURE OF POWER The question becomes unavoidable. What range of meanings can the term δύναμις carry for Paul and his Corinthian converts? The term can mean “ability” in the widest sense. In the papyri there are examples such as P.Oxy 292 (“I entreat you with all my power”); P.Oxy 496 deals with supporting a wife with “what is within his (the husband’s) powers”; and in P.Oxy 899.8 a farmer claims that “so long as I had the power” (he farmed his allotment). 71. Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 356. Martin (2 Corinthians, 473) and Dieter Georgi (The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians [Philadelphia, Fortress, 1986], 236) make a similar assumption about the claims of Paul’s opponents. Kelhoffer (“The Apostle Paul,” 165‒66) translates 2 Cor 12:11‒12 as “compared with the super-apostles, I am not lacking in any way: the signs of an apostle [τὰ … μὲν σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου] were performed among you with all endurance – signs and wonders and miracles,” and as a result also argues that “Paul acknowledges that the opponents boast of their ability to perform miracles, for, while the apostle states that he worked miracles among the Corinthians (ἐν ὑμῖν, 12.12), he also admits the same of the so-called super-apostles (12.11).” It is not clear to me that Paul is making such an acknowledgement or admission. 72. On this point see also Graham H. Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 214. He argues that since Paul claims to be “not inferior to” the super-apostles we can infer that they also claimed to perform miracles. This goes beyond the evidence. It is a possible inference from Paul’s language, not a necessary one. It is made less likely by the point (Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 216) that Paul describes signs, wonders, and miracles as (among the) “signs (distinguishing marks) of an apostle.” He is unlikely to grant that people he describes as “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:13) had evidenced such “signs of an apostle.” Paget goes too far when he says “Paul has to acknowledge that his own miraculous power appears to compare poorly with that of the so-called superapostles” (“Miracles in Early Christianity,” 135). Paul makes no such concession.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

159

Husbands regularly contract to supply wives “with necessities according to their means,” their δυνάμεις. In Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.20, it can mean political or social power. It can mean “rhetorical power.”73 In Dio Chrysostom, Or. 18.14, Xenophon’s writing is said to be so effective that “his power suggests not cleverness but actual wizardry [γοητείᾳ ἐοικέναι τὴν δύναμιν].”74 But is δύναμις a normal technical term of rhetoric? It is occasionally used for “ability in rhetoric.”75 If one wants to discuss “rhetorical force,” however, the more common technical term is δεινότης.76 For Paul such a meaning is ruled out by the context. Can δύναμις be used for the power of philosophy to change lives or personalities? Such a meaning would be genuinely interesting as a parallel for Paul’s usage. Isocrates discusses the δύναμις of philosophy, for example, in Antid. 10.5; 50.6; 174; 185–186; 272; and 292. However, no clear definition is given. In some cases it may mean “the importance” of philosophy. Plato, in Resp. 521d, argues that philosophy (specifically, mathematics!) has the δύναμις to lead the soul towards the world of true Being.77 Epictetus (Diatr. 1.8.7) claims that “Great is the δύναμις of argumentation and persuasive reasoning [ἡ ἐπιχειρητικὴ καὶ πιθανολογική], and especially if it should enjoy excessive exercise and receive likewise a certain additional ornament from language” (LCL).78 This is precisely what Paul is reacting against! 73. Thus, among others, Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 125, citing Quintilian, Inst. 2.15.2‒4, and Dio Chrysostom, Or. 33.3 (and see also Or. 8.1.1ff. variously); and Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists, 201. 74. Compare Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.15, where δύναμις in an orator means simply “ability.” Ditto Or. 18.2 (translations LCL). But in Diogenes Laertius 5.82.1, the term is used more technically for rhetorical power. 75. Dionysius Thrax (Frag. 53.2 in Konstanze Linke, Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Dionysios Thrax [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977] gives a definition of rhetoric as “ability [δύναμις] in the verbal art with the aim of speaking well in matters political,” and cf. Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata 60.2, on the usefulness of τὴν ῥητορικὴν δύναμιν. Quintilian expresses a similar view (Inst. 2.15.3‒4) attributing it to Isocrates, though it is unclear whether the lost work to which he refers used the precise term. See also Philo, Ios. 189, where Reuben is described as δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν. In Ios. 268 Joseph is described as “unsurpassed in … power of language [λόγων δυνάμεως]”: “rhetorical ability” is the best translation here. Cf. Ios. 269 for Philo’s description of “the fluency of his addresses and the persuasiveness which accompanied them.” Epictetus, Diatr. 2.23.25, τῆς φραστικῆς δυνάμεως, means “the faculty of eloquence” as opposed to other human faculties. In Plutarch’s Adol. poet. aud. (Mor. 34E), λόγου δυνάμεως means facility in speaking. Cf. his Rect. rat. aud. 6 (Mor. 40B5). 76. See Hermogenes, On Types of Style, trans. Cecil W. Wooten (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), 101–8. Philo, in Ios. 214, as cited above, comments that “the onset of unexpected ills can render even eloquent speakers [τοῖς δεινοῖς περὶ λόγους] mute.” 77. In this context see also Aeschines, Ctes. 109.1; Aristotle, Protr. 5.2; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, [Rhet.] 8.8.17. 78. Likewise Epictetus, Diatr. 3.16.9, discusses the power (δύναμις) of philosophy to help the budding philosopher remain firm in his convictions.

160

C. FORBES

Finally, there is even a case of “scholarly power” (academic ability?) in the first century CE, in I.Eph. 683A.79 One Heraklides is honoured for his “comprehensive virtue,” his piety towards Artemis (of whom he is a priest), his ἐν τῷ μαθήματι δύναμιν, and his trustworthiness and public goodwill. The term δύναμις can also mean magical power. It is used that way numerous times in the first chapter of the “Alexander Romance,” where comment is offered on Nectanebo’s “μαγικῆς δυνάμεως,” “τῇ μαγικῇ δυνάμει,” etc.80 In PGM IV.197‒198, the magician prays, “Oh grant me power, I beg, and give to me this favour.”81 Later the same papyrus exults, “I have been attached to your holy form. I have been given power by your holy name.”82 Compare “Oh initiates of this our power,”83 “I call upon you, the greatest power in heaven,”84 “Powerful spell of the Bear, which accomplishes anything,”85 “revealing the power of his own divine magic.”86 PGM LXI.9 also has oil, over which a love spell is pronounced, described as “the mucus of Isis, the utterance of Helios, the δύναμις of Osiris, the favour of the gods.”87 Plutarch’s Num. 15.3 refers to δυνάμει δὲ φαρμάκων καὶ δεινότητι τῆς περὶ τὰ θεῖα γοήτειας: the power of drugs and terrible charms used by two daimones. δύναμις can mean divine power in general.88 Or, it can refer to a divinely given wonder-working power, as in Aristophanes, Plut. 748, where a female character praises the δύναμις of Asclepius for miraculously healing Plutus himself. It is also used for the healing power of Asclepius in one of the famous iamata from Epidaurus.89 See also P.Oxy 1381, 206ff.: “Every place 79. Edwin A. Judge, “The Rhetoric of Inscriptions,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 807‒28, esp. 816. 80. For the text see Wilhelm (Guilelmus) Kroll, Historia Alexandri Magni (Pseudo-Callisthenes), vol. 1 (Weidman: Hildesheim, 2005), reprint of the 1926 Berlin edition. 81. Hans Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells. Vol. 1: Texts. 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 41, 197‒98. 82. PGM XLI.216‒217 (Betz). 83. PGM XLVIII.478‒479 (Betz). 84. PGM XLVIII.1275‒1276 (Betz). 85. PGM LXIII.1333 (Betz). 86. PGM LXXXIII.2450 (Betz). See also Robert W. Daniel and Franco Maltomoni, Supplementum Magicum (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990), where all but one usage of the term δύναμις (from about a dozen) have to do with the power of the magician or the god or daimon he is invoking. 87. I thank Dr. James R. Harrison of the Sydney College of Divinity for this reference. See also Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic, SNTSMS 63 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 88. As it does, e.g., in Xenophon, Mem. 4.3.13, or in Plutarch, Def. orac. 9 (Mor. 414D), where the narrator notes both the presence (οὐσία) and power (δύναμις) of the gods can be observed in nature. Likewise in Def. orac. 14 (Mor. 417E) the virtues/wonders and power (ἀρετὴν καὶ δύναμιν), and in Def. orac. 21 (Mor. 421E) the δύναμις of daimones is discussed. 89. Lynn R. LiDonnici, The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, Translation and Commentary, SBLTT 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), B16 (36), l. 97, 112‒13.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

161

has been penetrated by the saving power of the god [ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ δύναμις σωτήριος]. I now purpose to recount his miraculous manifestations [τερατώδεις … ἐπιφανείας], the greatness of his power [δυνάμεως τε μεγέθε], the gifts of his benefits.”90 In the first century BCE, Isidorus praises the power of Isis in driving the productive cycles of Nature, her saving power in general,91 her power to grant military success,92 and the power of a mythical Egyptian god-king, Porramanres, remembered for “a miracle that is a riddle [θαῦμα δὲ καὶ παράδοξον].”93 δύναμις is the term in each case. At a sophisticated theological level, Plutarch, in his Amat. (Mor. 759D), says that “it is, however, principally in respect to power and benefits [δυνάμει καὶ ὠφελείᾳ μάλιστα] that we distinguish between the gods … Let us first, then, see whether Love yields to any other god in power [δύναμις]” (LCL). Dio Chrysostom (Or. 32.10–11) says of Sarapis, “here in Alexandria the deity is most in honour, and to you especially does he display his power [τὴν αὑτοῦ δύναμιν] through almost daily oracles and dreams” (LCL). Most significantly, Josephus (Ant. 2.286) has Moses say to Pharaoh: “I will show that it is from no witchcraft [γοητεία] or deception of true judgement, but from God’s providence and power [κατὰ δὲ θεοῦ πρόνοιαν καὶ δύναμιν] that my miracles proceed” (LCL). In Philo, Mos. 1.94, the contrast is drawn between “the works of human cunning or artifices [ἀνθρώπων σοφίσματα καὶ τέχνας] fabricated to deceive” (the wonders wrought by the Egyptian σοφισταὶ … καὶ μάγοι in response to Moses) and those “brought about by some diviner power [δύναμιν θειοτέραν] to which every feat is easy.” Philo means the feats of God carried out through Moses. Philo continues: “God had shown his will by the proofs of signs and wonders, which are clearer than oracles [τοῦ θεοῦ τρανοτέραις χρησμῶν ἀποδείξεσι ταῖς διὰ σημείων καὶ τεράτων τὸ βούλημα δεδηλωκότος]” (LCL). Here is the nearest parallel to Paul’s usage so far. Demonstrations, signs, and wonders of divine origin are contrasted with words – even with oracles, words from God! The results of this brief comparative foray are, however, inconclusive. The δύναμις terminology used by Paul is clearly capable of a range of meanings. Contextual considerations must be allowed their full force. However, it is clear that Paul’s language is at least consistent with the range of meanings associated with divinely inspired wonder-working power. 90. On the power of particular gods, compare, e.g., Plutarch, Is. Os. 76 (Mor. 382C), the δύναμις of Isis; De E in Delphi 7 (Mor. 388F) and 17 (Mor. 392A), the δύναμις of Apollo. 91. Vera F. Vanderlip, The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis (Toronto: Hakkert, 1972), Hymn 1, lines 11 and 25 (17‒18). 92. Vanderlip, Four Greek Hymns, Hymn 3, line 17 (49‒51). 93. Vanderlip, Four Greek Hymns, Hymn 4, lines 39‒40 (64‒65).

162

C. FORBES

PAUL THE WONDER-WORKER A number of passages in Paul’s letters include clear statements that Paul believes in “miraculous” occurrences in his own ministry, and within his churches. The passages in question are rich in the δύναμ– terminology. Despite the wealth of discussion of the Synoptic and Johannine miracle stories and the miracle stories of Acts, until recently there has been very little discussion of the miracle material in the Pauline correspondence itself.94 As we have seen, many take pains to distance Paul from such things. Romans 15:18‒19 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed [λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ], by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God [ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων, ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος].95

“Signs and wonders” recalls the Exodus narratives especially.96 The power of the Spirit is what makes these signs and wonders possible. E. Earle Ellis notes that Origen thought “power” and “spirit” meant miracles and prophecies, respectively.97 Jervell claims this passage is intended by Paul as a summary of his work everywhere – a characterization of his mission, in both word and deed.98 Similarly Graham H. Twelftree: “in the parallel 94. An exception is Jervell, “The Signs of an Apostle,” 77‒95. Jervell provocatively asserts that “in the brief hints contained in his epistles, even Paul assigns more significance to miracle or to his own miracles than does Luke in his portrait of Paul … Paul himself gives the impression that his entire activity was accompanied by miracles … Paul not only regards miracles as the ‘signs of an apostle’ but defines the gospel as consisting in part of miraculous deeds” (82‒84, 94). See the recent similar views of Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 225. 95. Some Greek manuscripts lack “of God.” 96. James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 2:863, comments that this background “helps explain how Paul can use the phrase so positively and without qualification at this point … whereas in other equally eschatological contexts the phrase has a more negative ring … There is no real justification for linking this phrase [ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος] only with the λόγῳ as distinct from the ἔργῳ.” Similarly C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 2:759. Lietaert Peerbolte, “Paul the Miracle Worker,” 196–97, adds parallels to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the prophetic tradition generally, commenting that “in Paul’s day this characteristic is clearly part of the picture of a prophetic figure, either true or false, and all who act with the authority of the spirit show this by performing ‘signs and wonders.’” See similarly Evans, “Paul the Exorcist and Healer,” 366. 97. E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, WUNT 18 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978), 64‒65. 98. Jervell, “The Signs of an Apostle,” 92. See similarly Kelhoffer, “The Apostle Paul,” 169‒71.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

163

(in Romans 15:18), Paul is expressing (tautologically) the point that the signs and wonders are the same as the power of the Spirit … the word and deed are of a piece, not set over against each other, the latter confirming the former.”99 1 Corinthians 12:7‒29 To each one is given the manifestation of the spirit for the common good … to another the working of miracles [ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων], to another prophecy … first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power [δυνάμεις], then gifts of healing … do all work miracles?

Paul clearly believes that “powers” are one characteristic form of the activity of the Holy Spirit, in his own apostolic ministry, and also in the life of his congregations. The point is obvious, but is stated because it illustrates Paul’s presumption that “powers” are widespread in the experience of his converts. 2 Corinthians 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, signs and wonders and mighty works [σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ δυνάμεσιν].100

This crucial passage, with its threefold terminology, closely related to Rom 15:18‒19, must be given full weight in any analysis.101 Dieter Georgi comments: “Paul does not renounce the σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου but even in this respect Paul seems to lag behind the opponents. Their signs and wonders must have resembled those of the Hellenistic-Jewish and Hellenistic θεῖοι ἄνδρες. Paul does not want to follow suit.”102 Again, where is the evidence that Paul’s opponents claimed to do miracles? Georgi’s literary analysis falls short as evidence of social reality. Regardless of whether his opponents made such claims, it is clear that Paul does! It is not that Paul “does not renounce” them. In a highly charged polemical context, he actively asserts them. He does “follow suit.” Again, we see the widespread 99. Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 125. 100. The NIV, NRSV and ESV translate “a true apostle.” This makes Paul’s meaning more explicit than Paul’s “an apostle” does, but it does not alter the sense. 101. Lietaert Peerbolte (“Paul the Miracle Worker,” 196 n. 5) helpfully notes that “the triple combination is found nowhere in the LXX, but the combination of σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα with the singular δύναμις does occur in Bar 2:11, again in a description of the salvation God has established in the exodus event.” See similarly, though briefly, Evans, “Paul the Exorcist and Healer,” 366. 102. Georgi, Opponents, 236.

164

C. FORBES

apologetic tendency attempting to distance Paul from “mere” miracle-working. Likewise, Hans Dieter Betz disputes the existence of clear evidence in the epistles for Paul’s working miracles, arguing that talk of “signs and wonders” is best understood as a reference to “the miracle of the proclamation of the gospel.” In his monograph Betz concludes: “A clear witness that Paul did miracles is not to be found here. What is clear is that he opposed his opponents’ understanding of miracles and that he saw the real miracle simply as the spread of the gospel.”103 Not power, then, but words: inspired words, life-changing words, even powerful words, but still only words. Collins argues differently: “That he performed such signs ‘in all perseverance’ suggests that Paul’s miraculous activity was not a single occurrence. Rather, he performed miracles more than once … Although each of the terms has its specific nuance, all three refer, in general, to the marvelous deeds that Paul did by the power of God while he was with the Corinthians.104 Mark A. Seifrid sensibly balances both Paul’s characteristic “weakness” and the assertion of power in that weakness. He indicates that here, and in Rom 15:19‒20, Paul distances himself from his miracle-working. In 2 Corinthians he does so by using the passive voice (the signs of an apostle, signs, wonders, and miracles “were done among them [κατειργάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν]”), and by emphasizing the context of his apostolic endurance (ἐν πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ). In Romans he emphasizes “what Christ has accomplished through me [κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς δι’ ἐμοῦ].”105 The language is remarkably similar to that in 2 Corinthians. Galatians 3:2‒5 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing? – if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you [καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν] by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

103. Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner »Apologie« 2 Korinther 10–13, BHT 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972), 71. 104. Raymond F. Collins, Second Corinthians, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 243‒44. 105. Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 456‒57.

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

165

The close association between the Spirit’s presence and the “working of powers” is again apparent. In his later Hermeneia commentary Betz is quite correct to argue that “δύναμις in connection with ἐνεργεῖν points to the occurrence of miracles.”106 This is how Paul, even in the midst of controversy, is willing to characterize the experience of his churches. As John Ashton suggests, “Paul is perfectly prepared to admit that the most obvious indication of the presence of the Spirit is the working of miracles: there could be no more striking proof of power.”107 Paul’s letters generally demonstrate a widespread association of the δύναμις terminology with the wonder-working power of God. In Rom 1:4 Jesus is “declared with power to be the Son of God” (or: “was declared to be the Son of God with power,” ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) specifically in his resurrection. Consequently, in Rom 1:16, the gospel of the resurrection is the power of God: δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν. In 1 Cor 1:18, the message of the cross is power, and Christ is, for the Corinthians, the power of God. In 2 Cor 4:7, Paul characteristically associates power and weakness, arguing that “we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this allsurpassing power [ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως] is from God” and not from him and his colleagues. They are hard pressed on every side, but the message goes forth regardless. Climactically in 2 Cor 12:9, God tells Paul “my power is made perfect in weakness,” and within three verses Paul is discussing the “signs of an apostle.” Finally, in Phil 3:10 Paul reminds his converts of the central expression of God’s purposes: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection [τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως].” God’s power expresses itself in many ways, but centrally in the resurrection, which Christians will eventually share.

CONCLUSIONS Various ancient writers draw contrasts where “words” are the deprecated phenomenon. Close to Paul’s own time, Philo contrasts sophistry with true wisdom (Leg. 2.74), lovers of words with prudent men (Leg. 3.232), sophistry 106. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 135 n. 78; cf. Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 113. The same point is made by Kelhoffer, “The Apostle Paul,” 167‒69. Donald Guthrie, Galatians, NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974) 93‒94, has some reservations, but in my view the “among you” (ἐν ὑμῖν) makes his “internalizing” interpretation of the δύναμις here unlikely. 107. John Ashton, The Religion of Paul the Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 202.

166

C. FORBES

with truth (Ebr. 70), sophistry with true knowledge of the Intelligible, and the Sophist with the Sage (Sobr. 9). With the exception of Philo’s Mos. 1.94, discussed above, I have found no clear case where an ancient author deprecates “mere words” in favor of “power.” In Philo’s case, the contrast is drawn between even divinely inspired words and the saving acts of God in the exodus. In Paul’s case, the contrast is drawn between even the most prestigious form of human words and the eschatological power of God manifested (oftentimes in weakness) in the life of the apostle and his converts. In view of Paul’s usage in other parts of his letters, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the power contrasted with words in 1 Thess 1 and 1 Cor 2 and 4 is wonder-working power. This is the only conclusion which fits his wider usage, and makes (rhetorical!) sense of the contrast he is making. Correctly noting that for Paul, God’s power is characteristically manifested in weakness, a number of commentators have dissolved that power into weakness.108 Are there any cases broadly contemporary with Paul of similar contrasts between words and power? For the ancient ἀνὴρ λόγιος words were power, the greatest motivating force they knew. Paul believed he knew a greater power, the gospel of God’s love expressed in both word and deed. The closest parallel to Paul’s contrast (as noted above, p. 159) is that drawn by Philo in Mos. 1.94, between “the works of human cunning or artifices and those “brought about by some diviner power [δύναμιν θειοτέραν] to which every feat is easy.” Even this contrast is between different forms of wonderworking power, not between words and power. When Philo continues, discussing the fact that “God had shown his will by the proofs of signs and wonders, which are clearer than oracles,” he comes close to the Pauline antithesis. This striking contrast between words and power opens up a significant gap in our interpretative model of Paul’s self-presentation. While Paul may have presented himself variously in comparison with, and in contrast to, the image of the sophists and rhetors, to his congregations he also presented himself as the “man of power,” the wonder-worker. He had theological reservations about some interpretations of this position, as he did about the 108. The formulation of Twelftree (Paul and the Miraculous, 146) is better, linking power and weakness in the ministry of Jesus with the same combination in the career of Paul: “[Paul] was imitating one in whom the power of God was seen because of his weakness (Phil 2:1–11). In short, in view of Paul identifying his attitudes and activities with Christ, whom he knew to have been a miracle-worker … the Paul whom we glimpse through his own eyes understands the gospel to be ‘word and deed,’ speech and act, which involved his lifestyle, his suffering, and also probably, miracles.”

PAUL’S CRITIQUE OF RHETORIC

167

value of rhetoric, but not about the facts. Paul believed himself able to work “signs and wonders,” through the power of the risen Christ. Twelftree’s formulation is apt: Paul saw the miraculous as an integral and profoundly important aspect of his day-to-day ministry, wherever he went.… Paul did not consider his gospel to be merely preaching. Nor were the miracles secondary to the preaching. Instead, the gospel was always word and deed: a message of salvation realized in and (therefore) authenticated by the Spirit’s manifestation or materialization in the miraculous.109

Paul’s critique of rhetoric is simply this: it is only words. Even when they are persuasive words, or even words of the highest (earthly) wisdom, they remain words only. The kingdom of God, by contrast, is a matter of power. Macquarie University

Christopher FORBES110

109. Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 225. 110. An earlier version of this paper was given at the seminar “Paul and Rhetoric,” chaired by Peter Lampe, at the 2007 meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in Sibiu, Romania. Due to unexpected travel problems, Troy W. Martin arrived in Sibiu twentyfour hours late and missed my presentation entirely. I am grateful for the critical feedback and encouragement received from the seminar and glad to offer this revised version in Troy’s honor. He is a wonderful friend whose company and good fellowship I have enjoyed for nearly twenty years.

10 ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

References to ὁ σατανᾶς in the New Testament and other early Christian texts are ordinarily treated as if they were uniform: Paul’s σατανᾶς is presumed to be the same figure as the σατανᾶς referred to by the authors of Mark, John, 1 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation. Often ὁ σατανᾶς is also considered synonymous with ὁ διάβολος, as if the correlation were self-evident. To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to qualify Paul’s antecedent use of this expression on exclusively Pauline terms. The present discussion begins with the history of scholarship followed by the background in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple period literature. Next, it examines occurrences of σατανᾶς in Paul’s seven undisputed letters. The thesis I shall attempt to show is that Paul uses ὁ σατανᾶς as both a title and a sobriquet for Peter. Like nicknames appearing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Paul’s usage amounts to an internal labeling system – transparent to Paul’s readers in its original context.

HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP Scholars have paid scant attention to occurrences of ὁ σατανᾶς in the New Testament and early Christian literature. Jeffrey Burton Russell’s works (1977, 1981) have been influential, although as a scholar of medieval European history, his two studies focus on parallel figures in Egyptian and Zoroastrian tradition, largely uninformed by exegetical advances in the area of biblical scholarship.1 Walter Wink (1986) explores psychological dimensions of the Satan figure, however, he pays only moderate attention to the 1. Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977); and Satan: The Early Christian Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981).

170

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

sources.2 Neil Forsyth’s masterful investigation of the background of the Satan figure, The Old Enemy (1987), has been influential, but it represents a work of intellectual history from the perspective of a professor of English and thereby does not engage critical concerns in the area of biblical studies.3 Forsyth’s more recent volume, The Satanic Epic (2003; winner of the 2004 Holly Hanford Award of the Milton Society of America), makes his specialization in British literature clear by its focus on the seductive traits of Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost.4 Others have contributed to this conversation including Herbert Haag (1974), Wesley Carr (1976), Heinz Kruse (1977), Roy Yates (1980), William C. Tremmel (1985), and James Barr (1985) – and this does not include works of a more narrow focus dedicated to Satan in, for example, Job or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of these studies were completed at least three decades ago.5 In recent decades, a subgenre of biographical works on Satan has arisen. These volumes loosely imitate the remarkably skeptical tractate by Kersey Graves (1924) entitled The Biography of Satan or, A Historical Exposition of the Devil and His Fiery Dominions Disclosing the Oriental Origin of the Belief in a Devil and Future Endless Punishment; Also, an Explanation of the Pagan Origin of the Scriptural Terms, Bottomless Pit, Lake of Fire and Brimstone, Chains of Darkness, Casting out Devils, Worm That Never Dieth, etc.6 Contributing to this subgenre, Henry Ansgar Kelly published Satan: A Biography (2006); and Philip C. Almond wrote The Devil: A New Biography (2014).7 Like Russell and Forsyth before them, neither Kelly nor Almond is a biblical scholar. 2. Walter Wink, Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); cf. C. G. Jung, Answer to Job, trans. R. F. C. Hull (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954); Gerd Theissen, “Monotheismus und Teufelsglaube: Entstehung und Psychologie des biblischen Satansmythos,” in Demons and the Devil in Ancient and Medieval Christianity, ed. Nienke Vos and Willemien Otten, VCSup 108 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 37–70. 3. Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987). 4. Forsyth, The Satanic Epic (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003). 5. Herbert Haag, Teufelsglaube (Tübingen: Katzmann, 1974); Wesley Carr, “Rulers of this Age: 1 Corinthians 2:6–8,” NTS 23 (1976): 20–35; Heinz Kruse, “Das Reich Satans,” Bib 58 (1977): 29–61; Roy Yates, “The Powers of Evil in the New Testament,” EvQ 52 (1980): 97–111; William C. Tremmel, “Satan – The Dark Side,” The Iliff Review 42 (1985): 3–12; James Barr, “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity,” JAAR 53 (1985): 201–35. On Second Temple Jewish literature, see very recently Ryan E. Stokes, The Satan: How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019), which appeared too late for engagement here. 6. 4th ed. (New York: P. Eckler, 1924). 7. Henry Ansgar Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Philip C. Almond, The Devil: A New Biography (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014).

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

171

As works of intellectual history, they offer little in the way of detailed biblical exegesis.8 Within the field of biblical studies, only a half a dozen or so studies dedicated to early Christian demonology have appeared in the last half-century. Everett Ferguson’s Demonology of the Early Christian World (1984) is a relatively short (179 pages) volume.9 It was first presented as a series of lectures delivered at the University of Mississippi in 1980. Ferguson surveys the demonic vis-à-vis the New Testament Gospels, Greek texts, Jewish texts, and various patristic writings, concluding with a discussion of Paul’s letters and the Fourth Gospel. Recognizing that Paul seldom refers to demons, Ferguson presumes coherence of identity behind the various evil figures in early Christian texts. Satan and the devil are, for example, different expressions for the same nefarious force which early Christian writers and their patristic interpreters resist.10 For Ferguson, “As in the Synoptic Gospels, so in Paul the devil is the tempter.”11 Evidence from the deutero-Pauline letters shapes Ferguson’s understanding of Paul’s undisputed letters. The second major work dedicated to early Christian demonology that has appeared in the last half-century is Elaine Pagels’s The Origin of Satan: How Christian Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics (1995).12 In this book, Pagels argues that Satan was a concept used by apocalyptic Jews to characterize their opponents. Christians adopted this concept (originating with the Essenes) to refer to Jews opposing Jesus. Gentile Christians subsequently used the characterization against pagan government leaders, with the tradition expanding from there to incorporate sundry opponents. Pagels regards demonization of opponents as a trend of anti-Semitism originating with the early Christians. She uses “Satan” as a proper noun throughout her treatment that (surprisingly) all but ignores discussion of Paul’s letters.13 Similar to Ferguson, Pagels refers to the variety of demonic figures – including Satan, the devil, Beelzebub, 8. Kelly (now emeritus) devoted his career to the area of medieval and Renaissance literature and history (University of California, Los Angeles) and Almond to the area of philosophy of religion (University of Adelaide). Pointing to the intellectual historical emphases of both works, they feature numerous illustrations and plates (Kelly, Satan, 14; Almond, Devil, 26). 9. Everett Ferguson, Demonology of the Early Christian World, SymS 12 (New York: Mellen, 1984). 10. Ferguson, Demonology of the Early Christian World, 145. 11. Ferguson, Demonology of the Early Christian World, 147. Although Paul refers to Satan, he never mentions the devil. 12. Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan: How Christian Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics (New York: Random House, 1995). 13. She refers only to citations of Paul by later apologists (Origin of Satan, 112–13, 150).

172

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

and Belial – synonymously and correlates a struggle between God and these figures with Christians and their contemporary opponents.14 The third important work is James H. Charlesworth’s The Good and Evil Serpent (2010).15 This massive (700-page) monograph takes up the question of whether John 3:14–15 (in which Jesus declares, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life”) – should be interpreted as ophidian Christology. Charlesworth explores the roots of serpent symbolism in an impressively expansive and diverse group of ancient texts and iconography, examining ancient attestations of ophiology (zoological study of snakes), ophiophilism (love of snakes), and ophiolatry (worship of snakes).16 Confining its focus to the Fourth Gospel, a central point of this study is to disengage the appearance of snakes in most early Christian writings from association with Satan and the devil. Such a connection appears to Charlesworth as a mistaken generalization prompted by Rev 12:9, in which a snake is synonymous with these figures. Although Charlesworth distinguishes snakes from Satan and the devil, he does not discriminate between the two evil figures themselves.17 Summing up, many treatments of the Satan figure over the past fifty years address the literary, cultural, and theological significance of this figure from outside of the field of biblical studies. Of the few biblical historians addressing this topic, all treat early Christian references to the satan interchangeably with references to the devil, Beelzebul, Beliar, and others. Even writers who acknowledge differences between the figures conclude that the discrepancies are negligible.18 Although this subject urgently needs more attention, the aim of the present study addresses only one of its many aspects: reference to Satan in Paul’s undisputed letters. 14. Pagels writes: “In this book I add to the discussion something I have not found elsewhere – what I call the social history of Satan; that is, I show how the events told in the gospels about Jesus, his advocates, and his enemies correlate with the supernatural drama the writers use to interpret that story – the struggle between God’s spirit and Satan. And because Christians as they read the gospels have characteristically identified themselves with the disciples, for some two thousand years they have also identified their opponents, whether Jews, pagans, or heretics, with forces of evil, and so with Satan” (Origin of Satan, xxii–xxiii). 15. James H. Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized, ABRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). 16. Charlesworth, Good and Evil Serpent, 421 (cf. n. 590). 17. Charlesworth, Good and Evil Serpent, 278, 310, 353, etc. 18. E.g., Russell writes, “The New Testament was composed by a number of writers over a period of half a century, and its point of view is not homogeneous. I shall point out difference between the synoptic, Pauline, and Johannine interpretations of the Devil. These variations are not great; as always, the motion of the development is what is essential” (Devil, 221).

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

173

BACKGROUND IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD LITERATURE Early Christians such as Paul inherit the figure ὁ σατανᾶς from the Hebrew Bible and the literature of Second Temple Judaism. Cilliers Breytenbach explains the derivation of the Greek noun as follows: Σατάν and Σατανᾶς are transliterations of the Heb śātān (cf. 3 Kgdms 11:14.23; Sir 21:27) or Aram śātānā’ and mean “adversary.” In such instances 8HevXIIgr and the LXX translate the Hebrew expression with Diabolos, meaning “the Slanderer”. Ho Satanās (rarely used without article) thus designates the opponent of God. In the NT Satanās and Diabolos can refer to the same supernatural being (cf. Rev 20:2) and can thus be interchanged (cf. Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2). This highest evil being can also be referred to as ho ponēros (“the evil one,” cf. Matt 13:19) and ho peirazōn (“the tempter,” cf. Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5).19

Breytenbach also speculates about the etymological import of this noun: The proper name “Satan” is an Anglicization of the Hebrew common noun satan. The noun satan has been related etymologically to a variety of geminate, third weak and hollow verbs in Hebrew and the cognate languages. These proposals include verbs meaning “to stray” …, “to revolt/fall away” …, “to be unjust” …, “to burn” … and “to seduce.”20

Victor Hamilton observes that six occurrences of the root in the Jewish scriptures (Pss 38:21 [37:21 LXX]; 71:13 [70:13 LXX]; 109:4, 20, 29 [108:4, 20, 29 LXX]; Zech 3:1) refer to “the enemies of the writer.”21 They are “defaming his character and are (thus) slanderers. What they are saying about the writer is palpably false and, therefore their mouths must be shut, one way or another.”22 This usage constitutes important background for Paul’s subsequent early Christian application and is examined next. Psalms The five passages Hamilton lists in the Psalms share a forensic emphasis in which one or more adversary falsely accuses the writer. In Ps 38 (37 LXX), the psalmist has fallen ill. Verse 10 specifies blindness as one of his symptoms: “the light of my eyes – it also has gone from me.”23 In v. 21, the psalmist 19. C. Breytenbach and P. L. Day, “Satan,” DDD2 726–32, here 726–27. 20. Breytenbach and Day, “Satan,” 726; Lukas Kundert, “Satan,” BNP 13:11; O. Böcher, “σατανᾶς,” EDNT 3:234. 21. The verb lacks a cognate in any of the Semitic languages. See Victor P. Hamilton, “Satan,” ABD 5:985–89, here 985. 22. Hamilton, “Satan,” 5:985. 23. If, as argued below, Paul’s use of satan is related to usage in Psalms, then reference to blindness may be apropos; see Gal 4:15. English translations of the Jewish Scriptures are from

174

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

describes reactions of other people to his suffering. Although he follows after what is good, based on his illness, they accuse him of sinful behavior. Recalling Job, ‫ ישטנוני‬in this passage characterizes the false accusers as “adversaries.” The LXX translates this expression using ἐνδιαβάλλειν, “to calumniate” or “to stand in the way as an adversary.”24 In Ps 71:13 (70:13 LXX), another sick psalmist focuses on his illness as a portent of God’s wrath. As in Ps 38, some bystanders insist that the psalmist has offended God. The LXX again uses ἐνδιαβάλλειν to translate ‫שטן‬.25 The same is true of Ps 109 (108 LXX). The psalmist beseeches the Lord for help against his enemies:26 109:4 109:20

109:29

Instead of loving me, they falsely accused me [ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀγαπᾶν με ἐνδιέβαλλόν με], but I continued to pray. This is the deed of those who accuse me falsely before the Lord [τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον τῶν ἐνδιαβαλλόντων με παρὰ κυρίου], and of them that speak evil against my soul [καὶ τῶν λαλούντων πονηρὰ κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς μου]. Let those that falsely accuse me be clothed with shame [ἐνδυσάσθωσαν οἱ ἐνδιαβάλλοντές με ἐντροπήν],27 and let them cover themselves with their shame as with a mantle.

Occurrences of ‫ שטן‬in Num 22 and Zech 3 resemble the Psalms. In Num 22:22, Balaam’s donkey views a messenger of the Lord blocking its the NRSV unless otherwise specified. English translations of the New Testament are my own unless otherwise specified. 24. BDAG 226, s.v. διαβάλλω, “to make a complaint about a person to a third party, to bring charges”; “of malicious accusation,” “slander”; cf. Luke 16:1. Ps 37:21 LXX, οἱ ἀνταποδιδόντες κακὰ ἀντὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐνδιέβαλλόν με, ἐπεὶ κατεδίωκον δικαιοσύνην [καὶ ἀπέρριψάν με τὸν ἀγαπητὸν ὡσεὶ νεκρὸν ἐβδελυγμένον]. The final phrase of v. 21 (bracketed because it is absent from the Masoretic Text) compares the psalmist’s condition with a dead body: “and disown me, the beloved one, as an abominable corpse.” The phrase recommends ritual separation of the psalmist from his community. See LSJ 216, s.v. ἀπορρίπτω, “throw away, put away,” “vomit”; LSJ 312, s.v. βδελύσσομαι, “feel a loathing for food.” 25. Αἰσχυνθήτωσαν καὶ ἐκλιπέτωσαν οἱ ἐνδιαβάλλοντες τὴν ψυχήν μου, περιβαλέσθωσαν αἰσχύνην καὶ ἐντροπὴν οἱ ζητοῦντες τὰ κακά μοι. ET: “Let my accusers be put to shame and consumed; let those who seek to hurt me be covered with scorn and disgrace” (NRSV, modified). 26. Ps 109 (108 LXX): v. 4, ‫ ;ישטנוני‬v. 20, ‫ ;שטני‬and v. 29, ‫שוטני‬. 27. These may be curse formulas or parts of the legal format of some psalms (the defendant or plaintiff declares the accusation before the judge, in this case God, and proposes suitable penalties). Furthermore, uses of satan appear to have a technical legal usage in the Psalms: the word may refer to false litigation, the intentional initiation of a lawsuit against an innocent defendant. The use of the word indeed initiates a counter-suit by the psalmist: don’t punish me, punish him. When Paul uses the word in Aramaic, it carries even more weight, like calling one’s brother Raka in Matt 5:22. On the legal format of psalms, see Robert Matthew Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions of the Gospels in Romans 1, WUNT 2/316 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 163–65.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

175

path as his adversary: “God’s anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his adversary [‫ויתיצב‬ ‫]מלאך יהוה בדרך לשטן‬.” As with the Psalms, the LXX translates ‫ שטן‬with ἐνδιαβάλλειν: “And the messenger of God arose to oppose him [καὶ ἀνέστη ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνδιαβάλλειν αὐτόν]” (Num 22:22 LXX). In Zech 3:1, the verb ‫ לשטנו‬describes the action of a ‫ שטן‬seated in the heavenly court at the Lord’s right hand: “Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and the satan standing at his right hand to accuse him [‫]והשטן עמד על־ימינו לשטנו‬.” In this case, the LXX translates ‫ לשטנ‬with ἀντικεῖσθαι (“to oppose”) and ‫ השטן‬with ὁ διάβολος (“the devil”): “And he showed me Jesus the high priest standing before the messenger of the Lord, and the devil [ὁ διάβολος] stood on his right in order to resist [ἀντικεῖσθαι] him.” Overall, the noun ‫ שטן‬occurs twenty-seven times in the Jewish Scriptures with nine different referents: five are human and four are divine.28 The human figures (or terrestrial satans) are: (1) David (ἐπίβουλος, 1 Sam 29:4); (2) Abishai, a member of David’s court (ἐπίβουλος, 2 Sam 19:23 [22 LXX]); (3) Solomon’s [lack of] adversary (ἐπίβουλος, 1 Kgs 5:18); (4) Solomon’s adversaries (pl.), Hadad (σαταν, 1 Kgs 11:14) and Rezon (absent from LXX, 1 Kgs 11:23, 25); and (5) the enemy of the writer of Ps 109 (ὁ διάβολος, Ps 108:6b LXX).29 The four heavenly figures (or celestial satans) are: (1) Yahweh’s messenger to Balaam (ἐνδιαβάλλειν, ὁ διάβολος, Num 22:22, 32); (2) Yahweh’s challenger in the divine court (ὁ διάβολος, Job 1–2); (3) the opponent of Yahweh’s messenger (ὁ διάβολος, Zech 3:1); and (4) the figure assuming blame for the sinful census (ὁ διάβολος, 1 Chr 21:1). The LXX translates all of these expressions using either ἐπίβουλος (adj.) or ὁ διάβολος. Only once is the transliterated form σαταν used (1 Kgs 11:14). As in the Psalms, in cases where ‫( שטן‬or its Greek equivalents) refers to a human being, it is not a proper noun or title, but possesses either the meaning “adversary” in a political or military sense or “accuser” (prosecuting attorney) in legal contexts. Only in the case of the celestial satan in 1 Chr 21:1 (David’s census) might the anarthrous form of ‫ שטן‬denote a proper name.30 28. Breakdown of the twenty-seven occurrences by verse is: Num 22:22, 32; 1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kgs 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; 1 Chr 21:1; Job 1:6, 7 (bis), 8 (not in LXX), 9, 12 (bis); 2:1, 2 (bis), 3, 4, 6, 7; Ps 109:6; Zech 3:1, 2 (bis). 29. Septuagint translations of the noun are given in brackets. M. Dahood considers this final figure celestial not human. See Hamilton, “Satan,” 5:986. 30. Not, however, due to the fact that it is anarthrous. Sara Japhet explains: “It is, therefore, with the article that evil as a specific divine being had to be represented – as is indeed demonstrated by the occurrences of the noun in Zechariah and Job. In post-biblical literature, where Satan does function as the embodiment of evil, the name is still used with the

176

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

That said, it was not a proper name in Chronicles’s source (i.e., 2 Sam 24:1); in that case, God is the agent acting as Israel’s adversary.31 In the other three celestial applications, ‫ שטן‬simply denotes an “adversarial” or “accusing” angel.32 Transliteration of ‫ שטן‬with ὁ σατάν or σατανᾶς occurs only twice in biblical texts. In both cases, the referent is a human being: Hadad in 1 Kgs 11:14 and the impious adversary in the proverbial statement in Sir 21:27.33 Jewish Pseudepigrapha Perhaps inspired by the character of its occurrences in Job or Zechariah,34 ‫ שטן‬in Second Temple Jewish pseudepigraphal and other parabiblical texts in Hebrew almost always refers to an oppressive celestial power (e.g., 11QPsa Plea 19:15; 4QDibHama 1–2 IV, 12; 1 En. 53:3; 54:6; 3 En. 23:16; 26:12; 4QBera,b; Sir 21:27).35 Translations of biblical texts typically employ ὁ διάβολος to translate ‫שטן‬. Philo and Josephus likewise prefer ὁ διάβολος for ‫שטן‬. Later pseudepigraphical texts, including Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Job, and LAE 9:1, sometimes use the transliterated form ὁ σατάν or σατανᾶς, equating it with either Beliar (Ascen. Isa. 1:8, 9; 2:4; 3:11, 13; 4:2, 14, 16, 18; 5:1, 15) or the devil (T. Job. 3:3, 6 and 16:2 + 27:1 article (cf. Jastrow II, 1554). From a purely linguistic point of view it is in fact the absence of the article which should raise doubts about understanding it as a proper noun” (I and II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993], 374, emphasis original). 31. The Chronicler was unwilling to assign David’s lack of faith and arrogance to the Deity’s provocation. 32. This figure never appears in the Jewish Scriptures associated with a snake. See Charlesworth, Good and Evil Serpent, 2, 20–23, 24, 32–37, 58, 126, 186, 210, 211–12, 220, 276– 79, 297, 308, 310, 315, 319, 353, 362–63, 417–19, 454, 474. Charlesworth’s primary thesis is that snake has always been far too quickly associated with evil, Satan, devil, Belial, and other negative ideals and figures without adequate attention to its unique features. He does not, however, pick up that the satan figure shares the selfsame problem, namely, that it is far too quickly associated with evil, devil, Belial, and other negative ideals and figures without adequate attention to its unique features. We also note here that Paul mentions serpents twice in the undisputed letters: 1 Cor 10:9 (recalling Num 21:5–6), and 2 Cor 11:3 (recalling Gen 3:1–5). 33. Sirach 21:27 may possibly be divine name: “When the ungodly curses Satan, he curses his own life” (Breytenbach and Day, “Satan,” 730). Alternatively: “When an ungodly person curses an adversary, he curses himself” (NRSV). 34. Paul D. Hanson, Dawn of the Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 254. 35. Contrast the human adversary in Jub. 46:2. Most examples transmute political realities to the heavenly realm.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

177

with 17:1 + 26:6).36 Jubilees 23:29 and As. Mos. 10:1 offer the first evidence of satan as a personal name, although neither occurrence is completely straightforward. In Jubilees, the enemy is initially referred to as “mastema” (“animosity”) – not a proper name (cf. Hos 9:7–8) – but later as “Satan,” a nickname based on a pun (‫שטן‬/‫)שטמ‬.37 The Assumption of Moses adopts the satan figure from Zech 3, possibly under Christian influence. Summation In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ שטן‬may refer to either a human (Psalms especially) or a divine adversary. The LXX translates these occurrences with ἐνδιαβάλλειν, ὁ διάβολος, or ἐπίβουλος. In both canonical and noncanonical ancient Jewish writings, ὁ σατάν and σατανᾶς transliterate ‫שטן‬. As a name or title, ὁ σατάν is first attested in Jub. 23:29 and As. Mos. 10:1.38 In Second Temple Jewish pseudepigraphal and other parabiblical texts, ‫ שטן‬primarily refers to malevolent celestial spirits.

SATAN IN

THE

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

The New Testament possesses thirty-five occurrences of σατάν or σατανᾶς: fourteen in the Synoptic Gospels, one in John, two in Acts, ten in the epistles, and eight in Revelation. Twenty-eight of thirty-five occurrences possess the definite article. Of the ten occurrences in the epistles, seven are in the undisputed letters of Paul, including five in the Corinthian correspondence.39 36. Breytenbach and Day, “Satan,” 731. Concerning T. Job, R. P. Spittler writes: “A highly developed doctrine of Satan marks the Testament. He is variously identified as Satan (ὁ Σατανᾶς, 6:4), the devil (3:3), ‘the evil one’ (7.1 V), ‘the enemy’ (47.10). He is not human (23:2; cf. 42:2) nor of flesh, as Job (27:2), but is a spirit (27:2) who was responsible for the nefarious inspiration of Elihu (41:5f.; cf. 17:1f.). As in the canonical account, Satan derives his limited authority from God (8:1–3; cf. Job 1:12; 2:6)” (“Testament of Job,” OTP 1:829–68, here 835). However, Paul’s letters may predate this text (833–34). Cf. the figure called Satanel in 3 Bar. (Slavonic) 4:7, 13; 2 En. 18:31; Isa 14:13 (falls from heaven); Gosp. Bart. 3:25-29; Book of the Cave of Treasures; and the figure called Samael in 3 Bar. 4:8 (Greek). 37. See Kelly, Satan, 38. In some Second Temple Jewish literature, evil beings – especially the highest one – go by more than one proper name. 38. Elohim may be the most well-known biblical example of a nickname becoming a title; viz. Dennis Pardee, “Eloah,” DDD2 285–88. Cf. ba’al. 39. Anarthrous references include: Matt 4:10; 16:23; Mark 3:23; 8:23; Luke 22:3; 2 Cor 12:7. Three are vocative expressions (Matt 4:10; 16:23; Mark 8:33; the article is not normally present with a noun in the vocative). It is difficult to know why Luke 22:3 would avoid the definite article. Although Robert Jewett (Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 994–95 n. 99) unequivocally states, “Paul always refers to Satan with

178

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

Of the eight occurrences in Revelation, five are in the letters to the seven churches (Rev 2–3). In comparison, ὁ διάβολος occurs thirty-two times in the New Testament: eleven in the Synoptic Gospels (but none in Mark).40 three in John, two in Acts, eleven in the epistles, and five in Revelation.41 As in some Jewish literature, ὁ διάβολος and ὁ σατάν/σατανᾶς sometimes refer to the same figure – an entity that may go by other names as well (e.g., Beelzebul).42 Noncanonical early Christian texts prefer ὁ διάβολος to refer to this figure (e.g., Ign. Eph. 10:3; Ign. Trall. 8:1; Ign. Rom. 5:3; Ign. Smyrn. 9:1; Mart. Pol. 3:1; 2 Clem. 18:2), mentioning a satan only four times (Barn. 18:1; Ign. Eph. 13:1; Pol. Phil. 7:1; and Mart. Pol. 3). The current assumption is that early Christians borrowed both ὁ σατάν and ὁ σατανᾶς from Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature to indicate a celestial foe and/or malevolent spirit synonymous with ὁ διάβολος. Most texts treat it as a proper noun. With the exception of the LXX, however, literary reliance upon Second Temple period literature is difficult to verify for early Christian writings. No early Christian text demonstrates interest (e.g., citation, allusion, echo) in either of the passages containing the transliterated forms ὁ σατάν or σατανᾶς in the LXX (i.e., 1 Kgs 11:14 and Sir 21:27).43 Early Christian references to ὁ σατάν or ὁ σατανᾶς thus warrant further examination.

the definite article,” the definite article is absent in 2 Cor 12:7. This may be the result of its use in an appositional phrase. Mark 3:23 may be the result of using σατανᾶς and σατανᾶν in close succession. Curiously, there are inconsistencies in capitalization of initial sigma of the word σατανᾶς in Revelation (NA27 ), an observation for which I wish to thank Trevor Thompson. Jewett also observes that, although Paul refers to the Satan with the definite article, he seems to “view him as a named entity” (Romans, 995 n. 99). See also Werner Foerster and Knut Schäferdiek, “σατανᾶς,” TDNT 7:151–65, 161; Böcher, “σατανᾶς,” EDNT 3:234; Bent Noack, Satanás und Sotería: Untersuchungen zur neutestamentlichen Dämonologie (Copenhagen: Gads, 1948); and K. Schubert, “Versuchung oder Versucher? Der Teufel als Begriff oder Person in den biblischen und ausserbiblischen Texten,” BLit 50 (1977): 104–13. 40. Synoptic occurrences are concentrated in the temptation narrative and the Parable of the Sower. 41. Hamilton, “Satan,” 5:988. 42. Ferguson, Demonology of the Early Christian World; Russell, Satan; Yates, “Powers of Evil,” 97–111; Trevor Ling, The Significance of Satan: New Testament Demonology and Its Contemporary Relevance, SPCK Biblical Monographs 3 (London: SPCK, 1961); Edward Langton, Essentials of Demonology: A Study of Jewish and Christian Doctrine, Its Origin and Development (London: Epworth, 1949); T. H. Gaster, “Satan,” IDB 4:224–28. Contra Richard B. Hays, who views the object of salvation in 5:5 as the Spirit present in the community: First Corinthians, IBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 84–85, here 85. 43. See Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). The New Testament does not cite either of these texts.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

179

Indirect References to Satan in the Undisputed Pauline Letters In accordance with inherited tradition, Paul never mentions the devil, Belial, or hell.44 Neither does he acknowledge the existence of demons. It is, therefore, difficult to know how to interpret the seven occasions on which Paul refers to Satan indirectly (i.e., using another name: [1] “ruler of this age,” [2] “so-called god,” [3] “serpent,” [4] “god of this world,” [5] “demon,” [6] “death,” and [7] “sin”) and the seven occasions on which he refers to him directly. Each reference is taken in turn. “Ruler of This Age” (1 Corinthians 2:6, 8) In 1 Cor 2, Paul accuses “the rulers of this age” (οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) of crucifying the Lord of glory (τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν, v. 8). All of these rulers are thought to be divine forces, with “the god of this age” (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) of 2 Cor 4:4 (discussed below) the primus inter pares of this group.45 Hans Conzelmann infers a “mythical context” and thus understands the rulers as “demons” rather than “political powers.” However, v. 6 characterizes these rulers as permanently “reduced to nothing,” “removed,” or “destroyed” (τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων) – not the expected fate of an immortal being.46 Of the seven other occasions on which Paul uses καταργεῖν in 1 Corinthians, each represents the annihilation of something 44. Paul, like Philo of Alexandria, reacts decidedly against mythical demonology as seen, for example, in the Enochic tradition and other early Jewish literature (e.g., Book of Watchers, Jubilees, and the Testament of Solomon), preferring to place full responsibility for evil on human beings. Paul’s view was rare among apocalyptic eschatologies in this period. Revelation probably sought to promote Pauline theology all the while correcting Paul on this point. One term does appear in the non-Pauline fragment 2 Cor 6:14–7:1. In 6:14 (if authentic), Satan (called “Beliar”) opposes Christ. If unbelievers are Paul’s opponents, then the message here is that full reconciliation with Paul requires total renouncing of his opponents. See Hans Dieter Betz, “2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” in his Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsätze III (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 20–45. 45. E.g., Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 61: “The question whether the ἄρχοντες, ‘governing powers,’ are demons or political powers has long been in dispute. The mythical context suggests the interpretation demons, and so also does the solemn predication τῶν καταργουμένων, ‘which are being brought to nothing.’ They are the minions of the ‘god of this aeon’ (2 Cor 4:4).” Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Historisch theologische Auslegung (Wuppertal: Brockhaus; Gießen: Brunnen, 2006); Friedrich Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, NTD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); Hans-Josef Klauck, 1. Korintherbrief, NEchtB (Würzburg: Echter, 1984). 46. Verse 6 reads as follows (NA28): σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων. Cf. 1 Cor 1:28.

180

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

related to the mortal world, including “the wise” and “the strong” (1:28), food and the stomach (6:13), prophecy (13:8, 10), childishness (13:11), political rulers (15:24),47 and death (15:26).48 Of these parallels, 1 Cor 15:24 is clearly closest, indicating the destruction of political rulers by its allusion to Ps 109 LXX: “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (v. 25).49 In 15:25 Paul explains the ἐχθροί (Ps 109:1 LXX) as a collective term for “every ruler and every authority and power” (v. 24). Concerning the similar list of heavenly powers in Rom 8:38, Conzelmann notes that God created all of these powers, implying – according to Paul’s nonmythological and philosophically sophisticated eschatology – that these powers are essentially good, if presently wayward.50 In 15:26, Paul personifies death as the last of God’s “enemies,” a poetic construal of resurrection. This evidence can be further coordinated with other passages in the undisputed letters. In 1 Thess 2:14–15, Paul refers to those who crucified Jesus as Jews: they killed Jesus and drove Paul (“us”) out of Judea. He complains that these opponents have hindered him “from speaking to the Gentiles so that they might be saved.”51 Why Paul blames the Jews who drove him out of Judea with the death of Jesus – and why he says, “God’s wrath has overtaken them at last” – is unclear. Abraham J. Malherbe interprets the passage in terms of the “killing the prophets” tradition, noting that this is the only occasion on which Paul refers to Jesus as “killed,” rather than crucified, adding that the latter implicates Rome whereas the former indicts the Jews.52 47. Here too Conzelmann reads demonology into Paul’s presentation denoting ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, and δυνάμεις as Jewish demons, comparing Rom 8:38 rather than Rom 13:3 (1 Corinthians, 271–72). 48. All of the other occurrences of this verb in the undisputed letters likewise extirpate perishable, mortal, or counter-divine phenomena: faithlessness of the God (rhetorical question expecting negative answer, Rom 3:3); law (Rom 3:31); faith – hypothetically removed if promise to Abraham could be inherited on the basis of the law (Rom 4:14); body of sin (Rom 6:6); law regarding marriage if spouse dies (Rom 7:2); defunct law (Rom 7:6); glory of Moses’s face and covenant (2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13, 14); promise of God (contrary to fact statement, Gal 3:17); those allowing themselves to be circumcised removed relationship with Christ (Gal 5:4); and, offense of the cross of Christ if Paul still preaching circumcision (Gal 5:11). 49. The psalmist clearly denotes the Lord’s destruction of mortal enemies. 50. Τις κτίσις ἑτέρα in 8:39 implies that universal powers are also merely creatures (Jewett, Romans, 554). On Paul’s nonmythological eschatology, see Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 272. 51. Victor Paul Furnish mentions this possibility, comparing the account in Acts 17:5–10 where Paul is also driven out by Jews. He also notes the possibility that Paul demonizes city officials. He ultimately rejects both in favor of the portrayal of the satan in Jewish intertestamental literature as controlling the forces of evil (1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, ANTC [Nashville: Abingdon, 2007], 75). Cf. Ernest Best, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 3rd ed., BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 126–27. 52. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 168.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

181

Malherbe argues that the Jews “evidently” acted “under the influence of ‘the rulers of this age,’ that is, demonic powers” borrowing from 1 Cor 2:6–8. However, such an explanation is not necessary if “rulers of this age” are not supernatural opponents, but Paul’s Jewish antagonists. In this case, “killing Jesus” would refer to Judas’s betrayal, Peter’s denials, the disciples’ flight at Jesus’s arrest, or simply the fact that the disciples were unable to prevent Jesus’s death.53 “So-called Gods” (1 Corinthians 8:5) The “god of this age” is also sometimes thought to correspond to the “so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth” (λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς) which Paul mentions in 1 Cor 8:5.54 However, the “so-called gods” refer only to idols. The primary contrast in this passage (1 Cor 8:4–7) occurs between vv. 5 and 6. Verse 5 refers to pagan practice (many gods), v. 6 to Jewish monotheism (one god). A secondary contrast exists between the two clauses in v. 5. Interpreting the citation in v. 4 that no idol exists, Paul admits (εἴπερ) in the first (concessive) clause that idols are often referred to as gods: “[even though they do not exist], they [i.e., idols] are called gods” (καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί).55 The mere admission of this error prompts him to add a sarcastic hypothetical aside: “as if there are many gods and many lords” (ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί).56 Lest the aside accidentally mislead anyone, he follows up with a clear statement of truth: “Yet for us there is one God.” By sandwiching this discussion between two clear monotheistic statements (“there is no God but one,” 1 Cor 8:4; and “yet for us there is one God,” 1 Cor 8:6), he guarantees that his position is not misunderstood. Paul’s God accommodates no rivals. In this section, he may be summarizing a much longer argument. The presentation is extremely concise. Its logic is two-fold. First, God is creator, emphasized by the reference to God as πατήρ (v. 6).57 This is further demonstrated by the relative clauses: (1) ἐξ 53. Cf. Plato, Crito 44b–46a (i.e., Socrates’s refusal of Crito’s offer to help him escape by bribing officials). 54. The possibility remains that the so-called gods may not be gods, but may nevertheless exist; that is, they are real daimonia, but under no circumstance are they to carry the label of “god” or be worshiped as such. 55. In 1 Cor 8:4, Paul is citing some version of Exod 20:45; Isa 46; and Wis 13–14. 56. The εἴπερ phrase carries a concessive meaning, especially when the truth of a statement is implicitly denied or doubted (Smyth §2379). See also LSJ 2040, s.v. ὥσπερ, A.II. 57. “Father,” as Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 144) points out, denotes creator.

182

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

οὗ τὰ πάντα and (2) ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν.58 Both clauses emphasize that creation is good because God as Father is good and all things – including humans – are “in” and “from” him.59 Human error is evil’s only ingress.60 Like Philo and other first-century Jewish intellectuals, Paul restricts evil to the moral realm.61 Paul reflects this conviction not only by his complete avoidance of references to the devil and demons but also in his enumeration of the totality of creation’s polarities in Rom 8:38–39: “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate [χωρίζειν] us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”62 Χωρίζειν denotes the inextricability of God from creation and creation from God – the two are inseparable from each other in every aspect. 58. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 144. 59. Cf. Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. “Smoothly, powerfully, and seamlessly, the text (Genesis 1:1–2, 4), through formal devices of sequence, repetitions of key words, and the leitmotif of ‘Let there be … and there was …,’ produces ‘several theological meanings: that Elohim, alone, “at the beginning,” created a good ordered world; that He “separated” and hierarchically ordered the primordial mass into a “good” pattern; that the created world of nature is, as a result, a harmony; and that Elohim is Omnipotent and without rival’” (Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, The Beginning of Desire: Reflections on Genesis [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995], 3, citing Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts [New York: Schocken Books, 1979], 8). 60. yetzer ha tov and yetzer hara, Gen 6:5, 8:21. The “evil inclination” (yetzer hara) is personified as Satan in Second Temple Jewish texts (see above), Christianity, and Islam. Gottfried Reeg, comments on b. Ber. 19a (in which Satan disguises himself as a woman): “He visualizes carnal desire and can therefore be equated with the evil inclination. One difference, however, cannot be ignored: Satan is an independent figure, while the evil inclination is part of a human being. Like Satan the evil inclination is not evil in principle” (“The Devil in Rabbinic Literature,” Evil and the Devil, ed. I. Fröhlich and E. Koskenniemi, LNTS 481 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark], 71-83, here 79). 61. In Gig. 16, Philo writes, “So if you realize that souls and demons and angels are but different names for the same one underlying object, you will cast from you that most grievous burden, the fear of demons or superstition. The common usage of men is to give the name of demon to bad and good demons alike, and the name of soul to good and bad souls. And so, too, you also will not go wrong if you reckon as angels, not only those who are worthy of the name, who are as ambassadors backwards and forwards between men and God and are rendered sacred and inviolate by reason of that glorious and blameless ministry, but also those who are unholy and unworthy of the title” (translation Yonge). As Kaufmann states: “Biblical religion was unable to reconcile itself with the idea that there was a power in the universe that defied the authority of God and that could serve as an antigod, the symbol and source of evil. Hence, it strove to transfer evil from the metaphysical realm to the moral realm, to the realm of sin” (as cited in Hamilton, “Satan,” 5:987). Cf. Rom 10:6, ἄβυσσος, citing an Aramaic paraphrase of Deut 30:13. Cf. the entire section: Philo, Gig. 14–23. 62. Cf. 1 Cor 3:21–23. Jewett, Romans, 550. In 1 Cor 8:6 (καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς διʼ αὐτοῦ), Paul links creation to redemption. See Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 144.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

183

Serpent Paul refers to snakes four times in the undisputed letters: twice in Romans (ἑρπετόν, 1:23; ἀσπίς, 3:13) and twice in the Corinthian correspondence (ὄφις, 1 Cor 10:9; 2 Cor 11:3). The references in Romans are parts of his argument that humanity is sinful. In Rom 1:23, the snake is a stereotype expressing pagan idolatry (“and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles”). In Rom 3:13, the snake is a metaphor borrowed from the Psalms, where it symbolizes the human capacity for deceit (venom, like deceit, is transmitted by the mouth).63 The two references in the Corinthian correspondence reflect scriptural exegesis. (1) In 1 Cor 10:8–10, three allusions make Paul’s point that sinfulness leads to death.64 The second of these (10:9) involves snakes; it alludes to the 63. In Rom 3:13, Paul cites Pss 5:9 and 140:3: “‘Their throats are opened graves; they use their tongues to deceive.’ ‘The venom of vipers is under their lips.’” 64. The first example (1 Cor 10:8) alludes to the Israelite practice of sexual intercourse with Moabite women in Num 25 (i.e., worship of Baal of Peor), leading to the extermination of twenty-three or twenty-four thousand people. Paul records a death toll of 23,000, whereas Num 25:9 records 24,000. The third example (1 Cor 10:10) alludes to grumbling (γογγύζειν) by the Israelites that led to death by plague in 2 Sam 24:16–17 (cf. 1 Chr 21:12, 15). Contra Conzelmann (“no clear-cut distinction is to be made,” 1 Corinthians, 168), Paul distinguishes between “testing” (v. 9) and “grumbling” (v. 10). The “destroyer” in 1 Cor 10:10 (ὁ ὀλεθρεύων) is God’s agent of divine punishment. In 1 Chr 21:12, 15–16, this angel brings plague. See Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 73–75. Verse 10 contains the only New Testament reference to ὁ ὀλεθρεύων (cf. Acts Phil. 130). Johannes Schneider (“ὀλεθρεύω, κτλ,” TDNT 5:167–71, esp. 169–70) notes a possible connection to the proper name for a specific angel in later Jewish tradition (170). The figure originated as personification of the cause of plague (Exod 12:13, 23). Later this personification takes shape as an angel working on God’s behalf (2 Sam 24:16– 17; 2 Sam 24:16 LXX: καὶ ἐξέτεινεν ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ εἰς Ιερουσαλημ τοῦ διαφθεῖραι αὐτήν, καὶ παρεκλήθη κύριος ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ καὶ εἶπεν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ διαφθείροντι ἐν τῷ λαῷ Πολὺ νῦν, ἄνες τὴν χεῖρά σου· καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἦν παρὰ τῷ ἅλῳ Ορνα τοῦ Ιεβουσαίου). Cf. also Wis 18:25; Heb 11:28. The Chronicler refers to the figure as ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐξολεθρεύων ἐν πάσῃ κληρονομίᾳ Ισραηλ (1 Chr 21:12; cf. v. 15). With regard to “the sword of the Lord” (2 Sam 24:13–15; cf. 1 Chr 21:13–14), Japhet persuasively hypothesizes the multi-stage development of traditions including 4QSama in which a sword also appears (I and II Chronicles, 381). First Chronicles 21 begins with a reference to God as the satan – the figure prompting David to take a census. By this action, the satan exhibits flagrant reliance on human rather than God’s initiative. Second Samuel 24:1 reports that God’s anger prompted David, but the Chronicler replaces God’s anger with the satan (LXX, the devil: Καὶ ἔστη διάβολος ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ ἐπέσεισεν τὸν Δαυιδ τοῦ ἀριθμῆσαι τὸν Ισραηλ). See discussion of this passage above. The results of the census further infuriate God, who then offers the people three choices of punishment. They select plague, the action of which is thereby carried out by an avenging angel. Although the satan and the destroying angel are two distinct figures in this chapter of Chronicles, it is not difficult to imagine how Paul conflated them. Martin Dibelius identifies the angel of destruction as satan (Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus

184

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

Israelites testing God (πειράζειν) in Num 21:4–9, in response to which the Lord sent poisonous serpents and thus killed many: “We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents.” (2) In 2 Cor 11:3–5, Paul alludes to the serpent in the garden of Eden (Gen 3:13): “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” According to vv. 4–5, the serpent is a metaphor for a rival apostle: “For if someone comes and proclaims … a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.… I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.” Super-apostle qua snake leads the thoughts of the Corinthian church astray. In 2 Cor 11:13–14, Paul correlates this rival apostle with the satan. Paul characterizes him as the leader of the super-apostles – so deceitful that he disguises his very identity. Thus, the serpent in this passage refers to one or more opponents whom Paul accuses of deception. God of This World In 2 Cor 4:4–5, Paul argues that “the God of this aeon” (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) has blinded the minds of the ἄπιστοι. The identity of these victims is unclear.65 As a result of their blindness, Paul declares that they are perishing. ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου is typically interpreted as Satan. If correct, it is the only New Testament reference to Satan as a god. All six other references to ὁ θεός in 1 Cor 4:1–6 (not to mention the dozens of references in the disputed letters) refer to God.66 Arguments variously hinge on correlations with two other passages in Paul’s undisputed letters discussed above (i.e., 1 Cor 2:6, 8, “the rulers of this age” [οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου]; and 8:5, “so-called gods in heaven and on earth” [λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς]).67 In its context in the letter, 2 Cor 4:4–5 restates and develops the prior claim (3:14) that, under Moses, God hardened the [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909], 44–45). It is nevertheless clear that “the destroyer” is not the satan (or devil), but an agent of God bringing about plague. 65. They may be either non-Christians (cf. 1 Cor 6:6; 7:12–15; 10:27; 14:22–24) or adversaries (cf. their link to Satan in 11:13–15). 66. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 327. 67. Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 220. Cf. also John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11. Cf. Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 9th ed., KEK (Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1924).

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

185

“minds” (νοήματα) of the Israelites.68 This charge resembles Rom 11:7–8, in which Paul (citing Isa 29:10 [cf. 6:10] and Deut 29:3 [4]) argues that “God gave them [the Jews] a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see [ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν] and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”69 His point is the same in both passages: occasionally God prohibits people from discerning the truth.70 In 2 Cor 4:4 the ἄπιστοι are objects of this prohibition. As Frances Young and David Ford pointed out, John Chrysostom apprehended this meaning precisely.71 A typical objection to this interpretation is that God’s epithet “of this age” confines him to a single age and impugns his name through association with an age deemed evil (Gal 1:4). Yet this is not is a necessary corollary of the argument.72 Paul’s contemporaries distinguished between ‫הזה העולם‬ (the time before the advent of the Messiah) and ‫( הבא העולם‬the time after the advent of the Messiah). God ruled over both. Adapting this paradigm, Paul distinguished ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, the time before the return of Christ – and αἰὼν μέλλων, the future age initiated by Christ’s return.73 References to the αἰών are fairly frequent in the Corinthian correspondence. Paul refers to “the debater of this age” (1 Cor 1:20), “the wisdom of this age” (1 Cor 2:6), and “the rulers of this age” (2:6, 8). In Rom 16:25 and 1 Cor 2:7, he refers to multiple αἰῶνες, thus implying a long succession of aeons from the creation of the world to its final judgment.74 In Gal 1:4, Paul characterizes the present αἰών as πονηρός – a consequence of sin, not demonic forces.75 The presence of moral turpitude hardly implies that God does not continue to rule. On the contrary, his rule is even more apparent insofar as an 68. In 3:14, he refers to this hardening as a veil that still, he adds, covers their minds. I presume with Hans Dieter Betz that 2 Corinthians is a composite letter: 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). 69. Paul describes these opponents as “enemies of God” in Rom 11:28. Cf. Mark 8:17– 18; John 12:40. Both texts describe God darkening eyes of his people. 70. The Jewish Scriptures develop this theme extensively. Although God is always the source of the πώρωσις, it probably (paradoxically) denotes both divine causation and human accountability. See Jewett, Romans, 662. Given that Paul views blinding as one God’s paradigmatic features, it is difficult to imagine he also refers to God’s rival as doing so. 71. Frances M. Young and David F. Ford, Meaning and Truth in Second Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 115–17. Young and Ford take Chrysostom’s reading seriously. They take into account possible antiheretical reasons for Chrystostom’s interpretation but argue that he has good exegetical reasons for his interpretation. 72. Pace Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 327–28. 73. ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος is used interchangeably with ὁ αἰών; cf. ὁ ἐνεστὼς αἰών (Gal 1:4). 74. E.g., Phil 4:20, τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων; cf. Isa 60:15. 75. Cf. Rom 12:2, 17, 21; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 7:31; 10:11; Isa 60; 65:17–25; 2 Esd 7:50, 113; 1 En. 91:15–17.

186

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

amalgamation of evil suggests imminent judgment (1 Cor 10:11). God rules over this present αἰών as he ruled over all past αἰῶνες, and God will rule over all αἰῶνες to come. And, God’s rule covers both time and space. Αἰών has a spatial counterpart in κόσμος. As Young and Ford characterize him: God is every bit as much “of the world” as “of the heavens.” Demons Of the fifty-seven New Testament occurrences of demons, Paul mentions δαιμόνια only once. In 1 Cor 10:19–21, he appears to refer back to the nonexistent entities worshiped by pagans (i.e., “so-called gods,” λεγόμενοι θεοί, 1 Cor 8:4–6) as “demons”: What then do I imply? That food sacrificed to an idol or that an idol is of any import? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.76

In this passage, Paul asks his congregation whether idol sacrifices (i.e., meats) or idols possess existential value or meaning (τί οὖν φημι; ὅτι εἰδωλόθυτόν τί ἐστιν, ἢ ὅτι εἴδωλόν τί ἐστιν;). His answer is negative: they do not, and therefore anyone offering such sacrifices to such idols communes with demons (κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων) and ought therefore to refrain from the Lord’s table (v. 21). Does Paul here accept the existence of demons? According to Conzelmann, Paul alludes to the Song of Moses (Deut 31:30– 32:47) in this passage.77 Deuteronomy 32:17 LXX records that the Israelites “sacrificed to demons, not God – to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom their ancestors had not feared” (ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς, οἷς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν· καινοὶ πρόσφατοι ἥκασιν, οὓς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν). Synonymous parallelism in the first part of this passage suggests that demons are gods. The last line of the passage, however, denies their existence. These abhorrent things actually possess no existence: 76. See discussion of “so-called” gods above. “So-called” is a polite way of implying that they are nonexistent; cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.51; Aeschines, Epistle to Xenophon 7; Corp. herm. 2.14. The usage is repeated in 2 Thess 2:14. Pagan gods were commonly referred to as “demons” (e.g., Homer, Il. 5.438–41; 3.420). In v. 6 Paul specifies that for him only one god exists: ἀλλʼ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ. Cf. Paul’s use of “god of this world” in 2 Cor 4:3 and “god of the belly” in Phil 3:19. In light of 1 Cor 8:4–5, it is impossible to imagine that Paul accepts the reality of other gods, whether or not he leaves open the possibility (e.g., Gal 4:8–9). 77. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 173.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

187

They [the Israelites] made Him jealous with strange gods, With abhorrent things they provoked him. They sacrificed to demons, not God, To deities they had never known, To new ones recently arrived, Whom your ancestors had not feared. … They made me jealous with what is not god (οὐ θεῷ), Provoked me with idols.78

The passage illuminates not only 1 Cor 10:19–21, but also 1 Cor 8:4–6 (see above).79 The point is that whatever pagans might claim, Moses, as monotheist, denies the existence of other gods (i.e., through the negative formulation of the Shema with which Paul emphatically agrees). Elsewhere Paul calls them “beings that are by nature not gods” (τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς) – characterizing them as στοιχεῖα (“elements” or “principles”) that are “weak” (ἀσθενής) and “poor” (πτωχός; Gal 4:8–11). He views the problem as a category mistake. In short, what pagans worship as gods amount to no more than physical aspects of the material universe.80 Death In Romans, Paul personifies death as an evil force and power. Death occasionally punishes crimes as a just ruler, that is, based on the rule of law. When acting in obedience to God, it can assume the role of “destroyer” (ὁ ὀλοθρευτής, 1 Cor 10:10), a righteous slayer of sinners.81 Sometimes, however, death acts of its own accord, punishing people irrespective of God and the law.82 In Rom 5:14, Paul describes death as a hostile tyrant entering 78. LXX, Deut 32:17–21: ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς, οἷς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν· καινοὶ πρόσφατοι ἥκασιν, οὓς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. θεὸν τὸν γεννήσαντά σε ἐγκατέλιπες καὶ ἐπελάθου θεοῦ τοῦ τρέφοντός σε. καὶ εἶδεν κύριος καὶ ἐζήλωσεν καὶ παρωξύνθη δι᾽ ὀργὴν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ θυγατέρων καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Αποστρέψω τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ δείξω τί ἔσται αὐτοῖς ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων· ὅτι γενεὰ ἐξεστραμμένη ἐστίν, υἱοί, οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν πίστις ἐν αὐτοῖς. αὐτοὶ παρεζήλωσάν με ἐπ᾽ οὐ θεῷ, παρώργισάν με ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν· κἀγὼ παραζηλώσω αὐτοὺς ἐπ᾽ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπ᾽ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ αὐτούς. 79. Cf. also Rom 13, in which all authority derives from God such that any other spiritual entity would be at God’s mercy for its power. 80. Pace Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 172–73), who claims to catch Paul in a contradiction here. 81. A New Testament hapax legomenon, ὁ ὀλοθρευτής only occurs in Christian writings (cf. Heb 11:28; Acts Phil. 130). However, in Exod 12:23 (ὁ ὀλεθρεύων) and Wis 18:25 he is the one who carries out the divine sentence of punishment (BDAG 703, s.v. ὀλοθρευτής). 82. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 418.

188

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

through sin and exercising dominion from Adam to Moses.83 The purpose of the personification of death as a ruthless dictator in Rom 5:14 is not to substantialize but to mock death as the consequence of moral injustice over which God exercises ultimate domain. Paul “incarnates” death to narrate the story of its demise. As a corrupt ruler, death’s “reign,” like that of any corrupt mortal despot, is temporary even though it may feel interminable (1 Cor 15:54–55).84 Christ and his benevolent reign will soon overcome it. At Christ’s return, death will “die.” Sin Similarly, Paul occasionally characterizes ἡ ἁμαρτία (“sin”) as an oppressive force.85 Yet it too is strictly confined to the mortal realm. Sin is a human phenomenon proving itself, in light of Paul’s gospel, more nuisance than metaphysical horror. In his conclusion to the argument defending resurrection in 1 Cor 15, Paul offers his most terse explanation of the role of sin in the cosmos. It is a two-part definitional argument or ὑποτύπωσις.86 First, the sting of death is a mistake: τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία (v. 56); and, second, the “strength” or “ability” (δύναμις) of that mistake is “the law”: ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος. In this instance, “law” is metonymous with retributive justice – a criminal justice system based on punishment (rather than rehabilitation). Since all systems of justice based on this principle construe death as the ultimate punishment, retributive justice fuels fear of death – a fear that multiplies exponentially when laws are enforced by tyrants for whom punishment is not constrained by proof of guilt or proportion. This principle arises in 1 Cor 15 because it summarily refutes one of the opponent’s best arguments against resurrection. Since the body undergoes physical annihilation in death, some Corinthians argue against resurrection (esp. 1 Cor 15:12, 35).87 Paul counters that death is a reversible phenomenon of the mortal realm that, when Christ returns, will disappear 83. Fitzmyer notes Paul’s emphasis on the human dimension of this passage: “The phrase heis anthropos occurs twelve times in this paragraph, thus emphasizing its importance” (Romans, 411). 84. John Donne’s Holy Sonnet #10 (“Death, be not proud”) – published between 1617 and 1633 – beautifully captures this point. 85. Gal 3:22; 1 Cor 15:56; Rom 5:12, 13; 6:6, 7, 10, 12–14 et al. E.g., Rom 6:12: μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία…. 86. Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.40–44. See the excellent discussion in Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel. 87. Paul explains that death is merely an aspect of human life; it is, he says, “through a human being” (ἐπειδὴ γὰρ διʼ ἀνθρώπου θάνατος, καὶ διʼ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν, 1 Cor 15:21).

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

189

entirely (κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος, v. 54). Those who fall into a coma (κοιμᾶσθαι) will awaken. Paul himself “dies” every day (καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀποθνῄσκω, 15:31). Death has only limited power confined to the human realm. Death does not impede resurrection, let alone deserve recognition as a force equal and opposite to God. Angels / Ἄγγελοι Paul undoubtedly accepts that, just as a king has a court and officials, God has bands of celestial delegates, possibly arranged in hierarchies (2 Cor 12:2; cf. 1 Thess 4:16; Gal 1:8; 3:19; 4:14; 1 Cor 4:9; 6:3; 11:10; 13:1; 15:24; 2 Cor 11:14; Rom 8:38).88 That said, each of his nine references to these figures (listed next) highlights not their divine status, but their proximity to human beings with whom they are regularly paired. In the first example below, both angels and humans dwell “in the world” (i.e., κόσμος); in the second example, angels are beneath matters pertaining to human life. In three of the passages (##7–9), Paul reflects the widespread belief in angelic disguises. The Galatian churches welcome him as an angel (#8), the satan disguises himself as an angel (#7), and other evangelists are angels (#9).89 The only human being in the New Testament who deliberately disguises himself as his angel is Peter (Acts 12:6-11).90 88. This notion is greatly developed in Ephesians: 1:21; 2:2; 3:10; 6:12. Cf. Col 1:16; 2:10, 15; and 1 Pet 3:22. A hierarchy of wicked angels is present in Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4. 89. See Archie T. Wright, “Angels,” EDEJ 328–31. 90. See the appendix in Clare K. Rothschild, Paul in Athens: The Popular Religious Context of Acts 17, WUNT 341 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 147–53. According to Roy Yates, “The positive thought of the angel as the messenger of God, as found in the Gospels and Acts, is absent in Paul. Instead it is asserted that the saints shall judge angels. They are included in the list of evil potentates conquered by Christ and unable to separate us from the love of God, and they are involved in the giving of the Laws in a context that warns against the bitter enslavement that necessarily follows from the misuse of the Law. Finally, in his opposition to syncretistic teaching at Colossae, Paul refers to an actual cult of angels. This dangerous tendency places the angels alongside the other forces that threaten men” (“Powers of Evil,” 98). Satan disguising himself as a human is a central motif in the Testament of Job and Life of Adam and Eve. According to Gal 1:8 and 4:14, angels are humans acting as God’s messengers. See also Acts 14:15, in which Paul and Barnabas explicitly reject their perception as gods. In 2 Cor 11:12– 15, Satan disguises himself as an angel seeming, therefore, to be human. In biblical literature, “angels” are frequently human messengers: Gen 32:4; Deut 2:26; Judg 6:35; Isa 14:32; 44:26; Hag 1:13; Luke 9:25; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24; Matt 11:10. Paul agrees that angels observe what takes place on earth (1 Cor 4:9) and speak with a language (1 Cor 13:1) – human features. If Paul refers to human beings with the expression ἄγγελος, it might be a title he uses for those not meriting the title ἀπόστολος (both entities are “sent” with a pronouncement or message, cf. proximity of the two groups in 2 Cor 11:13–14). The parallelism of this passage suggests that false apostles disguise themselves as ἀπόστολοι of Christ as Satan (καὶ οὐ θαῦμα, αὐτός suggests he is first apostle of this group) disguises himself as a “messenger” (qua apostle) of “light” (qua

190

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

(1) “For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to humans.” (1 Cor 4:9) (2) “Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!” (1 Cor 6:3) (3) “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Cor 11:10) (4) “If I speak in the tongues of humans and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” (1 Cor 13:1) (5) “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.” (Gal 3:19) (6) “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers …” (Rom 8:38) (7) “And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2 Cor 11:14) (8) “… and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” (Gal 4:14; emphasis added) (9) “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8) Summation In his undisputed letters, Paul categorically denies the existence of a divine rival to God. His epithets “god of this age” (1 Cor 2:8), “so-called gods” (1 Cor 8:5), and “destroyer” (1 Cor 10:10) do not refer to the satan. The serpent in 2 Cor 11:3 does refer to the satan but as Paul’s human – not God’s divine – rival. Other expressions refer to God, human beings, the personification of an aspect of human existence, or even the absence of any challenger to God. God created a good universe – threats are either human or mistaken. Christ) (cf. Rom 2:19; 2 Cor 4:4, 6; Phil 2:15; 1 Thess 5:5). Furthermore, deemphasis of celestial angels in Paul’s letters may explain the conspicuous absence of angels in the Gospel of Mark. Where Mark mentions them, they are “holy messengers,” accompanying the Son of Man when he “comes in glory” (8:38; cf. 13:32). Those, like Peter (referred to as Satan five verses prior in 8:33), rejecting Jesus’s teaching about the necessity of suffering will be a source of shame before the Son of Man and these messengers when the Son of Man comes in glory. We infer from this passage that the messengers accept Jesus’s teaching about the necessity of suffering. Mark 13:32 specifies angels ἐν οὐρανῷ, suggesting there are “angels” not in heaven, i.e., on earth (e.g., Gal 1:8, 4:14).

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

191

The most formidable, apparent challenge to the perfection of creation is death, but even it will be reversed at the eschaton. Direct References As noted above, when the word ‫ שטן‬occurs in the Hebrew Bible, it refers to either a human or a divine agent. The Psalms portray the satan as a human figure. Second Temple Jewish pseudepigraphal and other parabiblical texts depict him as a malevolent deity. Given the uncertainty concerning Paul’s literary and theological reliance on Second Temple Jewish pseudepigraphal and other parabiblical texts, especially as compared with his indisputable reliance on the Psalms, and irrespective of the fact that the satan appears later than Paul as a celestial figure in the New Testament Gospels, the possibility arises that Paul’s references to the satan denote a human rather than a divine adversary.91 The following seven references in the undisputed letters are explored next: (1) 1 Thess 2:18; (2) 1 Cor 5:5; (3) 1 Cor 7:5; (4) 2 Cor 2:11; (5) 2 Cor 11:14; (6) 2 Cor 12:7; and (7) Rom 16:20. Satan in 1 Thessalonians In 1 Thessalonians, Paul refers to the satan twice. In 2:18 he describes this figure as the agent blocking his missionary progress. In 3:5, he uses the expression ὁ πειράζων (“the tempter” or “examiner”), which seems to refer back to the satan in 2:18. In 1 Cor 7:5, Paul uses πειράζειν to describe the action of the satan.92 “Examining” typifies satans in their prosecutorial role as legal or nonlegal adversary.93 To return to 1 Thess 3:5, because the satan jeopardizes his work in Thessalonica, Paul expresses impatience with him: “For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith lest somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor had been in vain [εἰς κενόν].” Paul uses the adjective κενός seven times in his undisputed letters, with respect to the potential undoing of his work. If converts go back on commitments 91. Three times in the New Testament Gospels (Mark 8:33 // Matt 16:23; Luke 22:31; Acts 5:3) the satan refers (or is otherwise linked) to Peter; twice the satan enters into Judas. 92. Cf. esp. 2 Cor 13:5; also 1 Cor 7:2, 5; 10:9, 13; Gal 4:14; 6:1. 93. The satan’s tempting in Mark and the devil’s tempting in Matthew and Luke (e.g., Matt 4:1; cf. Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2) postdate Paul’s usage. This verb also denotes ethical discourse in Paul’s letters. E.g., 1 Cor 10:9, 13; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 4:14; 6:1. Matthew and Luke (Q?) also prioritize its ethical application: Matt 6:13; 18:7; 26:41; Mark 14:38; Luke 11:4; 17:1; 22:40, 46; cf. 1 Tim 6:9. Cf. δοκιμάζειν Rom 1:28; 2:18; 12:2; 14:22; 1 Cor 3:13; 11:28; 16:3; 2 Cor 8:8, 22; 13:5; Gal 6:4; 1 Thess 2:4; 5:21.

192

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

to his gospel, his work (he says) will be erased. In each case the principle is the same: should other gospel preachers persuade his converts to revert to non-Pauline patterns of thought or action, Paul will consider his gospel profits negated.94 In 1 Thessalonians, the satan figure repeatedly blocks Paul from returning to visit his church (3:1–2). About this passage, Abraham J. Malherbe observes that the satan hinders Paul but not Timothy (3:2, 6).95 He also notes that satan only arises in letters to and from Corinth.96 It is difficult to imagine why a demonic spirit would hinder Paul but not Timothy, and why, if restricted to Paul, such a spirit would not plague him outside of Corinth. Such specificity suggests a human rather than a celestial obstruction. Satan in 1 Corinthians 5 In 1 Cor 5:5, Paul exhorts his addressees to hand over to the satan the member of the congregation in an incestuous relationship (πορνεία) with his stepmother. The purpose of this transfer, Paul says, is εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός (“ruination of the flesh”) – an action that is said to preserve the offender’s spirit on the day of the Lord (ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου, 5:5).97 In general, Paul uses the word σάρξ (and related formulas such as ἐν τῇ σαρκί) pejoratively. Sometimes σάρξ refers to circumcision (e.g., 94. (#1) 1 Thess 3:5: Paul sets up a hypothetical situation: if the congregation abandons faith, then Paul’s κόπος will be κενός. (#2) 1 Cor 15:10: Paul writes that God’s grace was not κενός to him, as proven by his hard work. (#3) 1 Cor 15:14: Paul hinges the efficacy of every believer’s faith on his resurrection claims (“and if Christ has not been raised, our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain”). (#4) 1 Cor 15:58: Paul argues that labor “in the Lord” is never κενός. (#5) 2 Cor 6:1: Paul refers to his work as the congregation’s acceptance of God’s grace, urging them not to fall away, and thereby nullify what was done. (#6) Gal 2:2: Paul states that he must go to Jerusalem to avoid having run or running εἰς κενόν, implying that the requirement of circumcision for Greeks will nullify his faith and (thus) his work. (#7) Phil 2:16: Paul claims that if the congregation remains faithful to “the word of life,” his work will not be erased. Some passages, such as Phil 2:16, utilize more than one expression. Paul uses the verb κενοῦν in similarly antagonistic settings. In Rom 4:14 he states that “faith is null and the promise is void” if those who adhere to the law are righteous. In 1 Cor 1:17, Paul argues that he deliberately avoids eloquence and wisdom when preaching the gospel so as not to cancel the power of the cross. In 1 Cor 9:15, the work theme surfaces in a rebuttal against whoever would “examine” Paul (9:3). Paul argues that his boast will be nullified if he makes a living by preaching the gospel. In 2 Cor 9:3, he wants the congregation to be ready with money for the collection so that his boasting in this regard will not be discounted. And, finally in Phil 2:7 – perhaps the citation of a hymn – Jesus empties himself of his power (becoming a slave). 95. Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 184. 96. Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 184. 97. Note that the verb παραδιδόναι in 1 Cor 5:5 is repeated in 1 Cor 11:23; each represents an act of betrayal taken by one member of the Jesus movement toward another.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

193

2 Cor 12:8; Rom 2:28; Gal 6:13), other times, to the (relative) insignificance of encounters with the historical Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor 9:1–2).98 In Philippians, Paul uses “flesh destruction” to refer to circumcision (κατατομή, “incision,” “mutilation,” Phil 3:2).99 In 1 Corinthians, the satan’s action of flesh destruction (εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός) may also represent circumcision. Recently, it has been demonstrated that circumcision reorganizes brain circuitry lowering sexual excitability and distractibility in men. This fact may explain the rite’s occasion at the onset of pubescence in many of the cultures requiring it. Biasing circumcised individuals toward sexual tractability reduces the frequency of extramarital sex, fortifying the social groups within which the rite is practiced.100 This scientific conclusion was recognized at the phenomenological level in antiquity.101 Philo argued that Moses required circumcision to curb male sexual desire, reduce lust, and decrease male pride over his procreative ability (QG 3.47).102 As a punishment for incest, such an interpretation makes sense in 1 Cor 5. Moreover, various educated first-century Jews viewed circumcision as expiatory (i.e., loss of blood).103 Paul may have endorsed such a school of thought in a prior phase of his career – when he was “preaching circumcision” (Gal 5:11).104 By the time of the Letter to the Galatians, he champions expiation “by the cross” as the exclusive means of salvation 98. E.g., Rom 1:3; esp. 8:3. 99. Paul’s opponents at this point in the letter (a probable fragment concluding in 3:11 or 4:9) appear to be Judaizing Christians. See Hans Dieter Betz, Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, WUNT 343 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 52. Contra Paul Holloway, Philippians, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 18–19. Cf. ἀποκόπτειν, “cut off [of eunuchs],” Gal 5:12. 100. Ronald S. Immerman and Wade C. Mackey, “A Biocultural Analysis of Circumcision,” Social Biology 44 (1997): 265–75; Christopher G. Wilson, “Male Genital Mutilation: An Adaptation to Sexual Conflict,” Evolution and Human Behavior 29 (2008): 149–64. 101. Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 144–46. 102. “Similarly, the Greeks would have found incomprehensible, ludicrous, and chilling the alien ideological milieu in which Philo could formulate a rationalization for the circumcision of children by an appeal to the alleged necessity for ‘excising pleasures’ and ‘banishing conceit.’ Circumcision for Philo was a surgical means of obtaining moral objectives through a deliberate numbing, desexualization, disinvigoration, and uglification of the body” (Frederick M. Hodges, “The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 [2001]: 375–405, here 387–88). 103. Cf. Gal 5:11, where Paul juxtaposes preaching circumcision with the cross of Christ as alternatives, i.e., two forms of expiation. 104. Paul suggests this interpretation by juxtaposing circumcision and the cross in a few passages. For example, the corollary in Gal 5:11 that failing to preach circumcision is “the offense of the cross” incurring persecution denotes the expiatory significance Paul placed on the cross as opposed to circumcision.

194

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

(cf. 1 Cor 1:18). He seems to have arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the stigma attached to circumcision among new-Jews.105 Immediately following his advice to hand over the man in 1 Cor 5, he refers to the Jewish celebration of Passover: “For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed [καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός],” suggesting the context of sacrificial atonement (1 Thess 5:23). Although he characterizes circumcision as unnecessary for those leading “lives that the Lord assigned and to which they were called by God” (1 Cor 7:17) – possibly as a concession to a rival in Corinth – he admits its utility in cases of flagrant sexual immorality.106 Since Paul no longer performs circumcision, he recommends that the church instead consult an apostle who does. Satan in 1 Corinthians 7 Responding to a question about the sexual intimacy appropriate to Christfollowers, Paul lays out some of his guiding principles in 1 Cor 7. Expectably, he affirms monogamy and argues that married men and women should not deprive each other of conjugal rights (7:5). Occasionally married couples may agree to abstinence, but only if the decision is mutual and for a limited time. Sexual deprivation, he argues, fosters infidelity except in the case of celibacy. Paul warns his addressees (just as he advises in 1 Cor 5:5) that erring with regard to marital fidelity exposes one to examination by the satan: ἵνα μὴ πειράζῃ ὑμᾶς ὁ Σατανᾶς. If one wishes to avoid such an examination, self-control is imperative (v. 5). What might such a trial imply? If references to “testing” by the satan in the Psalms constitute background, then by “trial” Paul implies a legal investigation. The satan acts as a prosecuting attorney, probing (πειράζειν) the accused.107 Guilt requires expiation. Although the cross covers most circumstances, additional expiation may be recommended in cases of extreme defilement subsequent to baptism (1 Thess 3:13; 5:23; Phil 1:10; 2:15). 105. Troy W. Martin, “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28,” JBL 122 (2003): 111–25. Paul’s conviction in the cross of Christ as the exclusive means of expiation is a position suggested in by Gal 6:12, 14, and the contrastive force of 5:11. 106. In Gal 2:7–9, Paul sums up his agreement with the church in Jerusalem. Peter will evangelize the “circumcised,” Paul, the “foreskins.” While this is usually interpreted to mean that Peter will take the gospel to the Jews and Paul to the non-Jews, it might imply that Peter will circumcise his converts but Paul will not, irrespective of their ethnic identity. See Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 81–83, 95–101. 107. See discussion above. In order to gird up Greeks too weak for this demand over time, Paul recommends supplementing Christian expiation with circumcision. See Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised, 143–73.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

195

Satan in 2 Corinthians 2 In 2 Cor 2:11, Paul states that he has forgiven the accused so that he may not be tricked or “taken advantage of” by the satan, adding that he is not ignorant of the satan’s νοήματα (ἵνα μὴ πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Σατανᾶ, οὐ γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὰ νοήματα ἀγνοοῦμεν).108 In the New Testament, νόημα occurs six times, all in Paul’s letters.109 Second Corinthians contains five of these six occurrences, each of which denotes a product of the activity of the νοῦς, the human mind and/or its thoughts or inner workings.110 Every occurrence connotes “wit,” “cleverness,” “cunning,” or “will.”111 As with the authors of Ben Sira, 2 Baruch, and 3 Maccabees, Paul uses νοῦς to refer to the will or inclination (νοήματα as its products).112 In 2 Cor 3:14, he draws a contrast between ministries of condemnation (e.g., old covenant and death) and justification (e.g., new covenant and the Spirit). He characterizes the ministry of condemnation as pertaining to the Israelites under Moses. Their νόημα was “hardened,” preventing them from seeing God’s glory.113 He also compares the νοήματα to Moses’s “veil” (Exod 34:33–35), such a shroud explaining the failure of these ministers to see God’s glory. Over the course of 2 Cor 3:7–4:4, sight deteriorates: it is hardened or veiled, until eventually the individual is blinded. God (“the god of this αἰών”) blots out their sight. Apart from 2:11, the only other occurrences of νόημα in 2 Corinthians arise in chapters 10–12. In 10:5, Paul claims to take the νόημα of his enemies captive to obey Christ. In 11:3, he uses νόημα in a double entendre, accusing his congregation of marital infidelity for allowing their νόημα to be seduced (φθαρῇ).114 Paul compares the perpetrators of this deed to the snake and he compares the victims to Eve.115 In sum, every reference to 108. The NRSV translates πλεονεκτεῖν as “to take advantage” in 2 Cor 7:2; 12:17, 18, and “to exploit” in 1 Thess 4:6, but “to outwit” in 2 Cor 2:11 as applied to the satan. 109. J. Behm and E. Würthwein, “νοέω, κτλ,” TDNT 4:948–1022, here 960–61. 110. 2 Cor 2:11; 3:14; 4:4; 10:5; 11:3. Νοήματα are occasionally metonymous with the νοῦς, although καρδία may also be considered the seat of the νοήματα. In Phil 4:7, Paul prays for the protection of νοήματα. 111. Its pejorative effect endures in the second century. Behm comments: “νόημα is also rare in the Christian lit. of the 2nd cent. It usually has the stamp of what is bad” (“νοέω, κτλ,” 4:961). Occurrence in Phil 4:7 may not be pejorative. 112. Cf. Sir 21:11; 2 Bar. 2:8; 3 Macc 5:30; cf. 15:14. 113. Such allusions to the Jewish Scriptures (e.g., Exod 4:21) were common. 114. The aorist suggests the corruption has occurred, warranting the pejorative expression. He accuses them of allowing their sincere and chaste νοήματα (11:3) to be “seduced” (ἐξαπατᾶν, Herodotus, 2.114) as Eve was by the serpent. Λογισμοί is synonymous with νοήματα and is likewise a pejorative expression; see 2 Cor 10:4; cf. Rom 2:15. In this example, the verb tense is crucial since his preference for a pejorative sense of the expression implies that Paul would not have referred to the νοήματα if they had not already been seduced. 115. Cf. Apoc. Mos. 16–18.

196

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

νόημα/νοήματα in 2 Corinthians denotes the nefarious thoughts of Paul’s human opponents. In the place within the human being where the gospel is contested, Paul’s opponents draw unnecessarily skeptical conclusions (i.e., νοήματα) – the wrong result. These data suggests that 2 Cor 2:11 refers to Paul’s (human) opponents. The satan is a threat unless the offending party (v. 5) is forgiven and reconciled – a circumstance closely resembling 1 Cor 5.116 He states that he has forgiven the offending party “for their sake” and “in the presence of Christ” (cf. σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, 1 Cor 5:4) in order not to be “swindled” or “surpassed” (πλεονεκτεῖν; cf. 2 Cor 7:2; 1 Thess 4:6; Paul uses this verb of human beings only) by the satan (μὴ πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ), adding that he is well aware of the satan’s νοήματα.117 If Paul had endorsed the existence of malevolent deities engaged in a cosmic battle against his gospel, it is unlikely that he would assign it a will or have characterized himself (as opposed to God) at war with it.118 What is more, New Testament celestial satans dwell in the desert (e.g., Matt 4:1; Mark 1:13), not cities. They have celestial powers rather than anthropomorphic traits. Typical actions include: demanding (Luke 22:31); rising up, dividing, casting out (Mark 3:23-26; Matt 12:26; Luke 11:18); binding (Luke 13:16); entering a human heart (Luke 22:3; John 13:27); filling a heart with malice (Acts 5:3); falling like lightning (Luke 10:18); and possessing power (Acts 26:18). That the satan in 2 Cor 2 possesses νοήματα reduces him to a human being. That he attempts to cheat or best Paul suggests that he is a rival evangelist in Corinth who has piqued Paul’s territorialism (cf. 2 Cor 10:13–18; Rom 15:17–21), just as he had in 1 Thess 2:18 (see above). Satan in 2 Corinthians 11 In 2 Cor 11:13-15, Paul compares his opponents – referred to as ψευδαπόστολοι – to the satan in their propensity for disguises (μετασχηματίζειν): “For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves 116. Contra Furnish, II Corinthians, 166: “In every case, then, the alleged similarities between 1 Cor 5:1–5 and 2 Cor 2:5–11 break down.” 117. To avert these plans, Paul recommends clemency (2 Cor 2:5–11; reaffirmation of love, v. 8; and forgiveness, v. 10). On Paul’s leniency in 2 Corinthians, see Donald D. Walker, Paul’s Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:1): Populist Ideology and Rhetoric in a Pauline Letter Fragment, WUNT 2/152 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 118. Given the rarity of the Greek word νοήματα, we speculate that its near homophone νοματά may have commended Paul’s use. Cf. esp. 2 Cor 3; Sir 21:11. The variant σώματα in 2 Cor 2:11 does not make much sense in the context, but it recognizes a problem with νοήματα and could apply to the occurrence of νοήματα in Phil 4:7.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

197

as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.” When Paul exclaims, οὐ θαῦμα (“No wonder!” 11:14), he implies the inevitability of the apostles’ deception based on their office as “servants” to the satan (οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ).119 As in Phil 1:1, οἱ διάκονοι are human gospel-assistants working alongside ἐπίσκοποι in churches founded by apostles. In 2 Cor 3, Paul dubs the διακονία of the satan’s ministers a ministry of “death” (3:7), contrasted with Paul’s διακονία of “the new covenant” (3:6) and “the spirit” (3:6, 8). In 2 Cor 11:15, Paul links the work of the satan and his ministers to their fate: “their end will match their deeds” (τὸ τέλος ἔσται κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν) – a situation that does not appear hopeful.120 If the ministers of the satan are rivals of Paul, then satan is their leader. He and his deacons pose a challenge to Paul and his deacons. The satan himself may be a Pharisee – that is, a credentialed Jewish lawyer (literally “adversary,” “prosecuting attorney”) with either self- or institutionally-appointed jurisdiction to arbitrate and enforce Mosaic law. In 2 Cor 5:21 he refers to himself as God’s righteousness: ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.121 In 2 Cor 3:9, Paul typifies his “ministry of righteousness” as more glorious than the “ministry of death” (v. 7) or “condemnation” (v. 9) of his lawinsistent (i.e., circumcising) rivals. Since he represents the ministry of righteousness, those “disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness” (11:15) are not just his human opponents, but his impersonators and copycats.122 Satan in 2 Corinthians 12 In 2 Cor 12:7, Paul states that God has given him (ἐδόθη) an ἄγγελος of satan in the form of a σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί. He reasons that it was given to him so that he does not become overconfident (ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι).123 Σκόλοψ can refer to anything sharp including a “barb,” “thorn” (cf. Num 33:55), 119. The satan is ψευδαπόστολος par excellence. 120. First Thessalonians 2:16 (ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος) may imply that this has already happened. 121. Cf. 1 Thess 3:1–5, in which Paul shifts from first-person plural to first-person singular, implying that by “we” he often means “I.” 122. Καὶ οὐ θαῦμα, αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Σατανᾶς μετασχηματίζεται εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός. Satan disguises himself as different human beings in T. Job 6:4; 17:2; 23:1; 20:5. Cf. T. Reu. 5:6 (fallen angels disguised as men). Such behavior is hardly atypical of a spiritual entity. See Spittler, “Testament of Job,” 1:842 n. 6c. 123. I.e., as his opponents have, on his reckoning, become. Ὑπερ-αίρωμαι is a sarcastic jibe at his opponents to whom he refers in this passage as ὑπερ-λίαν (2 Cor 11:5; 12:11).

198

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

hook (e.g., fishing hook), stick, or stake. Paul says that this element was given to “batter” or “beat” (κολαφίζειν) him.124 Κολαφίζειν probably implies a sharp object (traditionally a “thorn”) such as a rod, stake, or pale.125 When Paul begs God to remove it, he is told that he is stronger when “weak” (i.e., reliant on God, 12:8–9). Both the ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ and the σκόλοψ raise questions for the interpretation of this passage. The first question involves the manuscript witnesses. Σατανᾶ (genitive) is not attested in every witness. If it is correct, then satan (here anarthrous) possesses an “angel”126 or “messenger.”127 However, some significant witnesses, including ‫ א‬2 Ac D1 K L P Ψ, attest ἄγγελος Σαταν (nominative). If Σαταν is the correct reading, then the satan does not possess an angel or messenger (or minister, cf. 11:15), but is himself one. Although witnesses that read Σατανᾶ are more persuasive, the variant reflects a degree of confusion over Paul’s intention, possibly related to its anarthrous form. Of the seven occurrences of σατανᾶς in the undisputed letters, this is the only occurrence omitting the definite article. Names of individuals sometimes omit the definite article.128 Appellatives (e.g., titles of official persons, such as a king), treated like proper names, may also omit the article (i.e., “Counsel,” or in this case “Adversary”), especially if the noun in the genitive case is a name.129 The variant may thus suggest that some early readers understood Satan as a name or, perhaps, a nickname: “messenger, that is, the one known as Satan.”130 124. Cf. 1 Cor 4:11; Matt 26:67. 125. NRSV “torment.” In 2 Cor 11:25 Paul claims to have been “beaten with rods” (ἐρραβδίσθην) three times. 126. Since most angel names are Hebrew, Satan meets this qualification also. Gabriel (Dan 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26), Michael (Dan 10:13; 12:1; Rev 12:7-8), Abbadon/Apollyon (Rev 9:11), and Beelzebub/Beelzebul (2 Kgs 1:2, 16; Matt 10:25; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15). Among New Testament references, see Matt 4:10; Mark 1:13; Luke 22:3; Rom 16:20; 2 Cor 11:14; Rev 12:9. 127. Cf. opposite circumstance in Num 22, which describes the angel blocking Balaam’s donkey’s path as his satan. 128. Smyth §1136, “Names of persons and places are individual and therefore omit the article unless previously mentioned (1120 b) or specially marked as well known: Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος Thucydides an Athenian T. 1.1, τοὺς στρατιώτας αὐτῶν, τοὺς παρὰ Κλέαρχον ἀπελθόντας, εἴα Κῦρος τὸν Κλέαρχον ἔχειν their soldiers who seceded to Clearchus, Cyrus allowed Clearchus to retain X. A. 1.4.7, ὁ Σόλων D. 20.90, οἱ Ἡρακλέες the Heracleses P. Th. 169b.” 129. Smyth §1140, “Several appellatives, treated like proper names, may omit the article: βασιλεύς the king of Persia (ὁ βασιλεύς is anaphoric (1120 b) or refers expressly to a definite person). Titles of official persons: πρυτάνεις the Prytans, στρατηγοί the Generals. Names of relationship, etc.: πατήρ father, ἀνήρ husband, γυνή wife.…” Also Smyth §1147, “When the genitive dependent on a substantive is a proper name: μετὰ Εὐβοίας ἅλωσιν after the capture of Euboea T. 2.2, and μετὰ τὴν Λέσβου ἅλωσιν after the capture of Lesbos 3. 51. A preceding genitive thus often takes the place of the article: διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος by reason of the extent of time T. 1.1.” 130. Cf. Luke 1:26, ὁ ἄγγελος Γαβριήλ.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

199

The second question involves the history of research. A long history of interpretation connects the satan in this passage with one of Paul’s (human) opponents. John Chrysostom argued that the “thorn” and “angel of Satan” refer to Paul’s opponents in 2 Timothy, specifically Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim 2:17 and 4:14, respectively).131 Robert Tasker supports this interpretation, adding that these opponents were the source of Paul’s low self-esteem (ὑπεραίρειν).132 T. Y. Mullins identifies the σκόλοψ as “a specifically obnoxious member” of Paul’s group of opponents in Corinth, arguing that any Jewish opponent would have recognized the characterization “thorn in the flesh” as a reference to the human foe from Num 33:55 and Ezek 28:24.133 Margaret Thrall argues that by characterizing an ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ as a σκόλοψ and his action as κολαφίζῃ, Paul refers to a person rather than an illness or a psychological condition.134 She maintains that the most natural reading of the ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ is as a single personal agent, citing Michael S. Barré’s three points: (1) that 12:7 is framed by two lists of physical trials; (2) that Paul uses κολαφίζειν to denote violent treatment by an enemy in 1 Cor 4:11; and (3) that the effect of Paul’s “beating” is weakness, suggesting “rough treatment at the hands of an enemy” (cf. 1 Cor 4:11).135 Noting Chrysostom’s list of specific human opponents, ultimately she remains unpersuaded: “And if this was so, and the singular of σκόλοψ and ἄγγελος is to be taken seriously, the implication would be that 131. Hom 1 Cor. 26.2 (PG 61:577–78; NPNF1 12:400). 132. Hence, the wordplay. R. V. G. Tasker, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 176. Similarly, W. Bieder, “Paulus und seine Gegner in Korinth,” TZ 17 (1961): 319–33; Johannes J. Thierry, “Der Dorn im Fleische,” NovT 5 (1962): 301–10; and, Michael L. Barré, “Qumran and the ‘Weakness’ of Paul,” CBQ 42 (1980): 216–27. Thierry argues that his opponents call Paul a “servant of Satan,” so Paul is merely hurling the insult back (11:13–15). 133. Terence Y. Mullins, “Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh,” JBL 76 (1957): 299–303, esp. 302. 134. Margaret Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1994–2000), 2:812. Furnish, however, favors an interpretation of σκόλοψ as a disease or other non-human type of affliction because Paul’s opposition forms a group in contrast to the individual connoted by the σκόλοψ/ἄγγελος. Rudolf Bultmann combines the concept of pain and an evil deity as follows: “Als eine Gegenmacht, die sich dem Paulus in den Weg stellt, wird das Leiden als ἄγγελος σατανᾶ bezeichnet, also als eine Äußerung des gottfeindlichen Kosmos, der auch den Glaubenden bedroht und verführt” (Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, ed. Erich Dinkler, KEK [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976], 226–28). Bultmann also makes clear that however one interprets the “thorn,” it is in the service of God: “Freilich wird durch das ἵνα μὴ … ἐδόθη μοι schon gesagt, daß das Leiden und also auch der Satan im Dienst des κύριος, bzw. Gottes steht. Letztlich ist es also Gott selber, der in der Gegenmacht begegnet – ein Satz, der freilich nicht als allgemeine Wahrheit gewußt und angewandt werden, sondern nur im Kampf mit dem Leiden, bzw. mit sich selbst gefunden werden kann” (227). Cf. Hans-Josef Klauck, 2. Korintherbrief, NEchtB (Würzburg: Echter, 1986). 135. Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2:813.

200

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

Paul has been burdened with one major opponent who has been continually dogging his tracks for some considerable length of time.”136 In the end, Thrall deems this conclusion implausible on the grounds of intercanonical coherence. She writes: “No such single opponent makes an appearance either in the letters or in Acts.”137 We will return to this point below. The passive ἐδόθη (v. 7) suggests that God is the source of the σκόλοψ/ ἄγγελος, clear because its aim is revelation of divine power (δύναμις). Both the σκόλοψ and ἄγγελος are, thus, components of God’s plan of salvation – whatever their precise manifestation in Paul’s life may be (σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, 12:7).138 The problem σκόλοψ/ἄγγελος causes for Paul is not catastrophic, even if he would have preferred not to deal with it (2 Cor 12:8). His wider concern in this passage is certainly the credibility of his visions and their applicability to his position as apostle (2 Cor 12:1–7). It seems that the σκόλοψ qua ἄγγελος doubted Paul’s visions.139 In vv. 11–13 he expresses regret over ever acknowledging inferiority to these antagonists. Alleging that his addressees forced him to take that position, he boldly asserts his mistakenness in light of clear signs to the contrary (12:12). The position Paul takes in this passage resembles 1 Cor 9:6: “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” In this verse, Paul specifies the identity of those who oppose him as οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς (1 Cor 9:6). This identification in 1 Cor 9 may help us to discern the identity of the satan in 2 Cor 12 and elsewhere in Paul’s letters. Romans Romans 16:20 is the only other passage in which the satan arises in Paul’s undisputed letters. The authorship of 16:17–20 is disputed. The passage is replete with non-Pauline terminology.140 Four observations suffice to explain its position in the present argument. First, the writer urges his congregation to keep a watchful eye on those who incite dissension.141 He warns that such people are not servants of Christ but instead serve their own appetite, using smooth talk and flattery to 136. Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2:812. 137. Thrall, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2:812. 138. Barré compared this passage with 1QH 2:22 (“Qumran and the ‘Weakness’ of Paul,” 223), although as Thrall notes the parallel does not mention weakness (Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2:813). 139. See n. 138 above, the position held by Robert Tasker. 140. Jewett, Romans, 986. 141. Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, σκοπεῖν τοὺς τὰς διχοστασίας καὶ τὰ σκάνδαλα παρὰ τὴν διδαχὴν ἣν ὑμεῖς ἐμάθετε ποιοῦντας, καὶ ἐκκλίνετε ἀπ’ αὐτῶν.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

201

deceive.142 In the face of such a threat, Paul exhorts the addressees to be wise and uncontaminated;143 he encourages them that they will not have to endure for very long because God will soon crush the satan beneath their feet.144 The passage alludes to Gen 3:15. The concluding blessing that Paul typically offers (cf. 1 Thess 5:23; Rom 15:33; cf. Heb 13:20) is formulated as a prognostic curse (15:33).145 As in 2 Cor 12, the satan functions as an instrument of God’s providence. The passage correlates the satan with those human opponents attempting to deceive the addressees. To paraphrase the entire passage: watch out for those who try to deceive you; God will quell the opposition. Second, the phrase ἐξαπατῶσιν τὰς καρδίας τῶν ἀκάκων closely resembles Paul’s comment in 2 Cor 11:3 (ὡς ὁ ὄφις ἐξηπάτησεν Εὕαν ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτοῦ). The verb “to deceive” (ἐξαπατᾶν) also occurs in Rom 7:11, but the context of a deceiver and a simple-minded victim matches the latter passage exactly. In 2 Cor 11:3 the “snake” refers to Paul’s opponent(s) in Corinth. Thus, the parallel in 2 Cor 11 also suggests Paul’s human opponents. Third, according to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, this passage interprets “the serpent of Genesis as the satan, the personification of all evil, disorder, dissension, and scandal in the community.”146 Fitzmyer argues that the false teachers are under Satan’s influence, citing 2 Cor 11:14–15.147 Yet different from 2 Cor 11:15, in which the plural αὐτῶν foretells the demise of satan’s ministers (ὧν τὸ τέλος ἔσται κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν), Rom 16:20 specifies the demise of only one being, the satan qua snake. He (singular) will be crushed in the eschatological reversal of the fall at the return of Christ. Fitzmyer interprets the satan as the personification of all evil and assumes a celestial satan in order to move from the single figure of the satan in Rom 16:20 to multiple false teachers as in Rom 16:17 and 2 Cor 11:14–15. If, however, one does not presume a celestial satan, then Rom 16:20 predicts that the serpent of Genesis qua the satan – even, following Fitzmyer, as the personification of all evil – influences the false teachers from within their ranks. According to the writer, the addressees need not fear because he will soon be subdued. 142. Οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ δουλεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ, καὶ διὰ τῆς χρηστολογίας καὶ εὐλογίας ἐξαπατῶσιν τὰς καρδίας τῶν ἀκάκων. 143. Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς σοφοὺς εἶναι εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν, ἀκεραίους δὲ εἰς τὸ κακόν. 144. Ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν ἐν τάχει. 145. This is particularly true if the Greek manuscripts (such as A, 365, 630) that read the optative συντρῖψαι are correct. 146. Fitzmyer, Romans, 746–47. 147. Fitzmyer, Romans, 746–47.

202

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

Fourth, while rejecting the authenticity of this passage, Robert Jewett draws attention to the bellicose imagery in Rom 16:20, which also suggests human rather than celestial engagement: “The characteristic early Christian phrase, ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (“but the God of peace”), appears at the climax of the interpolation with a definition antithetical to that in 15:33. Instead of referring to mutuality and coexistence between ethnic groups within the church, this passage promises the kind of peace that follows a holy war that annihilates opponents.”148 Summation Different from texts such as Luke 10:18 in which a heavenly adversary is depicted as falling from the heavens, no reference to the satan in Paul’s letters necessarily implies a celestial figure. In none of Paul’s references does the satan possess any definitively other-worldly characteristic or power. On the contrary, he behaves – as observed by commentators on the individual letters – like a typical terrestrial satan of the Jewish Scriptures, blocking, impeding, testing, and assaulting his human subject, like the quintessential modern prosecuting attorney. SATAN

AS

SOBRIQUET

If the satan refers to a human opponent of Paul, then it is most likely a nickname for a Jewish rival in Corinth. The definite article denotes one person.149 Nicknames fit well within Paul’s corpus-wide invective, which also features slang, puns, and other sometimes crude expressions for those he perceives as denying his authority and hindering his progress (e.g., οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι [2 Cor 11:5] is just one example).150 As noted above, Pagels argues 148. Jewett, Romans, 994. Jewett points to Pss 110, 8, and 91 as Jewish literary background. Examples from the Greek and Roman contexts include the great frieze of the Pergamon temple and actions taken by victorious gladiators in the arena (placing a foot on the neck of a vanquished opponent). Jewett does not back away from the violence of the passage: “The choice of the verb συντρίβω (“shatter, crush”) leaves no doubt about the violent means required to subdue the church’s enemies. The word is used in connection with mistreating people, beating them severely, bruising them or annihilating them” (994). Although the verb appears frequently in the context of holy wars, it always implies that a human opponent is defeated. 149. In 1 Cor 16:9, Paul states that he has many “adversaries” (ἀντικείμενοι). However, in 2 Cor 12:15 he knows only one satan with many ministers. John Chrysostom also reads 2 Cor 12 as if Paul had one opponent in mind. 150. Galatians is rife with such expressions. Paul’s puns on circumcision are particularly incisive; see esp. 3:3; 5:4, 7, 12, 15; and 16–21. Paul also uses a name pun (on “Onesimus”) in Phlm 11 and allegory (Sarah and Hagar) in Gal 4:21–31.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

203

that Satan was first invoked by Jews to characterize other Jews whose opinions they did not share.151 Håkan Bengtsson and Matthew A. Collins discuss the use of nicknames for opponents in the Dead Sea Scrolls.152 In these texts nicknames act as transparent labels with messages for insiders: “In this manner they [sobriquets] constitute an ‘insider’ terminology, commenting upon individuals and groups by means of evaluative labels and demonstrating in no uncertain terms the position taken with respect to them by those doing the labeling.”153 Since the effect of nicknames relies on their transparency, the rival in Corinth whom Paul dubs the satan would most likely have spoken Aramaic. That the satan impedes Paul’s but not Timothy’s return from Corinth to Thessalonica, “destroys the flesh,” and resembles a “thorn in the flesh” in Corinth154 all suggest that Paul uses the satan as a nickname for a circumcising (“flesh”) rival in Corinth.155 Moreover, we can infer that his addressees understood the identity of the person to whom he referred, much as they understood whom Paul meant when he referred to Peter as Cephas, the only other Semitic nickname Paul uses.156 Paul’s references to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Christ,” and “Jesus Christ” show that he uses names, titles, and the two together interchangeably. Like ὁ χριστός, ὁ σατανᾶς functions in Paul’s letters as a nickname indicating a role.157 As a nickname, it also resembles his references to Κηφᾶς insofar as both are Greek Semitisms, with final sigmas rendering Hebrew nouns as Greek masculine proper nouns.158 151. Pagels, Origin of Satan, 47; cf. 65–66, 150, 179. 152. Matthew A. Collins, The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, LSTS 67 (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 22; Håkan Bengtsson, What’s in a Name? A Study of Sobriquets in the Pesharim (Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 2000), 37. Collins demonstrates the popularity of both positive and negative sobriquets in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Drawing on “labeling theory,” he shows that sobriquets evolved into titular forms from scriptural typologies. 153. Collins, Use of Sobriquets, 22; following Bengtsson (What’s in a Name?, 39) on the terminology. 154. Of the passages in which Paul refers to the satan, both 1 Cor 5:5 and 2 Cor 12:7 depict this figure as harming “flesh.” 155. Cf. 2 Cor 3:6 on letter vs. spirit and above discussion. 156. “Pending further evidence, we may conclude that, ‘Cephas’ was a nickname bestowed on Simon by Jesus” (Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994]; repr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000, 41). 157. See Walter Grundmann et al., “χρίω, κτλ.,” TDNT 9:493–580, esp. 527–80. 158. With very close valuations according to rudimentary gematria: ΠΕΤΡΟΣ (755), ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ (753). Since Πέτρος, the Greek equivalent of Κηφᾶς, was not a Greek proper noun, Greeks would probably have heard it as a sobriquet too; see Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 269. Although Paul does not necessarily exploit the etymology of the name Πέτρος (contrast Matt 16:18), the interchangeability of Κηφᾶς and Πέτρος in his letters suggests he knows it. For Paul’s interest in etymological significance of names, see Phlm 11.

204

C. K. ROTHSCHILD

Taking all of the evidence together, the most likely candidate for Paul’s satan is Peter. Similar to Jubilees in which the enemy is referred to as both Mastema (“animosity,” not a proper noun) and “Satan” (the latter as both sobriquet and pun), Paul refers to Peter as both Κηφᾶς (“rock”) and ὁ σατανᾶς.159 Κηφᾶς (‫ )כיפא‬constitutes a double entendre based on its two meanings: (1) “foundation stone” or “corner stone”; and (2) “impediment,” “trap,” or “snare” (i.e., “stumbling stone,” Isa 28:16; 8:14). For Paul, the “foundation” (see 1 Cor 15:5) has become an impediment (cf. Rom 9:32– 33).160 Paul invariably knew Greek synonyms for the satan (adversary);161 he must, therefore, have selected the Aramaic noun ha-satan for its unique relevance for the individual addressed.162 Early reception history provides a strong endorsement for this interpretation insofar as Jesus refers to Peter as the satan in Mark 8:33.163 In turn, Peter may have had a nickname for Paul – perhaps paulus (“least,” “small,” “few”), denying him the coveted title (and privileges) of an ἀπόστολος. If Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25–29), 159. The only difference in Paul’s letters is that he includes the Greek translation of the name (Greek, Πέτρος “rock”). 160. By embedding a few words from Isa 8:14 into Isa 28:16, Paul effectively shifts his own blame (and source of shame, Rom 1:16; cf. Isa 28:16) for the delay of the parousia to the failed Jewish mission. Highlighting in the chart below demonstrates how the passage in Romans borrows from chapters 28 (underline) and 8 (italics) in Isaiah. The Greek word λίθος links the two passages (double underline). The foundation stone has become a stumbling stone. Ἰδοὺ τίθημι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. (Rom 9:33) διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως λέγει κύριος ᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ. (Isa 28:16) καὶ ἐὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ᾖς, ἔσται σοι εἰς ἁγίασμα, καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι· ὁ δὲ οἶκος Ιακωβ ἐν παγίδι, καὶ ἐν κοιλάσματι ἐγκαθήμενοι ἐν Ιερουσαλημ. (Isa 8:14) 161. Ἀντίδικος, κατήγορος, ἐπιβουλευτής; verb, ἀντικεῖσθαι may be used substantivally (e.g., 1 Cor 16:9; Phil 1:28). Cf. also Gal 5:17, in which πνεῦμα and σάρξ “oppose” each other. Romans 2:15 refers to self-accusing thoughts (οἱ λογισμοὶ κατηγορούντοι), that is, the accuser is within the human self. Cf. also Luke 13:17 (“opponents put to shame” when woman’s bondage to Satan is loosed); 21:15; 2 Thess 2:4. 162. The assumption is that the word gets back to Peter. First Timothy 5:14 clarifies the role of its “adversary” in 1:10 as a one teaching that which “contradicts” or “opposes” “sound doctrine” (καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται). 163. The physical and metaphysical types are never clearer than when they are inadvertently confused in Mark 8:33. In Mark 1:13 the satan is a nefarious metaphysical character. Perhaps references to the satan in Mark 3:23, 26 and 4:15 also have a supernatural referent; presently, however, Mark’s treatments of the satan are a desideratum of scholarship, still in need of thorough investigation on their own terms. The writer wishes to show Jesus reprimanding (for Peter’s presuming leadership too soon) but not demonizing Peter. Matthew’s adoption of the pericope (16:23) backs this interpretation.

ΣΑΤΑΝΑΣ AS SOBRIQUET IN THE UNDISPUTED LETTERS OF PAUL

205

the nickname paulus (Latin) might, like Cephas (Hebrew), have had a sting for the recipient largely undetectable to outsiders. In this case, Paul’s statement, “I am the least of the apostles” (1 Cor 15:9, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων ὃς οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος, διότι ἐδίωξα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ) would constitute a counter-argument based on his sobriquet.164

CONCLUSION This essay demonstrates that references to the satan in Paul’s undisputed letters warrant consideration on their own terms – apart from later occurrences in the four Gospels and other early Christian texts. Importing adversary mythologies across New Testament texts results in the unwarranted deification of Paul’s satan figure, generating the belief that a single celestial adversary going by multiple names miserably vexed the early church.165 Close examination of the evidence shows that Paul’s cosmology contains no rival to God. Isolated examination of his references to a satan suggests instead a context similar to that found in the Psalter, in which Peter plays the role of Paul’s prosecuting attorney. Lewis University

Clare K. ROTHSCHILD

164. Cf. 1 Cor 1:17. For Matt 5:19 viewed as anti-Pauline, see Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49), Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 188, esp. n. 150. 165. For example, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, whose thesis about Paul’s reliance on Stoicism could profit greatly from the absence of the Satan mythology, rather embraces it in a move that is incoherent in terms of the system he is building (Cosmology and the Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 95–96).

11 MOVING BEYOND THE IMPASSE IN THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

This essay proposes that an approach of neutrality as to the authorship of Ephesians is not an arbitrary evasion of critical responsibility. The internal and external attestation for its Pauline authorship is unassailable. But ancient tradition cannot be proven correct. And yet neither can the case against Pauline authorship be presumed as an assured result of critical scholarship by a consensus of contemporary scholars. Most consider Ephesians deuteroPauline. But the strength of the consensus is not nearly as imposing as often assumed.1 Although I recently completed the writing of a modest commentary on the book, I cannot claim to have surveyed all the staggering number of commentaries on Ephesians.2 Raymond Brown estimated the consensus as about 80%, but Harold W. Hoehner’s figure of 51% seems more realistic.3 Most critical commentaries from the late nineteenth through the twentieth century – continental, British, and North American; Protestant and Catholic – denied the tradition of Pauline authorship. But since Markus Barth challenged the growing critical consensus, an increasing number of New Testament scholars have defended it, including more than half the major Ephesians commentaries published so far in the twenty-first century.4 The 1. So Henry J. Cadbury (in “The Dilemma of Ephesians,” NTS 5 [1958–1959]: 91–102, esp. 93), who accepted the consensus position. 2. George Lyons, “Ephesians,” in Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, by George Lyons, Robert Smith, and Kara Lyons-Pardue, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2019). 3. See Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 620; and Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 6–20. Hoehner’s list attempts to be comprehensive of the major scholarly defenses and denials of the Pauline authorship of Ephesians from 1519 through 2001. I attempt only to supplement his list through 2015. 4. Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1–3, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 4–50; Hoehner, Ephesians, 2–61; William W. Klein,

208

G. LYONS

commentaries that deny strict Pauline authorship treat it as the work of an anonymous late first-century member of “a Pauline school.”5 Charles Talbert, surveying the complexity of ideas of authorship in antiquity, concludes that Ephesians would be judged deutero-Pauline by modern standards. But because it is “in the canon and part of canonical Paul, [its] religious authority for the church is unaffected by issues of authorship.”6 Bonnie Thurston accepts the arguments against Pauline authorship but maintains that Ephesians “represents the apex of Pauline thought.”7 THE UNRESOLVED DEBATE The Tradition Ephesians claims to have been written by Paul, who is identified as “an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (1:1).8 This is identical to 2 Cor 1:1 and Col 1:1 and similar to 1 Cor 1:1 and 2 Tim 1:1 (see Gal 1:1). His name reappears in the letter in 3:1, much as it does in 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:2; Col 1:23; 2:18; and Phlm 9. And like his other letters, its rhetorical structure conforms for the most part to Hellenistic epistolary conventions. Both orthodox (e.g., Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, Hermas, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria) and heretical (e.g., Ophites, Valentinians, Basilideans, Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi) authors from the second century onward presumed Paul wrote Ephesians. It was recognized as a letter by Paul in the second century canons of Marcion (as “Laodiceans”) “Ephesians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, rev. ed., 13 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 12:19–173, esp. 21–33; Ben W. Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 223–24; Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 46–50; Frank Thielman, Ephesians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 1–5; Thomas M. Winger, Ephesians, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2015), 21–77. 5. Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 270; similarly Jean-Noël Aletti, Saint Paul Épître aux Éphésiens, EBib 42 (Paris: Gabalda, 2001), 31–32; Gerhard Sellin, Der Brief an die Epheser, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008). 6. Charles Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 7–11, esp. 11. 7. Bonnie Thurston, Reading Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the New Testament (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2007), 84–87, esp. 87. 8. All New Testament translations are my own, although I have obviously referred to numerous English translations.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

209

and the Muratorian Canon. It was included in the early Latin and Syriac translations of Paul’s letters.9 The Challenges Despite undeniably strong internal and early external attestation of Ephesians as Pauline, continental critical scholars during the eighteenth century began to challenge the tradition.10 During the nineteenth century, F. C. Baur argued on the basis of internal criteria that only four letters – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians – were authentic. Some of his more radical successors in the Tübingen school, taking his consistently historical approach to the New Testament to its logical extreme, eventually denied Pauline authorship to all of the letters.11 Today scholars consider seven letters almost certainly authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The authorship of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians is hotly disputed. The vast majority of scholars deny the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles – 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. British scholars have generally maintained the Pauline character of Ephesians, even those who deny strict Pauline authorship such as C. H. Dodd. He claimed, “Whether the Epistle is by Paul or not, certainly its thought is the crown of Paulinism.”12 Another, John Knox, described it as “thoroughly Pauline.”13 F. F. Bruce, a defender of authenticity, described it as “the quintessence of Paulinism.”14 German New Testament scholarship, however, may be illustrated by Werner Kümmel’s claim that “the theology of Eph[esians] makes the Pauline composition of the letter completely impossible”15 9. For detailed documentation, see T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897), ix–xxiii; A. van Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians, trans. S. Prescod-Jokel, NovTSup 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 36–44; Best, Ephesians, 14–20; Hoehner, Ephesians, 2–6. 10. See Hoehner, Ephesians, 6–20; Thielman, Ephesians, 7. 11. Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 120– 43; Horton Harris, The Tübingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). 12. C. H. Dodd, “Ephesians,” in The Abingdon Bible Commentary, ed. Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey (New York: Abingdon, 1929), 1224–25. 13. John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, rev. ed. (Macon, GA.: Mercer University Press, 1987), 19. 14. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 424; and The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 229. 15. Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Howard Clark Kee, 17th rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 360.

210

G. LYONS

Some scholars have clearly denied or accepted Pauline authorship based primarily on dogmatic grounds. This may be illustrated by Heinrich Schlier, who as a Bultmannian Lutheran rejected it, then accepted it after his conversion to Roman Catholicism, only to express renewed doubts about it after Vatican II.16 Clinton E. Arnold notes that, until recently, “few evangelical scholars doubt the authenticity of the letter.”17 He cites as notable exceptions: Andrew T. Lincoln, Ralph P. Martin, and James D. G. Dunn.18 Evangelical authors Arthur G. Patzia and Richard Bauckham consider the evidence for authenticity and pseudonymity equally compelling and do not decide for either position.19 As a young Pauline scholar during the 1970s, I invested considerable time consulting commentaries and New Testament introductions to discover who defended or denied the Pauline authorship of the disputed letters and why. This proved to be a total waste of energy. Scholars’ views and rationales were entirely predictable, given their general theological and philosophical orientation to biblical studies. Anticipating the postmodern critique of claims to objectivity, I concluded that scholarly decisions about authenticity versus inauthenticity depend less on the evidence than on nonnegotiable prior commitments, philosophical and theological presuppositions, and tolerance for dissonance. Both scholars who accept and deny Pauline authorship agree that the burden of proof rests on those who oppose the longstanding tradition.20 Often the decisive consideration on Pauline authorship is a scholar’s willingness or unwillingness to entertain the possibility that early Christians practiced and accepted the literary device of pseudonymity.21 The disputed scholarly biases, 16. For his initial rejection, see, Heinrich Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, BHT 6 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930). For acceptance, Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, Ein Kommentar (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1957), 22–28. His later doubts are noted by Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary, trans. Helen Heron (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 24 n. 16. 17. Arnold, Ephesians, 46. 18. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), lix–lxxiii; Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1991), 4; James D. G. Dunn, “Pauline Legacy and School,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 887–93. 19. Arthur G. Patzia, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2011), 121–40; Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” JBL 107 (1988): 469–94. 20. See Barth, Ephesians, 40; C. Leslie Mitton, Ephesians, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1987), 25; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 4, 46. 21. See, e.g., Best, Ephesians, 10–13; Hoehner, Ephesians, 38–49; Talbert, Ephesians, 7– 10; Fowl, Ephesians, 10–11; Winger, Ephesians, 71–77.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

211

assumptions, and conclusions as to which of the thirteen alleged Pauline letters are authentic and which are pseudonymous are beyond conclusive proof. Those who reject Pauline authorship for Ephesians claim to do so on linguistic, stylistic, literary, historical, and theological grounds. Beyond its close kinship with Colossians, they typically appeal to differences in the vocabulary, style, and theological emphases of Ephesians as compared to the seven generally accepted letters. Those who defend its authenticity contend that different audiences, problems, purposes, rhetorical genres, and themes may account for the distinctive features of each of the Pauline letters, without presuming different authors. As Hoehner notes, “It is extremely difficult to determine authorship on the basis of language and style.”22 Stylistic and linguistic analysis in biblical studies too often lack methodological constraint, clarity, and coherency. Not all scholars deal with the alleged theological distinctives of Ephesians in the same way. For example, Roman Catholic scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg thinks the disciple of Paul who composed Ephesians did so “in the spirit of Paul.”23 His ecclesiological anachronisms preserve Paul’s legacy by developing a view of the church and its ministry that continues the trajectory of Paul. Schnackenburg acknowledges that there is nothing explicit in the letter of the regularized episcopal hierarchy (of bishops, elders, and deacons) found in Ignatius and second-century Christianity. And, unlike the Pastoral Epistles, he treats Ephesians as an expression of “the Pauline theology of the Church.”24 Far too often, however, the personal tastes of scholars color their assessments of the evidence. Ernst Käsemann’s radical Protestantism, not an anachronistic blunder on the part of the pseudonymous author of Ephesians, justifies his dismissal of its message as subapostolic and contaminated by incipient Catholicism (Frühkatholizismus).25 Conclusions on both sides of the debate appear to be excessively subjective. The strength of the case, whether for or against authenticity, “greatly exceeds the evidence from which the deductions are extracted.”26 Specula22. Hoehner, Ephesians, 28–29. 23. Schnackenburg, Ephesians, 37. 24. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Church in the New Testament, trans. W. J. O’Hara (New York: Seabury, 1965), 77–85, 94–102. 25. Ernst Käsemann, “Ephesians and Acts,” Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 288–97; and “Paul and Early Catholicism,” New Testament Questions of Today, trans. Wilfred F. Bunge (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 237–50. 26. Travis B. Williams, “Bringing Method to Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark,” BBR 20 (2010): 397–418, esp. 398. Williams’s methodological proposal in this article might be applied for assessing the authenticity of letters as well as textual variants.

212

G. LYONS

tive possibilities based on an accumulation of statistics do not establish probability, much less proof. It is impossible to prove or disprove authenticity on the basis of stylistic diversity.27 Nevertheless, it is not the goal of this essay to establish a new methodology or to demonstrate the authenticity or inauthenticity of Ephesians. BEYOND THE IMPASSE Patzia observes that “the question of the authorship of Ephesians currently is at an impasse, with reputable scholars on both sides of the issue.”28 Stephen E. Fowl offers an attractive alternative to the scholarly stalemate. He correctly recognizes that the overwhelming majority of people read Ephesians for broadly theological reasons. That is, they read Ephesians because it is indisputably a part of Christian Scripture … Given the ends for which Christians engage Scripture theologically, the issue of authorship is not particularly relevant. Ephesians plays the role it does in the life and worship of Christians because it is part of the canon, not because it is written by Paul or not written by Paul. The text is canonical, Paul is not.29

The divisive debate about authorship is beyond resolution and finally irrelevant to the interpretation of Ephesians.30 Fowl contends, “Because interpretation might shape judgments about authorship is not a reason to think that judgments about authorship must influence interpretation.”31 Biblical commentaries should aim to elucidate and illuminate a sacred text’s “communicative intention,” not the presumed author’s “motives.”32 Uncovering an ancient author’s hidden psychological motivations is both impossible and unnecessary. Precise identification of an author is not an essential precondition for engaging in historically responsible exegesis. Fowl adds, This is because the notion of an author’s communicative intention does not depend on having a textually mediated access to an autonomous, fully aware, authorial self. Rather, in the case of Paul – or the author of Ephesians, if they are not the same person – it depends on a knowledge of Greek and the linguistic conventions operative in the first century; on an ability to detect and explicate allusions, indirect references, implications, inferences, textually indicated 27. Williams, “Bringing Method to Madness,” 401. 28. Patzia, Ephesians, 127. 29. Stephen E. Fowl, Ephesians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 9. 30. Fowl, Ephesians, 16–18; see 11–12, 27–28. 31. Fowl, Ephesians, 13. 32. Fowl, Ephesians, 14–15.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

213

rhetorical aims; and on a measure of familiarity with the general set of social conventions of which letter writing is a part.33

John Muddiman, however, insists that “one cannot simply suspend judgement” on the question of authorship, “for a decision on the question determines to a large degree the contents and proportions of the commentary itself.”34 “The issue of authenticity has to be decided” or one “has to write two separate commentaries on the Epistle.”35 His preference for a hybrid solution is less satisfactory than a stance of neutrality. He hypothesizes that Ephesians is a composite text, built on an authentic Pauline letter to the Laodiceans (see Col 4:16), expanded by a later pseudonymous author to become what we know as Ephesians.36 This approach to the impasse is potentially arbitrary and “inevitably subjective,” as Muddiman himself acknowledges.37 But it is symptomatic of the current deadlock. Most interpreters who conclude that Ephesians was not written by Paul claim this is merely a matter of sober historical judgment. But such decisions often have far-reaching implications. If Ephesians is not by Paul, of course, it cannot contribute to a comprehensive synthesis of Pauline theology or a reconstruction of his biography.38 Nevertheless, Lincoln correctly insists: “Whether written by Paul or by a follower, Ephesians is now canonical; it has the same authoritative and foundational status for the Church’s teaching and life.”39 In actual practice, however, most scholars who deny Paul wrote Ephesians tend to marginalize the book within the canon. Employing, consciously or unconsciously, the principles of Sachkritik (“content-criticism”), they treat it as of lesser authority and importance than the pristine Pauline gospel.40 They imagine that their preconceived notions of what is timelessly true and relevant qualify them to malign, blunt, or interpret away the distinctive message of Ephesians. Perhaps the tendency to marginalize the non-Pauline letter of Ephesians rather than the triumph of the traditional view explains why so many recent commentators favor Pauline authorship. Why would a scholar bother commenting on a book whose authenticity and theological relevance is in doubt? 33. Fowl, Ephesians, 14. 34. John Muddiman, The Epistle to the Ephesians, BNTC (New York: Continuum, 2001), 2. 35. Muddiman, Ephesians, 19. 36. Muddiman, Ephesians, 20–48; see 302–5. 37. Muddiman, Ephesians, 6. 38. See Fowl, Ephesians, 15–16. 39. Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxiii. 40. See N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 33, 82, 131, 150, 176–77.

214

G. LYONS

But scholars who vigorously defend the Pauline authorship of Ephesians are often equally guilty of refusing to let it speak with its own distinctive accent. Thomas M. Winger, whose recent commentary devotes more than fifty pages to mount a defense of authenticity, acknowledges that ironically “commentators who deny Pauline authorship (e.g., Andrew Lincoln, Rudolf Schnackenburg) frequently provide more helpful exposition of the text itself, since they feel no need to compress it into their narrow view of Paul.”41 But at times, Winger’s Paul seems to be a Missouri Synod Lutheran spokesperson. A CASE FOR NEUTRALITY My personal sympathies lie with Fowl. I am uninterested in either defending or denying the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. I find the evidence insufficient to be persuasive either way. Furthermore, whether Paul wrote it in the mid-60s during his Roman confinement or a gifted disciple of Paul wrote it in behalf of his master in the final decades of the first century, the differences in the sociohistorical worlds behind the text are inconsequential.42 Patzia and Fowl demonstrate that it is possible to write responsible commentaries on Ephesians without taking sides. Francis Foulkes, who accepts Pauline authorship, would likely agree: “Questions associated with the authorship and original setting and destination … are less important for the understanding of this letter than is the case with most other New Testament documents.”43 Half a century ago, Henry J. Cadbury observed that most scholars defended or denied the Pauline authorship of Ephesians largely out of “unwillingness to admit indecision than out of clear conviction.”44 I admit indecision. In the balance of this essay, I provide evidence supporting Michael D. Goulder’s contention that “the denial of Pauline authorship is the consequence of the widespread temptation to substitute counting for thinking.”45 But I have no interest in engaging in a vigorous defense of Pauline authorship, which also often arises more from dogmatic prejudices than from critical thought. My more modest objective is to demonstrate that an approach of neutrality as to the authorship of Ephesians is not an arbitrary evasion of critical responsibility. 41. Winger, Ephesians, 24; see 21–77. 42. This is consistent with J. A. T. Robinson’s evidence (Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 63) that nothing here betrays a context after 70 CE. 43. Francis Foulkes, Ephesians, 2nd ed., TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 12. 44. Cadbury, “Dilemma,” 93. 45. Michael D. Goulder, “The Visionaries of Laodicea,” JSNT 43 (1991): 15–39.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

215

In my commentary on Ephesians, for lack of a better name, I refer to Paul as the authorial voice behind the letter. It seems preferable to the convoluted expression “the author of Ephesians.”46 If Paul did not write it, we do not know who did. Whoever he was, he was at least as capable as his mentor. If an intellectual and spiritual equal to the formidable apostle to the Gentiles remained anonymous and unknown to the best minds of the early centuries of the church, who am I to attempt to prove them right or wrong nearly two millennia later? Certainty as to the first readers of the letter remains likewise impossible. Equally competent text critics have reached vastly different conclusions on the variant readings about the destination of the letter in Eph 1:1. One more speculative guess seems unneeded. If the letter was not written to the church in Ephesus, we can only speculate as to whom it was written. So, I refer to the Ephesians, fully aware that it may well originally have had a larger, anonymous audience in mind. By referring to the Ephesians, contemporary readers are reminded that modern and postmodern readers must not forget that we are reading another’s mail. Even if we lack the specificity we might like, we know enough in general about the world behind the text to prevent us from reading the letter as if it arrived in our email box this morning. And I also use the designation “letter” advisedly. Although Ephesians has many of the features of Paul’s other letters, it lacks one thing most of them make quite clear – its historical occasion. It is not entirely clear why Paul wrote, much less why he wrote what he wrote. The lack of explicit information is not a license to fill in the gaps with a new or existing theory. Many interpreters have helpfully called attention to the features of Ephesians that make it more like a sermon or “homily.” But the same might be said about the other letters, all of which are much longer than other ancient letters and seem to have been written by a Christian preacher. So the similarity should not be surprising.47 Let me be entirely forthcoming: I am personally invested in the continuing relevance of Ephesians for Christian theological and ethical reflection. For this, the issues of authorship and specific audience are ultimately inconsequential. The canonical status of Ephesians, not speculative historical reconstructions, matter to me. In this, I part company with scholars on both sides of the authorship debate – defenders and deniers.48 The reasons for my 46. Much less Best’s (Ephesians) abbreviation, AE. 47. Best, Ephesians, 61–62; see Foulkes, Ephesians, 20; Witherington, Ephesians, 215–23. 48. E.g., the “defender” Winger, Ephesians, 23; the “denier” Best, Ephesians, 6–36.

216

G. LYONS

preference for a neutral stance should become obvious in the selective survey of some of the typical features of Ephesians’ vocabulary, style, and theology that follows.

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Vocabulary and Style There are an unusually large number of lengthy sentences in Ephesians (e.g., 1:3–14 [with 204 Greek words, the longest in the New Testament]; 1:15–23 [with 169, the second longest]; 2:1–7; 3:1–7; and 4:11–16). Sentences nearly as long appear in other Pauline letters, although they are fewer and uncharacteristic. Lengthy sentences in Ephesians are typically due to: (1) expansive, pleonastic, explanatory genitive constructions (e.g., 1:6, 12, 14, 18, 19); (2) redundant cognate constructions (repetitive noun and verb combinations; e.g., 1:6, 21; 2:4; 3:7); (3) tautology: mutually interpretive synonyms joined by the conjunction καί (e.g., 1:4, 21; 2:1, 19); (4) long prepositional phrases (e.g., 1:4–5, 11); (5) relative clauses and participial constructions; and/or (6) frequent adjectives and adjectival expressions (e.g., 1:3, 19). Ben W. Witherington III, following up on the suggestion of Bo Reicke, notes that these distinctive features of Ephesians were typical of the elevated, baroque style of Asiatic epideictic rhetoric expected by audiences in Asia Minor.49 Whether addressed to Ephesus alone or sent as a circular missive to nearby churches, this was most likely the letter’s original destination.50 Colossians, of course, addressed an audience in the same region. Curiously, no scholar argues that the short, abrupt sentences that set Galatians apart from all of Paul’s other letters challenge that book’s authenticity.51

49. Witherington, Ephesians, 4–25, 215–23. See also Bo Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence, ed. David P. Moessner and Ingalisa Reicke (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), 52–53. 50. See on the textual complexities of Eph 1:1, e.g., Thielman, Ephesians, 11–16. 51. Hoehner, Ephesians, 28.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

217

Scholars often characterize the elevated language of Ephesians as “liturgical.”52 Heinrich Schlier described it as marked by the reverence and dignity suited for public worship.53 There are good reasons to believe the author of this letter expected it to be read aloud when the church assembled (see Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27). Following its conventional letter-opening, Eph 1:3–14 resembles a formal benediction. The thanksgiving in 1:15–23 consists of a prayerreport, which resumes in 3:14–21. Ephesians 4:4–6 seems to appeal to the church’s creed; 5:19 refers to congregational singing; 6:18–24 concludes the letter with a prayer request, announcement, and final benediction. Similar sections in the other Pauline letters are typically marked by longer than usual sentences. The balance of Ephesians consists of practical guidance for daily life within mixed congregations and in Christian families. The paraenesis in Ephesians so closely resembles similar sections in the other letters that interpreters who deny its authenticity sometimes argue that this “betrays the hand of an imitator.”54 Similarities render it “too Pauline to be by Paul”; distinctive features, “not Pauline enough to be by Paul. But these arguments cancel each other out.”55 Such evidence is far from persuasive. The homiletic-liturgical style and subject matter of Ephesians help account for its distinctive vocabulary. There are 35 New Testament hapax legomena in Ephesians.56 It also employs five words twice that appear nowhere else in the New Testament.57 The 40 Greek words unique to Ephesians in the New Testament include: ἄθεοι (> ἄθεος: “without God,” 2:12), αἰσχρότης (“shamefulness,” 5:4), αἰχμαλωσίαν (> αἰχμαλωτεύω: “captives,” 4:8), ἀνανεοῦσθαι (> ἀνανεόω: “renew,” 4:23), ἀνοίξει (> ἄνοιξις: “opening.” 6:19), ἀπηλγηκότες (> ἀπαλγέω: “become callous,” 4:19), ἄσοφοι (> ἄσοφος: “unwise,” 5:15), βέλη (> βέλος: “arrow,” 6:16), ἐκτρέφει (> ἐκτρέφω: “feed,” 5:29) and ἐκτρέφετε (> ἐκτρέφω: “bring up,” 6:4), ἑνότητα (> ἑνότης: “unity,” 4:3, 13), ἐξισχύσητε (> ἐξισχύω: “have power,” 3:18), ἐπιδυέτω (> ἐπιδύω: “go down,” 4:26), ἐπιφαύσει (> ἐπιφαύσκω: “shine,” 5:14), ἑτοιμασίᾳ (> ἑτοιμασία: “equipment,” 6:15), εὐνοίας (> εὔνοια: “good will,” 6:7), εὐτραπελία (“coarse jesting,” 5:4), θυρεόν (> θυρεός: “shield,” 6:16), καταρτισμόν (> καταρτισμός: “equip,” 4:12), κατώτερα (> κατώτερος: “lower,” 4:9), ἐκληρώθημεν (> κληρόω: “chosen,” 1:11), κλυδωνιζόμενοι (> κλυδωνίζομαι: “tossed about,” 4:14), κοσμοκράτορας (> κοσμοκράτωρ: “powers,” 6:12), κρυφῇ (> κρυφῇ: “in secret,” 5:12), κυβείᾳ (> κυβεία: “craftiness,” 4:14), μακροχρόνιος (“long life,” 6:3), μέγεθος (“great,” 1:19), μεθοδείαν and μεθοδείας 52. Winger, Ephesians, 53; see Patzia, Ephesians, 131–33; Muddiman, Ephesians, 14. 53. Schlier, Epheser, 18. 54. E.g., Mitton, Ephesians, 82; Lincoln, Ephesians, 339. 55. Muddiman, Ephesians, 211. 56. Kurt Aland, Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament, 2 vols. (New York: de Gruyter, 1975), 2:83. Aland’s alphabetized list of the unique lemmas determines the order. I added the inflected forms, English glosses, word counts, and statistical calculations. 57. Winger, Ephesians, 37.

218

G. LYONS

(> μεθοδεία: “schemes,” 4:14; 6:11), μεσότοιχον (“barrier,” 2:14), μωρολογία (“foolish talk,” 5:4), ὁσιότητι (> ὁσιότης: “holiness,” 4:24), πάλη (“wrestle,” 6:12), παροργισμῷ (> παροργισμός: “angry,” 4:26), πολυποίκιλος (“manifold,” 3:10), προηλπικότας (> προελπίζω: “hope before,” 1:12), προσκαρτερήσει (> προσκαρτέρησις: “perseverance,” 6:18), ῥυτίδα (> ῥυτίς: “wrinkle,” 5:27), συμμέτοχα (> συμμέτοχος: “partners,” 3:6) and συμμέτοχοι (> συμμέτοχος: “partners,” 5:7), συμπολῖται (> συμπολίτης (“fellow citizens,” 2:19), συναρμολογουμένη and συναρμολογούμενον (> συναρμολογέω: “joined together,” 2:21; 4:16), συνοικοδομεῖσθε (> συνοικοδομέω: “built together,” 2:22), and σύσσωμα (> σύσσωμος: “co-members of the body,” 3:6).58

Ephesians contains 80 words not found in the seven generally accepted Pauline letters.59 Eight of these appear in both Ephesians and Colossians, but nowhere else in the New Testament. These include: ἀνθρωπάρεσκος (“to win human favor”; ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι in Eph 6:6 and Col 3:22), ἀπαλλοτριόω (“separated”; ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι in Eph 2:12; 4:18; ἀπηλλοτριωμένους in Col 1:21), ἀποκαταλλάσσω (“reconcile”; ἀποκαταλλάξῃ in Eph 2:16; ἀποκαταλλάξαι in Col 1:20; ἀποκατήλλαξεν in Col 1:22), αὔξησις (“growth”; αὔξησιν in Eph 4:16 and Col 2:19), ἁφή (“ligament”; ἁφῆς in Eph 4:16; ἁφῶν in Col 2:19), ὀφθαλμοδουλία (“eye-service”; ὀφθαλμοδουλίαν in Eph 6:6; ὀφθαλμοδουλίᾳ in Col 3:22), ῥιζόω (“rooted”; ἐρριζωμένοι in Eph 3:17 and Col 2:7), συζωοποιέω (“made alive with”; συνεζωοποίησεν in Eph 2:5 and Col 2:13). These are all compounds, intensified forms, or cognates of frequently occurring New Testament words. There is no denying that Ephesians is often different than the other letters – especially Romans and Galatians. And there is no denying that it resembles Colossians.60 The question is why. For many interpreters, the alleged dependence of Ephesians on Colossians is the single most decisive argument against its Pauline authorship.61 But we must ask what “dependence” entails. Ephesians has about 2400 words; Colossians, 2100. They have fewer than 250 words in common, mostly “conjunctions, pronouns, prepositions, and proper nouns.”62 In three instances (Eph 1:1–2 = Col 1:1–2; Eph 3:2 = Col 1:25; Eph 3:9 = Col 1:26) the letters share seven consecutive words; in two (Eph 1:7 = Col 1:14; Eph 4:16 = Col 2:9), five consecutive words. Once, in a passage of no theological consequence regarding the ministry of Tychicus (Eph 6:21–22 = Col 4:7–8), they share thirty-two consecutive words.63 The extent, direction, and motivation of 58. Aland, Konkordanz, 456; see Winger, Ephesians, 50–52. 59. Brown, Introduction, 628. 60. See Abbott, Ephesians, xxiii–xiv; and Mitton, Ephesians, 57. 61. E.g., Lincoln, Ephesians, xlvii–lviii; Andrew T. Lincoln and A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 84. 62. Hoehner, Ephesians, 31. 63. Mitton, Ephesians, 58–59.

219

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

the apparent borrowing, however, are far from clear. Both Best and Muddiman deny the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. But both correctly challenge the critical consensus that it must have depended on Colossians.64 The unique vocabulary of Ephesians may seem large, but in a letter of at least 2,400 words, this represents only 1.5% of the total. Compare this to the percentage of hapax legomena in Romans: 115 of about 7,100 words, or 1.6%. Ephesians has about the same percentage as 2 Corinthians (67 of about 4,480 words) and only slightly more than in Galatians (31 of about 2,225 words, or 1.4%; see the table below). Ephesians has nearly 200 words more than Galatians, and both have the same number of words not found in the (other) undisputed Pauline letters. Even those who deny the Pauline authorship of Ephesians admit that such statistics significantly blunt the strength of the argument of vocabulary.65 Letters

Total Words66

Romans 1 Corinthians

Total NT hapax legomena

Percent hapax legomena

7073 [7112]

115

1.6%

6801 [6830]

 84

1.2%

2 Corinthians

4478 [4489]

 67

1.5%

Galatians

2219 [2230]

 31

1.4%

Ephesians

2404 [2421]

 35

1.5%

Philippians

1622 [1629]

 40

2.5%

Colossians

1570 [1582]

 37

2.3%

1 Thessalonians

1471 [1483]

 18

1.2%

2 Thessalonians

818 [823]

  8

1.0%

1 Timothy

1589 [1591]

 57

3.6%

2 Timothy

1236 [1238]

 60

4.8%

Titus

658 [659]

 32

4.9%

Philemon

334 [335]

  8

2.4%

Many of the rare words in Ephesians appear in late first and early second century Christian literature. Those who deny Pauline authorship take this as evidence for the non-Pauline character of the letter. But the influence 64. For their evidence, see Best, Ephesians, 20–25; Muddiman, Ephesians, 7–11. 65. Brown, Introduction, 628. 66. The lower figure indicates the number of words, excluding those in square brackets in NA27; the higher includes all the textual variants noted in NA27.

220

G. LYONS

may be the reverse: since the church early assumed Paul wrote Ephesians, its vocabulary may well have shaped the church’s.67 Many supposedly rare terms in Ephesians are merely cognates of common Pauline words.68 The brevity of Paul’s letters makes it impossible to conclude anything about the breadth of his vocabulary based on the appearance or nonappearance of one member of a Greek cognate family.69 Well over half of the unique terms (27 of 40) in Ephesians appear in clusters within four passages (2:11–22; 4:1–16; 5:4–20; 6:10–17). Five of these terms are συν– compounds reflecting the unique community (“together with”) emphasis of the book.70 Seven others are simply emphatic compounds of common New Testament vocabulary (μακροχρόνιος, ἐκτρέφω, ἄσοφος, ἀνανεόω, ἐξισχύω, ἄθεος, and προελπίζω). The distinctive vocabulary of Ephesians, like that of the other Pauline letters, probably tells us less about its author than about its key themes.71 Thus, it may be more relevant to note its frequently occurring words than its rare ones. Just three terms occur more than five times in Ephesians, but fewer than 25 times elsewhere in the New Testament: γνωρίζω, “make known”; μυστήριον, “mystery”; and ποτέ, “formerly.”72 These words succinctly capture the central message of Ephesians: “The revelation of the mystery that the Gentiles, who formerly were not included in God’s family, have now been incorporated into Christ.”73 And God’s grace (χάρις) alone made this possible. By far the most frequently appearing theologically significant cognate group in Ephesians is that of grace (χαρ–, 20 times). The verb χαριτόω appears only in Eph 1:6 and Luke 1:28 in the New Testament. But its cognates (the noun χάρις, “grace,” 12 times in Eph 1:2, 6, 7; 2:5, 7, 8; 3:2, 7, 8; 4:7, 29; 6:24; the verb χαρίζομαι, “forgive/be gracious” twice in 4:32) appear elsewhere throughout Paul’s letters (χάρις: 88 times in all; χαρίζομαι: 11 times in all except 1 and 2 Thessalonians and the Pastorals). Taking its length into consideration, Ephesians has far more χαρ– cognates than any other Pauline letter (6.2 / 1000 words compared to 4.4 / 1000 in 2 Corinthians and 3.5 / 1000 in Romans). Obviously, “grace is a key theme in Ephesians.”74 The appearance of 67. Winger, Ephesians, 37. 68. Winger, Ephesians, 36 n. 107. 69. See n. 72. 70. Winger, Ephesians, 52 n. 161. 71. Winger, Ephesians, 50. 72. Sakae Kubo, A Reader’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and a Beginner’s Guide for the Translation of New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 181. 73. Winger, Ephesians, 53. 74. O’Brien, Ephesians, 104; see Barth, Ephesians, 113–15.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

221

χαριτόω in 1:6 with its cognate noun in a redundant rhetorical play on words – “his grace [χάριτος], with which he has graced [ἐχαρίτωσεν] us” – is entirely consistent with the letter’s distinctive rhetoric. Defenders of the authenticity of Ephesians contend that most of its unique terms may be plausibly explained as occasioned by the demands of its distinctive subject matter. It is unnecessary to appeal to the supposed idiosyncrasies of a different author.75 The unique emphases, terminology, and theology of Ephesians are not incompatible with what we find in Paul’s “authentic letters.” And even if these were strikingly different, it is unclear what that might imply about authorship. Vocabulary and style can prove neither the inauthenticity nor authenticity of a book. Theology We cannot possibly consider all the alleged differences between the theology of Ephesians and that presumed in the narrower, seven-letter undisputed Pauline corpus.76 What follows attempts merely to demonstrate that the unique terminology and phrases of Ephesians are not hopelessly incompatible with the apostle’s theological assertions and assumptions elsewhere. The adjective εὔσπλαγχνος, “compassionate” in Eph 4:32, appears elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Pet 3:8. But the Synoptic Gospels frequently use a cognate verb (σπλαγχνίζομαι) to describe Jesus’s response – being moved with compassion – to human need during his earthly ministry (e.g., Matt 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13). Ephesians 4:20–21 refers to “the way of life … learned” from Jesus, just as 4:32–5:2 recommends his example for imitation. Paul’s letters indicate that he was aware of the lifestyle of the earthly Jesus (e.g., Rom 15:3; 1 Cor 2:16; 4:17, 21; 11:1; 2 Cor 8:9; 10:1; 13:4; Phil 2:1–11). Furthermore, the plural cognate noun σπλάγχνα, literally “bowels,” appears eight times in the Pauline letters (2 Cor 6:12; 7:15; Phil 1:8; 2:1; Col 3:12; Phlm 7, 12, 20), always in the metaphorical sense of the heart or heartfelt compassion. The rationale for the command to be compassionate in Eph 4:32 is an appeal to the prior activity of God in Christ: he has “acted graciously”/ “forgiven” (ἐχαρίσατο). God’s grace serves as the basis for the human response in an ethic of gratitude. The term “compassionate” in Ephesians is consistent with Paul’s presentation of Jesus elsewhere, as is the appeal for a human

75. Winger, Ephesians, 520. 76. See Winger, Ephesians, 55–68.

222

G. LYONS

response consistent with the divine initiative. And it is an expected human response to God’s grace, a thematic emphasis in the letter. The life of Christians was to be marked by “good works” (ἔργα ἀγαθά), as a practical demonstration of grace. This plural expression, which appears only in Eph 2:10; Acts 9:36; and 1 Tim 2:10, has clear singular parallels throughout the Pauline letters (Rom 2:7; 13:3; 2 Cor 9:8; Phil 1:6; 2:13; Col 1:10; 2 Thess 2:17; 1 Tim 5:10; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; and 3:1). Only a radically Protestant theological bias finds grace and good works incompatible. Of course, like Romans and Galatians in particular, Ephesians emphasizes that faith and human achievement are antithetical. Salvation is not from yourselves (Eph 2:8) and not by works (2:9). Salvation is not achieved by anything humans do. But divine faithfulness – that of God or Christ – alone was not sufficient.77 A human response to God’s initiative was expected and essential.78 The allegedly quintessential Pauline terminology of “justification [δικαιοσύνη] by faith” is infrequent in Ephesians (4:24; 5:9; 6:1, 14, just 1.7 / 1000 words). In fact, the distribution of the δίκη– root (333 times in the New Testament) in the Pauline letters (147 times, 4.4 / 1000; often as forensic imagery for salvation), evidences no consistency in the authentic as compared to the contested letters: 91 times in Romans (10.8 / 1000 words) and Galatians (1.3 / 1000); just 56 times elsewhere in Paul’s letters (1 Cor: 1.3 / 1000; 2 Cor: 2.9 / 1000; Phil: 3.7 / 1000; 1 Thess: 1.4 / 1000; 2 Thess: 7.3 / 1000; 1 Tim: 1.9 / 1000; 2 Tim: 4.0 / 1000; Titus: 6.0 / 1000; Phlm: 3.0 / 1000). The noun “justification” (δικαιοσύνη) and verb “justify” (δικαιόω) appear nowhere in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, or Philemon. On the other hand, the σῴζω– root for “salvation” (193 times in the NT; 63 in the Pauline corpus, thus 2 / 1000 words) is also rare in Ephesians (2.5 / 1000 – in 1:13; 2:5, 8; 5:18, 23; 6:17). But its distribution of justification language is similarly uneven in the other letters (Rom: 1.8 / 1000; 1 Cor: 1.3 / 1000; 2 Cor 1.1 / 1000; Gal: 0; Phil: 2.5 / 1000; Col: 0; 1 Thess 2.0 / 1000; 2 Thess: 2.4 / 1000; 1 Tim 4.4 / 1000; 2 Tim 4.0 / 1000; Titus: 1.4 / 1000; Phlm: 0). As in all the Pauline letters, Ephesians emphasizes that salvation is by grace through faith – “God’s gift” (2:8). It would be impossible apart from God’s intervention – election (Eph 1:4–5, 11; cf. Rom 8:28–30; 1 Cor 1:27–28; Gal 1:6, 15; 5:13). Because salvation has its source in God, it cannot be of 77. Winger, Ephesians, 292; contrary to Barth, Ephesians, 224–25; O’Brien, Ephesians, 175. 78. Best, Ephesians, 226; Fowl, Ephesians, 78.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

223

human origin. The Greek word δῶρον, “gift,” appears only in Eph 2:8 in the Pauline corpus. But the cognate noun δωρεά, “gift,” which appears in Rom 3:24; 5:15, 17; 2 Cor 9:15, is used synonymously in Eph 3:7 and 4:7 in this grace-saturated letter. The noun σωτηρία, “salvation,” never appears in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy, Titus, or Philemon. And the verb σῴζω, “save,” never appears in Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, or Philemon. But these terms hardly exhaust Paul’s soteriological vocabulary (e.g., call, deliver, glorify, free, redeem, rescue, reconcile, sanctify, transform) in Ephesians or in his other letters. Diverse terminology is not necessarily an indication of conflicting theologies.79 Throughout Paul’s letters, it appears that divine grace may be thwarted and salvation forfeited (see, e.g., Rom 11:17–21; 1 Cor 15:2; Gal 5:1–5; Phil 3:12–21; 1 Thess 3:5). Ephesians 4:27 and 6:11 identify the “devil” as hostile to God’s saving designs. The designation “devil” in Eph 4:27 and 6:11 is common throughout the New Testament (37 times: Matt 4:1, 5, 8, 11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2, 3, 6, 13; 8:12; John 6:70; 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; 13:10; Heb 2:14; Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 9; Rev 2:10; 12:9, 12; 20:2, 10). In Paul’s letters, the term appears only in Ephesians and in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3:6, 7, 11; 2 Tim 2:26; 3:3; and Titus 2:3), the Pauline authorship of which is widely denied. Nevertheless, Paul often used unique words in his generally accepted letters, despite his preference for synonymous terms elsewhere. For example, he used ἱερόν for “temple” only in 1 Cor 9:13; elsewhere, ναός appears eight times for “temple.” Only in Gal 1:13 and 23 did he use πορθέω for “destroy;” instead, ἀπόλλυμι appears twelve times in his other letters. The New Testament hapax legomenon φθονέω, “be envious,” appears only in Gal 5:26, although he used its synonym ζηλόω eight times elsewhere.80 Is there a plausible explanation for the distinctive use of “devil” in Ephesians? The unnamed sinister being identified uniquely as “the ruler of the kingdom of the air” and “the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” in Eph 2:2 is probably to be identified with the “devil,” as is “the evil one” in 6:16 (cf. Matt 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38; John 17:15; 2 Thess 3:3; 1 John 2:13; 3:12; 5:18, 19). That Paul more often used the synonym “Satan” (ten times in Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9) is not evidence that he did not know or use other designations. His reference to “the tempter” in 1 Thess 4:3 79. See Hoehner, Ephesians, 51. 80. See Hoehner, Ephesians, 25.

224

G. LYONS

(cf. Matt 4:3) illustrates his awareness of other widely used synonyms for Satan/the devil in contemporary Judaism and early Christianity. The preference for the designation “devil” in Ephesians is probably best explained by its literal meaning “one who engages in slander.”81 It appears in a context in which the author exhorted his readers to avoid the devilish activities of “falsehood” (4:25), selfishness (4:28), “evil talk” (4:29), “bitterness and wrath and anger and loud shouting and slander, together with all ill-will” (4:31). To fail to do so was to give the devil an opportunity to destroy the unity of the church and thwart God’s saving purposes. And it was to frustrate the work of the Holy Spirit, who inspires wholesome, unifying speech (Eph 4:30; see 2:22; 4:3–4; 5:18–19). Slandering one another gives aid and comfort to the Slanderer. Division and destruction are works of “the devil” (4:27). The readers of Ephesians were instead to respond to God’s grace by speaking gracious words to one another (4:29), “being gracious to one another, as God in Christ was gracious to you” (4:32). That is, they were to “be imitators of God” (Eph 5:1). This is the only instance in the entire Bible in which imitation of God is explicitly demanded (followed by Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 1:1; To the Trallians 1:2; To the Romans, 6:3). Nevertheless, throughout Scripture, divine activity provides the model for the appropriate response of God’s people (see Exod 13:21–22; Lev 19:2; Num 14:24; Deut 1:30–33; Isa 40:3–5; Matt 5:48). This was also a characteristic feature of Hellenistic Judaism.82 The readers’ identity as God’s “dearly loved children” (Eph 1:5; 2:4; 3:17–19; 5:25) was determined by their family-likeness to God, their Father (see Matt 5:9, 43–48; Luke 6:35–36; John 8:31–47; Rom 4:16, 17; 8:15; Gal 4:5–6; 1 Cor 4:16; Phil 2:15; 1 John 4:7–21). Ephesians did not recommend a repetition of the original sin – seeking equality with God (see Gen 3:5). The call is not to a self-aggrandizing pursuit, but to “action comparable to God’s action in forgiving and loving.”83 This suggests that use of the term “devil” in Ephesians is consistent with Pauline practice. Rather than emphasizing the strangeness of this rare usage, it may be more noteworthy that in Rom 1:1–16:24; Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, Paul failed to mention either Satan or the devil. Perhaps the nearest equivalents in Romans and Galatians are personified “Sin” (Rom 3:9; 5:13–14; 6:1; 7:8; 8:2), “Flesh” (Romans 7 and 8), “Death” (Rom 5:17; 6:9; 8:2, 21), and “Law” (Rom 7:1). Paul mentioned a plural81. See BDAG, s.v. “διάβολος.” 82. For the evidence, see Lincoln, Ephesians, 310–11; Best, Ephesians, 466–67; O’Brien, Ephesians, 353–54. 83. Best, Ephesians, 466–67.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

225

ity of hostile forces in Gal 4:3 (see 4:9) and Col 2:8 – “the elemental spiritual forces of this world.” Colossians 1:3 probably refers collectively to the demonic forces of Satan/the devil as “the dominion of darkness.” Similarly, Col 2:15 (see 1:16) refers to God-opposing “powers and authorities.” If these are conceptually synonymous, they have a counterpart in the reference in Eph 1:20–21 to “all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked” subdued by the exalted Christ (see 3:10; compare Rom 8:35; 1 Cor 15:25–28). The vocabulary of Paul, or that of any other author, within the comparatively brief samples we have in his letters, is insufficient to determine which texts are authentic or inauthentic.84 Some interpreters, however, suggest that the use of function words and adjectives may be more decisive in distinguishing the unconscious preferences of different authors than theologically-loaded terms. Lincoln notes that the prepositions ἐν, “in,” and κατά, “according to,” occur proportionately more frequently in Ephesians than in the other Pauline letters writings.85 But “there is much greater frequency of διά and παρά in Romans, ἐπί, πρός, and ὑπέρ in 2 Corinthians, ἐκ and ὑπό in Galatians, [and] μετά and περί in Philippians” than in his other letters.86 Such differences among the letters probably indicate nothing about their authorship. The Uniqueness of Every Pauline Letter The point of this essay has not been to deny the unique features of Ephesians, nor to prove its similarity to the generally accepted letters. We should let it be what it is. There is nothing to be said for attempts to conform it arbitrarily to the others by heavy-handed corpus-harmonization. Each of the Pauline letters possesses its own undisputed uniqueness. There are distinctive features in each of the generally accepted Pauline letters that are unusual or 84. G. Udny Yule (The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944], 2, 281) claimed that samples of similar length (about 10,000 words) and content were needed for comparison. Romans, Paul’s longest letter, has just over 7,000 words. See P. F. Johnson, “The Use of Statistics in the Analysis of the Characteristics of Pauline Writing,” NTS 20 (1973): 92–100; John J. O’Rourke, “Some Considerations about Attempts at Statistical Analysis of the Pauline Corpus,” CBQ 35 (1973): 483–90; Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), esp. 80–115; David L. Mealand, “Positional Stylometry Reassessed: Testing a Seven Epistle Theory of Pauline Authorship,” NTS 35 (1989): 266–86; David L. Mealand, “The Extent of the Pauline Corpus: A Multivariate Approach,” JSNT 59 (1995): 61–92; Kenneth J. Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis, SBLDS 120 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 85. Lincoln, Ephesians, lxv. 86. Hoehner, Ephesians, 26–27.

226

G. LYONS

unexpected as compared to the others. Allow me to note a few of the more obvious examples: Romans. The extended attention to the status of Israel in God’s end-times plans in Rom 9–11 is unparalleled in the Pauline corpus. This is not simply an omission that could be presumed, but was left undeveloped in his other letters. His confidence that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26) finds its antithesis in 1 Thess 2:14–16. There he argued instead that Jewish persecutors of Christians “displease God” and invite divine wrath. The word “Israel” appears eleven times in Rom 9–11 and a total of six times elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. Rather than challenge the authenticity of Romans, many scholars have proposed instead that the Thessalonian passage is a non-Pauline interpolation. But the tension between Paul’s view of Israel’s status as presented in Rom 9–11 also differs markedly from his description of Jews in Gal 4 and Phil 3. In Gal 4:21–31, Paul allegorically identified unbelieving Jews as the enslaved descendants of Hagar in contrast to Gentile Christians, who are the free children of Sarah, “born by the power of the Spirit.” In Phil 3:2–4, Paul identified Christians as the true “circumcision,” who “serve God by his Spirit” in contrast to Jews, whom he demeaned as “dogs,” “evildoers,” and “mutilators of the flesh.” Similarly, in Rom 2:28–29, Paul claims that “a person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.” True Jews and true circumcision is a matter of “the heart, by the Spirit.” Likewise, the reference to “the Israel of God” in Gal 6:15–16 excludes literally circumcised ethnic Jews who are unbelievers in Jesus. Spiritually circumcised Jewish and Gentile believers alone are part of God’s “new creation.” But no scholar challenges the authenticity of Romans based on these distinctive features. 1 Corinthians. We would know nothing of the observance of the Eucharist in the Pauline churches apart from the one reference in 1 Cor 11:17– 34. Paul’s uncharacteristic discussion of this and other distinctive features of 1 Corinthians – e.g., diminished emphasis on baptism (1:17; 10:1–5); nuanced discussion of sex, celibacy, marriage, and divorce (ch. 7); treatments of food offered to idols (chs. 8–10) and spiritual gifts, particularly tongues (chs. 12–14); the call for women to “remain silent in the churches” (14:34–35; but see 1 Tim 2:11–15) – were all apparently occasioned by Corinthian abuses of aspects of Christian practice he could take for granted elsewhere.87 Even Paul’s well-known exposition of the fact and manner of 87. Conservative commentator Gordon D. Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 699–703) offers persuasive evidence against the

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

227

the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15) is without parallel in his other letters. Yet no one challenges the authenticity of 1 Corinthians because of its unique features. 2 Corinthians. Second Corinthians has its share of distinctive elements. Nevertheless, critical scholars presume its authenticity and attempt to integrate these emphases with what he writes elsewhere. Paul’s favorable comparison of himself with Moses in chs. 3–4 is unique, as is his discussion of the intermediate state between death and final resurrection in ch. 5. Perhaps a majority of contemporary scholars deny the unity of 2 Corinthians, in part, to help explain its thematic and literary anomalies. Some argue for the elimination of the treatment of holiness as radical separation from evil in 6:14–7:1 as a non-, even anti-Pauline interpolation in the letter. But no responsible scholar today dismisses the book overall as a pseudonymous Pauline letter. Galatians. Galatians begins in a way that formally sets it apart from all the other Pauline letters. Following its opening salutation, Paul replaced the expected thanksgiving with what amounts to a curse (1:6–9). Nevertheless, it bears striking similarities to Romans in many other respects. But at the same time, Paul expressed nearly opposite views of the law in the two letters. And the language of holiness (ἁγ–), common in most Pauline letters, is totally absent from Galatians. F. F. Bruce notes: “One feature that Galatians and Ephesians have in common which sets them apart from the main Pauline letters is their limited reference to the parousia.”88 The lengthy argumentative attention to Pauline autobiography in Gal 1:10–2:21 has a parallel only in 1 Thess 1:4–2:16. There are brief autobiographical asides in 2 Cor 11:22– 12:10 and Phil 1:12–18 and 3:4–6. Most scholars today dismiss the older autobiographical reading of Rom 7. Only Galatians (4:21–31) among the Pauline letters offers a lengthy allegorical exposition of the Old Testament. The somewhat similar approaches to the Old Testament in Paul’s application of Israel’s rebellion in the wilderness to the Corinthians’ behavior in 1 Cor 10:1–12 and his comparison and contrast between Moses and himself in 2 Cor 3:7–18 involve typological analogies, not allegorical equations. In Gal 4:21, ἀλληγορούμενα (> ἀλληγορέω: “speak allegorically”) is a New Testament hapax legomenon. But scholars explain the dissimilarities between Galatians and the other Pauline letters by appeal to different occasions, authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34–35. “Although these two verses are found in all known manuscripts, either here or at the end of the chapter, the two text-critical criteria of transcriptional and intrinsic probability combine to cast considerable doubt on their authenticity” (699). 88. Bruce, Ephesians, 233.

228

G. LYONS

necessarily different approaches to the difficulties he faced, and/or theological developments in his own thought. No serious scholar today denies the Pauline authorship of Galatians. But there are at least as many reasons to acknowledge the un-Pauline character of this pillar epistle as there are for Ephesians. Philippians. Only Philippians identifies “overseers and deacons” among its addresses (1:1). Only here did Paul refer to his future hope that bodily death would mean immediate entry into the heavenly presence of Christ (1:18–26). The familiar Christ-hymn (2:6–11), like the Logos Christology of John 1, seems to refer to Christ’s preincarnate divine status. This is without parallel among the generally accepted Pauline letters, although it does resemble the Christ-hymn in Colossians (1:15–23), which many critical scholars today treat as deutero-Pauline. To deal with this anomaly, interpreters like James D. G. Dunn defend a doubtful reading of the Philippian hymn in terms of Adam Christology.89 Only in Philippians (3:6) did Paul claim that his observance of the law before his conversion was “faultless.” This certainly seems to contrast with the widely accepted pessimistic reading of Rom 7, which emphasizes his radical inability to keep the law apart from Christ. Although many scholars hypothesize that Philippians is a composite letter, none today doubt its Pauline origins. 1 Thessalonians. The language of justification, especially prominent in Romans and Galatians, nowhere appears in 1 Thessalonians. Instead, Paul employed the missionary terminology of Hellenistic Judaism: “You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1:9), while awaiting future salvation as rescue “from the coming wrath” of God (1:10; see 2:16; 5:9). Divine “wrath” as damnation also appears in Romans (1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 5:9; etc.), Ephesians (2:3; 5:6), and Colossians (3:6). But it appears nowhere in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, or Philemon. Furthermore, scriptural quotations, frequent in most of the so-called authentic letters, are totally absent in 1 Thessalonians. Why do critical scholars ignore these differences? Philemon. This letter, addressing primarily a single individual – Philemon, obviously differs from the other letters presumed to be authentic. They address particular Christian communities in named cities (Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica) or several such communities within a region (Galatia). True, Paul also addressed Apphia, Archippus, and the church that met in Philemon’s house (v. 2). But he identified his intended reader (except in vv. 3, 22, 89. James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 98–128.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF EPHESIANS

229

and 25), with second person singular pronouns – “you” and “your” (σου, σοι, σε, σῆς, or σεαυτόν in vv. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23) – or the vocative singular “brother” (v. 20). This is common in the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), but rare in the “authentic” letters (only within scriptural quotations [e.g., Rom 3:4; 4:17, 18; 12:20; 13:9; 15:3, 9; 1 Cor 15:55; 2 Cor 6:2; Gal 2:14; 3:8, 16; 5:14] and in diatribe [hypothetical arguments addressed to an imaginary interlocutor, as in Rom 2:3, 4, 5, 17, 25, 27; 13:4; 14:4, 10, 15, 21, 22; 1 Cor 4:7; 7:21; 8:10; 12:21; 14:17; 15:36; Phil 4:3]).

CONCLUSION It is unlikely that the present essay changed any minds about the authenticity or inauthenticity of Ephesians. But this was not its intent. Its object was far more modest – simply to demonstrate the potential benefit of taking a neutral stance on the subject. Neither the case for authenticity nor inauthenticity can be definitively proven. In some respects, my reason for urging this claim continues an agenda advanced in my doctoral dissertation thirtyfive years ago.90 There I challenged the usual mirror-reading approach to the reading of Paul’s letters in order to show how speculative, extratextual assumptions about Paul’s opponents had distorted the reading of Galatians and 1 Thessalonians. I am persuaded that in much the same way, unfounded assumptions about the authorship of Ephesians have had similar deleterious results. Conservative commentators have glossed over the distinctive features and emphases of the letter in an effort to conform it to the rest of the Pauline corpus. In my commentary research, I have often learned more about what the letter is up to from those who deny that Paul wrote Ephesians than from those who are preoccupied with defending the tradition. There is no need to gloss over the unique and distinctive features of the letter. Nevertheless, the assumption that the letter is non-Pauline, even subapostolic, has seriously eroded the canonical standing of Ephesians. Neutrality on the subject of its authorship, while maintaining its canonical status, may help rehabilitate the letter for the well-being of the Christian church. God knows we need to hear again its clarion celebration of God’s ambitious plans for his church, its clear exposition of the optimism of grace, and the 90. George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding, SBLDS 73 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).

230

G. LYONS

urgency of allowing grace to come to expression in good works intended to preserve the essential unity of the diverse church of Jesus Christ for the sake of the entire universe. emeritus, Northwest Nazarene University

George LYONS91

91. Troy Martin has been an esteemed colleague for nearly thirty years. When we first met, he was on staff at the Chicago First Church of the Nazarene while he pursued his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, and I was teaching at Olivet Nazarene University. It was an extraordinary privilege to teach side-by-side with Troy briefly at ONU. But we both went our separate ways – he to Saint Xavier University, I to Northwest Nazarene University. Lunch together at annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature across the intervening years was always a highlight. I have benefitted greatly from his bibliographical guidance, willingness to share his scholarship, and gracious reading of my writing. This essay is offered as a token of appreciation for his generous friendship. 

12 “PAUL,” “PETER,” AND SLAVES: TEXTS AND CONTEXTS

Both within and beyond the New Testament, Peter and Paul are paired.1 If they did not always see eye to eye during their lifetimes, early church tradition transmutes this odd couple – who at times were at odds – into a holy coupling.2 Not only were they both purportedly martyred in Rome during the latter part of Nero’s reign, but these two apostles were also regarded and presented as founders of and fathers to the Roman church(es).3 This paper pairs Peter and Paul with respect to the instruction they offered to and about slaves. As it happens, they (and those who might have latterly written in their names) are the only New Testament authors who directly address the topic of slavery.4 Herein, we examine what they have to say on the subject.5 Due to the fact that Paul writes earlier and more expansively on the matter, in this paper we give pride of place to him, reversing the typical order of this 1. See, e.g., Gal 1:18; 2 Pet 3:15; 1 Clem. 5:4–6. One might also observe that even as Peter features in Acts 1–12, Saul/Paul occupies center stage in Acts 13–28. 2. Note esp. Gal 2:11–16. Cf. 1 Cor 9:5. 3. See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25. Interestingly, they share a feast day (29 June) and not infrequently appear together in ecclesial art, most famously in an icon that portrays them embracing (see http://www.pemptousiaonline.com/2011/11/wall-painting-fragments/233191-2/) and in an El Greco painting (https://www.arthermitage.org/El-Greco/Sts-Peter-andPaul.html). 4. The authenticity of letters purportedly from Paul and Peter respectively is beyond the purview of this essay. Of the letters treated herein, contemporary New Testament scholarship frequently adjudges Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter to be pseudonymous. 5. For a study on slaves in the NT more generally, see J. Albert Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006). On slavery in early Christianity, see Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). For studies on slavery in the Greco-Roman world more broadly, see esp. Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982); and Keith R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).

232

T. D. STILL

apostolic pairing. After having examined Paul’s instructions regarding slaves and slavery in 1 Corinthians and Philemon, respectively, we turn to consider the topic in Colossians and Ephesians on the one hand and 1 Timothy and Titus on the other. Thereafter, we treat the pertinent passage in 1 Peter. Once we have worked through these various texts in their various contexts, we will conclude this inquiry by offering summative and evaluative remarks. In what follows, I might add, it is the institution, not the imagery, of slavery that is in view.6

PAULINE PASSAGES PERTAINING TO SLAVERY 1 Corinthians 7:21 We begin this investigation with the perplexing text that is 1 Cor 7:21.7 In the course of his instruction to the Corinthians regarding marriage and celibacy in ch. 7, Paul advises them to remain in the state in which they found themselves when they “were called” (i.e., became Christ-followers). If married, then to stay married; if single, then to remain single; if circumcised, then to remain circumcised; if uncircumcised, then not to seek circumcision (see esp. 1 Cor 7:20, 24, 26). A possible exception to the apostle’s “stay as you are when were you were called” strategy, however, appears in 1 Cor 7:21. The word possible in the previous sentence is both advisable and necessary because it is not altogether clear what Paul was seeking to say there. The verse begins with Paul encouraging believing slaves not to be burdened by or concerned with their present lot. He continues by commenting, however, that if they are able to become free (ἐλεύθερος), [then] μᾶλλον χρῆσαι. If one can concur that the phrase μᾶλλον χρῆσαι means something akin to “rather use [it, i.e., the opportunity afforded you],” then the question remains precisely what possibility Paul perceives for enslaved believers and how they might χρῆσαι such. Understandably, 6. Recent studies on Paul’s slavery metaphors include Dale B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); and John Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A TraditioHistorical and Exegetical Examination, WUNT 162 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). See now also a review of literature on the metaphor of slavery in Paul by Byron, Recent Research on Paul and Slavery (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 67–91. 7. On this vexing verse, see the now classic study by S. Scott Bartchy, ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΧΡΗΣΑΙ: First-Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21, SBLDS 11 (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973). Cf. esp. J. Albert Harrill, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity, HUT 32 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995).

“PAUL,” “PETER,” AND SLAVES: TEXTS AND CONTEXTS

233

Paul’s brachylogy has created confusion and has spawned not a little interpretative conversation.8 When the exegetical smoke clears and dust settles, two primary interpretative options emerge. The first is that Paul is calling slaves to forego the freedom they might be able to gain and to remain as they are, that is, enslaved (the so-called “use slavery” option). If readers have frequently leaned in this exegetical direction over the sweep of interpretative tradition, a preponderance of contemporary Pauline scholars instead maintain that what the apostle is seeking to say to Christian slaves in Corinth is that in the event they can become free, then they should do so (the so-called “use liberty” option).9 As it happens, neither the verses immediately preceding nor following 7:21 shed much light on this interpretative quandary. In the verses prior, (un)circumcision is in view; in the verses after, slavery and liberty are spiritualized. Taken together, however, and for all the reasons canvassed in the critical commentaries, I think the “use liberty” reading of 1 Cor 7:21b to be more likely.10 Be that as it may, it is fair to say that even if the “use liberty” reading is the correct one, this statement falls far short of a forceful denunciation of an institution that we now regard to be inhumane and evil. Philemon Foregoing an exploration of both the prehistory (“the world behind the text”) and posthistory (“the world in front of the text”) of Philemon, our present purpose is to consider what Paul says to Philemon with respect to his slave Onesimus (“the world of the text”).11 Having set the epistolary table in vv. 1–9, Paul launches his appeal to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus in v. 10. While granting that Onesimus may well not have previously lived up to his name in serving Philemon (v. 11a), Paul contends that by virtue of his conversion (v. 10) that Onesimus had become “useful” or “profitable” (εὔχρηστος) both to his master in the flesh and to his father in the Lord (v. 11b). As a result, although Paul had reluctantly chosen, for whatever combinations of reasons, to send Onesimus back to Philemon, he would have far preferred for his “newborn son” to have stayed by his shackled side (vv. 12–14). 8. See the contours of the ongoing discussion in Byron, Recent Research, 92–115. 9. See the useful summary in Byron, Recent Research, 114. 10. See, e.g., David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 307–14. 11. See further, among many others, my Philippians and Philemon, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011).

234

T. D. STILL

Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon, declaring that he is to be received οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν (v. 16a–b). Moreover, Paul enjoins Philemon to welcome Onesimus as he would the aged apostle himself (v. 17; cf. vv. 9, 22). Furthermore, Paul assures Philemon that in the event Onesimus had “run up a bill” that he himself would repay it. In the next breath, however, Paul reminds Philemon of his considerable debt to him (v. 19). Near the end of his 335-word letter to Philemon, Paul (strongly) intimates his desire for Philemon to send Onesimus back to him (vv. 20–21).12 That being said, it must be acknowledged that Paul does not clearly and unequivocally propound for the release of Onesimus.13 He does, however, (strongly) advocate for Onesimus’s value as a human and a Christian, if a slave, and admonishes his Philemon to view him as an ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν.14 Colossians 3:22–4:1 // Ephesians 6:5–9 Regardless of the provenance of Colossians and Ephesians respectively, both letters contain a Haustafel, wherein both slaves and masters are addressed. Our primary interest here is to explore the contents of these parallel passages, beginning with the text in Colossians, which scholars typically adjudge to have been written prior to Ephesians, regardless of one’s perspective regarding the authorship of these letters. After having instructed wives and husbands (3:18–19) and children and fathers (3:20–21), the author of Colossians – be it Paul or another – addresses slaves and masters (3:22–4:1).15 To begin, slaves, like children but unlike wives, are enjoined to obey in all things (ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα) their “earthly [lit. “according to the flesh”] masters.” They are told to do so “not with eye-service as people-pleasers”; instead, they are serve their earthly kyrioi “with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord [τὸν κύριον]” (3:22).16 Additionally, in 3:23 believing slaves are directed to do all of their work wholeheartedly, “as to the Lord and not for human masters.” In the following 12. See further, e.g., Still, Philippians and Philemon, 179–80. 13. See further John M. G. Barclay, “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership,” NTS 37 (1991): 161–86. 14. Note more fully my “Philemon among the Letters of Paul: Theological and Canonical Considerations,” ResQ 47 (2005): 133–42. 15. I have treated both this passage and letter more fully in my “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, rev. ed., 13 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 12:263–360. 16. Translations are those of the author unless otherwise noted.

“PAUL,” “PETER,” AND SLAVES: TEXTS AND CONTEXTS

235

verse, this admonition is grounded in a spiritual knowledge that they themselves are meant to possess, namely, that it is from the Lord that they will receive “the reward of the inheritance” (3:24a). While not explicitly stated, it is clearly implied that any payoff or payout from an earthly master is penultimate and pales in comparison. If slaves are to obey their earthly masters, they are to serve (δουλεύετε) the Lord Christ (3:24b). All the while, they are to be mindful that even as it is the Lord from whom they are to receive “the reward of the inheritance,” it is no less the case that wrongdoers will receive their just desserts (3:25a). If favoritism (προσωπολημψία) was part of the warp and woof of their honor and shame workaday world, it is no way inherent to the economy of divine recompense (3:25b). Should 3:25 at first appear to be a thinly veiled theological threat to ensure servile compliance, 4:1 indicates that the matter is neither that simple nor straightforward. For after having offered slaves fulsome instruction in 3:22–25, in 4:1 Colossians places the didactical shoe, however briefly, upon masters’ feet. Masters (οἱ κύριοι) are directly addressed (cf. 3:19, 21) and are told to give to their slaves what is just and fair. If Christian slaves are to know that it is from the Lord Christ they will receive “the reward of the inheritance,” Christian masters are to be mindful that they, too, have a Master in heaven. Interpreters who are inclined to read this passage (and other New Testament Haustafeln instructing slaves and masters) as a faithless accommodation to first-century, Greco-Roman culture would do well to note the Christological orientation of the instruction as well as the eschatological accountability anticipated for all.17 Meanwhile, scholars who blithely disregard the conditions and costs of slavery in antiquity would do well to acknowledge how texts such as this have been used to support and perpetuate a deeply dehumanizing institution.18 When turning to the parallel text in Eph 6:5–9, one discovers, of course, not a few similarities. Therein, as in Colossians, slaves are commanded to obey their earthly masters with sincerity of heart, though it is not explicitly said that they are to do so in all things (6:5). Additionally and congruent with the companion text in Colossians, slaves are told not simply to offer “eyeservice as people-pleasers” (6:6), are called to work wholeheartedly “as to 17. See esp. John M. G. Barclay, “Ordinary but Different: Colossians and Hidden Moral Identity,” ABR 49 (2001): 34–52. 18. See further my “Pauline Theology and Ancient Slavery: Does the Former Support or Subvert the Latter?” HBT 27 (2005): 21–34.

236

T. D. STILL

the Lord and not ‘men’” (6:7), and are reminded that the Lord will reward individuals for the good they do – “whether slave or free” (6:8; cf. 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; 1 Pet 2:16; Rev 6:15). Meanwhile, masters receive the ambiguous admonition τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς (6:9). This is seemingly a call for masters to treat their slaves with decency (cf. Col 4:1). The charge that immediately follows, namely, for them to stop threatening (ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν) their charges, suggests the same. Moreover, as in Colossians, masters are meant to be knowledgeable of the fact that there is but one Master in heaven, a Master who shows no favoritism (6:9; cf. Col 3:25–4:1). Despite the demonstrable similarities between the instructions given to slaves and masters in Col 3:18–4:1 and Eph 6:5–9, respectively, one discernable and decided difference is that whereas in Col 4:22 slaves are meant to fear the Lord, in Eph 6:5 slaves are commanded to obey their “lords according to the flesh” with “fear and trembling” (μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου). Although this might well have been cogent counsel in a context where slaves were frequently regarded purely and simply as property and treated pitifully, such instruction, upon reflection, further empowers masters and ranges in a direction akin to what one finds in 1 Timothy and Titus, where masters are perceived and presented more than less as unbridled, unassailable authorities over their slaves. 1 Timothy 6:1–2; Titus 2:9–10 Subsequent to receiving instructions concerning widows (5:3–16) and elders (5:17–21), Timothy is told how to regard and guide slaves (6:1–2). Those who are under the yoke of slavery are to be taught to consider their masters (δεσπότας) as “worthy of all honor.” The rationale given for this injunction is “so that the name of God and the teaching might not be blasphemed” (6:1). Furthermore, those slaves who have believing masters are not to despise them; rather, they are to serve them all the more. Slaves are to view their Christian masters as beloved benefactors (6:2). In Titus 2 we read that slaves are to be taught to submit (ὑποτάσσεσθαι) to their own masters in all things (cf. Col 3:22). Additionally, they are “to be pleasing [to them]” and are not to contradict them (2:9). Foregoing stealing, masters are to be able to trust them fully and unequivocally so that “the teaching of God our Savior might be adorned in all things” (2:10). A few observations follow on from our reading of these passages in the Pastorals. Unlike the texts we have considered from Colossians and Ephesians, these verses do not presume that masters will be believers. In the

“PAUL,” “PETER,” AND SLAVES: TEXTS AND CONTEXTS

237

event that they are, however, slaves are to serve them all the more (1 Tim 6:2). Furthermore, total subjection and moral uprightness on the part of slaves with respect to their masters is meant to buttress, buoy, and beautify instruction given with respect to God and Christian doctrine (1 Tim 6:1; Titus 2:10). Additionally, it should be noted that although masters are supported, if not praised, neither Timothy nor Titus is told to tell them anything. This eerie silence is deafening.

INSTRUCTIONS TO SLAVES

IN

1 PETER 2:18–25

Sandwiched between calls for the auditors of 1 Peter in general and the wives addressed by 1 Peter in particular to submit to “every human authority” and to their husbands respectively (note 2:13; 3:1), in 1 Pet 2:18 slaves are commanded to submit to their masters in all fear (Οἱ οἰκέται ὑποτασσόμενοι ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ τοῖς δεσπόταις).19 What is more, it is anticipated that slaves will submit to their masters whether they are “good and gentle” or “unjust” (σκολιοῖς, lit. “crooked or bent”). First Peter maintains that it is commendable (χάρις) when an individual who is mindful of God endures the pain of suffering unjustly (2:19). On the contrary, no credit is to be accorded the slave who receives a beating for wrongdoing. Rather, to repeat, it is the slave who does good and yet suffers unjustly who is commendable to God (2:20). Slaves are then told in 2:21 that unto such unjust suffering they were called (ἐκλήθητε) because Christ suffered for them and thereby left for them an outline (ὑπογραμμόν) so that they might follow in his tracks (τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ). This (incredible) claim is then supported by a scriptural citation from Isa 53:9: “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth” (2:22). In 2:23–25, 1 Peter conjoins further reflections upon Christ’s crucifixion with additional citations from Isa 53 in an attempt to address the sorry lot of innocent slaves who suffer unjustly at the hands of malevolent masters. Although Christ was subject to insults and suffering, neither did he retaliate nor make threats. Rather, he delivered himself over to the Just Judge (2:23). 19. On the household code in 1 Peter, see, e.g., David Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, SBLMS 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981). See also the more recent study by J. de Waal Dryden, Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation, WUNT 2/209 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).

238

T. D. STILL

Then, in vv. 24–25, 1 Peter applies Isa 53:4–6 to Christ and to Christfollowers, including but not limited to slaves. Christological and soteriological claims result. Auditors – not least suffering slaves – are assured that Christ bore their sins in his body on the cross (2:24a). As a result, they are to die to sins and live to righteousness (2:24b). Additional theological salve is applied at the close of 2:24. There, Isa 53:5 is administered; they are informed that they have been healed by Christ’s wounds. The ethical admonition turn Christological meditation that is 1 Pet 2:18– 25 concludes in 2:25 with the author likening the letter’s recipients, not simply slaves, to wayward sheep (so Isa 53:6). Although they all like sheep had gone astray, they had come home. They had now (re)turned (ἐπεστράφητε νῦν) to the Lord, who is likened to the Shepherd and Overseer (τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον) of their souls (cf. 1 Pet 5:4). As with 1 Timothy and Titus, 1 Peter does not directly address masters. Neither does the letter, however, reduce slaves to automatons who lack moral agency, nor does it hold servants responsible for their masters’ hostile, mercurial behavior. (Neither do 1 Timothy nor Titus, for that matter.) As Shively T. J. Smith has recently and rightly noted, “[T]he letter [i.e., 1 Peter] attempts to assuage feelings of pain, fear, and isolation as well as the community’s potential fury at maltreatment. Survival, not reprisal, appears to be the letter writer’s priority.”20 What is more, as Smith insightfully observes, “In addition to being Lord over them [i.e., slaves], 1 Peter portrays Jesus as one of them.”21 I might also note in 1 Peter that even as Jesus becomes paradigmatic for slaves, slaves who “follow in his steps” (2:21) become exemplary Christians who live in fear of and as slaves of God and thereby as free, faithful Christ-followers (note 1 Pet 2:16–17).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS Having examined seven relevant Pauline and Petrine texts pertaining to slaves and slavery above, I now offer seven summative observations as well as a brief reflection by way of conclusion.22 20. Shively T. J. Smith, Strangers to Family: Diaspora and 1 Peter’s Invention of God’s Household (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 74. 21. Smith, Strangers as Family, 73 (italics hers). 22. See further Kevin Giles, “The Bible Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case Study in Hermeneutics,” EvQ 66 (1994): 3–16.

“PAUL,” “PETER,” AND SLAVES: TEXTS AND CONTEXTS

239

(1) Taken together, neither “Paul” nor “Peter” has a great deal to say regarding slaves and slavery. One may or may not find this to be surprising; I do find it to be interesting. The relative silence says something. The question is what. (2) In the texts we have treated, slavery is not supported per se; much less is it opposed. Rather, it is more than less presupposed. (3) Although some interpreters may hold “Paul” and “Peter” liable for perpetuating the status quo vis-à-vis slavery, it is worth noting that in their writings Christian slaves are afforded a modicum of decency that is not commonly extended to slaves in the first century of the Common Era – at least not in passages with which I am presently familiar. (4) Lest the foregoing point appears to be window dressing or, worse yet, special pleading, it is worth asking why these – and other New Testament authors – did not directly, forcefully, and unequivocally oppose slavery. Would that we knew! Perhaps they could not envision a world sans slaves and slavery. Perhaps they could, but thought it impossible, unadvisable, or unnecessary to oppose. Unfortunately, we simply do not know. (5) We do know, however, that both “Paul” and “Peter” made room for slaves in the Christian communities they sought to guide and instruct. If the world writ large was not and would not be ready and/or able for centuries on end to put an end to the institution of slavery, at least within the confines of the Christian communities addressed by “Paul” and “Peter” slaves were regarded and addressed as persons for whom Christ died, and they were called to obey and serve the Lord and to follow in his steps until the day of divine reckoning. (6) Yet, it must be acknowledged here that over the sweep of Christian history the church taken together sadly lacked the conviction, courage, and innovation necessary to abolish slavery. Even still, the grisly reality of modern slavery rears its ugly head. (7) That being said, it must also be acknowledged that over the Christian centuries not a few believers – slaves included – have found value, meaning, and purpose in regarding themselves as “slaves of Christ” and by living lives shaped by his humble example. Thus, “Paul” and “Peter” leave an ambiguous literary legacy relative to slaves and slavery. On the one hand, they afford to slaves a certain Christian dignity, autonomy, responsibility, and accountability. On the other hand, they offer no impassioned advocacy, nor do they set forth a positive proposal to alter the subservient state of their enslaved sisters and brothers – much less non-Christian outsiders. What is more, there is no denying that no small

240

T. D. STILL

number of their interpretative heirs have “misused, misinterpreted, and misappropriated” their writings to promulgate and perpetuate what we now know to be the evil that is slavery.23 Where does this leave us? Succinctly stated, it leaves us in a place where we as biblical and historical scholars do well to redouble our efforts to read texts carefully in light of both ancient and contemporary contexts lest the tragic story of slavery repeat itself in our day in new ways. If modern-day analogs are not readily identifiable, at the very least such a commitment will heighten our sensitivities and remind us of the responsibilities inherent to our academic task. Truett Seminary Baylor University

Todd D. STILL24

23. The words in quotations are from Smith, Strangers as Family, 70. 24. I am pleased to offer this essay as a token of respect and appreciation for my friend and colleague Troy W. Martin and his academic work.

13 THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON: CAN WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM EARLY CHRISTIAN INTERPRETERS?

The Letter to Philemon has had its fair share of rhetorical analysis from a number of perspectives. To mention a few: the letter has been studied from the perspective of classical rhetoric,1 the interrelationship of the letter genre and rhetoric,2 politeness theory,3 cultural rhetoric,4 Paul’s use of military metaphors in the letter,5 the extent to which the strategy followed by Paul overlaps with (and differs from) that in Pliny’s letter to Sabinianus,6 1. For example, F. Forrester Church, “Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” HTR 71 (1978): 17–33, who regards the letter as an example of deliberative rhetoric. See also Judith M. Ryan, in Bonnie B. Thurston and Judith M. Ryan, Philippians and Philemon, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 192–94, who discusses Paul’s rhetorical strategy in the letter in terms of the aspects of ēthos, pathos, and logos. 2. For example, E. Grace Nottingham, The Interrelationship of Genre and Rhetoric in the Letter to Philemon (Portland, OR: Theological Research Exchange Network, 1991); Christopher Kumitz, Der Brief als Medium der ἀγάπη. Eine Untersuchung zur rhetorischen und epistolographischen Gestalt des Philemonbriefes, Europäische Hochschulschriften 787 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004); and Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “Paul’s Persuasive Prose: An Epistolary Analysis of the Letter to Philemon,” in Philemon in Perspective. Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 29–60. Cf. also the study of Thomas Johann Bauer, Paulus und die kaiserzeitliche Epistolographie. Kontextualisierung und Analyse der Briefe an Philemon und an die Galater, WUNT 276 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 99–166, for a detailed study of Philemon as letter. 3. Andrew Wilson, “The Pragmatics of Politeness and Pauline Epistolography: A Case Study of the Letter to Philemon,” JSNT 48 (1992): 107–19. 4. Perry V. Kea (“Paul’s Letter to Philemon: A Short Analysis of Its Values,” PRSt 23 [1996]: 223–32) discusses the degree to which Paul’s handling of Onesimus deviates from or adheres to Roman cultural values. 5. According to Craig S. Wansink (Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments, JSNTSup 130 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 147–74), Paul’s references to himself as “prisoner of Christ” are based on the notions of being a soldier and a prisoner of war. 6. John M. G. Barclay, Colossians and Philemon, T&T Clark Study Guides (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 103–11.

242

D. F. TOLMIE

the way in which first-century appeals letters functioned,7 power relations in the letter,8 Paul’s use of enthymemes in the letter,9 sociorhetorical approaches,10 rhetography,11 a text-centered approach,12 the affects and emotions in the letter,13 and the rhetorical function of stylistic form.14 In this study, I shall pursue yet another angle – one that, as far as I could determine, has not received a great deal of attention thus far – namely, the way in which early Christian interpreters interpreted the letter. I shall address this specific question: To what extent can their interpretation of this brief letter assist us in our quest for a better understanding of the rhetoric of the letter? Of course, as we all know, they did not set out to explain the rhetoric of the letter in the way in which we currently approach the issue. Rather, they viewed their task as explaining what Paul was saying to the readers of his time, or in Margaret M. Mitchell’s words (with reference to Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Letter to the Galatians): “John regards the Pauline epistles as the living voice of his much loved Paul. Hence the exegetical task is to understand what Paul said in the past, and is saying at this very moment to the attentive ears of the 7. David M. Russell, “The Strategy of a First-Century Appeals Letter: A Discourse Reading of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon,” JOTT 11 (1998): 1–25. 8. For example, Chris Frilingos, “‘For My Child, Onesimus’: Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon,” JBL 119 (2000): 91–104; Scott S. Elliott, “‘Thanks, but No Thanks’: Tact, Persuasion, and the Negotiation of Power in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” NTS 57 (2011): 51– 64. 9. Marc J. Debanné, Enthymemes in the Letters of Paul, LNTS 303 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 85–94. 10. For example, Ben W. Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 51–97. 11. See Roy R. Jeal, Exploring Philemon: Freedom, Brotherhood, and Partnership in the New Society, Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015); Jeal, “Blending Two Arts: Rhetorical Words, Rhetorical Pictures, and Social Formation in the Letter to Philemon,” Sino-Christian Studies 5 (2008): 9–38. Jeal (Exploring Philemon, xxvi) defines “rhetography” as follows: “The progressive, sensory-aesthetic, and argumentative textures of a text that prompt graphic images or pictures in the minds of listeners and readers that imply certain truths and realities.” Take also note that, according to Jeal, Philemon is primarily a wisdom text, employing “a wisdom rhetorolect, has a wisdom goal, and has a view towards wisdom space” (Jeal, Exploring Philemon, 7). 12. Andries H. Snyman, “Persuasion in Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 20 (2009): 178–93. 13. Peter Lampe, “Affects and Emotions in the Rhetoric of Paul’s Letter to Philemon: A Rhetorical-Psychological Interpretation,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 61– 78. 14. Ernst Wendland, “‘You Will Do Even More Than I Say’: On the Rhetorical Function of Stylistic Form in the Letter to Philemon,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 79– 112.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

243

faithful.”15 Nevertheless, we can still get a fairly good idea of the way in which these interpreters perceived what we nowadays call the rhetoric of the letter. I shall highlight this aspect in this study.

AMBROSIASTER Ambrosiaster’s commentary – written in Latin by an otherwise unknown Christian (probably a member of the Roman clergy) during the time of Pope Damasus (366–384 CE) – is the oldest extant commentary on the entire Pauline corpus.16 Ambrosiaster’s views have been described as “distinctively clerical, distinctively moderate, and distinctively Roman.”17 The commentary offers a clear account of Paul’s message to educated people of Ambrosiaster’s time.18 For our purposes, I shall highlight three aspects. First, Ambrosiaster’s view of what we would currently call the rhetorical situation can broadly be described as corresponding to what later became known as the “traditional view”: Onesimus, a slave (and not a believer), offended his Christian master, Philemon, and then absconded.19 He was later baptized by Paul, and then sent back to Philemon. Ambrosiaster calls the letter “a personal letter” and mentions that Paul wanted Philemon to receive Onesimus back. Paul also wanted Philemon to thank God for 15. Margaret M. Mitchell, “Reading Rhetoric with Patristic Exegetes: John Chrysostom on Galatians,” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 333–55, here 339 (emphasis hers). 16. On the author of this writing, see Gerald L. Bray, ed., Commentaries on Galatians– Philemon: Ambrosiaster, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2009), xv–xvi. For a long time it was assumed that Desiderius Erasmus was responsible for the name “Ambrosiaster,” but this is not the case. It is likely that Franciscus Lucas Brugensis coined the name in his Notationes of 1580. See, in this regard, Jan Krans, “Who Coined the Name ‘Ambrosiaster’?,” in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer, ed. Jan Krans et al., NovTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 274–81. On the date, see Charles Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity, Bible in Ancient Christianity 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1081. The time of writing of his commentary and the Quaestiones (which is also attributed to him) may be narrowed down to the early 380s. See David G. Hunter, “2008 NAPS Presidential Address: The Significance of Ambrosiaster,” JECS 17 (2009): 1–26, here 7. 17. Hunter, “Significance of Ambrosiaster,” 5 (emphasis his). 18. Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 1082. 19. For a detailed overview of research in this regard, and how this view was challenged at a later stage, see D. Francois Tolmie, “Tendencies in the Research on the Letter to Philemon since 1980,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 1–27, esp. 2–6.

244

D. F. TOLMIE

Onesimus, because he would be receiving him back not only as a slave, but also as a beloved brother (Comm. Phlm. arg. [337.4–7]).20 As Ambrosiaster’s commentary on the Letter to Philemon is the oldest extant commentary on the letter, this is the first time that this particular view is expressed in a commentary. However, as Mitchell points out, this interpretation of the origin of the letter was not something new, and it is also reflected elsewhere in early Christian literature of that time.21 The way in which Ambrosiaster fills out this picture is interesting. In his commentary on vv. 10–14, he points out that Paul had baptized Onesimus, because he had run for divine help (ad divinum auxilium; Comm. Phlm. 10– 14 [339.22]). He also mentions that Paul had seen in him some hope of usefulness (videns in illo utilitatis spem; Comm. Phlm. 10–14 [339.23–24]). Furthermore, in his comments on vv. 15–16, Ambrosiaster mentions that Onesimus had taken refuge with Paul after a long journey (confugit longa peregrinatione ad apostolum; Comm. Phlm. 15–16 [340.5–6]). Unfortunately he does not elaborate on any of this. We cannot, therefore, be exactly certain as to what he has in mind. However, it is intriguing that he apparently did not portray Onesimus’s flight as happening in the way in which slaves usually went about the matter, that is, trying to get away as quickly as possible to a location where the likelihood of being identified as runaway slaves was low (with Onesimus then accidentally meeting Paul).22 It rather seems that Ambrosiaster thought that Onesimus deliberately went to Paul for help, or, in his own words, that he ran “for divine help.” This notion – as well as the statement that Onesimus took refuge with Paul – is not found in any of the later early Christian commentaries, thus making Ambrosiaster the only early Christian interpreter who seems to have had this idea. If my interpretation of what Ambrosiaster wrote is indeed correct, it is significant as it may then be regarded as support for Peter Lampe’s interpretation of the origin of the letter.23 20. References are to the text in Heinrich Josef Vogels, Ambrosiastri qvi dicitvr commentarivs in epistvlas Pavlinas III: In epistvlas ad Galatas, ad Efesios, ad Filippenses, ad Colosenses, ad Thesalonicenses, ad Timothevm, ad Titvm, ad Filemonem, CSEL 81/3 (Vienna: Hölder-PichlerTempsky, 1968). For an English translation, see Bray, Commentaries Galatians–Philemon, 161– 63. Arg. is an abbreviation for argumentum, the section in earlier commentaries that precedes the comments on the individual verses. 21. Margaret M. Mitchell, “John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look,” HTR 88 (1995): 135–48, esp. 145–47. 22. See Peter Lampe, “Keine ‘Sklavenflucht’ des Onesimus,” ZNW 76 (1985): 135–37, esp. 136. 23. According to Lampe, “Keine ‘Sklavenflucht,’” 135–37, Onesimus should not be classified as a fugitivus. Although he had left Philemon’s house, he intended to return, and thus he went to Paul to intercede on his behalf so that he could return. See also Lampe, “Affects and Emotions,” 62–65.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

245

A second important aspect to be noted is Ambrosiaster’s emphasis on the notion of hierarchy in his interpretation of the letter.24 As David Hunter already pointed out, Ambrosiaster was a man of the church; the authority of bishops, presbyters, and deacons was a hotly debated issue in his time. It is, therefore, not surprising that his reception of Paul’s letter tended to highlight the hierarchical relationship between Paul and Philemon.25 Some examples: Ambrosiaster points out that Philemon was not ordained to any church office but was one of the lay people (Comm. Phlm. arg. [337.4–5]; see also later on Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [337.17–338.1]). On the other hand, Ambrosiaster stresses that Paul was an apostle, and that he thus had apostolic authority to “command” Philemon, who was his disciple (Comm. Phlm. 8–9 [338.29–339.1]; see also later on Comm. Phlm. 10–14 [339.20]). In Ambrosiaster’s interpretation of v. 7 (where Paul expresses his joy since Philemon had refreshed the hearts of the saints), there is something similar: Ambrosiaster regards as reason for Paul’s joy the fact that he was certain that Philemon would obey his requests as outlined in the letter, since Paul was “superior” to the other believers whose hearts Philemon had already refreshed; Philemon would thus have no choice but to do what was being asked of him (Comm. Phlm. 7 [338.24]). The place that Ambrosiaster assigns to Onesimus in this hierarchy should be particularly noted. As a rule, he would be at the bottom of the hierarchy, i.e., Paul (apostle) would take first place – followed by Philemon (Paul’s disciple) – who, in turn, would be followed by Onesimus (Philemon’s slave). However, it is interesting to note that Ambrosiaster also points out that Paul calls Onesimus his “brother” and “son,” which, according to him, implies that Onesimus has thus become Paul’s equal. In other words, he has been promoted from the bottom of the hierarchy to the top. Since Paul was Philemon’s senior, this implied that Onesimus had also become Philemon’s senior. As Ambrosiaster puts it: “as he was now not only equal to his master in merit, but also the brother of his [= Philemon’s] teacher” (Comm. Phlm. 15– 16 [340.8–9]). Paul’s request that Philemon should receive Onesimus, as he would have received Paul, is even linked to “Solomon’s” saying in Sir 10:25 that free people (in this instance, Philemon) would serve a wise slave – in this instance, Onesimus (Comm. Phlm. 17 [340.16–22]). Ambrosiaster does not explain what the practical implications of Philemon’s “serving a wise slave” might have been. He was apparently of the 24. For a more detailed discussion of what follows in the next three paragraphs, see D. Francois Tolmie, “Paul’s Exercise of Authority in the Letter to Philemon – A Perspective from the Fourth and Fifth Centuries C.E.,” In Luce Verbi 49.2 (2016): 1–7. 25. Hunter, “Significance of Ambrosiaster,” 14–21.

246

D. F. TOLMIE

opinion that this strange situation would have put Philemon in a difficult spot. One can even detect indications in Ambrosiaster’s comments that he thought that Philemon might have found it difficult to comply with Paul’s request. Some examples in this regard: In his explanation of vv. 15–16, he points out that masters sometimes had an arrogant attitude towards their slaves, and then argues that Paul refers to Onesimus as his brother in order to prevent Philemon from taking such an attitude (Comm. Phlm. 15–16 [340.7–12]). In his discussion of v. 17, he even mentions that Paul was attempting to frighten Philemon so that he would take Onesimus back for fear that he could not persuade him to do so out of love (Comm. Phlm. 17 [340.16–22]). Furthermore, in his discussion of v. 18, he states that Paul’s purpose in this verse was to remove any excuse for anger that Philemon might have believed he had, in case he could not forgive Onesimus (Comm. Phlm. 18 [340.24–25]). On several occasions, Ambrosiaster also stresses that Paul deliberately tries to induce Philemon to be obedient, for example, by mentioning his intention to visit him (Comm. Phlm. 22 [341.21–22]). This realistic appraisal of the possible effect that Paul’s letter might have had on Philemon is rare among early Christian interpreters. In fact, the only other commentator who suggested something similar was Theodore of Mopsuestia. The others never doubted that Paul’s letter would be a resounding success. Finally, I shall briefly point out some of the interesting ways in which Ambrosiaster interprets some of the smaller details in the letter. According to him, Paul calls himself “a prisoner of Christ” (v. 1) to indicate the dignity of the letter (Comm. Phlm. 1–4 [337.13]. The reason for the joy that Paul mentions in v. 7 is linked to the fact that Paul is pleased, because he is certain that Philemon will do what is required of him (Comm. Phlm. 7 [338.21–24]). The fact that Philemon was a good man explains why Paul appeals to Philemon, instead of finding it necessary to order him (Comm. Phlm. 8–9 [339.2]). Paul’s appeal in vv. 10–14 (“I appeal to you for my child Onesimus”) is read as an indication of Paul’s humility (Comm. Phlm. 10– 14 [339.19]) and, in vv. 17–22, Ambrosiaster identifies several changes in Paul’s strategy: v. 17 (“If you consider me your partner”) was meant to frighten Philemon (Comm. Phlm. 17 [340.20–22]); v. 18 (“Charge that to my account”) to remove any excuses for anger on his side (Comm. Phlm. 18 [340.23–25]); in v. 20 (“Refresh my heart”), Paul treats Philemon gently (Comm. Phlm. 20 [341.14–18], whereas v. 22 (“Prepare a guest room for me”) is aimed at making Philemon more willing to obey (Comm. Phlm. 22 [341.21–25]).

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

247

JEROME Jerome wrote his interpretation of the Letter to Philemon between 386 and 388 CE, shortly after he moved to Bethlehem; it was the first of his four works on the Pauline Letters.26 He made use of Origen’s commentary on the letter to such an extent that it is generally accepted that Jerome’s exposition of the letter gives access to Origen’s commentary.27 Unlike Ambrosiaster, Jerome did not have any doubts that Paul’s letter would have met with success. For example, in his discussion of vv. 1–3, he stresses that Paul would obtain what he wants from Philemon (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [84.70–72]); and in his explanation of vv. 10–13, he remarks that Philemon would not have dared to say “No” (Comm. Phlm. 10–13 [96.383– 384]).28 As to the rhetorical situation of the letter, Jerome believes that Onesimus had stolen some of Philemon’s possessions and then fled to Italy so that he would not be caught easily. There he wasted Philemon’s wealth by being extravagant (Comm. Phlm. 8–9 [94.336–339]). He came to faith in Christ, repented of his earlier life, and was baptized by Paul, who was thus witness that he had truly converted (Comm. Phlm. 8–9 [94.344–358]). Paul then sent him back to Colossae, with two letters, one to the whole church and a private letter with his recommendations to Philemon (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [85.11– 13]). Ambrosiaster thought that Paul wanted Philemon to accept Onesimus back as a slave (and a spiritual brother). Jerome has a different view. According to him, Paul wanted Onesimus to become his (= Paul’s) partner in ministry. 26. Alfred Friedl, “St Jerome’s Dissertation on the Letter to Philemon,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 289–315, esp. 289–90. 27. Origen’s commentary on the Letter to Philemon has unfortunately been lost. Adolf von Harnack offers a cogent discussion of the extent to which Jerome depended on Origen in Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, TUGAL 12.3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1918–19), 141–46. See also Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 100–38; Caroline P. Bammel, “Die Pauluskommentare des Hieronymus: Die ersten wissenschaftlichen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?,” in Tradition and Exegesis in Early Christian Writers, ed. Caroline P. Bammel, VCS 500 (Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1995), 187–207; and Ronald E. Heine, “In Search of Origen’s Commentary on Philemon,” HTR 93 (2000): 117–33. Friedl (“St Jerome’s Dissertation,” 289–315) offers a detailed discussion of Jerome’s dissertation on the Letter to Philemon. 28. References are to the critical edition by Frederica Bucchi, “Commentarii in Epistvlas Pavli Apostoli ad Titvm et ad Philemonem,” in Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentariorvm in Epistvlam Pavli Apostoli ad Philemonem Liber Vnvs, ed. Frederica Bucchi, CCSL 77C (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), 75–106. For an English translation, see Thomas P. Scheck, St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 351–82.

248

D. F. TOLMIE

In discussing vv. 8–9, Jerome puts it as follows: Paul wanted Philemon to pardon Onesimus, because he wanted him to become a partner in his ministry, Paul’s ministry being the gospel of Jesus Christ (Comm. Phlm. 8–9 [94.352–95.353]). Jerome repeats this later on. He points out that, by fleeing from Philemon, Onesimus had done something evil; however, God turned this into something good, as Onesimus ultimately became a minister of the gospel (Comm. Phlm. 15–16 [98.446–447]). Unfortunately, Jerome does not spell this out in more detail. Yet it is clear that he had a different view of Paul’s purpose in the letter. Jerome also regularly comments on what we would call Paul’s rhetorical strategy. In the majority of instances, it reflects a thoughtful appreciation of Paul’s strategy. I shall briefly highlight some of these: Paul refers to himself as “a prisoner of Christ” (v. 1), instead of “an apostle of Christ,” because the former was something to be more proud of; furthermore, “the authority of chains” was necessary in this letter (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [83.68–84.71]). Paul mentions Timothy as cosender (v. 1), because the letter would then have more authority (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [86.138–142]). The order of the names Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus (vv. 1–2) is important, as Apphia’s name is placed in the middle so that she can be supported on both sides by males (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [88.194–197]).29 Although the letter is written by Paul and Timothy, and Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the church in Philemon’s house are all indicated as recipients, the fact that Paul uses “you” in the singular in v. 4 implies that the letter is addressed to Philemon only (Comm. Phlm. 4–6 [89.211–216]). Paul first praises Philemon at length on purpose before coming to the point (Comm. Phlm. 8–9 [94.329–335]), but in vv. 10–13, a change in Paul’s strategy can be detected: because he wants to obtain what he is asking for, he no longer pleads for Philemon’s slave, but now rather pleads for his own “son” (Comm. Phlm. 10–13 [95.361–363]). In v. 17, Paul takes advantage of the fact that Philemon wishes to be his “partner”: he could become Paul’s partner if he were willing to also accept Onesimus as his partner (Comm. Phlm. 17 [98.459–99.467]). Finally, in the case of v. 19 (“I will repay”), Jerome offers an interesting explanation (perhaps because of discomfort with Paul’s strategy?). In this instance, Paul speaks to Philemon as if he were speaking to a stranger or outsider. In fact, this was not the case, as there was a very special relationship between them. Paul had proclaimed the words of Christ to Philemon; Philemon thus owed his being 29. For the way in which early Christian interpreters interpreted Paul’s reference to Apphia, see D. Francois Tolmie, “The Reception of Apphia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries C.E.,” in Perspectives on the Socially Disadvantaged in Early Christianity, ed. D. Francois Tolmie, Acta Theologica Supplementa 23 (Bloemfontein: SunMedia, 2016), 282–300.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

249

a believer to Paul. All that belongs to Paul thus belongs to Philemon, and all that belongs to Philemon thus belongs to Paul. This means that Onesimus, who belongs to Philemon, also belongs to Paul, and that Paul could merely have continued making use of the services of Onesimus. However, Paul leaves the decision to Philemon (Comm. Phlm. 19 [99.479–489]). It is also clear from Jerome’s interpretation that he read the letter very carefully. For example, he picked up two ambiguities in vv. 2 and 4. To whose house does Paul refer in v. 2, to that of Philemon or to that of Archippus (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [88.180–184])? Does “always” in v. 4 mean that Paul always thanks God, or that he always remembers Philemon in his prayers (Comm. Phlm. 4–6 [89.213–216])? In some instances, Jerome’s interpretation is clearly wrong. For example, he misses the fact that Paul uses a chiasm in v. 5 (love … faith … Lord Jesus … all the saints), thus he has to resort to a lengthy explanation of what Paul meant by referring to having faith in both Jesus and all the saints (Comm. Phlm. 4–6 [89.225–93.311]). In the case of v. 22, he wrongly interprets the word hospitium as referring to an inn or separate house, and not to a guest room within Philemon’s house, thus making it necessary for him to explain that Paul needed a huge place, as many people would turn up to listen to his preaching (Comm. Phlm. 22 [103.533–104.549]).30 Sometimes Jerome also offers peculiar explanations for what Paul is doing. For example, when he discusses Paul’s use of the word “beloved” in v. 1 (in addressing Philemon), he points out that the Greek does not have ἠγαπημένῳ, but ἀγαπητῷ.31 According to Jerome, the former may refer to anyone, even someone who is not deserving of love, whereas the latter is only used in instances where someone deserves to be loved. Another example: towards the end, Jerome offers a peculiar interpretation of the meaning of all the names in the letter. He probably based this on Origen, and he used it as a way of summarizing the message of Paul’s letter.32

CHRYSOSTOM John Chrysostom did not write a commentary on the Letter to Philemon, but his homilies on the letter contain a wealth of information for the issue 30. So, correctly, Scheck, Commentaries, 376 n. 143. 31. Jerome distinguishes between dilectus (“beloved”) and diligibilis (“lovable”; Comm. Philm. 1–3 [87.151]). 32. Friedl, “St Jerome’s Dissertation,” 299 n. 90; and Paul B. Decock, “The Reception of the Letter to Philemon in the Early Church: Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 273–88, esp. 279–80.

250

D. F. TOLMIE

investigated in this study.33 In fact, of all the early Christian interpreters, Chrysostom provides the most information in this regard by far. I shall, therefore, limit this discussion to what I regard as crucial for this issue. First, Chrysostom views the rhetorical situation as follows: Philemon, a noble man, had a slave, Onesimus, who stole something from him and then took off with it. Onesimus came to Paul, who was imprisoned in Rome, and Paul then taught him in the Christian faith and baptized him. Thereupon, Paul wrote a letter to recommend Onesimus to his master, Philemon, so that he should forgive him and receive him as a reborn (Hom. Phlm. arg. [326.8– 11]).34 Later on, Chrysostom explicitly points out that Onesimus was sent back as a slave and was to remain a slave in Philemon’s household (Hom. Phlm. arg. [327.21–28]). In other words, Chrysostom’s view of the purpose of the letter differs from that of Jerome. Second, the extent to which Chrysostom frames his interpretation of Paul’s rhetoric in terms of honor/shame categories is remarkable.35 In current interpretations of the letter, scholars occasionally refer to these categories, but not as comprehensively as Chrysostom does.36 This is already apparent at the outset of his writing. Whereas current studies of the rhetorical situation of the letter almost always begin by focusing on the relationship between Paul and Onesimus, Chrysostom’s point of departure is Philemon.37 He begins by mentioning that Philemon was an honorable man (Hom. Phlm. arg. [325.1–3]) 33. It is not certain when the homilies were written, but, broadly speaking, they were written either at approximately the same time as Jerome’s interpretation of the letter or a little later. Some, like Johannes Quasten (Patrology, vol. 3 [Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960], 448–49), situate them during Chrysostom’s ministry in Antioch (386–397 CE); others, like J. N. D. Kelly (Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom – Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995], 132–33), situate them during his ministry in Constantinople (397– 404 CE). Wendy Mayer brought to my attention that Quasten’s opinion derives from Johannes Stilting via Lietzmann, whereas Kelly’s derives from Von Bonsdorff via Baur. See also Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations, OrChrAn 273 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 2005), Part 1, passim, as well as the summary in Table 13.a–b. For the purpose of this investigation, the exact dating of the homilies does not make any difference. 34. I have used the Greek text in volume 6 of Frederic Field, Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopo Constantinopolitani interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum homilias facta, 7 vols., Bibliotheca Patrum (Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1849–1862). 35. Hennie F. Stander (“Honour and Shame as Key Concepts in Chrysostom’s Exegesis of the Gospel of John,” HTSt 59 [2003]: 899–913) has already shown the importance of these categories in Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Gospel of John. 36. See, for example, Lampe, “Affects and Emotions,” 70; and Church, “Rhetorical Structure,” 27. 37. See, for example, Church, “Rhetorical Structure,” 20; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 23; and Wilson, “Pragmatics of Politeness,” 112.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

251

and that the Letter to Philemon is directed to an owner (slave) on behalf of his slave (Hom. Phlm. arg. [326.8–10]). Later on, he also mentions that Paul neither refused nor was ashamed to send Onesimus back to Philemon (Hom. Phlm. arg. [327.12–16]). He uses the term αἰσχύνομαι, one of the standard Greek terms used in the ancient world to refer to the all-important honor/ shame value system.38 Further on in the homilies he regularly returns to the honor/shame categories, and then in two distinct ways. Sometimes he uses the notion when referring to the effect that he thought Paul’s words would have had on Philemon. According to Chrysostom, the letter would have put Philemon out of countenance in the sense that it would be shameful for Philemon not to act in the way in which Paul wanted him to.39 I give some examples in this regard. In his discussion of vv. 1–3, Chrysostom begins by noting the effect this part of the letter would have had on Philemon. It would calm him down, keep him from being shamed, and quench his anger.40 Later on, Chrysostom interprets the thanksgiving of the letter (vv. 4–6) in a similar vein. Paul does not introduce the request immediately, but first expresses his admiration for Philemon and lauds him for his good behavior and his love; then he mentions that he prays for him, that he refreshes many believers, and that he is obedient. Only then does Paul make his request. According to Chrysostom, in this way Paul puts Philemon out of countenance.41 He conveys the notion that, if Philemon was willing to do so much for other people, Paul was entitled to a great deal more. Chrysostom points out something similar in the case of v. 7 (Paul’s expression of joy). According to Chrysostom, nothing puts us out of countenance more than when someone reminds us of the kindness we bestowed on other people;42 this is especially so if the person reminding us of this is someone entitled to more respect (αἰδεσιμώτερος; Hom. Phlm. 7 [336.23]) than the people we helped. If we were willing to help them, we should be much more willing to help him.43 38.  William R. Domeris, “Honour and Shame in the New Testament,” Neot 27 (1993): 283–97, here 284; and Halvor Moxnes, “Honor and Shame,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, ed. Richard L. Rohrbaugh (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, 1996), 20–40, here 24. For a good discussion of theoretical matters and, in particular, the important role that “a public court of reputation” played in this regard, see Zeba Crook, “Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited,” JBL 128 (2009): 591–611. 39. See also the discussion later on of this concept as used by Theodore of Mopsuestia. 40. He uses the word ἐπαισχύνομαι (Hom. Philm. 1–3 [328.32–329.1]). 41. The word he uses is δυσωπέω (Hom. Philm. 4–6 [335.23]), translated by LSJ as “to put out of countenance, put to shame” (Hom. Philm. 4–6 [335.23]). 42. Chrysostom uses the word δυσωπέω again (Hom. Philm. 7 [336.23]). 43. For other examples in this regard, see Chrysostom’s interpretation of vv. 9, 12, and 24.

252

D. F. TOLMIE

In other instances, Chrysostom uses the honor/shame categories for indicating a change in honor ascribed to people mentioned in the letter. For example, Paul’s reference to the church in Philemon’s house is (wrongly) interpreted as referring only to the slaves in Philemon’s house.44 Chrysostom regards this as an indication that Paul is honoring them. Chrysostom also points out that Paul does not mention the slaves explicitly, a deliberate choice to ensure that he would not cause any offense to Philemon. Thus, for Chrysostom, Paul succeeds in cleverly balancing both aspects: he honors the slaves, but he does not upset the owner (Hom. Phlm. 1–3 [330.10–24]). Later on, in his discussion of v. 10, Chrysostom points out the change that occurred in Onesimus’s status. He has now become someone “worthy of honor.”45 Chrysostom links this to Paul’s imprisonment. Onesimus was fathered by Paul while the latter was in chains, i.e., while he was suffering for Christ; Paul obtained honor by suffering for Christ, and this honor was now shared by Onesimus who had become his “son” during his suffering (Hom. Phlm. 10 [338.8–17]). Paul’s request to Philemon later on to “receive” Onesimus is interpreted along similar lines. According to Chrysostom, this does not only mean that Onesimus was worthy of being pardoned by Philemon, but also that he was worthy of receiving honor, because he had become Paul’s “son” (Hom. Phlm. 12 [339.9–11]).46 As mentioned earlier, Chrysostom offers a wealth of information on the detail of Paul’s rhetorical strategy. In many instances, this corresponds to current insights. However, in some instances he goes beyond what seems to be consensus among current exegetes. I shall now draw attention to some of these examples. In the case of v. 3, Chrysostom argues that, in mentioning “grace,” Paul deliberately reminds Philemon of his own sins and that God has forgiven him. In this way, Paul is appealing to Philemon to follow the example of his 44. As Mitchell (“Second Look,” 138) points out, some of the early Christian interpreters did not understand the concept of house churches, and Chrysostom interpreted Paul’s reference to it as meaning that all the people in the household were believers. 45. διὰ τοῦτο ἄξιος πολλῆς τυχεῖν τῆς τιμῆς (Hom. Philm. 10 [338.15–16]). As Chris L. de Wet (“Honour Discourse in John Chrysostom’s Exegesis of the Letter to Philemon,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010], 317–31, here 325) points out, Chrysostom, in this instance, emphasizes the “newly found fictive kinship” between Paul and Onesimus, which is then interpreted in terms of the honor/shame value system. 46. The nuance that Chrysostom detects in προσλαβοῦ [προσλαμβάνω] is summarized by PGL as: “receive, accept someone … of hospitality among men” (emphasis original). For more examples of the role that the concept “honor” plays in Chrysostom’s interpretation of the letter, see his discussion of vv. 13, 15–16, and 17–19.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

253

“owner.”47 With regard to vv. 4–6, Chrysostom argues that Paul deliberately spends time on other issues in order to avoid the impression that Onesimus was the only reason for his writing the letter (Hom. Phlm. 4–6 [335.18– 31]). In the case of v. 6, Chrysostom draws attention to the expression ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως and, in particular, to the word κοινωνία. According to him, Paul does not merely refer to Philemon’s faith, but to the fellowship of his faith. By this word, Paul connects Philemon to himself, thereby referring to the one body to which they belong; this would make it impossible for Philemon to refuse his request.48 Chrysostom interprets v. 8 (“Though I have the boldness to command you”) in terms of the effect that it would have had on Philemon. He would have viewed it as a compliment; this implies that he was a “great man,” because his behavior in the past gave Paul the confidence to approach him about this issue (Hom. Phlm. 8 [337.5– 18]). In the case of v. 11 (“Onesimus who had been useless in the past, but now was useful both to you and me”), Chrysostom detects an a minore ad maius argument. If Onesimus had been useful to Paul – who expects so much precision – he would be much more useful to Philemon (Hom. Phlm. 11 [338.18–25]). Finally, Chrysostom also views Paul’s mentioning of Epaphras as a “fellow-prisoner” (v. 23) as a way of exerting pressure on Philemon. Epaphras was a fellow citizen of Philemon, and if one of Philemon’s fellow citizens were willing to suffer with Paul, how could he refuse to grant Paul’s request regarding his slave (Hom. Phlm. 24 [349.7– 9])?

PELAGIUS Pelagius’s commentary on the Pauline letters arose as a result of his oral instruction to believers in aristocratic circles in Rome. It was composed between 405 and 410 CE, i.e., before the controversy about his teachings erupted.49 The relationship between his commentary on the Pauline letters and that of Theodore of Mopsuestia is not clear, but it seems that Theodore 47. μίμησαι τὸν δεσπότην (Hom. Philm. 1–3 [330.24–27]). 48. Εἰ κοινωνὸς εἶ, φησὶ, κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ὀφείλεις κοινωνεῖν (Hom. Philm. 4–6 [336.18–19]). 49. Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 1236. See also Ian Christopher Levy, The Letter to the Galatians, Bible in Medieval Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 24. Augustine wrote his first work against Pelagius in 412 CE. See Hubertus R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 405.

254

D. F. TOLMIE

was familiar with Pelagius’s commentary.50 This would imply that Pelagius’s work preceded that of Theodore. Pelagius’s commentary was revised twice, namely by Cassiodorus and his students, who removed what they deemed to be Pelagian errors.51 Pelagius describes the rhetorical situation as follows. Paul writes the letter from jail in Rome, on behalf of Onesimus, Philemon’s slave, whom he had baptized, the reason being that Paul knew that he would receive grace from his master more easily after having received it from God. Pelagius also notes that Paul sent Onesimus back to make amends, with the promise that he would act in the correct way in the future (Comm. Phlm. arg. [536.1– 4]).52 Pelagius’s comments on the letter itself are extremely brief, and, for the purposes of this investigation, there is not much to be found. The only striking aspect is the fact that he ignores what most of us would recognize as one of the most important aspects – if not the most important aspect – in the letter, namely the way in which the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus changed once Onesimus became a believer. For Pelagius, though, the emphasis falls on Paul. Nothing in the letter is more important than Paul’s humility, which serves as an example to be followed among our equals (Comm. Phlm. arg. [536.5–7]).53 In fact, Pelagius’s exposition focuses on Paul and Philemon’s exemplary behavior, and the only role that Onesimus portrays is that of a slave fulfilling his duty. Paul promises that Onesimus will act in the correct way in the future (Comm. Phlm. arg. [536.4]); he trusts that Onesimus will be able to serve him (= Paul) in a good way (Comm. Phlm. 13 [538.7–10]). Even Paul’s reference to Onesimus as “not a slave but a dear brother” in v. 16 is interpreted in one sense only, namely that in the future, he will serve Philemon not out of necessity but willingly (Comm. Phlm. 16 [539.1–2]). The fact that the letter could be interpreted in such a way in a Christian context serves as a stark reminder of the considerable influence our presuppositions have on our engagement with texts. 50. Rowan A. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul, WGRW 26 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), xi. 51. For a brief overview of this issue, see Theodore de Bruyn, Pelagius’s Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, OECS (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 27–28. 52. Comm. Philm. arg., 536.1–4. I used the text of Alexander Souter, Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. II. Text and Aparatus Criticus, TS 9.2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926), citing page and line numbers according to this text. 53. This emphasis on Paul’s exemplary behavior is also found in Pelagius’s exposition of the other Pauline letters in the rest of the commentary. See Alexander Souter, Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. I. Introduction, TS 9.2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926), 69.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

255

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA Theodore’s commentaries on the Pauline letters were written late in the first and/or at the beginning of the second decade of the fifth century.54 As John T. Fitzgerald points out, Theodore was primarily concerned about two matters in his commentary on the Letter to Philemon, namely that it was still relevant for the believers of his time, and that the letter does not imply that Christian slaves should be manumitted.55 Theodore offers a detailed description of the rhetorical situation of the letter. Onesimus was a slave who belonged to Philemon, a religious and faithful man, but then he fled from his master with evil intentions.56 While Paul was in prison, he (= Paul) recognized him as someone from Philemon’s household and then exhorted him successfully. Onesimus abandoned his former malice and agreed of his own accord to return to Philemon, promising to obey him in the future. Paul thus sent him back to Philemon as a slave who would obey orders and who would also be diligent in religious matters. In his letter, Paul asks Philemon to forgive him and to take him back with affection (Comm. Phlm. arg. [772.1–14]).57 Like Ambrosiaster, Theodore also reads Paul’s letter in terms of a hierarchy. In Theodore’s case, the emphasis falls on the importance of rank, which he regards as part of the natural order as willed by God. Accordingly, he makes a clear distinction between Paul as apostle, Philemon as a (mere) believer, and Onesimus as a runaway slave who became a believer and then had to return to his former position. The emphasis on rank is also evident in the following example. According to Theodore, the names of the recipients in vv. 1–2 (Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the church in Philemon’s house [interpreted as his slaves]) are in the order of nature: husband, wife, their son, and their slaves (Comm. Phlm. 1–2 [789.4–6]).

54. For a detailed discussion of these matters, see John T. Fitzgerald, “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl, BZNW 169 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 332–63, esp. 342–45. 55. Fitzgerald, “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Philemon,” 345–54. 56. The stark contrast between Theodore’s depiction of Philemon and Onesimus is continued throughout the commentary. For a good summary of the way in which Theodore depicts Philemon and Onesimus, see Fitzgerald, “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Philemon,” 356–57. 57. I refer to the text in Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 772–805, indicating page and line numbers according to Greer’s text. Greer also provides an English translation. For the importance of the concept “affection” in Theodore’s commentary, see the discussion by Fitzgerald, “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Philemon,” 360.

256

D. F. TOLMIE

Theodore also shows himself to be a very attentive reader of Paul’s letter. In several instances, he refers to what Paul did not write in order to explain what Paul had in mind. For example, in the case of v. 1, he points out that Paul deliberately refrained from calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ or an apostle in order to avoid any impression that he was using his apostolic authority to command Philemon (Comm. Phlm. 1a [784.5–20]). In the case of vv. 8–9, he notes that Paul does not mention his apostleship or that he is of a higher rank than Philemon; instead, he mentions Philemon’s love towards other believers (Comm. Phlm. 8–9a [792.13–27]). In other instances, Theodore draws attention to the order in which Paul has placed certain words. I mentioned the example of the recipients earlier. Another example is that in v. 11 (“he is useful to both you and me”), Paul mentions Philemon before mentioning himself; according to Theodore, this is done deliberately in order to make it clear that everything happened for Philemon’s benefit (Comm. Phlm. 11 [794.27–796.9]). Sometimes Theodore also draws attention to a specific word that Paul uses. For example, he argues that Paul uses the word ἀπέχῃς instead of ἔχῃς in v. 15, which (according to Chrysostom) means “have [him] back” instead of merely “have [him]” (Comm. Phlm. 15 [800.1–3]).58 With regard to the way in which Theodore interprets the detail of Paul’s rhetorical strategy, four aspects should be highlighted. First, Theodore interprets Paul’s reference to himself as “Paul, an old man” as a way of shaming Philemon into compliance. As John Fitzgerald points out, shaming was one of the standard rhetorical strategies taught in Theodore’s time, and this is probably why he explains what Paul is doing in this instance.59 It should also be noted that Theodore does not mean this in a negative sense, since he links it to admiration; according to him, the mere mention of the name “Paul” would cause admiration (Comm. Phlm. 9 [792.31]). Furthermore, Theodore also adds the notion of “respect” or “veneration.” According to him, this would have been caused by Paul’s reference to himself as an old man (Comm. Phlm. 9 [792.34]). Second, Theodore points out the remarkable effect Paul’s reference to Onesimus as his “son” would have had on Philemon. The word on its own would have sufficed to persuade Philemon (Comm. Phlm. 10 [794.12–15]). Third, it is interesting to note that Theodore 58. This is not very clear in the Latin translation, but see Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 801 n. 16. It is not apparent that Theodore picks up the right nuance in this instance. According to BDAG, ἀπέχω means “to receive in full what is due.” In Louw and Nida (57.137, ἀπέχω), it is explained as follows: “to receive something in full, with the implication that all that is due has been paid – ‘to receive in full, to be paid in full.’” 59. Fitzgerald, “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Philemon,” 361.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

257

regards v. 17 (“If you think of me as your partner”) as the climax of Paul’s persuasive strategy in the letter. He argues that this statement is based on the notion that those of the faith hold everything in common; since Paul had taken Onesimus back, Philemon should also be willing to take him back (Comm. Phlm. 17 [802.6–13]). As Fitzgerald has shown, Theodore bases this explanation on one of the essential notions in the ancient view of friendship, namely that friends hold everything in common.60 Because Paul and Philemon were friends, Philemon should have been willing to do him this favor. Lastly, towards the end of his commentary, Theodore also unexpectedly mentions that Paul apparently had some doubts about Philemon’s willingness to comply with his requests. He bases this on the fact that Paul needs to add, in v. 21, that he was confident of Philemon’s obedience (Comm. Phlm. 20 [804.8–12]). Finally, one instance where Theodore clearly interprets Paul’s letter wrongly should be mentioned. He misinterprets the word ἀγαπητός in “more than a slave, as a beloved brother” in v. 16.61 It means “beloved,” in the sense that Onesimus was a beloved of both Paul and Philemon. According to Theodore, Paul meant that Onesimus would love Philemon. In the future, Onesimus would thus not only be obedient to Philemon (as was expected of slaves), but he would also strongly love his master (Comm. Phlm. 15–16 [798.25–802.2]). One wonders why Theodore misinterpreted this word. Was it so difficult for him to imagine a master loving a slave that he intuitively interpreted this as referring to the love expected from Onesimus towards his master? THEODORET OF CYRUS Theodoret’s commentary on the Pauline commentaries was composed between 431 and 447/448 CE.62 He depended, to a large extent, on the interpretations of John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia.63 60. Fitzgerald, “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Philemon,” 362. Fitzgerald points out that there was a “close conceptual linkage” between κοινωνία/κοινωνόν and φιλία. 61. For other instances where Theodore also misinterpreted the Greek text, see H. B. Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli commentarii: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments. With an Introduction, Notes and Indices. Vol 1: Introduction. Galatians–Colossians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1880), lxvi. 62. Jean-Noël Guinot, “Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393–458),” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity, ed. Charles Kannengiesser, Bible in Ancient Christianity 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 890. The date of composition is sometimes narrowed down to the mid440s CE. See, for example, Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Volume One. Translated with an Introduction (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), 2. However, this dating is not generally accepted. 63. Guinot, “Theodoret of Cyrus,” 893.

258

D. F. TOLMIE

Theodoret’s understanding of the rhetorical situation of the letter is, to some extent, similar to that of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Philemon, a believer, lived in Colossae. (According to Theodoret, his house was still standing at the time he wrote his commentary.) Onesimus, Philemon’s slave, stole something and then fled. In Rome, things changed when he met Paul, who was in prison. Paul baptized him and then sent him back to his master (Comm. Phlm. arg. [287.1–8]).64 In his discussion of v. 14, Theodoret refers to the positive outcome of the letter. On account of the letter, Philemon sent Onesimus back to the apostle, who then sent him to the Colossians, together with Tychicus (Comm. Phlm. 14 [290.31–291.1]). For our purposes, there is hardly anything new in Theodoret’s commentary. I shall highlight some of his remarks to show how he interprets some of the detail of Paul’s rhetorical strategy in the letter. According to Theodoret, Paul refers to himself as a “prisoner” in order to make his plea worthier (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [288.3–4]). Furthermore, Theodoret is of the opinion that, by calling Philemon “fellow worker,” Paul was complimenting him (Comm. Phlm. 1–3 [288.8–9]). Like Theodore of Mopsuestia, he also finds Paul’s reference to himself as “Paul, an old man” very striking. Calling it a “boast” (κόμπος; Comm. Phlm. 9 [289.18]), he explains that Paul’s name in itself would have had a tremendous impact on Philemon. Furthermore, by referring to himself as “an old man,” Paul was suggesting that all his hard work for the gospel had made his hair turn grey; this made his words more credible. By adding that he was “a prisoner for Christ,” Theodoret believes that Paul was trying to get Philemon to respect him. In fact, according to Theodoret, everything that Paul says about himself in these two verses is meant to foster respect for him: the mentioning of his name, the emphasis on his age, and the reference to his imprisonment (Comm. Phlm. 8–9 [289.12– 28]). In vv. 10–11, Theodoret points out that Paul first praises Onesimus by calling him his son, and only then mentions his name (Comm. Phlm. 10–11 [289.30–290.8]). He also finds Paul’s request in v. 17 (that Philemon should receive Onesimus back, because Philemon and Paul are companions) highly persuasive and very forceful (Comm. Phlm. 17 [291.11–13]). Like other interpreters before him, he also thinks that v. 22 (Paul’s request to prepare a 64. I used the edition by Charles Marriott and E. B. Pusey, Theodoreti episc. Cyri Commentarius in omnes B. Pauli epistolas II: Continens epistolas ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses, Hebraeos, Timotheum, Titum et Philemonem, Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1870), 287–92. For English translations of Theodoret’s commentary on the Letter to Philemon, see Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus, 261–65; and Misty S. Irons, James T. Dennison, Jr., Catherine T. Drown, and Lee Irons, “Translations: Theodoret of Cyrhus; The Epistle of Paul to Philemon,” WTJ 61 (1999): 111–17.

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

259

guest room for him) is meant as an indication that Philemon would grant Paul’s request, because Philemon was aware that Paul was on his way to Colossae (Comm. Phlm. 22 [292.9–10]). Thus, all in all, Theodoret did not really move beyond what he found in the works of John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. His main contribution lies in the succinct way in which he describes the effect the letter would have had on Philemon. Occasionally he goes his own way, for example, when he describes Paul’s words in v. 9 as a boast.65

CONCLUSION What have we learnt from this investigation? First, regarding the way in which the early Christian interpreters understood the rhetorical situation, it is evident that they all broadly adhered to what later became known as the traditional perspective, namely that Paul wrote the Letter to Philemon from jail in Rome, on behalf of Philemon’s slave, who was a runaway slave but was converted and baptized by Paul, and then sent back to Philemon. It is noteworthy that they fill out the details of this general picture in different ways – a clear indication of the many “gaps” in the letter later readers have to fill before they can make sense thereof. For example, Ambrosiaster was of the opinion that Paul wanted Philemon to welcome Onesimus back as slave in his household, and he also mentions that Onesimus had fled “to divine help” and had “taken refuge” with Paul. Jerome (who thought that Paul had sent Onesimus to Colossae with two letters, one for Philemon and one for the congregation as a whole) had a different view. Paul wrote the letter in order to request Philemon to allow Onesimus to become his missionary partner. He also provides more detail as to what happened before Onesimus met Paul in Rome. He had stolen some of Philemon’s possessions and then fled to Italy so that he would not be caught easily. There he wasted Philemon’s wealth by being extravagant. Like Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom was of the opinion that Paul sent Onesimus back to be a slave in Philemon’s household, and that Paul requested Philemon to forgive Onesimus for his wrongdoings. Pelagius again adds an interesting point of detail: Paul baptized Onesimus, because he knew that he would then more easily receive forgiveness from 65. John of Damascus (born ca. 675 CE) also wrote a commentary on the Pauline letters. He very briefly comments on the Letter to Philemon, based exclusively on Chrysostom. See Robert Volk, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. VII. Commentarii in epistulas Pauli, PTS 68 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 7. For the purposes of this study, there is thus nothing to be added from his comments on the Letter to Philemon.

260

D. F. TOLMIE

Philemon. Theodore of Mopsuestia’s view also has some unique aspects. According to him, while Paul was in prison, he recognized Onesimus as someone from Philemon’s household, and then he exhorted him successfully. As a result, Onesimus abandoned his former malice and agreed of his own accord to return to Philemon, promising to obey him in the future. Theodoret also thought that Onesimus carried Paul’s letter to Philemon, but, unlike Jerome, he views it as a two-stage process. Onesimus first took only this letter to Philemon, and, on account of the letter, Philemon then allowed him to return to the apostle, who then sent him back again to Colossae (together with Tychicus) with a letter for the entire congregation. As to the way in which the early Christian interpreters understood Paul’s rhetorical strategy, it became clear that in many instances, their views on this matter coincide with what contemporary scholars broadly accept. There are also differences. Sometimes, they are clearly wrong. Examples include Jerome’s interpretation of ἀγαπητός in v. 1 (Theodore also misses the point in his interpretation of the same word in v. 16), Jerome’s interpretation of the word hospitium in v. 22, and the fact that the majority of these authors interpreted “the church in your house” as referring (only) to the slaves in Philemon’s household. In other instances, their interpretation differs from ours, but it might be worthwhile to consider their views as valid, or at least as adding yet another possibility to a range of valid interpretations of the text. I shall mention only a few. The fact that Ambrosiaster (and later Theodore of Mopsuestia) seemed to have had doubts about the success of Paul’s letter should perhaps serve as a warning to us not to be too overly optimistic when we speculate about the potential success of Paul’s rhetorical strategy in the letter. In the real world, matters often do not work out as well as we sometimes idealize them. In addition, Ambrosiaster’s emphasis on hierarchy in his interpretation (and, to a certain extent, also in that of Theodore of Mopsuestia) might reflect church struggles from his own time and might seem strange to us. But are we not similarly prone to influences from our own times, for example, causing us perhaps to incline too far towards an egalitarian view when we discuss the letter? Another example: Jerome’s claim that, for all practical purposes, the letter is to be regarded as a letter from Paul to Philemon (in spite of all the other people mentioned in it) still seems to be a valid exegetical remark. A further example: Chrysostom’s emphasis on honor/shame categories in his interpretation of Paul’s strategy is a perspective that needs to be taken seriously. Finally, Theodore of Mopsuestia’s insistence that v. 17 is to be regarded as the climax of Paul’s rhetorical strategy, as well as his

THE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

261

interpretation of “partner” in terms of ancient notions of friendship, could definitely enrich our understanding of Paul’s rhetorical strategy. This discussion clearly indicates that there are more aspects in the exegesis of the early Christian interpreters that need to be pondered. Despite occasional blunders, they proved, in general, to be careful and attentive readers of Paul’s letter. All of us should persist in striving towards this ideal! University of the Free State

D. Francois TOLMIE

1 PETER

14 THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME: IMITATING CHRIST AND ARTICULATING THE GOSPEL IN 1 PETER

In the late twentieth century, anthropologists produced several key studies of the social value of honor and shame in the Mediterranean basin.1 The importance of honor and shame for biblical interpretation was quickly recognized by scholars like Bruce Malina and John J. Pilch among others.2 John H. Elliott was a pioneer in reading 1 Peter from an honor-shame perspective.3 These studies have shown the manner in which a set of pivotal values of honor and shame in this culture basin are related to and expressive of key aspects of the social system. These include the system’s structure and stratification, gender differentiation, masculine embodiment of honor and machismo, feminine embodiment of shame and chastity, gender division of labor and space into male and female domains, honor codes underlying social dispute and conflict, and the labeling and stigmatization mechanisms employed in contentions between ingroups and outgroups.4

In the Greco-Roman world the body is a locus of honor and shame, and both verbal and physical assault by a challenger could threaten that honor and bring shame, requiring response by the abused body. Verbal abuse of 1. E.g., Jean G. Peristiany, ed., Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); Peristiany and Julian Pitt-Rivers, eds., Honor and Grace in Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 2. Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1993), 28–62; John J. Pilch, Introducing the Cultural Context of the New Testament, Hear the Word 2 (New York: Paulist Press, 1991). 3. John H. Elliott, “Disgraced Yet Graced: The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and Shame,” BTB 24 (1995): 166–78. 4. Elliott, “Disgraced Yet Graced,” 167.

266

D. F. WATSON

the body was met with prompt and strong verbal riposte like vilification of the challenger. Physical abuse of the body was often met with physical responses like games and contests.5 Not only did honor and shame describe human relationships, but it was used to envision the relationship between the human and divine, with the gods being the ones holding supreme honor and dispensing it to each other and to humans, as well as taking it away. This emphasis on honor and shame is strong in the New Testament in regard to God’s relationship with Christians, gentiles, nations, and Christ himself.6 It is from the perspective of honor and shame in human and divine relationships that we can more fully grasp the challenge to the honor of the recipients of 1 Peter and why its author exhorts them to respond as he does, especially in relation to Christian slaves and wives.7 Typical responses to verbal and physical abuse are disjunctive with the new Christian perspective on honor and shame, leaving Christians without a normative way to respond in an honor and shame culture. This new Christian perspective is based on the unique relationship of honor and shame within the Godhead and subsequently between the Godhead and humanity. Christ’s obedience to God in redeeming humanity required unfathomable loss of honor at the hands of the Sanhedrin and Rome, and unfathomable granting of honor by God for his redemptive work. This example of honor and shame within the Godhead becomes the model of honor and shame for Christians. Christ’s example of love and tolerance excludes verbal riposte and physical responses to honor challenges in favor of heavenly honor to be granted by God. The author of 1 Peter cannot change the broader cultural values of honor and shame, but he can clarify honor and shame based on the teaching and example of Christ.

THE NATURE

OF THE

ABUSE

The recipients of 1 Peter were suffering (1:6–7; 2:18–20; 3:13–17; 4:19; 5:9–10). The persecution was due in part to dramatic lifestyle changes fostered by their new confession of Christ – changes drawing hostility from their neighbors (4:3–4). The recipients no longer engaged in social events centered on drunkenness or worship of the gods in temples as a part of their social lives and business associations. This dissociation from key elements of 5. Malina, New Testament World, 34–37. 6. David A deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000). 7. Elliott, “Disgraced Yet Graced,” 166.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

267

social interaction implicitly condemns these activities and their participants. The metaphorical description of the recipients as “resident foreigners” (1:1) and “aliens and resident foreigners” (2:11), and of their residence on earth as an “exile” (1:17), indicate this separation from neighbors and the broader social world. This separation is due to the recipients’ new membership in the family and household of God with its different allegiances and heavenly homeland (1:2–5, 14, 17, 23; 2:2; 4:17; 5:9). This dissociation from society exposed the recipients to allegations that they were wrongdoers (2:12; 3:15b–16) and maybe even lawbreakers (cf. 2:13–17). They may have been accused of disrespecting authority and thus of undermining the stability of the household and the broader society (2:12–3:7). They were antisocial, which was considered to be a threat to social cohesion and an offense to the gods whose vengeance could negatively affect the entire community. As Elliott notes, “Differences in customs and traditions, behavioral codes, forms of worship, and the God or gods worshipped, coupled with a stance of aloofness, invariably generated suspicions of deviant, immoral behavior, disrespect of the gods, and endangerment of the wellbeing of the community.”8 Also, a household typically followed the religion of the patriarch of the household, the paterfamilias. If Christians converted the paterfamilias, the entire family would convert. This could result in persecution for the entire household, as appears to be partly the case in 1 Peter where persecution is from the general public and directed toward the majority of the recipients. Converting the paterfamilias was ideal, but often conversion was limited to select individuals of the household. Unfortunately these conversions were seen as an affront to the paterfamilias, an undermining influence on the cohesion of the household, and, since households constituted the broader society, a threat to the cohesion of society as a whole. In this situation, those with less power in the household (everyone!) were vulnerable to verbal and physical humiliation and reprisals from the paterfamilias or any superiors. Such abuse was often already present in the household and conversion to Christianity exacerbated the situation.9 This is also surely the case in 1 Peter, where emphasis is on the plight of slaves and wives within the household of unconverted superiors.

8. Elliott, “Disgraced Yet Graced,” 170. 9. John T. Fitzgerald, “Domestic Violence in the Ancient World: Preliminary Considerations and the Problem of Wife-Beating,” in Animosity, The Bible, and Us: Some European, North American, and South African Perspectives, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Fika J. van Rensburg, and Herrie F. van Rooy, GPBS 12 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 101–21.

268

D. F. WATSON

The nature and source of the persecution being experienced by the recipients of 1 Peter is debated. Was it verbal and/or physical, unofficial or official, local or more general?10 It is often surmised that the persecution was primarily verbal (2:12, 15; 3:16; 4:4), particularly involving allegiance to the name of Christ (4:14, 16). However, physical abuse may be indicated as well from the description of the recipients as enduring a variety of trials (1:6); being vulnerable to harm, suffering, and fear (3:6, 13–17); and experiencing a fiery ordeal (4:12). The encouragement to emulate Christ’s example of how to endure abuse and suffering (2:23; cf. 3:18) and the commandment not to repay evil and abuse (3:9) also indicate some physical abuse. As just explained, physical abuse within the household was common prior to conversion and would likely be more so after conversion. The persecution of the recipients is sometimes understood an official persecution of Christians. The persecution involves the name of Christ, a feature that may indicate official charges (4:14, 16). The exhortation to the recipients to provide a defense for their Christian hope as demanded by others may indicate answering official charges in a court of law (3:15). However, because the author assumes that the persecution is short (1:6; 5:10) and the recipients can lessen its impact with their behavior (2:13–17; 3:13–17),11 the persecution was likely unofficial, something other Christians elsewhere in similar situations were experiencing (5:9).12 In any case, gentile neighbors were publicly shaming the Christians and challenging their honor, either verbally or physically, seeking to force their conformity to social values. Within the household, Christians who are weaker members of the household, like slaves and wives, are being persecuted and their bodies dishonored by stronger members, like the paterfamilias.

THE RESPONSE TO THE ABUSE Our author advises the recipients to resist conformity to behavior at odds with their newfound holiness as children of God. He reminds them of their new holy status before God (1:2, 14–16, 22; 2:5, 9; 3:2) and urges them to stand fast in the grace of God (5:12). He encourages them not to respond 10. For an overview, see Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress 1996), 23–36. 11. The reference to the persecution being short may be in relation to eternity, thus not implying that the persecution itself is short. 12. David L. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, SBLMS 26 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 94–95.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

269

to the honor challenges in the typical fashion of verbal or physical riposte to regain honor from their challengers. They are not to respond in kind to insult or abuse against them, but rather bless their challengers (3:9; cf. 2:1, 23). They are called to be examples of behavior that provides no basis for verbal and physical abuse originating from their gentile neighbors but instead stifles the same (2:11–17; 3:13–17).13 The recipients are to respect authority (2:13–17), especially slaves with non-Christian masters and wives with nonChristian husbands (2:18–3:6), both of whom are more likely to suffer for their subordinate positions in the social order. They provide two specific instances of those admonished to be subordinate to every human authority (2:13) and to honor everyone (2:17).14 The suffering and dishonor Christ endured on earth is held up as an example (2:21–23; 3:18; 4:1) and as something to be expected by all believers (3:14, 17; 4:19; 5:9–10). He too suffered, dishonored by insults and wounds on his body. When he suffered he did not threaten or abuse in return (2:21–23), and neither should slaves being punished, wives being ostracized or beaten, or Christians abused by their neighbors. Abuse is to be met with submission and deference (2:18), a humble and quiet spirit (3:4), and good conduct (2:20; 3:1, 6). As Christ did not counter the abuse he suffered, leaving judgment up to God (2:22–23), so the abused recipients should respond in kind, even with a positive blessing (3:9–12) and a gentle defense of their hope (3:15b–16). Imitating Christ in this matter leaves the Christian with a loss of honor in this life. The honor that guides the body through social exchange is now the honor to be given by God, not culture. Like Christ who did not have honor in his earthly life but now has glory that will be revealed (4:13), those

13. This stance is also suggested by Plutarch in Cap. ex inim. util. (Mor. 86B–92F), cited in Elliott, “Disgraced Yet Graced,” 171. Warren Carter (“Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13–3.16,” in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins [Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004], 14–33) argues that the only way that Christians can honor the emperor is to participate in cultic rituals. Knowing the truth, Christians can now participate in these rituals. He states, “Prioritizing the heart’s commitment to ‘Christ as Lord’ allows the letter’s hearers to engage in the publicly conformist and submissive behavior of cultic participation without compromising loyalty to God” (28). However, such an interpretation assumes that our author is trying to eliminate the persecution rather than help the recipients cope with it. It also assumes that Christians had a very high tolerance for idolatry (he even acknowledges that this position is contrary to Rev 2–3) and that they could so easily compartmentalize inner commitment from outward actions. 14. For further discussion, see Earl J. Richard, “Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles: A Study of the Social Thought of 1 Peter,” WW 24 (2004): 412–20.

270

D. F. WATSON

who imitate him suffer the loss of honor now, but will receive praise, glory, and honor from God when Christ and his glory are revealed (1:6–7; 4:13). The author provides theological purpose to the recipients’ nonconformist approach to honor challenges and suffering. Proactively this behavior works to convert the challengers (2:12), especially wives whose lives could help to bring their non-Christian husbands to the faith (3:1–2). Such abuse is expected in the Christian life, especially as a testing from God (4:12, 19) and an imitation of Christ (2:21–23; 3:18; 4:1). Verbal and physical honor challenges born in innocence also are rewarded by God’s grace (2:18–20), and suffering for doing good and for the name of Christ result in a blessing from God (3:14; 4:14) and God’s full support (5:10). Our author’s response to abuse and challenge to honor is specifically focused on Christian slaves and wives because of their more vulnerable bodies and potential shaming by those in power, the former by masters and the latter by husbands. It is to these two groups that we now turn our attention.

THE ABUSE

OF

SLAVES

One group most susceptible to suffering and abuse in the household was slaves, especially Christian slaves serving non-Christian masters. These slaves are addressed in 2:18–25, the portion of the household code concerning the relationship between masters and slaves. Usually this portion of the code is addressed only to the masters because they have the power in the relationship (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), but here only the slaves are addressed as the most vulnerable in the relationship.15 Also, the placement of the exhortation to the slaves (which usually appears last in a household code) and the amount of attention devoted to it indicate that for our author the slave is the paradigm for all Christians in God’s household.16 When slaves became Christian they violated the harmony of the household that depended in part upon everyone worshiping the gods of the paterfamilias.17 Slaves were particularly vulnerable to persecution because they were considered property, morally and intellectually inferior, and even sub-

15. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 192. 16. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 513–14. 17. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive, 88–90.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

271

human.18 The quality of slaves’ lives depended upon the moral quality of their masters. The masters could be humane or cruel or anything in between. Their virtually unlimited power over their slaves led to abuses, including personal sexual use and, particularly in the case of women, use in prostitution.19 Punishments could be disproportionate to the infractions. Slaves could be beaten severely by masters with their fists, rods, whips, and branding irons to the point of disfigurement, crippling, and death.20 Beating of the body of a powerless person by one in power was a way to express and reinforce that power, domination, and hierarchy in society.21 It was a sign of servitude. The ability to beat a slave was one way to distinguish a slave from a citizen publicly, or a slave from a member of the family within the household.22 Under this system the potential for abuse and dishonor of a slave by a master was considerable and expected. Our author acknowledges that Christian slaves may have to suffer for doing good, even being beaten for doing what is right. He commands these slaves to be subject to their masters regardless of their masters’ moral fiber, acknowledging that some are good and kind and others are unscrupulous (2:18–20). He understands that slaves have legal obligations to their masters, but also new obligations to God to do what is right (2:15–16). God deems what is right (2:15; 3:17; 4:19), and God’s determination of what is right may sometimes conflict with what earthly masters deem as such, potentially creating new contexts of abuse in which masters wield the visible

18. John T. Fitzgerald, “Early Christian Missionary Practice and Pagan Reaction: 1 Peter and Domestic Violence against Slaves and Wives,” in Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson, ed. Mark W. Hamilton, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Jeffrey Peterson (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2007), 24–44, here 38–39; Peter Garnsey, “The Middle Stoics and Slavery,” in Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, ed. P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey, and E. Gruen (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 159–74; and Keith R. Bradley, “Animalizing the Slave: The Truth of Fiction,” JRS 90 (2000): 110–25. For a brief discussion of slavery in 1 Peter, see Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 148–51. For an overview of slavery and the New Testament, see J. Albert Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006). 19. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), 191–93. 20. Keith R. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); John T. Fitzgerald, “Early Christian Missionary Practice and Pagan Reaction,” 36–43. 21. Halvor Moxnes, “The Beaten Body of Christ: Reading and Empowering Slave Bodies in 1 Peter,” R&T 21 (2014): 125–33. 22. Richard Saller, “Corporal Punishment, Authority, and Obedience in the Roman Household,” in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 151–65.

272

D. F. WATSON

and immediate power (2:19–20). God is to be respected or feared as judge (1:17; 2:17), and fear of this ultimate authority motivates slaves’ obedience to their masters while suffering under their domination (2:19; cf. 2:15; Col 3:22; cf. Eph 6:5). Being aware of God while obeying a master is an aspect of fearing God as judge (2:17–20; cf. 1:17). The Example of Christ The author supports his exhortation to the slaves to be obedient to their masters by upholding Christ as an example to follow (2:21). He does so using a portion of the fourth Servant Song of Isaiah (52:13–53:12), reworking 53:4–12 LXX to make Christ the Suffering Servant an example for slaves (and all Christians) in the empire being persecuted by those in positions of authority.23 Christ too suffered and endured unjust verbal and physical abuse for doing what is right, even to the point of death (2:21–25). This example of suffering that Christ provides is not his redemptive suffering for sin which human beings cannot emulate (3:18), but suffering for doing good, a suffering which human beings can emulate. Christ’s suffering provides a pattern (ὑπογραμμός, 2:21) that Christians can follow as they too suffer for doing good (3:16; 4:1–2, 13–14). The author describes Christ’s example of unjust suffering in more detail in 2:22–23, using a quotation of Isa 53:9b: “He did not commit sin nor was deceit found in his mouth” (2:22, my translation). The author modifies the quotation, changing the word “lawlessness” (ἀνομία) to “sin” (ἁμαρτία) in order to emphasize that Christ was sinless and undeserving of any suffering. Christ’s example is then used in regard to the verbal abuse he suffered, quoting Isa 53:7: “When he was verbally abused, he did not verbally abuse in return” (2:23a, my translation). While Christ undoubtedly was verbally abused throughout his ministry, here the abuse of the passion is the focus. Christ suffered silently in the face of verbal abuse by his accusers at his trial (Mark 14:61 // Matt 26:62–63; Mark 15:1–5 // Matt 27:11–14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9–10), by the soldiers in charge of him after the trial (Mark 15:16–20 // Matt 27:27– 31 // Luke 23:11; John 19:1–3), and by the crowd mocking him at the crucifixion (Mark 15:29–32 // Matt 27:39–44 // Luke 23:35–38). Christ’s example is then used in regard to the physical abuse he suffered: “when he was suffering he did not threaten, but he gave himself over to the one who judges justly” (2:23b, my translation). Christ’s response to physical 23. Paul J. Achtemeier, “Suffering Servant and Suffering Christ in 1 Peter,” in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 176–88.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

273

suffering is unclear. It could refer to him deferring the judgment of his persecutors to God (1:17; 4:5, 17–18) and not threatening God’s vengeance upon them as martyrs sometimes did (4 Macc 9:5–9; Mart. Pol. 11.2),24 or it could refer to him giving himself or his cause over to God (Luke 23:46). The latter possibility seems likely because in 4:19 those suffering for God’s will are admonished to give themselves over to God for judgment. Either way, Christ’s example while suffering verbal and physical abuse corresponds to his ethic of nonretaliation (Matt 5:38–42 // Luke 6:27–30) and provides a model of endurance for slaves to follow while suffering unjustly (2:19–20). When our author focuses on the redemptive nature of Christ’s suffering and death, he quotes Isa 53:5b, which further emphasizes the physical nature of that death: “by his wounds [“bruise”] you have been healed” (2:24). “Bruise” (μώλωψ) refers to bruising from blows to the body or whipping and recalls the bruises that Christ suffered prior to and during the crucifixion (Matt 20:19; 27:26; John 19:1). This depiction of Christ’s suffering helps his example be more relatable as a model for Christian slaves who may also suffer from the rod or lash. In addition, the verb “beaten” (κολαφίζω) used to describe the state of slaves in 2:20 is used in the gospel tradition to describe Christ’s beating at the crucifixion (Mark 14:65 // Matt 26:67), a beating described here in 2:21–25. Christ models the response to unjust suffering for slaves and all Christians suffering unjustly. Honor Lost Christ and slaves share undeserved verbal and physical suffering at the hands of others who have immediate physical power over them. However, their contexts and ability to respond are quite different. Typically public honor challenges were initiated by those of comparable honor. Christ was of a lower social status than the Sanhedrin, Herod, or Pilate. However, as a respected leader of the people, and as one who assumed the position of an authoritative teacher who could reinterpret the law, Christ assumed great honor. This situation created a status dissonance that unofficially elevated his status. The honor challenges by officials of Jerusalem and Rome were substantial and public, involving both verbal traps and the legal system within Judaism and its Roman overlords. Such challenges assume that Christ had substantial honor. The context created the expectation that he would provide a formal verbal riposte, but he was silent before his accusers and lost honor (2:23). 24. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 146–47.

274

D. F. WATSON

While silence is not mentioned specifically as a response for slaves in 1 Peter, they are to respond with deference to their masters and endure with Christ as their model (2:18–20). Clearly slaves are not of the same social status as their masters and an official verbal riposte is not expected. Thus Christ’s silence, while not expected in his own situation, is quite appropriate in the situation of slaves under verbal duress. Christ and slaves had the power to respond to physical abuse. Christ did not threaten during his arrest, trial, and crucifixion, but rather turned vengeance and/or his cause over to God (2:23). Slaves could certainly revolt against unjust suffering through insolence, theft or sabotage of the master’s property, running away, or rebellion. However they knew the brutal consequences of such actions under Roman rule.25 Christ was restrained by his mission not to respond, and slaves were restrained by fear of retaliation. As Christ endured his suffering, slaves should do the same. As Christ gave his cause over to the one who judges justly (2:23), so should slaves whose masters may judge unjustly (2:20).26 Our author’s exhortation to slaves to respond to suffering as Christ did does not lead to quite the same loss of honor as it did for Christ. Christ stood to lose considerable honor in a situation of public challenge and riposte. In contrast, slaves had very little honor in their positions other than what their masters attributed to them for their obedience and service. A slave not responding to abuse is more likely the expected response than one aimed at recouping or increasing honor. Typically, riposte is between equals which is clearly not the case between slaves and their masters. Also, while Christ’s abuse was temporally limited, slaves might have to endure for a considerable period of time. Even in his description the author uses “bruise” in the singular (2:24) to encompass all of Christ’s suffering and death, emphasizing the healing Christ’s suffering provides and not the suffering itself which would not continue beyond his hour of trial. However, in the situation of both Christ and slaves, honor has been lost. For Christ it was lost by a person of honor who chooses not to speak or retaliate and suffers verbal and physical abuse at the hands of his abusers. He is a free person whose body was abused and dishonored as a criminal. For slaves, honor is lost by those who have no real power to speak or strike back, those for whom abuse is a way to reinforce their already dishonorable position.

25. Keith R. Bradley, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989). 26. Moxnes, “Beaten Body of Christ,” 137–38.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

275

Silence and nonretaliation may not be entirely without honor. Refusal to engage the challengers can be understood as not accepting their authority, as in the case of Christ before his accusers, especially before Pilate where Christ is at first silent and then points out to Pilate that he has no power over him unless God gives it to him (John 9:9–11). Slaves who are silent and nonretaliatory may also be making a statement that they obey a higher authority in their lives. Honor Found Endurance under persecution, understood as good work leaving no possible accusation, is central to Christ’s example of how to respond to suffering. The redemptive aspects of the verbal and physical suffering of Christ’s example are not those that slaves can replicate, but his suffering unto death was designed that they might live in righteousness (2:24). By enduring suffering and following Christ’s example, slaves are living righteously, and their suffering is now sanctified by the suffering of Christ. Their suffering becomes part of their Christian walk, modeled and redeemed by Christ’s walk in suffering. Christ’s unjust suffering not only provides an example for the slaves, but also the (re)establishment of their honor by their sharing in the righteousness that Christ’s suffering made available. The reason for Christ’s unjust suffering, his “bruise,” is so that Christians can die to sin and live in righteousness (2:24). Slaves can have a dramatic break with the sinful behavior of their pagan past (1:14, 22–23; 2:11; 4:2) and live in righteousness and good deeds (2:15, 20; 3:6; 11, 17; 4:19). Slaves that endure unjust suffering while being aware of God, that is, God’s will and purposes, receive grace from God (2:19),27 glory or honor (κλέος) from God (2:20),28 and grace

27. Based on similar usages of grace (χάρις; Luke 1:30; 2:52; 6:32–34; Did. 1:3 and 2 Clem. 13:4 citing Luke 6:32–34; Ign. Pol. 2:1), grace is sometimes translated as “pleasing” (Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 196) or “creditable” (Elliott, 1 Peter, 518) with the translation being, “People are pleasing to God if they endure afflictions.” However, it is more naturally understood as grace given by God to those that please God (BDAG 1079 2b), as it is elsewhere in 1 Peter (1:2, 10, 13; 4:10; 5:10, 12). See Donald P. Senior, “1 Peter,” in 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter by Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 75. 28. While κλέος is generally translated as “glory” or “fame” (BDAG 547), at the beginning of this verse most commentators translate it as “favor,” “approval,” or “credit” with God or neighbors, a translation that corresponds to their translation of χάρις as “pleasing” or “creditable” in v. 19, which this verse is amplifying (Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 198). However, glory in 1 Peter and other early Christian literature is a reward from God and attributed by others (1:6–7, 11;

276

D. F. WATSON

before God in judgment (2:20).29 This same mix of topics of suffering, grace, and glory is found in 5:10 and extends this honor to all Christians regardless of social status. In the broader confines of the letter, suffering and eventual glory were destined for Christ (1:11), and the suffering of all Christians is part of God’s call to eternal glory in Christ when Christ is revealed (1:6–7; 5:1, 9–10). Slaves typically had no honor to defend, but Christian slaves now have spiritual honor as members of the household of God who will experience the glory of Christ. This honor could be defended, but certainly not in the typical way of a free man challenged with threats or abuse. Rather, this honor was earned by the dishonoring of Christ by his temporal superiors and had to be defended by slaves as Christ did with silence, suffering, and even death.30 ABUSE OF WIVES The other group most vulnerable to suffering and abuse in the household was wives, especially Christian wives married to non-Christian husbands. These wives are addressed in 3:1–7, the portion of the household code concerning the relationship between husbands and wives. Usually this portion of the code is addressed only to the husbands because they have the most status in the marriage relationship. Here not only are the wives addressed, but they are addressed before the husband and with six verses instead of just one. This direct and disproportionate address to wives reflects our author’s concern for the most vulnerable in household relationships, as demonstrated in regard to slaves in the preceding portion of the household code. The situation of wives differs from that of slaves. They are protected in part by their families and their dowries controlled by their male relatives (typically father or brothers). Abuse will be redressed by their male relatives, and the husbands have to return the dowry to their families if there is a divorce. This protection would be lessened should the wives’ families be physically distant and unable to respond effectively.31 Nonetheless, wives were subject to verbal and physical abuse. 5:10; 1 Clem. 5:6; 54:3). Thus in line with our translation of χάρις as “grace” from God in v. 19, the translation of κλέος here is “glory” from God (Senior, “1 Peter,” 75). 29. Here χάρις is often translated “God’s favor, approval, or credit” as it is in v. 19. However, χάρις should be translated as “grace” based on the theology of 1 Peter, as in v. 19 (Senior, “1 Peter,” 75). 30. Barth L. Campbell, Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter, SBLDS 160 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 144–46. 31. Fitzgerald, “Domestic Violence in the Ancient World,” 120–21.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

277

While men were understood to be the embodiment of honor, women were understood to be the embodiment of shame. Wives were thought to have great potential to dishonor their husbands and kinsmen, thus their restriction to the home and male supervision. As Elliott notes, “While the women are viewed as the weaker gender, biologically, intellectually, and morally, they are also ‘paradoxically powerful because of their potential for collective disgrace,’ thus leading to their seclusion, restriction to the realm of the household, and protection by vigilant males.”32 Part of that vigilance was that the husband could expect his wife and the entire household to adopt his religion.33 Thus when a wife converted to Christianity and her husband did not, she was considered to be insubordinate and to dishonor her husband, leaving her vulnerable to abuse and even expulsion from her home.34 The Christian wife loses honor in the eyes of her husband, household, and broader society. She also disrupts the harmony of the home that requires husband and wife to worship the same gods.35 A wife’s demeanor needs to abolish any notion that there might be the potential for more dishonor. As indicated in the mythology and literature of the time, wives were expected to take a servant role and be silent and servile for fear of their husbands, as epitomized in the relationship of Zeus and Hera in Homer’s Iliad.36 Christian wives do not have the option of reversing their decision and regaining their lost honor and that of their husbands without forfeiting their faith. Our author provides Christian wives with a way to live within a marriage to a non-Christian husband by minimizing further loss of honor: conform behavior to standards of honor in all other aspects of their lives. He exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands, like slaves and all Christians are to be subject to those in authority (2:13–20). The verb “subject” (ὑποτάσσω) is commonly used in household codes to describe the role of wives in relation to their husbands (Eph 5:21–22, 24; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; cf. 1 Cor 14:34). Emphasizing this traditional approach to marriage lessens the affront that Christian wives present to their husbands, limiting their disobedience to the

32. Elliott, “Disgraced Yet Graced,” 167, quoting David D. Gilmore, “Honor, Honesty, Shame: Male Status in Contemporary Andalusia,” in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. David D. Gilmore (Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, 1987), 90–103, here 90. 33. Plutarch, Conj. praec. 19 (Mor. 140D); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.25.1. 34. Fitzgerald, “Domestic Violence in the Ancient World,” 111–21. Paul encountered this problem in Corinth and advocated divorce if peace could not be created in the relationship (1 Cor 7:12–16). 35. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive, 88–90. 36. Fitzgerald, “Domestic Violence in the Ancient World,” 116–20.

278

D. F. WATSON

realm of religion (which could be substantial) and assuring their husbands of their obedience in all other aspects of their marriages. The submission of wives has several aspects. One is reverent, pure conduct (3:2). “Reverent” (ἐν φόβῳ) is fear of God as final judge (1:17; 2:17), not fear of the husbands (as in 3:6; Eph 5:33), and this fear keeps conduct pure. Wives are not to do everything their husbands command, but only what is appropriate to the Christian faith (cf. 2:13). Reverent and pure behavior describes the ideal wife in the Greco-Roman world (Pliny, Ep. 4.19) and Christian behavior (1:14–16, 22; 2:4–10; 3:15), and it assures husbands that their wives are virtuous. Such conduct is not illustrated by “outward braiding of hair and putting on of gold jewelry or fine apparel … but the hidden person of the heart” (3:3–4, my translation). Women were expected to be modestly dressed and adorned;37 to do otherwise was to be sexually provocative.38 Our author advises that adornment should be the “hidden person of the heart.” The heart (καρδία) is the center of thought, emotion, and disposition (1:22; 3:15), and the hidden nature of it requires a converted heart to reveal itself, here with an “incorruptible quality of a humble and quiet spirit.” These are virtues for wives in Christianity (1 Tim 2:11, 13; 1 Clem. 21:7), and similar virtues describe the perfect wife in Jewish (Prov 31:10–31; Sir 26:1–4; 13–18) and Greco-Roman writings (Plutarch, Conj. praec. 46 [Mor. 144E]). These virtues are valuable in God’s estimation and characterized the holy wives of the patriarchs as they subjected themselves to their husbands (vv. 5– 6), especially Sarah who called Abraham “lord” (κύριος, Gen 18:12 LXX), an honorific title acknowledging a man of position in his own household and broader community (Matt 9:38 // Luke 10:2).39 The example of Christ that precedes this exhortation to wives provides a model of a humble and quiet spirit: Christ did not return abuse, nor did he threaten his persecutors (2:23). In 1 Peter, doing good is the approach to take when confronted with power (2:14) and hostility (2:15, 20; 3:8–17; 4:19; cf. 2:12; 4:17). One benefit of doing good in a hostile situation is that the wife is “not fearing anyone in terror” (v. 6). It lessens the potential reprisals of a non-Christian 37. Phintys the Neopythagorean, Concerning the Temperance of a Woman 153.15–28; Plutarch, Conj. praec. 26 (Mor. 141E); Juvenal, Sat. 3.180–181; 6.457–463, 495–511. 38. Balch, Let Wives be Submissive, 101–2; Perictione the Neophythagorean, On the Harmony of a Woman, 143.10–14, 26–28; Seneca, Ben. 7.9; Isa 3:16–4:1; T. Reu. 5.1–5; Philo, Virt. 39–40; Sacr. 21. 39. Troy W. Martin (“The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3, 6,” ZNW 90 [1999]: 139–46) rightly argues that the Testament of Abraham provides the best background for this verse, for there Sarah addresses Abraham as lord several times, is fearless in good works, and is considered the mother of the elect.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

279

husband for a wife having a different religion. This advice is curious since the wife might still be subject to abuse from her husband in this situation. Fear may still be a reasonable response! While our author does not have authority to address non-Christian husbands of Christian wives, he does address Christian husbands married to Christian wives. His approach is partly to increase the wives’ honor. He begins with the admonition, “In turn, husbands, live according to knowledge, as the wife is the weaker vessel” (3:7). Husbands should conduct their marriages according to knowledge (γνῶσις) obtained from being believers, knowledge about how to live with wives as joint residents of the household of God. Honor here comes from acknowledging that the wife is the weaker vessel (σκεῦος), an assessment shared with the ancient world that women were physically, morally, and spiritually weaker than men.40 While not an honorable trait in the Greco-Roman culture, weakness in Christian tradition deserves honor and is precious to God.41 Husbands are also commanded to pay honor to their wives because they share the grace of life. Honoring wives was a commonplace in the GrecoRoman world,42 but here this honor is grounded in the shared honorable status of possessing the grace of life (1:3–9). Honor (τιμή) will be given by God to all Christians when Christ returns (1:7), and by all Christians to Christ (2:7) and to everyone (2:17). Christian wives with Christian husbands have a new honor from being weaker and a having a share in the grace of life. Christian wives with nonbelievers must accommodate themselves to the situation by living in a way that does not further dishonor their husbands, retaining as much virtue in all other aspects of their lives and not making themselves vulnerable to any lessening of the virtue and honor they retain. THE HERMENEUTICS OF (RE)ARTICULATING THE GOSPEL IN 1 PETER Our author articulates the gospel within the constraints of his culture to help Christian slaves and wives potentially lessen their abuse and dishonor and view their situation from a larger theological perspective. However, as discussed below, he can be criticized for his use of authority to instruct two 40. Plato, Resp. 5.455D–456A; Aris. Ex. 250–251; Philo, Ebr. 55; Tacitus, Ann. 3.34. 41. Mark 9:33–37; 10:42–45; Matt 5:3, 5; 18:1–4, 10–14; 23:11–12; Luke 14:7–11. In Hellenistic sources, husbands are admonished to treat their wives kindly. See, e.g., Plutarch, Conj. praec. 33 (Mor. 142E); Callicratides, On the Happiness of Households 106.1–10 as preserved in the Anthology of Joannes Stobaeus (Balch, Let Wives be Submissive, 56–57). 42. Ps.-Aristotle, [Oec.] 3.2, 3; Plutarch, Conj. praec. 47 (Mor. 144F).

280

D. F. WATSON

groups of subordinate people to continue to be subordinate in their oppressive situations. It is argued that his exhortation further oppresses two groups subject to abuse and dishonor by encouraging their accommodation to abuse and dishonor.43 Regarding his exhortation to slaves, the author does not address slave masters or criticize the slave system as a whole with its domination and abuse. He does not address slave masters and attempt to direct their behavior toward their slaves. Perhaps most slave owners were not Christian and would not even hear or read the letter, so why address them? Also, Rome had cruelly put down slave rebellions in the past, and there was no realistic hope that the system would change.44 However, our author’s exhortation is unlike other household codes in the New Testament that affirm the status quo of the master-slave relationship and ask slaves to conform to the master’s wishes (Eph 6:5–9; Col 3:22–4:1). He indirectly criticizes the masters as sometimes “cruel,” and he acknowledges that the suffering of the slaves is sometimes “unjust” (2:18–19). He assumes that the master-slave relationship is flawed and asks slaves to conform to the will of Christ and suffer the consequences as Christ did. By tying the situation of the slaves to the circumstances faced by Christ himself, he implicitly criticizes those who mistreat others by associating cruel slave masters with those who cruelly crucified Christ.45 Our author’s exhortation to wives and husbands was meant to ameliorate the problem of Christian wives living with non-Christian husbands in a strongly patriarchal society. It has been argued that asking the wives to be silent under the guise of missiological ends is an “abusive command.”46 If the suffering of the preresurrected Christ is redemptive for saving humanity from suffering and death, “then there ought to be no room within the Church to suggest that suffering in itself can be redemptive or a part of making one more like Christ.”47 While this quote is based on a misunderstanding that our author suggests suffering is redemptive in some way, this approach of silencing and suffering does reinscribe power structures that put Christ to death in the first place. This passage can also contribute to the domestic abuse of women. Directly applied to marriage, it would advocate a complete submission of the

43. Jennifer G. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives, LNTS 442 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 86–109. 44. Moxnes, “The Beaten Body of Christ,” 133–35. 45. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity, 150. 46. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 91. 47. Bird, Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience, 92.

THE BODY AND ABUSE, POWER AND SUBMISSION, HONOR AND SHAME

281

wife to the husband, including enduring abuse without actively seeking help to stop or escape it. This accommodating approach to the master-slave and husband-wife relationships may be partially explained by our author’s imminent eschatology. As James W. Aageson puts so well, “The expectation that Christ’s return is imminent can limit the scope for social justice as something valuable in its own right. Present action determines the future reward in the near term, and the expectation of resurrection and eternal life frames existence in the present.”48 The author can rationalize abuse and dishonor short-term as following the abuse and dishonor of Christ, the greatest portion of whose abuse was shortterm and followed by glory, a glory with which he will be returning to bestow on those who faithfully suffer like him. Regardless, our author worked within the constraints of his context to offer a plan and theological perspective for those enduring abuse and dishonor as Christians. One result is that the suffering of Christ was used as a tool of submission to continue oppression. Since the theology and ethics of the New Testament are tied to their cultural assessment, the gospel has to be rearticulated to meet the new situations of the church.49 Thus our task today is to work to tear down the structures of power and authority that allow people to be powerless, fearful, oppressed, and without honor. Our task is to work so that all people can share in the glory and honor that Christ gives them as children of the household of God, a status he earned for them by forsaking his honor and subjecting himself to oppressive powers. Our author’s approach to slavery cannot be directly applied today. The institution of slavery is not commonly found today in the form that it embodied at the time of 1 Peter, but continues in a variety of insidious forms of oppression like sex trafficking and oppressive manufacturing conditions. Accommodation to our culture is not necessary or desirable. We can rearticulate the gospel in contemporary life to eliminate abuse and affirm the honor of all. Neither can our author’s inherent patriarchal approach to marriage born in another culture be applied directly today. As Steven Tracey notes, “Peter’s audience faced a completely different context for abuse than faced by most modern western women, and hence Peter’s admonitions simply cannot be

48. James W. Aageson, “1 Peter 2.11–3.7: Slaves, Wives and the Complexities of Interpretation,” in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004), 34–49, here 45. 49. Aageson, “1 Peter 2.11–3.7,” 45–47.

282

D. F. WATSON

taken as a straightforward response paradigm for abuse victims.”50 We are free to let the understanding of wives as sharing the grace of life (3:7) and the broader vision of Christianity as one of mutuality (Gal 3:28) transform the marriage relationship. Christian marriage can be one of mutuality, and we can transcend the concept of submission and the time-bound and oppressive nature of this passage. There is still much to do to rearticulate the gospel in current life to eliminate undo power, abuse, and dishonor of individuals. It can be done by articulating the gospel in new contexts, but not by reasserting the articulation of our author from his first-century context. emeritus, Malone University

Duane F. WATSON

50. Steven Tracy, “Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1 Peter,” CTJ 41 (2006): 279–96, esp. 288.

15 “YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”: PHILO AND THE IMAGE OF NEW BIRTH IN 1 PETER

One of the most intriguing concepts of 1 Peter is the image that Christians experience a new, a second “birth” (ἀναγεννάω) when they become believers. The importance of this concept for the epistle is demonstrated by the fact that it appears in the prooemium of the letter in 1:3 and then again in 1:23, followed closely by the image of the newborn (ἀρτιγέννητος βρέφος) in 2:2. Indeed, the audience is identified as children (τέκνα) who invoke God as “Father” (πατήρ) in 1:14–17, as a brotherhood (ἀδελφότης) in 2:17 and 5:9, and as the household (οἶκος) of God in 4:17.1 As Troy W. Martin has so ably pointed out, while such language is metaphorical, it points to a new ontological reality for the readers of 1 Peter.2 The gentile recipients of the epistle are described as “sojourners” (παρεπίδημος) and “aliens” (πάροικος, 1:1; 2:11) living in the “diaspora” (διασπορά, 1:1) in “exile” (παροικία, 1:17).3 In 1:2 they are referred to as the “chosen ones” 1. On the interrelationship of these images, see also John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 331. 2. Troy W. Martin, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter, SBLDS 131 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), esp. 141, 143, 148, 158, 161–63, 185–88, 266, 270, 273–75; also his “Christians as Babies: Metaphorical Reality in 1 Peter,” in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin, RBS 77 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 99–112, esp. 112. See also Hans Windisch, Die Katholischen Briefe, ed. Herbert Preisker, 3rd ed., HNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951), 59; Elliott, 1 Peter, 331–32; Ernest Best, I Peter, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1971), 75. For a contrary opinion, see Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter, ed. Ferdinand Hahn, trans. and aug. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 83. Elliott argues that ὡς here, and often in 1 Peter, marks “an essential quality of the term or phrase that it precedes” (1 Peter, 357). 3. The identification of the audience as (at least largely) gentile is based on 1 Pet 1:14, 18; 2:10 (cf. Rom 9:25); 4:3–4. See also Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 50–51; Elliott, 1 Peter, 95–97; Joel B. Green, 1 Peter, Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 5; Martin, “Christians as Babies,” 99 and n. 2. For the opinion that the audience is primarily Hellenistic Jewish Christians, see Ben W. Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on

284

N. PARDEE

of God (ἐκλεκτός, cf. 5:13), who have been “sanctified” (ἁγιασμός) by the Spirit, unto “obedience” (ὑπακοή) and the “sprinkling” (ῥαντισμός) of the blood of Jesus Christ; this last image is seemingly a reference to the ratification of the covenant between God and the people in Exod 24:7–8 (cf. Heb 12:24).4 All of these are terms and concepts traditionally applied to Israel in Jewish and Christian literature, and some are rare in Greek sources outside of that context.5 Heightening this transformational experience is the explicit differentiation of the readers from (other) gentiles (2:12; 4:3–4) and their metamorphosis from “no people” to “God’s people,” citing Hos 1:9; 2:25 (2:10). The image of being “born again” is intriguing because it is scarce in the New Testament, and although references to God as “Father” and to believers as God’s “children” are quite frequent there, this particular basis for such familial imagery is not. In its best known manifestation, it comes in Jesus’s provocative response to Nicodemus that in order to enter the kingdom one must be born ἄνωθεν, an adverb that can mean “from above,” but also, simply, “again.” Otherwise, aside from 1 Peter, the image makes only a cameo appearance in Titus 3:4–8. More numerous, yet still narrowly localized, are associated references to being “born” (as opposed to being “reborn”) of God, occurring once in James (1:18) and several times in the Johannine corpus (John 1:12–13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18). Despite the variations in expression and the differences among these texts in terms of genre, historical context, and/or purpose, a shared, underlying premise seems to remain: in becoming a Christian, one underwent a transformation that changed one’s identity at its core and thus was akin to a new or second birth. If one could identify the origin of this shared, but rare, concept, it could have implications both for the histories of the communities in which it appears and more broadly for the development of the church and the geographical 1–2 Peter, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians 2 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 23–37; and James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 1158–60. Samuel Parsons has suggested that the community is temporally far enough from Christian beginnings to be considered simply “Christian” (“We Have Been Born Anew: The New Birth of the Christian in the First Epistle of St. Peter [I Petr. 1:3, 23]” [PhD diss., Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe Facultas S. Theologiae, 1978], viii). 4. For a discussion on the interpretation of ῥαντισμός in 1 Pet 1:2, see Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 87–89. 5. For more details see Nancy Pardee, “Be Holy, for I Am Holy: Paraenesis in 1 Peter,” in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin, RBS 77 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 113–34, esp. 117–19, and bibliography cited there.

285

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

spread of its mission. The more modest goal of this paper, however, is to explore one possible contributing source of this image of new birth via its representation in 1 Peter.

HUMAN BEINGS AS CHILDREN

OF

GOD

As is often noted, the designation of a supreme deity as “father” is attested widely in antiquity to express the patriarchal role of the divine being in relation to the cosmos, to the earth, to subordinate divine beings, and to humanity as creator, sustainer, and ruler. Gottlob Schrenk observed that already in Homer, Zeus was described as “the father of men and gods” (Il. 1.544; Od. 1.28) and could be invoked as such in prayer.6 In Stoicism as well, from Cleanthes to Epictetus, human beings were characterized as the offspring of God-Zeus.7 As time went on, however, the idea that God-Zeus was the father of all human beings was tempered in Greco-Roman philosophy by the idea that he was father particularly to the virtuous, indeed Dio Chrysostom comments that “Zeus is the father, not only of gods but of men as well, though not of slaves nor of any mean and ignoble man” (4 Regn. 21–22, LCL).8 The notion of new birth or rebirth through the deity, however, is rare. It is occasionally found within the mysteries, but the sources are late and its direct relationship to its Christian counterpart, once touted by the History of Religions school, is today treated by many scholars with great caution. Often cited are references from the Isis mysteries presented in The Golden Ass of Apuleius, dated to the latter half of the second century CE, but there the image is found only in a qualified and metaphorical sense.9 A Mithraic inscription from Santa Prisca dated to the end of the second century CE does attest the term renatum, but other evidence is temporally even further 6. Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell, “πατήρ,” TDNT 5:945–1014, citing texts dating from Homer to Aristophanes. 7. E. H. Blakeney, The Hymn of Cleanthes, Texts for Students 26 (New York: Macmillan, 1921), lines 4, 33; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.3.1. 8. See also Plutarch, Alex. 27, and cf. [Reg. imp. apophth.] 15; Seneca, Lucil. 1.5–6. 9. In its two most pertinent instances renatus in Apuleius is qualified by quodam modo (“in a certain way”), i.e., it is an experience likened to rebirth (Met. 11.16, 21); in one other instance it is a metaphor for the regaining of Lucius’s ability to speak (renata lingua, 11.14). Note that Lucius’s initiation is described, again metaphorically, as a natalem sacrorum, i.e., a “birth with respect to sacred rites” (11.24, my translation), but after the first initiation in Met. 11.21–24, he undergoes two subsequent initiations in order to advance in status (11.27– 30).

286

N. PARDEE

removed.10 Thus most scholars envision the relationship of Christianity to the mysteries as one of shared terms and concepts current in the broader culture.11 In the Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, it is often noted that the image of God as “Father” of human beings is not very common.12 Only a handful of references attest the idea that God is Father of humankind universally, and these are either undeveloped or only implicit.13 First and foremost, when Yahweh is imagined as “Father,” it is a metaphor based on a blending of the patriarchal role in the nuclear family with the covenantal roles of elector, king, and moral and religious authority with respect to the nation of Israel.14 While the king as an individual can be characterized as God’s son (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; Ps 2:7; 89:27–28; 110:3), Alan Culpepper maintains that even here he is representative of the people as a whole.15 On the rare image of “begetting” by God – with respect to Israel itself (Deut 32:18), the king (Pss 2:7; 109:3 LXX) and Wisdom (Prov 8:25) – it is 10. For a summary of the evidence see Marvin Meyer, ed., The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 8. On the dating of the Santa Prisca inscriptions, see M. J. Vermaseren and C. van Essen, The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 177. For the fourth-century dating of the Mithras liturgy (PGM IV.475–829) see Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, vol. 1: Texts, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), xxiii. Richard Perdelwitz is often cited as the strongest advocate for finding evidence of the mysteries in 1 Peter; acknowledging the late dating of the evidence, he assigned the composition of 1 Peter to the first part of the second century (Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des I. Petrusbriefes, RVV 11.3 [Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911], 5–96, 104). 11. See, for example, Jan Bremmer, Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World, Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Welten 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 147–54; Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 13–14, 94 n. 19, 139, 146, 153; and Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions, trans. Brian McNeil (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 152. 12. Thus Warren Carter, “God the Father,” NIDB 2:619; Quell, TDNT 5:965; Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, SBT 2/6 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967), 12; Brendan Byrne, ‘Sons of God’ – ‘Seed of Abraham’: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background, AnBib 83 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 16. Here I set aside both the handful of biblical passages that refer to subordinate divine beings as “sons of God” or “sons of gods” (for discussion see Quell, TDNT 5:965–66; Byrne, ‘Sons of God’, 10; E. Theodore Mullen Jr., “God, Sons of,” NIDB 2:618), and the phenomenon of theophoric personal names (for discussion see Quell, TDNT 5:965–69). 13. God is “Father” of all people in his role as creator (Deut 32:6; Mal 2:10); Israel is a special child among all the nations (Jer 3:19); Israel is God’s firstborn, implying others (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9). On the undeveloped universality, see Quell, TDNT 5:972–74. 14. On this see Quell, TDNT 5:970, Schrenk, TDNT 5:978–79; Alan Culpepper, “Children of God,” NIDB 1:590–93; C. F. D. Moule, “Children of God,” IDB 1:558–61; Jeremias, Prayers, 12–13. Although two passages speak in the plural of “sons of Yahweh” (Deut 14:1) and “sons of the living God” (Hos 2:1), the image remains a collective one according to Quell, TDNT 5:970. 15. Culpepper, “Children of God,” 1:590.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

287

always, clearly, a poetic or figurative use.16 As for the idea that human beings are “sons/children of God,” Brendan Byrne, surveying the occurrences of this image in Second Temple and rabbinic literature, found that the concept applied to Israel alone and, even when occurring in the plural form, generally referred to the nation collectively, although it was at times used for special individuals.17 In later texts, however, one begins to see an individualization of the divine-human relationship.18 “Father” could now be modified by possessive pronouns – “our,” “your,” “my,” “thy,” “his” Father (1 Chr 29:10; Sir 51:10; Tob 13:4; cf. 3 Macc 5:7) – or found in the vocative (Wis 14:3; Sir 23:1, 4; cf. 3 Macc 6:3, 8; Apocr. Ezek. 2).19 Moreover, the sense of a personal relationship with the divine Father was increasingly connected with virtuous behavior, perhaps reflecting a confluence of the prophetic demand for individual virtue in Judaism with similar views from Greco-Roman philosophy: “Be like a father to orphans, and take the place of a husband to widows. Then God will call you his child, and he will be merciful to you and deliver you from the pit” (Sir 4:10).20 Similarly in Philo, “they who do ‘what is pleasing’ to nature and what is ‘good’ are sons of God” (Spec. 1.318).21 For Judaism this raises the question as to whether a gentile could be a “child” of God simply through living a virtuous life. Although Philo, highly influenced by Platonic and Stoic philosophy, could speak of God as the 16. Goppelt, I Peter, 83; Erik Sjöberg, “Wiedergeburt und Neuschöpfung im palästinischen Judentum,” ST 4 (1950): 44–85, esp. 75–76, who noted the sacrilegious character of such a notion. 17. Byrne, ‘Sons of God’, 62, 75, 77; see also Schrenk, TDNT 5:980. 18. On this see, for example, Quell, TDNT 5:970, Schrenk, TDNT 5:978–81; Jeremias, Prayers, 16–29. 19. At times “Father” appears in juxtaposition with other titles (1 Chr 29:10; Tob 13:4; Sir 23:1, 4; 51:10; cf. 3 Macc 5:7) but also alone (Wis 14:3; 3 Macc 6:3(?), 8; Apocr. Ezek. 2). On God described as the Father of the individual, see also 1QH IX, 35; Jos. Asen. 12:8–15; of the collective, see 3 Macc 2:21. Schrenk finds “Father” as a stand-alone substitution for God only in T. Jud. 24:2, Philo, Odes of Solomon, and the Corpus Hermeticum (TDNT 5:979); Byrne adds T. Job 33:9 (‘Sons of God’, 48). The fixed address “Our Father, Our King” occurs in two early synagogal prayers, perhaps reflected in Josephus’s phrase πατὴρ καὶ δεσπότης (Ant. 1.20; 5.93; Ag. Ap. 2.174; on this see Schrenk, TDNT 5:979; Jeremias, Prayers, 24–27). Jeremias maintains that the occurrences of “Father” for God in the Shemoneh Esreh and Birkat Ha-Mazon are later additions (Prayers, 26). In rabbinic texts one sees an increasing popularity of various forms of the descriptive phrase “the Father in the heavens,” both in the context of the collective as well as the individual, though the former greatly outnumber the latter. The phrase, however, is only found as an address in prayer in late texts (Jeremias, Prayers, 22, 26–28). 20. See also Wis 2:10–18; Jub 1:23–25; and Géza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 39. English translations of biblical and deuterocanonical texts are taken from the NAB unless otherwise indicated. 21. Noted by Culpepper, “Children of God,” 1:591.

288

N. PARDEE

creator-father of all that exists,22 he also maintained that Israel had a special status within creation and that it is not polytheists but only monotheists who are truly God’s children.23 But are all Jews God’s “children” or only the virtuous? The necessity of moral behavior is clear in Philo.24 Such is the case also in the sectarian texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls – Culpepper pointed to the self-identification of its members as “sons” of light (e.g., 1QS I, 9; 1QM I, 1), justice (1QS III, 20, 22), truth (e.g., 1QS IV, 5; 1QM XVII, 8; 1QH VI, 29) and other designations, but the case is made even stronger by the identifications of the remainder of Israel as “sons” of darkness (e.g., 1QS I, 10; 1QM I, 1), transgression (1QS III, 21; 1QH V, 8), mischief (1QH V, 25), iniquity (1QH V, 7; VI, 30; VII, 11), Belial (4QFlor I, 8), and the Pit (CD VI, 15; XIII, 14).25 As to the image of divine new birth or rebirth, Erik Sjöberg found even figurative uses rare in Palestinian Judaism – the image of new creation was far more common, at times linked with that of new birth.26 Joseph Dey and others have pointed, however, to a unique reference to the “rebirth” of Moses in Philo’s Questions and Answers on Exodus. But the calling above of the prophet [Moses] is a second birth [δευτέρα γένεσις] better than the first. For the latter is mixed with a body and had corruptible parents, while the former is an unmixed and simple soul of the sovereign, being changed from a productive to an unproductive form, which has no mother but only a father, who is (the Father) of all. (QE 2.46)27

Dey concluded, however, that this imagery in Philo, based in philosophical speculation, really described an ascending to God, a uniting with God, and even deification, limited to those few who are of the “prophetic mind.”28 22. Schrenk (TDNT 5:957) points out that Philo can refer to the universe as God’s “son” (Spec. 1.95–96; Ebr. 30; Mos. 2.134). 23. Conf. 144–145; Virt. 177–179. Monotheism was the first and best of all virtues (Virt. 211–219; cf. 177–179; Spec. 1.51–55). 24. Spec. 1.54–58; 4.180–182; Praem. 152; Spec. 1.318. 25. Culpepper, “Children of God,” 1:591. Culpepper notes that the rabbinic literature takes a more inclusive view, citing b. B. Bat. 10a; Exod. Rab. 46.4–5; Deut. Rab. 7.9. 26. Isa 26:19; 2 Macc 7; and some rabbinic texts where the image is applied to proselytes, to persons rescued from distress, and to resurrection. See Sjöberg, “Wiedergeburt,” 82–84. Sjöberg noted that there is no word in Hebrew or Aramaic that corresponds to the concept of rebirth (“Wiedergeburt,” 82). 27. Dey cites also QE 2.29 (cf. 2.40), in ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung von Tit 3,5, NTAbh 17.5 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1937), 112; this is cited also by J. M. Robinson, “Regeneration,” IDB 4:24–29. All translations of Philo’s texts are from the LCL edition. 28. Dey, ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ, 115–17. In contrast, Parsons saw here “the royal way” of Philo and the ultimate achievement of eternal life by the soul. In agreement with Joseph Pascher (Hē basilikē hodos: der Königsweg zu Wiedergeburt und Vergottung bei Philon von Alexandreia

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

289

Often discussed in the context of the image of new or second birth in the New Testament is the possible influence of the Jewish proselyte ritual, about which little is known in this era. Though Philo emphasized the moral and theological aspects of conversion, he seems also to have presupposed that the entirety of the law of Moses must be accepted and thus one can assume that circumcision would be performed; Josephus certainly testifies to the act of circumcision as part of conversion.29 That baptism was also a component of the ritual is perhaps alluded to in Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.20–21, and Sib. Or. 4:165. Two texts generally cited in this context are b. Yebam. 47a–b and Gerim 60a, where, in both cases, it is stated that the rite is accompanied by instruction.30 Thus, with respect to the image of new birth, it is worth noting that in Gerim 60a, the new convert comes out of the water to the words: “To Whom are you cleaving? Happy are you! [You are cleaving] to Him Who spoke and the world came into being blessed be He; for the world was created only for the sake of Israel; only Israel are called ‘sons of God,’ and only Israel are [described as] ‘beloved of God.’”31 Another tradition often brought to this discussion is the rabbinical saying, “one who has become a proselyte is like a child newly born,” attributed as early as Rabbi Jose ben Halphtha (mid-second century CE).32 Despite the simile, one might contend that the transformational nature of this “new existence” is demonstrated by the questions regarding proselytes to which this saying is applied: incestuous marriage and legal witnesses (b. Yebam. 22a); the relation of suffering to past or present sin (48b; cf. Gerim 60b–61a); the status of children born preconversion (62a) and of a proselyte’s family relationships postconversion (97b).33 This dictum thus attests that conversion [Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1931]), Parsons stated that “this rest in the presence and vision of God enabled the soul to become a son of God” (“We Have Been Born Anew,” 51–53). The interpretation of this passage is hampered by the fact that the text of Questions and Answers on Exodus is extant only in Armenian (and the translation of the Armenian into Latin by Aucher), supplemented by Greek fragments from Procopius from the sixth century CE. 29. On Philo, see esp. Virt. 108, 177; for Josephus, see Life 113; J.W. 2.454; Ag. Ap. 2.210; and discussion by Martin Goodman, “Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century,” in Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays, AGJU 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 91–116, esp. 107–8. 30. For a comprehensive survey of the rabbinic literature on proselytes, see Sjöberg, “Wiedergeburt,” 46–50, 53–55, 69–70. 31. All Talmud translations are from Isidore Epstein, ed., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1960–1990). 32. Here b. Yebam. 22a. 33. For other examples, see Sjöberg, “Wiedergeburt,” 47–48. Against the presence here of actual transformation, see Robinson, “Regeneration,” 4.27; J. Francis, “‘Like Newborn Babes’ – The Image of the Child in 1 Peter 2:2–3.” StudBib 3 (1978): 111–17; Sjöberg, “Wiedergeburt,” 45; Edward G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1947), 307.

290

N. PARDEE

commenced a new identity for the proselyte, and such a view is supported by another, albeit even later, rabbinical saying attributed to the third-century Rabbi Jose ben Zimra: for one who converts a gentile, it “is as if he had created him.”34

CHRISTIANS AS CHILDREN

OF

GOD

Certainly the idea that Christians are children or sons (and daughters) of God is found broadly in the New Testament.35 Even more wide-ranging are references to God as the “Father” of Christian believers, though they are especially prominent in the letters of Paul, in Matthean special material, and perhaps also in Q, although it is not always clear whether Matthew or Luke preserves an earlier reading.36 Important here is the attribution to Jesus of the Aramaic “Abba” (“Father,” Mark 14:36) as an address to God and its attestation among Paul’s own converts in Galatia (Gal 4:6) and the Christians of Rome (Rom 8:15). In contrast with Greco-Roman religion and philosophy, this image is not universally applied – despite the fact that God is the creator, the resultant idea that God is Father to all is rare and undeveloped in the New Testament (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6). Rather it is the Jewish and Christian audiences – the recipients of Paul’s letters, Jesus’s hearers, or the communities addressed by the gospels – who are God’s children, an 34. Robinson, “Regeneration,” 4:27. Compare Paul’s sense of being a father to his converts, e.g., 1 Cor 4:15. 35. Aside from 1 Peter, references in the NT include the following: Christians as “children” of God: John 1:12; 11:52; Rom 8:16–17, 21; 9:8; Eph 5:1; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:1; as “sons” of God: Matt 5:9, 45 // Luke 6:35; Luke 20:36; Rom 8:14, 15, 19, 23; 9:4, 26; Gal 3:26; 4:5, 6; Eph 1:5; Heb 2:10; 12:5, 6, 7, 8; as sons and daughters of God: 2 Cor 6:18. The passage in Mark 10:15 parr., requiring people to become “children” in order to enter the kingdom, is sometimes proposed as the tradition underlying the notion of rebirth in 1 Peter and elsewhere. Robinson, indeed, places the saying in a baptismal context (“Regeneration,” 4:26; cf. Parsons, “We Have Been Born Anew,” 30–31), but Adela Yarbro Collins seems correct when she sees this instead as a Markan comment on the necessity of humility and servanthood in the church (Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 472– 73). 36. The concept of God as Father to Christians is prominent in Paul’s salutations but also occurs elsewhere: Rom 1:7; 8:15; 1 Cor 1:3; 8:6; 2 Cor 1:2, 3; 6:18; Gal 1:4; 4:6; Phil 1:2; 4:20; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess 1:1, 2; 2:16; Phlm 3; Col 1:2; Eph 1:2; 4:6; 1 Tim 1:2. It is prominent in Matthew, esp. the Sermon on the Mount: Matt 5:16, 45 (// Luke 6:35 ὕψιστος), 48 (// Luke 6:36); 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9 (// Luke 11:2), 14–15 (// Mark 11:25[–26]), 18, 26 (// Luke 12:24 θεός), 32 (// Luke 12:30); 7:11 (// Luke 11:13); 10:20 (// Luke 12:12 only ἅγιον πνεῦμα), 29–33 (// Luke 12:6–9 always θεός); 13:43; 18:14; 23:9; 24:36 (// Mark 13:32); 28:19. Other references include Mark 14:36; Luke 9:26 (// Matt 10:33 “my”); 12:32; John 8:41–42; 20:17; 1 John 3:1; cf. Heb 12:9.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

291

indication that the source of the image is clearly Judaism.37 Jesus is often portrayed as using the image in teaching his Jewish audience (“your Father,” with both singular and plural pronouns, or equivalents), in expressing his own, unique relationship with God (“my Father” or equivalents), and of course in prayer.38 Although the (once widely held) proposal by Jeremias that this phenomenon was unique to Jesus has been seriously criticized, many still trace to Jesus the increase in the use of the image of God as “Father,” while simultaneously holding that the concept must be understood as part of a developmental trajectory that began in Second Temple Judaism and continued into the rabbinic period.39 THE METAPHOR OF NEW OR SECOND BIRTH In the New Testament the image of the Christian’s transformation as new birth or rebirth is most prominent in 1 Peter and the Gospel of John, but it occurs one other time in what seems to be an explicit quotation of traditional material in Titus 3:4–8. But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth [διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας] and renewal [ἀνακαινώσεως] by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out [ἐξέχεεν] on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is trustworthy.40 37. Note that in the four gospels the image of God as Father occurs only in Jewish contexts and that the limitation of “children” to the Jews is made explicit in Mark 7:24–30 // Matt 15:21–28. 38. The phrases “their” Father, “the” Father, “our Father” (Lord’s Prayer) also occur in Jesus’s statements as expressions of the familial relationship between his audience and God. Jeremias held that Jesus limited his use of the title “your Father” to his teaching with his disciples (Prayers, 37, 43). In the context of Jesus’s own relationship with God the expressions “his” Father (in reference to the Son) or simply “Father” can also be found. 39. See, for example, John Ashton, “Abba,” ABD 1:7; Schrenk, TDNT 5:980. For Jeremias’s view that this emphasis on God as Father, particularly the address of God as “Abba” in prayer, originated with Jesus, see Prayers, 29–65, esp. 58–62. Although Jeremias was not the first to argue for the uniqueness of this usage to Christianity – the earlier TWNT articles of Gerhard Kittel (“ἀββᾶ,” TDNT 1:5–6) and Schrenk (TDNT 5:980) headed in the same direction – his work was the most influential. For criticism of Jeremias’ position, see esp. James Barr, “Ἀbbā isn’t ‘Daddy,’” JTS NS 39 (1988): 28–47, esp. 46–47; also the earlier, less extensive discussion by Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism, 41–43. Against Jeremias, Mary Rose D’Angelo especially pointed to the address of God as “Father” by an individual in 4Q372 1, 16 (“Abba,” NIDB 1:5–6, citing the text published by Eileen Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph,” RevQ 14 [1990]: 349–76, esp. 362–63). 40. For the view of this as a “prose, didactic prayer,” see Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 210–12. In contrast, Dibelius and Conzelmann

292

N. PARDEE

The noun παλιγγενεσία is attested directly only as early as Philo and there especially in the context of the doctrine of the periodic regeneration of the world attributed to the Stoics. Elsewhere, however, Philo also applied it to the created world as it began again with the family of Noah; to the transformation of the individual at death; and to the “regeneration” of Abel in the person of Seth.41 In the New Testament, παλιγγενεσία occurs also in Matt 19:28, but there in reference to the eschatological kingdom of God. Dey’s broader study on the semantic development of the term led him to the conclusion that the word had, even by the first century BCE, taken on a variety of meanings.42 In addition, Dibelius and Conzelmann observed that λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας (“bath of rebirth”) in Titus 3:5 lacked further explanation and concluded that it must have been a common image for the readers.43 The image of transformational birth is also found in the related metaphor of being “born” of God. The author of James states of God, “the Father of lights,” that “he willed to give us birth [ἀπεκύησεν] by the word of truth [λόγῳ ἀληθείας] that we may be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (1:18). The verb ἀποκυέω and its related forms are rare and uncertain prior to Philo.44 In the New Testament it occurs only in James, both here and in 1:15 (in the alternative form ἀποκύω) in the warning that “when sin reaches maturity it gives birth [ἀποκύει] to death.” As in Titus, the image of divine birth and Oberlinner saw more authorial activity, albeit using traditional materials (Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972], 147–48, 150; Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum Titusbrief, HThKNT [Freiburg: Herder, 1996], 161, 181–82). 41. The noun occurs elsewhere to designate the doctrine of metempsychosis as found in Pythagoras and others, but the evidence is only within fragments of writers of the first century BCE or later and is thus questionable; Dey also dated the earliest evidence to the first century BCE (ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ, 32). For Philo’s use of the term for the Stoic doctrine, see Aet. 9, 47, 76, 85, 93, 99, 103, 107 (on the authenticity of this text, see F. H. Colson’s introduction in Philo, IX, LCL [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941], 172–77); on Noah, Mos. 2.65; on death, Cher. 114; on Abel, Post. 124; and see also Agrippa’s letter in Legat. 325 where it refers to the “regeneration” he experienced when freed from prison by Caligula. 42. In addition to the various senses found in Philo and elsewhere, Dey (ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ, 8–29, 32) cited examples such as Plutarch’s use of the term for the return to life of the dismembered Osiris (Is. Os. 35 [Mor. 364E]), Josephus’s reference to the “rebirth” of Judah after the exile (Ant. 11.67), and Galen’s use for the recurrence of an illness (Comp. Med. Loc. 13.83.15). 43. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 148; see also Dey, ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ, 156. 44. The verb ἀποκυέω is found twenty-four times in Philo but only eight times prior to that, primarily in later collections of fragments. The synonymous verb ἀποκυΐσκω and the noun ἀποκύησις each occur twice in Philo with only a few (again uncertain) attestations prior. In Philo the verb occurs mostly in the passive in reference to a child just born; this is also the meaning in 4 Macc 15:17.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

293

is not further explained, and Martin Dibelius similarly contended that it was a commonly understood notion in that community.45 God is referred to as “Father” (1:27; 3:9; “of lights,” 1:17), and sibling imagery is frequent, although there are no references to believers as children.46 While a tradition of transformational birth is present, it is the resultant perseverance in right behavior that is most prominent: the readers are commanded to δέξασθε, “accept, give ear to” (LSJ), the ἔμφυτον λόγον, “implanted word,” as a requirement for their salvation (1:21). The concept of being born of God is also found in the Johannine corpus, both in John 1:12–13 (ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν) and often in 1 John (γεννάω … ἐκ constructions in 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18), where the author adds that God’s σπέρμα abides in one born of him (3:9). While the concept of “second birth” is often associated with the Gospel of John, it is really only found in John 3:3, 5–8 where the birth is “from above” or “again” (γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν [3:3]; γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν [3:7]), Jesus’s double entendre that plays the two meanings of ἄνωθεν off one another.47 This birth is “from (water and) the Spirit” (ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος [3:5]; ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος [3:6, 8]) and is thus connected with baptism. A more extended image of “second birth” is found in 1 Peter 1:3, 23–25: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in his great mercy gave us a new birth [ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς] to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…. You have been born anew [ἀναγεγεννημένοι], not from perishable but from imperishable seed [σπορᾶς] through the living and abiding word of God [διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος], for: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of the field; the grass withers, and the flower wilts; but the word of the Lord [ῥῆμα κυρίου] remains forever.” This is the word [ῥῆμα] that has been proclaimed [εὐαγγελισθέν] to you. (1:3, 23–25)

Crucial to the interpretation of 1 Pet 1:3, 23–25 is certainly the verb ἀναγεννάω, defined in LSJ as “beget [bear] anew, regenerate.” It is attested only 45. Martin Dibelius, James, rev. Heinrich Greeven, trans. Michael A. Williams, Hermeneia, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 106; see also Dey, ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ, 156; Robinson, “Regeneration,” 4:27. Parsons, in contrast, seems to have viewed the idea as a creation of the author (“We Have Been Born Anew,” 24–25). 46. For sibling imagery, see Jas 1:2, 9, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14, 15; 3:1, 10, 12; 4:11; 5:7, 9, 10, 12, 19. 47. According to LSJ, the primary, most widely attested meaning for ἄνωθεν is “from above,” while the meaning “again” is attested only from the first century CE. (The BDAG reference to Plato, Ep. 2.310e should more likely be translated “from the beginning,” a meaning that occurs generally in Plato.) It is noteworthy that both Justin and Irenaeus can substitute ἀναγεννάω for γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν when they are quoting from John 3 (Justin, 1 Apol. 61.4; Irenaeus, Fragmenta deperditorum operum 33.6, 7).

294

N. PARDEE

in 1 Peter within the New Testament and only prior to the New Testament in the first-century BCE author Philodemus, there used metaphorically of a renewed arousal of vices.48 The earliest attestation of the related noun ἀναγέννησις is Philo, Aet. 8–9, followed several lines later by παλιγγενεσία; both are used in reference to the Stoic regeneration of the cosmos.49 Post New Testament, aside from one occurrence in Josephus, both the verb and noun are found only in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, and later Christian writers, there in connection with baptism.50 In 1 Pet 1:3 the active participle ἀναγεννήσας is in an attributive relationship to God as subject; in 1:23 the passive participle ἀναγεννημένοι is in a circumstantial relationship to the believers, and to the imperative ἀγαπήσατε in 1:22. This is simply to say that the author of 1 Peter represents God as the ultimate source of this “second birth” or “rebirth,” with believers as the recipients of it. The precise translation of the verb varies among scholars. The NAB (the translation given above) renders 1:3 and 23, respectively, as “gave new birth” and “born anew,” and similar translations are given by John H. Elliott, Lewis Donelson, J. N. D. Kelly, Leonhard Goppelt, and Ernest Best.51 48. Philodemus, Περὶ ὀργῆς, 17.2.19. See the text in Giovanni Indelli, Filodemo: L’ira, Scuola di Epicuro 5 (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1988), 63. 49. This passage from Philo is also cited among the fragments of Chrysippus in SVF, but it seems impossible to ascertain whether the term actually goes back to Chrysippus. The form ἀναγενέσεις occurs in an astronomical work sometimes ascribed to Eudoxus (fourth century BCE) in a manuscript dated as early as the second century BCE, but there its meaning is uncertain. The adjectival form ἀναγεννητικός is found only one time in Porphyry, in reference to the rendering of astrological drawings (Aneb. 2.6b.2; see text in Angelo Raffaele Sodano, ed., Porfirio: Lettera ad Anebo [Naples: L’Arte tipografica, 1958], 15). 50. Josephus, J.W. 4.484, for ashes reborn in the fruit of the area of ancient Sodom; Justin, 1 Apol. 61.3, 4, 10; 66.1; Dial. 138.2; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.14.1 (ed. Harvey); Fragmenta deperditorum operum 33.6, 7; Theophilus, Autol. 2.15.14; 16.7. Irenaeus also wrote of regeneration in the view of the Marcosians in Haer. 1.8.7; 1.14.1. Parsons saw the verb as a deliberate choice by the author of 1 Peter based on γεννάω in Ps 2:7 (“We Have Been Born Anew,” 176–77, 202, 327–28) in order to avoid the more common παλιγγενεσία (81). (One should note, however, that a verbal form of παλιγγενεσία, i.e., in a compound form derived from the noun, seems not to have been available.) In his view the author appropriated the Hellenistic image of rebirth in order to define “an essentially Christian experience in terms more meaningful to those catechumens who – renouncing their former ways – sought and were given new life and a new child-like relationship to God the Father through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (203; see also 81). Parsons seems to have wavered on whether 1 Peter or common tradition was the source of the rebirth imagery in the early church (for James, 261; for Titus and the Johannine corpus, 316–18, 332–33). The fact that the verb is prominent in Justin and later writers, however, may speak for a broader, traditional usage, rather than a distant source in 1 Peter, a text that is not attested in Justin. 51. For the translations “caused us to be born again”/“born again” in 1:3 and 1:23, see Elliott and Lewis Donelson (I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary, NTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010]); “caused us to be born again”/“born afresh,” J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1969); “birthed us

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

295

Others emphasize the divine activity; these include Paul J. Achtemeier, who translated the term in 1 Peter as “beget” and “begotten anew.”52 In his opinion, with God as Father, Christians have “not merely a new birth, but a new origin altogether,” a change connected with the designation of the gentile readers as “sojourners” (παρεπίδημοι, 1:1; 2:11) and “aliens” (πάροικοι, 2:11; cf. παροικία, 1:17).53 Whatever the nature of the phenomenon, it applies also to the author himself and thus equally to Jews and gentiles (ἡμας, 1:3). In 1:23 this secondary birth or begetting is said to have been accomplished out of “imperishable seed” (ἐκ σπορᾶς … ἀφθάρτου) through the word of God (διὰ λόγου … θεοῦ) and connected with the Christian proclamation of the gospel (τὸ εὐαγγελισθέν 1:25). This raises three questions: what is the precise identification of “seed” as well as “word,” what is the relationship between the two as indicated by the prepositions ἐκ and διά, and what is the relationship of each to God’s act of ἀναγεννάω? First, however, it must be asked how the phrase ἀναγεγεννημένοι + διὰ λόγου … θεοῦ in 1:23 (attributing divine regeneration to the “word”) should be interpreted in conjunction with ἀναγεννήσας + δι᾽ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in 1:3 (seen by some as attributing it to the resurrection). A resolution often suggested is arrived at through a sort of pars pro toto – the resurrection of 1:3 is the (partial) content of the “word” in 1:23.54 Yet the participle and διά clause in 1:3 are separated by εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν, which, as is often observed, is the first of three εἰς phrases in vv. 3–5 described, for example, by Elliott as “identifying three related results or benefits of God’s regenerating action.”55 Thus uncertainty arises as to whether it is regeneration, or, rather, hope that derives from the resurrection. While Elliott acknowledges that anew”/“born anew,” Goppelt, I Peter; “gave us new birth”/“born anew,” J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1988); “born anew,” Best, I Peter. 52. For this sense see also Windisch (“neugezeugt”); cf. “regenerated”/“begotten again” in Francis Wright Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (New York: Macmillan, 1947). 53. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 94. 54. So, e.g., Goppelt, I Peter, 84, 126; Best, I Peter, 75, 95. Parsons suggested that, at an early date, the church interpreted the resurrection as Jesus’s “birth” based on the divine “begetting” of the king in Ps 2:7, the “birth pangs” of death in Pss 18:5 and 116:3 (LXX ὠδίς), and the image of Hades as a “womb” in 4 Ezra 4:40–42, thus Christ was born to divine sonship and was the firstborn from the dead (“We Have Been Born Anew,” 199–202). Christians, who shared in Christ’s resurrection, also experienced new birth (cf. 227, 277). Against this, one notes that ὠδίς often has the metaphorical sense “travail” in the LXX and that the context of 4 Ezra 4:40–42 is final judgment, not new life. Moreover, Acts 13:33, Rom 1:3–4, and Heb 1:5, also cited by Parsons, apply solely to Jesus. 55. 1 Peter, 333. See also Donelson, Peter and Jude, 30. In contrast, Martin sees the order of the phrases as vital: the new begetting was for the purpose of hope, i.e., hope of an inheritance; in the present time Christians are “guarded” by God because of their faith in salvation, which is part of their inheritance. (Metaphor and Composition, 52–55).

296

N. PARDEE

“resurrection” is most immediately connected to “hope,” he nonetheless maintains that it also serves as the means of rebirth in 1:3, of inheritance in 1:4, and of salvation in 1:5.56 Yet all three seem to point to the promise of eternal life and are perhaps better understood as the goal of regeneration – indeed resurrection itself does not bring either “inheritance” or “salvation,” but regeneration by God does. Thus, while God is the ultimate source of rebirth in both verses, it seems that one must turn to 1:23 and to “seed” as its immediate source delivered through God’s “word.” Semantically the three Greek nouns σπέρμα, σπόρος, and σπορά overlap, and the question arises as to whether there is any significance in the choice of σπορά, unique within the New Testament, by the author of 1 Peter. All are derivatives of the verb σπείρω (“to sow”), and just as the verb developed figurative senses in which the sowing of seed was applied also to animal and human reproduction and to the act of dissemination more generally, so too did the nouns, but in various capacities. Thus according to both LSJ and BDAG the most common meaning of σπέρμα is “seed,” primarily that of plants, but also in transferred senses “semen” and, more broadly, the “germ” or “origin” of anything and including the sense of “lineage.” By extension, σπέρμα was also used for what is produced from seed, that is, “offspring” and, more rarely, “crop.”57 In contrast, in both lexicons the first meaning of σπορά and σπόρος is “sowing” and, in the transferred sense, “begetting,” although this meaning appears to be more common with σπορά.58 But σπόρος, like σπέρμα, was also commonly used to denote plant seed and, by extension, “crop” and “offspring.”59 In contrast, while σπορά also could be extended to “crop” or “offspring,” the meaning “seed” is rare and late.60 Indeed, LSJ gives only two examples for this sense, 1 Pet 1:23 and P.Leid.W. 11.50 (= PGM XIII.492) while BDAG adds SIG 826c, 15; Corp. herm. 13.2; Ps.-Callisthenes 1.10, 13; 56. Elliott, 1 Peter, 334–35; so also Kelly, Epistles, 48. 57. LSJ and BDAG, s.v. “σπέρμα,” “σπορά,” “σπόρος.” LSJ also cites one instance of σπέρμα with the meaning “seed-time,” Hesiod’s Works and Days 781, but the text seems better understood as distinguishing between starting seed vs. planting seedlings and thus warrants the translation “seed” or even “sowing.” 58. The only example in LSJ of the use of σπόρος for the act of procreation comes from Plutarch (Conj. praec. 42 [Mor. 144B]); BDAG does not list this as a meaning for σπόρος. 59. On the meaning “plant seed,” see BDAG and LSJ; for “crop” and “offspring,” see LSJ. BDAG does not see the extension from planted seed to harvested seed, i.e., crops, and thus seems erroneously to miss that meaning for all three nouns. 60. Although not listed by either LSJ or BDAG, the meaning “crop” is clear in Josephus, Ant. 2.306 and 1 Macc 10:30. BDAG instead gives the meaning “that which is sown” for these as well as for Euripides, Andr. 637 (marked as “dub. l.” in LSJ), where it is better translated “the yield of barren ground o’erpasseth deep rich soil” (Way, LCL). LSJ shows that this meaning could be extended to a “crop” of offspring or a single child and further to the sense of race or lineage.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

297

PGM I.32, XIII.176. The earliest of these (SIG 826c, 15; τέκνων μήτε σπορῶν μήτε καρπ[ῶν μή]τε οὐσιάς κατόνασθαι ἐάσωσ(ιν) ἐμέ; 117 BCE), however, refers to the division of produce into grain and fruit, and the sense is that of “crop” rather than “seed.”61 Corpus hermeticum 13.(1–) 2, dated to the third century CE, utilizes σπορά in a discussion of rebirth (παλιγγενεσία) – the “seed” is the “true good” (ἡ σπορὰ τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἀγαθόν) from which one can be born again, but here the date – combined with the similarity to John 3 – raises the possibility of Christian influence.62 In the story of the birth of Alexander in Ps.Callisthenes, also dated to about the third century CE, the references to σπορά (1.10, 13) seem to denote the resultant “child” rather than the originating “seed.”63 As for the references from the Greek Magical Papyri, PGM XIII.176, 492 (fourth century CE) refer to a Genna-Spora syzygy; it is only the latest text, PGM I.32 (fourth or fifth century CE), that uses “seed” in the sense of human semen, but its late dating renders it of dubious value for interpreting 1 Peter. Indeed, LSJ virtually reserves the meaning “semen” to σπέρμα among the three terms; this sense is not listed at all for σπορά, and it is given as the last meaning for σπόρος, with the single example being an unidentified variant reading for γονή in Hippocrates, Vict. 2.54.64 Thus it is noteworthy that in 1 Pet 1:23, where 61. See the parallel in 1 Macc 10:30. Note also that the form is a genitive plural which, presumably occurring in the inscription without accentuation, is indistinguishable from σπόρος. 62. Translation of Walter Scott, Hermetica, 4 vols. (Boston: Shambhala, 1985), 1.239; on the date see 2.374. For the dating of PGM I and XIII, see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, xxiii. 63. ὁ δὲ Φίλιππος ἰδὼν ταῦτα ἐμακάριζεν ἑαυτὸν θεοῦ σπορὰν μέλλοντα καλεῖσθαι τὸ τικτόμενον [“would be called the begetter of a child of a god”] ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας γυναικός (1.10); ὁρῶ τὴν μὲν σπορὰν θεοῦ οὖσαν τήνδε [“I see that this child is of a god”] καὶ τὸν τοκετὸν ἐπίσημον κοσμικόν (1.13; my translations). There are various recensions of the Alexander Romance, but TLG dates the witnesses at the earliest to the third century CE. 64. The variant σπόρος in Hippocrates, Vict. 2.54, is not listed in the LCL edition by W. H. S. Jones, who collated the two best manuscripts (in his opinion) in which De Victu (Regimen) is extant (Hippocrates 4.xlviii). Jones referred to one other witness known to Littré, but Littré’s edition as well does not show this variant (Hippocrates. Œuvres complètes: Traduction nouvelle avec le texte grec en regard, collationné sur les manuscrits et toutes les éditions; accompagnée d’une introduction, de commentaires médicaux de variantes et de notes philologiques; suivie d’une table générale des matières [Paris: J. B. Baillière, 1839–1861], 6:560). Since the presentation of LSJ was designed to show the historical development of each entry, it seems clear that “semen” as a meaning for σπόρος was both late and rare. (On the methodology of LSJ, see Bruce L. Fraser, “Lexicographic Slips: Gathering and Organizing Contextual Data for Dictionary Entries,” in Lexicon Dicionário de grego-português: Lexicografia e semántica lexical, caminhos para a feitura de um Dicionário de grego = Lexicography and Lexical Semantics, Questions at Issue in the Making of a Greek Lexicon, ed. Manuel Alexandre [Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Clássicos, 2008], 53–72, esp. 54–55.) BDAG cites no references to σπόρος as “semen,” and although it states that σπορά can be used figuratively for the act of procreation, in the instances cited, it gives “seed” as the translation (1 Pet 1:23; PGM I.32). On the chronological development of the lexical meanings, see also Siegfried Schulz and Gottlob Quelle, “σπέρμα, σπείρω, σπορά, σπόρος, σπόριμος,” TDNT 7:536–47; BDAG, s.v. “σπορά.”

298

N. PARDEE

the image is that of procreation and the paternity of God, the term σπορά was used and that, in context, the translation “seed” (in the sense of origin) is generally given.65 A comparison of the three nouns in Philo, however, perhaps sheds light on the use of σπορά in 1 Pet 1:23. A TLG survey of the nouns in that corpus shows that the distribution in LSJ is generally on target: in Philo, “seed” – whether plant, animal, or metaphorical – is most often rendered by σπέρμα. One metaphorical use is found in the context of the development of virtue in the human soul and of its source as divine: just as a husband, God “sows seeds” of virtue in the human soul in order to produce virtues as offspring. Philo writes regarding Leah: “Thus virtue receives the divine seed [τὰ θεῖα σπέρματα] from the Creator,… He is the father of all things, for He begat them, and the husband of Wisdom, dropping the seed of happiness for the race of mortals into good and virgin soil [σπέρμα τῷ θνητῷ γένει καταβαλλόμενος εὐδαιμονίας εἰς ἀγαθὴν καὶ παρθένον γῆν]” (Cher. 46, 49). Note Philo’s qualification “seed of happiness” and the reference to soil, both of which make it clear that he is speaking figuratively.66 Similarly, σπόρος in Philo can exhibit the same meanings as in the literature more broadly – “sowing,” “crop,” “plant seed.” In contrast, however, it also occurs twice for “semen,” albeit with the agricultural origin of the metaphor explicit: “nature’s seed” (ὁ τῆς φύσεως σπόρος), Spec. 1.216; and the “holy seed” (ὁ ἱερὸς σπόρος) of the high priest that passes “into pure and untrodden soil” (εἰς ἄβατον καὶ καθαρὰν ἄρουραν) of a virgin wife, Spec. 1.105. Moreover, as with σπέρμα, Philo can employ σπόρος in the context of the development of virtue in the human soul and its divine source: We should know, then, that nature’s right reasoning [ὁ τῆς φύσεως ὀρθὸς λόγος] has the functions both of a father and a husband, though the conceptions attached to each are different. It acts as a husband because it deposits the seed [σπόρον] of virtue in the soul as in a fertile field. It acts as a father because its nature is to beget good intentions and noble and worthy actions, and then 65. Although most translators opt for the translation “seed,” Selwyn rendered σπορά as “sowing,” which he interpreted as an act of “God’s creative grace” (First Epistle, 150–51). 66. Det. 60, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τὰ σπέρματα; Post. 135, τὰ φρονήσεως … σπέρματα; Deus 137, τῶν ἀρετῆς σπερμάτων; Congr. 130, τὰ δὲ σπέρματα καὶ τὰς γονὰς ἔξωθεν ἀρδομένας καταλαμβάνοθσαι καὶ θαυμάζουσαι τὸν διδόντα. Here Philo’s thought may reflect the Stoic concept of the spermatikos logos, in the singular denoting the universal divine Logos in its generative aspect, and in the plural the individual portions of the divine Logos inherent in each living thing. On this see Marcia L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: Vol. 1. Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature, 2nd impr., Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 27; and P. A. Meijer, Stoic Theology: Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods (Delft: Eburon, 2007), 3–4.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

299

to foster its offspring with the water of the truths which education and wisdom abundantly supply. (Spec. 2.29)67

Once again, when Philo portrays God in a context of procreation he makes clear its metaphorical sense. Finally, σπορά in Philo, in accord with the outside literature, often signifies agricultural “sowing,” but it also takes on the transferred sense of “begetting” and on occasion the meaning “crop,” “offspring,” or even “human race.” In contrast with σπόρος, however, σπορά is never used for plant seed, and it seems to be used for semen only in the context, once again, of the soul’s reception of the ability to live virtuously from God.68 One example is from Leg. 3.180: But the Supplanter [Jacob] will find fault with her [Rachel] and say, “Thou hast greatly erred, for I am not in the place of God, who alone hath power to open the wombs of souls, and to sow virtues in them [σπείρειν ἐν αὐταῖς ἀρετάς], and to make them pregnant with noble things, and to give birth to them. Take note of Leah thy sister, and thou wilt find her receiving seed [σποράν] and offspring out of no created being but by God’s own gift.”69

Once again Philo renders the metaphorical usage clear, but in these cases perhaps not only via additional, explicit descriptions, but also in the nuance of σπορά itself.70 Thus in Philo one finds a unique, metaphorical use of σπορά as “seed,” specifically within allegorical interpretations of Pentateuchal texts on procreation that present God as the source of virtue in human beings. Such a meaning for σπορά is clear in this context yet is not found in earlier literature. It provides a precedent for similar usage in 1 Pet 1:23 and seems also to indicate that the source for this image is hellenistic Jewish philosophy, if not Philo himself. 67. See Praem. 160; also Somn. 1.202, although here “sowing” might be better given the occurrence of σπορά in 1.199 with the clear meaning “seed.” 68. Out of sixty occurrences of σπορά in Philo, no more than seven may be translated “seed,” and these all occur as part of the metaphorical image of the impregnating of the human soul with virtue by God. The one exception may be Decal. 129, the “sowing” of “blameworthy seed” (ἐπίληπτον σπορὰν σπείρας) by an adulterer. Yet the passage focuses specifically on the children produced by adultery rather than the act itself, and it is perhaps better to understand σπορά in this context as “progeny” as is certainly the case in Post. 177 (ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἄναγνον αὐτῶν σποράν). 69. See also Praem. 10; Somn. 1.199; 2.184–185. In Mut. 255, σπορὰν θείας γονῆς might also be rendered “engendering.” 70. That such a meaning for σπορά contrasts with its earlier usage elsewhere is not widely recognized by scholars. Donelson, for example, states that σπορά “can refer to the seed of plants or to human seed” and that in 1 Pet 1:23 “both images seem to be evoked” (Peter and Jude, 52); see also Michaels, 1 Peter, 76. F. J. A. Hort, however, did note the unusual meaning required for σπορά here and suggested that it be interpreted as “seed,” but in a “quasi-collective sense,” citing Philo, Praem. 10 (The First Epistle of St. Peter, I. 1-II. 17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes [London: Macmillan, 1898], 91).

300

N. PARDEE

As for the broad term λόγος, its connection in 1 Pet 1:24–25 with ῥῆμα and εὐαγγελίζομαι indicate that its meaning in 1:23 is an example of the first semantic category identified in BDAG, that is, “a communication whereby the mind finds expression, word,” and more precisely the “gospel,” that is, the proclamation about Jesus.71 As many have observed, there is an interesting resonance here with the Parable of the Sower in the Synoptic Gospels, where “what is sown” is interpreted allegorically as the “word” (λόγος; Mark 4:14), the “word of the kingdom” (Matt 13:19), and the “word of God” (Luke 8:11), respectively. One point of contention has been whether the participles ζῶντος and μένοντος in 1 Pet 1:23 should be assigned to λόγου or to θεοῦ. Grammatically they can modify either, and both interpretations can be found, though a majority of scholars render the verse with the participles modifying λόγος .72 But in what way is λόγος to be distinguished from σπορά, and what (if any) significance should be attached to the different prepositions used with each? While ἐκ can denote a variety of relations, in the context of σπορά in 1 Pet 1:23 it is perhaps most sensible to place it within the category of Smyth’s “immediate origin.”73 Indeed, ἐκ is often used in the context of begetting and giving birth, though even within that category BDAG notes a variety of nuances: ἐκ + name of parent, ἐκ + flesh (σαρκός), ἐκ + fornication (πορνείας), ἐκ + stones (λίθων), ἐκ + fruit of his loins (καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ).74 On the other hand, διὰ + genitive must refer in this context to “means, mediation.”75 In an important study, Eugene LaVerdiere attempted to distinguish between the two, maintaining that the prepositions ἐκ and διά, respectively, present “seed” as the “intrinsic … source of regenerated 71. BDAG, s.v. “λόγος.” 72. For arguments connecting the participles with “God,” see Beare, First Epistle, 109; Karl Hermann Schelke, Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief, HThKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1961), 30. Daniel 6:27 is generally cited as a precedent for taking the participles with θεοῦ, with reference especially to the Theodotian parallel to the order of the adjectives in 1 Pet 1:23. Most, however, cite the fact that the Isa 40:6–8 quotation ends with an emphasis on the eternal continuation of the “word of the Lord” as supporting the attribution of the participles to λόγου. That λόγος and ῥῆμα can be used synonymously is seen in Ps 55:11 LXX, where both are used to translate ‫דבר‬. Also cited is the parallel in Sir 42:23, where the things of God’s creation “live and abide.” For other, lesser arguments, see Eugene LaVerdiere, “A Grammatical Ambiguity in 1 Pet 1:23,” CBQ 36 (1974): 89–94, esp. 91–94. Offering an alternative from these two interpretations, Martin sees here an interchained hyperbaton whose purpose “is to place each and every word in emphasis” with the intention of having the participles applied to both nouns (Metaphor and Composition, 172 n. 127). 73. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), §1688 1c. 74. S.v. “ἐκ.” 75. Smyth §1685.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

301

life” and “word” as the “extrinsic principle or instrument of regeneration.” Further, this relationship between the nouns is to be applied as well to their modifiers, with the result that the qualities “living” and “abiding” are, in terms of the seed, “life-giving” and “conferring of permanence.”76 Yet ultimately LaVerdiere concluded that the seed is really “the word as received,” and failed to offer a clear distinction between λόγος and σπορά.77 Indeed, Achtemeier, who suggested that LaVerdiere’s distinction may be “oversubtle,” stated simply that “both intend to describe the means by which the Christians’ new lives were begun.” He identified “word” (λόγος) in this context as the gospel, based on its attribution to God in 1:24 and its transference to believers through preaching in 1:25.78 Moreover, he saw the substitution of κύριος for θέος (the former applied only to Christ in 1 Peter) in the quotation from Isa 40:6– 8 LXX as deliberate and as a way to “show that already in Isaiah the coming eternal gospel was announced.”79 Elliott, who also seeks to distinguish between the terms, describes σπορά as “the source of regeneration” and λόγος as “the instrument of its communication,” but in the end he states that 1:23c “identifies the ‘imperishable seed’ through which (dia) the believers were reborn as the living and enduring word of God.” In his view, the quotation from Isa 40:6–8 is key: while τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου/τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθέν of 1:25 is to be identified with the λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος of 1:23, the contrast between perishability and eternal endurance in 1:24–25 parallels that of οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου. This shows that the “seed” of 1:23 should also be identified with the λόγος/ῥῆμα. Moreover, that the gospel is the means of rebirth is supported not only by the substitution of κύριος in the Isa 40:8 quotation but also by the fact that εὐαγγελίζομαι in 1:25 looks back to 1:12.80 Others, however, allow for more room in their interpretation of λόγος. Francis Beare suggested that, although λόγος was related to ῥῆμα, it also raised the idea of the Logos of God found in the Gospel of John and in the wider 76. “Grammatical Ambiguity,” 92. This is also the view of Elliott, 1 Peter, 388, and Parsons, “We Have Been Born Anew,” 231. 77. Laverdiere, “Grammatical Ambiguity,” 92. 78. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 139–40 and n. 53. On the identificiation of “word” and “seed” as the gospel, see also Kelly, Epistles, 80–81. 79. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 141; see also Parsons, “We Have Been Born Anew,” 235–36. On the intentionality of the substitution see also Best, I Peter, 96; Elliott, 1 Peter, 391. In contrast, Donelson leaves the question open, noting that “scriptural citations are notoriously loose in the NT” and observing the influence of the Hebrew in 1:25 (Peter and Jude, 53). That κύριος ἐλἀλησεν appears just prior to this in Isa 40:5, however, may also have influenced the substitution in 1:25. 80. Elliott, 1 Peter, 389–92; similarly Goppelt, I Peter, 126–27. Best stated that one should not identify “word” with “seed” but nonetheless remarked that the quotation from Isa 40 shows that it also “cannot be entirely dissociated from it” (I Peter, 94).

302

N. PARDEE

Greco-Roman culture. The use of διά, he maintained, showed that “the Logos is not itself the Seed, but rather the Sower, or the mediating agent in the sowing.”81 Donelson also acknowledges the semantic breadth of λόγος, stating that the term can “have connotations of procreation as well as its more common connotations of speech and reason” and that “it is probably the capacity of the word logos to evoke the image both of procreation and of words that makes all of this imagery work.” Yet he sees a connection between logos–rhēma–spora in that “its sense of ‘seed’ connects logos to spora, while its sense of ‘word’ connects it to the word rhēma” – in the end he cannot resist identifying the three.82 Whatever the original distinction intended between “word” and “seed,” it is a different picture from the Synoptic parable since it is no longer the reception or rejection of the “word” itself that is the focus, but rather its ontologically transformational power for believers via the “seed.” A similarly effective “word” is perhaps seen in 1 Thess 2:13 and Heb 4:12.83 Ultimately, of course, the “Word of God” became a title for Christ within the Prologue to the Gospel of John. Although λόγος in 1 Pet 1:23 has sometimes been translated in this christological sense, most scholars think that the intended meaning does not reach that level.84 In a very interesting study, Troy Martin offers another interpretation of 1 Pet 1:23–25, grounded in ancient understandings of procreation, birth, and the nurture of a child throughout these stages.85 Martin notes that according to Aristotle’s theory of procreation (which was widely accepted among the ancients), the conception and development of a fetus – and even the milk produced by the mother for the newborn – all have blood as their source.86 81. Beare, First Epistle, 112. 82. Donelson, Peter and Jude, 52–54. 83. On the dynamic aspect of God’s “word” in the Jewish Scriptures and New Testament, see also Parsons, “We Have Been Born Anew,” 328–31. Bringing in 1:3, Parsons maintained that God’s “regenerative action as revealed through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” was “proclaimed to the world by means of the word … whose life-giving power is compared to that of a seed” (219, cf. 227, 330–31). 84. On the christological sense of “word” in 1 Peter, see the bibliography in Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 140. 85. Martin, “Christians as Babies.” 86. Pieter W. van der Horst labels this the hematogenic doctrine (“Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11.11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology,” in A Feminist Companion to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB 10 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 113–34). Elliott erroneously cites as ancient the theory that a homunculus was contained in the sperm of a male, using it to elucidate the image in 1 Peter that the rebirth of Christians is through God alone (1 Peter, 331). Instead, this theory originated in the seventeenth century; see Clara Pinto Correia, The Ovary of Eve: Egg and Sperm and Preformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 65–66; The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed. (2007), s.v. “Biological Sciences.”

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

303

The mother’s blood is normally discharged during menstruation but, if it is acted upon by male semen (which itself is blood that has been frothed), a child is conceived. Martin writes, “In Aristotle’s terms … the blood semen of the male provides the formal, efficient, and final causes, while the female blood serves as the material cause.”87 Subsequently, just as the mother’s blood has fed the developing fetus in the womb, it will later be directed to the breasts where, in a frothed form, it is transformed into milk. Connecting the “imperishable seed” of 1:23 with the “not perishable” blood of Christ (1:18–19) that has been sprinkled on the Christian believers (1:2), Martin concludes that the ancient readers of 1 Peter would likely have understood the word of God as the (male) active principle that shapes the recipients begotten from this blood into the new people that God intends. God is certainly the agent or father who begot these recipients anew (anagennēsas 1:3), but the intermediate agency of their begetting is the living and remaining word of God (dia logou zōntos theou kai menontos, 1:23).

Here Martin, in agreement with LaVerdiere’s distinction between ἐκ and διά, sees the blood of Christ as the “material source” (σπορά) and the word of God (λόγος) as the “active power or principle that shapes this blood into the new life created by this begetting.”88 Yet questions remain. On the one hand, Martin equates σπορά with the frothed reproductive fluid, that is, semen, but at the same time he identifies it as the material cause, the mother’s menstrual blood, for him the blood of Christ. Instead of the seed/semen acting upon the blood of the mother as the male formal, efficient, and final cause, he attributes this active principle to the logos, the word of God. In essence, one is left with a father (God), two active principles (the word of God and the seed), and no maternal element. Additionally, however, one notes that within Judaism the tradition is silent regarding the idea that semen is frothed blood. While the purity laws deal with bloody discharges in connection with female reproduction (Lev 12; 15:19–30), blood is never mentioned as a factor in the rules on male seminal emission (Lev 15:16–18). Philo’s description of semen as “a substance of a very low order, resembling foam” (Opif. 67) also betrays no knowledge of blood as its basis. Additionally, b. Nid. 31a states that the father “supplies the semen of the white substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, the brains in his head and the white in his eye,” while 87. Martin, “Christians as Babies,” 108. 88. Martin, “Christians as Babies,” 110. See also his earlier study that connects the new birth of Christians with their ransoming in 1:18 and thus with the blood of Christ (Metaphor and Composition, 171–72).

304

N. PARDEE

the mother “supplies the semen of the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the black of his eye.” Such examples lead one to question whether a Jewish author, or at least one steeped in Judaism and writing to gentiles, would utilize a hematogenic theory of procreation. Martin’s theory also has ramifications for his interpretation of 1 Pet 2:2–3, which continues the earlier birth imagery, describing the readers as “newborn infants” and looking toward their basic spiritual nourishment using the metaphor of a baby’s milk.89 “Like newborn infants [ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη], long for pure spiritual milk [λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα] so that through it you may grow into salvation, for you have tasted that the Lord is good.” The milk is described here as τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα, and most scholars see this as intentionally connected with the λόγος of 1 Pet 1:23 and thus related to whatever meaning is assigned to “word” there. More problematic is the translation of ἄδολον, defined by LSJ as “guileless, honest; unadulterated, genuine,” a term that can be applied to gold, silver, wheat, and air (but not to milk). Moreover, as many interpreters note, ἄδολον in 2:2 seemingly looks back to δόλον (“deceit”) in 2:1.90 Thus the application of the two adjectives to milk is difficult, and various translations have been proffered. Achtemeier, for example, translated the phrase “the unadulterated milk of God’s word,” seemingly including in that broader phrase the gospel, but also Scripture and other Christian instruction that is “undiluted” by “heretical tendencies.”91 Donelson renders it as “verbal undeceitful milk,” interpreting both the semantically broad λόγος (1:23) and the more narrow ῥῆμα (1:25) as “part of the character of the milk.”92 In contrast, Francis saw λογικόν as referring specifically to the gospel and especially the message of God’s vindication of Christ after his suffering, which paralleled the readers’ own turmoil.93 Elliott suggests that the “word” of 1:23–25 has become also the “milk” for the newborn 89. According to the TLG, ἀρτιγέννητος occurs only here in the New Testament and only once prior to that in fragments of Aristophanes of Byzantium (third-second century BCE; Nomina aetatum [fragmenta] 277.10). Elliott sees the use of ἀρτιγέννητα, seemingly redundant in its juxtaposition to βρέφη, as an intentional device used to tie this passage to 1:23–25 via its relation to ἀναγεγεννημένοι (I Peter, 398–99). As is often noted, the image of milk for Christian instruction is found also in 1 Cor 3:2 and Heb 5:12–13; both of those cases have connotations of an overly lengthy elementary stage of education, a sense clearly not present in 1 Peter. While not advocating for a reference to the Eucharist here, Best saw “milk” as a reference to Christ himself based on the citation of Ps 34:8 in 1 Pet 2:3 (I Peter, 97). 90. See, for example, Francis, “‘Like Newborn Babes,’” 116; Kelly, Epistles, 85; and helpful bibliography in Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 147 n. 55. 91. 1 Peter, 146–47. See also Selwyn, First Epistle, 155; Parsons, “We Have Been Born Anew,” 250–51. 92. Donelson, Peter and Jude, 57. See also Kelly (Epistles, 85), “milk of the word that is free from deceit.” 93. Francis, “‘Like Newborn Babes,’” 114–15.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

305

Christians, “free of deception and impurity,” and translates the phrase “guileless milk of the word.” Despite the difference in content that must be intended by “word” in the two places, he states that “in both instances this word-milk is the proclamation of the good news concerning Jesus as Lord (1:25b).”94 Others depart from finding any strict connection between λογικόν and the “word” in 1:23, 25 and (especially influenced by Rom 12:1, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν) simply translate it as “spiritual.”95 From the perspective of ancient physiology, Martin offers the translation “logical, undiluted milk.” Citing in particular Galen’s idea that Nature has provided the same nourishment from the mother for the newborn as it did for the fetus, Martin suggests that the sense here is the idea that the child longs for its mother’s milk, a desire that is “logical.” In support of his translation of ἄδολον as “undiluted,” Martin cites a variety of problems that the ancients discussed regarding breast milk but seems to give most weight to the theory that the author of 1 Peter is contrasting “undiluted” milk with the watery colostrum that appears before the milk comes in. In the end, Martin concludes that this metaphor connects the continued sustenance of Christians with both the eucharistic blood of Christ and the formative power of the word of God; he supports this view by citing the use here and elsewhere in 1 Peter of Ps 34, a psalm connected in the early church with the celebration of the Eucharist.96 (RE) TURNING TO PHILO Although references to Philo’s writings have occasionally been cited in discussions of new birth in the New Testament, the notion of any close ties has always been dismissed – “such assimilations of language may have helped to form a bridge” with the thought of 1 Peter, but no more.97 Yet a closer look 94. Elliott, 1 Peter, 401. 95. Selwyn, First Epistle, 155. Other examples include Goppelt, “spiritual, genuine milk”; Beare, “spiritual, uncontaminated milk”; Michaels, “pure, spiritual milk” (translating λογικὸν with the sense of “metaphorical”; see his full discussion in First Epistle, 86–89). Best stated that λογικόν is not attested in Greek with the sense “of the word” (I Peter, 98), but LSJ shows that such meanings are certainly posssible. 96. Martin, “Christians as Babies,” 109–12. Here Martin furthers the idea of Kelly, Epistles, 87. See also the discussion and bibliography in Best, I Peter, 98–99. 97. Examples include Philo’s description of God as “sowing” happiness in human beings (Leg. 3.219; Elliott, 1 Peter, 332; Kelly, Epistles, 50) or as sowing “seed” in humans to produce virtue (Cher. 43–44; Det. 60; Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1982], 411; Parsons, “We Have Been Born Anew,” 229); his portrayal of human beings as “begotten by God” and “sons of God” (Conf. 145; Kelly, Epistles, 50); or his notion that the souls of the Israelites are of “divine seed” (Mos. 1.279; Brown, Epistles, 411).

306

N. PARDEE

at Philo suggests that the connections are much stronger. In addition to Philo’s allegorizing attempts to attribute the formation of virtue within the human being to the (metaphorically understood) procreative activity of God, in Praem. 159–161 he describes a transformational effect on the soul of the human being as well: For when the soul is “many,” full that is of passions and vices with her children, pleasures, desires, folly, incontinence, injustice, gathered around her, she is feeble and sick and dangerously near to death. But when she has become barren and ceases to produce these children or indeed has cast them out bodily she is transformed [γίνεται μὲν ἐκ μεταβολῆς] into a pure virgin. Then receiving the divine seed [τὸν θεῖον σπόρον] she moulds it into shape and brings forth new life in forms of precious quality and marvellous loveliness, wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, holiness, piety and the other virtues and good emotions. Not only is it well that these goodly children should be brought to the birth [γένεσις], but good also is the expectation of this birth, the forecast cheering the soul’s weakness with hope [ἐλπίδι]. Hope is joy before joy [ἐλπὶς δὲ χαρὰ πρὸ χαρᾶς].

While the soul is not “reborn” here, it is nonetheless described as close to death and transformed into a new, pure state.98 Moreover, the implanting of the divine seed results not only in a virtuous life, something emphasized in 1 Peter, but also in hope and joy, experiences that are prominent in the epistle as well.99 Elsewhere one finds that it is the the λόγος of God that is the “seeding principle.” Indeed, the Stoic concept of the Logos – that could be characterized in Philo as “the first-begotten Son of the uncreated Father,” the “Second God,” the “idea of ideas,” the “archetype of human reason,” and the “pattern of creation” – here becomes the “husband” of the human soul that enables it to produce virtues.100 For then it is that the soul experiences the breaking up of the right principle, that is the seed whence all noble things are begotten. We see this from the words that follow, “If she have not been defiled and be pure, she shall be free and shall conceive seed [σπέρμα],” if she have not been defiled by passion, but have been chaste and faithful to her lawful husband, the princely and wholesome principle [λόγον], she will have a soul fruitful and productive, yielding the offspring of sound sense and righteousness and all excellence. (Leg. 3.149–150)

98. See also Cher. 50. On the description of a variety of “godless” persons as “dead,” see also Spec. 1.345. 99. ἐλπίς, ἐλπίζω in 1 Pet 1:3, 13, 21; 3:15; ἀγαλλιάω, χαίρω, χαρά in 1:6, 8; 4:13. 100. For the images of the Logos cited, see Josef Stern, “Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.–A.D. 40),” in Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Robert Audi, 2nd ed.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 666.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

307

Further, although Philo identifies those who are especially virtuous as children of God,101 he also offers an intermediary position through the Logos to those who are still striving to achieve such a status. But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word [λόγον], who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were.… For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God yet we may be sons of His invisible image, the most holy Word [λόγου]. (Conf. 146–147)102

Elsewhere Philo writes of the λόγοι of God that “with the healing of their breath they may quicken into new life [ἀναζωῶσι] the soul which is still borne along in the body” (Somn. 1.147). Indeed, the human soul needs “begetting” from God: But those who still consort with the life of sense and blood suffer the attacks of the spirit so expert in scattering pious thoughts and deeds, the spirit called Pharoah, whose tyranny rife with lawlessness and cruelty it is impossible to escape, unless Eliezer [“God is my helper”] be born in the soul and looks with hope to the help which God the only Saviour can give.… Right well, too, does Moses describe Damascus as the son not of his father but of his mother … Not so was it with Virtue or Sarah, for male descent is the sole claim of her, who is the motherless ruling principle of things, begotten of her father alone, even God the Father of all. (Her. 60–62)

Finally, Philo can write of the souls of the Israelites as having been begotten from divine seeds: Who has made accurate discovery of how the sowing of their generation was first made? Their bodies have been moulded from human seeds [σπερμάτων], but their souls are sprung [ἔφυσαν] from divine seeds, and therefore their stock is akin to God.” (Mos. 1.279)103

These passages from Philo show the need of the soul for a new vivification from God, often transmitted by the λόγος, as well as the notion that the souls of the Israelites originated from the seed of God. Moreover, just as in 1 Pet 1:23–25, Philo can juxtapose the semantically overlapping ῥῆμα and λόγος while simultaneously speaking of the Logos in exalted terms: He [Moses] will tell it, This bread is the food which God hath given to the soul, for it to feed on His own utterance [ῥῆμα] and His own word [λόγον]; 101. See above, pp. 285–86, nn. 23–24. 102. Kelly cited this example as showing Philo’s view that humans can be considered “God’s sons,” but he takes no notice of the role of the Logos in this respect (Epistles, 50). 103. The context of ἔφυσαν is agriculture rather than human procreation, which usually has the 2 aorist or perfect forms (LSJ).

308

N. PARDEE

… And the word of God [ὁ λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ] is above all the world, and is eldest and most all-embracing of created things. (Leg. 3.173, 75)104

That the λόγος is responsible for feeding the soul, an image reminiscent of 1 Pet 2:2, can be found, for example, in Philo’s comment on Gen 2:10: These [virtues] have sprung from the Divine word [λόγου] as from a single root; and that word is likened to a river by reason of the unbroken flow of the constant stream of words and doctrines ever sweet and fresh, by which it brings nourishment and growth to souls that love God. (Post. 129)105

Thus not only does the Logos of God implant divine seed in the virtuous soul and serve as the Father of souls striving for virtue, but continuously provides the soul with “logical” nourishment. Finally, Philo’s description of the “second birth” of Moses (Mos. 1.279) was mentioned earlier. While Moses is a special case, that is, he is “divinely inspired and filled with God” (ἐνθουσιᾷ καὶ θεοφορεῖται, QE 2.29), still the notion remains that his birth comes via father alone and without mother. This is reminiscent not only of Her. 60–62 above but also the case of 1 Pet 1:23. CONCLUSION AND AREAS OF FURTHER STUDY In this very preliminary study, I have explored the idea that the image of divine rebirth ([re-]begetting), accomplished via the “seed” of God, delivered by the Word (Logos) of God, and resulting, ideally, in virtuous behavior, is a representation of the Christian liminal experience influenced by Jewish Hellenistic philosophy as seen in Philo.106 Having addressed the “modest goal” of this paper, I would like to offer a few thoughts for further study, particularly on the possibility that the impetus for the development of this imagery came from the mission to the gentiles. (1) The foregoing investigation suggests that the image of rebirth in 1 Peter is an explanation of the process by which one becomes “Christian,” based on the view of Jewish Hellenistic philosophy that the rise of virtue within the human soul is a combination of an individual’s willingness to live in such a way and an enabling by divine power. In Philo one sees that the human being is described as in need of revivification from God, or of the influence of the 104. See also Leg. 3.169–170. 105. For Philo, however, it is not religious or philosophical training but education in the sciences that is considered “milk” (Agr. 9) or the first food beyond milk (Prob. 160). 106. Moreover, the idea that this is accomplished by God’s will or mercy in Jas 1:18; John 1:13; and 1 Pet 1:3, 23 is also cited by some as an additional parallel, e.g., Dey, ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ, 151–52; Windisch, Katholischen Briefe, 10.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

309

Logos, or of the implanting of divine “seed” in order to practice virtue. If one accepts the idea that 1 Peter was written for a gentile audience but from a distinctively Jewish perspective, it raises the possibility that such imagery was used to formulate an explanation specifically of how gentiles became “children of God.” While, as was noted earlier, the author of 1 Peter seems to include himself within this picture, this study has shown that the notion that Jews were already God’s children was an idea found both in the teaching of Jesus as well as in other contemporary Jewish texts. This may mean that the image of rebirth, developed in response to the gentile mission, was only later applied to Jewish Christians, perhaps in an effort to explain what “more” was necessary for Jews in light of the increasing failure of the Jewish mission and consequent separation from the synagogue. Of the other New Testament texts in which this image is attested, Titus also assumes a gentile situation, and, although the Gospel of John seems to reflect an intrasynagogue context, it can be argued that the Johannine epistles, where the image of being born of God is most prominent, addresses gentiles.107 As for James, whose author also includes himself among those engendered by God (ἡμᾶς 1:18), the debate on whether the intended audience is Jewish-Christian or gentile appears to be ongoing.108 (2) The idea that the image of rebirth began in the gentile mission is supported by a similar image in Paul, who also described his converts as having undergone an ontological transformation into children of God, although he imagined it as an act of divine “adoption” (ὑιοθεσία). In Paul this ontological transformation is linked with conversion (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:2–5; cf. 3:27– 4:7) and explicity with baptism (1 Cor 6:11; 12:13), and this is the case in 107. For the identification of the intended recipients of the Johannine epistles as gentile, see, for example, Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979), 55–58; John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 77, 79–80, 327–30. 108. On gentiles as among the readers of James, see Dibelius, James, 66; and Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 170–72. The diversity of opinion on this issue can be seen in the 2008 volume Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. Huub van de Sandt and Jürge K. Zangenberg, SymS 45 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). There Oda Wischmeyer sees the salutation of James (“to the twelve tribes in the dispersion”) as a literary fiction written at the end of the first century (“Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of James: Methods, Sources, and Possible Results,” 33–41); Patrick Hartin maintains that the text was written by a follower of James just after his death and that it should be taken literally as addressing Jewish believers in the diaspora (“Ethics in the Letter of James, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Didache: Their Place in Early Christian Literature,” 289–314, esp. 289–92); while Matthias Konradt believes that a Jewish origin for the community cannot “be taken for granted” (“The Love Command in Matthew, James, and the Didache,” 271–88, esp. 288 n. 73).

310

N. PARDEE

Acts as well (2:38; 8:14–17; 10:47; 19:2–6).109 Similarly, in the texts attesting rebirth, the transformation into “children of God” is connected with baptism explicitly in Titus 3:5, almost certainly in John 3:5, and has often been suggested for 1 Peter.110 (3) This raises the question, however, of why two different images explaining this transformation developed in the gentile mission. Is the difference perhaps related to the fact that in Paul’s view the acceptance of gentiles into the family of God was accomplished through a conferring of the Spirit that resulted in the manifestation of spiritual charismata? This phenomenon cannot be underestimated – as Dunn states, “in Paul’s understanding it was by receiving the Spirit that one became a Christian.”111 In its earliest attestation in Galatians, Paul tells his converts that they have become “sons of God” by an act of God himself and that the proof of their “adoption” was the bestowal of the Spirit attested by the cry “Abba” (Gal 4:4–7; cf. Gal 3:2–5; 4:6; Rom 8:14–16). Moreover, it was the manifestation of the Spirit in his converts that led Paul to the conclusion that they were righteous before God through faith, without adherence to the law of Moses (Gal 3:2–6; 4:4– 7; 5:2–6). A similar account of the acceptance of the gentiles into the church is found in Acts 15:7–12, although there a minimal form of torah observance was required (Acts 15:19–20, 28–29; 21:25). That Paul includes himself with his converts as having experienced “adoption” and the accompanying manifestation of the Spirit is evidenced by the forms ἀπολάβωμεν and ἡμῶν 109. On the connection of the Spirit with conversion, see also Eph 1:13 and 2 Thess 2:13; on the connection with baptism, Matt 28:19; John 3:5; cf. 1 John 5:6–8. Of course, Jesus’s own anointing by the Spirit occurs at his baptism by John in all four gospels. 110. The idea that that author of 1 Peter is familiar with the concept of “rebirth” through baptismal practice does not necessitate the view that the epistle is particularly concerned with baptism, as once was widely held. For the history of research on this issue, see esp. Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 19–21, 32–38; and David Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, SBLMS 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), 11–13. For the rejection of 1 Peter as a baptismal sermon or liturgy from a form-critical perspective, see Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 81–83. Achtemeier rejected any identifiable connection of 1 Peter with baptism (1 Peter, 60–61). Francis represents a balanced view, suggesting that it is more likely that 1 Peter exhibits “the wider New Testament practice of applying typically baptismal language to the wider implications of faith” (“‘Like Newborn Babes,’” 111; see also Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 38). 111. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 423. The power of the Spirit, attested by the cry “Abba,” is either proof of this transformation (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:16), or the means of this transformation (Rom 8:15). For a discussion on the (lack of) evidence for, and the differences between, these two views see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 208–10. Joseph A. Fitzmyer understood the Spirit as bestowing the adoptive status rather than simply testifying to it (Romans, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 498–99, 501); so also, apparently, Dunn (Theology of Paul, 424–25, 435–36).

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

311

in Gal 4:5–6.112 This is extended to all Christians, both Jew and gentile, in Rom 8:14–23 (ἐσμὲν τέκνα θεοῦ, 8:16), again confirmed by the ecstatic cry “Abba” (κράζομεν αββα, 8:15; cf. Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:5, 13).113 That Jews also experienced a manifestation of the Spirit upon acceptance of the gospel is attested in Acts (2:38, 41; 9:18 [Paul]; cf. Matt 28:19; John 3:5). Unlike the situations portrayed in Paul’s letters and Acts, however, there is no connection of this ontological transformation with the activity of the Spirit in 1 Peter. Although the Spirit is certainly present (1:2, 10–12; 4:14), the only reference to an experience of the Spirit is 1:10–12, where it is limited to the prophets of the Jewish Scriptures and to “those who preached the good news [εὐαγγελισαμένων] to you.” This is also the case in James and Titus: James has no references at all to the Spirit, while the only reference in Titus occurs in 3:5 which, as stated earlier, seems to be traditional material. While the subdued appearance of the Spirit in 1 Peter, James, and Titus might appear to stand in stark contrast to the Johannine corpus where it seems exceedingly important, scholars such as Urban von Wahlde, D. Moody Smith, and John Painter cite a new or changing experience of the Spirit as one element distinguishing the later redactional layers of the texts.114 If such reconstructions of a later, disruptive spiritual movement in the Johannine community are plausible, they may help to explain the unique presence in that corpus of the images of new birth and begetting by God alongside an emphasis on the Spirit. Indeed, it is only in John 3:5, 6, 8 that new birth is explicitly connected with the Spirit (cf. 7:39; 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22); in 112. On the inclusiveness of Paul’s “we” in Galatians, see, for example, Betz, Galatians, 204–5; James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2/48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 156, 173–74; Byrne,‘Sons of God’, 178, 220. Indeed, Paul claimed to have experienced the Spirit in his own life in the same way as his gentile converts (1 Cor 14:18). 113. Although Paul could write of Israel’s initial “adoption” in Rom 9:4, he quickly adds, “not all who are of Israel are Israel, nor are they all children of Abraham because they are his descendants” (9:6–8). The status “children of Abraham” by itself had become insufficient (see also Matt 3:7–11 // Luke 3:7–9, 16; John 8:31–59; Gal 3). Fitzmyer maintained that the notion of adoption was only loosely applied by Paul to Israel in Rom 9:4 (Romans, 497–98, 500, 545–46). 114. Von Wahlde, for example, envisions a first stage of composition where, if the Spirit was ever mentioned, there are now no remains of it. He proposes that the author of 1 John needs to downplay the activity of the Spirit and thus introduces the idea of competing spirits to silence his opponents (The Gospel and Letters of John, 3 vols., ECC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 1:443, 449–52. Smith (John, ANTC [Nashville: Abingdon, 1999], 297–99, 306–7) and Painter (“The Farewell Discourses and the History of Johannine Christianity,” NTS 27 [1980–1981]: 525–43) find a shifting experience of the Spirit within the layers of the Farewell Discourses.

312

N. PARDEE

1 John the assertions that readers have been born of God (2:29 [here Christ]; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18) are always distinct from references to the Spirit. Moreover, where the Spirit is mentioned in 1 John, it is not in relation to charismatic manifestations but rather to the ability of the readers to recognize true belief from false doctrine (2:20–21, 27; 3:24; 4:13–16; 5:7–10). Was the image of “new birth” a noncharismatic way of imagining the transformation of believers into children of God in communities where the Spirit of God was acknowledged but not experienced, at least not in the dramatic and universal way in which it is presented by Paul? Alternatively, might it have resulted from a declining experience of the Spirit?115 (4) Despite the differences in these two images of transformation, both are directly tied to the need to live a life of virtue. Paul attributes the characteristics, the “fruit,” of such a life to the Spirit (Gal 5:22–23). In the texts attesting the image of “new birth” it is the “word that has been implanted in you” (Jas 1:19–21) or the indwelling of God’s “seed” (1 Pet 1:22 σπορά; 1 John 3:9– 10 σπέρμα) that leads to virtue. Although many, including Brown, have argued for an identification of σπέρμα in 1 John 3:9 with the Spirit, he also noted that some see it as a reference to God’s “Word” based on other Johannine references to the logos “remaining in” (μένω ἐν) believers (John 5:38; 1 John 2:14, cf. 1:10).116 While Brown stated that “nothing in Johannine literature associates the word with the begetting of the Christian,” it is worth noting that in the Prologue it is the Logos who “gave power” to believers to become children of God (John 1:12–13).117 (5) Lastly, it is interesting that the model of Abraham is utilized by both the images of adoption and rebirth. In Gal 3–4 and Rom 4 Paul employs the patriarch in support of his case that gentiles have become children of God 115. Even in Paul’s experience there seems to be variation within and among communities. Note that not all the gifts of 1 Cor 12:4–11, 27–31 are supernatural, and this is even more the case in Rom 12:6–8, where only prophecy fits this category. While the power of the Spirit is attributed to believers generically in Acts (see esp. 2:38; 8:14–17; 15:8), miraculous abilities are particularly attributed to apostles and other leaders (see esp. 2:1–4, 43; 5:12; 6:3–6; 7:55; 8:29–40; 11:24, 28; 13:9–10; 20:22–23, 28; 21:9–11; assumed in 21:4) and are only mentioned twice of ordinary Christians (in both cases glossolalia in the context of baptism, 10:46; 19:6). 116. Brown, Epistles, 409–11. Even Brown states that an “exact identification is not so important” (411). More important for him is that, whatever the power that begets Christians, it must also remain active in them (411–12, 430–32). Here he mentions in passing the Philonic notions that the Israelites were begotten by divine seed (Mos. 1.279) and that virtues result from the implanting of divine seed (Cher. 43–44; Det. 60; cf. Migr. 35). But he does not acknowledge the instances in Philo that speak of the work of the Logos in this activity, nor does he see any more than a vague connection with 1 John (411). 117. Brown, Epistles, 410.

“YOU HAVE BEEN BORN ANEW”

313

through faith alone; 118 James (2:20–24) and John (8:31–59, esp. 39–41), on the other hand, focus on the “works” of Abraham as the ultimate demonstration of his commitment to God. Since virtue and monotheism are related for Philo (see above n. 23), both lines of thought converge in his work. For example, in De virtutibus, Philo, writing on the topic of “nobility of birth” (εὐγένεια), asserts that it is virtue that truly makes one noble and not one’s ancestry (206–207). Indeed Abraham, a gentile, “craved for kinship with God” (τῆς πρὸς θεὸν εὐγγενείας ὀρεχθέντα), abandoned polytheism and “low birth” (δυσγένεια), and became “the standard of nobility for all proselytes” (ἅπασιν ἐπηλύταις εὐγενείας ἐστὶ κανών, 218–219). Elsewhere Philo says that Abraham “alone is nobly born, for he has registered God as his father and become by adoption His only son” (γεγονὼς εἰσποιητὸς αὐτῷ μόνος υἱός, Sobr. 55–56).119 Finally, Abraham’s status with God resulted in “ecstasy” (ἔκστασις) and the gift of prophecy through the “the holy Word” (ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος, Her. 258–260). While such ideas could not be explored within the limits of the present study, they perhaps provide avenues for further research into the complexity and diversity of the early stages of the gentile mission. Greenberg Center for Jewish Studies University of Chicago

 Nancy PARDEE120

118. On the idea that it was the Judaizers of Galatians who first used Abraham as an example to support their position and a reconstruction of their sermon see J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 125–26, 303–6. 119. Scott cites here the brief comment by Samuel Sandmel that “the language here brings to mind Romans VIII, 14–15 and Eph. I, 5” (Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956], 178–79 n. 348) but dismisses it – too quickly in my opinion – stating that, apart from the mention of adoption, “the two texts are otherwise hardly comparable” (Adoption as Sons of God, 176 n. 195). 120. It is my great pleasure to contribute this article in honor of my friend and colleague Troy W. Martin, an extraordinary scholar and an even more extraordinary human being.

16 “FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”: RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN 1 PETER 2:13–17

Biblical interpreters generally assume a connection between a text’s literary form and its rhetorical function. First Peter is problematic in this regard because its formal structure is difficult to define, and the commonplace nature of much of the instruction and exhortation makes it difficult to discern a particular rhetorical purpose. Instructions and exhortations appear loosely ordered, making identification of distinct rhetorical units somewhat tenuous.1 Consider the instructions about civil duties in 2:13–17. In the opening part of the letter, the writer exhorts readers, “Do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance” (1:14).2 A few verses later, he reminds them, “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors” (1:18). That these words are addressed to gentile converts becomes clear when the writer says, “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people” (2:10a). Then the writer instructs his readers:

1. Willi Marxsen writes, “As the document lacks any obvious arrangement of its material, it is not easy to analyze its structure” See Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems, trans. G. Buswell (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 233. For Marxsen, this means it is not implausible that the canonical text of 1 Peter is an editorial composition. He argues that the “suffering” discussed in 1:3–4:11 “presupposes a quite different situation in the church from the suffering under persecution in iv. 12ff” (235). Luke Timothy Johnson observes: “The author’s careful use of connectives throughout the letter makes for a fairly seamless fabric.” See Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 479–80. Accepting Johnson’s observation that the author carefully used connective words throughout the letter, such words may nonetheless connect rhetorically independent pieces of discourse. This means 1 Peter may appear a more or less unified letter at the surface level (innertexture) yet be disjointed at deeper levels of rhetorical structure where a variety of authoritative traditions are cited or evoked by connotation of words (intertexture). 2. Unless otherwise noted, NRSV translations are used throughout this essay.

316

R. B. SISSON

For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor [τιμᾶτε] the emperor. (2:13–17, emphasis mine)3

The present tense imperative τιμᾶτε implies continued action. Assuming that honoring the emperor has been a practice of the gentile converts prior to their conversion, it is unusual that the first specific instruction in the letter implies not breaking away from one aspect of their former life. How is continuation of this part of the converts’ previous lives as gentiles consistent with them now being members of “God’s own people”? The lack of a conjunction connecting the command to “accept the authority of every human institution” with the discourse before it suggests the instructions about civil duty may begin a new line of thought.4 CIVIC INSTRUCTIONS AND THE HAUSTAFEL OF 1 PETER But how far does this line of thought extend? Instructions about household relationships follow the instructions about civic duty: instructions to slaves (2:18–25), wives (3:1–6), and husbands (3:7). A possible stylistic link between these instructions and those regarding civic duty is the use of ὑποτασσόμενοι/αι to introduce instructions to slaves and wives (2:18; 3:1, 3:5). Although these present participles are regularly translated as imperatives, they are not truly imperatives. They have the force of imperatives only if they are understood to be subordinate to ὑποτάγητε in 2:13. This grammatical link, however, is somewhat tenuous because intervening clauses interrupt the structure of the rhetorical period. The stronger evidence for the unity of 2:13–3:7 is the theme of willful subordination, which connects the instructions about civic duty with those about household duties.5 3. “Accept the authority” is the NRSV translation of ὑποτάγητε. Other English translations read “submit yourselves” (NKJV, NIV, REB) and “be subject” (RSV, NAB). All these translations denote acts of obedience, but the exhortations in 2:17 focus on showing honor in the context of fearing God. Showing honor then is more than being obedient; it is a predisposition to recognize one’s place in a social hierarchy and act accordingly. The NRSV translation expresses this idea better than the others. 4. Some manuscripts read ὑποτάγητε οὖν, but the postpositive conjunction is absent in the best witnesses. This is evidence that sections of the text are not as tightly connected by conjunctions as some claim. 5. John H. Elliott identifies “subordination” as the leitmotif of the household codes in 2:13–3:7 and the later instruction in 5:5 that young persons “accept the authority” of older

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

317

Following the instructions to husbands (3:7), there are general instructions addressed to “all” (3:8–12). If the instructions about civic duties are understood to address everyone in the household, then 2:13–3:12 as a whole might be viewed as a rhetorical unit with a formal structure described by David R. Nienhuis and Robert W. Wall as “inverted parallelism”: 2:13–17: instructions on civic matters (for everyone) 2:18–20: instructions to slaves 2:21–25: example of Christ 3:1–7: instructions to wives and husbands 3:8–12: general instructions (for everyone)6

If the example of Christ is the center of this unit, then it is not just slaves who are called to be Christlike in accepting the authority of their masters, but all Christians are expected to accept the authority of their superiors. Support for this idea comes in the next unit, where the writer exhorts readers to be willing to suffer as Christ did (3:13–22). Here Christ is described as one “who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject [ὑποταγέντων] to him” (3:22, my emphasis). Since all forms of earthly authority have been made subject to Christ, by serving them one serves Christ. The writer instructs his readers not to change their social behavior but to understand it differently. Commenting on this paraenetic unit, John H. Elliott says, “The transformation which was sought concerned not the structures of society but the attitude of heart and consciousness (2:19–20; 3:3–4, 15–16, 21) of persons desiring the experience of true brotherhood.”7 If Elliott’s assessment of the rhetorical purpose of this section is correct, then 2:17 is a key verse: “Honor [τιμήσατε] everyone. Love [ἀγαπᾶτε] the family of believers. Fear [φοβεῖσθε] God. Honor [τιμᾶτε] the emperor.” All the imperatives except the first are present tense, implying that those addressed are to continue acting or behaving as they have been. The initial aorist imperative denotes general action which is not limited by circumstance. That is to say, readers are instructed to be predisposed to honor persons. He also notes the theme in 3:22, but he does not discuss how that verse relates either to the civic or to the household instructions, except to say that in all uses of ὑποτάσσω the stress is on the verb root τάσσω (“ordinate”) not the prefix ὑπο-. Thus, subordinating oneself is a “conscientious” act. This topic is explicit in the instructions to slaves: “For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God [διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ], anyone endures pain while suffering unjustly” (2:19). See Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 139–40, 159. 6. This arrangement is adapted from David R. Nienhuis and Robert W. Wall, Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture: The Shaping and Shape of a Canonical Collection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 121. 7. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 78.

318

R. B. SISSON

others without specifying when or where. What follows then are three specific ways of showing doing this, each a continuation of behavior already being done.8 However, Elliott see a chiastic structure in these four imperatives – “honor” at the beginning and end, “love” and “fear” in the middle – which breaks the imperatives into two units.9 This division is based not on grammar but on assumptions about the relation of the Christian readers to the world in which they live as “aliens.” Elliott explains how the imperatives support “the incompatibility of Christian and Gentile styles of life”: In the four pithy imperatives arranged chiasmatically in 2:17, a clear distinction of allegiances is affirmed. The honor which is due all men (v.17a = A) is that which is also deserved by the emperor (v. 17d = A ´); love, on the other hand, is reserved for the brotherhood (v. 17b = B) as reverence is reserved for God alone (v. 17c + B ´); cf. 3:14–15).10

Elliott provides a further reason for not connecting the third imperative with the fourth: “In 1 Peter the Roman government is viewed neither as ‘the servant of God’ (Rom. 13:1–7) nor as a henchman of Satan (Apocalypse) but simply as a human institution designed to administer justice (1 Pet 2:13–14) and worthy of respect (2:17).”11 Explaining the connection between the middle imperatives, Elliott suggests that “true brotherhood” is experienced only where those who “fear God” love each other. The NRSV translation of τὴν ἀδελφότητα as “the family of believers,” as opposed to the simpler “brotherhood” or “community,” understands the direct object of ἀγαπᾶτε along the lines of Elliott’s interpretation. The only other occurrence of ἀδελφότης in the New Testament is later in 1 Peter: Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters [ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι] in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.” (5:8–9, emphasis mine)12

The only occurrences of ἀδελφότης in the LXX are in 1 and 4 Maccabees, and in the latter it is used to denote a fellowship forged through shared trials and suffering (cf. 9:23; 10:15; 13:27). Parallels between 1 Pet 5:9 and 4 Maccabees may exist, but strong countercultural connotations are absent 8. Troy W. Martin notes how Theophylact renders the second, third, and fourth imperatives as present participles, understanding them as subordinate to the initial aorist imperative. See Martin, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter, SBLDS 131 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 204–5. 9. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 120. 10. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 120, 231. 11. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 86. 12. An alternative translation, based on parallels with Pauline and Stoic notions of shared suffering being the basis of group identity, is proposed later in this paper.

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

319

in 1 Pet 2:17 because readers are exhorted to continue honoring the emperor. Thus, if some sense of separation from the surrounding culture informs the readers’ sense of belonging to a worldwide ἀδελφότης, bonds of connection with the surrounding society still exist. The imperatives in 2:17 involve different types of allegiance, but the “clear distinction” that Elliott sees between allegiance to those inside and to those outside the community of faith is not certain, because the structure of the verse is not clearly chiastic. The initial and final imperatives are the same verb but not the same tense, and the two middle imperatives are different verbs.13 Moreover, it is not clear why a command to honor individuals outside the community of believers, especially the emperor, would bracket imperatives to love those inside it. How these seemingly different forms of allegiance might be connected needs to be considered. The imperative to love “the family of believers” may anticipate the household codes which immediately follow. To the extent that the household instructions are commonplaces in Greco-Roman moral discourse, the writer again is not instructing his readers to engage in new forms of social behavior. What has changed is that persons in positions of subordination perform their social duties with the understanding that they are following the example of Christ. Noteworthy is how the instructions to slaves and women in 1 Peter are supported with strong allusions to Jewish scriptural tradition.14 No allusions to Jewish tradition support the instructions about civic duty. Thus, we might ask what religious motives and self-understanding directs the readers in performing their social duties, civic as well as household? Some interpreters suggest that early Christian communities consciously obeyed governing authorities for apologetic reasons. David Balch argues that 1 Peter is written to instruct Christians on how not to appear subverting the politeia of the Roman Empire, a charge to which they were liable given their refusal to worship Roman gods. He suggests that Roman political authorities are judging Christians: “The Haustafel constituted both part of the Christians’ ‘defense’ and part of the praise they hoped for from the governor.”15 If true, this explains why instructions about civic conduct are presented along with instructions about household conduct. Elliott, however, believes Balch’s 13. Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 204–5 n. 237. 14. Martin thinks the underlying theme of this section with instructions about duties, 2:11–3:12, is how to live as “aliens in the world.” This metaphor, he argues, evokes the experience of the Jewish diaspora, which informs the identity of the communities addressed in the letter. Martin thinks the diaspora is the controlling metaphor of the entire letter. See Martin, Metaphor and Composition, 189. 15. David Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter, SBLMS 26 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 264–65.

320

R. B. SISSON

interpretation of the household codes in 1 Peter fails to consider the writer’s particular concern for the internal stability of Christian households. He asserts: “The household instruction of 1 Peter and the stress upon the household/ familial character of the Christian community have as their common focus the internal as well as the external relations of the addressees.”16 That is to say, the communities addressed in these instructions are not to follow them simply to avert the suspicion of Roman authorities monitoring their behavior. Dieter Lührmann argues that the general function of household codes in the New Testament is to regulate the communal life of Christians, which became a need and possibility after an initial missionary phrase where the chief concern of Christian communities was the integration of Jewish and gentile converts.17 This means the household instructions in 1 Peter need to be interpreted in relation to similar codes found in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles. Lührmann envisions two stages in the development of household codes after the missionary phrase. The first phase is exemplified in Colossians and Ephesians, where the stabilizing of community life makes possible the transmission of religious tradition and continuity with what was achieved in the missionary phase.18 In these letters there is no obvious concern about relations with Roman authorities. In Ephesians, Lührmann notes, there is a possible political topic in the metaphor of 2:19: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints [συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων] and also members of the household of God” (emphasis mine). This political metaphor, however, does not support specific instructions about how to relate to governing authorities.19 Lührmann thinks the household codes of 1 Peter belong to the same stage of development as those in Colossians and Ephesians, for the command to obey governing authorities fits well with the ancient oikonomia tradition which influenced the earliest Christian formulation of household codes.20 If 1 Peter were written in a 16. Elliott, Home for the Homeless, 218 (emphasis his). 17. Dieter Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln und Antike Ökonomie,” NTS 27 (1980): 83–97, esp. 91. 18. Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 94. 19. Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 94. Lührmann explains the sense of the political metaphor which distinguishes Colossians and Ephesians: “Stärker als der Kol. verwendet der Eph. für die übergreifende Struktur der Gemeinde Begriffe der politischen Sprache (Eph. 2. 19!), die gefüllt werden mit Traditionen des idealen himmischen Israel.” He adds, “Nicht ausdrücklich im Blick scheint im Kol. und Eph. trotz der gelegentlichen Berührungen mit lokalen römischen Beamten schon in der Frühzeit und trotz der ersten grösseren Verfolgung von Christen unter Nero das Verhältnis zum Staat.” 20. Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 94. David Balch also argues that Christian household codes develop on the foundation of oikonomia traditions common in the

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

321

period of Roman persecution of Christians around the end of the first century, this might explain why the exhortation to obey political authorities might have been linked to the household instructions for apologetic reasons. However, persecution need not be posited as the reason why 1 Peter blends civic and household instructions. Following Lührmann’s suggestion that one purpose of early Christian Haustafeln is to regulate community life based on continuity with existing tradition, a particular strand of Pauline tradition may be known to the writer and audience of 1 Peter. Paul’s instructions to obey governing authorities probably served him and his churches well in an earlier period, and the authority of this tradition is taken for granted.21 For Lührmann, the next phase in the development of Christian household codes is seen in the Pastoral Epistles. Here, Christian communities have “come into the field of vision [Blickfeld] of the Roman state” and represent themselves in a manner more Hellenistic than Jewish.22 For example, the instruction to be obedient to rulers and authorities in Titus 3:1 is bracketed by discourse that employs Hellenistic concepts.23 Lührmann’s assignment of the Haustafel in 1 Peter to the same stage of development as those in Colossians and Ephesians seems right based on 1 Peter’s extensive use of Jewish tradition to support instructions. However, it is not inconceivable that this type of moral instruction can be grounded in Hellenistic modes of thinking as well.

TRADITIONS SUPPORTING CIVIC INSTRUCTIONS Close examination of parallels between 1 Pet 2:13–17 and Rom 13:1–7 reveals that instructions in both passages are grounded in thought that is as much Hellenistic as Jewish. Greco-Roman world and in Hellenistic Judaism (Let Wives, 112–14). Fundamental to this tradition is Aristotle’s statement, “The polis is also superior by nature [πρότερον δὴ τῇ φύσει] to the household and each of us; for it is necessary that the whole exist prior to the part” (Pol. 1253a 19–20, my translation). For Aristotle, the superiority of the polis is due to the fact that here, not in a household or village, people achieve the fullest possible degree of “self-sufficiency” (αὐταρκεία) – the goal of the ethical and political and life according to the philosopher (cf. Pol. 1252b 29–1253a 18). Aristotle’s organic and teleological understanding of the relationship between state and household may not underlie all uses of this tradition, but sometimes it might. 21. Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 94–95. Lührmann explains: “Schon Paulus hatte ja die Unterordnung unter die römischen Behörden in Röm. 13. 1–7 gefordert, und auch er hatte ja nicht nur positive Erfahrungen mit diesen gemacht.” 22. Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 91. 23. Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 95 n. 63. Lührmann explains how the community addressed in the Pastorals does not picture itself as “the ideal Israel” as in Ephesians: “Ebenso wird die christologische Grundlage vor allem in Tit. 2. 11–14 und 3. 3–7 neu formuliert mit starker hellenischer Begrifflichkeit.”

322

R. B. SISSON

Let every person be subject to highly placed authorities [ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω]; for there is no authority except from God, and the existing authorities have been set in place by God [ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν]. Therefore whoever resists authority [ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ] resists the decree of God [τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ], and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive recognition; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, be afraid! For the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to accept authority [ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι], not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. (Rom 13:1–5, my translation)24

As in 1 Pet 2:13–17, there are no clear allusions here to Hebrew tradition, although some readers might recognize parallels with Wis 6:3–4 in Paul’s description of the governing authority as God’s servant.25 Interpreters have identified this as one of several strands of Pauline tradition in 1 Peter.26 In connection with these instructions about civic duties, parallels between 1 Pet 3:22 and Phil 3:21 are also significant: For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you – not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him [ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων]. (1 Pet 3:18– 22 NRSV, emphasis mine) But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation 24. Several key words in this passage are formed from the root ταγ-, the basic meaning of which is “set in order.” The perfect passive participle τεταγμέναι is used periphrastically to state that all existing authority has been set in place by God, so that the existing political order exists by divine decree, διαταγῇ. All who recognize this see the goodness and necessity of “subordinating themselves” to that order: ὑποτασσέσθω, ὑποτάσσεσθαι. Anyone not recognizing the goodness of the ruling authorities “resists” (ἀντιτασσόμενος) what God has set in place. 25. Wisdom 6:3–4: “For your dominion was given you from the Lord, and your sovereignty from the Most High; he will search out your works and inquire into your plans. Because as servants of his kingdom you did not rule rightly, or keep the law, or walk according to the purpose of God” (NRSV). 26. Helmut Koester regards everything in the letter “except the name of the sender” as “either Pauline or general Christian tradition.” See Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 2:292–93. The fact that we know this tradition from Romans does not necessarily mean it is essentially Pauline.

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

323

that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself [ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα]. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved. (Phil 3:20–4:1 NRSV, emphasis mine)

In the view of both Paul and 1 Peter, the human act of accepting the authority of governing institutions represents an acknowledgement of how these authorities have been made subject to God in order to be instruments for good. Key here is the idea that Christians obey not out of fear but because of their belief that God through Christ has established order throughout the cosmos. This grounding of ethics and political theory in rudimentary forms of psychology and cosmology has parallels in Stoicism.27 Troels EngbergPedersen explains: Where in Paul’s framework will such a realization have its place? In the thought that those who perform the ‘mind’s worship of God’ from which he began will not do what God wishes them to do just because that is God’s will. They will have something more than the following kind of extrinsic relationship to their own acts: doing them in order to avoid punishment or wrath, or doing them for the only reason that God tells them to do so. Instead, they will themselves have come to wish to do them and to see that they should be done. They have become such people that they now wish for themselves to do those things. Here, then, there is not just a mindless ‘slavery’ to God, but willing for oneself what God (also) wills. And the way that this is brought out is once more by a reference to the inner structure of Christ-believers, to their awareness of what they themselves want because it reflects what they have now come to take themselves to be…. It is because Paul has been talking of self-identification on the model of the Stoic talk of oikeiōsis that he can add here such a remark about their ‘conscience’, that is, their ‘self-awareness’ (syn-eidēsis).28

Engberg-Pedersen’s reference to the “mind’s worship of God” recalls Rom 12:1– 2, which introduces the paraenetic section of that letter of which Paul’s instruction to accept the authority of rulers is part: 27. Stoics tend to believe that the well-being of individual souls, the good of communities, and the order of the universe are interconnected. For a thorough explanation with examples, see Marcia L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: Vol. 1. Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature, 2nd impr., Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 36–50. 28. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 271–72. On the Stoic connection of conscience with ethics, he explains: “It is certainly true that the Stoics did not invent the notion of conscience. But via the sharp focus in their philosophy on akrasis and the connection of this with their basic theory of oikeiōsis, they did develop a theoretical place for the notion of ‘self-awareness’ which gave it an added importance” (375 n. 22).

324

R. B. SISSON

I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship [τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν]. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. (emphasis mine)

A better translation of τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν would be “worship offered by mind and heart” (REB), since λογικός can be translated both “rational” and “spiritual.” And, since the root meaning of λογικός is “true to the real and essential nature of something,” the best translation would be “genuine.”29 Something may be genuine by virtue of being “rational,” taking the adjective in its root sense, or by virtual of being “spiritual,” taking it figuratively.30 It is noteworthy that the adjective is used in this figurative sense in 1 Pet 2:1–3.31 Another expression of such spiritual mindedness is 1 Pet 1:13–14, which introduces the paraenetic section where the civic and household instructions occur: “Therefore prepare your minds [τῆς διανοίας]32 for action; discipline [νήφοντες]33 yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed. Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance” (emphasis mine). Note here obedience is connected with making intelligent judgments, that is, acting in accordance with a true and full apprehension of reality. In both Rom 13:1–4 and 1 Pet 2:13–17, obedience to civil authority is supported by the belief that such authority exists in accordance with God’s will and within a divine hierarchy with Christ at the head (cf. also Col 1:16).34 Obedience to civil authority, as understood in Romans and 29. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), §73.5. 30. Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, §73.5. 31. “Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual [λογικόν] milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation – if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” (NRSV, emphasis mine). 32. διανοία, when translated mind, denotes the faculty for understanding and deciding what to believe or how to act. See Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, §26.14. 33. The only uses of νήφω in the New Testament are 1 Thess 5:6, 8; 2 Tim 4:5; 1 Pet 1:13; 4:7; 5:8. In these contexts the verb denotes mental “self-control” that prevents one from being guided by irrational thoughts or beliefs. See Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, §30.25. 34. First Peter 3:22 speaks of “angel, authorities [ἐξουσιῶν], and powers” having been made subordinate to Christ in heaven. The context might imply that ἐξουσίαι denotes heaven realities, in contrast to human authorities (cf. Titus 3:1, which speaks of subordination to “rulers and authorities” (ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις). However, a strict delineation between earthly and heavenly realities is problematic. Context of use may support understanding a particular reading. Commenting on the paralleling of ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι in Col 1:16, J. B. Lightfoot asserts, “Some commentators have referred the terms used here solely to earthly potentates and dignities. There can be little doubt however that their chief and primary reference is to the orders of the celestial hierarchy, as conceived by these Gnostic Judaizers.” See Lightfoot, St. Paul’s

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

325

1 Peter, is not an absolute requirement for Christians, but believers should be predisposed toward obedience based on belief about Christ’s role in the creation and restoration of order in the world.35 From a rhetorical perspective, the philosophical tone of the paraenesis in 1 Pet 2:13–3:12 explains how the instructions about accepting political and domestic forms of authority might be intelligible and sensible for non-Jewish readers. Stoic elements are present in both Paul and 1 Peter, but only in the latter do they support a Haustafel which combines civic and household instructions. In Paul, there is a clear sense that earthly citizenship (Rom 13:1– 7) is different from heavenly citizenship, which for him is an apocalyptic reality (cf. Phil 3:20–4:1). For the writer of 1 Peter, Christ’s rule over creation is a present reality and is experienced through the performance of conventional social duties. Parallels with Stoic duty codes also underscore the formal unity of 2:13–3:12. The Stoic moralist Hierocles teaches that duties to the state are just as binding on a person as duties within a household. Commenting on the Greek noun denoting one’s “native region,” πατρίς, commonly translated “fatherland,” Hierocles says: Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan & Co., 1875), 152. Commenting on the same text, Petr Pokorný thinks the terms are ambiguous, capable of referring to heavenly and earthly realities at the same time, and this is not by accident. He explains: “When [principalities and authorities] emerge in conjunction with sin or with the devil, as beings emancipated from the will of God (e.g., Eph 6:11), they become those evil powers that separate humanity from God, instead of bringing to mind [my emphasis] God’s goodness. In this case the victory of Christ is sometimes interpreted as their subjection and sometimes as their dissolution. Similarly the worldly authorities are also capable of oscillating between poles, even though it is especially their positive role that is emphasized in Pauline thought (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 2:2; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13f.).” See Pokorný, Colossians: A Commentary, trans. S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 80. 35. Lightfoot regards Col 1:15–18 as a foundational text for understanding Christ as Logos performing the work of “recapitulating” creation (Epistles, 155). Recapitulation Christology appears to underlie the description of Christ’s saving work in 1 Pet 3:18–22, where Christ restores to humans a “good conscience” which makes obedience possible. According to Martin, the Christological focus of the passage is Christ the righteous sufferer being vindicated by God, where the subordination of “angels, authorities, and powers” to Christ is a sign of the servant’s vindication (Metaphor and Composition, 225–26). As prominent as the theme of suffering is in this passage, so is the cosmic scope of Christ’s redemptive work. Here Christ is professed to have preached to disobedient spirits “in prison” (souls in the underworld) before assuming a place “on the right hand of God” in heaven. The Christ hymn of Phil 2:6–11 may lie in the background. The possible connection of suffering and obedience suggests further links with Paul’s thought in Philippians (cf. 1:29; 3:10–11). Although the idea of Christ functioning as Logos is not explicit in Philippians or 1 Peter, Justin Martyr in his Second Apology describes Christ’s redemptive work as the work of the suffering Logos on behalf of all humanity (ch. 10). For Justin, Christ – unlike the Stoic logos – is “not merely the condition of human reason” (οὐχὶ ἀνθρωπείου λόγου κατασκευή), but the power of God which (re)generates “the whole rational being, both body, and reason, and soul” (τὸ λογικὸν τὸ ὃλον καὶ σῶμα καὶ λόγον καὶ ψυχήν). (2 Apol. 10.1)

326

R. B. SISSON

This word also dictates that we honor our one fatherland equally with our two parents, that we prefer it to either of our two parents separately, and that we not honor the two together more than it, but that we respect them equally. There is still another reason which exhorts us to honor it more than our parents together, and not only them, but together with them, to honor it more than our wives, children, and friends, in short, more than all other things.

Hierocles then explains how all these duties are equally binding, projecting a unitary view of society. Let us then sum up, that we should not separate what is publicly profitable from what is privately profitable, but to consider them one and the same. For what is profitable to the fatherland is common to each of its parts, since the whole without its parts is nothing. And what is profitable to the citizen is also fitting to the city, if indeed it is taken to be profitable to the citizen. For what is of advantage to a dancer as a dancer would also be of advantage to the entire chorus. So, if we store all this reasoning in our minds we shall have much light on particulars and shall on no occasion neglect our duty to the fatherland. Because of this, I say, the person who would conduct himself well toward this fatherland should get rid of every passion and disease of the soul.36

Hierocles’s exhortation represents a distinctively Stoic form of psychagogy whose principles are in accord with Aristotle’s belief that moral well-being is fully attained only in the sphere of the polis. First Peter speaks not of honoring one’s “native region” (πατρίς), but accepting the authority of “human institutions” (πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει), either in the form of a supreme ruler (βασιλεῖ ὡς ὑπερέχοντι) or his subordinates (ἡγεμόσιν ὡς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πεμπομένοις). That is to say, the writer of 1 Peter envisions the various “native regions” where his readers live – Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1) – as part of the Roman imperial state. So, when the civic instructions are viewed as an introduction to household instructions, 1 Peter seems to have a unitary view of society similar to that found in Hierocles’s instructions. Early interpreters of household instructions in the New Testament suggested that Stoic duty lists influenced the development of the Christian Haustafeln.37 Subsequent interpreters have noted differences between Stoic codes and Christian household instructions, particularly the Christian emphasis on reciprocity that is missing in Stoic codes, and thus have argued that New Testament Haustafeln represent genuine Christian creations.38 Assuming for 36. Both quotations are from Hierocles, On Duties, 3.39.34–36. The translation is from Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, LEC 4 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 89–90. 37. Discussed by Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 83–84. 38. Lührmann, “Neutestamentliche Haustafeln,” 84–85.

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

327

the sake of argument that Haustafeln in Colossians and Ephesians are Christian productions without significant parallels to Stoic codes, the household codes in 1 Peter are significantly different in that regard. The theme of reciprocity is not as prominent in 1 Peter, and when the civic instructions are seen linked to the household instructions, 1 Peter projects a broader and more political (in the ancient sense) view of social order.39 Furthermore, when 1 Pet 3:18–22 is read as the conclusion of the paraenetic section containing instructions about social duties, the eschatological vision focuses on Christ’s reign over all of creation, not the church exclusively or primarily. This section effectively “Christianizes” the Stoic elements in the instructions in a manner that certain gentile readers would have recognized, particularly those with philosophical perspectives on social duties. This is fundamental to the rhetorical force of 1 Peter, because the writer does not envision a church withdrawn from the world, but a church that witnesses to God’s power over all creation through the suffering which it is prone to endure at the world’s hand. Active Roman persecution is not envisioned, although the persons addressed in the letter appear to experience unspecified forms of social alienation. Conflict with Roman authority may be an occasional reality, as the reference to Rome as “Babylon” (5:13) may imply, but some instructions imply that readers of the letter engage in activities associated with wealth and social respectability. For example, women are instructed not to adorn themselves “by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing” (3:3). And among the activities in which these gentile converts no longer should engage, the writer lists “drunkness, revelries [κώμοις] and drinking parties [πότοις], and wanton idolatry” (4:3, my translation), all of which can be associated with participation in religious festivals and symposia which were rituals of solidarity for social and political elites in cities.40 These are the 39. Timothy G. Gombis characterizes the household codes in Eph 5:22–6:9 as “a manifesto for the new humanity” based on perceived links between the codes and earlier testimonies to “the cosmic superiority of Christ” in ch. 2. See Gombis, “A Radically New Humanity: The Function of the Haustafel in Ephesians,” JETS 48 (2005): 317–30, esp. 318–20. However, the household codes of Ephesians are not formally linked to testimonies of Christ ruling creation from heaven. The Haustafel in Ephesians may be read as a part of a separate paraenetic section. There is no explicit mention of civic matters in Ephesians. Yet, Gombis asserts, Paul “directly confronts and subverts the social structure of the contemporary society” (330). Although 1 Peter casts a critical eye on social world of its audience, its moral outlook is not confrontational or subversive. 40. Greek symposia were more than social gatherings devoted to wine consumption. From the Classical through the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman periods, the symposion was a social and political institution for reinforcing bonds of friendship through activities that express common values, particularly the values of the aristocratic class. W. J. Henderson explains how at a “good” symposion the wine consumption is moderate and behavior self-controlled, allowing

328

R. B. SISSON

types of persons for whom public expressions of respect for emperors and imperial officials might be expected.41 Thus gentile converts should continue honoring governing authorities – recall the present imperative τιμᾶτε – but not necessarily in the manner they did prior to becoming members of “the household of God” who are living in anticipation of judgment by God (4:17). The four imperatives in 2:17 thus link the instructions about civic behavior with instructions about household behavior, but not in the chiastic form proposed by some interpreters. Recall that the initial imperative, “Honor [τιμήσατε] everyone,” is aorist and by virtue of its direct object is general in scope, and that the three imperatives which follow are present tense and imply continuing to act in a certain way. The imperative “fear God” relates to the commands before and after it. Proponents of the chiastic structure rightly note a connection with the command, “Love the family of believers.” In Proverbs, where “fear of the Lord” is seen as the basis for right conduct, most of the instruction applies to a familial context. Yet Proverbs also uses language of honor and dishonor in connection with “fear of the Lord.” Note the LXX rendering of 14:2: “Those who walk uprightly fear the Lord, but one who is scandalous in his ways will be dishonored [ἀτιμασθήσεται]” (my translation). Proverbs also envisions “the fear of the Lord” directing relationships with authorities beyond the household: “Fear the Lord, child, and the king for intellectual conversion and artistic expressions such as recitation of poetry. A “bad” symposion ends in drunken “revelry” (kōmos) and antisocial behavior. See Henderson, “Aspects of the Ancient Greek Symposion,” Akroterion 45 (2000): 6–25. Most evidence for the social and political function of symposia is from the classical period. But there is evidence that the institution continued to function during the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman periods. See Jon S. Bruss, “Epigram,” A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, ed. J. Clauss and M. Coypers (Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 117–35, esp. 124. In the latter period, the function of symposia was likely less political and more cultural, that is, a way of maintaining Greek cultural identity in a Roman imperial context. 41. It is not clear whether emperor worship was part of honoring the emperor in the minds of the writer and his audience. But if it was, two things should be noted. First, there were no standard forms of emperor worship. Sometimes emperors were worshiped as gods, but not always, as James B. Rives explains: “People often swore by the living emperor’s genius, as though he were the master of a household, and not by his person, as though he were a god; the public cult in Narbo was directed to the numen of Augustus, and not to Augustus himself.” See Rives, Religion in the Roman Empire (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 152. Rives thinks this explains how Jews and Christians were able to grant emperors “unique status in relation to the divine” (155), as evidenced in the prayer in 1 Clem. 61:1, where God is asked to grant the emperor “the power to rule” (τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς βασιλείας) so that “we, knowing [γινώσκοντας] the glory and honor which you have given them, accept their authority [ὑποτάσσεσθαι αὐτοῖς]” (156; my translation). Second, participation in the emperor cult was probably expected of all who directly or indirectly benefitted financially from Roman patronage. As the prayer in 1 Clement implies, by asking God to grant the emperor health and peace, petitioners were nurturing virtue in their own souls. This petition on behalf of the emperor occurs in the context of “psychagogic” paraenesis in the closing sections of 1 Clement.

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

329

[βασιλέα], and neither of them disobey” (24:21 LXX, my translation). Knowledge of this saying in Greek may influence the choice of noun in the final imperative, τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε, which is commonly translated, “Honor the emperor.” The third imperative, “Fear God,” is thus as closely connected to the final imperative as to the second imperative. Moreover, to the extent that “fear of the Lord” relates to the imperative “Love [ἀγαπᾶτε] the family of believers,” we need to remember that in ancient Mediterranean society “love” is less about having affections for individuals and more about having respect for members of one’s group, starting with one’s natural family and extending out to comparable associations. Parents and other elders, for example, are “loved” because they are transmitters of traditions that impart values and provide a basis for identity in the broader world.42 Fear of God, thus, is learned through practice in the household and by extension influences social behavior in the civic sphere. As previously noted, the direct object ἀδελφότητα, based on its use later in 5:9 and similar uses in 1 and 4 Maccabees, means “brotherhood,” but it extends the familial sense of the noun to denote a group of persons bound together by shared commitments and experience.43 Fearing God is at the root of this group identity, and honoring the emperor and all governing authorities is an expression of it, both internally and externally. The fact that persons in political authority do not belong to this brotherhood is not a problem. Given the centrality of the diaspora motif in 1 Peter and the frequent use of language from Second Isaiah, recipients of the letter likely knew the high esteem afforded to Cyrus in Isa 45: Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him – and the gates shall not be closed: I will go before you and level the mountains, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron, I will give you the treasures of darkness and riches hidden in secret places, so that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of Israel, who call you by your name…. I made the earth, and created humankind upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. I have aroused Cyrus in righteousness, and I will make all his paths straight; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward, says the LORD of hosts. (45:1–3, 12–13)

42. John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, eds., Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 1993), 110–14. 43. See 1 Macc 12:10, 17; 4 Macc 9:23; 10:3, 15; 13:19, 27. In 4 Maccabees, God calls the martyrs to lives of shared suffering and thereby transforms brotherhood in the natural familial sense to something divine and eternal. A similar idea is expressed in 1 Pet 5:9: “Resist [the devil] steadfast in faith, knowing that the same types of sufferings are required of your brotherhood [ἀδελφότητι] throughout the world” (my translation). Expressing the same idea in Phil 1:27–30, Paul uses the metaphor of a “citizen” body.

330

R. B. SISSON

Where MT reads “I have aroused him in righteousness,” the LXX translates ἐγὼ ἤγειρα αὐτὸν μετὰ δικαιοσύνης βασιλέα. The LXX translator specifies the direct object “him” to be a “king.” Also, where the MT has “I commanded all their host,” the LXX reads ἐγὼ πᾶσι τοῖς ἄστροις ἐνετειλάμην. “Ordering the stars” suggests the establishment of order in the heavens, so that the raising up of a king with an empire as vast as Cyrus’s represents the establishment of an order on earth that mirrors the order God establishes in the heavens. With this in mind, it is for the sake of the righteousness established by God throughout creation that believers are expected to honor the emperor. This portion of Second Isaiah may have informed the recipients’ understanding of the sequence of imperatives in 2:17 as much as Jewish wisdom tradition or Pauline tradition. Gentile converts familiar with Stoic ideas of social order and duty could have seen the imperatives connected on that basis. This is not to say that Jewish readers or hearers were themselves unfamiliar with Stoic ideas. First Peter is not a philosophical text, but that does not mean the writer and some of the recipients were unacquainted with philosophical ways of thinking about the type of social relationships being discussed.44 Acquaintance with philosophical notions of social order can influence how instructions about civic and household duties are presented and understood.

SOCIAL LOCATION

AND IDEOLOGY

Acquaintance with Stoic conceptions of social duties and the worldview supporting them would have helped the intended audience of 1 Peter to recognize argumentative structure in the letter and the multifaceted intertexture of the rhetorical discourse. Infrequency of connective words makes the logical connections between sections of instruction more implicit than explicit. Understanding what is implicit is challenging because the writer assumes the audience’s awareness of authoritative traditions besides those 44. Parts of 1 Peter are written in a self-consciously literary style that reflects not only the writer’s level of education but also the higher social level of the writer and his audience. It is noteworthy that one such passage, 1:17–21, is a rhetorical period in which genitive absolute clause employs eschatological language with philosophical overtone: “He was destined before the foundation of the world [προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου], but was revealed at the end of the ages for your sake” (1:20, NRSV, my emphasis). Albert Wifstrand characterizes 1:17–21 as an example of a period “fairly well built and of Greek ethos.” See Wifstrand, “Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter,” ST 1 (1948): 170–82, esp. 181. For what this style of writing implies about the social status of the writer, see Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 39–41.

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

331

explicitly cited, particularly those from the LXX. Interpreters must speculate about the particular religious and philosophical traditions that the original readers and hearers knew and how evoking these traditions contributes to the rhetorical force of the moral discourse. When considering the circulation of 1 Peter beyond the intended audience and its eventual inclusion in the New Testament canon, the Stoic elements of the intertexture have increased importance. In The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, Ernst Troeltsch identifies the close connection between Stoicism and Christianity despite their obvious differences: Thus it is easy to understand how students of the ethic of Stoicism believed they found in Christianity the philosophical religion they were seeking, while Christians, on the contrary, thought they had found among them some ideas borrowed from the Bible, or a point of support in general natural knowledge. In Epictetus, however, the traces of Christian influence are less evident. In the case of Seneca the Stoic doctrine of the government of the world and the Theodicy is combined with the dualistic psychology of Plato and the belief in the growth in the similarity of reason to God. In both, observation of actual life softens the Stoic rigorism and the Stoic self-righteousness through fellow-feeling with the infirmities and sins of men.45

Within its Stoic-like grouping of civic and household duties, the writer of 1 Peter exhorts slaves: “If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval” (2:20). With this recognition of the necessity of suffering (cf. 4:1, 13), this instruction is compatible with Stoic thought.46 The universal moral ideal that can be abstracted from this instruction is Christianized in the hymnic praise of Christ which follows in 2:21–25, where there are strong echoes of Isa 53:5–12.47 It is also in the form of an 45. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teachings of the Christian Church, vol, 1, trans. Olive Wyon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 67. 46. See Epictetus, Ench. 29; Diatr. 1.24.1–2; 3.20.9. Some interpreters suggest that the connection between slavery and suffering in the Haustafel of 1 Peter, which distinguishes it from other Haustafeln in the New Testament, is due to the influence of Hellenistic Jewish thought which is Christianized. See, for example, Chris L. de Wet, “The Deutero-Pauline and Petrine Haustafeln: Early Christian Oikonomia, Pastoral Governmentality and Slave-Management,” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 94 (2012): 397–415, esp. 408–9. This fails to take into account the connection between suffering and an ethic of self-abnegation in Stoicism that is Christianized in Paul. See Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Stoicism in Philippians,” in Paul in His Hellenistic Context, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 256–90, esp. 282–86; Russell B. Sisson, “Authorial Ethos in Philippians: The Agōn Topos in Paul and Hellenistic Moralists,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 238–54, esp. 251–54. 47. John Elliott asserts that Isa 52–53 is “a key OT source of terminology, motifs, and themes,” not just for the writer of 1 Peter but for early Christianity in general. See John

332

R. B. SISSON

ideal universal maxim that Christians are instructed to honor governing authorities. Such authorities may not always act as agents of God’s righteousness, but God has established them for this purpose, thus Christians should be predisposed to honor them. In this regard, 1 Peter has a more philosophical perspective on the role of political authorities in the cosmic order than we find in Paul, where the apocalyptic element in his thought “ran counter to that kind of legitimation.”48 First Peter has a special place in the New Testament canon for the way it blends Jewish theological and Stoic philosophical perspectives to present a universal social ethic attuned to the complex social and political realities of the Greco-Roman world.

CONCLUSION The writer of 1 Peter exhorts readers to “honor the emperor” without providing an explicit rationale, which makes it difficult to discern how this imperative is integral to the section of paraenesis where it occurs. Since the grammatical tense of the imperative implies continuing to honor the emperor, some rationale supporting this instruction must exist in the minds of the letter’s intended audience. Given the philosophical tone of the paraenesis preceding the civic and household instructions, readers familiar with Stoic views of social order – gentile especially, but Jewish as well – would readily see how these two sets of instructions are related. Nothing suggests that the civic duties are more important than domestic duties, as Aristotle and Stoics like Hierocles suggest, but the implication of a link between the two types of duty is important. Gentile converts are expected to abandon certain social practices, but not completely disengage from the surrounding society. The reason for accepting the authority of governing officials and honoring the emperor is not primarily apologetic, that is, to avoid arousing suspicions which might lead to persecution. The reason for obeying civil authority is theological, in line with Jewish and Christian ideas about God’s ways of maintaining order in the world, but it is presented in a form that closely parallels Stoic thinking about the well-being of souls, moral community, and social order. Linking the instructions about civic and household duties is a sequence of four imperatives, the first being

H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 546. 48. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 170.

“FEAR GOD, HONOR THE EMPEROR”

333

“Honor all people.” For the philosophically minded recipient of 1 Peter, an implicit rationale for this imperative might be the traditional Stoic maxim, “Nothing human is alien from me.”49 This rationale, though, is understood in a Jewish and Christian context when connected with the imperatives which follow it in 2:17. The order of the imperatives not only links the civic instructions that precede them with the household instructions that follow, it also presents the Christianizing of a unitary view of society and ethics associated with Stoicism. By linking the command to honor the emperor with the command “Fear God,” the writer provides a rationale similar to what Paul explicitly states as the reason why everyone is to “be subject to governing authorities.” This rationale has roots not only in Pauline tradition but in Hebrew sapiential tradition, particularly Prov 24:21, which makes it difficult to say one tradition is more foundational than the other.50 The prominence of Hebrew scriptural tradition supporting the instructions to slaves is a part of a larger body of evidence that Jewish tradition shaped the identity of the communities addressed in the letter. In Christian communities with a mix of Hellenized Jews and gentile converts, some of whom were relatively wealthy and educated, exposure to Stoic ideas could have influenced each group’s conceptions of social and political order and thus contributed positively to the internal stability of the community. The compatibility of 1 Peter’s integration of civic and household duties with Stoic ideas of social order equipped the early Christian communities receiving these instructions to remain actively engaged in a social and political order with which they had moral and religious differences and in which they saw themselves as aliens. The writer of 1 Peter is not concerned with the specific ways in which Christians honor the emperor and other governing authorities, for that apparently is not an issue requiring comment. What matters is that whatever public expressions of honor for political authorities 49. Tatian appears to be commenting on 1 Pet 2:16–17 when he writes, “Does my master command me to act as a bondsman and to serve, I acknowledge my serfdom. Man is to be honored as a fellow-man; God alone is to be feared” (Address of Tatian to the Greeks 4; ANF 2:66). In a footnote to their translation citing the possible influence of 1 Pet 2:17, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson comment: “This claim for man as man is the inspiration of Christianity. Terence breathes it from his wounded soul in slavery; and his immortal line, ‘Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto’… looks as if it had been written in the second century of illumination” (2:66). 50. The diversity of Jewish and Christian traditions from which the writer of 1 Peter draws makes the letter a reflection of Christianity’s “growing ecumenicity,” to use a phrase of M. Eugene Boring, “First Peter in Recent Study,” WW 24 (2004): 361–64. This ecumenicity is due largely to the letter’s association with Rome. It is difficult to imagine Greco-Roman philosophical ideas not being influential in this culturally and politically cosmopolitan setting, as we see in the writings of Justin Martyr in the mid-second century.

334

R. B. SISSON

are warranted, Christians understand these public expressions of respect not as ad hoc accommodations to social and political pressures, but as acts of individual conscience and communal solidarity informed by intersecting strands of Jewish and Christian tradition and articulated in a form that reflects critical engagement with Hellenistic philosophical traditions. Union College

Russell B. SISSON

17 WATERS OF SALVATION: 1 PETER 3:20–21

First Peter 3:20–21, which pairs the flood and baptism, has a long history of making scholars uneasy. In particular, scholars have struggled with the passage because they insisted that the flood was an example of divine punishment. This has required explanations of v. 20 that seem contrived and contorted and that do not match well with v. 21. I contend that the author of 1 Peter is saying something very normal and very much in keeping with the traditions of Judaism: the waters of the flood were an act of God’s salvation, just as baptism is an act of divine salvation. In this article I would like to examine several examples of these exegetical contortions to demonstrate how they misplace attention on the roles of water and ark, and how scholars’ insistence on reading the narrative in a particular way hinders their ability to see that the simpler explanation is the correct one. I will focus my attention where there has been the most scholarly contention, namely, the understanding of διά in the phrase δι᾽ ὕδατος and the idea of the flood as divine salvation. ΔΙΑ

IN THE

PHRASE

ΔΙ᾽ ΥΔΑΤΟΣ

Commentators have had a terrible time determining how to understand the διά in δι᾽ ὕδατος (3:20). From a strictly grammatical perspective, Maximilian Zerwick says it should be read as instrumental, thus, “through (by means of) water.”1 Also from a grammatical perspective, Stanley Porter argues for the instrumental sense, defining the usage as “secondary or intermediate agency or means” and “some person or thing serves as the device or means by which some action is performed.”2 Yet when set within the context of exegesis, most 1. Maximilian Zerwick, Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, trans. Mary Groscenorm, 5th rev. ed., SubBi 39 (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1996), 711. 2. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Biblical Languages: Greek 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 148–49.

336

J. L. DEVIVO

commentators prefer to read it in a locative sense. As we shall see, however, those who argue for a locative reading do so for literary and/or theological rather than exegetical reasons. George R. Beasley-Murray says that the matter has been “unduly complicated” by commentators and asserts that the διά should not be interpreted in an instrumental sense because the people were saved “by the ark from the waters.”3 Note that the text of 3:20 says nothing about the ark saving them. This is the first of many examples in which Beasley-Murray presumes knowledge of the Genesis narrative and decides that the ark saved them from drowning in the flood. He argues for a locative sense, which would indicate that they were “brought to safety through the water” (emphasis his).4 Here Beasley-Murray is emphasizing διασῴζω and using the verb to drive the explanation of the preposition. Further, he sees this usage as consistent with Wis 14:5 and Josephus, Ant. 1.78; both indicate the danger of the water and how Noah and his family were spared by the strength of the ark, and both use the passive form of the compound verb διασῴζω.5 While the textual examples he cites are accurate, not all references to the flood indicate the danger of the water and being spared by the strength of the ark. The only mention of the ark in 1 Pet 3:20 concerns God’s patience while it was being built; there is nothing that speaks of the ark bringing people safely through the waters. Beasley-Murray shifts the emphasis to the strength of the ark and its role in deliverance, but 1 Peter does not focus on that. In summary, BeasleyMurray’s defense of reading διά as a locative is based on a misfocused preoccupation with the ark and unconvincing appeals to Wis 14:5 and Josephus, Ant. 1.78, compounded by his improper use of διασῴζω to support the idea that the ark brought people to safety. Similarly, David Cook, who states in the title of his article that the reading of 1 Pet 3:20 is an unnecessary problem, argues for a locative reading of διά based largely on his reading of εἰς ἥν and διεσώθησαν. Cook begins by stating that some New Testament authors are not careful in distinguishing between ἐν and εἰς.6 Then he cites J. N. D. Kelly, who said that the use of εἰς in 3:20 “is not really an example of the breakdown of the correct use of prepositions in late Greek; rather εἰς conveys the double sense of going into the ark and so being saved in it.”7 Next, Cook proceeds to διεσώθησαν 3. George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962), 259. 4. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 259. 5. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 259. 6. David Cook, “I Peter iii.20: An Unnecessary Problem,” JTS NS 31 (1980): 72–78, esp. 73. 7. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 158.

WATERS OF SALVATION: 1 PETER 3:20–21

337

and, with evidence from Thucydides, Polybius, and the LXX, concludes that εἰς ἣν … διεσώθησαν should be translated “into which … escaped,” which further emphasizes the role of the ark in saving Noah and family.8 When Cook addresses the use of διά specifically, he chooses four widespread references to make his case for a locative reading. He begins with Hans Windisch, who says that δι᾽ ὕδατος is problematic because the waters of baptism are salvific in v. 21; if so, the waters of the flood must have been a means of salvation for Noah and his family, which would make the διά in v. 20 instrumental. However, Windisch focuses on the physical movement of passing through water in baptism, so he opts for a locative reading in v. 20: “Der Verfasser meint wohl: wie Noah einst (in seiner Arche) durchs Wasser hindurch gerettet ward, so müssen auch wir durch ein Wasser hindurch wenn wir gerettet werden wollen.”9 This appeal to Windisch affirms Cook’s earlier conclusion about the ark, but is hardly a satisfactory explanation. It merely draws upon the narrative in Genesis using a particular interpretive lens, deciding that the ark saved Noah and family from drowning rather than allowing the possibility for the water to be the means of salvation. Digging back even further into exegetical history, Cook then cites Hermann von Soden, who gives a very poor explanation of what an instrumental reading would signify: “Δι᾽ ὕδατος kann an sich instrumental sein aber der Ausdruck wäre dann sehr prägnant, sei es, dass das Wasser ihre Rettung bewirkt haben soll, sofern es die Arche sicher trug (Gen 7:17), oder dass das Wasser die acht Menschen erst veranlasst habe, in die Arche zu flüchten, was freilich kein Zeugniss für ihren Glauben gewesen wäre.”10 Von Soden’s conclusions may be dismissed because of their awkwardness. If the water were carrying the ark safely, it would make the ravaging flood seem rather like a gentle, lulling body of supportive water protecting the ark, which would not survive without the water beneath it. Such an explanation cannot withstand scrutiny. To suggest that the water saved them by causing them to flee to the ark in the first place implies that the command of God was insufficient and that there was already water for them to pass through before entering the ark. With this explanation, an instrumental reading of διά looks problematic. Further, as von Soden’s awkward explanations would fail to make a proper connection to baptism in v. 21, Cook concludes that an instrumental 8. Cook, “I Peter iii.20,” 74–75. 9. Hans Windisch, Die Katholischen Briefe: Erklärt, HNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911), 69; cited by Cook, “I Peter iii.20,” 75. 10. Hermann von Soden, Hebräerbrief, Breife des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas, Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2 (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1899), 157; cited by Cook, “I Peter iii.20,” 75.

338

J. L. DEVIVO

reading is incorrect.11 However, Cook fails to note von Soden’s conclusion that a locative reading does not work well either because “so ergibt sich allerdings die in der Erzählung der Gen nicht begründete Vorstellung, dass sie durch das Wasser durch in die Arche flüchteten.”12 To make an instrumental reading look like an incorrect argument, Cook then cites Ernest Best, who does claim an instrumental use of διά but says that “strictly Noah was saved from water,” which quickly invalidates his claim for an instrumental reading. The reason Best clings to an instrumental use is the baptismal reference that follows, but he says that this baptismal reference “has forced our writer into the strange statement ‘through water’ in relation to Noah.”13 Best’s common reading of the flood as destruction does not mean that an instrumental use of διά is forced or strange, but Cook’s quotation of Best vitiates the argument. Cook’s last appeal is to Francis Beare, who finds the language of 1 Peter “forced in the extreme,” specifically because of the destruction that the flood caused for everyone on earth with the exception of those on the ark.14 Like many other commentators, Beare thinks of the flood in terms of destruction and punishment. Cook then turns to his own explanation of why he argues in favor of a locative reading.15 Yet, his only grammatical defense for the locative reading comes from his earlier exegesis of εἰς ἣν … διεσώθησαν, which Cook translated as “into which … [they] escaped,” making it sound as if they escaped into the ark away from the waters of the flood. Leonhard Goppelt argues in favor of a locative understanding, saying that to do otherwise would contradict biblical tradition which sees the waters of the flood as a means of judgment, not salvation.16 Moreover, Goppelt tries to justify his locative reading of διά by referring to a tradition in Gen. Rab. 32 in which Noah and his family entered the ark after the water of the flood was knee-high, thus allowing for the locative reading that they passed through water and had water physically touch them.17 Again, Goppelt’s conclusion 11. Von Soden, Hebräerbrief, 157; Cook, “I Peter iii.20,” 75. 12. Von Soden, Hebräerbrief, 157–58. 13. Ernest Best, I Peter, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1971), 147; cited by Cook, “I Peter iii.20,” 75. 14. Francis W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, 3rd rev. and enl. ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), 174; cited by Cook, “I Peter iii.20,” 75–76. 15. Cook, “I Peter iii.20,” 76. 16. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 265. 17. Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter, 266.

WATERS OF SALVATION: 1 PETER 3:20–21

339

that biblical tradition sees the flood as judgment is precisely the obstacle that misleads the inquiry. Neither of these arguments is convincing for favoring a locative reading of διά. John H. Elliott agrees that it is best to read διά as a locative, which would indicate that Noah and family were saved while passing through water.18 He identifies this issue as a key point that the author wishes to make about the eight who survived the flood, namely, that they were “saved by God ” (emphasis his).19 He argues that if διά were read in an instrumental sense, it would be “contrary to the entire flood tradition, which stresses a rescue from the destructive effect of the flood” (emphasis his).20 As we shall see in the next section, the entire flood tradition does not stress that Noah and family were saved from the devastation of the flood. However, on the next page of his commentary, Elliott does note that the flood can be viewed as an act of God’s salvation: “Whereas the original flood story entailed the rescue of those in the ark and the destruction of others by water, the Petrine author focuses exclusively on the aspect of salvation.”21 Thus it is entirely possible to place the focus on the flood as salvation in 3:20 and read διά in an instrumental sense, because water was the instrument used to eradicate evil and spare the righteous. Perhaps part of Elliott’s difficulty lies in the physical objects of ark and water. If we look carefully at his words quoted above, we see that he understands the flood to concern the “rescue of those in the ark and the destruction of others by water.”22 This makes it seem as if the ark were the means of rescue and the water the instrument of destruction. Even though 3:20 does not explicitly say that the ark played any part in the rescue of the eight people, he nevertheless cites texts that mention the ark as what stood between the destructive waters and the rescue of the eight people. He cites 4 Macc 15:31 and Josephus, Ant. 1.78, both of which praise the sturdiness of the ark and power of the flood.23 In citing these texts, he unwittingly confuses the issue in 1 Peter. Yes, the Petrine author focuses entirely on salvation, but there is no textual problem with seeing the water as an instrument of salvation. Further, even reading the διά as instrumental does not negate the certainty that it is God who saved the people. 18. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 667. 19. Elliott, 1 Peter, 666. 20. Elliott, 1 Peter, 667. 21. Elliott, 1 Peter, 668. 22. Elliott, 1 Peter, 668. 23. Elliott, 1 Peter, 667.

340

J. L. DEVIVO

Paul J. Achtemeier contends that the locative understanding is best, claiming that passing through the water delivered Noah from the flood and from the wicked people surrounding him.24 Yet Achtemeier’s subtle recognition that the flood delivered Noah from the wickedness around him is the key to allowing for the possibility of an instrumental reading. If we read διά as instrumental, that Noah was rescued or saved by water, we may ask what it was from which Noah was spared? It was the people around him, whose wickedness was so heinous that God deemed it necessary to destroy the whole world (Gen 6:5–7). Achtemeier allowed for this reading, citing 1 En. 10:2–3; 65:10– 12; 106:13–18; Jub. 5:3–5; Sir 44:17; Wis 10:4; 14:6; and 4 Macc 15:31 as examples of how the flood can function simultaneously as both divine judgment and deliverance, serving as a counterargument for his assertion of a locative reading of διά.25 In addition, the way he connects 3:20–21 would easily permit and even encourage an instrumental reading. In a larger sense, however, a locative construal is more appropriate, since it was in fact Noah’s journey “through the waters” that led to his deliverance not only from the flood itself, but also from the evil which infested the world and which the flood was intended to destroy. Thus the waters effected Noah’s deliverance from his evil world as baptism effected the deliverance of Christians from their evil, contemporary world: by passing through them, both entered a new existence. Thus, as Noah was rescued through water (i.e., the flood), from an evil world and subsequently entered into a new and cleansed world, so the Christians are rescued through water (i.e., their baptism) from the evil world that surrounds them and are delivered into the new world of the Christian community.26

What Achtemeier says is consistent with an instrumental reading. The differences are merely a matter of semantics. He recognizes that the flood destroyed the “evil which infested the world” and that it was the water that “effected Noah’s deliverance from this evil world.” Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that the people on the ark were saved “by water,” because water was the instrument by which the rescue was accomplished. Kelly identifies the difficulty in understanding the text in an instrumental sense, suggesting that the ark preserved their lives from the water that would otherwise have killed them. However, he claims that “it is likely that the writer is consciously using ‘through’ in both senses at once,” since 1 Pet 3:21 24. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 266. 25. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 265 n. 299. I will address these passages specifically in the next section. 26. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 266.

WATERS OF SALVATION: 1 PETER 3:20–21

341

does use water as the instrument of salvation in reference to baptism.27 Kelly identifies the paradox that the water that drowned everyone else saved Noah and the people on the ark, a concept he sees reflected also in Josephus, Ant. 1.78, and the connection made between the flood and baptism in Tertullian, Bapt. 8.4.28 Viewing the flood narrative as the punishment of sinners, Mark Dubis states that it would seem preferable to read διά in a locative sense, “but verse 21 overthrows this intuitive reading since it identifies water not as that which judges but as that which saves.”29 In addition, Dubis sees the point strengthened in v. 21 with καὶ ὑμᾶς, that the water saves “you also,” that is, just as the water saved Noah and family.30 Dubis observes that we should possibly understand a play on words here with διά as purposely ambiguous.31 In making a valid case for both readings, Dubis ends by citing Richard T. France, who suggests the author was probably “deliberately exploiting the ambiguity of the word διά to assist his passage from the Old Testament story to its typological application.”32 France also observes that a locative reading makes more sense when considering the destructive power of the flood waters for most of humanity, but that the instrumental reading seems best in light of v. 21, in which a “Christian is more easily viewed as saved ‘by means of’ the water of baptism than by passing through it.”33 Here again, the difficulty lies in the identification of the flood as divine punishment. Karen H. Jobes argues that an instrumental understanding works well in that v. 21 claims that the waters of the flood prefigured baptism.34 She allows the floodwaters to have more than one meaning in that “the very water that threatened to kill Noah and his family was at the same time the means of their deliverance.”35 If it were standing alone, Jobes argues that in reference to the flood narrative itself, the ambiguity of διά could reasonably be understood as locative. Yet she argues that either understanding “leaves Peter’s point intact.”36 27. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 159 (emphasis his, original bold replaced here by quotation marks). 28. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 159. 29. Mark Dubis, I Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 124. 30. Dubis, I Peter, 124. 31. Dubis, I Peter, 124. 32. Richard T. France, “Exegesis in Practice: Two Examples,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. H. Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 252–81, 273; cited by Dubis, I Peter, 124. 33. France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 273. 34. Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 252. 35. Jobes, 1 Peter, 252. 36. Jobes, 1 Peter, 253.

342

J. L. DEVIVO

Kenneth S. Wuest argues for an instrumental understanding, producing the very exacting translation “in which eight souls were brought safely through by means of the intermediate agency of water.”37 Despite his scrupulous rendering, he is not caught in the problem of literalism, saying that while it was clearly the ark that saved them, the author is saying something different. “The very waters that were death to the rest of the human race were life to the inmates of the ark.”38 I agree with the concept of the waters being death to some and life to those on the ark; however, I want to recognize pointedly that Wuest, like most others, insists that the ark saved them. Donald P. Senior relies on the passive form of διασῴζω used in v. 20 to accentuate that “God is the author of this rescue.”39 He sees the preposition as ambiguous but unproblematic, because it is clear that it is God’s action that rescues those in the ark, and because “obviously the author is setting up the parallel with the waters of baptism that will follow in the next verse.”40 While Senior allows for διά as either instrumental or locative, suggesting that the author might intend to use both meanings, in some ways he leans towards the locative, saying that the floodwaters were “an instrument of destruction yet, because of God’s forbearance in directing him to build the ark, Noah and his family are saved in the midst of the waters.”41 Here again we have the problem of leaning towards a locative understanding based on the presupposition that the flood narrative is viewed as punishment rather than salvation. Unlike other scholars, however, Senior does not insist on the protection of the ark from the dangerous waters. Bo Reicke states that it is of minor importance whether διά is locative or instrumental. Rather, he argues that the focus is on the salvation of Noah “from a godless environment,” just as Christians need to understand that they are saved from the evils of humanity through baptism.42 Reicke sees that the correlation between flood and baptism goes deeper than water as a means of salvation. “Just as in the Old Testament the flood signified the death of the old world and the birth of the new, so the New Testament Christians connected baptism with the death of the old man and the birth of the new 37. Kenneth S. Wuest, First Peter in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942), 109. 38. Wuest, First Peter in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, 107. 39. Donald P. Senior, “1 Peter,” in 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter by Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 1–152, esp. 104. 40. Senior, “1 Peter,” 104. 41. Senior, “1 Peter,” 104. 42. Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 113.

WATERS OF SALVATION: 1 PETER 3:20–21

343

(Rom 6:13; Eph 4:22; Titus 3:5).”43 Here Reicke begins to tap into the great number of rich associations that could be drawn from the pairing of flood and baptism if we could only get beyond the stumbling block of viewing the flood exclusively as punishment. Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene A. Nida make it clear that whether one reads διά as instrumental or locative, it is God, not the water and not the ark, who is the “implicit agent of salvation.”44 If one were to read “through the water” in a locative sense, it would imply that they were saved from the water by the safety of the ark, which Arichea and Nida identify as a difficult reading. “This would also mean that the reference to salvation in v. 21 is primarily a negative one: the water of baptism represents the death of Christ and the evil life one leaves behind at baptism.”45 Reading the διά as instrumental instead indicates that Noah and family were saved by means of the water, since it was the water that carried them to safety. In light of v. 21 particularly, Arichea and Nida favor this reading.46 The difference in this reading is that it does not insist upon the ark as the shield between mortiferous waters and the people in the ark. The lack of focus on the ark and the clear understanding that it is God who is the agent of salvation allow the text to proceed smoothly into the discussion of God’s salvation in baptism. E. G. Selwyn sensibly states that these two understandings of the text are not mutually exclusive. The difficulty arises from the fact that our author is at one and the same time abbreviating the story of the Flood and making it serve as the type of Christian baptism. The tradition was that Noah went into the ark and got safely away in it, and this is expressed succinctly by εἰς ἣν διεσώθησαν; and he was brought safely away through water, both directly in the local sense of διά and indirectly in the instrumental sense. The more obvious fact that the water destroyed the rest of mankind is ignored here, since the author’s interest, as the next verse indicates, was in those who were saved, who were the type of the Christian church.47

I must concur with Selwyn. Many texts unquestionably use the flood narrative as an expression of judgment upon sinners. The author of 1 Peter is simply using the text in a different and perfectly acceptable way, focusing 43. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 113. 44. Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, Helps for Translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 119. 45. Arichea and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, 119. 46. Arichea and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, 119. 47. Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1947), 202–3.

344

J. L. DEVIVO

upon those who were saved from the evil surrounding them, proceeding to 1 Pet 3:21, in which Christians are delivered from the evils of this world through the saving waters of baptism. Most commentators who have argued against understanding διά in the instrumental sense have done so because it would mean seeing the waters of the flood differently than they are usually portrayed and because of what it would imply theologically. As William J. Dalton observes, “One has the impression that some commentators are over cautious in their fear of ‘magic sacramentalism’ and, for this reason, cannot tolerate the idea that either Noah or the Christian should be saved by means of water” (emphasis his).48 Certainly Christian history and numerous theological battles over understanding baptism – who should receive it, when, and under what circumstances; debates about the efficacy and necessity of the physical symbol of water; and, of course, whether one is obliged to immerse (βαπτίζω) or may simply sprinkle or pour – have inevitably led to caution when speaking about baptism in the Bible. “Given a sound sacramental theology, there is, of course, no contradiction between being saved by means of water, and being saved through the power of the resurrection.”49 The flood is not the only biblical example of how water can be salvation for some and destruction for others. In the case of the exodus, we see that water can be both an instrument of judgment and salvation. From the perspective of the Egyptians, the waters of the Reed Sea were a means of destruction, but for the Israelites, they were a means of salvation. While biblical tradition has largely viewed the waters of the flood as judgment, for Noah they were a means of salvation. Further, whatever biblical example we might choose, there is no question that it is always God who is responsible for salvation, not a force of nature or any other creature. Even when it is the 48. William J. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, AnBib 23 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 209. 49. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, 209 n. 57. In Dalton’s 1989 second edition of the same book, he changes the sentiment and says, “In any case, it is unacceptable to speak of water as a means of salvation: this would indicate a form of sacramental magic! Thus the relative would have as antecedent the whole preceding context, with emphasis on God’s saving action. The fact is that a natural reading of the text, with ‘water’ immediately preceding the relative, indicates quite clearly that ‘water’ is the antecedent. The issue of ‘sacramental magic’ reflects later theological controversies and is far from the mind of 1 Peter.” See William J. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6, 2nd ed., AnBib 23 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989), 196–97. It seems that Dalton has also become concerned about the issue of “sacramental magic” in the second edition. I agree that the issue of “sacramental magic” is far from the mind of 1 Peter and wish to observe that modern theological concerns may impact the decisions of exegetes on theological rather than exegetical grounds.

WATERS OF SALVATION: 1 PETER 3:20–21

345

water that delivered Noah from the wickedness that had spread on the earth (Gen 6:5), no matter the grammatical construction, there is no doubt that it was God’s act of salvation. Reicke’s observation about the different expectations for language in the era of the composition of 1 Peter and the present day bears particular wisdom. For the more imaginative the combinations, and the more esoteric the wordpictures, the more convincing and comforting they were to those engrossed in the world of the Bible. They cared little for a strictly logical sequence, since it was a matter of God’s wonderful dealing with man and the world, which are not comprehended by the limited knowledge of the human mind, but only through the wisdom of the spirit and the receptiveness of the heart.50

In our exacting and precision-driven world and field, one can easily forget that we need not decide there is only one answer to any question of biblical interpretation. The genius of the biblical authors was their ability to say one thing that could have a variety of intended resonances, interpretations, and meanings. The particular reticence of scholars to understand διά in an instrumental sense has been that to do so would contradict the usual sense of the flood waters as a means of judgment and because it could interfere with seeing God as the source of salvation. The preceding examples of scholarly work on this text have not been exhaustive, but they demonstrate that the preference for a locative reading of διά only complicates the issue further. They miss what the author of 1 Peter was trying to say in correlating the flood and baptism and instead spend time attempting to fix problems that do not exist. At the conclusion of this section, I assert that διά is best understood as instrumental. I would also allow for the possibility that it can be read as locative as well, in a poetic sense, and as long as the instrumental reading is not abandoned entirely. Just as Num. Rab. 13.15 identifies seventy facets of the torah, each facet able to reveal a different meaning, we must be cautious in determining that only one reading of a biblical text is correct. However, because the instrumental reading has largely been discredited in favor of a locative reading, I wish to reclaim the validity of the instrumental reading and allow those implications to drive the interpretation of 1 Pet 3:20–21. A CASE

FOR THE INSTRUMENTAL

READING

In the preceding section, we saw that many scholars’ reticence to read διά as instrumental was rooted in their insistence that the flood was divine punishment and that Noah was saved from (not by) the floodwater. However, 50. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 113.

346

J. L. DEVIVO

there are many Jewish and Christian traditions that view the flood as an act of salvation. One reads in Gen 6:5–7 that the flood occurred because of the great evil (‫ ;רעה‬κακίαι LXX) of humanity. Despite the pervasive evil, Noah found favor in God’s sight and was righteous and blameless (Gen 6:8–9). Thus the flood is the means by which Noah and his family were rescued from the evil of humanity; they did not require being rescued from the flood. The flood was judgment and destruction for the wicked, but salvation from the wicked for Noah and his family. The wickedness of humanity and Noah’s sufferings because of their wickedness appear as a theme in various expansions of the flood narrative. Sibylline Oracles 1.128–131 narrates God’s command to Noah: “Noah, embolden yourself, and proclaim repentance to all the peoples, so that all may be saved. But if they do not heed, since they have a shameless spirit, I will destroy the entire race with great floods of waters.”51 According to Josephus, Noah tried to persuade the people to turn from their wicked ways. Not only did the people not listen, but Noah was afraid the people would kill him and his family, so he left that land (Ant. 1.74). Later, Josephus writes that Noah was saved because God suggested that he build an ark as a way to be saved from the wicked people around him (1.76). Even though 1.78 mentions the violence of the floodwaters and the sturdiness of the ark, I contend that, given the material just before it, it is better to view the floodwaters as the way that Noah was delivered from the wicked people around him; they were the greater threat. The ark did not save Noah from the punishment that should have been his in the flood. Rather, the flood delivered him from the wicked people who were a threat to his life. One reads in b. Sanh. 108a–b that Noah urges, “Repent; for if not, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring a deluge upon you and cause your bodies to float upon the water like gourds,” yet Noah’s words of warning were met by jeering.52 Similarly, in Gen. Rab. 30.7, God says, “‘One herald arose for me in the generation of the Flood, Noah,’” while those around him “despised him and called him, ‘Contemptible old man!’”53 Many of these traditions were written after the composition of 1 Peter. I am not suggesting that the author of 1 Peter relied upon or had access to all of these documents. Rather, I wish to present examples of traditions, 51. The translation is from John J. Collins in OTP. This example of Noah proclaiming repentance at God’s command also corresponds well with God’s patience, noted in 1 Pet 3:20. 52. Translation from Isidore Epstein, ed., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1960–1990). 53. H. Freedman, trans., Midrash Rabbah, vol. 1, Genesis (London: Soncino, 1983), 235.

WATERS OF SALVATION: 1 PETER 3:20–21

347

appearing in various literary works from ca. 300 BCE through Talmudic works dating to ca. 500 CE, that say Noah’s life was in danger from the wicked people around him, thus making the flood an act of divine deliverance. Achtemeier, who admittedly prefers to read διά as locative, nevertheless cites several texts in which the flood is presented as both salvation and destruction: 1 En. 10:2–3; 65:10–12; 106:13–18; Jub. 5:3–5; Sir 44:17; Wis 10:4; 14:6; and 4 Macc 15:31.54 I disagree with the inclusion of Sir 44:17 because it is too vague, of Wis 10:4 because 10:3 says that Cain’s murder of Abel was the cause of the flood, of 4 Macc 15:31 because it only praises the strength of the ark. The other texts, however, succeed in illustrating the presentation of the flood as both divine salvation and destruction. Some excerpts from the texts exemplify the point particularly well. In 1 En. 10, God commands a heavenly messenger to warn Noah to hide himself (10:2) and to instruct Noah “in order that he may flee” (10:3).55 To Achtemeier’s citation, I would further add 10:16-17, in which God commands Michael, “Destroy injustice from the face of the earth. And every iniquitous deed will end, and the plant of righteousness and truth will appear forever and he will plant joy. And then all the righteous ones will escape.” In the beginning of 1 En. 65, Noah goes to the ends of the earth to cry out to his great-grandfather Enoch about the wickedness of the earth. Verse 10 says that the judgment of the wicked will be limitless, and v. 12 affirms that God “has preserved [Noah’s] name for the holy ones; he will protect you from those who dwell upon the earth.” Verse 12 is particularly clear evidence of the flood as protection from “those who dwell upon the earth.” In 2 Pet 2:5, God guarded (φυλάσσω) Noah because he was a herald of righteousness, while the impious (ἀσεβής) died in the flood. Set in the larger context of 2 Pet 2:4–9, God punishes sinners and spares the righteous in the examples of the sinful angels, the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah, concluding in v. 9, οἶδεν κύριος εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασμοῦ ῥύεσθαι, ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομένους τηρεῖν. In each of these instances, God is rescuing (ῥύομαι) the righteous from the wicked people around them. Later, the author warns that the God will save the righteous and punish the wicked in a future conflagration, just as God did with the flood (3:5–7). Throughout 2 Peter, the righteous are warned not to go astray even though it looks as if evil is winning and God has forgotten God’s promises (3:4, 9). The author 54. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 265 n. 299. 55. Translations of 1 Enoch are those of E. Isaac in OTP.

348

J. L. DEVIVO

uses the flood and the fire of Sodom and Gomorrah as a means of saving the righteous from the wicked, insisting that God will do the same in the future. I cited portions of these texts specifically because, as we saw above, several scholars insist that the flood is only or always presented as divine punishment. It is clear in the preceding examples that there are multiple texts that attest otherwise. Therefore, there is no hindrance to seeing the floodwaters as an instrument of divine salvation.

CONCLUSION This study has been literary because it is on a literary basis that scholars have had the conundrum of correlating the flood and baptism, unable to see the floodwaters as a means of God’s salvation and deliverance. With that problem solved, commentators can focus their exegetical efforts where the author of 1 Peter placed the focus in the first place, namely, on the association of the flood and baptism. Through careful examination of scholars’ work with understanding διά in 1 Pet 3:20 and the literary expansions of the flood traditions in Judaism and Christianity, we see that there is no grammatical, literary, or even theological difficulty in reading διά as instrumental and no difficulty in presenting the flood as an act of divine salvation and preservation, just as baptism is an act of divine salvation. As such, the phrase under consideration should be translated to say that they were saved “by means of water.” Saint Xavier University

Jenny L. DEVIVO

18 THE “CONSCIENCE” CONUNDRUM OF 1 PETER 3:21 – INSIGHTS FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS?

First Peter 3:18–22 presents interpreters a multitude of exegetical problems. Its complexities prompted Martin Luther to state that “this is a strange text and certainly a more obscure passage than any other passage in the New Testament. I still do not know for sure what the apostle means.”1 More recently, Paul J. Achtemeier observed that “there is little question that these verses constitute the most difficult passage in the entire letter.”2 In the midst of more prominent questions like how to understand the mysterious proclamation of Jesus to imprisoned spirits and how this is connected to the days of Noah and baptism, one might easily overlook one other matter – how the author understands the relationship between baptism and the believer’s conscience. This article will focus as pointedly as feasible on answering that one question and will consider the possibility that insights from the Epistle to the Hebrews might prove helpful for understanding this discussion in 1 Peter.

THREE INTERPRETATIVE CHALLENGES IN 1 PETER 3:21 In 1 Pet 3:21, the author relates baptism to the flood waters through which Noah and his family were saved, then he turns to explain the nature of baptism: it is not “removal of dirt from the flesh [or “body”; cf. NRSV, NAB, NIV, etc.] ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”3 Most scholars agree about how to translate the 1. Luther’s comment is cited by M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 133–34. 2. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 240. 3. I do not address here the precise relationship between the flood and baptism, which is the focus of the article in this volume by Jenny L. DeVivo.

350

E. F. MASON

parts of the verse rendered here in English. As for interpretation, there is a broad consensus that the author intends that Christ’s resurrection makes baptism effective, though opinions diverge over whether the “dirt” removed evokes an image of “washing” or of circumcision.4 Several things, however, complicate translation and interpretation of the middle phrase ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν. Achtemeier summarizes well the three major issues that demand attention.5 First, how should one render συνείδησις? The term may be used to denote consciousness (whether in the sense of awareness of certain information, or in a moral sense of discerning right and wrong) or conscientiousness (i.e., “attentiveness to obligation,” so BDAG).6 The term commonly is translated “conscience” in 1 Pet 3:21, but one should take care not to assume the psychological connotations of guilt and innocence usually associated with that English word in modern thought. It also appears in 1 Pet 2:19 and 3:16, both times in discussions of a believer’s proper response to those who inflict unjust suffering. Second, how should one understand ἐπερώτημα? This issue is especially complicated because this noun appears only here in the New Testament, though the related verb ἐπερωτάω is used fifty-six times (but never in 1 Peter) in the sense of questioning someone and occasionally for requesting something.7 As such, the noun often is assumed to bear that same interrogative sense, thus BDAG offers “the content of asking, question” and “a formal 4. Edward Gordon Selwyn (The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Essays, 2nd ed. [London: Macmillan, 1947], 205) earlier suggested the possibility of circumcision here based on his reading of Col 2:10–12. More recently, see especially William Joseph Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6, 2nd ed., AnBib 23 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989), 199–206. In this revised edition of his book, Dalton responds to criticisms of the position he articulated in his original 1965 version (and see further the rebuttal in J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1988], 215–16), but his interpretation is followed by such prominent commentators as J. N. D. Kelly (A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, BNTC [London: A&C Black, 1969], 161– 62) and – cautiously – Achtemeier (1 Peter, 269, 272). 5. This overview in the next few paragraphs generally (but not exclusively) reflects the discussion in Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 269–72. 6. For these and other possible meanings, see the entries for συνείδησις in LSJ, BDAG, and Franco Montanari, ed., The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden: Brill, 2015). 7. For the noun in the Septuagint, see ἐπερώτημα in Dan 4:17 (Theodotion) and the alternate form ἐρώτημα in Sir 33:2 (Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 270 n. 351; cf. Selwyn, First Epistle, 205). Use of the verb overwhelmingly appears in the Synoptic Gospels. Elsewhere, it appears twice in John and Acts and once each in Romans and 1 Corinthians. BDAG cites Matt 16:1 (cf. Ps 136:3 LXX) as an example for the meaning “request.” John H. Elliott (I Peter, AB [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 677) addresses the unusual nature of the language here and just prior: “The fact that this carefully balanced couplet has no precise NT parallel and that two of its terms (rhypos, eperōtēma) appear only here in the NT (and apotheosis only in 2 Pet 1:14)

THE “CONSCIENCE” CONUNDRUM OF 1 PETER 3:21

351

request, appeal ” as options (with the latter preferred for our verse); use in later Christian texts is similar.8 However, influenced by Moulton and Milligan’s lexicon of the papyri, numerous scholars have noted that the noun ἐπερώτημα often carries the idea of a “pledge” in nonliterary contractual texts of the second century and later, and already in that lexicon one finds reference to the possible implications of this meaning for 1 Pet 3:21.9 Supporters of this interpretation often assert that this points to the early tradition of calling upon baptismal candidates to affirm their faith verbally as part of the rite.10 Thus two important questions arise for interpretation of this word: should one follow the clear meaning of the verb to illuminate the sense of the more obscure noun, and/or should the later Christian use of the noun be favored over the (also later) fixed contractual usage in the nonliterary papyri?11 Third, how should one understand the connection between συνείδησις and ἐπερώτημα in light of the genitival phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς? In other words, does this phrase function as a subjective genitive or objective genitive? If subjective, the ἐπερώτημα proceeds from the good or clean “conscience,” but if objective, such a conscience is the thing requested or else pledged to be maintained.12

identifies this as a unique statement of the Petrine author, for whom such negative-positive contrasts are also typical.” 8. Some, including Heinrich Greeven (“ἐπερώτημα,” TDNT 2:688–89), have suggested “prayer” as appropriate for an appeal to God. Bo Reicke identified this as a defective but nevertheless “usual translation” (The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. III. 19 and Its Context [Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1946], 173; cf. 182). 9. Selwyn (First Epistle, 205) credits the “pledge” position (with a subjective genitive interpretation; see following) to a 1930 article by G. C. Richards but also discusses the contribution of Moulton and Milligan. Dalton (Christ’s Proclamation, 208 n. 103) praises Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 182–86, as the “fullest exposition of this view.” 10. So, for example, Kelly, Commentary, 163; Boring, 1 Peter, 142; Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 144–45; and Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 255; cf. Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter, ed. Ferdinand Hahn, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 270–71, though the thrust of his interpretation of 1 Pet 3:21 differs from theirs significantly. In a recent article, Matthew R. Crawford (“‘Confessing God from a Good Conscience’: 1 Peter 3:21 and Early Christian Baptismal Theology,” JTS NS 67 [2016], 23–37) argues that additional patristic texts support both the “pledge” interpretation and a subjective genitive reading (see following). Some scholars (including Elliott, I Peter, 680) also connect the pledge approach with initiatory oaths at Qumran. 11. Goppelt (Commentary, 269–70) provides an especially clear, concise overview of the options and evidence for both understandings. 12. Though Crawford (“‘Confessing God,’” 26) favors the subjective genitive reading, he observes that the objective genitive interpretation is more common in modern scholarship.

352

E. F. MASON

As one might expect, renderings of this phrase in standard English translations and by prominent commentators vary.13 “Conscience” is easily the most common rendering of συνείδησις.14 Interpreters differ, however, on how to understand ἐπερώτημα and the nature of the genitive phrase, and sometimes their proposed translations do not obviously match their interpretative explanations. Examples fall into five major groups:15 (A1) request for a good conscience NRSV “as an appeal to God for a good conscience”16 RSV “as an appeal to God for a clear conscience” ESV “as an appeal to God for a good conscience” NAB “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” Goppelt “as the entreaty to God for a good conscience”17 Senior “as an appeal of a good consciousness to God”18 (A2) request from a good conscience Michaels “an appeal to God out of a good conscience”19 (B1) pledge for a good conscience Kelly “the pledge to God of a good conscience”20 Jobes “rather the pledge of a good conscience to God”21 Reicke “is a pledge of good will to God”22 13. Perhaps surprisingly in light of the exegetical ambiguity of this passage, the phrase under discussion here is essentially free of textual variants. The Editio Critical Maior lists only one, ἐπερωτήματα rather than ἐπερώτημα in ms 1292. 14. Reicke (Disobedient Spirits, 174–82) is especially critical of the translation “good conscience” and favors instead a socially-focused understanding of “good-will.” But note the comment (and very different interpretative assumptions) of Michaels (1 Peter, 216) about attempts to translate this differently: “Critics of the translation, ‘good conscience,’ … rightly insist that the expression refers here to genuine inward purity, not to a mere feeling of innocence. Yet the alternatives suggested – e.g., a good ‘attitude of mind,’ ‘intention,’ ‘agreement,’ ‘loyalty,’ ‘good will,’ or ‘good faith’ – are so diverse that little is gained by adopting any one of them.” 15. Key: A for “request” and B for “pledge”; 1 for objective genitive, 2 for subjective genitive, 3 for ambiguous use of the genitive. 16. NRSV alternate reading: “a pledge to God from.” 17. Goppelt, Commentary, 247. He nuances his language of “entreaty” to distinguish it from an “agreement” or “vow.” 18. Donald P. Senior, “1 Peter,” in 1 Peter; Jude and 2 Peter by Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 1–158, here 105; his discussion clarifies his translation significantly. 19. Michaels, 1 Peter, 216–17. Michaels is most concerned to affirm that baptism occurs “out of a good conscience”; he favors “appeal” but is also sympathetic toward “pledge.” 20. Kelly, Epistles, 146. 21. Jobes, 1 Peter, 251. 22. Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 2nd ed., AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 106. See his more detailed discussion of the phrase in Disobedient Spirits, 182–86, and note his rejection of the language of “conscience.”

THE “CONSCIENCE” CONUNDRUM OF 1 PETER 3:21

Dalton Elliott Achtemeier

353

“a pledge to God to maintain a right attitude”23 “[as] a pledge to God of a sound mindfulness of God’s will”24 “as a pledge of a good conscience to God”25

(B2) pledge from a good conscience26 Selwyn “a pledge to God proceeding from a clear conscience”27 Watson “as a pledge to God out of a good conscience”28 Davids “the answer [= pledge] of a good conscience to God”29 (B3) pledge but ambiguous about the genitival relationship NIV (1984) “the pledge of a good conscience toward God”30 NIV (2011) “the pledge of a clear conscience toward God”31 This survey of interpretations admittedly is not comprehensive, but nevertheless we note three patterns. First, “conscience” is the overwhelming choice for translation of συνείδησις. Second, while translation committees (perhaps conservative and traditional by nature) prefer “appeal” for ἐπερώτημα, most (but not all) recent commentators seem convinced by the technical language from the papyri and/or the patristic discussions of baptism and choose “pledge” or similar. In my own view, it seems difficult to discern which translation approach for ἐπερώτημα is best in light of the linguistic evidence, though the trend toward “pledge” is not problematic as long as the overall thrust in the passage of God’s initiative in salvation is kept in view.32 Ultimately what 23. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 206–14. 24. Elliott, I Peter, 679. He elaborates further in favor of the objective genitive (“a pledge to God to maintain a sound mindfulness of his will”) and observes that “the mindfulness of God’s will does not precede baptism, but follows from baptism” (681). Chad T. Pierce (Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ, WUNT 2/305 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 234– 35) credits Elliott’s reading but moves in a different direction. 25. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 240; see especially his assessment of the objective and subjective genitive issue on 272. 26. The understanding of Oscar S. Brooks (“I Peter 3:21 – The Clue to the Literary Structure of the Epistle,” NovT 16 [1974]: 290–305, here 294) also fits this category: “To affirm that baptism is the declaration of an appropriate awareness of God does require some prior understanding of what determines the things that produce an appropriate awareness.” He considers the entire book a baptismal tract. 27. Selwyn, First Epistle, 205. 28. Duane F. Watson, “First Peter,” in First and Second Peter by Duane F. Watson and Terrance Callan, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 1–127, here 92. 29. Davids, First Epistle, 129, 145. 30. NIV (1984) alternate reading: “response” (rather than “pledge”). 31. NIV (2011) alternate reading: “but an appeal to God for a clear conscience.” 32. Cf. the similar opinion of James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 217. Perhaps surprisingly, George R. Beasley-Murray (Baptism in the New Testament [London: Macmillan, 1962], 261) opts for “pledge” yet leaves fluid the question of how to understand the subsequent genitival phrase.

354

E. F. MASON

matters most is one’s decision on the third issue, the nature of the genitival phrase. Does the ἐπερώτημα (whatever it is) spring from a “good conscience,” or is it offered to obtain the latter? It is here that comparison to similar language in the Epistle to the Hebrews might be helpful, especially since this is the only place in 1 Peter that the author addresses baptism. COMPARISONS

TO

HEBREWS

My suggestion about comparison to Hebrews is far from novel: most of the commentators already cited address (either positively or negatively) a similar move, usually with Heb 10:22 in view.33 The author writes in Heb 10:21–22, “Since we have a great priest [Jesus] over the house of God, let us approach [the heavenly sanctuary] with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and bodies washed with pure water” (NRSV, adapted). Interpreters of 1 Pet 3:21 are attracted to this comparison by the perceived baptismal imagery and mention of a cleansed conscience, but they evaluate it in varying – even contradictory – ways.34 Elliott notes that “the association of syneidēsis with baptism perhaps was traditional” since both occur in 1 Pet 3:21 and Heb 10:22, though he ultimately rejects a link between these two New Testament passages because 1 Peter lacks discussion of “washing” and – unlike Hebrews, which correlates the cleansed conscience and body – “the Petrine author expressly contrasts an internal pledge to an external cleansing.”35 Kelly essentially agrees yet finds Heb 10:22 useful as a foil to show that 1 Pet 3:21 is not concerned with physical washing in baptism and wants only to address its spiritual component: “if such [cleansing the body] was his intention, we should expect him to have written ‘not only’, for baptism (as is freely stated in Heb. x. 22) is clearly in one sense a washing.”36 Yet Kelly finds a positive comparison in Heb 10:22–24 and its interest in proper behavior resulting from baptism as support for reading an objective genitive in 1 Pet 3:21.37 Michaels, however, concludes the opposite of Kelly. 33. Comparisons to other passages in Hebrews are also proposed, but those for this verse are easily most numerous. 34. Additionally, Goppelt (Commentary, 268 n. 86) says these two verses both use σάρξ to mean σῶμα. 35. Elliott, I Peter, 681. Achtemeier (1 Peter, 268 n. 336) also rejects the parallel because of the lack of washing in 1 Pet 3:21. Dunn (Baptism, 211–14) strongly affirms the link between the physical and spiritual in Heb 10:22. 36. Kelly, Epistles, 161. 37. Kelly, Epistles, 163. Similarly, Goppelt (Commentary, 269 n. 90; cf. 270 n. 94) insists that “cleansing from an ‘evil conscience’ takes place precisely through baptism” in Heb 10:22.

THE “CONSCIENCE” CONUNDRUM OF 1 PETER 3:21

355

His rationale is not fully clear, but he identifies in Heb 10:22 an interest in both “inward and outward cleansing (i.e., between ‘heart’ and ‘body’)” that supports a subjective reading of the genitive in 1 Pet 3:21.38 Dalton’s approach to parallels between 1 Pet 3:21 and Heb 10:22 is similarly bifurcated. He rejects the comparison if a correlation between physical and spiritual cleansing is implied for 1 Pet 3:21 (“the parallel often made by commentators between 1 Pet 3:21 and Heb 10:22 is not relevant”).39 If, however, the point of comparison is consideration of an “objective” συνείδησις, one’s “inmost being,” then such is heartily confirmed.40 Dalton adds, Similarly in Heb 9:9 there is question of objective purification, not the feeling of innocence: the sacrifice of the old law “cannot perfect the συνείδησις of the worshipper”. Here we could translate “heart”. One could even ask whether the terms “good” or “bad” συνείδησις, as used in the New Testament, ever mean precisely what we mean by “good conscience” or “bad conscience”. While we think primarily of a feeling of innocence or of guilt, the New Testament thinks of an attitude or disposition towards God.41

Reicke also considers the relevance of Heb 9 for understanding 1 Pet 3:21. The same contrast between the early Christian and especially the Jewish cleansing and the συνείδησις of the Christian faith is found in Hebr. ix. 13f. although there is no mention of Baptism in this text. These purifications are termed “dead works” in verse 14, that is valueless observances (see also vi. 1), for which the blood of Christ cleanses our συνείδησις to the worship of the Living God. Here too συνείδησις must on account of its connection with works and the worship of God mean “mind”, “attitude”, “will” (not “conscience”, something that cannot be cleansed from “dead works”). The resemblance to 1 Pet. iii. 21 is very great. In both cases it is a question of denying purely ritual cleansing actions and a direction of “the will” towards a life in subjection to God. The thought of suffering is also there in Hebr. as is clear from the remark about “the blood”.42

Clearly these interpreters of 1 Pet 3:21 introduce comparisons with Hebrews for differing purposes. While appeals to Heb 10:22 are most common, consideration of Heb 9:13–14 is also very important. There, as in 1 Pet 3:21, the discussion concerns an initiatory experience for the συνείδησις enabled by the action of Jesus, whereas in Heb 10:22 the author is exhorting believers to approach God confidently because of the συνείδησις-cleansing that has already occurred. The event no doubt is understood as the same experience 38. Michaels, 1 Peter, 216. 39. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 203. 40. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 211. 41. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation, 211. 42. Reicke, Disobedient Spirits, 188.

356

E. F. MASON

for the believer in both passages, however, and I certainly do not wish to imply a fissure between the two texts because (as we will see below) interpretation of Heb 10:22 is vital for understanding the thrust of 9:13–14. But there is a perspectival difference: in Heb 9:13–14 the author directly relates cleansing of the conscience to a salvific act of Jesus, which seems more similar to the angle one finds in 1 Pet 3:21. Hebrews 9:13–14 contains one of the most perplexing statements in this book. In the midst of a broader discussion of the relative purificatory efficacy of the earthly, animal sacrifices offered by Levitical priests and Jesus’s heavenly self-sacrifice, the author writes that “the blood of Christ … purif[ies] our conscience from dead works to worship the living God” and that Jesus’s offering occurs διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου (“through eternal spirit”). Someone reading this passage in light of 1 Pet 3:21 might face the immediate temptation to relate the “spirit” of Heb 9:14 with the equally difficult comment in 1 Pet 3:18 that Jesus was “made alive in the spirit,” but I will not pursue that kind of connection here. Instead, I argue that the “spirit” of Heb 9:14 is the Holy Spirit, and that it is important to understand how the Spirit functions in Hebrews in order to understand what this book has to say about cleansing the conscience.43 This identification of the “eternal spirit” as the Holy Spirit in Heb 9:14 is traditional, and it prompted (or else arose in response to) a common substitution of ἁγίου for αἰωνίου in several ancient manuscript traditions (including the original hand of D, the second corrector of ‫א‬, and numerous manuscripts of the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic). But this understanding is not unanimous, as some interpreters consider “spirit” instead to refer to, for example, an aspect of Jesus’s own being or the (spiritual) realm in which he offered himself.44 Furthermore, those who have affirmed this as the Holy Spirit in Heb 9:14 often have argued (in varying ways) that the text presents 43. I explore this passage and theme more pointedly in “‘Through Eternal Spirit’: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit of Hebrews 9:14,” in Son, Sacrifice, and Great Shepherd: Studies on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. David M. Moffitt and Eric F. Mason, WUNT 2/510 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 175–90. The discussion of Hebrews here reflects the major themes explored more fully there. 44. Concise lists of scholars in recent centuries who have supported various interpretations of the spirit of Heb 9:14 may be found in Brian Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BibInt 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 172–73. For a broader and more detailed historical treatment, see James J. McGrath, “Through the Eternal Spirit”: An Historical Study of the Exegesis of Hebrews 9:13–14 (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961). Few scholarly publications (beyond commentaries) address this passage directly, but see especially David M. Allen, “‘The Forgotten Spirit’: A Pentecostal Reading of the Letter to the Hebrews?,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 51–66, whose argument about the importance of the Spirit in Hebrews as a signifying presence is foundational for my own approach.

THE “CONSCIENCE” CONUNDRUM OF 1 PETER 3:21

357

the Spirit as empowering or enabling Jesus’s sacrifice. But such an understanding of the Spirit’s role in Heb 9:14 is unlikely, in large part because the grammar of the phrase (διά + genitive: διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου) seems to demand that Jesus performed his sacrificial task not empowered by the Spirit (for which one might expect ὑπό + genitive) but rather by utilizing the Spirit as a secondary or instrumental agent. Thus, the Spirit participates in Jesus’s sacrificial act in some way but does not facilitate it. I propose that in Hebrews, the author understands the Holy Spirit to contribute to the cleansing of the conscience of believers. This is not the place to discuss details of every use of the term πνεῦμα in Hebrews, so I will focus only on those most relevant for the comparison with 1 Pet 3:21. In Heb 2:4, 6:4, and 10:29 (not incidentally, in three of the book’s “warning passages”), the Holy Spirit functions as a significant marker of believers’ authentic spiritual experiences to the extent that later apostasy from one’s earlier commitment constitutes an affront to this very Spirit. Further, in 9:8–10 the Spirit is invoked in discussion of earthly sacrifices that cannot make perfect one’s conscience. Mention of the Spirit here appears to establish an implicit contrast between the inefficacy of those sacrifices in this regard and the work of the Spirit itself. Purification of the conscience is mentioned again in connection with our cryptic phrase “through eternal spirit” in Heb 9:14, then the author of Hebrews returns to this subject a third time in Heb 10:11–25. In 10:15–17, the Holy Spirit is credited with the pronouncement of covenantal language from Jer 38:33–34 LXX. This attribution seems significant because earlier in Heb 8:8–12 the author had quoted Jer 38:31–34 LXX and implied that God was the speaker. Now, however, a smaller portion of that text is repeated, and the wording of the quotation from Jeremiah is adapted in three ways, most strikingly to foreground the new covenantal implications for one’s heart (instead of the mind).45 This change of sequence is important because this biblical author locates the conscience not in the mind but in the heart in Heb 10:22, where he also addresses a cleansing of the conscience. Earlier he noted that cleansing of the conscience could not be achieved through the Levitical sacrifices of the “old” covenant (9:9–10), but now he speaks of both cleansed hearts and bodies. We have observed above the interest of several Petrine scholars in baptism language in Heb 10:22. While Hebrews probably does imply water 45. The author follows the wording of the LXX rather closely when the Jeremiah passage is cited in Heb 8:8–12, but in Heb 10:15 the author reverses the order of “mind” and “heart” as loci where God’s laws will be placed. This appears to be an intentional move to emphasize “heart.” See the fuller discussion in Mason, “‘Through Eternal Spirit,’” 182–85.

358

E. F. MASON

baptism here as a corollary to sprinkled hearts (perhaps melded with imagery from sacrificial purificatory rites from the Jewish Scriptures) – and may reference the practice elsewhere in the book in the surprisingly plural language of βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς in Heb 6:2 – the repetition of heart language in 10:22 likely highlights the author’s primary concern. Again, though, that “heart” emphasis should not be read to negate the link to baptism.46 This convergence of covenant language and discussion of cleansing of the conscience in 10:22 seems to demand that the author of Hebrews read the “new” covenant language of Jer 38 LXX (31 MT), including its promise that God’s laws would be placed or written in or on the hearts and minds of believers (compare the details of sequence and prepositions in Heb 8:10 and 10:16), through the lens of Ezek 36:25–27 LXX, which says, I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your unclean acts and from all your idols, and I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will give in you, and I will remove the stone heart from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will give my spirit in you and will act so that you walk in my statues and keep my judgments and perform them.” (NETS)

This passage from Ezekiel may provide the only extant discussion of “sprinkling the heart” in Second Temple period Jewish literature.47 Regardless, it introduces the idea that God’s (S)pirit will enable God’s people to know and obey God’s instruction; it provides a nexus for language of cleansing, renewal of the heart, and activity of God’s (S)pirit, such that Hebrews could go further and interpret the placement of God’s law on human hearts (Jer 38:33 LXX) with the Spirit’s work of purifying the heart and thus cleansing the conscience. If so, this brings us back to Heb 9:13–14 and the perplexing phrase “through eternal spirit.” I propose that the eternal Spirit thus is utilized by Jesus to cleanse the conscience of believers and thereby participate with and in the new covenantal sacrifice of the “blood of Christ” (9:14). Admittedly my proposal does not resolve all of the awkwardness of the language in Heb 9:13– 14, but it does seek to make sense of the grammar and overall thrust of the author’s argument.48

46. Compare the discussion of baptism in Hebrews in Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 242–50. 47. Cf. the discussion of Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 474. 48. In my aforementioned article I acknowledge and address several examples, including the fact that “blood of Christ” rather than the Spirit is the grammatical subject of the purificatory

THE “CONSCIENCE” CONUNDRUM OF 1 PETER 3:21

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS

FOR INTERPRETATION OF

359

1 PETER 3:21

What might this consideration of possible parallels in Hebrews (especially 9:13–14 and 10:22) contribute to the interpretation of 1 Pet 3:21? Both traditions draw on physical, water baptism in order to explain an internal experience, even if they do so in different ways. First Peter explicitly evokes water baptism, but even there in a creative way prompted by mention of God’s earlier deliverance of the faithful through the flood, to compare it in a distinguishing but not negating way with the appeal or pledge related to a good conscience. The ultimate benefit is not a cleansed body but rather a good conscience, but one need not infer anything negative about the physical baptismal rite. The point is that some real spiritual thing has occurred that surpasses a mere washing. Hebrews 10:22 correlates cleansing of the heart’s conscience and cleansing of the body as related experiences, but the contextual emphasis is on the former. Little is achieved by comparing the two texts on this basis. The greater potential contribution of this comparison lies in the descriptions of the conscience. Put a different way, both texts extol a particular kind of conscience – a good conscience in 1 Pet 3:21 and a cleansed conscience in Hebrews. I have argued that Hebrews presents the latter as a new covenant benefit related chiefly to the activity of the Holy Spirit, as utilized in cooperative instrumentality by Jesus in his sacrifice. Jesus – in the “blood of Christ” – takes the active role, and the Spirit’s cleansing of the conscience for those who engage the new covenant is a vital, signifying, and beneficent corollary of his sacrificial work. Put more directly, believers experience the Spirit’s cleansing of the conscience because of the self-sacrifice of Jesus. But what of the Spirit in 1 Pet 3:21? It is not mentioned (assuming, as above, that πνεῦμα in 3:18 is not relevant for this matter). Could one discuss the rite of baptism in the early Christian era, however, without assuming that the Spirit was involved in that experience? We have observed above that most recent interpreters of 1 Pet 3:21 (apart from translation committees) now understand ἐπερώτημα in the sense of “pledge” rather than “appeal,” and this implies a proactive move toward God by those who receive baptism. Also, most scholars agree that the Petrine author ultimately grounds the efficacy of baptism in the resurrection of Jesus.49 Scholars act in Heb 9:14, the implied correlation of the Spirit and the Levitical priests in my reading, and the abiding awkwardness of the phrase “eternal spirit.” 49. The importance of Jesus’s resurrection for the author of Hebrews has long been debated, but at a minimum, a few statements in the book (6:2; various comments in Heb 11, most explicitly 11:35; also 13:20, assuming this section of the chapter is original to the book)

360

E. F. MASON

are divided, however, about whether the “good conscience” prompts the pledge or else the baptismal pledge is intended to secure such a conscience. It is far from certain that the authors of Hebrews and 1 Peter must have thought about these issues in similar ways, even if the two books have certain overlaps of language and themes here and elsewhere. (In fairness, though, other such correspondences can be identified between each of these books and, e.g., between them individually and the writings of Paul.) Many scholars associate both Hebrews and 1 Peter with a Roman context of some sort, whether as the location of the audience or the author, but such identifications are examples of educated speculation grounded in brief comments that may be open to varying interpretations (i.e., “those from Italy send you greetings” in Heb 13:24, which could conceivably imply greetings from friends presently in Italy or else displaced from there; greetings from “Babylon” in 1 Pet 5:13, usually – but not unanimously – understood as a cipher for Rome).50 That said, if one grants significance to the way Hebrews understands the cleansing of the conscience as a new covenant benefit of Jesus’s self-sacrifice, perhaps one might incline toward reading baptism in 1 Pet 3:21 as undertaken by believers as a pledge-like commitment to God in expectation of receiving a good conscience as a benefit of the resurrection of Jesus. While admittedly the two biblical authors approach the issue from differing angles, both may also understand the establishment of a proper conscience as a benefit granted to the believer by Divine action. Judson University

Eric F. MASON51

do imply that the author embraces the broader concept. Recent monographs that emphasize the centrality of Jesus’s own resurrection for the theology of Hebrews include David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011); and Christopher A. Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT 2/338 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). 50. Indeed, the eminent Petrine scholar to whom this chapter and volume are dedicated rejects the interpretation of Babylon as Rome. 51. For Troy W. Martin – scholar, mentor, colleague, and friend.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

19 THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1989–2019

I first met Troy Martin at a session of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research where I was presenting my very first academic paper. I was of course nervous about my presentation, but afterwards at the society’s dinner I ate at the same table as Troy. His kind words and encouragement meant so much to a timid graduate student. When I attended more meetings, I quickly realized that this type of generosity was not reserved for the timid alone, but is the way that Troy interacts with all his colleagues. He exemplifies a blend of virtues to which all academics should aspire: he is a rigorous scholar, a generous colleague, and a man who practices philanthropia within the academy and the church. I was both delighted and intimidated as I began the task of writing this annotated bibliography of Troy’s publications. I was delighted because it would be an opportunity to read Troy’s work systematically, but I was intimidated because I knew the breadth and diversity of his writings would make my task challenging. While it is difficult to characterize Troy’s scholarship succinctly because he writes on such wide-ranging topics, the majority of his work focuses on finding meaning in the details. He has written on Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, every canonical Gospel, Acts, the DeuteroPauline letters, the Catholic Epistles, and a host of extrabiblical writings. I asked myself, is there a topic he has not written on? Troy is rightly lauded for his vast number of publications, but more importantly, he is recognized by his colleagues as a scholar of the highest quality. He is able to mine well-trodden biblical passages to bring forth new meanings and contexts that would have gone unnoticed by a less skillful scholar. His sensitivity to the nuances of the Greek language and the intellectual history of the Greco-Roman world bring depth and relevance to his work that a reader can immediately appreciate and apply.

364

T. J. CALPINO

Reviewing Troy’s work has also given me a wealth of knowledge to share in the classroom with my own students. I have recently added several references to Troy’s work to the reading list for my New Testament class, and the students have received these very well. A gifted teacher and pastor, Troy possesses the rare skills of being able to take complex, technical topics and make them both comprehensible and relevant to nonspecialist and specialist audiences alike. I have spoken with several of Troy’s former students (including some who contributed to this volume), and they universally agree that his classes were among the most challenging and enjoyable ones they have taken. Troy has been involved extensively in service to the academy and his university, and he has presented countless academic papers locally, nationally, and internationally. He has held numerous offices in the Chicago Society of Biblical Research and the Midwest Region Society of Biblical Literature, including president for both organizations and SBL regional coordinator. He founded the Midwest SBL’s Student Religious Studies Conference, which debuted in 2007, and thereby extended his significant influence on young scholars in the region, several of whom are now his professional peers. He worked diligently as general editor of Biblical Research: The Journal of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research (for volumes 51–60, dated 2006–2015) and was honored as the journal’s first editor emeritus for his meritorious service. On the national level, he is a longstanding active member of the Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti section of the Society of Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting. He has served on many committees at Saint Xavier University and as chairperson of the Department of Religious Studies. In addition to his fine academic contributions and service to the academy, Troy is a man of the church. He has served as pastor at numerous Church of the Nazarene congregations, written Bible study pieces, and been an active member of his worship communities. He has also written pastoral books and articles that address frequently misunderstood issues such as forgiveness and marital relations. These writings seamlessly incorporate both his academic rigor and his generous, caring spirit; and they possess relevance far beyond the bounds of his own religious community because they touch upon issues at the very core of the human experience. As noted above and evidenced in the annotated bibliography entries that follow, Troy is a prolific writer. I have addressed all of his academic publications that appeared through the end of 2019. By necessity I have not included a large number of other kinds of materials, including short published responses to articles by others, editorial notes in scholarly journals, online articles and videos, book reviews, endorsements, and translations.

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

365

I hope that current and future generations of biblical scholars who consider Troy’s impressive bibliography will be both humbled by its breadth as well as inspired to reach its level of erudition. 1989 “John Wesley: Plagiarist or Purveyor of German Critical Scholarship.” Olivet Theological Journal 1.2 (October):3–5. Martin investigates what appears to be a plagiarized passage in John Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament but finds that Wesley (in a preface) gives credit for parts of his notes to John Albert Bengal’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Martin posits that even though someone of Wesley’s exegetical abilities and education surely could have avoided including German scholarship, Wesley choose to transmit this knowledge in accessible language to the common reader of his day. Martin further suggests that this choice on Wesley’s part should encourage fellow Wesleyan pastors and scholars “toward excellence in scholarship and persuasiveness in presenting our understanding of the New Testament” (5). 1990 “An Examination of New Testament Theology: A Comparison of Rudolf Bultmann and Alan Richardson.” Pneuma and Praxis 2.1:15–26. Martin uses a comparison of two radically different scholars of modern NT theology to understand better the aims and parameters of this discipline. As the different approaches of Bultmann and Richardson demonstrate, how a theologian defines and practices this discipline will largely be influenced by one’s metaphysical, historical, and hermeneutical presuppositions. 1991 “John Wesley’s Exegetical Orientation: East or West.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26.1:104–38. In this detailed discussion of the contributing influences on Wesley’s exegetical method, Martin contends that Wesley is first and foremost an exegete shaped by the Western Protestant tradition, which is informed by both Reformation and Enlightenment hermeneutics. However, the Eastern exegetical tradition does have a significant influence on Wesley as well, especially with regard to original guilt and prevenient grace. 1992 Metaphor and Composition in First Peter. SBLDS 131. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Martin uses a variety of methods – epistolary, form, and literary criticisms – to uncover broad theological themes in his revised dissertation. He characteristically sheds new light on some persistent problems in identifying the literary character of the letter and its meaning. Martin establishes the epistolary form of 1 Peter and then demonstrates that there are three metaphor clusters that point to the overall meaning of the text: household, resident aliens, and diaspora. He identifies diaspora as the controlling metaphor for the letter. Like diaspora Jews before them, Christians may experience suffering and challenges in their temporal home, but the journey will ultimately end

366

T. J. CALPINO

with God reversing their situation to one of glory. Martin concludes that the letter instructs Christians to think of themselves as righteous sufferers. “The Present Indicative in the Eschatological Statements of 1 Peter 1:6, 8.” JBL 111:307–12. Martin uses his keen eye for linguistic analysis to unravel a thorny translation issue. By showing that the correct translation of ἀγαλλιᾶσθε in 1 Pet 1:6, 8 is a present indicative with a future meaning (“you will rejoice”), Martin brings out one of the key theological themes of the letter, the tension between the believer’s current trials and the joy to come. 1993 “Time and Money in Translation: A Comparison of the RSV and the NRSV.” BR 38:55–73. Martin’s article assesses which translation is better suited for use with an introductory New Testament class. He bases his analysis on the consistency with which each version uses the formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence method of translation, and he uses examples of time and monetary expression as his control group. He concludes that the RSV, with its consistent use of the formal equivalence method, produces a better translation of the Greek and provides the beginning student with the most accurate picture of how time and money functioned in the New Testament world. 1995 “Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy.” JBL 114:437–61. Using rhetorical theory to provide context to the Galatian debate, Martin employs stasis and argumentative theory to provide a description of both parties’ positions. After defining stasis and carefully working through each part of the letter, he concludes that the letter to the Galatians is akin to a pretrial letter that threatens judicial proceedings unless the parties return to their original agreement. For the Galatian Christians, this requires that they once again reject paganism and return to Paul’s gospel of the risen Christ. Reprinted as pp. 73–94 in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Edited by Mark D. Nanos. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. “But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Col 2:17).” JBL 114:249–55. Most scholars understand the grammar of Col 2:17 to contain a contrast between “shadow” and “substance” within two grammatically equal clauses. Martin shows that they are not equal clauses, but instead represent an ellipsis. His alternate translation suggests that the focus of the sentence is on the practices of the Colossian Christians, their practice of the eucharistic feast, and an admonition to follow the Jewish calendar. The author is exhorting the Christians not to allow others/outsiders to critique them for these practices. “The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11.” NovT 37:249–61. Martin observes that three pairings in this verse (Greek/Jew, circumcised/uncircumcised, and slave/free) are all mutually exclusive categories, whereas barbarian and Scythian are overlapping categories because Scythians would be barbarians from the Greek perspective. He argues that this opposition only makes sense when understood from the Scythian

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

367

perspective, namely, that all non-Scythians are barbarians. He further indicates that the reason that the author of Colossians deviates from the customary Greek/barbarian dichotomy is due to the Cynic context of the letter. Numerous ancient sources say that Scythian traditions trace back to Heracles, the patron saint of the Cynic tenet of “living according to nature.” This article was critiqued by Douglas Campbell (“The Scythian Perspective in Col. 3:11: A Response to Troy Martin,” NovT 39 [1997]: 81–84). Martin’s rejoinder appeared in NovT 41 (1999): 256–64, where, in spite of their differences, he noted that both agree that it is the Cynic perspective that is “fomenting unrest at Colossae” (263). 1996 “By Philosophy and Empty Deceit”: Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique. JSNTSup 118. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Martin identifies a critical hermeneutical question in Colossians: Who are the opponents? After laying out the various answers from previous scholarship, he provides a corrective in three areas: method, translation, and sociohistorical context. He first points out that previous methods have fallen short because they fail to distinguish between description and identification. Description lists characteristics, but identification establishes what is unique about one group when compared with a variety of other groups. Martin’s methodological and linguistic research yields a list of descriptive conclusions: the opponents are not part of the Colossian community, they engage in persuasive speech, they use philosophical methods that discuss the elements of the universe, and they critique elements of the universe. Martin finds a sociohistorical analogue in Cynic philosophy and practice. He concludes, “This author [of Colossians] contrasts the Christian hope of the resurrected life with the Cynic training to die … This author responds to the culture-rejecting ethic of Cynic Philosophy with the culture-affirming ethic that seeks, nevertheless, to Christianize culture” (206). The scholarly contribution of this monograph lies in its ability to provide both a practical and theoretical background to Colossians with conclusions that address contemporary church issues. “Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16.” NTS 42:105–19. Martin compares the calendar references in Galatians and Colossians while avoiding the tendency to conflate the two. He demonstrates that Col 2:16 advocates for adopting a Jewish calendar system in order to avoid the calendar that is associated with the names of pagan deities and their respective rites. On the other hand, the context of Gal 4:10 points to the use of a pagan calendar system, not because Paul was advocating its use, but because he is chastising the Galatians for reverting to the pagan calendar, rites, and domestic cult. These two passages describe competing calendrical systems and provide evidence that Gentile conversion required the rejection of the pagan calendar and the adoption of the Jewish calendar. 1997 “The Christian’s Obligation Not to Forgive.” ExpTim 108:360–62. The findings of this article form the basis for later books and articles on the meaning of forgiveness and reconciliation in the Christian Scriptures (see below in 1999, 2003, and 2010). Martin points out that although many Christians think that they have an

368

T. J. CALPINO

obligation to “forgive and forget” offenses perpetrated against them, instead the Scriptures state that a perpetrator must not only ask for forgiveness but must also demonstrate genuine remorse through one’s words and subsequent actions. Martin uses many examples from the New Testament to support his argument, but most convincingly the “parable of the unforgiving servant” (Matt 18:23–35). He concludes that early Christianity stressed the difference between hollow words and true repentance. “The Chronos Myth in Cynic Philosophy.” GRBS 38:85–108. Martin argues that “myth” is the hermeneutical underpinning of Cynic philosophy, then contrasts this with the pragmatic focus of Stoicism. Both philosophies dictate that one must live according to nature, but they differ in their practice of this tenet. Cynics use the Chronos myth to look back to a golden age when earth was the common possession of gods and men, before the corrupting influences of civilization. Martin observes that Cynics “look to the past and actively poise themselves toward nature” (94) by eating off the land and by avoiding commerce, property ownership, and all forms of law except the natural laws of the cosmos. Martin provides a counterpoint to many other studies of the influences of Cynic philosophy on New Testament thought. 1998 “Assessing the Johannine Epithet ‘The Mother of Jesus.’” CBQ 60:63–73. Martin proposes a solution to why that the author of the Gospel of John (in contrast to the authors of Matthew and Luke) does not call Jesus’s mother by her proper name. He uses evidence from other ancient texts to show that the practice of referring to a woman as “mother of x” is neither unusual nor a sign of disrespect. Often ancient authors use this method to refer to women who are well known to the community, as Mary the mother of Jesus would have been. 1999 “The Ambiguities of a ‘Baffling Expression’ (Gal 4:12).” Filologia Neotestamentaria 12:123–38. Martin deals with the grammatical and translational ambiguities in Gal 4:12, usually translated: “Become like me, for I also have become like you. You have not wronged me.” Martin surveys previous scholarship and argues that the traditional translation accounts for neither the patterns of Greek grammar nor the rhetorical context of Paul’s argument in Galatians. He proposes a quite different translation of the verse: “Become as I am because I, in as much as you are brothers, need nothing from you. You wronged me.” This translation better echoes Paul’s angry tone in the letter, his desire to correct the Galatians’ hasty return to paganism, and his firm call back to his gospel of the risen Christ. “A Biblical Perspective on the Forgiveness Debate.” Pages 84–89 in Judgment Day at the White House: A Critical Declaration Exploring Moral Issues and the Political Use and Abuse of Religion. Edited by Gabriel Fackre. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. In this popular work, Martin focuses on the dilemma of forgiving public officials (here United States President Bill Clinton) for their wrongdoings while also holding them accountable. Martin points out that the adage to “forgive and forget” never occurs in Scripture but is instead a hybrid from several different speakers and contexts.

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

369

According to Matt 18:15–17, the perpetrator must be held accountable before forgiveness is dispensed. Forgiveness requires genuine repentance on the part of the perpetrator, and if the perpetrator will not repent, forgiveness is transferred away from the community to God. Martin observes that the fact that Clinton asked for forgiveness before he accepted accountability and guilt may reflect a lack of genuine repentance on his part because repentance requires action that focuses on the victims rather than the perpetrator. “Scythian Perspective or Elusive Chiasm: A Reply to Douglas A. Campbell.” NovT 41:256–64. Martin addresses Campbell’s response to his earlier article “The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11” (1995). Campbell critiques Martin’s 1995 article based on Martin’s translation of Σκύθης as “Scythian” rather than “slave” because it seems implausible to Campbell that an indigenous Scythian perspective would exist within a Greek letter addressed to an Asian Christian community. Campbell also argues that Martin misses the complex chiastic structure of Col 3:11 that opposes the terms “free barbarian and Scythian slave” (259). Martin contends that the primary and secondary literature that Campbell uses for his argument is flawed and there is no precedent for this type of complex, double chiasm in the extant literature. Instead, Martin argues through a careful reading of primary and secondary source material that the translation of “Scythian” better fits both the linguistic context of opposing terms and the sociohistorical situation of Cynic opponents fomenting unrest in the Colossian community. “The TestAbr and the Background of 1Pet 3,6.” ZNW 90:139–46. Martin proposes that the Testament of Abraham (not Gen 18:12, Philo and Josephus, or rabbinic materials) provides the proper background for interpreting Sarah’s character in 1 Pet 3:6. He cites three features present in both texts as support for this connection: Sarah repeatedly addresses Abraham as “lord” without the irony present in Gen 18:12; Sarah is portrayed as “mother of the elect”; and believing women lack fear when they perform their good deeds. “Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Gal 4.13–14).” JSNT 74:65–91. Martin proposes a solution for understanding the phrases “weakness of the flesh” and “temptation in my flesh.” The “flesh” in question is not Paul’s own illness or physical wound, but is instead the weakness of the Galatians’ flesh, the dominant reason that Paul evangelized them in the first place. The “temptation” is that the Galatians might have been inclined to view Paul’s circumcision as a weakness and used it to reject his gospel. Paul exhorts them instead to ignore their presuppositions about circumcision and remember how they initially accepted his teachings. Paul calls the Galatians to return to this original attitude and to reembrace his gospel that supersedes circumcision. 2000 “Entextualized and Implied Rhetorical Situations: The Case of 1 Timothy and Titus.” BR 45:5–24. Martin shows that the entextualized situations of the Pastoral Epistles that purport to be from the first century work well within the implied secondcentury situation of intrachurch debate over the teachings of Marcion. Timothy represents the anti-Marcionite, proto-orthodox position that refuses to sever the bond

370

T. J. CALPINO

between Israel’s faith and Christian faith. Titus, on the other hand, represents a proMarcion perspective that critiques and opposes the group responsible for 1 Timothy for Judaizing Christianity. Martin notes, “Each letter champions its own understanding of Christianity, not only its entextualized, but its implied opponents and emphasizes the importance of appointing church leaders in agreement with its own interpretation of Paul as a means of preserving ‘sound, healthy’ doctrine and faith” (24). 2001 “Effecting Change in the Translation of Epicurus’ Argument for the Immutability of the All (Her. 39.4–8).” Hermes: Zeitschrift für die klassische Philologie 129:353–61. Using Brunschwig’s investigation of the problems involved in the interpretation and translation of Epicurus’s Letter to Herodotus 39.4–8, Martin takes up Brunschwig’s call to provide an interpretation that provides logical coherence to this disputed text about the immutability of the All. Martin suggests that the logical interpretation is that Epicurus presents his position clearly and then demonstrates its logic by showing the absurdity of the positions of his rivals Plato and Aristotle. “Live Unnoticed: An Epicurean Maxim and the Social Dimension of Col 3:3–4.” Pages 227–44 in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Martin uses the lens of Epicureanism to explore the meaning of Col 3:3–4 and its three antitheses (hidden/ revealed, dead/alive, and obscure/renowned). He identifies the temporal, spatial, and mystical dimensions of the passage, then situates it within the social context of Greco-Roman Christian life. Colossians may enjoin its readers to “live unnoticed,” but this hiddenness is only required in this life. In contrast to Epicurean materialism, Christians anticipated that they would live a “revealed” life in the parousia. The Christian author of Colossians uses the three antitheses to express the relationship of the Christian community to the larger society. Rather than simply interpreting these antitheses in a vacuum, the application of the social dimension yields the insight that while the audience of Colossians lived in and understood their GrecoRoman social context, they creatively interpreted this context to incorporate the seismic hermeneutical shift effected by the coming of Christ. “Sorting the Syntax of Aristotle’s Anger (Rh. 2.2.1 1387a30–32).” Hermes: Zeitschrift für die klassische Philologie 129:474–78. Martin surveys the scholarly solutions proposed for the various syntactical ambiguities in Aristotle’s definition of anger. He proposes that the key to resolving the syntactical dilemma is focus on the use of hyperbaton. Aristotle use this same technique in several other places in this section, and he deliberately creates the unusual word order to emphasize that both parts of his definition are necessary to understand “anger.” “The Voice of Emotion: Paul’s Pathetic Persuasion (Gal 4:12–20).” Pages 181– 202 in Paul and Pathos. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Jerry L. Sumney. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. This analysis of Gal 4:12–20 identifies pathos as the main rhetorical species that Paul uses to win over the Galatian community in this section. Paul suggests that the

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

371

Galatians have enmity toward him, which seems to revolve around circumcision. Paul preached a gospel of faith in Christ, which the Galatians readily accepted; only later did they perceive that Paul had left out an important component of this faith, namely the requirement of circumcision. This practice was so reprehensible to the Galatians that they turned away from both Paul and his gospel. In order to win his audience back, Paul tries to elicit friendly feelings by showing that the distinctions that circumcision bring in the community are ultimately antithetical to community cohesion. “Watch During the Watches (Mark 13:35).” JBL 120:685–701. Martin addresses the use of four temporal phrases (evening, midnight, roostercrow, and morning) in Mark’s “Little Apocalypse.” Although German and English scholars generally suggest that these are colloquial terms used by Romans and Greeks, a careful survey of ancient sources proves otherwise. Martin pinpoints that the use of these terms is limited to Jewish sources that address situations within the Jewish temple environs. 2002 “The Brother Body: Addressing and Describing the Galatians and the Agitators as Ἀδελφοί.” BR 47:5–18. Martin argues that the instances of “brothers” in Gal 5:13 and 4:28 should be read as nominatives rather than vocatives. When read as nominatives, they suggest that Paul is addressing both the Jewish and non-Jewish Christians as brothers in an attempt to highlight the unity of both groups in the body of Christ that is formed around the eucharistic table. “The Good as God (Rom 5.7).” JSNT 25:55–70. Martin argues that God is “the good” (ὁ ἀγαθός) and the “righteous” (δίκαιος) is a righteous person. This impacts how one understands the argument in Rom 5:6–8, namely, that anyone would die for the good (here God), fewer would die on behalf of a righteous person, but no one is prepared to die on behalf of the ungodly. Only Christ took that last step and died willingly on behalf of the unrighteous and ungodly. Martin points out that the three γάρ clauses represent an argument a minore ad majus that culminates in showing that Jesus’s uncharacteristic death is what commends Christians to God. 2003 [with Avis Clendenen]. “Confronting the Culture of Resentment: A Story.” The Journal of the Mercy Association in Scripture and Theology 13:20–28. This pastoral article addresses the culture of resentment that may form in the context of Catholic ministry where men and women have unequal access to power. The authors note that Matt 18:15 describes confronting the other party rather than expecting immediate forgiveness. They suggest a step-by-step process for approaching this confrontation with attention to preparation, empathy, and caring. “Covenant of Circumcision (Gen 17:9–14) and the Situational Antitheses in Gal 3:28.” JBL 122:111–25. Martin provides a counterpoint to the traditional baptismal formula model for interpreting Jew/non-Jew, slave/free, and male/female in Gal 3:28. He instead places the origin of these antitheses in Gen 17:9–14, when God establishes the covenant of circumcision with Abraham and these same three

372

T. J. CALPINO

pairs are addressed. These pairs suggest that all can enter into the Abrahamic covenant in spite of social, religious, or gender markers. He adds, “Whether Jew or Greek, whether slave or free, whether male or female, all members of the Christian community live baptized as full members of the community” (125). [with Avis Clendenen]. Forgiveness: Finding Freedom through Reconciliation. New York: Crossroad. This book, nominated for a Catholic Press Book of the Year Award for 2003, emerged from the authors’ experiences as pastoral counselors; they found that many victims of betrayal in their most important relationships also felt that they should be the ones to forgive and forget. The authors clarify that the biblical meaning of forgiveness eschews the individualization of forgiveness and instead requires that the perpetrator must first ask for forgiveness and express true remorse. Further, the authors provide examples of biblical forgiveness and suggest a process that pastors and spiritual directors may find helpful when dealing with “the painful relational dilemmas that hold people emotionally and spiritually captive” (xi). True biblical forgiveness requires interpersonal and communal dimensions as well as the healing presence of God’s grace. 2004 “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13–15: A Testicle Instead of a Head-Covering.” JBL 123:71–80. Martin contextualizes Paul’s argument that women should cover their heads in public worship by pointing out the different understandings of male and female physiologies in ancient Greco-Roman medical texts compared to modern thought. Greco-Roman women were required to cover their hair out of modesty since hair was considered part of the female genitalia, which should never be exposed while praying or worshiping God. The counterpart to female hair is the male testicle. “Confusing a testicle with a head covering will render even the deftest of arguments ‘convoluted’ and prevent anyone from being ‘able to decide with certainty which behavior’ the argument reproaches or recommends. The problem with Paul’s argument from nature for the veiling of women in public worship arises not from Paul’s convoluted logic or flawed argumentation, but from the philological confusion of modern interpreters who fail to understand the ancient physiological conception of hair … and confuse a testicle … with a head covering” (84). This signal article created a vigorous discussion and sparked a debate with Mark Goodacre (“Does περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15?” JBL 130 (2011): 391– 96). Martin replied with “Περιβόλιον as ‘Testicle’ in 1 Cor 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre,” JBL 132 (2013): 453–65. [with Avis Clendenen]. Uzdrawiajaca sita prezebaczenia. Translated by Jerzy Wolak. Poland: Wydawnictwo WAM. Polish translation of Forgiveness: Finding Freedom through Reconciliation (2002). 2005 “Veiled Exhortations Regarding the Veil: Ethos as the Controlling Factor in Moral Persuasion (1 Cor 11:2–15).” Pages 255–273 in Rhetoric, Ethic and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson. ESEC 11. London: T&T Clark. Martin blends his knowledge of rhetoric and of the medical texts to provide a plausible

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

373

explanation to the contentious problem of decoding Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11:2– 16. He focuses Paul’s use of ēthos in order to demonstrate that the rhetorical exigence of Paul’s argument is focused on imperfections in the Corinthians’ knowledge rather than imperfections in their conduct. This is based on an analysis of two parts of the argument, one according to creation (11:2–12) and the other according to propriety (11:13–16). Paul tries to convince his audience to break with the practices of their past and live according to the ways (based in Jewish traditions) that Paul has taught them. 2006 “Paul’s Pneumatological Statements and Ancient Medical Texts.” Pages 105–26 in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune. Edited by John Fotopoulos. NovTSup 122. Leiden: Brill. Martin skillfully contextualizes Paul’s statements on πνεῦμα through the lens of the ancient medical texts, especially the Hippocratic Corpus, Erasistratus, Herophilus of Chalcedon, Diocles of Carystus, and Praxagoras of Cos. After surveying these writers, he concludes that the heart is the organ that pumps the πνεῦμα through the body and provides it with nourishment so that the person can conduct oneself rationally. Further, since the πνεῦμα is also responsible for movement of the body, when it is not flowing properly the body becomes paralyzed. Martin then relates this to Paul’s statements about the reception of the Spirit. Converts receive the Spirit through their pores in baptism, through oro-nasal breathing in the reception of the gospel message, and through digestion when they partake in the eucharistic meal. The reception of the Spirit not only relates to physical health, but also the spiritual health and life of the believer. He notes, “Paul’s statements appropriately warn the Eucharistic participants to examine their constitution and condition before partaking of the spiritually powerful Eucharistic foods” (125). The eucharistic foods provide health and life only to those who are in Christ. 2007 “Circumcision and the Holiness of God’s Galatian Ecclesiae.” Pages 219–37 in Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament. Edited by Kent E. Brower and Andy Johnson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Even though the word “holy” does not appear in Galatians, Martin demonstrates that the entire letter is a sustained discussion of the holiness of the community. He does this through the cultural repertoire of circumcision, one of the key topics of Galatians. The three different connotations of circumcision are the experiences of Abraham, the Babylonian exiles, and the arrival of the Greeks in Palestine. The implications of this article are both theoretical and practical. The Galatian believers were able to maintain their holiness before God without circumcision. On a practical level, the modern church continues to establish the boundaries of what is holy. Martin’s article gives thoughtful insights into how to engage these church debates faithfully while allowing for fresh pastoral alternatives. “Rehabilitating a Rhetorical Stepchild: First Peter and Classical Rhetorical Criticism.” Pages 41–71 in Reading First Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark. This chapter summarizes the methodology and conclusions of Martin’s monograph Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (1992).

374

T. J. CALPINO

Martin suggests that one reason 1 Peter is considered a “rhetorical stepchild” is because its paraenetic content makes it difficult to apply ancient rhetorical categories accurately. Martin, however, argues that using this method with proper restraint identifies the controlling metaphor of the letter and elucidates the methods of argumentation used throughout. 2009 “The Syntax of Surprise, Irony, or Shifting of Blame in Gal 1:6–7.” BR 54:79– 98. Martin evaluates the proposal of Cornelius A. Lapide and Heinrich Schott that the εἰ μή in Gal 1:7 is linked to θαυμάζω in 1:6. This reading supports Hans Dieter Betz’s assertion that Galatians is an example of forensic rhetoric. Further, Martin uses examples of Greco-Roman letters that show this same syntax. One of the characteristics of forensic rhetoric is the strategy of shifting the blame from the group addressed in the letter to another party. Rather than truly being surprised, Paul’s statement is one of irony; he is not surprised by the apostasy of some members of the community but instead blames the agitators of this phenomenon. 2010 “Ancient Medical Texts, Newly Re-Discovered: The Medical Background of Biblical Breathing.” Early Christianity 1:513–38. Martin defines the boundaries of the ancient medical corpus and suggests how New Testament exegetes can use these texts to provide an important contextual background to their analyses. He focuses on how the ancient writers defined breathing and understood its function within the human body. Martin uses this context to analyze biblical passages that discuss breath, including Gen 2:7; 6:3; John 3:6–8; 20:22; Mark 15:39; Acts 2:1–4; 1 Cor 10:3–4; 12:13. Martin notes that even though ancient writers did not all agree on how breathing occurred, “they would not have read them as modern readers do … the questions they ask, and the answers they give provide an interesting and productive context for interpreting the biblical breathing passages” (537). [with Todd D. Still]. “Colossians.” Pages 489–503 in The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Edited by David E. Aune. Chichester, West Sussex: WileyBlackwell. This excellent survey of the major issues and background for a study of Colossians is appropriate for an undergraduate classroom. In addition to the customary attention to date, place of composition, and language, Martin and Still also include helpful sections on archaeology, intertextuality, and rhetorical analysis. An extensive bibliography for further study is included. [with Andrea V. Oelger]. I Promise to Hate, Despise, and Abuse You until Death Do Us Part: Marriage in a Narcissistic Age. Bourbonnais, IL: Bookend Publishers. Coauthored with his daughter, this deeply personal book looks closely at the biblical texts and interpretations that often are used to justify keeping women in troubled marriages in order to avoid divorce. Martin intersperses biblical exegesis with reflections from contemporary women who are or have been married to narcissistic men. Martin’s exegesis incorporates the Greco-Roman social context to demonstrate that rather than being “texts of terror,” the biblical texts provide a message that mandates human flourishing rather than submission. Whether women choose to

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

375

divorce or stay with their narcissistic husbands, this book provides practical tools and advice for women to reclaim their autonomy and sense of self-esteem. “Invention and Arrangement in Recent Pauline Rhetorical Studies: A Survey of the Practices and the Problems.” Pages 48–118 in Paul and Rhetoric. Edited by J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe. New York: Continuum/T&T Clark. In this lengthy survey of the various approaches to Pauline rhetorical studies (with a focus on the Greco-Roman rhetorical categories of “invention and arrangement”), Martin give special attention to Hans Dieter Betz’s commentary on Galatians as foundational for the questions raised by second-generation rhetorical scholars. “Investigating the Pauline Letter Body: Issues, Methods, and Approaches.” Pages 185– 212 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Sean Adams. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill. Martin discusses the meaning and parameters of the Pauline letter body. Exegesis should take into consideration that Pauline letter bodies are substantially longer and more detailed than those in the vast majority of GrecoRoman letters, therefore one cannot simply apply the same methodology to both. Rather than determining the body by default (namely, that the body is everything that is not the prescript, thanksgiving, and closing), Martin suggests that the body should be determined by the unique argument and exempla used in each of Paul’s letters. 2011 “Clarifying a Curiosity: The Plural Bloods (αἱμάτων) in John 1:13.” Pages 175–85 in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood. Edited by Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson. WUNT 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Martin again uses his knowledge of the ancient medical texts to unravel the thorny question of what the author of John means by the reference to “plural bloods.” This plural may be unusual in the New Testament, but it is not in the medical texts, especially the Hippocratic authors and Galen. Thus the phrase “not from bloods” refers to the fact that conception under normal circumstances requires female menstrual blood and the blood of the male (semen). In John, the children of God are conceived according to a new birth using only one blood, i.e., God provides all the necessary procreative materials. 2012 “Performing the Head Role: Man is the Head of the Woman.” BR 57:69–80. Martin analyzes the different approaches to the meaning of κεφαλή in 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23. He asks whether this means that man is the ruler of the woman (the traditionalist argument) or if there some other way of interpreting these difficult passages that stays true to the biblical context and allows for flourishing within marital relationships? Using the ancient medical texts, Martin shows that Paul and other biblical writers conceived of the heart as the control center of the body. He writes, “If Paul wanted to construct a metaphor consistent with his physiology to specify man as the ruler of the woman, he would need to identify man as the heart of the woman. By identifying man as the head of the woman Paul does not specify man as the leader, controller, or ruler of woman … therefore source is a much more likely meaning for κεφαλή” (79–80).

376

T. J. CALPINO

2013 “Περιβόλιον as ‘Testicle’ in 1 Cor 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre.” JBL 132:453–65. Martin addresses Goodacre’s reply (“Does περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15?” JBL 130 [2011]: 391–96) to his earlier article “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13–15: A Testicle instead of a Head-Covering” (2004). Goodacre claims that Martin’s translation of περιβόλαιον as “testicle” instead of “veil” is not only anomalous, but also lacks lexical precedent. Further, he concludes that the two examples Martin uses – one from Euripides, Herc. Fur. 1269, and the other from Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.15.2 – do not “make his case” (395). Martin responds by first appealing to modern linguistics, where context rather than lexical parallels matters most, even if the context requires a heterodox translation. Further, Martin argues that the context requires this translation since Paul’s argument is focused on distinguishing the difference between long hair on men and women. Through numerous examples from the ancient world, he makes the case both linguistically and contextually that the translation of “testicle” is more appropriate than “veil.” “Roaring Lions among Diaspora Metaphors: First Peter 5:8 in its Metaphorical Context.” Pages 165–77 in Bedrängnis und Identität: Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefe. Edited by David du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: de Gruyter. Martin utilizes the metaphoric and structural analysis documented in his doctoral dissertation (Metaphor and Composition in First Peter, 1992) that identified diaspora as the controlling metaphor of 1 Peter. Here Martin focuses on the metaphor of the roaring lion; he concludes that the source domain of the ferocious, menacing lion should be mapped to the devil. The readers of 1 Peter in “the diaspora” should take care not to be devoured by the ravenous lion/devil, and instead they should rely on their good shepherd to see them through their trials. 2014 “Animals Impregnated by the Wind and Mary’s Pregnancy by the Holy Spirit.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 31:11–24. Martin uses his encyclopedic knowledge of the ancient medical texts to shed light on the discussion of Mary’s Spirit-induced pregnancy in Matt 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35. These biblical accounts emphasize the metaphysical or miraculous, but ancient writers from Homer forward pragmatically discuss the phenomenon of animals that were impregnated by the πνεῦμα. Although this may seem a stretch to modern reader, the church fathers discussed Mary’s miraculous impregnation in these same terms. Further, the use of the preposition ἐκ and the phrase “the power of the Most High” denote not agency but the potency of the “holy wind” to bring about Mary’s pregnancy and to make it strong and viable. Martin notes, “The ancient belief that animals could conceive by the wind thus provided the Gospel writers with the means to articulate and express the miraculous circumstances of Mary’s pregnancy from the holy wind and to make this Christian belief credible to non-Christians” (24). This article was republished in Italian as a monograph in 2015 (see below). “Christians as Babies: Metaphorical Reality in First Peter.” Pages 99–112 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Martin notes the metaphor

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

377

of Christians as babies in 1 Peter. He defines and describes modern metaphor theory as well as how metaphors functioned in the Greco-Roman world. Martin “maps” the source domain to the ancient understanding of newborns and infant nutrition. He uses the Hippocratic and Aristotelian corpora to demonstrate that just as babies are conceived by the mixing of the material (maternal) and active (paternal) bloods, Christians are begotten through the material blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrament and the Word of God in the gospel. Mapping this metaphor demonstrates that having a new life in Christ is a dynamic process that is not completed in baptism or any other single event. Earthly life is akin to that in the diaspora; Christians must keep faith and hope until they are “home” in their true life in heaven with Christ. [editor]. Genealogies of New Testament Rhetorical Criticism: The Contributions of Hans Dieter Betz, George A. Kennedy, Wilhelm Wuellner, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and Vernon Robbins. Minneapolis: Fortress. This volume includes revised and expanded versions of presentations at the Rhetoric and New Testament group at the 2011 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Francisco. Each scholar named in the subtitle is the focus of two chapters in the book, an evaluation of that scholar’s contributions to and influence on rhetorical study of the New Testament, followed by a response from the scholar herself or himself (when possible) or else a close associate. A final chapter offers reflections on the entire project. Martin contributed the preface and the evaluative chapter on the work of Hans Dieter Betz (see below). [editor with Eric F. Mason]. Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. RBS 77. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. This volume includes an introduction (coauthored by Mason and Martin) and thirteen chapters addressing various aspects of interpretation of these three epistles, including authorship, literary relationships, rhetoric, apocalypticism, Christology, metaphors (by Martin on 1 Peter; see “Christians as Babies” above), paraenesis, use of biblical and nonbiblical traditions, and identification of opponents. Other chapters explore patristic reception of the texts and interpretation through the lens of modern methodologies. “The Ur-ancestor of New Testament Rhetorical Criticism: The Rhetorical Contributions of Hans Dieter Betz.” Pages 13–44 in Genealogies of New Testament Rhetorical Criticism: The Contributions of Hans Dieter Betz, George A. Kennedy, Wilhelm Wuellner, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, and Vernon Robbins. Edited by Troy W. Martin. Minneapolis: Fortress. Martin pays tribute to the contributions of Hans Dieter Betz, his dissertation director at the University of Chicago. Martin concentrates on the signal contribution that Betz made to the method of rhetorical criticism, especially his work on Galatians. Martin notes that Betz can be called the progenitor of the method since he initiated, discovered, and practiced the method before anyone else; his research has given birth to a massive number of rhetorical studies since 1974. 2015 Il vento fecondo: Gravidanze insolite nel mondo antico. Translated by Romeo Fabbri. Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna 13. Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano. Italian translation of “Animals Impregnated by the Wind and Mary’s Pregnancy by the Holy Spirit” (2014).

378

T. J. CALPINO

2016 “Emotional Physiology and Consolatory Etiquette: Reading the Present Indicative with Future Meaning in the Eschatological Statement in 1 Pet 1:6.” JBL 135:649– 60. Martin argues that translating the verb ἀγαλλιᾶσθε in 1 Pet 1:6 as referencing future rejoicing is more in line with the ancient physiological understanding of emotions than the more widespread practice of translating the verb with a present reference. His argument relies on the notion that in ancient physiology, human beings cannot experience two conflicting emotions such as rejoicing and grieving at the same time. In addition, because Martin thinks that 1 Peter is an example of consolatory rhetoric, for the author to suggest that the grieving readers are in fact presently rejoicing would have been a shocking and insensitive lapse of established etiquette. Referring to his article “The Present Indicative in the Eschatological Statements of 1 Pet. 1:6, 8” and his revised dissertation Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (both 1992), Martin concludes that 1 Pet 1:6 emphasizes “this future exuberant joy at the revelation of Jesus Christ and to emphasize the nearness and certainty of this joy for those grieving at present” (660). “Faith: Its Qualities, Attributes, and Legitimization in 1 Peter.” BR 61:46–61. Martin defines the concept of faith in 1 Peter (in a thematic journal issue on faith and faithfulness in Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles), noting that words based on the πιστ– stem occur at least a dozen times in the letter demonstrating the importance of this concept in the letter. The general qualities of faith that 1 Peter shares with other New Testament writings is that faith involves persuasion and acting on the basis of that persuasion. The particular qualities of faith in 1 Peter are belief “in” (εἰς) two important ideas: Israel’s God and a salvation that will be fully revealed in the end times. Further, the faith of the community will be tested and refined by suffering and tests of the devil, who seeks to disrupt and destroy the relationship of the community and God. Martin understands “diaspora” as the controlling metaphor of the letter (see his 1992 revised dissertation Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter), which allows the Israelite traditions found in the letter to be transferred to faith in Jesus Christ, both his passion and future glory. Finally, the paranesis of the document authenticates faith in the salvation of the gentiles – a claim that would have been especially salient to the largely gentile recipients of the letter – and the assurance that the salvation offered through the God of Israel is now offered to them through Jesus Christ. “Paul and Circumcision.” Pages 113–42 in vol. 1 of Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Revised edition. 2 vols. New York: Bloomsbury. Martin relies on much of his previous work on the ancient medical texts, especially as they relate to circumcision and the heart (see his 1999, 2007, and 2012 articles on circumcision). The chapter focuses mainly on how the early Christian community navigated and ultimately resolved the controversy over having both circumcised and uncircumcised people blended into one cohesive community. Martin cleverly calls this controversy a “circumcision cyclone.” Martin maintains that in Galatians and Romans, Paul argues for this inclusiveness based on the circumcision of the believer’s hearts rather than on the physical circumcision of the penis. By focusing on the spiritual circumcision, Paul can thread the needle and allow persons on both sides of the debate – those who want to require gentile circumcision and those who side with Paul that it is not required – to come together in church.

THE WRITINGS OF TROY W. MARTIN

379

“Tasting the Eucharistic Lord as Useable (1 Pet. 2:3).” CBQ 78:515–25. Martin builds on his earlier article “Christians as Babies” (2014). He reads 1 Pet 2:3 in the context of ancient medical texts and their description of infant nutrition, but here he focuses on the eucharistic component of the metaphor’s domain. Like newborn babies, new Christians desire to be nourished by the body and blood of Christ so that they may grow strong in their new faith. 2017 “Christ’s Healing Sore: A Medical Reading of 1 Petri 2,24.” Vetera Christianorum 54:143–54. Martin once again uses his encyclopedic knowledge of the ancient medical texts to maintain that μώλωψ in 1 Pet 2:24 is a singular (rather than plural) Greek term that generally references a bodily sore. In contrast to our modern understanding of sores as a sign of illness, ancients saw them as proof of the body’s ability to heal itself by drawing damaged substances to one location so that the surrounding tissue could be healthy. The author of 1 Peter uses this hygienic metaphor to describe how Christ’s sore – his damaged body on the cross – took in the damage caused by believers’ sins in order to facilitate their health. “Peter and the Expansion of Early Christianity in the Letters of Acts (15:23–29) and First Peter.” Pages 87–99 in Delightful Acts: New Essays on Canonical and Noncanonical Acts. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Martin notes three important similarities between 1 Peter and the letter from the Jerusalem Assembly in Acts 15:23–29 that have been overlooked by commentators. First, both letters were both written and/or sent through the hand of Silas/Silvanus. Second, the letters are both addressed to contiguous areas of Asia Minor. Third, the letters share a similar rhetorical exigence and argument. In light of these similarities, he concludes that both letters were sent to legitimate the community standing of gentile Christians in Asia Minor through the apostolic authorship of Peter and the reliability of the letter carrier Silvanus through apostolic approbation. Martin concludes that the occasion and purpose of these letters is closer than any surface differences might indicate. 2018 “Concluding the Book of Job and YHWH: Reading Job from the End to the Beginning.” JBL 137 (2018): 299–318. Most interpreters read Job 42:2–6 as uttered by Job but struggle to explain his position without introducing other complications. Martin proposes instead that assigning vv. 2–4 to Job but vv. 5–6 to YHWH – all set within a narrative frame of 42:1, 7 – allows for a more coherent reading, one that allows Job a hearing before YHWH, the conclusion of YHWH’s case against him, Job’s penetant response, and YHWH’s redress for Job’s plight via vindication (42:7– 9) and restitution (42:10–17). Martin appeals to similarities between Job 42:1–7 and the important Babylonian poem Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi to substantiate his interpretation, as the latter describes Marduk’s eventual mercy on a righteous sufferer. “Dating First Peter to a Hairdo (1 Pet 3:3).” Early Christianity 9 (2018): 298–318. Martin proposes a date for the composition of the epistle between 79 and 81 CE. The terminus a quo is established on the basis of 1 Pet 3:3, where the author criticizes

380

T. J. CALPINO

ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν … κόσμος (“the outward attire of embraiding of hairs”), which Martin understands in reference to the elaborate orbis comarum hairstyle that was popularized by the wife and daughter of the emperior Titus in the late 70s and which often incorporated both one’s natural hair and that obtained from other humans or animals. The terminus ad quem may be the end of Titus’s reign; the epistle’s positive assessment of governors and the emperor may reflect his policies against retribution and informants despite a series of calamities (including the eruption of Vesuvius, a plague, and a massive fire that destroyed numerous temples in Rome) that likely fueled popular persecution of Christians. 2019 “A Tribute to Adela Yarbro Collins on Her Installation as Honorary President of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, October 20, 2018.” BR 64 (2019): 1–2. Martin hails various facets of the honoree’s scholarship and achievements.

Loyola University Chicago

Teresa J. CALPINO

20 COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aageson, James W. “1 Peter 2.11–3.7: Slaves, Wives and the Complexities of Interpretation.” Pages 34–49 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004. Abbott, T. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897. Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. —. “Suffering Servant and Suffering Christ in 1 Peter.” Pages 176–88 in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Aland, Kurt. Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament. 2 vols. New York: de Gruyter, 1975. Albl, Martin C. “And the Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections. NovTSup 96. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Aletti, Jean-Noël. Saint Paul Épître aux Éphésiens. EBib 42. Paris: Gabalda, 2001. Allen, David M. “‘The Forgotten Spirit’: A Pentecostal Reading of the Letter to the Hebrews?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 51–66. Almond, Philip C. The Devil: A New Biography. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014. Alon, Gedalia[h] [Gedalyahu]. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70– 640 C.E.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. —. Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. Arichea, Daniel C., and Eugene Albert Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter. Helps for Translators. New York: United Bible Societies, 1980. Armitage, D. J. “An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis with Reference to Galatians 1,8–9.” Bib 88 (2007): 365–92. Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. —. Ephesians: Power and Magic. SNTSMS 63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. —. “‘I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief.” NTS 51 (2005): 429–49. Ashton, John. The Religion of Paul the Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

382

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Aune, David E. The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Edited by J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Avi-Yonah, M. “The Samaritans in Romano-Byzantine Times.” ErIsr 4 (1956): 34–47 [Hebrew]. Balch, David. Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. SBLMS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981. Bammel, Caroline P. “Die Pauluskommentare des Hieronymus: Die ersten wissenschaftlichen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?” Pages 187–207 in Tradition and Exegesis in Early Christian Writers. Edited by Caroline P. Bammel. VCS 500. Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1995. Barclay, John M. G. Colossians and Philemon. T&T Clark Study Guides. London: T&T Clark, 2004. —. “Ordinary but Different: Colossians and Hidden Moral Identity.” ABR 49 (2001): 34–52. —. “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership.” NTS 37 (1991): 161–86. —. Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. WUNT 275. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Barnett, Paul W. The Message of 2 Corinthians: Power in Weakness. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Barr, James. “Ἀbbā Isn’t ‘Daddy.’” JTS NS 39 (1988): 28–47. —. “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity.” JAAR 53 (1985): 201–35. Barré, Michael L. “Qumran and the ‘Weakness’ of Paul.” CBQ 42 (1980): 216–27. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: Black, 1971. —. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. BNTC. London: Black, 1979. Barrier, Jeremy W. “Marks of Oppression: A Postcolonial Reading of Paul’s Stigmata in Galatians 6:17.” BibInt 16 (2008): 336–62. Bartchy, S. Scott. ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΧΡΗΣΑΙ: First-Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21. SBLDS 11. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. —. “‘Stickless’ in Corinth: How Paul Sought to Recover His Authority.” Pages 27‒ 44 in To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and Its Social World in Honor of John H. Elliott. Edited by Stephen K. Black. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014. Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1– 3. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1974. Bauckham, Richard. The Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation. Sarum Theological Lectures. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

—. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” JBL 107 (1988): 469–94. Bauer, Thomas Johann. Paulus und die kaiserzeitliche Epistolographie. Kontextualisierung und Analyse der Briefe an Philemon und an die Galater. WUNT 276. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Beale, Gregory K. 1‒2 Thessalonians. IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Beare, Francis Wright. The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. New York: Macmillan, 1947. 3rd ed. rev. and enl. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1962. Bengtsson, Håkan. What’s in a Name? A Study of Sobriquets in the Pesharim. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 2000. Bergmann, Claudia D. Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1–18. BZAW 382. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Best, Ernest. I Peter. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1971. —. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. BNTC. London: Harper & Row, 1972. 3rd ed. London: Continuum, 2003. —. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Betz, Hans Dieter. “2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” Pages 20–45 in Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsätze III. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. —. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Hermenaia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. —. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner »Apologie« 2 Korinther 10–13. BHT 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972. —. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. —, ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells. Vol. 1: Texts. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. —. “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” NTS 21 (1975): 352–79. —. Review of Die Botschaft der Form: Zum Verhältnis von antike Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief, by Dieter Kremendahl, JTS 53 (2002): 238–41. —. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49). Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. —. Studies in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. WUNT 343. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Bieder, Werner. “Paulus und seine Gegner in Korinth.” TZ 17 (1961): 319–33. Bird, Jennifer G. Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter’s Commands to Wives. LNTS 442. London: T&T Clark, 2011.

384

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bird, Michael F. “Reassessing a Rhetorical Approach to Paul’s Letters.” ExpTim 119 (2008): 374–79. Black, C. Clifton. “Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism: The Kennedy Family.” Pages 51–78 in Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism. Edited by Troy W. Martin. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Black, Matthew. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Blakeney, E. H. The Hymn of Cleanthes. Texts for Students 26. New York: Macmillan, 1921. Blank, Sheldon. “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath.” HUCA 23 (1950– 1951): 73–95. Blänsdorf, Jürgen. “The Defixiones from the Sanctuary of Isis and Mater Magna in Mainz.” Pages 141–89 in Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza 30 Sept.–1 Oct. 2005. Edited by Richard L. Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón. RGRW 168. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bligh, John. Galatians: A Discussion of St Paul’s Epistle. Householder Commentaries. London: St Paul, 1969. —. Galatians in Greek. Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1966. Blümel, Wolfgang. Die Inschriften von Knidos, Part 1. Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 41. Bonn: R. Habelt, 1992. Boers, Hendrikus. “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters: 1 Thessalonians as a Case Study.” NTS 22 (1974): 140–58. Boring, M. Eugene. 1 Peter. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. —. “First Peter in Recent Study.” WW 24 (2004): 358–67. Borse, Udo. Der Brief an die Galater. RNT. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1940. Bradley, Keith R. “Animalizing the Slave: The Truth of Fiction.” JRS 90 (2000): 110–25. —. Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. —. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Braaten, Laurie J. “All Creation Groans: Romans 8:22 in Light of the Biblical Sources.” HBT 28 (2006): 131–59. —. “Earth Community in Hos 2.” Pages 185–203 in The Earth Story in the Psalms and Prophets. Earth Bible 4. Edited by Norman C. Habel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. —. “Earth Community in Joel 1–2: A Call to Identify with the Rest of Creation.” HBT 28 (2006): 113–29. —. “Earth Community’s Lament for Liberation in Romans 8.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. San Francisco, CA, 19 November 2011. http://www.academia.edu/25663082/Earth_Communitys_ Lament_for _Liberation_in_Romans_8.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

385

—. “Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah.” In Laurie J. Braaten and Jim Edlin. Nahum– Malachi: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2019. —. “Violence Against Earth: Moving from Land Abuse to Good Neighbor in Habakkuk,” http://www.academia.edu/25683146/Violence_Against_Earth_ Moving_from_Land_Abuse_to_Good_Neighbor_in_Habakkuk. —. “Violence to Earth: Oppression and Impoverishment of Earth Community in Habakkuk.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, GA, 22 November 2015. Braaten, Laurie J., and Jim Edlin. Nahum–Malachi: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2019. Bray, Gerald L., ed. Commentaries on Galatians–Philemon: Ambrosiaster. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. —, ed. Romans. 2nd ed. ACCS. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Bremmer, Jan N. Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Welten 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Breytenbach, Cilliers, and P. L. Day. “Satan.” DDD2 726–32. Brichto, Herbert Chanan. The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. SBLMS 13. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1963. Bring, Ragnar. Commentary on Galatians. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961. Brooks, Oscar S. “I Peter 3:21 – The Clue to the Literary Structure of the Epistle.” NovT 16 (1974): 290–305. Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1979. —. The Epistles of John. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1982. —. An Introduction to the New Testament. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome. New York: Paulist, 1983. Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971. —. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1982. —. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. —. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. —. The Letters of Paul: An Expanded Paraphrase. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. —. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. —. “The Romans Debate – Continued.” Pages 175–94 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Brueggemann, Walter. Awed to Heaven, Rooted in Earth: Prayers of Walter Brueggemann. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Bruneau, Philippe. “Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne.” BCH 106 (1982): 466–504. Bruss, Jon S. “Epigram.” Pages 117–35 in A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Edited by J. Clauss and M. Coypers. Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

386

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bryant, Robert A. The Risen Crucified Christ in Galatians. SBLDS 185. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Bucchi, Frederica. “Commentarii in Epistvlas Pavli Apostoli ad Titvm et ad Philemonem.” Pages 75–106 in Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentariorvm in Epistvlam Pavli Apostoli ad Philemonem Liber Vnvs. Edited by Frederica Bucchi. CCSL 77C. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Ist voraussetzungslose Exegese möglich?” Pages 142–50 in vol. 3 of Glauben und Verstehen: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Rudolf Bultmann. 4 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962. —. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther. Edited by Erich Dinkler. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Burke, Trevor J. “The Holy Spirit as the Controlling Dynamic in Paul’s Role as Missionary to the Thessalonians.” Pages 142–57 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. London: T&T Clark, 2011. —. “Paul’s Role as ‘Father’ to his Corinthian ‘Children’ in Socio-Historical Context (1 Corinthians 4:14‒21).” Pages 93–113 in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict: Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Keith Elliott. NovTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Burton, Ernest De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Byrne, Brendan. Galatians and Romans. SP. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2010. —. ‘Sons of God’ – ‘Seed of Abraham’: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background. AnBib 83. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Byron, John. Recent Research on Paul and Slavery. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008. —. Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A Traditio-Historical and Exegetical Examination. WUNT 162. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Cadbury, Henry J. “The Dilemma of Ephesians.” NTS 5 (1958–1959): 91–102. Caesar. The Gallic War. Translated by H. J. Edwards. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. Calhoun, Robert Matthew. Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1. WUNT 2/316. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Callan, Terrance. “The Style of Galatians.” Bib 88 (2007): 496–516. Calvin, John. Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai. Vol IV of Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. Translated by John Owen. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society. 1848. Repr. in Calvin’s Commentaries. Vol. 15. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Campbell, Barth L. Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter. SBLDS 160. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Carr, Wesley. “Rulers of This Age: 1 Corinthians 2:6–8.” NTS 23 (1976): 20– 35. Carter, Warren. “God the Father.” NIDB 2:619. —. “Going All the Way? Honoring the Emperor and Sacrificing Wives and Slaves in 1 Peter 2.13–3.16.” Pages 14–33 in A Feminist Companion to the Catholic

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

387

Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004. Castelli, Elizabeth A. Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Charlesworth, James H. The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Church, F. Forrester. “Rhetorical Structure and Design in Paul’s Letter to Philemon.” HTR 71 (1978): 17–33. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Cicero. Translated by W. Miller et al. 30 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913–2010. Clarke, Adam. Isaiah–Malachi. Vol. 4 of The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament. New corrected edition. New York: Eaton & Mains, 1823. Classen, C. J. “Kann die rhetorische Theorie helfen, das Neue Testament, vor allem die Briefe des Paulus, besser zu verstehen?” ZNW 100 (2009): 145–72. —. Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament. WUNT 128. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. —. “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric.” Pages 265–91 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Colish, Marcia L. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: Vol. 1. Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature. 2nd impr. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 34. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. —. “The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans.” HTR (1980): 91–104. —. “Sibylline Oracles.” OTP 1.317–472. Collins, Matthew A. The Use of Sobriquets in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. LSTS 67. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999. —. Second Corinthians. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. —. Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians. BETL 66. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

388

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cook, David. “I Peter iii.20: An Unnecessary Problem.” JTS NS 31 (1980): 72– 78. Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. WUNT 327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Cooper, Stephen Andrew. “Narratio and Exhortatio in Galatians according to Marius Victorinus Rhetor.” ZNW 91 (2000): 107–35. Cormack, J. M. R. “A ‘Tabella Defixionis’ in the Museum of the University of Reading, England.” HTR 44 (1951): 25–34. Cosgrove, Charles H. “Banquet Ceremonies Involving Wine in the Greco-Roman World and Early Christianity.” CBQ 79 (2017): 299–316. Craddock, Fred B. Craddock Stories. Edited by Mike Graves and Richard F. Ward. St. Louis: Chalice, 2001. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–1979. Crawford, Matthew R. “‘Confessing God from a Good Conscience’: 1 Peter 3:21 and Early Christian Baptismal Theology.” JTS NS 67 (2016): 23–37. Crook, Zeba. “Honor, Shame, and Social Status Revisited.” JBL 128 (2009): 591– 611. Crown, Alan D. “The Samaritan Diaspora.” Pages 197–217 in The Samaritans. Edited by Alan D. Crown. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Culpepper, Alan. “Children of God.” NIDB 1:590–593. Dalton, William Joseph. Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18– 4:6. AnBib 23. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. 2nd ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. D’Angelo, Mary Rose. “Abba.” NIDB 1:5–6. Daniel, Robert W., and Franco Maltomoni. Supplementum Magicum. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990. Das, A. Andrew. “The Ambiguous Common Ground of Galatians 2:16 Revisited.” BR 58 (2013): 49–61. —. Galatians. ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2014. —. Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. —. Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. de Boer, Martinus. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. de Bruyn, Theodore. Pelagius’s Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. OECS. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Debanné, Marc J. Enthymemes in the Letters of Paul. LNTS 303. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Decock, Paul B. “The Reception of the Letter to Philemon in the Early Church: Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine.” Pages 273–88 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

389

Dederen, Raoul. “On Esteeming One Day Better Than Another.” AUSS 9 (1971): 16–35. Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies. Translated by Alexander Grieve. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909. deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. —. The Letter to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. de Wet, Chris L. “The Deutero-Pauline and Petrine Haustafeln: Early Christian Oikonomia, Pastoral Governmentality and Slave-Management.” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 94 (2012): 397–415. —. “Honour Discourse in John Chrysostom’s Exegesis of the Letter to Philemon.” Pages 317–31 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Dey, Joseph. ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung von Tit 3,5. NTAbh 17.5. Münster: Aschendorff, 1937. Dibelius, Martin. Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909. —. James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Dio Cassius. Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927. Dio Chrysostom. Translated by J. W. Cohoon. 5 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932–1951. Dodd, Brian J. “Christ’s Slave, People Pleasers and Galatians 1.10.” NTS 42 (1996): 90–104. Dodd, C. H. “Ephesians.” Pages 1222–37 in The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Edited by Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey. New York: Abingdon, 1929. Domeris, William R. “Honour and Shame in the New Testament.” Neot 27 (1993): 283–97. Donelson, Lewis. I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Donfried, Karl P. “The Kingdom of God in Paul.” Pages 175–90 in The Kingdom of God in Twentieth‒Century Interpretation. Edited by Wendell Willis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. —. Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2002. Drobner, Hubertus R. The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction. Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann. 2nd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. Dryden, J. de Waal. Theology and Ethics in 1 Peter: Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation. WUNT 2/209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Dubis, Mark. I Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010.

390

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. —. Beginning from Jerusalem. Vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. —. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. —. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. —. “Pauline Legacy and School.” Pages 887–93 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997. —. Romans. 2 vols. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1988. —. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Eckey, Wilfried. Der Galaterbrief: Ein Kommentar. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010. Eden, P. T. “Venus and the Cabbage.” Hermes 91 (1963): 448–59. Elderkin, G. W. “An Athenian Maledictory Inscription on Lead.” Hesperia 5 (1936): 43–49. —. “Two Curse Inscriptions.” Hesperia 5 (1936): 382–95. Elliott, John H. 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000. —. “Disgraced Yet Graced: The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and Shame.” BTB 24 (1995): 166–78. —. A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Elliott, Scott S. “‘Thanks, but No Thanks’: Tact, Persuasion, and the Negotiation of Power in Paul’s Letter to Philemon.” NTS 57 (2011): 51–64. Ellis, E. Earle. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. WUNT 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1978. Emmel, Stephen, David Frankfurter, Marvin Meyer, Robert Ritner, Stephen H. Skiles, and Richard Smith. “Curses.” Pages 183–225 in Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. —. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. —. “Stoicism in Philippians.” Pages 256–90 in Paul in His Hellenistic Context. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius. Books II and III. De Fide. 2nd rev. ed. Translated by Frank Williams. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 79. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Epstein, Isidore, ed. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino, 1960–1990. Euripides. Translated by Arthur S. Way. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1912. Evans, Craig A. “Paul the Exorcist and Healer.” Pages 363–79 in Paul and His Theology. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

391

Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. —. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. —. Galatians: A Pentecostal Commentary. Dorset, UK: Deo, 2007. —. God’s Empowering Presence. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Ferguson, Everett. Demonology of the Early Christian World. SymS 12. New York: Mellen, 1984. Field, Frederic. Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopo Constantinopolitani interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum homilias facta. 7 vols. Bibliotheca Patrum. Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1849–1862. Fishbane, Michael A. Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York: Schocken, 1979. Fitzgerald, John T. “Domestic Violence in the Ancient World: Preliminary Considerations and the Problem of Wife-Beating.” Pages 101–21 in Animosity, The Bible, and Us: Some European, North American, and South African Perspectives. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Fika J. van Rensburg, and Herrie F. van Rooy. GPBS 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. —. “Early Christian Missionary Practice and Pagan Reaction: 1 Peter and Domestic Violence against Slaves and Wives.” Pages 24–44 in Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson. Edited by Mark W. Hamilton, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Jeffrey Peterson. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2007. —. “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Paul’s Letter to Philemon.” Pages 332–63 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2008. —. The Letter to Philemon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000. —. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1993. —. To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies. New York: Crossroad, 1981. —. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Floyd, Michael H. Minor Prophets, Part 2. FOTL 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Forbes, Christopher B. “Ancient Rhetoric and Ancient Letters: Models for Reading Paul, and Their Limits.” Pages 143–60 in Paul and Rhetoric. Edited by J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe. London: T&T Clark, 2010. —. “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric.” NTS 32 (1986): 1–30. Forsyth, Neil. The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. —. The Satanic Epic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

392

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fossum, Jarl. “Sects and Movements,” Pages 293–389 in The Samaritans. Edited by Alan D. Crown. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Foulkes, Francis. Ephesians. 2nd ed. TNTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989. Fowl, Stephen E. Ephesians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012. France, Richard T. “Exegesis in Practice: Two Examples.” Pages 252–81 in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Edited by I. H. Marshall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Francis, J. “‘Like Newborn Babes’ – The Image of the Child in 1 Peter 2:2–3.” StudBib 3 (1978): 111–17. Frankfurter, David. “Curses, Blessings, and Ritual Authority: Egyptian Magic in Contemporary Perspective.” JANER 5 (2005): 157–85. Fraser, Bruce L. “Lexicographic Slips: Gathering and Organizing Contextual Data for Dictionary Entries.” Pages 53–72 in Lexicon Dicionário de grego-português: Lexicografia e semántica lexical, caminhos para a feitura de um Dicionário de grego = Lexicography and Lexical Semantics, Questions At Issue in the Making of a Greek Lexicon. Edited by Manuel Alexandre. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Clássicos, 2008. Freedman, H., trans. Midrash Rabbah. Vol. 1. Genesis. London: Soncino, 1983. Freidenreich, David. M. Foreigners and Their Food: Constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Frey, Jean-Baptiste. Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. Vol. 1. New York: Ktav, 1975. Friedl, Alfred. “St Jerome’s Dissertation on the Letter to Philemon.” Pages 289–315 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Frilingos, Chris. “‘For My Child, Onesimus’: Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon.” JBL 119 (2000): 91–104. Frymer–Kensky, Tivka. “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel.” Pages 399–414 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Funk, Robert W. Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. —. 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Gager, John G. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. —. “Curse Tablets and Binding Spells in the Greco-Roman World.” Pages 69–87 in The Meaning of Magic: From the Bible to Buffalo Bill. Edited by Amy Wygant. Polygons: Cultural Diversities and Intersections 11. New York: Berghahn, 2006.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

393

García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–1998. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Garnsey, Peter. “The Middle Stoics and Slavery.” Pages 159–74 in Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography. Edited by P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey, and E. Gruen. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Gaster, T. H. “Satan.” IDB 4:224–28. Gempf, Conrad. “The Imagery of Birth Pangs in the New Testament.” TynBul 45 (1994): 119–35. Genesis Rabbah. Translated by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. 2 vols. London: Soncino, 1939. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians. Philadelphia, Fortress, 1986. Giles, Kevin. “The Bible Argument for Slavery: Can the Bible Mislead? A Case Study in Hermeneutics.” EvQ 66 (1994): 3–16. Gilmore, David D. “Honor, Honesty, Shame: Male Status in Contemporary Andalusia.” Pages 90–103 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Edited by David D. Gilmore. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, 1987. Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Gombis, Timothy G. “A Radically New Humanity: The Function of the Haustafel in Ephesians.” JETS 48 (2005): 317–30. Goodman, Martin. “Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century.” Pages 91–116 in Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays. AGJU 66. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Goppelt, Leonhard. A Commentary on I Peter. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Goulder, Michael D. “The Visionaries of Laodicea.” JSNT 43 (1991): 15–39. Graves, Kersey. The Biography of Satan or, A Historical Exposition of the Devil and His Fiery Dominions disclosing the oriental origin of the belief in a devil and future endless punishment; also, an explanation of the pagan origin of the scriptural terms, bottomless pit, lake of fire and brimstone, chains of darkness, casting out devils, Worm that never dieth, etc. 4th ed. New York: P. Eckler, 1924. Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Green, Joel B. 1 Peter. Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. —. “Crucifixion.” DPL 197–99. Greer, Rowan A. Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul. WGRW 26. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Gualdi-Russo, Emanuela, Ursula Thun Hohenstein, Nicoletta Onisto, Elena Pilli, and David Caramelli. “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0631-9.

394

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Guinot, Jean-Noël. “Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393–458).” Pages 885–918 in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Edited by Charles Kannengiesser. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974. Haag, Herbert. Teufelsglaube. Tübingen: Katzmann, 1974. Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. VTSup 44. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Haas, N. “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Givʻat haMivtar.” IEJ 20 (1970): 38–59. Habel, Norman C. An Inconvenient Text: Is a Green Reading of the Bible Possible? Adelaide: ATF Press, 2009. Habel, Norman C., and Peter Trudinger. Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics. SymS 46. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. Hamilton, Victor. “Satan.” ABD 5:985–89. Hanson, Paul D. Dawn of the Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Harnack, Adolf von. Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes. TUGAL 12.3. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1918–1919. Harrill, J. Albert. The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity. HUT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. —. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Harris, Horton. The Tübingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Hartin, Patrick. “Ethics in the Letter of James, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Didache: Their Place in Early Christian Literature.” Pages 289–314 in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings. Edited by Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg. SymS 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Hartman, Lars. “Some Remarks on 1 Cor. 2:1‒5.” SEÅ 34 (1974): 109‒20. Hayes, Katherine M. “The Earth Mourns”: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic. AcBib 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. —. First Corinthians. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. —. “The Letter to the Galatians.” Pages 181–348 in vol. 11 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000. Heath, Malcolm. “John Chrysostom: Rhetoric and Galations.” BibInt 12 (2004): 369–400. Heine, Ronald E. “In Search of Origen’s Commentary on Philemon.” HTR 93 (2000): 117–33. Hellmann, Monika. Judit – eine Frau im Spannungsfeld von Autonomie und göttlicher Führung. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

395

Hempel, Johannes. Apoxysmata: Vorarbeiten zu einer Religionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1961. Henderson, W. J. “Aspects of the Ancient Greek Symposion.” Akroterion 45 (2000): 6–25. Héring, Jean. The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J. Allcock. London: Epworth, 1962. Hieke, Thomas. “Torah in Judith.” Pages 97–110 in A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits. DCLS 14. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Hill, Robert Charles. Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Volume One. Translated with an Introduction. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001. Hillers, D. R. “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News.” ZAW 77 (1965): 86–90. Hippocrates, Heracleitus. Nature of Man. Regimen in Health. Humours. Aphorisms. Regimen 1–3. Dreams. Heracleitus: On the Universe. Translated by W. H. S. Jones. LCL 150. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. Hodges, Frederick M. “The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (2001): 375–405. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Tests and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Holloway, Paul. Philippians. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Homer. The Iliad. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924–1925. —. The Odyssey. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. Hommel, Hildebrecht. “Das Harren der Kreatur.” Pages 127–40 in Sebasmata: Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum frühen Christentum. Vol. 2. WUNT 32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Horbury, William. “Extirpation and Excommunication.” VT 35 (1985): 13–38. Horne, Charles M. “The Power of Paul’s Preaching.” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 8 (1965): 111‒16. Horrell, David G., Cherryl Hunt, and Christopher Southgate. Greening Paul: Rereading Paul in a Time of Ecological Crisis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Horst, Pieter W. van der. “Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11.11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology.” Pages 112–34 in A Feminist Companion to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Hort, F. J. A. The First Epistle of St. Peter, I. 1–II. 17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes. London: Macmillan, 1898.

396

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hunter, David G. “2008 NAPS Presidential Address: The Significance of Ambrosiaster.” JECS 17 (2009): 1–26. Huttar, David K. Galatians: The Gospel according to Paul. Deeper Life Pulpit Commentary. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 2001. Immerman, Ronald S., and Wade C. Mackey. “A Biocultural Analysis of Circumcision.” Social Biology 44 (1997): 265–75. Indelli, Giovanni, ed. Filodemo: L’ira. Scuola di Epicuro 5. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1988. Irenaeus of Lyons. Translated by Robert M. Grant. Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 1997. Irons, Misty S., James T. Dennison Jr., Catherine T. Drown, and Lee Irons. “Translations: Theodoret of Cyrhus; The Epistle of Paul to Philemon.” WTJ 61 (1999): 111–17. Isaac, E. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” OTP 1.5–90. Isaacs, Marie E. The Concept of Spirit. London: Heythrop, 1976. Japhet, Sara. I and II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Jeal, Roy R. “Blending Two Arts: Rhetorical Words, Rhetorical Pictures, and Social Formation in the Letter to Philemon.” Sino-Christian Studies 5 (2008): 9–38. —. Exploring Philemon: Freedom, Brotherhood, and Partnership in the New Society. Rhetoric of Religious Antiquity 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. Jeremias, Joachim. The Prayers of Jesus. SBT 2/6. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967. Jervell, Jacob. “The Signs of an Apostle: Paul’s Miracles.” Pages 77–95 in The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History. Edited by Jacob Jervell. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1984. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1995. —. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Johnson, P. F. “The Use of Statistics in the Analysis of the Characteristics of Pauline Writing.” NTS 20 (1973): 92–100. Johnston, George. “‘Kingdom of God’ Sayings in Paul’s Letters.” Pages 143–56 in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare. Edited by Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. Jordan, David R. “New Greek Curse Tablets (1985–2000).” GRBS 41 (2000): 5– 46. —. “Two Curse Tablets from Lilybaeum.” GRBS 38 (1997): 387–96. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Judge, Edwin A. “The Rhetoric of Inscriptions.” Pages 807–28 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.–A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

397

Jung, C. G. Answer to Job. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954. Justin Martyr, St.: The First and Second Apologies. Translated with introduction and notes by Leslie William Barnard. ACW. New York: Paulist, 1997. Justin Martyr. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr. Edited and translated by Denis Minns and Paul Parvis. OECT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Kalimi, Isaac. “Zion or Gerizim? The Association of Abraham and the Aqeda with Zion/Gerizim in Jewish and Samaritan Sources.” Pages 2.32–46 in Samaritan Researches, Volume V. Edited by Vittorio Morabiito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey. Studies in Judaica. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2000. Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Käsemann, Ernst. “Ephesians and Acts.” Pages 288–97 in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert. Edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966. —. “Paul and Early Catholicism.” Pages 237–50 in New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by Wilfred F. Bunge. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. —. Romans. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Kazen, Tomas. Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Kea, Perry V. “Paul’s Letter to Philemon: A Short Analysis of Its Values.” PRSt 23 (1996): 223–32. Kee, H. C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” OTP 1:775–828. Kearney, Richard. “Paul’s Notion of Dunamis: Between the Possible and the Impossible.” Pages 142–59 in St. Paul among the Philosophers. Edited by John D. Caputo and Linda M. Alcoff. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009 Keck, Leander. “‘Jesus’ in Romans.” JBL 108 (1989): 443–60. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. “Land, Idolatry, and Justice in Romans.” Pages 90–103 in Conception, Reception, and the Spirit: Essays in Honor of Andrew T. Lincoln. Edited by J. Gordon McConville and Lloyd K. Pietersen. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015. Keesmaat, Sylvia C., and Brian J. Walsh. Romans Disarmed: Resisting Empire/Demanding Justice. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2019. Kelhoffer, James A. “The Apostle Paul and Justin Martyr on the Miraculous: A Comparison of Appeals to Authority.” GRBS 42 (2001): 163‒84. Kelly, Henry Ansgar. Satan: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1969. —. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom – Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Kemmler, Dieter W. Faith and Human Reason: A Study of Paul’s Method of Preaching as Illustrated by 1‒2 Thessalonians and Acts 17, 2‒4. NovTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

398

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. —. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. WGRW 10. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003. Kenny, Anthony. A Stylometric Study of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Kinzer, Mark. Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2014. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Kitz, Anne Marie. “An Oath, Its Curse and Anointing Ritual.” JAOS 124 (2004): 315–21. Klaiber, Walter. Der Galaterbrief. Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. Neukirchener Theologie. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013. Klauck, Hans-Josef. 1. Korintherbrief. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1984. —. 2. Korintherbrief. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. —. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions. Translated by Brian McNeil. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Klein, William W. “Ephesians.” Pages 19–173 in vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Rev. ed. 13 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Knoppers, Gary N. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. —. “The Samaritan Schism or the Judaization of Samaria? Reassessing Josephus’s Account of the Mt. Gerizim Temple.” Pages 163–78 in Making a Difference: Essays on the Bible and Judaism in Honour of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi. Edited by D. J. A. Clines, I. K. Richards, and J. L. Wright. Hebrew Bible Monographs 49. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. Rev. ed. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987. Koester, Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Konradt, Matthias. “The Love Command in Matthew, James, and the Didache.” Pages 271–88 in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings. Edited by Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg. SymS 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Kraemer, David. “Problematic Mixings: Foods and Other Forbidden Substances in Rabbinic Legislation.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern 8 (2005): 35–54. Krans, Jan. “Who Coined the Name ‘Ambrosiaster’?” Pages 274–81 in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Edited by Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, and Arie Zwiep. NovTSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

399

Kremendahl, Dieter. Die Botschaft der Form: Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief. NTOA 46. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 2000. Kroll, Guilelmus [Wilhelm]. Historia Alexandri Magni (Pseudo-Callisthenes). Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmann, 1926. Kruse, Colin. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. TNTC. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1987. Kruse, Heinz. “Das Reich Satans.” Bib 58 (1977): 29–61. Kubo, Sakae. A Reader’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and a Beginner’s Guide for the Translation of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. Kumitz, Christopher. Der Brief als Medium der ἀγάπη. Eine Untersuchung zur rhetorischen und epistolographischen Gestalt des Philemonbriefes. Europäische Hochschulschriften 787. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. 17th rev. ed. Translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. —. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. Translated by S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Kundert, Lukas. “Satan.” BNP 13:11. Lampe, Peter. “Affects and Emotions in the Rhetoric of Paul’s Letter to Philemon: A Rhetorical-Psychological Interpretation.” Pages 61–78 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. —. “Keine ‘Sklavenflucht’ des Onesimus.” ZNW 76 (1985): 135–37. —. “Rhetorical Analysis of Pauline Texts – Quo Vadit?” Pages 3–21 in Paul and Rhetoric. Edited by J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. —. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 2nd ed. WUNT 2/18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Lang, Friedrich. Die Briefe an die Korinther. NTD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Langton, Edward. Essentials of Demonology: A Study of Jewish and Christian Doctrine, Its Origin and Development. London: Epworth, 1949. LaVerdiere, Eugene. “A Grammatical Ambiguity in 1 Pet 1:23.” CBQ 36 (1974): 89–94. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. —. “The Temple and World.” JR 64 (1984): 275–98. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Sacrifice and Salvation: Otherness and Domestication in the Book of Judith.” Pages 208–23 in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, and Susanna. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Levy, Ian Christopher. The Letter to the Galatians. Bible in Medieval Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. LiDonnici, Lynn R. The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, Translation and Commentary. SBLTT 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

400

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert J. “Paul the Miracle Worker: Development and Background of Pauline Miracle Stories.” Pages 180–99 in Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment. Edited by Michael Labahn and Bert J. Lietaert Peerbolte. LNTS 288. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Galater. HNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. London: Macmillan & Co., 1875. Lim, Timothy H. “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, but in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power.” NovT 29 (1987): 137‒49. Lincoln, Andrew T., and A. J. M. Wedderburn. The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990. Ling, Trevor. The Significance of Satan: New Testament Demonology and Its Contemporary Relevance. SPCK Biblical Monographs 3. London: SPCK, 1961. Linke, Konstanze. Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Dionysios Thrax. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Littré, Emile, ed. Hippocrates. Œuvres complètes: Traduction nouvelle avec le texte grec en regard, collationné sur les manuscrits et toutes les éditions; accompagnée d’une introduction, de commentaires médicaux de variantes et de notes philologiques; suivie d’une table générale des matières. Paris: J. B. Baillière, 1839–1861. Livy. Translated by Evan T. Sage et al. 14 vol. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919–2018. Lockwood, Gregory J. 1 Corinthians. ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2000. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “The Trembling of Nature during the Theophany.” Pages 173–89 in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures. AOAT 204. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1980. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990. —. “Hans Dieter Betz’ Galatians Commentary and a Retrospective Word of Commendation with Some Criticisms, Thirty Years after the Commentary’s Publication.” BR 54 (2009): 11–23. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Luckenbill, Daniel David. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–1927. Lührmann, Dieter. “Neutestamentliche Hautafeln und Antike Ökonomie.” NTS 27 (1980): 83–97. Lyons, George. Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding. SBLDS 73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Lyons, George, Robert Smith, and Kara Lyons-Pardue. Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2019.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

401

Maccoby, Hyam. Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Magen, Yitzhak. The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan. Judah and Samaria Publications 7. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008. Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000. —. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. LEC 4. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. —. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. —. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Malina, Bruce. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Rev. ed. Atlanta: John Knox, 1993. March, Eugene W. “Prophecy.” Pages 141–77 in Old Testament Form Criticism. Edited by John H. Hayes. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1977. Margulis, Baruch. “The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Reconstruction and Interpretation.” ZAW 82 (1970): 409–42. Marriott, Charles, and E. B. Pusey. Theodoreti episc. Cyri Commentarius in omnes B. Pauli epistolas II: Continens epistolas ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses, Hebraeos, Timotheum, Titum et Philemonem. Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiae Catholicae. Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1870. Martin, Dale B. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1986. —. Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox, 1991. Martin, Troy W. “Christians as Babies”: Metaphorical Reality in 1 Peter.” Pages 99– 112 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. —. “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28.” JBL 122 (2003): 111–25. —, ed. Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. —. “Hans Dieter Betz: Ur-ancestor of Rhetorical Criticism.” Pages 13–43 in Genealogies of Rhetorical Criticism. Edited by Troy W. Martin. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. —. Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter. SBLDS 131. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. —. “The TestAbr and the Background of 1 Pet 3, 6.” ZNW 90 (1999): 139–46. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Marxsen, Willi. Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems. Translated by G. Buswell. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Mason, Eric F. “‘Through Eternal Spirit’: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit of Hebrews 9:14.” Pages 175–90 in Son, Sacrifice, and Great Shepherd: Studies

402

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edited by David M. Moffitt and Eric F. Mason. WUNT 2/510. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. Mayer, Wendy. The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations. OrChrAn 273. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 2005. McGrath, James J. “Through the Eternal Spirit”: An Historical Study of the Exegesis of Hebrews 9:13–14. Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961. Mealand, David L. “The Extent of the Pauline Corpus: A Multivariate Approach.” JSNT 59 (1995): 61–92. —. “Positional Stylometry Reassessed: Testing a Seven Epistle Theory of Pauline Authorship.” NTS 35 (1989): 266–86. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Meijer, P. A. Stoic Theology: Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods. Delft: Eburon, 2007. Mercer, Mark. “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse: A Study of 2 Kings 2:23–25.” Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology 21 (2002): 165–98. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1975. Meyer, Marvin, ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. Mitchell, Christopher Wright. The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament. SBLDS 95. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Mitchell, Margaret M. “1 and 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 51–63 in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. —. “John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look.” HTR 88 (1995): 135–48. —. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. 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 Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Mitton, C. Leslie. Ephesians. NCBC. London: Oliphants, 1987. Moffitt, David M. Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to Hebrews. NovTSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Montanari, Franco, ed. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Moo, Jonathan. “Romans 8.19–22 and Isaiah’s Cosmic Covenant.” NTS 54 (2008): 74–89. Morland, Kjell Arne. The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel. ESEC 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Moule, C. F. D. “Children of God.” IDB 1:558–61.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

403

Moxnes, Halvor. “The Beaten Body of Christ: Reading and Empowering Slave Bodies in 1 Peter.” R&T 21 (2014): 125–33. —. “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Pages in 207–18 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: In Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. —. “Honor and Shame.” Pages 20–40 in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Muddiman, John. The Epistle to the Ephesians. BNTC. New York: Continuum, 2001. Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr. “God, Sons of.” NIDB 2:618. Müller, Ulrich B. Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament. Studien zum Neuen Testament 10. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1975. Mullins, Terence Y. “Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh.” JBL 76 (1957): 299–303. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. HThKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. Nanos, Mark, ed. The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Nash, Robert S. 1 Corinthians. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2009. Naveh, J. “The Ossuary Inscriptions from Givʻat ha-Mivtar.” IEJ 20 (1970): 33– 37. Neufeld, Dietmar. Mockery and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel. LNTS 503. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Neumann, Kenneth J. The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis. SBLDS 120. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Neusner, Jacob. The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism, vol. 3: Seder Neziqin. Binghamton, NY: Academic Studies of the History of Judaism, 2000. Nienhuis, David R., and Robert W. Wall. Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture: The Shaping and Shape of a Canonical Collection. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Noack, Bent. Satanás und Sotería: Untersuchungen zur neutestamentlichen Dämonologie. Copenhagen: Gads, 1948. Nodet, Etienne. A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah. Translated by E. Crowley. JSOTSup 248. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Nottingham, E. Grace. The Interrelationship of Genre and Rhetoric in the Letter to Philemon. Portland, OR: Theological Exchange Network, 1991. Noy, David. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. Vol. 2, The City of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. —. “Mysticism.” DPL 622–25. O’Rourke, John J. “Some Considerations about Attempts at Statistical Analysis of the Pauline Corpus.” CBQ 35 (1973): 483–90. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

404

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Oberlinner, Lorenz. Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum Titusbrief. HThKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1996. Oepke, Albrecht. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. 2nd ed. THKNT. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984. Olyan, Saul M. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Orr, William F., and James A. Walther. 1 Corinthians. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1975. Pagels, Elaine H. The Origin of Satan. New York: Random House, 1995. Paget, James C. “Miracles in Early Christianity.” Pages 131–48 in The Cambridge Companion to Miracles. Edited by Graham H. Twelftree. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Painter, John. 1, 2, and 3 John. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002. —. “The Farewell Discourses and the History of Johannine Christianity. NTS 27 (1980–1981): 525–43. Pardee, Dennis. “Eloah.” DDD2 285–88. Pardee, Nancy. “Be Holy, for I Am Holy: Paraenesis in 1 Peter.” Pages 113–34 in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin. RBS 77. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Parsons, Samuel. “We Have Been Born Anew: The New Birth of the Christian in the First Epistle of St. Peter (I Petr. 1:3, 23).” PhD diss., Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe Facultas S. Theologiae, 1978. Pascher, Joseph. Hē basilikē hodos: der Königsweg zu Wiedergeburt und Vergottung bei Philon von Alexandreia. Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1931. Patterson, Orlando. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Patzia, Arthur G. Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2011. Paulus Orosius. Historarium adversum paganos. Latin text: http://www.attulus.org/ latin/orosius.html. Perdelwitz, Richard. Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des I. Petrusbriefes. RVV 11.3. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911. Peristiany, Jean G., ed. Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Peristiany, Jean G., and Julian Pitt-Rivers, eds. Honor and Grace in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Perkins, Pheme. First Corinthians. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. —. Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

405

Pierce, Chad T. Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ. WUNT 2/305. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Pilch, John J. Introducing the Cultural Context of the New Testament. Hear the Word 2. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Pilch, John J., and Bruce J. Malina, eds. Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Pinto Correia, Clara. The Ovary of Eve: Egg and Sperm and Preformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Plato. Republic. Translated by Christopher Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. Plutarch. Translated by B. Perrin et al. 27 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–2004. Pokorný, Petr. Colossians: A Commentary. Translated by S. Schatzmann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Pomeroy, Sarah B. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York: Schocken, 1975. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C. – A.D. 400. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Porton, Gary G. Goyim: Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta. BJS 155. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Pummer, Reinhard. “Religions in Contact and Conflict: The Samaritans of Caesarea among ‘Pagans’, Jews and Christians.” Pages 3.29–53 in Samaritan Researches, Volume V. Edited by Vittorio Morabito, Alan D. Crown, and Lucy Davey. Studies in Judaica 10. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 2000. —. “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” Pages 118–60 in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period. Edited by S. Fine. London: Routledge, 1999. —. The Samaritans: A Profile. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. —. The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. TSAJ 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Purvis, James D. “Joseph in the Samaritan Traditions.” Pages 147–53 in Studies on the Testament of Joseph. Edited by George W. E. Nickelsburg Jr. SCS 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Vol. 3. Utrecht: Spectrum, 1960. Quinn, Jerome D. The Letter to Titus. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Raisborough, Jayne and Matt Adams. “Mockery and Morality in Popular Cultural Representations of the White, Working Class.” Sociological Research Online 13 (2008). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/6/2.html#bourdieu1984. Rauer, Max. Die “Schwachen” in Korinth und Rom nach den Paulusbriefen. Freiburg: Herder, 1923. Reasoner, Mark. The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1–15.13 in Context. SNTSMS 103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

406

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reed, Jeffrey T. “The Epistle.” Pages 171–93 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C. – A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Reeg, Gottfried. “The Devil in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 7–83 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by I. Frölich and E. Koskennieni. LNTS 481. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Reicke, Bo. The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Pet. III. 19 and Its Context. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1946. —. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. 2nd ed. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. —. Re-examining Paul’s Letters: The History of the Pauline Correspondence. Edited by David P. Moessner and Ingalisa Reicke. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. Richard, Earl J. First and Second Thessalonians. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995. —. “Honorable Conduct Among the Gentiles: A Study of the Social Thought of 1 Peter.” WW 24 (2004): 412–20. Richardson, Christopher A. Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT 2/338. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Richter, Sandra L. “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy.” VT 57 (2007): 342–66. Ritner, Robert K. “An Eternal Curse upon the Reader of These Lines (With Apologies to M. Puig).” Pages 3–24 in Ancient Egyptian Demonology: Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic. Edited by P. Kousoulis. OLA 175. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Rives, James B. Religion in the Roman Empire. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. Roberts, J. J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Robinson, J. M. “Regeneration.” IDB 4:24–29. Robinson, William C., Jr. “Word and Power (1 Corinthians 1:17‒2:5).” Pages 68–82 in Soli Deo Gloria: New Testament Studies in Honour of William Childs Robinson. Edited by James McDowell Richards. Richmond: John Knox, 1968. Roon, A. van. The Authenticity of Ephesians. Translated by S. Prescod-Jokel. NovTSup 39. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Rosenblum, Jordan D. Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Rothschild, Clare K. Paul in Athens: The Popular Religious Context of Acts 17. WUNT 341. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Rowe, Galen O. “Style.” Pages 121–57 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C. – A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Rowley, H. H. The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London: SCM, 1961.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

407

Ruef, John S. Paul’s First Letter to Corinth. PNTC. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977. Russell, David M. “The Strategy of a First-Century Appeals Letter: A Discourse Reading of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon.” JOTT 11 (1998): 1–25. Russell, Jeffrey Burton. The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977. —. Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981. Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Sabou, Sorin. Between Horror and Hope: Paul’s Metaphorical Language of Death in Romans 6:1–11. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Saller, Richard. “Corporal Punishment, Authority, and Obedience in the Roman Household.” Pages 151–65 in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. Edited by Beryl Rawson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Sampley, J. Paul, and Peter Lampe, eds. Paul and Rhetoric. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Samuelsson, Gunnar. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. WUNT 310. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956. Sandnes, Karl Olav. Paul – One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s SelfUnderstanding. WUNT 2/43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Schafer, Rachel. “Sentient or Silent? The Personification of Stones and Wood in Habakkuk 2.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Baltimore, MD, 24 November 2013. Scharlemann, Martin H. Stephen: A Singular Saint. AnBib 34. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968. Scheck, Thomas P. St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Schelke, Karl Hermann, ed. Die Petrusbriefe, der Judasbrief. HThKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1961. Schellenberg, Ryan S. Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13. ECL 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. —. “Rhetorical Terminology in Paul: A Critical Appraisal.” ZNW 104 (2013): 177–91. —. “τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου: Revisiting Patristic Testimony on Paul’s Rhetorical Education.” NovT 54 (2012): 354–68. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Epheser, Ein Kommentar. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1957. —. Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief. BHT 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930. —. Der Römerbrief. HThKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Historisch theologische Auslegung. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2006.

408

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Church in the New Testament. Translated by W. J. O’Hara. New York: Seabury, 1965. —. The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary. Translated by Helen Heron. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Schubert, K. “Versuchung oder Versucher? Der Teufel als Begriff oder Person in den biblischen und ausserbiblischen Texten.” BLit 50 (1977): 104–13. Schuller, Eileen. “4Q372 1: A Text About Joseph.” RevQ 14 (1990): 349–76. Schwartz, Daniel R. Judeans and Jews. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Scott, Ian W. Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2/48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. —. “A New Approach to Habakkuk II 4–5A.” VT 3 (1985): 330–40. Scott. Walter. Hermetica. 4 vols. Boston: Shambhala, 1985. Seifrid, Mark A. “In Christ.” DPL 433–36. —. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2014. Sellin, Gerhard. Der Brief an die Epheser. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Essays. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1947. Seneca. Declamations, Volume 2: Controversae, Books 7–10. Translated by Michael Winterbottom. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Senior, Donald P. “1 Peter.” Pages 1–152 in 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter by Donald P. Senior and Daniel J. Harrington. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Sheppard, Gerald T. “Theology and the Book of the Psalms.” Int 46 (1992): 143–55. Sherlock, Charles. “The Meaning of ḤRM in the Old Testament.” Colloq 14 (1982): 13–24. Sieffert, Friedrich. Der Brief an die Galater. 6th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1899. Silva, Moisés. “Betz and Bruce on Galatians.” WTJ 45 (1983): 371–85. —. Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. —. Interpreting Galatians. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Sisson, Russell B. “Authorial Ethos in Philippians: The Agōn Topos in Paul and Hellenistic Moralists.” Pages 238–54 in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Sjöberg, Erik. “Wiedergeburt und Neuschöpfung im palästinischen Judentum.” ST 4 (1950): 44–85. Small, Brian. The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews. BibInt 128. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Smith, D. Moody. John. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

409

Smith, David R. ‘Hand This Man Over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5. LNTS 386. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Smith, Shively T. J. Strangers to Family: Diaspora and 1 Peter’s Invention of God’s Household. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956. Snyman, Andries H. “Persuasion in Paul’s Letter to Philemon.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 20 (2009): 178–93. Soards, Marion L., and Darrell J. Pursiful. Galatians. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2015. Sodano, Angelo Raffaele, ed. Porfirio: Lettera ad Anebo. Naples: L’Arte tipografica, 1958. Soden, Hermann von. Hebräerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas. Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1899. Souter, Alexander. The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927. —. Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. I. Introduction. TS 9.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926. —. Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. II. Text and Aparatus Criticus. TS 9.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926. Spencer, William D. “The Power in Paul’s Teaching (1 Cor. 4:9‒20).” JETS 32 (1989): 51‒61. Speyer, Wolfgang. “Fluch.” RAC 7.1160–1288. Spittler, R. P. “The Testament of Job.” OTP I: 829–68. Stander, Hennie F. “Honour and Shame as Key Concepts in Chrysostom’s Exegesis of the Gospel of John.” HTSt 59 (2003): 899–913. Stange, E. “Diktierpausen in den Paulusbriefen.” ZNW 18 (1917): 109–17. Staples, Jason A. “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25-27.” JBL 130 (2011): 371–90. Stemberger, Günter. “Forbidden Gentile Food in Early Rabbinic Writings.” Pages 209– 24 in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity, and Rituals. Edited by Benedikt Eckhardt. JSJSup 155. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” HTR 56 (1960): 199–215. Stern, Joseph. “Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.–A.D. 40).” Page 666 in Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Edited by Robert Audi. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–1984. Still, Todd D. “Colossians.” Pages 263–360 in vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman and David E. Garland. Rev. ed. 13 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. —. “Pauline Theology and Ancient Slavery: Does the Former Support or Subvert the Latter?” HBT 27 (2005): 21–34.

410

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Philemon among the Letters of Paul: Theological and Canonical Considerations.” ResQ 47 (2005): 133–42. —. Philippians and Philemon. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011. Stokes, Ryan E. The Satan: How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019. Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. 8 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–1932. Strom, Mark. “Conversing Across the Ages.” PhD diss., University of Western Sydney, 1995. —. Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Strubbe, Johan J. M. “Curses Against Violation of the Grave in Jewish Epitaphs of Asia Minor.” Pages 70–128 in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Peter Willem van der Horst. AGJU 21. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Suetonius. Translated by John C. Rolfe. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Swete, H. B. Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli commentarii: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments. With an Introduction, Notes and Indices. Vol 1: Introduction. Galatians–Colossians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1880. Tacitus. The Histories and The Annals. Translated by C. H. Moore and J. Jackson. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925–1937. Tadmor, Hayim. “Judah.” Pages 261–96 in The Fourth Century B.C. Edited by D. M. Lewis, John Boardman, Simon Hornblower, and M. Ostwald. 2nd ed. CAH 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Talbert, Charles. Ephesians and Colossians. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Tannehill, Robert C. Dying and Rising with Christ. BZNW 32. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Tasker, R. V. G. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990. Tertullian; Minucius Felix. Translated by T. R. Glover and Gerald H. Rendall. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. Theissen, Gerd. “Monotheismus und Teufelsglaube: Entstehung und Psychologie des biblischen Satansmythos.” Pages 37–70 in Demons and the Devil in Ancient and Medieval Christianity. Edited by Nienke Vos and Willemien Otten. VCSup 108. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Theissen, Matthew. “4Q372 1 and the Continuation of Joseph’s Exile.” DSD 15 (2008): 380–95. Thielman, Frank. Ephesians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Thierry, Johannes J. “Der Dorn im Fleische (2 Kor 12:7–9).” NovT 5 (1962): 301– 10.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

411

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thrall, Margaret. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 2 vols. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 1994–2000. Thurston, Bonnie. Reading Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2007. Thurston, Bonnie B., and Judith M. Ryan. Philippians and Philemon. SP 10. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005. Tolmie, D. Francois. “Paul’s Exercise of Authority in the Letter to Philemon – A Perspective from the Fourth and Fifth Centuries C.E.” In Luce Verbi 49.2 (2016): 1–7. —. Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centered Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter. WUNT 2/190. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. —. “The Reception of Apphia in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries C.E.” Pages 282– 300 in Perspectives on the Socially Disadvantaged in Early Christianity. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie. Acta Theologica Supplementa 23. Bloemfontein: SunMedia, 2016. —. “Tendencies in the Research on the Letter to Philemon since 1980.” Pages 1–27 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. CRINT 3/1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990. Tracy, Steven. “Domestic Violence in the Church and Redemptive Suffering in 1 Peter.” CTJ 41 (2006): 279–96. Tremmel, William C. “Satan – The Dark Side.” The Iliff Review 42 (1985): 3–12. Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teachings of the Christian Church. Vol. 1. Translated by Olive Wyon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Turner, Eric G. “A Curse Tablet from Nottinghamshire.” JRS 53 (1963): 122–24. Twelftree, Graham H. Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Tzaferis, V. “Jewish Tombs at and near Givʻat ha-Mivtar.” IEJ 20 (1970): 18–32. Vanderlip, Vera F. The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis. Toronto: Hakkert, 1972. van de Sandt, Huub, and David Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. CRINT 3/5. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002. Vermaseren, M. J., and C. van Essen. The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Vermes, Géza. Jesus and the World of Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Versnel, Henk S. “Prayers for Justice, East and West, New Finds and Publications Since 1990.” Pages 275–354 in Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference held at the University of Zaragoza 30 Sept.–1 Oct. 2005. Edited by Richard L. Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón. RGRW 168. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

412

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vogels, Heinrich Josef. Ambrosiastri qvi dicitvr commentarivs in epistvlas Pavlinas III: In epistvlas ad Galatas, ad Efesios, ad Filippenses, ad Colosenses, ad Thesalonicenses, ad Timothevm, ad Titvm, ad Filemonem. CSEL 81/3. Vienna: Hölder-PichlerTempsky, 1968. Volk, Robert. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. VII. Commentarii in epistulas Pauli. PTS 68. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. von Wahlde, Urban C. The Gospel and Letters of John. 3 vols. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Vos, Johan S. “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1–2.” HTR 87 (1994): 1–16. Vouga, François. An die Galater. HNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Walker, Donald Dale. Paul’s Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:1): Populist Ideology and Rhetoric in a Pauline Letter Fragment. WUNT 2/152. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Walters, James C. “Paul, Adoption, and Inheritance.” Pages 42–76 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Wanamaker, Charles A. “‘By the Power of God’: Rhetoric and Ideology in 2 Corinthians 10‒13.” Pages 194–221 in Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins. Edited by David B. Gowler, L. Gregory Bloomquist, and Duane F. Watson. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2003. —. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. —. “The Power of the Absent Father: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 4:14‒5:13.” Pages 339–64 in The New Testament Interpreted: Essays in Honour of Bernard C. Lategan. Edited by Cilliers Breytenbach, Johan C. Thom, and Jeremy Punt. NovTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2006. —. “A Rhetoric of Power: Ideology and 1 Corinthians 1‒4.” Pages 115–37 in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Edited by Margaret E. Thrall, Trevor J. Burke, and James K. Elliott. NovTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wansink, Craig S. Chained in Christ: The Experience and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments. JSNTSup 130. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Watson, Duane F. “First Peter.” Pages 1–127 in First and Second Peter by Duane F. Watson and Terrance Callan. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. —. The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographical Survey. Dorset, UK: Deo, 2006. Watson, Duane, and A. J. Heuser, eds. Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. BibInt 4. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Wedderburn, A. J. M. The Reasons for Romans. London: T&T Clark, 1988. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “Paul’s Persuasive Prose: An Epistolary Analysis of the Letter to Philemon.” Pages 29–60 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

413

Welborn, Larry L. “Μωρὸς γενέσθω: Paul’s Appropriation of the Role of the Fool in 1 Corinthians 1–4.” BibInt 10 (2002): 420‒35. —. Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. Wendland, Ernst. “‘You Will Do Even More Than I Say’: On the Rhetorical Function of Stylistic Form in the Letter to Philemon.” Pages 79–112 in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Edited by D. Francois Tolmie and Alfred Friedl. BZNW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Translated by Hugh Clayton White. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. White, John L. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle. SBLDS 2. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Wiefel, Wolfgang. “Fluch und Sakralrecht: Religionsgeschichtliche Prolegomena zur Frühentwicklung des Kirchenrechts.” Numen 16 (1969): 211–33. —. “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity.” Pages 85–101 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Wifstrand, Albert. “Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter.” ST 1 (1948): 170–82. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. 3 vols. EKK. Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–1982. Williams, Sam K. Galatians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. Williams, Travis B. “Bringing Method to Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark.” BBR 20 (2010): 397–418. Wilson, Andrew. “The Pragmatics of Politeness and Pauline Epistolography: A Case Study of the Letter to Philemon.” JSNT 48 (1992): 107–19. Wilson, Christopher G. “Male Genital Mutilation: An Adaptation to Sexual Conflict.” Evolution and Human Behavior 29 (2008): 149–64. Windisch, Hans. Die Katholischen Briefe erklärt. HNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911. 3rd ed. edited by Herbert Preisker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951. —. Der zweite Korintherbrief. 9th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1924. Winger, Thomas M. Ephesians. ConC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2015. Wink, Walter. Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Winter, Bruce W. Philo and Paul among the Sophists. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of James: Methods, Sources, and Possible Results.” Pages 33–41 in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings. Edited by Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg. SymS 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Witherington, Ben W., III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

414

COMPOSITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. —. The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. —. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians 2. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. Wooten, Cecil W. Hermogenes, On Types of Style. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987. Wright, Archie T. “Angels.” EDEJ 328–31. Wright, G. Earnest. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGrawHill, 1965. Wright, N. T. Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. —. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Wuest, Kenneth Samuel. First Peter in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Magic in the Biblical World.” TynBul 34 (1983): 169–200. Yates, Roy. “The Powers of Evil in the New Testament.” EvQ 52 (1980): 97–111. Young, Frances M., and David F. Ford. Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Yule, G. Udny. The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944. Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1907. Zerwick, Maximilian. Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Translated by Mary Grosvenor. 5th rev. ed. SubBi 39. Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1996. Ziesler, John A. The Epistle to the Galatians. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth, 1992. Zornberg, Aviva Gottlieb. Genesis: The Beginning of Desire. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995.

21 CONTRIBUTORS

David E. AUNE (Ph.D. 1970, University of Chicago) is Walter Professor of New Testament, emeritus, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. Laurie J. BRAATEN (Ph.D. 1987, Boston University) is Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Judson University, Elgin, Illinois, USA. Teresa J. CALPINO (Ph.D. 2012, Loyola University Chicago) is Lecturer in Theology at Loyola University Chicago, Illinois, USA. P. Richard CHOI (Ph.D. 1996, Fuller Theological Seminary) is Professor of New Testament at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA. Avis CLENDENEN (Ph.D. 1993, Chicago Theological Seminary) is Professor Emerita of Religious Studies at Saint Xavier University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Charles H. COSGROVE (Ph.D. 1985, Princeton Theological Seminary) is Professor of Early Christian Literature at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois, USA. A. Andrew DAS (Ph.D. 1999, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia) is Professor of Religious Studies and Assistant Dean of the Faculty at Elmhurst University, Elmhurst, Illinois, USA. Jenny DEVIVO (Ph.D. 2014, Loyola University Chicago) is Executive Director of Mission and Heritage at Saint Xavier University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Christopher FORBES (Ph.D. 1987, Macquarie University) is Associate Senior Lecturer, Department of Ancient History, at Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia. Najeeb T. HADDAD (Ph.D. 2018, Loyola University Chicago) is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Notre Dame of Maryland University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. George LYONS (Ph.D. 1982, Emory University) is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, Idaho, USA. Eric F. MASON (Ph.D. 2005, University of Notre Dame) is Julius R. Mantey Chair of Biblical Studies at Judson University, Elgin, Illinois, USA. Nancy D. PARDEE (Ph.D. 2002, University of Chicago) is Administrator, Joyce Z. and Jacob Greenberg Center for Jewish Studies, University of Chicago, Illinois, USA. Clare K. ROTHSCHILD (Ph.D. 2003, University of Chicago) is Professor of Scripture at Lewis University, Romeoville, Illinois, USA. Russell B. SISSON (Ph.D. 1994, Emory University) is Professor of Religion at Union College, Barbourville, Kentucky, USA.

416

CONTRIBUTORS

Todd D. STILL (Ph.D. 1996, University of Glasgow) is Charles J. and Eleanor McLerran DeLancey Dean and William M. Hinson Professor of Christian Scriptures at Truett Seminary, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA. D. Francois TOLMIE (D.Th. 1992 and Ph.D. 2004, University of the Free State) is Professor of New Testament Studies at University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, Free State, South Africa. Duane F. WATSON (Ph.D. 1986, Duke University) is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Malone University, Canton, Ohio, USA. Mark F. WHITTERS (Ph.D. 1999, The Catholic University of America) is Senior Lecturer at Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA.

22 INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

BIBLE HEBREW BIBLE / OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1:1–2 1:4 1:10 1:12 1:18 1:21 1:25 1:31 2:7 3:1–4 3:5 3:13 3:14–15 3:15 3:17–19 3:17 4:10–11 4:11–12 4:15 5:29 6:5–7 6:5 6:8–9 7:17 8:21 12:3 13:16 17:2–8 17:9–14 18:12 LXX 22:17 32:4

182 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 374 176 224 184 53 201 53 96 80 53 51 54 340, 346 182, 345 346 337 182 54 102 102 371 278 102 189

34 42:9 42:12

104 80 80

Exodus 2:23 3:7 4:21 4:22 12:13 12:23 13:21 14:4 14:17–18 19:18 20:16 20:45 22:22 22:26 23:2 24:7–8 29:4 30:18–21 34:33–35

81 81 195 286 183 183, 187 224 90 90 85 81 181 81 81 81 284 128 128 195

Leviticus 11 11:8 12 15:2–12 15:16–30 18 19:2 20:3–5 24:5–9

127 121 303 121 303 121 224 122 127

418

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

Numbers 5:21 14:24 16:30–35 21:4–9 21:5–6 22–24 22–23 22 22:12 22:22 22:32 23:8 25 25:9 26:10 33:55 35:30–34

53 224 80 184 176 50, 54 54 198 54 174–75 175 54 183 183 80 197, 199 122

Deuteronomy 1:30–33 2:26 4:32 7:26 LXX 13 13:2–6 13:6–9 13:6 LXX 13:7–11 13:10 LXX 13:13–18 13:13 13:14 LXX 13:16 LXX 13:17 [LXX 18] 14:1 19:16 19:18 27–30 27:26 27:28–29 28:65–68 29:3 30:13 30:19 31:28 31:30–32:47 32–33

224 189 81 47 48, 53 48 48 53 48 53 48, 53–54 53 53 54 48, 54 286 81 81 47, 53–54 47 48 53 185 182 81 81 186 104

32 32:2 32:6 32:17–21 LXX 32:18 32:19 32:21

102 103 286 186–87 103, 286 106 81, 103–4, 106, 108, 118

Joshua 6:17–18 7:1 7:11–13 22:20 24:25–28

47 48 48 48 101

Judges 5:11 6:35 9:1–6 9:20 9:23–24 9:39–57 17:1–6 19:18

87 189 101 54 54 54 50 85

1 Samuel 12:7 14:24 14:28 17:43 17:45–47 29:4

87 54 54 54 54 175

2 Samuel 19:23 [LXX 22] 24:1 24:13–17 24:16–17 [LXX 16]

175 176 183 183

1 Kings 5:4 5:18 8:31–32 11:14 11:23

175 175 53 173 [3 Kgdms LXX], 175–76, 178 173 [3 Kgdms LXX], 175

419

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

11:25

175

2 Kings 1:2 1:16 2:24 7:14 17:24–33 17:24 17:30

198 198 54 286 101 110 110

1 Chronicles 2:7 17:13 21 21:12–15 22:10 28:26 29:10 29:30

48 286 175, 183 183 286 286 287 85

Ezra 4:1 4:12–14

109 109

Nehemiah 3:33–34 4:1–2 4:13–20

109 109 109

Job 1–2 1:6–7 1:9 1:12 2:1–4 2:6 2:7 31:38 42:1–12 42:2–6

175 175 175 175, 177 175 177 175 81 379 376

Psalms 2:7 5:9 8 12:3 18:5

286, 294–95 183 202 54 295

19:2–5 22:22 26 29:8–9 34:8 38 [LXX 37] 38:21 [LXX 37:21] 48:5–7 55:11 LXX 58:6 60:3–5 64:6–7 65:12–13 69:24 71:2 71:13 [LXX 70:13] 71:15–16 75:9 77:4 77:16 77:17 78:67 80:2 81:5 83:9 83:13–16 89:27–28 91 96:9 97:4 106:20 106:24 109 [LXX 108] 109:1 LXX 109:3 LXX 109:4 [LXX 108:4] 109:6 [LXX 108:6] 109:20 [LXX 108:20] 109:29 [LXX 108:29] 110 110:3 114:7 116:3 [LXX 115:3] 136:3 LXX 139:1 [LXX 138:1] 139:7 [LXX 138:7] 139:23 [LXX 138:23–24] 140:3

82 81 81 85 304 173–74 173 86 300 54 79 93 80 54 87 173–74 87 79 85, 92 105 85, 92 105 105 105 54 54 286 202 85, 92 85 90 90 174–75 180 286 173 175 54, 173 173 202 286 85, 92 295 350 93 93 93 183

420

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

Proverbs 8:25 14:2 LXX 24:21 LXX 26:2 31:10–31

286 328 329, 333 50 278

Isaiah 1:2 5:14 6:3 8:14 10:22 11:9 13:6 13:8 14:3 14:32 20:3–4 21:3 24:4–9 28:16 29:10 29:16 40:3 40:6–8 LXX 41:18 44:3 44:26 45:1–3 45:12–13 46 46:13 49:26 51:6 51:17–20 52–53 52:13–53:12 53 53:5–12 53:4–12 LXX 53:5 53:7 53:9 55:11 60 60:15 65:1 65:17–25

81 80 90 204 102 90 92 92 177 189 79 86 81 204 185 288 224 300–301 79 79 189 329–30 329–30 181 87 80 87 79 331 272 237–38 331 272 273 272 237, 272 141 185 185 103 185

Jeremiah 2:5–11 3:19 4:19 4:23–31 6:19 10:10–11 11:16–17 12:10–13 13:12–14 13:24–27 17:9–10 22:23 23:26 25:15–29 30:3 30:6 31:2–6 31:9 33:7 38:31–34 LXX 38:33–34 LXX 41:5 48:18 48:26 48:41 49:22 50:43 51:6–7

90 286 86 92 81 81 100 81 79 79 93 86 93 79 105 86 105 286 105 357 357 109 79 79 86 86 86 79

Lamentations 4:21

79

Ezekiel 9:4 16:39 17:3–9 17:19 19:33 23:29 28:24 36:25–27 LXX 37:15–23

51 79 100 53 79 79 199 358 105

Daniel 1:8 1:12 1:15–16 6:27

123–24 123 123 300

421

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

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

89 77 85 88–89 79–80 77 80 81 89 78 75, 80, 87, 89, 95, 98 78–79, 92 92 79–80 92 91–92, 94 81–82, 85, 91–92 82–83, 86 80 79 89 97 80 79–80 89 81 84 84–87 86 88, 92 94 86, 92 85 86 92 85–86, 94

81

Zephaniah 2:11 3:9–10

89 89

Nahum 1:5 3:5–6

79 79

Haggai 1:13

189

Habakkuk 1:2–2:5 1:2–2:3 1:2–4

76 88 76, 79–81, 88

Zechariah 3 3:1–2 3:1

174–75, 177 175 173

8:16 9:21 10:13 12:1

198 198 198 198

Hosea 1–2 1:6 1:9–10 1:9 2:1 2:3 2:9 2:23 2:25 4 4:1–19 4:3 9:7–8 14:5–7

104 101 101–2, 284 284 286 80 80 101–2 101–2 90 90 79, 81, 91–92 177 100

Joel 1:5–20 1:8–13 2:1–14

81, 91 92 89

Amos 2:16 5:6 5:15 6:6 8:8 9:5

79 105 105 105 79 79

Jonah 3:4–4:2

89

Micah 1:2

422

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

3:2 4:6–10 4:6 10:6–10 14:11

177 150 150 115 47

Malachi 1:7 1:12 2:2 2:10

123 123 54 286

DEUTEROCANONICALS Tobit 1:10–13 13:4

124 287

Judith 6:4 10:5 10:23 12:1–2 12:2 12:7–9 12:15–20

80 126–27 126 128–29 126 126 126

1 Maccabees 2:37 5:2–3 10:30 12:10 12:17

81 134 296–97 329 329

2 Maccabees 4:45

42–43

3 Maccabees 2:21 2:29–30 5:7 5:30 6:3 6:8 15:14

287 51 287 195 287 287 195

4 Maccabees 9:5–9

273

9:23 10:3 10:15 13:27 15:17 15:31

318, 329 329 318, 329 318, 329 292 339–40, 347

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:18 1:20 4:1 4:3–4 4:3 4:5 4:6 4:8 4:10 4:11 5:3 5:7 5:9 5:16 5:19 5:22 5:37 5:38–42 5:43–48 5:45 5:48 6:1 6:4 6:6 6:8–9 6:13 6:14–15 6:18 6:26 6:32 7:11 8:29 9:10–11 9:36 9:38 10:16 10:20 10:25

376 376 196, 223 66 173, 224 223 66 223 177, 198 223 279 279 224, 290 290 205 174 223 273 224 290 224, 290 290 290 290 290 191, 223 290 290 290 290 290 66 125 221 278 105 290 198

423

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

10:29–33 11:10 11:19 12:24 12:26 13:19 13:34 13:38–39 14:4 14:33 15:1–20 15:21–28 15:24 15:32 16:1 16:16 16:18 16:23 18:1–4 18:7 18:10–14 18:14 18:15 19:28 20:19 23:9 23:11–12 24:36 25:41 26:41 26:62–63 26:63–64 26:67 27:11–14 27:26 27:27–31 27:39–44 27:41–44 27:44 28:14 28:19

290 189 125 198 196 173, 223, 300 290 223 221 66 127 291 105 221 350 66 203 177, 191, 204 279 191 279 290 371 292 273 290 279 290 223 191 272 66 198, 273 272 273 272 272 63, 66 58, 71 43 290, 310–11

Mark 1:2 1:13 2:15–16 3:22 3:23–26 3:23

189 173, 196, 198, 204 125 198 196 177, 204

3:26 4:14 4:15 6:34 7:1–5 7:24–30 8:2 8:17–18 8:23 8:33 8:38 9:33–37 10:42–45 11:25–26 13:32 13:35 14:36 14:38 14:61 14:65 15:1–5 15:16–20 15:27–32 15:29–32 15:29–30 15:32 15:39

204 300 204 221 126 291 221 185, 191, 204 177 4, 189 71, 189, 204 279 279 290 189, 290 371 290 191 272 273 272 272 63, 65 272 69 58, 63, 66, 71 374

Luke 1:19 1:26 1:28 1:30 1:35 2:52 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:13 5:30 6:27–30 6:30 6:32–34 6:35–36 7:11 7:13 7:24 7:34 8:11

198 198 220 275 376 275 173, 223 223 223 223 127 273 275 275 224, 290 290 221 189 125 300

424

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

8:12 9:25 9:26 9:52 10:2 10:18 10:29–37 10:29 11:2 11:4 11:13 11:15 11:18 11:38 12:6–9 12:12 12:24 12:30 12:32 13:16 13:17 14:7–11 15:2 17:1 17:11–16 20:36 21:15 22:3 22:31 22:40 22:46 23:9 23:11 23:35–38 23:41 23:46

223 189 290 109 278 196, 202 109 80 290 191 290 198 196 127 290 290 290 290 290 196 204 279 125 191 109 290 204 177, 196, 198 191, 196 191 191 272 272 272 70 273

John 1 1:12–13 1:12 1:13 3:3 3:5–8 3:5 3:6–8 3:14–15 4

228 284, 293, 312 290 308, 375 293 293 310–11 374 172 111

6:70 7:39 8:31–59 8:31–47 8:41–42 8:44 8:48 9:9–11 11:52 12:31 12:40 13:2 13:27 14:17 14:30 15:26 16:11 16:13 17:15 19:1–3 19:1 19:9–10 19:32 20:17 20:22

223 311 313 224 290 223 110 275 290 184 185 223 196 311 184 311 184 311 223 272 273 272 58, 63, 71 290 3011, 374

Acts 1–12 2:1–4 2:38 2:41 5:3 5:38 6–7 6:13–14 7:7 7:16 7:48–49 7:49 8:9–11 8:14–17 9:18 9:36 10:38 10:47 12:6–11 12:20 13–28

231 374 310–11 311 191, 196 312 117 102, 117 102 102, 117 117 102 115 310 311 222 223 310 189 42, 43 231

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

13:10 13:33 14:15 14:19 15:7–12 15:19–20 15:20 15:23–29 15:28–29 15:29 17:5 17:13–16 18:12 18:22 19:2–6 21:8 21:25 22:3 22:25–29 23:6 26:5 26:18

223 295 189 42 310 310 90 379 310 90 180 50 116 113 310 113 90, 310 88 204 88 88 196

Romans 1:1–16:24 1:3–4 1:3 1:4 1:7 1:8 1:16–17 1:16 1:17–6:23 1:17 1:18–32 1:18 1:20 1:23 1:19–20 1:21 1:23 1:28 2:3–5 2:7 2:8 2:9–10 2:15 2:17

224 295 193 165 290 95 87 71, 89, 165 96 3, 75, 87–89, 95–97 75, 89–91 228 141 90 90 95 183 191 228–29 222 93, 228 89 195, 204 229

2:18 2:19 2:25 2:27 2:28–29 3:3 3:4–5 3:9 3:13 3:24 3:31 4 4:14 4:16–17 4:17–18 4:21 5:1–5 5:6–8 5:9 5:12 5:13–21 5:13–14 5:15 5:17 6 6:1–23 6:1–6 6:1 6:4–5 6:4 6:5–23 6:6 6:7–8 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12–14 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:15–23 6:18–19 6:21 6:23 7–8 7

425 191 189 229 229 226 180 228–29 89, 224 183 223 180 102, 312 180, 192 224 229 144 94 371 228 96, 188, 305 96 187–88, 224 223 224 62–63, 70, 96 96 2, 66–68, 71 62, 224 68 96 96 58, 62, 69, 72, 180, 188 96 188 96 224 185, 188 70, 96 188 72 96, 343 72 96 67 69 72 224 96, 227–28

426 7:1 7:2 7:6 7:8 7:11 8 8:1–17 8:2 8:3 8:10–21 8:14–23 8:14 8:15 8:16–17 8:18–39 8:18–27 8:19 8:20–22 8:20 8:21 8:22 8:23 8:24–25 8:26 8:28–30 8:31–39 8:35 8:38–39 8:38 8:39 9–11 9:3 9:4 9:6–10:21 9:8 9:17 9:22–29 9:22 9:25–26 9:25 9:26 9:32–33 10:6–8 10:6 10:12 10:19–20 10:19 10:20

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

224 180 180 224 201 96, 98 97 224 193 95 310–11 290 95, 223, 290, 310–11 290 75 93–97 290 91–93 91 224, 290 3, 75, 87, 90, 93 290 91 311 222 94–95 225 182 180, 189–90 180 3, 99–101, 226 48, 100 95, 290, 311 103 290 141, 150 99–103 141 106, 115 283 290 204 104 182 89, 100 99, 100, 103–4 104 115

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

185 223 100 99–100 105, 226 185 97 323 87 185, 191 193 97 94 97 97 185 104 229 185 149 187 94, 318, 321, 325 322 324 180, 222 229 97 229 98 68 119–21 144 229 121 138 229 229 119 229 3, 119–21, 134–36 191 221, 229 229 104 141 196 162–64 141–43, 149–50

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

15:33 16:17–20 16:17 16:20 16:25 1 Corinthians 1–4 1 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:17–2:5 1:17 1:18 1:20 1:22–24 1:24 1:26 1:27–28 1:28 2:1–5 2:1 2:3–5 2:4–5 2:4 2:6–8 2:8 2:10–13 2:16 3:2 3:10–11 3:13 3:16–17 3:21–23 4 4:1–6 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:11 4:16 417 4:18–21 4:21 5:1–5 5:3–5

201–2 200–202 201 191, 198, 223 185

149, 151 145, 166 208 290 152 3, 144–50 192, 205, 226 72, 141, 145, 150, 152, 165, 194 185 149 72, 141, 145 145 222 180 150, 152 153 148 144–50, 152–53 44, 145, 153 149, 179, 181, 184–85 190 93 221 304 150 191 150 182 166 184 229 153 189–90 198–99 224 221 3, 151–54 221 196 154–55

5:4 5:5 6:3 6:6 6:11 6:13 6:14–7:1 6:14 7 7:5 7:12–15 7:17 7:20–21 7:21 7:24 7:26 7:31 8–10 8:1 8:4–6 8:6 8:10 9:1–3 9:5 9:6 9:13–14 9:13 9:15 10:1–12 10:1–5 10:3–4 10:8–10 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:19–21 10:27 11:1 11:2–15 11:3 11:10 11:11–15 11:13–16 11:13–15 11:15 11:17–34 11:23 11:28

427 196 191–92, 194, 203, 223 189–90 184 309 180 179 141 194, 226 191, 194, 223 184 194 232 229 232 232 185 226 122 181–82, 184, 186–87, 190 290 229 192–93 231 200 150 223 192 227 226 374 183–84 176 187, 190 185–86 186–87 184 221 372 375 189–90 372 373 184 376 226 192 191

428

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

12–14 12:3 12:7–29 12:8–10 12:10 12:12 12:13 12:21 12:28–29 12:28 13:1 13:8 13:10–11 14:17 14:22–24 14:34–35 14:34 15 15:1 15:2 15:5 15:10 15:14 15:21 15:24–26 15:24 15:25–28 15:36 15:55 15:56 15:58 16:3 16:9

226 48 163 142 141–42, 150 163–64 236, 309, 374 229 141, 149–50 246 189–90 180 180 229 184 226–27 277 188–89, 227 40 223 204 192 192 188 180 189 225 229 229 188 192 191 202, 204

2 Corinthians 1:1 1:2 1:3 2:5–11 2:7 2:11 3–4 3 3:3 3:6–8 3:6 3:7–4:4 3:7

208 290 290 196 192 191, 195–96, 223 227 196 10 197 203 195 180

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

197 180 180 180, 184–85, 195 227 186 184 179, 185, 189, 195 189 158 141 227 42, 45 158 197 192 229 155, 165 150 221 227 150 290 195–96 221 40 191 221 44 191 192 222 223 208, 221 155, 195 195 196 184 176, 183, 190, 195, 201 309 197, 202 189 196–97 184, 189 158 201 189–91, 198, 223 197–98

429

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

11:16–12:10 11:22–12:10 11:25 12–13 12:1–7 12:6–8 12:7 12:8–9 12:8 12:9 12:11–13 12:11–12 12:11 12:12–13 12:12 12:15 12:17–18 13:2–4 13:3 13:4 13:5 13:10 Galatians 1:1–10 1:1 1:4 1:5 1:6–5:6 1:6–12 1:6–11 1:6–10 1:6–9 1:6–7 1:6 1:7 1:8–9 1:8 1:9 1:9–10 1:10–2:21 1:10 1:11–6:10 1:11–2:21 1:11–24

156 227 198 139 200 147 177, 191, 197–200, 203, 223 198, 200 193 141, 165 200 155–56, 158 197 142 141, 146–50, 154, 156 202 195 156–57 149 141, 221 191 157–58

22, 35 51, 208 185, 290 55 24 24 29 47 40, 47–49, 227 374 222 21 24, 40, 45–47, 49, 51, 53–56 189–90 2, 40, 48, 55 46 227 2, 21, 39–43, 45–46, 49, 55, 56 35 22, 24, 35 36

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

40 39–40, 51 22, 24 223 55, 88 222 231 24, 56 223 36 192 35 194 24 26 231 136 120 229 51 58 62 22, 24 312 35 145 36 310 164–65, 309–10 202 147 142, 149–50 25 229 47, 49, 53 88 36 229 180 188–90 40 290 309 236, 282, 371 226 36 224 310

430 4:5–6 4:5 4:6 4:8–11 4:8–9 4:9 4:10 4:12–6:10 4:12–20 4:12 4:13–14 4:14 4:15 4:17 4:18 4:21–5:13 4:21–31 4:21 4:25 4:28 4:29 4:30 5:1–6:10 5 5:1–5 5:2–6 5:2 5:4 5:7–6:17 5:7–6:15 5:7–12 5:7–10 5:7–8 5:11 5:12 5:13–6:10 5:13 5:14 5:15–6:10 5:15 5:16–21 5:17 5:22–23 5:26 6:1 6:5 6:11–18 6:11–17 6:12–13

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

224, 311 95, 290 290, 310 187 186 224 367 36 36, 370 368 369 189–91 173 56 40 36 202, 226–27 227 40 371 56 49 21, 22, 29 137 223 24, 310 24, 208 180, 202 24 24 24, 202 45 44 180, 193–94 46, 202 24 222, 371 229 36 202 202 40, 204 312 223 191 40 22, 35 24 56, 193–94

6:14 6:15–16 6:16 6:17

68–69, 71, 191 226 24 51, 68

Ephesians 1:1–2 1:1 1:2 1:3–14 1:4–5 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15–23 1:18 1:19 1:20–22 1:21 2:1–7 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11–22 2:12 2:14 2:16 2:17 2:19 2:21 2:22 3:1–7 3:2 3:6 3:7 3:9 3:10 3:11

218 208, 215 220, 290 216–17 216, 222 216 95, 224, 290 216, 220–21 218, 220 216–17, 222 216, 218 310 216 216–17 216 216–17 225 189, 216 216 216 189, 223 228 216, 224 218, 220 220 220, 222–23 222 222 220 217–18 218 218 366 216, 218, 320 218 218, 224 216 218, 220 218 216, 220, 223 218 189, 218, 225 366

431

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

3:14–21 3:17–19 3:17 3:18 4:1–6 4:3–4 4:3 4:4–6 4:6 4:7 4:8–9 4:11–16 4:12–14 4:16 4:18–19 4:20–21 4:22 4:23 4:24 4:25 4:26 4:27–28 4:29 4:30–31 4:32–5:2 4:32 5:1 5:4–20 5:4 5:6 5:7 5:9 5:12 5:14–15 5:18–19 5:22–6:9 5:21–22 5:23 5:24 5:25 5:27 5:29 5:33 6:1 6:3 6:4 6:5–9 6:5 6:6–7

217 224 218 217 220 224 217 217 290 220, 223 217 216 217–18 218 217–18 221 343 217 218, 222 224 217–18 223–24 220, 224 224 221 220–21, 224 224, 290 220 217–18 228 218 222 217 217 224 327 277 375 277 224 218 217 278 222 217 217 235–36, 280 272 217–18

6:9 6:10–17 6:11 6:12 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:18–24 6:18–19 6:21–22 6:24

270 220 218, 223, 325 189, 217–18 222 217 217, 223 217 217–18 218 220

Philippians 1:1 1:2 1:6 1:8 1:10 1:12–26 1:27–30 1:28 1:29 2:1–11 2:6–11 2:13 2:15 2:16 3 3:2–6 3:2 3:3–6 3:5 3:8 3:10–11 3:10 3:11 3:12–21 3:19 3:20–4:1 4:3 4:7 4:9 4:20

197, 228 290 222 221 194 227–28 329 204 325 166, 221 228, 325 222 189, 194, 224, 290 192 226 226–28 193 64 88 69 325 141, 165 193 223 186 322–23, 325 229 195–96 193 185, 290

Colossians 1:1–2 1:1 1:2 1:3

218 208 290 225

432

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

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

222 218 228 97 325 189, 225, 324 218 208 218 144 44 218 224 218 189 218 189, 225 367 208 218 370 228 236, 369 221 234–35 277 234–35, 280 218, 236, 272 236, 270 218 144 213, 217

1 Thessalonians 1 1:4–2:16 1:3 1:4–5 1:4 1:5–6 1:9–10 2:4 2:13 2:14–16 2:16 2:18 3:1–5 3:1–2

166 227 290 3, 139–44 144 141–42, 146, 149, 152 228 44, 191 302 226 197, 228 191, 196, 223 197 192

3:2 3:5 3:6 3:11 3:13 4:6 4:16 5:5 5:6 5:8 5:9 5:21 5:23 5:27

192 173, 191–92, 223 192 290 194, 290 195–96 189 189 324 324 228 191 194, 201 217

2 Thessalonians 1:1–2 2:4 2:9 2:13 2:14 2:16 2:17 3:3 4:3

290 204 150, 223 310 186 290 222 223 223

1 Timothy 1:2 1:10 1:13 2:2 2:10 2:11–15 2:11 2:13 3:6–7 3:11 5:3–16 5:10 5:14 5:17–21 6:1–2 6:9

290 204 70 325 222 226 278 278 223 223 236 222 204 236 236–37 191

2 Timothy 1:1 2:17 2:21

208 199 222

433

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

2:26 3:3 3:17 4:5 4:14

223 223 222 324 199

Titus 1:16 2:3 2:5 2:9–10 2:11–14 3:1 3:3–7 3:4–8 3:5

222 223 277 236–37 321 222, 321, 324–25 321 284, 291–92 310–11, 343

Philemon 1–9 2 3 6–8 7 9 10–23 10 11 12–14 12 16 17 19 20–21 20 22

233 228–29 228, 290 229 221 208, 234 228–29 233 202–3, 229, 233 233 221 234 234 234 234 221 234

Hebrews 1:5 2:4 2:10 4:12 5:12–13 6:2 6:4 6:6 8:8–12 9–10 9:8–10

295 357 290 302 304 358 357 57 357 6, 355 357

9:9 9:13–14 10:11–25 10:15–17 10:21–24 10:22 10:29 11:28 12:5–9 12:24 13:20 13:24

355 355–59 357 357 354 354–60 357 183, 187 290 284 201 360

James 1:2 1:9 1:15–19 1:18 1:19–21 1:21 1:27 2:1 2:5 2:14–15 2:20–24 3:1 3:9–10 3:12 4:7 4:11 5:7 5:9 5:12 5:19

293 293 292–93 284, 308 312 293 293 293 293 293 313 293 293 293 223 293 293 293 293 293

1 Peter 1:1 1:2–5 1:2 1:3–4:11 1:3–4 1:3–5 1:3 1:6–7 1:6 1:7 1:8

267, 283, 295, 326 267 268, 275, 283–84, 303, 311 315 279 293–96 283, 306, 308 266, 270, 275–76 268, 306, 366, 378 279 306, 366

434 1:10–12 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13–14 1:13 1:14–17 1:14–16 1:14 1:17–21 1:17 1:18–19 1:18 1:22–23 1:22 1:23–25 1:23 2:1–3 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4–10 2:5 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:11–3:12 2:11–17 2:11 2:12–3:7 2:12 2:13–3:16 2:13–3:12 2:13–3:7 2:13–20 2:13–17 2:13–14 2:13 2:14 2:15–16 2:15 2:16–17 2:16 2:17–20 2:17 2:18–3:6

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

311 275, 297 275–76 301 275, 324 297 283 268, 278 267, 315 330 267, 271–73, 278 303 283, 309, 315 275 268, 278, 312 293–305 267 304, 324 269 267, 283 379 278 268 279 268 283–84, 315 319 269 267, 275, 283, 295 267 267–68, 270, 278, 284 269 317, 325 316 277 5, 267–69, 315–16, 321, 324 318, 325 269, 278, 237 278 271 268, 271–72, 275, 278 238, 333 236 272 269, 272, 278–79, 283, 316–19, 328, 330, 333 269

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

237–38, 270, 316 266, 270–71, 274 280 269, 316 272–73, 276, 317 272, 275, 317, 350 269, 273–75, 278, 331 272–73, 331 269–71 272 269, 272 272 268–69, 272, 274, 278 273, 275, 379 316–17 276 270 269, 237 268, 278 278 269 327, 379 268–69, 275, 278, 369 279, 282 278 221 269 268–69 275 266, 268–69 306 269–70 267, 269 268, 278, 306 2, 268, 272, 350 269, 271, 275 322, 325, 327 268–70, 272, 359 5, 335–48 5, 306, 317, 349–60 189, 317, 322, 324 308 272 269–70, 331 275 266, 283–84 327 268

435

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

4:5 4:7 4:10 4:12 4:13–14 4:13 4:14 4:16 4:17–18 4:17 4:19

273 324 275 268, 270 272 269–70, 306, 331 268, 270, 311 268 273 267, 278, 328 266, 269–71, 273, 275– 76, 278 276 316 318 223, 324, 376 266, 269, 276 267–68, 283, 329 268, 270, 275–76 268, 275 284, 327, 360

5:1 5:5 5:8–9 5:8 5:9–10 5:9 5:10 5:12 5:13 2 Peter 1:14 2:4–9 3:4–7 3:9 3:15

350 347 347 347 231

1 John 1:10 2:10 2:13 2:20–21 2:27 2:29

312 290 223 312 312 284, 293, 312

3:1–2 3:8 3:9–10 3:9 3:10 3:12 3:24 4:7–21 4:7 4:13–16 5:1 5:4 5:6–8 5:7–10 5:18–19 5:18

290 223 312 284, 293 212, 290 223 312 224 284, 293, 312 284, 290, 284, 293, 310 312 223 284, 293,

Jude 9

223

Revelation 2:3 2:10 6:15 7:2–4 9:11 12:7–9 12:9 12:12 14:8 17:2 17:6 18:3 20:2 20:10 22:18–19

178 223 236 51 198 198 172, 223 223 79 79 80 79 173, 223 223 54

312 293 312

312

OTHER SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD JEWISH LITERATURE Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH V, 7–8 V, 25 VI, 29 VI, 30 VII, 11

288 288 288 288 288

IX, 35

288

1QM I, 1 XVII, 8

288 288

1QpHab II, 12–VI, 12

89

436

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

1QS I, 9–10 III, 20–22 IV, 5

288 288 288

CD VI, 15 XIII, 14

288 288

4Q174 (Flor) I, 8

288

4Q286–287 (Bera,b)

176

4Q372 1 11–12 16

291 105 291

4Q504 (DibHama) 1–2 IV, 12

176

11Q5 (Psa Plea) 19:15

176

11Q19 XLV, 7–17

126

Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 1.20 1.74 1.76 1.78 2.77 2.286 2.306 4.123–124 4.123 4.309–310 5.31 5.93 8.255–256 10.194 11.67 11.321–322 11.340–345 11.340 11.344 11.346–47 12.106 12.257–264

287 346 346 336, 339, 341, 346 57 161 296 54 42–43 53 54–55 287 42–43, 54 121, 124 292 111 111 107 107 107 126 107

13.74–79 17.295 18.81–84 18.85–89

111 57 114, 116 114

Bellum judaicum 2.128–129 2.454 4.484 5.449–451

126 289 294 61

Contra Apionem 2.110 2.174

289 287

Vita 14 113

121, 135 289

Philo of Alexandria Aet. 8–9 294 9 292 47 292 76 292 85 292 93 292 99 292 103 292 107 292 Agr. 9

308

Cher. 43–44 46 49 50 114

305 298 298 306 292

Conf. 144–145 145 146–147

288 305 307

Contemp. 34

121

437

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

37 74

121 121, 135

Migr. 111 223–225

44 108

Congr. 130

298

Mos. 1.94 1.279 2.65 2.134 2.199

161, 166 305, 307–8 292 288 55

Decal. 129

299

Det. 35–44 142 60

298, 305

Mut. 255

299

Deus 137

298

Opif. 67

303

Ebr. 9 30 55 70

166 288 279 166

Post. 124 129 135 177

292 308 298 299

Gig. 14–23 16

182 182

Her. 60–62 258–260

307–8 313

Praem. 10 152 159–161 160

299 288 306 299

Prob. 160

308

Ios. 189 214 268–269

159 159 159

QE 2.29 2.40 2.46

288, 308 288 288

Leg. 2.74 3.75 3.149–150 3.169–170 3.173 3.180 3.219 232

165 308 306 308 308 299 305 165

Sobr. 55–56

313

Somn. 1.147 1.199 1.202 2.184–185

307 299 299 299

Legat. 325

292

Spec. 1.51–58

288

438

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

1.95–96 1.105 1.216 1.318 1.345 2.29 4.180–182

288 298 298 287–88 306 298 288

Virt. 108 177–179 206–207 211–219 218–219

289 288–89 313 288 313

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Moses 16–18

195

Apocryphon of Ezekiel 2 287 Aristeas the Exegete 250–51

279

Ascension of Isaiah 1:8–9 2:4 3:11 3:13 4:2 4:14 4:16 4:18 5:1 5:15

176 176 376 176 176 176 176 176 176 176

Assumption of Moses 10:1 177 2 Baruch 2:8 36 77–87 3 Baruch (Greek) 4:8

195 100 105

177

3 Baruch (Slavonic) 4:7 4:13

177 177

1 Enoch 10:2–3 10:16–17 53:3 54:6 65:10–12 91:15–17 95:4 106:13–18

340, 347 347 176 176 340, 347 185 50 340, 347

2 Enoch 18:31

177

3 Enoch 23:16 26:12

176 176

2 Esdras 7:50 7:113

185 185

4 Ezra 4:40–42

294

Joseph and Aseneth 12:8–15

287

Jubilees 1:16 1:23–25 5:3–5 7:34 16:26 21:24 22:16–17 23:29 36:6 46:2

100 287 340, 347 100 100 100 125 177 100 176

Letter of Aristeas 37 181–182 304–306

111 127 126

439

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

Life of Adam and Eve 9:1

176

Martyrdom of Isaiah 5:9

55

Psalms of Solomon 4

44

Sibylline Oracles 1.128–131 2.95–96 3.591–95 4.165

346 120 126 289

Testament of Isaac 4:5 Testament of Job 3:3 3:6 6:4 7:1 8:1–3 16:2 17:1

136

176–77 176 177, 197 177 177 176 177

17:2 20:5 23:1 23:2 26:6 27:1 27:2 33:9 41:5 42:2 47:10 117:10

197 197 197 177 177 176 177 287 177 177 177 177

Testament of Judah 24:2

287

Testament of Levi 6–7 7:2

104 104

Testament of Naphtali 5–6

105

Testament of Reuben 5:6

197

RABBINIC AND OTHER LATER JEWISH LITERATURE Babylonian Talmud B. Bat. 10a Ber. 19a Nid. 31 Sanh. 108a–b Yebam. 22a Yebam. 47a

288 182 303 346 289 289

Deuteronomy Rabbah 7.9

288

Exodus Rabbah 46.4–5

288

94.6

105

Gerim 60–61 97

289 289

Jerusalem Talmud Abod. Zar. 1 Abod. Zar. 2 Abod. Zar. 5:44 Abod. Zar. 23–28 Abod. Zar. 39c

113 113 111 113 113

Ktāb al-Tarīkh Abū ’l Fath 113–14 Genesis Rabbah 30.7 32

346 338

Mishnah Abod. Zar. 4:8–11

131, 134

440 Abod. Zar. 5:3–6 Numbers Rabbah 13.15

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

131, 134

345

Sipre Numbers 131

131, 133

Tosefta Abod. Zar. 8:2

130

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Acts of Philip 130

187

Ambrosiaster Comm. Phlm. arg. Comm. Phlm. 1–4 Comm. Phlm. 7 Comm. Phlm. 8–9 Comm. Phlm. 10–14 Comm. Phlm. 15–16 Comm. Phlm. 17 Comm. Phlm. 18 Comm. Phlm. 20 Comm. Phlm. 22

244–45 245 245–46 245 244–45 245–46 245–46 246 246 246

Barnabas 18:1

178

Clement of Rome 1 Clem. 5:4–6 1 Clem. 5:6 1 Clem. 21:7 1 Clem. 24:3 1 Clem. 61:1 2 Clem 13:4 2 Clem. 18:2

231 276 278 276 328 275 178

Didache 1:3

275

Epiphanius Panarion 80.1.6

112

Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.23.5 Hist. eccl. 2.25 Praep. ev. 9.22.1

121, 135 231 107

Gospel of Bartholomew 3:25–29 177

Ignatius of Antioch Eph. 1:1 Eph. 6:3 Eph. 10:3 Eph. 13:1 Pol. 2:1 Rom. 5:3 Rom. 6:3 Smyrn. 9:1 Trall. 1:2 Trall. 8:1

224 224 178 178 275 178 224 178 224 178

Infancy Gospel (of Thomas) 4:2 50 8:1–2 50 Irenaeus Fragmenta deperditorum operum 33.6–7 293–94 Haer. 1.8.7 294 Haer. 1.14 294 Haer. 1.14.1 294 Haer. 1.23.1 115 Haer. 1.23.2 115 Jerome Comm. Phlm. 1–3 Comm. Philm. 4–6 Comm. Phlm. 8–9 Comm. Phlm. 10–13 Comm. Phlm. 15–16 Comm. Philm. 17 Comm. Philm. 19 Comm. Philm. 22

247–49 248–49 247–48 247–48 248 248 249 249

John Chrysostom Hom. 1 Cor. 26.2 Hom. Phlm. arg. Hom. Phlm. 1–3 Hom. Phlm. 4–6

199 250 251–53 251, 253

441

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

Hom. Hom. Hom. Hom.

Phlm. Phlm. Phlm. Phlm.

7 8 10–12 24

251 253 252 253

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 26.2–5 1 Apol. 61 1 Apol. 61.3–4 1 Apol. 61.10 1 Apol. 66.1 2 Apol. 10.1 Dial. 138.2

115 62 293–94 294 294 325 294

Origen Cels. Comm. John Comm. Matt. 10 Comm. Rom.

111 105 111 63

Martyrdom of Polycarp 3 3:1 11:2

178 178 273

Orosius Hist. adv. Paganos 7.7.6.15–16

116

Pelagius Comm. Phlm. arg. Comm. Phlm. 13 Comm. Phlm. 16

254 254 254

Polycarp Phil. 7.1

178

Sulpicius Severus Chronicle 2.29

116

Tatian Address to the Greeks 4

333

Tertullian Apol. 13.9 Bapt. 8.4 Res. 47

115 341 63

Theodore of Mopsuestia Comm. Phlm. arg. Comm. Phlm. 1–2 Comm. Phlm. 8–9 Comm. Phlm. 9–11 Comm. Phlm. 15–17 Comm. Phlm. 20

255 255–56 256 256 256–57 257

Theodoret of Cyrus Comm. Phlm. arg. Comm. Phlm. 1–4 Comm. Phlm. 8–9 Comm. Phlm. 9–11 Comm. Phlm. 14 Comm. Phlm. 17 Comm. Phlm. 22

258 258 258 258 258 258 259

Theophilus Autol. 2.15.14 Autol. 2.16.7

294 294

OTHER GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE Aelius Theon Progymnasmata 60.2

Met. 11.27–30

285

Aristophanes Plut. 748

160

159

Aeschines Ctes. 109.1 Epistle to Xenophon 7

159 186

Apuleius Met. 11.16 Met. 11.21–24 Met. 11.24

285 285 285

Aristophanes of Byzantium Nomina aetatum [fragmenta] 277.10 304 Aristotle Eth. nic. 2.7.13 44 Eth. nic. 4.6.1 44

442 [Oec.] 3.2.3 Protr. 5.2 Rhet. 2.2.1 Rhet. 3.7.11 Athenaeus 6.255A–B

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

279 159 370 48

219

Caesar Bell. gall. 6.16

116

Cicero Top. 1.3 Verr. 2 Verr. 2.5.163

34 72 59

Corpus Hermeticum 2.14 13.2 Demosthenes Ep. 2

277 159

Dionysius Thrax Frag. 53.2

159

Epictetus Diatr. 1.3.1 Diatr. 1.8.7 Diatr. 1.9.20 Diatr. 1.24.1–2 Diatr. 2.9.20–21 Diatr. 2.23.25 Diatr. 3.16.9 Diatr. 3.20.9 Diatr. 4.1.51 Ench. 29

285 159 159 331 289 159 159 331 186 331

Epicurus Her. 39.4–8

370

Euripides Andr. 637 Ep. 5

296 30

Galen Comp. Med. Loc. 13.83.15

292

Fulvius Sparsus 7.6.3

59

44

Callicratides On the Happiness of Households 106.1–10

Cleanthes Hymn 4 Hymn 33

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. Rom. 2.25.1 [Rhet.] 8.8.17

285 285

186 296

30

Dio Cassius 57.18.5a 60.6.6

116 117

Herodotus Hist. 2.113 Hist. 2.114

51 195

Dio Chrysostom Or. 8.1.1–2 Or. 12.15 Or. 18.2 Or.18.4 Or. 33.3 Or. 70.6 4 Regn. 21–22

159 159 159 159 146, 159 142 284

Hesiod Works and Days 781

296

Hierocles On Duties 3.39.34–36

326

Hippocrates Vict. 2.54

297

Homer Il. 1.544 Il. 3.420 Il. 5.438–41

285 186 186

Diodorus Siculus 16.61 Diogenes Laertius 5.82.1

57

159

443

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

Od. 1.28

285

Inscriptions (Greek) I. Eph. SIG 826c, 15

160 296–97

Isocrates Antid. 10.5 Antid. 50.6 Antid. 174 Antid. 185–186 Antid. 272 Antid. 292

159 159 159 159 159 159

Isodorus Hymn 3.17 (49–51) 161 Hymn 4.39–40 (64–65) 161 Lucian Demon. 3 Peregr. 19 Or. 32.10–11

142 142 161

Oxyrhynchus Papyri 292 496 899.8 1381.206

158 158 158 160–61

Papyri graeci magicae I.32 IV.197–198 IV.2445 XIII.17 XIII.176 XIII.492 XLI.216–217 XLVIII.478–479 XLVIII.1275–1276 LXI.9 LXIII.1333 LXXXIII.2450

296–97 160 150 296–97 296–97 296–97 160 160 160 160 160 160

Crito 44B–46A Ep. 2.310E Ep. 7 Euthyd. 289D–290A Gorg. 452E–453A Resp. 364C Resp. 521D Resp. 5.455D–456A

181 293 30 44 44 50 159 279

Pliny Ep. 4.19 Nat. 19.19

278 132

Plutarch Adol. poet. aud. (Mor. 34E) Adul. am. 1 (Mor. 48E) Adul. am. 37 (Mor. 74E) Amat. (Mor. 759D) Cap. ex inim. util. (Mor. 86B–92F) Conj. praec. 19 (Mor. 140D) Conj. praec. 26 (Mor. 141E) Conj. praec. 33 (Mor. 142E) Conj. praec. 42 (Mor. 144B) Conj. praec. 46 (Mor. 144E) Conj. praec. 47 (Mor. 144F) De E in Delphi 7 (Mor. 388F) De E in Delphi 17 (Mor. 392A) Def. orac. 9 (Mor. 414D) Def. orac. 14 (Mor. 417E) Def. orac. 21 (Mor. 421E) Is. Os. 35 (Mor. 364E) Is. Os. 76 (Mor. 382C) Num. 15.3.7 Rect. rat. aud. (Mor. 40B5)

159 44 44 161 269 277 278 279 296 278 279 161 161 160 160 160 292 161 160 159

Polybius 1.86

57

Porphyry Aneb. 2.6b.2

294

160 296–97 296–97

146 159

Philodemus Περὶ ὀργῆς 17.2.19

294

Ps.-Callisthenes Historia Alexandri Magni 1 1.10.13 1.13

Plato Apol. 17A–18A Apol. 18D

44 44

Quintilian Inst. 2.15.2–4 Inst. 2.15.3–4

444 Inst. Inst. Inst. Inst. Inst. Inst.

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

5.10.7 6.2.2–26 6.2.29–36 8.3.88 9.2.40–44 9.2.104

Seneca the Elder Contr. 6.3–8 Contr. 7.6.1 Seneca the Younger Ep. 108.22 Ep. 108.35–37

145 48 48 48 188 48

155 59

116 142

Strabo Geogr. 4.4.5 Geogr. 14.1.39

116 57

Suetonius Claud. 24.4

116

Claud. 25 Nero 16 Tib. 36

117 116 116

Tacitus Ann. 2.85 Ann. 3.34 Ann. 14.30 Ann. 15.44

116 279 116 116

Theophrastus Char. 5

44

Varro Ling. 6.20

132

Xenophon Mem. 4.3.13

160

23 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Aageson, J. W. 281 Abbott, T. K. 209, 218 Achtemeier, P. J. 268, 270, 272, 275, 283– 84, 286, 295, 301–2, 304, 310, 340, 347, 349–50, 353–54 Adams, M. 64–65, 67 Aland, K. 217–18 Albl, M. C. 104 Aletti, J-N. 208 Allen, D. M. 356 Almond, P. C. 170–71 Alon, G. 111, 113, 126, 130 Arichea, D. C. 343 Armitage, D. J. 49 Arnold, C. E. 47, 160, 208, 210 Ashton, J. 165, 291 Aune, D. E. 2, 21, 34 Austin, J. L. 50 Avi-Yonah, M. 113 Balch, D. L. 237, 268, 270, 277–79, 310, 319–20 Bammel, C. P. 247 Barclay, J. M. G. 120, 234–35, 241 Barnard, L. W. 63 Barnett, P. W. 156 Barr, J. 170, 291 Barré, M. L. 199–200 Barrett, C. K. 145, 156 Barrier, J. W. 51 Bartchy, S. S. 157, 232 Barth, M. 207, 210, 220, 222 Bauckham, R. 91, 210 Bauer, T. J. 241 Beale, G. K. 140–41 Beare, F. W. 295, 300, 302, 305, 338 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 336, 353, 358 Behm, J. 195

Bengtsson, H. 203 Bergmann, C. D. 85–86, 92 Best, E. 141, 180, 208–10, 215, 219, 222, 224, 283, 294–95, 301, 304–5, 338 Betz, H. D. 2, 19–22, 24–27, 29–30, 33–38, 44–45, 150, 160, 164–65, 178, 185, 193– 94, 205, 286, 297, 310–11 Betz, O. 51 Bieder, W. 199 Bird, J. G. 280 Bird, M. F. 38 Black, M. 50 Blakeney, E. H. 285 Blank, S. 52–53 Blänsdorf, J. 52 Bligh, J. 42, 51 Blümel, W. 46 Böcher, O. 173, 178 Boers, H. 28 Boring, E. M. 333, 349, 351 Borse, U. 40–41 Braaten, L. J. 3, 75–86, 88, 91–97 Bradley, K. R. 231, 271, 274 Bray, G. L. 61, 63, 243–44 Bremmer, J. 286 Breytenbach, C. 173, 177 Brichto, H. C. 52–53 Bring, R. 42 Brooks, O. S. 353 Brown, R. E. 117, 207, 218–19, 305, 309, 312 Bruce, F. F. 25, 45, 118, 140–41, 145–46, 209, 227 Brueggemann, W. 12 Brugensis, F. L. 243 Bruneau, P. 100 Bruss, J. S. 328

446

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Bryant, R. A. 48 Bucchi, F. 247 Bultmann, R. 28, 199 Burke, T. J. 143, 151 Burton, E. D. 40–41 Byrne, B. 37, 286–87, 311 Byron, J. 232–33 Cadbury, H. J. 207, 214 Calhoun, R. M. 174, 188 Callan, T. 23, 38 Calvin, J. 81, 83 Campbell, B. L. 276 Campbell, D. A. 369 Caramelli, D. 60 Carr, W. 170 Carter, W. 269, 286 Castelli, E. A. 139 Charlesworth, J. H. 172, 176 Choi, P. R. 2 Church, F. F. 241, 250 Ciampa, R. E. 146, 149–50, 152 Clarke, A. 82 Classen, C. J. 23, 38 Clendenen, A. 2, 371–72 Cockerill, G. L. 358 Cohen, S. J. D. 193–94 Colish, M. L. 298, 323 Collins, A. Y. 290, 380 Collins, J. J. 105, 124, 346 Collins, M. A. 203 Collins, R. F. 140, 145, 151, 164 Colson, F. H. 292 Conzelmann, H. 147–48, 152, 179–81, 186–87, 291–92 Cook, D. 336–38 Cook, J. G. 57–58, 60–61, 68 Cooper, A. 32 Cormack, J. M. R. 46 Cosgrove, C. H. 3, 133–34 Craddock, F. B. 13 Cranfield, C. E. B. 93, 162 Crawford, M. R. 351 Crook, Z. 251 Crown, A. D. 112–14 Culpepper, A. 286–88 D’Angelo, M. R. 291 Dahood, M. 175 Dalton, W. J. 344, 350–51, 353, 355

Daniel, R. W. 160 Das, A. A. 2, 33–34, 37, 47, 120 Davey, L. 110 Davids, P. H. 351, 353 Day, P. L. 173, 177 De Boer, M. 31, 37 De Bruyn, T. 254 De Wet, C. L. 252, 331 Debanné, M. J. 242 Decock, P. B. 249 Dederen, R. 120 Deissmann, A. 51 Dennison Jr., J. T. 258 DeSilva, D. A. 44, 266 DeVivo, J. L. 2, 5, 349 Dey, J. 288, 292–93, 308 Dibelius, M. 183, 291–93, 309 Dodd, B. J. 43, 56 Dodd, C. H. 209 Domeris, W. R. 251 Donaldson, J. 333 Donelson, L. 294–95, 299, 301–2, 304 Donfried, K. P. 148, 154 Donne, J. 188 Drobner, H. R. 253 Drown, C. T. 258 Dryden, J. de W. 237 Dubis, M. 341 Dunn, J. D. G. 44, 62, 67–69, 88, 120, 162, 210, 228, 284, 310, 353–54 Eckey, W. 37 Eden, P. T. 132 Elderkin, G. W. 46 Elliott, J. H. 265–67, 269–70, 275, 277, 283, 294–96, 300–301, 304–5, 316–20, 331–32, 339, 35-–51, 353–54 Elliott, S. S. 242 Ellis, E. E. 162 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 205, 323, 331 Epstein, I. 289, 346 Evans, C. A. 143, 162–63 Fee, G. D. 27–28, 37, 143–47, 152, 226 Ferguson, E. 171, 178 Field, F. 250 Fishbane, M. 182 Fitzgerald, J. T. 255–57, 267, 271, 276–77 Fitzmyer, J. A. 61–62, 125, 154, 187–88, 201, 250, 310–11

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Floyd, M. H. 84 Foerster, W. 178 Forbes, C. 3, 23, 157 Ford, D. F. 185 Forsyth, N. 170 Fossum, J. 116 Foulkes, F. 214–15 Fowl, S. E. 210, 212–14, 222 France, R. T. 341 Francis, J. 289, 304, 310 Frankfurter, D. 50–53 Fraser, B. L. 297 Freedman, H. 346 Freidenreich, D. M. 122, 124 Frey, J-B. 52 Friedl, A. 247, 249 Frilingos, C. 242 Frymer-Kensky, T. 90 Funk, R. W. 153 Furnish, V. P. 157–58, 180, 184, 196, 199 Gager, J. G. 46–47, 52 García Martínez, F. 77 Garland, D. E. 146, 152, 233 Garnsey, P. 271 Gaster, T. H. 178 Gempf, C. 85, 91, 95 Georgi, D. 158, 163 Giles, K. 238 Glancy, J. A. 231, 271, 280 Gombis, T. G. 327 Goodacre, M. 376 Goodman, M. 289 Goppelt, L. 283, 287, 294–95, 301, 305, 338, 351, 352, 354 Goulder, M. D. 214 Green, G. L. 142 Green, J. B. 61, 283 Greer, R. A. 254–56 Greeven, H. 351 Grundmann, W. 203 Gualdi-Russo, E. 60 Guinot, J-N. 257 Guthrie, D. 165 Haag, H. 170 Haak, R. D. 84–85 Haas, N. 60, 72 Habel, N. C. 76, 80–81, 83–85 Hamilton, V. P. 173, 175, 178, 182

447

Hanson, P. D. 176 Harnack, A. von 247 Harrill, J. A. 231–32, 271 Harris, H. 209 Harris, M. J. 145, 184–85 Harrison, J. R. 160 Hartin, P. 309 Hartman, L. 144 Hayes, K. M. 81, 91 Hays, R. B. 22–23, 37, 148, 153–54, 178 Heath, M. 32, 34, 38 Heine, R. E. 247 Hellmann, M. 126 Hempel, J. 47 Henderson, W. J. 327–28 Héring, J. 144 Heuser, A. J. 19 Hieke, T. 127–28 Hill, R. C. 257–58 Hillers, D. R. 85 Hodges, F. M. 193 Hoehner, H. W. 207, 209–11, 216, 218, 223, 225 Holloway, P. 193 Hommel, H. 91, 95 Horbury, W. 48 Horne, C. M. 145 Horrell, D. G. 97 Horsley, R. A. 148, 151 Hort, F. J. A. 299 Hunt, C. 97 Hunter, D. G. 243, 245 Huttar, D. K. 37 Immerman, R. S. 193 Irons, L. 258 Irons, M. S. 258 Isaac, E. 347 Isaacs, M. E. 146 Japhet, S. 175, 183 Jeal, R. R. 242 Jeremias, J. 286–87, 291 Jervell, J. 142, 162 Jewett, R. K. 68, 91, 95–96, 119–20, 177–78, 180, 185, 200, 202 Jobes, K. H. 341, 351–52 Johnson, L. T. 309, 315 Johnson, P. F. 225 Johnston, G. 152

448

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Jones, W. H. S. 297 Jordan, D. R. 52 Judge, E. A. 160 Jung, C. G. 170 Kalimi, I. 111 Kannengiesser, C. 243, 253 Kartveit, M. 105 Käsemann, E. 121, 211 Kazen, T. 126 Kea, P. V. 241 Keck, L. 87–88 Kee, H. C. 104 Keener, C. S. 44 Keesmaat, S. 90, 93, 95, 98 Kelhoffer, J. A. 143, 158, 162, 165 Kelly, H. A. 170–71, 177 Kelly, J. N. D. 250, 294, 296, 301, 304–5, 307, 336, 340–41, 350–52, 354 Kemmler, D. W. 143 Kennedy, G. 2, 19 Kenny, A. 225 Kistemaker, S. J. 153 Kittle, G. 291 Kitz, A. M. 52 Kinzer, M. 100 Klaiber, W. 37 Klauck, H-J. 179, 286 Klein, W. W. 207 Knoppers, G. N. 101, 106, 109, 112–113 Knox, J. 209 Koester, H. 322 Konradt, M. 309 Kraemer, D. 133 Krans, J. 243 Kremendahl, D. 23–24, 37 Kroll, W. (G.) 160 Kruse, C. 156–57 Kruse, H. 170 Kubo, S. 220 Kumitz, C. 241 Kümmel, W. G. 209 Labahn, M. 150 Lampe, P. 38, 129, 167, 242, 244, 250 Lang, F. 179 LaVerdiere, E. 300–301 Levenson, J. D. 84 Levine, A-J. 128–29 Levy, I. C. 253

LiDonnici, L. R. 160 Lietaert Peerbolte, B. J. 150–51, 162–63 Lietzmann, H. 42 Lightfoot, J. B. 324–25 Lim, T. H. 145 Lincoln, A. T. 210, 213–14, 217–18, 224– 25 Ling, T. 178 Linke, K. 159 Lockwood, G. J. 148, 153 Loewenstamm, S. E. 85 Longenecker, R. N. 2, 20–22, 33, 40–41 Louw, J. P. 324 Lührmann, D. 320–21, 326 Luther, M. 339, 349 Lyons, G. 4, 42, 207, 229 Mackey, W. C. 193 Maccoby, H. 122 Magen, Y. 110–11 Malherbe, A. J. 141–43, 180, 192, 326, 330 Malina, B. J. 265–66, 329 Maltomoni, F. 160 March, E. W. 78 Margulis, B. 85 Marriott, C. 258 Martin, D. B. 232 Martin, R. P. 157–58, 210 Martin, T. W. 1–2, 19, 194, 278, 283–84, 295, 300, 302–5, 310, 318–19, 325, 363–80 Martyn, J. L. 31, 40, 42, 44–45, 55, 313 Marxsen, W. 315 Mason, E. F. 5, 284, 356–57, 377 Matera, F. J. 42, 165 Mayer, W. 250 McGrath, J. J. 356 Mealand, D. L. 225 Meeks, W. A. 332 Meijer, P. A. 298 Mercer, M. 54 Metzger, B. M. 144 Meyer, M. 286 Michaels, J. R. 273, 295, 299, 305, 350, 352, 354–55 Milligan, G. 351 Minns, D. 115 Mitchell, C. W. 54 Mitchell, M. M. 142, 151, 243–44, 252

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Mitton, L. 210, 217–18 Moffitt, D. M. 360 Montanari, F. 350 Moo, D. J. 32–33, 37, 40, 42–45, 55 Moo, J. 91 Morland, K. A. 41, 46–50, 53–54 Moule, C. F. D. 286 Moulton, J. H. 351 Moxnes, H. 69, 251, 271, 274, 280 Muddiman, J. 213, 217, 219 Mullen Jr., E. T. 286 Müller, U. B. 48 Mullins, T. Y. 199 Mußner, F. 39, 41, 43 Nanos, M. 19 Nash, R. S. 152 Naveh, J. 60 Neufeld, D. 70–72 Neumann, K. J. 225 Neusner, J. 131, 133 Nida, E. A. 324, 343 Nienhuis, D. R. 317 Noack, B. 178 Nodet, E. 107 Nottingham, E. G. 241 Noy, D. 53 O’Brien, P. T. 62, 210, 220, 222, 224 O’Rourke, J. J. 225 Oakes, P. 36–37, 42 Oberlinner, L. 292 Oelger, A. V. 374 Oepke, A. 41 Olyan, S. M. 81, 93 Onisto, N. 60 Pagels, E. 171–72, 202–3 Paget, J. C. 145, 158 Painter, J. 309, 311 Pardee, D. 177 Pardee, N. 5, 284 Parsons, S. 284, 288–90, 293–95, 301–2, 304–5 Parvis, P. 115 Pascher, J. 288 Patterson, O. 231 Patzia, A. G. 210, 212, 214, 217 Perdelwitz, R. 286 Peristiany, J. G. 265 Perkins, P. 144, 203

449

Pervo, R. I. 203 Pierce, C. T. 353 Pilch, J. J. 265, 329 Pilli, E. 60 Pinto Correia, C. 302 Pokorný, P. 325 Pomeroy, S. B. 271 Porter, S. E. 335 Porton, G. G. 135 Pummer, R. 106, 109–10, 112–13, 115 Pursiful, D. J. 35, 37, 43–45 Purvis, J. D. 105 Pusey, E. B. 258 Quasten, J. 250 Quell, G. 285–87 Quelle, G. 297 Quinn, J. D. 291 Raisborough, J. 64–65, 67, 71 Rauer, M. 120 Reasoner, M. 120–21 Reed, J. T. 29 Reeg, G. 182 Reicke, B. 216, 342–43, 345, 351–52, 355 Richard, E. J. 141, 269 Richards, G. C. 351 Richardson, C. A. 360 Richter, S. L. 102 Ritner, R. K. 52 Rives, J. B. 328 Robbins, V. 19 Roberts, A. 333 Roberts, J. J. M. 79, 82 Robinson, J. A. T. 214 Robinson, J. M. 288–90, 293 Robinson, W. C. 140, 145 Rosenblum, J. D. 124 Rosner, B. S. 146, 149–50, 152 Rothschild, C. K. 3, 189 Rowe, G. O. 156 Rowley, H. H. 47 Ruef, J. S. 152 Russell, D. M. 242 Russell, J. B. 169–70, 172, 178 Ryan, J. M. 241 Sabou, S. 72 Saller, R. 271 Samuelsson, G. 57–58 Sandnes, K. O. 48, 54–55

450

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Schafer, R. 82 Schäferdiek, K. 178 Scharbert, J. 50, 53 Scharlemann, M. H. 117 Scheck, T. P. 247, 249 Schelke, K. H. 300 Schellenberg, R. S. 23 Schlier, H. 120, 210, 217 Schmidt, K. L. 152 Schnabel, E. J. 179 Schnackenburg, R. 210–11, 214 Schneider, J. 57–58, 183 Schreiner, T. R. 29–30, 37, 48 Schrenk, G. 285–88, 291 Schubert, K. 178 Schuller, E. 105, 291 Schulz, S. 297 Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 19 Schwartz, D. R. 100, 116 Scott, I. W. 146 Scott, J. M. 79, 311, 313 Scott, W. 297 Seifrid, M. A. 62, 164 Sekeles, E. 60–61 Sellin, G. 208 Selwyn, E. G. 289, 298, 304–5, 343, 350– 51, 353 Senior, D. P. 275–76, 342, 352 Sheppard, G. T. 88 Sherlock, C. 52 Sieffert, F. 41–42 Silva, M. 25, 37, 40 Sisson, R. B. 5, 331 Sjöberg, E. 287–89 Small, B. 356 Smith, D. R. 155 Smith, D. M. 311 Smith, S. T. J. 238, 240 Smyth, H. W. 41, 181, 198, 300 Snyman, A. H. 242 Soards, M. L. 35, 37, 43–45 Sodano, A. R. 294 Soden, H. von 337–38 Souter, A. 254 Southgate, C. 97 Spencer, W. D. 152 Speyer, W. 46–47 Spittler, R. P. 177, 197

Stander, H. F. 250 Staples, J. A. 100 Stemberger, G. 133 Stern, J. 306 Stern, M. 111 Still, T. D. 4, 233–35, 374 Stokes, R. E. 170 Stange, E. 24 Strom, M. 155 Strubbe, J. J. M. 53 Swete, H. B. 257 Tadmore, H. 109 Talbert, C. 208, 210 Tannehill, R. C. 140 Tasker, R. V. G. 199–200 Thielman, F. 208–9, 216 Thierry, J. J. 199 Theissen, G. 170 Thiessen, M. 105 Thiselton, A. C. 144, 147–48, 153 Thomson, T. 178 Thrall, M. 199–200 Thun Hohenstein, U. 60 Thurston, B. 208 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 77 Tolmie, D. F. 4, 26–27, 37, 243, 245, 248 Tomson, P. J. 129–30, 135 Tracy, S. 282 Tremmel, W. C. 170 Troeltsch, E. 331 Trudinger, P. 76, 80–81, 83–84 Turner, E. G. 46, 52 Twelftree, G. H. 145, 158, 162–63, 166–67 Tzaferis, V. 60 Van der Horst, P. 302 Van Roon, A. 209 Vanderlip, V. F. 161 Vermaseren, M. J. 286 Vermes, G. 287, 291 Versnel, H. S. 52 Vogels, H. J. 244 Volk, R. 259 von Wahlde, U. 311 Vos, J. S. 40 Vouga, F. 44 Walker, D. D. 196 Wall, R. W. 317 Walsh, B. J. 90, 93

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Wanamaker, C. A. 139, 142–43, 151, 157 Wansink, C. S. 241 Watson, D. F. 4–5, 19, 353 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 218 Weima, J. A. D. 241 Welborn, L. L. 151 Wendland, E. 242 Westermann, C. 78 White, J. L. 28 Whitters, M. F. 3, 7 Wiefel, W. 52, 117 Wifstrand, A. 330 Wilckens, U. 120 Williams, H. H. D. 150 Williams, S. K. 41, 43–44 Williams, T. B. 211–12 Wilson, A. 241, 250 Wilson, C. G. 193 Windisch, H. 184, 283, 295, 308, 337 Winger, T. M. 208, 210, 214–15, 217–18, 220–22 Wink, W. 169–70

451

Winter, B. W. 145, 148, 159 Wintermute, O. S. 125 Witherington III, B. W. 35, 49, 55, 146, 159, 208, 215–16, 242, 283 Wooten, C. W. 159 Wright, A. T. 189 Wright, G. E. 101 Wright, N. T. 144, 213 Wuellner, W. 19 Wuest, K. S. 342 Würhwein, E. 195 Yadin, Y. 60, 72 Yamauchi, E. M. 46–47, 54 Yates, R. 170, 178, 189 Young, F. M. 185 Yule, G. U. 225 Zahn, T. 40 Zerwick, M. 335 Zias, J. 60–61 Ziesler, J. A. 49 Zornberg, A. G. 182

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706