Jesus, Paul, and the Early Church: Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts. Collected Essays (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161560613, 9783161560620, 3161560612

Citation preview

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

406

Eckhard J. Schnabel

Jesus, Paul, and the Early Church Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts Collected Essays

Mohr Siebeck

Eckhard J. Schnabel, born 1955; 1983 PhD from Aberdeen University (Scotland); Mary F. Rockefeller Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Massachusetts, USA.

ISBN 978-3-16-156061-3 / eISBN 978-3-16-156062-0 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-156062-0 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic ­systems. The book was typeset by E. J. Schnabel (Nota Bene Lingua Workstation Version 12), printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Großbuch­binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

To Bob Yarbrough, Hans Bayer, Craig Blomberg friends in Aberdeen thirty-five years ago, friends and colleagues still, in Deerfield, St. Louis, and Denver

Preface The essays collected in this volume have been written over the past 25 years, the 1992 essay shortly after my return from Manila, Philippines, where I had been teaching at the Asia Theological Seminary. It continues to be the norm, or at least the aspiration, of most European New Testament scholars to engage in research and writing across all the major areas of New Testament research, from Jesus to Paul and to the early church, utilizing philological and historical methods and newer approaches to literary texts to elucidate the world of the earliest Christians and the meaning of their texts in context, while also focusing their questions and the synthesis of the results of their research on the theological concerns and implications of the life and teaching of Jesus, Paul, and the early church. This variegated interest has informed my research, teaching, and writing since my doctoral studies at the University of Aberdeen and as I have taught in Manila, Wiedenest, Gießen, Deerfield/Chicago, and Hamilton/Boston. Twenty-five years ago, there were not many New Testament scholars who wrote on the missionary work of the early church, nor even on the missionary work of Paul. This has changed considerably. My own research interests have turned again and again to the realities of the work of Jesus, Paul, John, and the early church, as the following essays indicate. Most of the essays published in this volume were written as a response to invitations to contribute to Festschriften and other essay volumes, or as presentations at conferences. The essays have been harmonized as far as format is concerned, and infelicities have been eliminated; they have not been updated in the light of more recent research. The bibliographies at the end of each essay list the primary sources and the secondary literature referred to in the essay. I am most grateful to Professor Jörg Frey for accepting the volume for the WUNT series, to Dr. Henning Ziebrizki and Katharina Gutekunst from Mohr Siebeck for facilitating the publication with the cheerfulness and competence that continue to be the trademark of Mohr Siebeck, and to Bettina Gade and Elena Müller for their editorial work on the manuscript. I am again grateful to Steve Siebert of Nota Bene for a wonderful word-processing software that allows the production of camera-ready manuscripts. I thank my assistant Kelly

VIII

Preface

R. Bailey for help with the manuscript, especially with the indexes. Above all, I thank my wife Barbara for her cheerful and unstinting support during all these years living and working in Asia, Europe, and North America. This volume is dedicated to Bob Yarbrough, who initiated my move to the North America and was a colleague at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield/Chicago, and to Hans Bayer and Craig Blomberg – all fellow doctoral students at the University of Aberdeen when I. H. Marshall modeled New Testament scholarship at its highest levels while contributing to the life and mission of the church, who now teach at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis and in Denver Seminary, respectively, and who continue to be friends, always ready with a word of encouragement. Hamilton, Mass., Mai 2018

Eckhard J. Schnabel

Table of Contents Preface ......................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations ............................................................................................... XI

Jesus – Messianic Teacher 1.

Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles ......................... 3

2.

The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher ............................................................................. 31

Paul – Missionary Theologian 3.

Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence .................... 85

4.

Repentance in Paul’s Letters ................................................................ 121

5.

Evangelism and the Mission of the Church ......................................... 151

6.

Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α in Romans 12:1 .......................... 175

7.

How Paul Developed his Ethics: Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics ..................................................................... 193

The Early Church Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts 8.

The Meaning of βαπτι' ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature ................................................................................ 225

9.

The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι' ζω in the New Testament ..................................................................................... 259

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century ........................................................................................ 289

X

Table of Contents

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in the Context of the Ethnic, Social, and Political Affiliations in Revelation ....................... 333 12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation: Persecution, Perseverance, and Purity in the Shadow of the Last Judgment ........... 353 13. John and the Future of the Nations ...................................................... 385 14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church .......................... 415 15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions .... 451 16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion ................................................................................................ 479 17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology: The Missionary Reality of the Early Church and the Theology of the first Theologians ........................................................................ 505 First Publication and Permissions ............................................................... Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................................ Index of Modern Authors ............................................................................ Index of Subjects .........................................................................................

535 539 579 591

Abbreviations AB ABD ABR AE AGAJU ANRW AThANT AV

AYB BA BAGD BAR BBB BBR BCH BDAG BDF BECNT BETL BEvTh BHS BHTh Bib BNP BNTC BT BTB BU BWANT BZ BZNW CBET

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1972 Australian Biblical Review Année épigraphique Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by W. Haase, and H. Temporini. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972– Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Authorized Version Anchor Yale Bible Biblical Archaeologist Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Biblical Archaeology Review Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961, Reprint 1982. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Brill’s New Pauly. Edited by H. Cancik, and H. Schneider. Leiden: Brill, 2002–2012 Black’s New Testament Commentaries Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Untersuchungen Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology

XII CBQ CIIP CIJ ClQ CNT CPJ CRINT DDD DGE DJD DJG DLNTD DNTB DPL DSSSE EA EBC EDNT EKK EBib EHS EPRO ET ETAM ETL EÜ EUS EWNT ExpTim FAT FilNT FRLANT FS fzb GNB

GThA

Abbreviations Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palestinae. Edited by H. M. Cotton, L. Di Segni, W. Eck, B. Isaac, A. Kushnir-Stein, H. Misgav, J. Price, I. Roll, A. Yardeni, and W. Ameling. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010–2014 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Edited by J. B. Frey. New York: Ktav, 1975 Classical Quarterly Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Edited by V. Tcherikover, and A. Fuks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–1964 Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Brill: Leiden, 1995 Diccionario Griego-Español Discoveries in the Judaean Desert [of Jordan]. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955– 2002 Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green, S. McKnight, I. H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992 Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by P. H. Davids, R. P. Martin. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997 Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C. A. Evans, S. E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000 Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993 The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Edited by F. García Martínez, and J. C. E. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998 Epigraphica Anatolica Expositor’s Bible Commentary Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz, and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993 Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar Études Bibliques Europäische Hochschulschriften Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans 1'empire romain English Translation Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Einheits-Übersetzung European University Studies Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980–83 Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Filología Neotestamentaria Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Festschrift Forschungen zur Bibel Gute Nachricht Bibel Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten

Abbreviations HAL HALOT HdA HDR HFA

HNT HThK HTR HTS HUTh HWR ICC IDB IEJ IG IGLS IGR IJudO IK ILS Int IVPNTC JAC JBL JETS JGRChJ JHS JJS JRA JRASup JRS JSHJ JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JTS KEK KJV

XIII

Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Edited by L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2004 [1995] The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament in English. Edited by L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Begründet von Iwan von Müller Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hoffnung für Alle Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Historische Untersuchungen zur Theologie Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 Israel Exploration Journal Inscriptiones Graecae Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Edited by L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde, J.-P. Rey-Coquais, M. Sartre, and P.-L. Gatier. 21 vols. Paris: Institut français du Proche-Orient, 1911–1993 Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Edited by E. Leroux. Paris: Leroux, 1906–1927; reprint Chicago: Ares, 1975 Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Edited by D. Noy, A. Panayotov, H. Bloedhorn, and W. Ameling. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004 Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien Inscriptiones latinae selectae. Edited by H. Dessau, Berlin: Weidmann, 1892–1916 [1954–1962] Interpretation IVP New Testament Commentary Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal the Study of Judaism Supplement Series 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 for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament King James Version

XIV KNT KP LCL LD LEH LN LNTS LSJ LÜ LXX Maj MAMA MM MT NA28

NASB

NCBC NEAEHL Neot NET

NewDocs NCBC NIBC NICNT NIDB NIDNTT NIDOTTE NIGTC NIV NJB NKJV NLT

NovT NovTSup NPNF

Abbreviations Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Ziegler, K., W. Sontheimer, and H. Gärtner, eds., Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike. Auf der Grundlage von Pauly’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 5 vols. Stuttgart: Druckenmüller, 1964–75 Loeb Classical Library Lectio Divina Lust, J. E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992–1996 Louw, J. P., E. A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Society, 1988 Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. Ninth Edition, with revised supplement edited by Peter G. W. Glare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Luther-Bibel (1984) Septuagint. LXX texts are taken from the Göttingen Septuaginta Majority Text Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua J. H. Moulton, G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [1930] Masoretic Text Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Revised Edition. Edited by B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and H. Strutwolf. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012 New American Standard Bible New Century Bible Commentary New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. Jerusalem/New York: Israel Exploration Society/Carta, 1993 Neotestamentica New English Translation New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Edited by G. H. R. Horsley and Stephen R. Llewelyn. North Ryde, New South Wales: Macquarie University, 1981–2012 New Century Bible Commentary New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by K. D. Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009 The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by C. Brown. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–1978 New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 New International Greek Testament Commentary New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New King James Version New Living Translation Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements series Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

Abbreviations NRSV NTA NTD NTOA NTS NTTS OCD OED OGIS ÖTK OTP P. Coll. Youtie P. Oxy. PEQ Petzl PKNT PNTC PSI PTMS PW QD QR RAC RB RdQ RE REB ResQ REÜ RHDFE RHPR RNT RRJ RSV RV

SB SBAB SBB

XV

New Revised Standard Version Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Neues Testament Deutsch Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Texts and Studies Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012 Oxford English Dictionary Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel 1903–1905 Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–1985 Collectanea Papyrologica: Texts published in Honor of H. C. Youtie. Edited by A. E. Hanson, et al. Bonn: Habelt, 1976 Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, et al. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915– Palestine Exploration Quarterly Petzl, G. Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. EA 22. Bonn: Habelt, 1994. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament Pillar New Testament Commentary Papiri greci e latini. Edited by G. Vitelli, M. Norsa, V. Bartoletti, et al. Florence: Ariani, 1912–2008 Princeton Theological Monograph Series Pauly, A. F. von, and G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus, K. Ziegler, and H. Gärtner, eds. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. 84 vols. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894–1980 Questiones disputatae Quarterly Review Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by T. Klauser at al. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1950– Revue Biblique Revue de Qumran Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by A. F. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus, K. Ziegler, H. Gärtner. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894–1980 Revised English Bible Restoration Quarterly Revidierte Elberfelder Übersetzung Revue historique de droit français et étranger Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Regensburger Neues Testament Review of Rabbinic Judaism Revised Standard Version Revised Version Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Edited by F. Preisigke, et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1974 (1913–14) Stuttgart Biblische Aufsatzbände Stuttgart Biblische Beiträge

XVI SBLDS SBM SEG SJLA SNTSMS SP StANT StNT STDJ TAM TANZ TDNT TDOT ThHKNT TRu ThWNT TLNT TLOT TNIV

TNTC TRE TynBul USQR VoxEv WBC WMANT WUNT ZDPV ZECNT ZNW ZEE ZPE ZRGG ZTK

Abbreviations Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. 55 vols. Edited by J. J. E. Hondius, H. W. Pleket, R. S. Stroud, and J. H. M. Strubbe. Leiden: Brill, 1923–2010 Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Studien zum Neuen Testament Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Tituli Asiae Minoris Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.- J. Fabry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Theologische Rundschau Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979 Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Edited by C. Spicq. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995 Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997 Today’s New International Version Tyndale New Testament Commentary Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause, and G. Müller. Berlin: De Guyter, 1977–2007 Tyndale Bulletin Union Seminary Quarterly Review Vox Evangelica Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für evanglische Ethik Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

The abbreviations of ancient sources follow Patrick H. Alexander et al. The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Second Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2014; Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, Manfred Landfester, eds. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill, 2002–2010.

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles In his Inaugural lecture, I. H. Marshall asserted that “Jesus saw his task as the renewal of the people of Israel who had fallen away from the true relationship to God. Although he restricted his activity almost exclusively to the Jews, he showed a particular concern for the poor and the outcasts of society, which suggests that in principle he was open to the inclusion of Samaritans and Gentiles under God’s Kingdom”.1 Among the implications regarding the common basis in the teaching of Jesus, Paul and John, he pointed out that “for all the three teachers the salvation events are regarded as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy and that the area of fulfilment is the people of Israel now open in its membership, at least in principle, to all who accept Jesus as Lord”.2 Indeed, Jesus has been called “the primal missionary”: his conduct was the starting point of the early Christian mission.3 Since the early Christian movement saw the mission to the Gentiles as a logical feature of its mission,4 the issue of Jesus’ position regarding the Gentiles is of fundamental importance.5 This question has been answered in basically two ways.6 First, Jesus did not ─────────────── 1 I. Howard Marshall, “Jesus, Paul and John”, Aberdeen University Review 51 (1985): 18– 36 (= I. Howard Marshall, “Jesus, Paul and John”, in Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology [London/Downers Grove: SPCK/InterVarsity Press, 1990], 35–56, esp. 42). The Inaugural lecture to the Chair of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Aberdeen was delivered on 9 November 1983. 2 Marshall, “Jesus, Paul and John”, 52–53. 3 Martin Hengel, “The Origins of the Christian Mission [1971]”, in Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (London: SCM, 1983), 48–64, 166–79, esp. 62, referring to Erich Gräßer, “Jesus in Nazareth”, NTS 65 (1969–70): 1–23, here 22. 4 Cf. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 220. 5 Pace Hengel, “Origins”, 62, who claims that this question is “a secondary problem”. 6 For reviews of the history of research see particularly Ferdinand Hahn, Das Verständnis der Mission im Neuen Testament, WMANT 13 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963), 19–22; David J. Bosch, “‘Jesus and the Gentiles’ – a Review after Thirty Years”, in The Church Crossing Frontiers: Essays on the Nature of Mission, FS Bengt Sundkler, ed. P. Beyerhaus and C. F. Hallencreuz (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1969), 3–19; Hubert Frankemölle, “Zur Theologie der Mission im Matthäusevangelium”, in Mission im Neuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge, QD 93 (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), 93–129, esp. 100–2; Werner G. Kümmel, “Das Urchristentum. II. Arbeiten zu Spezialproblemen”, TRu 52 (1987): 268–85, esp. 268–78.

4

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

sanction a mission to the Gentiles. There are at least three versions of this position: (1) Jesus forbade his disciples on principle to engage in a mission among Gentiles; the Gentiles are thought to be brought into the kingdom of God by God’s own action in the last days as fulfilment of the prophetic vision of the nations’ pilgrimage to Zion.7 (2) Jesus deliberately limited his ministry to Israel, not wanting his disciples to witness to non-Jews; the conception of an active Gentile mission derives from the Hellenistic Jewish Christians in Jerusalem or from Paul.8 (3) A more cautious version of this view suggests that Jesus did not express any conviction about the Gentiles and the kingdom of God since his vision concentrated on the restoration of Israel.9 Second, the Gentile mission originated with Jesus in some way: (1) Jesus limited his ministry to Israel while envisaging a future inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God, with the resurrection and the Great Commission being the starting point of the universal mission of the disciples.10 (2) Jesus’ vision was concentrated on Israel, the positive encounters with Gentiles were unplanned exceptions, there is no clear evidence for the assumption that he advocated a future inclusion of the Gentiles, but Jesus’ ministry and some of his sayings opened up perspectives which logically led to the early Christian Gentile mission.11 (3) Jesus himself was consciously involved in outreach to Gentiles and may be regarded as the first missionary to the Gentiles.12 ─────────────── 7 Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jesu Verheißung für die Völker, Franz Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1953 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1959 [1956]), 32–33, 47ff, 60ff; also Bengt Sundkler, “Jésus et les païens”, RHPR 16 (1936): 462–99 (= Bengt Sundkler, “Jésus et les païens [1936]”, in Contributions à l’étude de la pensée missionaire dans le Nouveau Testament, Arbeiten und Mitteilungen aus dem neutestamentlichen Seminar zu Uppsala, ed. B. Sundkler and A. Fridrichsen [Uppsala: Das Neutestamentliche Seminar zu Uppsala, 1937], 1–38); Helene Stoevesandt, Jesus und die Heidenmission, Diss. theol, Göttingen, 1943), 141ff. 8 Cf. Heinrich Kasting, Die Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission, BEvTh 55 (München: Kaiser, 1969); Frankemölle, “Theologie der Mission”, 117–18. 9 This view is held, with variations, by Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Fourth Revised Edition (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924 [1902]), I, 39ff; Hengel, “Origins”, 54ff, 62; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 221. 10 Cf. Max Meinertz, Jesus und die Heidenmission, NTA 1/1–2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1925 [1908]), 84ff and passim; similarly David Bosch, Die Heidenmission in der Zukunftsschau Jesu. Eine Untersuchung zur Eschatologie der synoptischen Evangelien, AThANT 36 (Zürich: Zwingli, 1959), 76ff, 193ff, and passim; more recently David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission, American Society of Missiology 16 (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999 [1991]), 29–31, 39ff, 64–65. 11 Cf. Hahn, Mission, 19–32; David J. Bosch, “‘Jesus and the Gentiles’ – a Review after Thirty Years”, 16–17; Rudolf Pesch, “Voraussetzungen und Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission”, in Mission im Neuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge, QD 93 (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), 11– 70, esp. 36–38, 54ff; cf. Hengel, “Origins”, 63. 12 Cf. Friedrich Spitta, Jesus und die Heidenmission (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909), 72ff, 109ff; Adolf Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus. Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbständigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963 [1948]), 277– 73, 339, 701–2; similarly Don A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

5

We will first review three basic facts which are most relevant for our discussion: the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, the vigor of the early Christian mission to the Gentiles, and the evidence in the Gospels for a link between Jesus and the concern for Gentile mission. Secondly we will investigate Jesus’ encounters with Gentiles and relevant statements about Gentiles in order to determine whether the Gospel narratives give a reliable portrait of the missionary concerns of Jesus.

1. Basic Facts 1.1 Jews and Gentiles The attitude of the pagan world towards the Jews was mixed. There were on the one hand those who were impressed with the integrative potential of Israel’s monotheistic faith and with the ethical rigor of the corresponding praxis.13 As a result there were Gentiles who decided to become Jews, despite the social alienation from their old context demanded by the Jewish cultic regulations. Besides these “proselytes” there were “God fearers”, people who remained sympathizers and who took over several of the (less strict) Jewish laws. On a more official level, in the Diaspora Jews were generally appreciated as loyal citizens. Many Hellenistic cities welcomed them as traders. Around 200 BC Antiochus III Megas settled 2,000 Jewish families from Mesopotamia in Lydia and Phrygia to consolidate his strategic interests in these regions (Josephus, A.J. 12.148–153). Around 139 BC further Jews migrated to Asia Minor (cf. 1 Macc 15:16–23).14

─────────────── the New International Version. 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995 [1984]), 202, 248, 596–97; evidently also I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, Second Edition (Exeter: Paternoster, 1989), 140–41, and I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 768, 903–04; R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter: Paternoster, 1989), 232–35. 13 Fergus Millar wrote recently that “no full and satisfactory study of proselytism in the Graeco-Roman period has yet been written”; in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135), revised by G. Vermes, et al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87), III.1, 150. 14 Cf. Getzel M. Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization, Historia. Einzelschriften Heft 30 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978), 4ff, 87ff; Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, SNTSMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 5ff.

6

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

On the other hand, there was a hostile attitude vis-à-vis the Jews which should not be underestimated.15 This attitude was the effect of official manipulations of public sentiments in times of crises, or the result of the provocation which the non-conformistic and yet attractive Jewish religion constituted for non-Jews, particularly the refusal to intermarry and the impossibility of cult- and table fellowship. There was an anti-Jewish propaganda which sometimes resulted in outright persecution. Polemical and mocking remarks about Jews are found in the writings of Cicero, Seneca, Quintilian, Juvenal, and Tacitus.16. It is disputed whether there was an active Jewish missionary effort among Gentiles. Some scholars interpret the available literary and archaeological evidence as indicating that there must have been an “advertising” activity by Jews among Gentiles.17 Others deny that there was an active Jewish mission to Gentiles.18 It seems to be true, at any rate, that in most cases the impetus for conversion had to come from the Gentile: “It was extremely unusual for any Jew in the first century AD to view the encouragement of gentiles to convert to Judaism as a praiseworthy act”.19 The number of proselytes was probably not very high.20 The barriers for Gentiles wanting to become Jews were considerable. The main hindrances were the requirement of separation (corresponding ─────────────── 15 See generally J. N. Sevenster, The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World, Numen Sup 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1975); Menachem Stern, “The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature”, in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, CRINT I.2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 1101–59; Schürer, History, III.1, 150–58; Nicholas R. M. de Lange and Clemens Thoma, “Antisemitismus I. Begriff/Vorchristlicher Antisemitismus”, TRE III (1978): 113–19; John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983). 16 Cicero, pro Flacco 28.67; Juvenal, Sat 6.160; 14.96–106; Tacitus Hist. 5.8; Menachem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1974–84), I, nos. 68, 298, 301; II, no. 506. The Alexandrinian antiJewish polemic can be seen in Josephus’ apologetic text Contra Apionem. 17 Cf. Heikki Solin, “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände”, ANRW II.29.2 (1983): 587–798 (Index 1222–49), esp. 616 n.45; also Schürer, History, III, 153–59. 18 Cf. Martin Goodman, “Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism”, JJS 40 (1989): 175–85; Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles. Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). 19 Goodman, “Proselytising”, 175, concludes from the (scarce) evidence in the Talmud that no Amoraic text reports a tanna of the second century AD making a positive statement on proselytizing; the first such positive statements come from the third and the early fourth century. Goodman advances the hypothesis that Jewish interest in a “mission to convert”, based on a conviction that this was a natural corollary of religious belief, increased during the third century AD as a result of the effectiveness of the energetic Christian mission (184–85). 20 Cf. Solin, “Juden”, 610ff, who states that among the inscriptions from Rome only six refer definitely to proselytes (623 n.55). Differently Schürer, History, III, 160–61, who regards the success of the assumed Jewish mission as “considerable”.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

7

to the prevention of assimilation for the Jews) and the close relation between nation and religion.21 When the Jews read the Scriptures with a view to establishing the attitude towards the Gentiles in their own time and in the future of the promised Messiah, they read of a pilgrimage of the nations to Zion (Isa 2:2–3; 60:3–4; Zech 8:20–23; Mic 4:1–2) and of Gentiles worshipping God in all parts of the earth (Isa 45:6; 59:19; Mal 1:11; cf. Isa 45:22; 49:6,23; 56:6–8; Zech 2:11; Micah 7:17), but they would also read of a future destruction of the Gentiles (Isa 54:3; Mic 5:10–15; Zeph 2:10–11).22 Early Jewish literature reflects this ambiguity: hope is expressed that many Gentiles will share Israel’s salvation (Tob 14:6–7; 1 Enoch 90:30–33; Sib. Or. 3:616, 716–718, 752–753) and there are predictions of their destruction on account of their idolatry and sexual immorality (Sir 36:7–9; 1 Enoch 91:9; Bar 4:25,31–32,35; 1QM XII, 10; T. Mos. 10:7; Jub. 23:30; Pss. Sol. 17:25–27; Sib 3:517–518, 669–672, 761). The conclusion of Sanders seems to be correct when he states that “the evidence does not permit a precise account of the views of Jesus’ contemporaries about Gentile conversion at the end-time ... most Jews who thought about the matter one way or the other would have expected many Gentiles to turn to the Lord when his glory was revealed”.23

1.2 The Early Christian Gentile Mission When we turn to the evidence for the early Christian Gentile mission in the letters of Paul and the book of Acts, it appears that no Jewish Christian group disapproved of a mission to the Gentiles as such.24 The disagreements which underlie the discussion of Paul in his letter to the Galatians and to the Romans concerned only the terms and conditions of the Gentile mission. The movement started by Jesus saw the Gentile mission as an entirely natural venture. When the Christians of the Jerusalem church were forced to flee to other regions they seem to have regarded it as the natural thing to spread the gospel ─────────────── 21 Cf. Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jhr. v.Chr., 3. Aufl., WUNT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1988), 560ff; Solin, “Juden”, 616. Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.2: “Those who cross over into their manner of life adopt the same practice, and, before anything else, are instructed to despise the gods, disown their native land, and regard their parents, children, and brothers as of little account”. 22 The latter point is emphasized by Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 213ff, who argues against Jeremias, Jesu Verheißung für die Völker, passim (= Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations [London: SCM, 1958]), and John Riches, Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980). 23 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 218. 24 Cf. Kasting, Anfänge, 110–14.

8

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

beyond the confines of Judaea, not needing specific guidance from the Spirit.25 This matter-of-factness included going to Samaria and preaching about the Messiah (Acts 8:4–5). The boundary between Jews and Samaritans was crossed by Philip and then by Peter and John with apparently no compunction about the legitimacy of such a move (8:5–25). When Philip’s preaching met with dramatic success, the Jerusalem apostles evidently wanted to examine this new advance with care, but the report of the visit of Peter and John (8:14ff) does not hint at any reticence regarding the possibility of faith of Samaritans. On the contrary, the apostles are described as “preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans” (8:25). The conversion of the Ethiopian court official (8:26–39) does not pose any problems for Philip who had the confidence of the Jerusalem leaders (cf. 6:5). We do not know whether the Ethiopian was a Gentile God-fearer or, as a proselyte, “a Jew of a peculiar sort” whose status in the Jewish community was evidently ambiguous.26 That Luke reports no problems regarding the conversion of the Ethiopian may be due to the fact that he returned immediately to his own, distant country without having contact with the Palestinian church.27 We should notice that Luke ends the story with a note of joy (8:39). The longest single story in the Book of Acts (10:1–11:18) recounts the conversion of Cornelius, the Roman centurion, and his family. The fundamental problem which is overcome by God giving supernatural guidance to Peter is not the Gentile mission per se, i.e. not the recognition that the gospel is for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews,28 but the apartheid of Jewish Christians and believers among the Gentiles, particularly in the area of forthright fellowship at the table and communal living.29 When Luke points out that the Christian refugees from Jerusalem who reached Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch “spoke the word to none except Jews” (11:19), he may emphasize the fact that evangelizing the Gentiles had already been initiated by Peter and approved by the Jerusalem apostles. 30 When some of them started to preach Jesus Christ as Lord before a Gentile ─────────────── 25 I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles. An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 156. 26 For the status of the proselyte in Judaism cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew”, HTR 82 (1989): 13–33, esp. 28–30. 27 Marshall, Acts, 160. 28 Pace Marshall, Acts, 181; Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, EKK 5 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), I, 330: “Der Judenmissionar Petrus … wird gegen seinen Widerstand zum Heidenmissionar”. 29 Note the repeated reference to eating/food (γευ' ομαι, 10:10; φαγειñν, 10:13, 14; 11:7; συνεσθι'ω, 11:3; also 11:8) as well as to the house of Cornelius (οιòκος, 10:2, 22, 30; 11:12, 13, 14) and the house of Simon in which Peter stayed (οι’ κι' α, 10:6, 17, 32; 11:11). The emphasis on the house of Cornelius is further seen in the verbs ει’ σε' ρχομαι (10:27, 28; 11:3) and ε’ πιμε' νω (10:48) used in the same context. 30 Cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, I, 351.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

9

audience, many believed. Howard Marshall observes that whereas it had taken divine intervention to persuade Peter to take the step to preaching to the Gentiles, “here it seems to have happened almost casually without any issues of principle arising at the outset or later”.31 Finally, when the church was prompted by God’s Spirit to release Barnabas and Paul for the mission to the Gentiles (13:2), the possibility of such a mission seems to have posed no problem. The fasting and praying (13:3) no doubt took place as spiritual support for their future work,32 rather than being a time of “distinguishing between spirits” (cf. 1 Cor 12:10), assessing whether a mission to the Gentiles was a viable option. There was a group in the Jerusalem church who opposed admitting Gentile converts into the community of believers without circumcision (and possibly also adherence to food laws and) being demanded of them (Gal 2:12; Acts 15:1). We have no idea, however, how large and how influential this group of “right wing Jewish Christians in Jerusalem” were, but nothing suggests that they were dominant in the church.33

1.3 The Gospels and the Mission to the Gentiles It is a fair assumption that the early Christians had developed a theology of missions which included the mission to the Gentiles. The theology and the praxis of the apostle Paul, whose missionary ministry began just three or four years after the death and the resurrection of Jesus,34 is the most obvious case in point. Without doubt such a theology of mission would not have been uniform, as the dispute between Paul and “those of the circumcision” shows. Less conspicuous is the fact that all four Gospels show a discernible interest in missionary outreach to the Gentiles, although the degree to which this interest is a central or a more peripheral motif varies. I will not attempt to present the full evidence at this point. A rather sketchy review of Matthew’s Gospel and a some hints regarding the Gospel of Luke must suffice. ─────────────── 31 Marshall, Acts, 201. 32 Cf. Marshall, Acts, 216; cf. Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 7th Edition, KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 380. 33 Marshall, Acts, 202. 34 Assuming that his sojourn in Arabia (Gal 1:17) was not a spiritual retreat for purposes of mediation and that the time in Syria-Cilicia (Gal 1:21) was not devoted to the pursuit of personal interests but missionary outreach (cf. Gal 1:23 and the probable background of 2 Cor 11:32–33 and Acts 9:24–25); cf. Marshall, Acts, 174; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians. A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 96, 104– 5; recently Martin Hengel, “Der vorchristliche Paulus [1990]”, in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. M. Hengel and U. Heckel, WUNT 58 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 177– 293, esp. 220.

10

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

In his opening sentence Matthew links Jesus with David and Abraham (Matt 1:1). This can be interpreted in terms of the conviction that the hope of a “new creation” is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is the messianic king of Israel and heir to the Davidic promises and who is the one through whose ministry God’s promise to the patriarchs that all the nations of the earth will be blessed is being realized.35 That Jesus’ designation as “son of Abraham” marks him not only as a true Jew but as the instrument of divine blessing for the nations (taking up Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18) is indicated (1) by the fact that Abraham is regularly seen in critical distance to Israel (Matt 3:9; 8:11; 22:32) and (2) by the end of the Gospel 28:19–20 where the commission to evangelize the nations clearly implies the universality of the salvation taught and brought by Jesus.36 The first reported speech by human beings is the inquiry of Gentile magi who have come from the East to worship the King of the Jews (2:2) – before Jesus’ task to Israel has even begun and in tragic contradistinction to the leaders in Jerusalem. “Thus the commission to be the Son of Abraham (1:1) is here already going into effect”.37 And the first “action” of Jesus, the infant Messiah, takes him to Egypt (2:13–15), another element in the introduction which points outside Israel.38 The first episode of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and his first reported words in the main body of the narrative (4:18–22) are his commissioning of Simon Peter and Andrew, James and John to follow him and to become “fishers of people” (4:19). Since the last reported words of Jesus which conclude the entire narrative (28:18–20) contain the commission to make disciples of all nations, the α» νθρωποι in 4:19 may well imply a universal dimension.39 ─────────────── 35 Cf. William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97), I, 159–60, who interpret βι'βλος γενε' σεως in terms of “book of origin”. Carson, Matthew, 61, disagrees with the “increasingly popular view”, advocated by Zahn, Davies, Hill, Maier and others who see the phrase as a heading for the entire gospel. Even though it is true that no occurrence of the expression βι' βλος γενε' σεως for a book-length document has been discovered, and that is should therefore be taken as a heading to 1:2–17 or to 1:2–25, it is not impossible to assume, on the basis of Matthew’s use of γε' νεσις, that the evangelist wants Jesus Christ understood as a new beginning in the sense of a new creation (cf. R. T. France, Matthew, TNTC [Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1985], 73). 36 Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, HThK I (Freiburg: Herder, 1986–88), I, 7. 37 Cf. H. J. Bernard Combrink, “The Structure of the Gospel of Matthew as Narrative”, TynBul 34 (1983): 61–90, esp. 77; also Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 253. 38 Cf. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 233. Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 281 n.53, find it questionable that the references to Egypt further the Gentile theme, referring to Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, EKK I (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/ Neukirchener, 1985–2001), I, 129 who allows, however, that such a hint is “durchaus möglich”. 39 Similarly Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 398: “Perhaps Matthew thought of the Gentiles as included in the anthropon”.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

11

When Matthew outlines “the programme of Jesus’ active ministry” in 4:23– 25,40 he implies that the Galilean ministry (v.23) had an impact on non-Jews as well: the news of Jesus reaches Syria and the Decapolis. Coming after a reference to “all Galilee” and determined by ο« λη, Syria is most likely not a reference to the Roman province nor to the Jewish population living in Palaistine Syrie but to the territory extending from Damascus to Antioch and eastwards and implies non-Jews hearing from Jesus.41 Whether the reference to the Decapolis (v.25), is intended to imply Gentiles among the “great crowds” who followed Jesus is unclear: it may refer, together with the other regions listed in v.25 (Galilee, Jerusalem, Judea, Perea [“from beyond the Jordan”]) and with the exception of Samaria which is not mentioned, with salvation-historical import to the ancient “holy land”; 42 if the reference is determined by the contemporary historical situation, the Gentile majority of the Decapolis cannot a priori be excluded. In the Sermon, followers of Jesus are described as “the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” (5:13, 14). Both γηñ and κο' σμος cannot be made to refer to the land of Israel43 but have a universal reference. These verses imply therefore a universal mission of the disciples,44 at least for the evangelist. The significance of this universal dimension is highlighted by the fact that 5:13–16 may be regarded as a “summary statement of the task of the people of God in the world”.45 The narrative section 8:1–9:34 which reports on Jesus’ healing ministry recounts in central position encounters of Jesus with Gentiles: the healing of the centurion’s servant (8:5–13) and the healing of the Gerasene demoniacs (8:28–34). ─────────────── 40 Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 412, quoting Birger Gerhardsson, The Mighty Acts of Jesus according to Matthew (Lund: Gleerup, 1979), 23. 41 Thus recently Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, I, 108; Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 417. Luz, Matthäus, I, 181 with n. 16, sees a reference to the entire Roman province but interprets in terms of Gentile recipients of the news of Jesus’ ministry as well. Syria is hapax legomenon in Matthew. 42 Cf. Gerhard Lohfink, “Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Mt 4.23–5.2 und 7.28f”, ThQ 163 (1983): 264–84, esp. 275–76; France, Matthew, 105, Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, I, 108–9, with caution Luz, Matthäus, I, 180–81. 43 Pace William J. Dumbrell, “The Logic of the Role of the Law in Matthew 5.1–20”, NovT 23 (1981): 1–21. 44 Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 472, 479; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, I, 135–36, who regard, however, the statements as redactional, “presupposing” the Gentile mission. Schlatter, Matthäus, 146, states: “Der Beruf der Jünger hat keine Grenzen; sie sind zur Menschheit gesandt. Das letzte Wort des Evangeliums: eis panta ta ethne 28,19 ist auch das erste, das den Jüngern ihren Beruf zeigt”. Cf. Georg Strecker, Die Bergpredigt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 52: “An der Durchführung des Missionsauftrages entscheidet sich das Jüngersein”. 45 Thus the heading for this pericope in Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 470. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, I, 133 categorizes the statements as “Definitionssätze”.

12

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Moving to the later sections of the Gospel, we notice that the last element of Matthew’s general description of the “signs” indicating that Jesus is coming back (24:4–14) is the feature that “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations” (24:14). The end of the world cannot come until the gospel has penetrated ε’ ν ο« λη τηñ, οι’ κουμε' νη, and has reached outside the Jewish world to πα' ντα τα` ε» θνη.46 The first section of the passion narrative (26:6–27:66), Jesus’ anointing at Bethany (26:6–13), ends with the pronouncement that “this gospel will be preached in the whole world” (26:13). The phrase ε’ ν ο« λω, τω ñ, κο' σμω, is even more allinclusive than the corresponding phrase in 24:14.47 The resurrection narrative (28:1–20) ends with Jesus declaring his universal authority and giving the disciples the commission to “make disciples of all nations”. The great commission is the last, and therefore perhaps the most relevant definition of the λαο' ς whom Jesus will save according to the announcement of the angel (1:21) – the identification of “his people” as people of all nations is the resolution of a theme that has been implied (2:1–12), predicted (8:11–12) and clarified (15:21–28) earlier in the Gospel.48 One can make a similar case for the other Gospels. All four Gospels express a discernible interest in mission to the Gentiles.49 Now it is a fair assumption that in their selection of the available teaching of Jesus the evangelists wanted to be relevant to the needs of his church. It is spurious, however, to argue that since they were interested in the relevance of the teaching of Jesus rather than in its origin they felt free to create sayings or settings which suited their purposes. As regards this question of authenticity, the case of Luke’s Gospel seems to be particularly relevant. Luke is the only evangelist who wrote a sequel to his portrait of Jesus, narrating the mission of the early Christians after the ascension and the giving of the Spirit. A key point of this second volume is the desire to show how the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ was ─────────────── 46 Cf. James W. Thompson, “The Gentile Mission as an Eschatological Necessity”, ResQ 14 (1971): 18–27. 47 Thus France, Matthew, 363. 48 Cf. Mark A. Powell, “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel”, NTS 38 (1992): 187– 204, esp. 196 n. 27. 49 See generally the sketch of Hahn, Mission, 95–115. For Mark see Zenji Kato, Die Völkermission im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, EHS.T 252 (Frankfurt: Lang, 1986); Klemens Stock, “Theologie der Mission bei Markus”, in Mission im Neuen Testament, QD 93, ed. K. Kertelge (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), 130–44; for Luke see Stephen G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts, SNTSMS 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 29–58; for John see Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, 4 vols., HThK IV (Freiburg: Herder, 1965–75), IV, 58–72; Miguel Rodriguez Ruiz, Der Missionsgedanke des Johannesevangeliums. Ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie, fzb 55 (Würzburg: Echter, 1987); Teresa Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1–42, WUNT 2.31 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988).

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

13

meant for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews50 and how the problem of continuity between the message of “the things that have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1, NIV) which retain their moorings in OT prophecy and the fact of the early Christians’ turn to the Gentiles can be explained.51 If Luke had these concerns, and if he designed a two volume project right from the start,52 the manner in which Luke refers to Gentiles warrants the conclusion that his references to Jesus’ encounters with and sayings about Gentiles are not apologetically motivated redactional clarifications and justifications. Luke’s “special material” on Gentiles either consists of OT quotations or remains implicit. Note (1) how the references to Gentiles in 2:32 and 3:4–6 are allusions to OT prophecy which are not developed in the respective contexts; (2) how the allusion to the Gentile mission in the commissioning of the Seventy-Two remains implicit; (3) how the saying about the men from all four corners of the earth (paralleled in Matt 8:11) is not developed either; and (4) how the command to evangelize in 24:47 (roughly paralleled in Matt 28:19) refers to “all nations” as the target group and the starting-point (Jerusalem) of the mission without being expanded along the lines of Acts 1:8. It is further evident that the references to Gentiles are on a more modest scale than those in Matthew and in Mark. (1) Note how Luke omits Mark’s reference to Jesus’ foretelling the preaching to the Gentiles (Mark 13:10) as well as the healing of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30) together with the preceding section on ritual purity (Mark 7:1–23), a sequence of pericopes which in Mark and Matt imply – in hindsight quite powerfully – a christological justification of the mission to the Gentiles. (2) Luke omits the geographical reference to Caesarea Philippi as locale where Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah and where a new people of God is established (Luke 9:18). (3) Luke omits the phrase “for all the nations” from the quotation Isa 56:7 used by Jesus to explain his demonstration in the Temple (Luke 19:46). Thus we see a very strong link between Jesus and a concern for mission among Gentiles in the Gospels. Although the evangelists, particularly Matthew, portray Jesus as limiting his ministry to Israel, they all point out that the vision of Jesus was larger – and not only his vision for the future, but the reality of his ministry as well. And this nexus between Jesus and mission among Gentiles cannot simply be ascribed to the aetiological interests of the Gospel writers. ─────────────── 50 I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 20. 51 Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, I, 33–34, pointing out that Luke sees the solution of this problem of continuity in the soteriological will of God, which is universal and which can be traced in history as well as in the hardening and impenitence of part of Israel. 52 Cf. Martin Hengel, Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1979), 38, who speaks of the “historical and theological unity” of Luke-Acts; cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, I, 29.

14

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

2. Jesus and the Gentiles Before we return to our investigation of Jesus’ encounters with Gentiles it will be helpful if we pause to define the concept of “mission”, something which is often neglected by NT scholars. They sometimes seem to be content with a vague notion of “mission” or they work with a one-sided concept of “mission” as implying by necessity a move to a different geographical locality.

2.1 Defining “Mission” As for a working definition, we may understand “mission” as referring to a movement which stands out from the surrounding environment with regard to convictions and practice (implying the general validity of the truth held and practiced) and which aims at and works towards winning others for its cause as a result of its self-understanding.53 In other words, the term “mission” applies where a person or a group of persons conveys to other persons a new interpretation of reality (including God, the plight of humanity, salvation), imparts a new way of life as substitute for his or her old way of life and achieves integration into the community. The concept “convey” may imply geographical movement (“take from one place to another”) or communication of ideas (“express in words”). Thus, this “conveying to others” may happen by active expansive proclamation (centrifugal movement mission.) or by ‘winning presence’ (centripedal movement of mission). The result of mission is conversion which is characterized by the adoption of new convictions, the adoption of new practices and the integration into the new community. As regards the procedures of conversion to Judaism the following observations apply. Firstly, there was no official conversion ceremony in pre-rabbinic Judaism. Conversion was a private affair. There existed no authorized courts performing a ceremony and no central registry for converts. There was evidently no set of specific requirements that had to be met by the Gentile for a conversion to be considered valid. The criteria which the rabbis used to distinguish between a Gentile and a convert are unknown. “Circumcision was the only essential requirement”.54 Second, still along the same lines, some Jewish ─────────────── 53 Cf. Frankemölle, “Theologie der Mission”, 99. 54 Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony”, JJS 41 (1990): 177–203, esp. 193. Analyzing b. Yebam. 47a-b and tractate Gerim 1:1, Cohen concludes that the rabbinic conversion ceremony of the primary text b. Yebam. 47a-b, apparently deriving from the mid-second century AD, is not primarily an initiation ritual but an attempt “to regulate and formalize what until then had been an entirely personal and chaotic process” (203, referring for confirmation to Goodman, “Proselytising”, 184). Recently Gary Gilbert, “The Making of a Jew: ‘God-Fearer’ or Convert in the Story of Izates”, USQR 44 (1991): 299–313, discussing

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

15

communities allowed God-fearers to join, at least in the sense of a loose affiliation which allowed participation in the synagogue services.55 However, the evidence for this comes from Greek cities like Aphrodisias, Miletus and Panticapaeum, and it is not clear whether the same practice was found in Palestinian cities. Third, in the eyes of the Jews even the proselyte apparently did not “become” a Jew, since he or she did not achieve real equality with “native” Jews but became “a Jew of a peculiar sort”, and this peculiarity was evidently hereditary. 56 Fourth, terminological categories are vague. 57 Gentiles who expressed sympathy for the Jews and their faith may be designated as “sympathizers”: they admired some aspect of Judaism, acknowledged the power of the God of the Jews, they may have benefited the Jews or they may have been conspicuously friendly. They may also have practiced a few or many of the Jewish rituals and venerated the God of the Jews while denying or ignoring the pagan gods; such sympathizers may be more specifically called “adherents” (usually called “God-fearers”58). We may speak of a “convert” (proselyte) if a sympathizer went beyond this and joined the Jewish community, worshipping the God of Israel and following the stipulations of the law not as perhaps a convenient supplement to his or her current way of life but as a substitute for the old way of life. Joining the Jewish community as such is not sufficient for “religious conversion” (as distinguished from “nominal conversion”), since the status of the Gentile slaves who “became” Jews (through the administration of circumcision and later manumission) and the social integration as result of intermarriage were not the result of a new devotion to the God of Israel. The various levels of affiliation of Gentiles to the Jewish faith, and the Gentile conversion to Judaism makes us cautious not to interpret “hangerson” as converts nor to posit a rigid initiation ceremony.59 The central process of conversion involves a change of basic convictions about God and salvation, a change of everyday behavior on the basis of God’s revealed will and the ─────────────── the conversion story of Izates as narrated in Josephus, A.J. 20.34–48, argues that circumcision was not regarded as necessary for establishing Jewish identity. 55 Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Boundary”, 32. 56 Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Boundary”, 29–30. An example is the regulation in m. Bikkurim 1:4–5 which stipulates, among other things, that Gentiles converted to Judaism may not recite liturgical references to “our fathers”; cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Can Converts to Judaism Say ‘God of Our Fathers’?” Judaism 40 (1991): 419–28. 57 For the following cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Boundary”, 15–31. 58 For the current discussion on the existence of “God-fearers” see more recently Thomas M. Finn, “The God-Fearers Reconsidered”, CBQ 47 (1985): 75–84; R. S. MacLennan and A. T. Kraabel, “The God-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention”, BAR 12 (1986): 46– 53; Louis H. Feldman, “The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers”, BAR 12 (1986): 58–69; Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 145–66. 59 Despite the baptism practiced by John, as this was not an initiation ceremony proper but a prophetic call to repentance and to anticipation of the awaited Messiah.

16

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

integration into the community of those who share the same beliefs and practice the same ways. Returning to our discussion of Jesus’ relationship with Gentiles in practice and in proclamation, we will proceed with three questions in mind: (1) Is there a change of fundamental convictions involved or envisaged, including a substitution of beliefs? (2) Is a substitutional adoption of a new (Jewish?, or “kingdom related”?)60 way of life involved or envisaged? (3) Is loyalty to Jesus and/or integration into the community of his followers involved or envisaged?

2.2 Jesus’ encounters with Gentiles (1) Summary statements. The summaries of Jesus’ ministry indicating its effect on the Gentile population of the Decapolis (Matt 4:24–25) and the region about Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7:7–8) do not imply an active endeavor to reach Gentiles. The picture is more like that of the success of the Jewish faith in pagan surroundings, with the perhaps decisive difference though that this success did not come in trickles but in a rush of people. “A great multitude”, “great crowds” came to hear Jesus and “followed” him (Matt 4:25). The verb η’ κολου' θησαν does not necessarily connote discipleship but refers here to a more loose attachment to Jesus as he moved about in Galilee. Neither a change of convictions nor the adoption of a new way of life is implied, as in the case of the disciples who left their boat, their nets and their father when they “followed” Jesus (Matt 4:18–22 par. Mark 1:16–20). But the effect of Jesus’ ministry on Gentiles living in Galilee and adjacent areas should not be denied. (2) The first encounter with a pagan which the Gospels report in more detail is the meeting with the centurion of Capernaum (Matt 8:5–13 par. Luke 7:1–10).61 Being a soldier he presumably was a God-fearer rather than a fullfledged proselyte, but he still could have enjoyed a loosely affiliated member-

─────────────── 60 The relation between the two needs to be further discussed. Such a discussion, involving a consideration of Jesus’ view of the law, of the criteria for being an “insider” in the kingdom of God and of his eschatology would take us too far into other areas. 61 For the historical reliability see recently, with positive results, Uwe Wegner, Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum (Mt 7,28a; 8,5–10,13 par Lk 7,1–10): Ein Beitrag zur Q-Forschung, WUNT 2.14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 403–28.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

17

ship in the local synagogue community.62 Was he converted? (a) Jesus “marveled” (ε’ θαυ' μασεν only here in Matt) at his “faith” (πι' στις) whose greatness is the soldier’s understanding of the secret of Jesus’ authority.63 Is this faith “conversion”? The centurion, who already venerates the God of Israel, trusts Jesus. Even though the basis of this trust is not spelled out, it may be inferred from his comment about Jesus’ authority (Matt 8:9). It is more than trust in Jesus as powerful miracle worker, he trust Jesus to do what only God can do. It is trust as a result of an acceptance of Jesus’ message about the kingly rule of God who alone can do the impossible as manifest in his own ministry. So we may assume a change of convictions regarding the locus of God’s power. (b) The centurion had already adopted at least some Jewish practices. Did he qualify for Jesus as an “insider” regarding the kingdom of God? Possibly, as Jesus comments by referring to those coming “from east and west” to be joined to the fathers of Israel at the consummation of the messianic kingdom (8:11; cf. Luke 13:28–29), i.e., to Gentiles.64 (c) The centurion “loves” the Jewish nation and (helped financially to) build the synagogue (Luke 7:5). A corresponding “love” for Jesus and devotion to him and to his disciples] needs are not reported. This confirms the historical reliability of the narrative: Matthew did not present the centurion as the first Gentile follower of Jesus who supported the Lord and the disciples. However, it does not allow us to draw conclusions about his conversion.65 Since the sources relate only the healing of the servant but remain silent regarding the subsequent involvement of the centurion, we must suspend judgment. However, the saying about the “many from east and west” (Matt 8:11–12) clearly implies integration into the community of those who have experienced God’s salvation (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) – that is, into God’s people. ─────────────── 62 The way the “elders of the Jews” speak of him may be understood to imply distance (“he loves our nation”, Luke 7:5, i.e., he still belongs to another ethnos), indicating perhaps (a) that he had not “become” a Jew through circumcision or (b) that he did not belong to the synagogue community. This piece of evidence is not conclusive, however, as our observations on Gentile conversion to Judaism show. Still, it is difficult to image how a centurion who had become a proselyte, substituting his old way of life with the practice of Jewish laws, could have retained his post. 63 Cf. Carson, Matthew, 202. 64 Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 27–29 interpret the “many” who come from east and west in terms of “unprivileged Jews...because they have not lived in the land or heard Jesus” (28). Dale C. Allison, “Who will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt 8.11–12 – Luke 13.28–29”, IBS 11 (1989): 158–70, argues that the original saying which was passed down without a specific context spoke of the eschatological ingathering of dispersed Jews, while the new context suggested identification with Gentiles. As regards the different context of Matt 8:11–12 and Luke 13:28–29, Carson, Matthew, 202, points to the alternative that Jesus as itinerant preacher said similar things more than once. If the saying belonged originally to the context of Matt 8:5ff, the presence of the Gentile Cornelius determines the referent of the “many” from east and west. 65 Pace Schlatter, Matthäus, 275, who speaks of the centurion’s “Anschluß an Jesus”.

18

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Thus, whether or not Jesus regarded the centurion of Capernaum as a converted Gentile, it seems obvious that he speaks of the basic reality of Gentiles belonging to the kingdom of God. Even though the saying reflects the OT prophecies of Gentiles coming to Jerusalem, thus implying the “centripedal” effect of “mission”, 66 we may still speak of the implication of “mission” (defined in the sense above which does not include the categories centripedal / centrifugal) to the Gentiles nevertheless.67 And we note that as Jesus does not take up a specific OT reference to the eschatological pilgrimage, the statement about believing Gentiles who find their way into the kingdom does not presuppose any assumption about who plays the active part – remembering that the centurion came to “faith” as a result of Jesus’ activity and the news thereof. (3) The second encounter of Jesus with an individual pagan is with the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1–20 par Luke 8:26–39 par Matt 8:28–34). Regarding the question whether the pagan was converted, it may be significant that Matthew has two persons whereas Mark and Luke have only one: Matthew possibly had independent knowledge of a second demoniac, while the other two Gospels focus either on the fiercest of the two or (my suggestion) on the one with the more lasting results after the deliverance from the spirits.68 We notice (a) a change of convictions, as the man is delivered from the violent manipulation of the evil spirits (Mark 5:15) and as he realizes that to stay with Jesus is more important than to return to his home.69 (b) The life of the healed man would naturally have differed dramatically from his old way of life. Since this change came as a result of a miraculous healing, it is uncertain whether we can also assume a spiritual change resulting from a knowledge of Jesus’ message of the kingdom of God. On the other hand, he was not just an “emotional conquest”.70 He obeys Jesus who told him to go ─────────────── 66 Emphasized by Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, II, 303. 67 Unless we interpret in terms of “Matthew’s eschatological expectations”, assuming that the land has been transcendentalized and that the realization of these promises takes place not in this world but in the world to come (thus Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 29). The argument that the Gentiles cannot be in view since in that case Jews would be regarded as condemned, which is not Matthew’s position, is not conclusive: in view is not the condemnation of all Jews but the reconstitution of the Israel of God consisting of “the international fellowship of those who believe in the Messiah” (David Wenham, The Parables of Jesus: Pictures of Revolution, The Jesus Library [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989], 131). 68 The argument about Mark and Luke singling out the fiercest was already put forward by the Church Fathers. Access to independent tradition on the part of Matt is assumed by Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, ThHK I, 6th Edition (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1986 [1968]), 262–63; Carson, Matthew, 217. France, Matthew, 163, explains with the witness theme and sees all personal details concerning the men “almost entirely omitted”. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 80 prefer to “remain unenlightened”. 69 The “worship” (Mark 5:6) is presumably a gesture of submission on the part of the spirits, cf. J. M. Nützel, προσκυνε' ω, EWNT III, 419–23, here 420. One should not read too much into this statement regarding the attitude of the man himself. 70 The term is taken from Friedrich Solmsen, Isis among the Greeks and Romans (Cam-

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

19

home and tell the people what had happened. Indeed, he goes beyond this and proclaims in the entire town (καθ’ ο« λην τη` ν πο' λιν, Luke 8:39) and in the Decapolis (Mark 5:20) what had happened through Jesus. (c) The healed Gentile is dismissed by Jesus, but with a task to perform, implying that he is accepted.71 For the readers of Mark and Luke “the story is a paradigm of what conversion involves: the responsibility to evangelise”72 – that is, to evangelize people in one’s home and home town, even Gentiles. The message which the man proclaimed was limited, but at its center was the news of Jesus. Thus, although Jesus does not involve himself in preaching in the Gentile areas of the Decapolis, he sends a Gentile who has grasped something of his dignity with the task of telling others what God (Luke 8:39) has done. If the incident is historical,73 it shows that Jesus’ ministry was not restricted entirely to the Jews but implied an openness for mission to the Gentiles.74 (4) The third encounter between Jesus and a specific Gentile is told in the story of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30 par Matt 15:21–28). (a) The discussion of the woman’s convictions concerning Jesus is hampered by the fact that again we are not given much information about the contents of her faith. Jesus calls her faith “great” (μεγα' λη, Matt 15:28). The “greatness” of her faith, as can be deduced from her reply (15:27 par), should be seen in the fact that she acknowledges Israel’s covenantal prerogatives and blessings, not arguing against the apparent unfairness of some being children and others being “dogs under the table”, while she trusts God to extend his mercies even to Gentiles, as He now feeds the “children” through Jesus, even though they have no inherited right to receive them.75 We do not know how the woman ─────────────── bridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), 83, who uses it to designate an acceptance of the cult of Isis which falls short of “conversion” (quoted by Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Boundary”, 31 n.64). 71 Thus Marshall, Luke, 341. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, AB 28 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981–85), I, 735: “The cured demoniac, who desired to stay with him, thus becomes a pagan disciple”. 72 Marshall, Luke, 341. Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, I, 740: “He sends him on a missionary errand”; when he adds: “that is not yet of Christian discipleship, since the time for Gentile disciples has not yet come in the Lucan story” (ibid.), he contradicts his earlier statement (see preceding footnote). As many others, Fitzmyer seems to have become the victim of a petitio principii: there can be no pagan disciples during Jesus’ ministry before his death, and any evidence to the contrary must therefore be explained differently. However: if this Gerasene demoniac indeed became a disciple, and if he was a Gentile (a fact which Fitzmyer emphasizes), then he was (perhaps the first?) pagan disciple. 73 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 335–36, for arguments in favour of historical reliability. 74 Kato, Völkermission, 59, who remarks that Mark presents the tradition of the earthly Jesus giving a commission of proclamation to a Gentile who is to preach the mercy of the God of Israel for the Gentiles. 75 Cf. Schlatter, Matthäus, 491; Carson, Matthew, 355–56, emphasizing the historical perspective of the narrative (353–54); for the latter see also Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 544–45, who conclude: “One wonders whether a story whose import is so ambiguous could have been created for the express purpose of granting instruction on the Gentile problem”.

20

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

came to have such “great faith”. (b) However, there is no hint of an adoption of a new way of life, and (c) no reference to a desire to join the followers of Jesus. Thus we may not speak of the “conversion” of a Gentile occasioned by Jesus’ presence. What we do have, however, is the recognition on the part of Jesus that God’s grace is now freely available to non-Jews as well, while retaining the salvation-historical privilege of Israel. Relevant in this respect is Mark’s notice (Mark 7:24b) that even though Jesus didn’t want his presence in the Gentile territory near Tyre to be known, “he could not be hid”: his significance as bringer of salvation cannot be limited to Israel but forces its way beyond the Jewish borders.76 (5) If the 4,000 of Mark 8:1–10 par Matt 15:32–39 who spent three days with Jesus were indeed Gentiles, we would need to infer from the frequent association of large crowds with Jesus’ healing and teaching (Mark 1:31–32, 45; 2:2; 3:7–8, 20; 4:1–2; 6:32–44) that besides healing the sick Jesus also preached to those present – that is, to Gentiles. This may have been deliberate. Whether one accepts G. Dalman’s reconstruction of Jesus’ itinerary in 7:31, which takes Jesus from Tyre north to Sidon across to Caesarea Philippi down to the Sea of Galilee at Hippos, or that of F. G. Lang, which takes Jesus from Tyre via Sidon across Lebanon to the territory of Damascus which bordered on the eastern territory of Sidon and then southeast through the Decapolis, perhaps via the cities of Dium, Abila, Gadara and eventually through Hippos to the Sea, the conclusion is the same: “Jesus took a longer than necessary journey to reach the Sea of Galilee in the area of the Decapolis”.77 When we understand this episode against the background of the earlier feeding of the 5,000 in Galilee (Mark 6:30–44 par), and if we assume the possibility that the miracle, though real, is a symbol for the anticipation of the messianic banquet, we may infer that Jesus demonstrates here his openness to give Gentiles a share in fellowship with God. In the first feeding which involved Jews, Jesus did not want to leave the crowds “like sheep without a shepherd” (Mark 6:34) ─────────────── 76 Cf. Kato, Kato, Völkermission, 88. 77 Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 393, referring to Gustaf Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels, trans. P. P. Levertoff (New York: MacMillan, 1935), 200–1, and Friedrich Gustav Lang, “‘Über Sidon mitten ins Gebiet der Dekapolis’: Geographie und Theologie in Markus 7.31”, ZDPV 94 (1978): 145–60. The difficulty of the itinerary and certain linguistic peculiarities make it impossible to regard Mark 7:31 as free invention of the evangelist; thus Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, HThK 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1980 [1976–77]), I, 393 regarding the itinerary as a combination of traditional materials, and Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, EKK II (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1978–79), I, 296, who opt for a free creation of v.31. The historical reliability is defended by Gerhard Maier, Matthäus-Evangelium, Bibelkommentar Band 1–2 (Neuhausen: Hänssler, 1979/1980), I, 550–51, taken up by Carson, Matthew, 357–58.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

21

– that is, he is the true shepherd of Israel. In the second feeding Jesus takes action on account of his compassion for the crowd who are hungry and who might faint on the way. The salvation-historical thrust of his mission to Israel is not jeopardized, while a mission to Gentiles becomes possible as a result of their weakness and helpnessness. If Jesus ministers to Gentiles in the same way as he ministers to Jews, even in the context of God’s miraculous provision of necessities of life, there can be no barriers preventing a mission to the Gentiles. The Gentile crowd who gathered around Jesus is not portrayed a as converted community of Jesus. But the possibility of treating the Gentiles like the Jews when it comes to showing God’s mercy has been established in a fundamental way. (6) Jesus’ demonstration in the Temple (Mark 11:15–17 par Matt 21:12–17 par Luke 19:45–46) is relevant for the subject under discussion. Two factors tie the episode to the Gentile theme: (a) the locus of the demonstration in the Court of the Gentiles where the commercial proceedings were allowed, and (b) Jesus’ quotation from Isa 56:7 referring to God’s house as “a house of prayer for all the nations” (Mark 11:17), linked with the allusion to Jeremiah’s woe oracle against the temple Jer 7:11–15 (7:11) implying God’s judgment on the center of the (old) covenant people. Without going into details and without considering the messianic implications,78 we establish the fact that the symbolic action of Jesus in the Court of the Gentiles, together with his explanation by the double quotation, can be regarded as constituting “a decisive hour of salvation history” – as judgment on the temple and as Gentile participation in the worship of the one God are announced.79 This is confirmed by the violent reaction of the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people (Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47). If Jesus indeed understood his action with the accompanying explanation as an announcement of the destruction of the Temple (cf. Matt 21:18–22 and 24:2/15–21 par), speaking in the same vein of legitimate Gentile worship of the God of Israel, he implies the establishment of a new people of God consisting of Jews and Gentiles.

2.3 Jesus’ Sayings about Gentiles (1) Luke 4:25–27. In his preaching in Nazareth Jesus reacts to the hostility of the listeners by saying that no prophet is accepted in his hometown. He elabo─────────────── 78 Cf. recently Johann Maier, “Beobachtungen zum Konfliktpotential in neutestamentlichen Aussagen über den Tempel”, in Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, ed. I. Broer (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 173–213. 79 Cf. Kato, Völkermission, 109ff, defending the historicity of the reference to the Gentiles; cf. also Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 199.

22

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

rates by pointing to the OT prophets Elijah and Elisha whose ministry, in times of unbelief, brought no blessing to Israel but rather to a Sidonian widow and a Syrian general. In the context of the unbelief in Nazareth this reference constitutes a warning that a comparable situation has developed, with the consequence that there may be other potential beneficiaries – outside Nazareth, even outside Israel. Marshall thinks that the universalistic tone of v.25–27 “is strange at this early point in the ministry of Jesus”, and, although surely authentic, may well stem from another (later?) context.80 Whatever the tradition history of the saying: unless we must assume that Jesus’ universalistic vision developed but slowly as a result of his rejection in Israel, nothing speaks against an implicit reference to a “mission” to the Gentiles made early in his ministry. Two facts may be seen as confirmation: the potential nonJewish beneficiaries are mentioned without special emphasis,81 and the implication is stated with reference to OT prophecy. Of course in this passage Jesus does not speak of conversions of Gentiles occasioned by missionary outreach, not even by implication, and can therefore hardly be taken as a specific justification for a universalistic mission to the Gentiles. He moves from his hometown not to Gentile territories but to “Capernaum, a city of Galilee” (4:31). (2) Matthew 5:13–14. Followers of Jesus are the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world”. As the effect of both salt and light is “centrifugal”, so the existence of disciples is portrayed as mission with universal significance, whatever the specific symbolic associations may be. And as the effect of salt and light is visible, so the universal mission of Jesus’ followers leads to tangible results. (3) Matthew 10:18. The reference to future hardships of the disciples as missionaries who witness in areas where local Jewish councils have jurisdiction as well as in areas with pagan rulers speaks of opportunities for witness before such pagan governors and kings and before other Gentiles. Since the disciples are passive, being taken into custody, it is difficult to speak of an active mission. All Jesus says is that even in such trying circumstances the Spirit would help them to spread the gospel message. (4) Matt 13:38. In his interpretation of the parable of the tares, 82 Jesus identifies the world as the locus of the kingdom of God. The brief statement “the field is the world” assumes a mission beyond Israel, but this is not a main point of the parable. ─────────────── 80 Marshall, Luke, 180. 81 Cf. John Nolland, Luke, WBC 35 (Dallas: Word, 1989–93), I, 201, who, however, sees “in the flow of the immediate narrative” no reference to the universalism to the Gentile mission (203); thus also Robert L. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 6–27. 82 Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 135, for a defense of authenticity; also Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 198–99.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

23

(5) Matt 22:1–14; cf. Luke 14:15–24. In the parables of the wedding banquet and of the tenants the people who are eventually invited to the feast come from “the thoroughfares” and “streets” (Matt 22:9–10) and from “the highways and hedges” (Luke 14:23) respectively. A call goes out to a wider circle of people to be invited to the messianic banquet of the kingdom of God. The replacement guests have been taken as referring not only to Jewish outsiders such as tax-collectors, prostitutes and sinners but, by implication, to the largest group of outsiders of all – namely, to Gentiles.83 If this is correct, a mission to Gentiles is at best implied. The servants of the king do not figure prominently in the parable and should not simply be identified with the disciples as missionaries.84 (6) Mark 13:10, cf. Matt 24:14. Jesus points out that in the midst of the birth pains of the messianic kingdom which moves towards its consummation the “gospel of the kingdom” is preached throughout the world “as a testimony to all nations”. The ascription to redaction85 or early Christian tradition86 of Mark 13:10 is dependent on the assumption of Jesus’ expectation of an imminent end and linked with an attitude which deems it impossible to reckon with genuine prophecy. If we do not doubt the latter, and if we proceed from the assumption, which can be defended from the evidence in the Gospels, that Jesus assumed an interval between his death and resurrection and the parousia, the statement may be understood as a prophetic commission by Jesus of mis─────────────── 83 Cf. Wenham, Parables, 135. See also Fitzmyer, Luke, II, 1053, who regards this motif as a Lucan allegorization of the original parable, however. 84 Further references to Gentiles in Jesus’ parables have been seen in the birds of heaven who nest in the mustard plant (Matt 13:31–32; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 420), in the “others” to whom the vineyard is given (Matt 21:33–46: v.43 par; cf. Wenham, Parables, 130–31), and in the sheep which the shepherd brings from outside the fold into one flock (John 10:1–18: v.16; cf. Wenham, ibid. 104). As these references are more implicit than explicit (cf. the caution of Blomberg, Parables, 248, 285), and as Jesus does not identify the Gentiles in the respective contexts, we would not advance the discussion by considering these passages further. 85 Cf. Willi Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums, FRLANT 67 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965 [1959]), 119–20, more recently Kasting, Anfänge, 108; Georg Strecker, “Das Evangelium Jesu Christi”, in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie, FS H. Conzelmann, ed. G. Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 503–48, esp. 523, 535–40. 86 Cf. Hahn, Mission, 31, 57–63, with caution Ferdinand Hahn, “Die Rede von der Parusie des Menschensohnes Markus 13”, in Jesus und der Menschensohn, FS A. Vögtle, ed. R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1975), 240–66, followed by Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 266ff, 285; Egon Brandenburger, Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik, FRLANT 134 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 30–32, 41, 149–53 (but perhaps redaction). A different view is that of George D. Kilpatrick, “The Gentile Mission in Mark and Mark 13.9– 11”, in Studies in the Gospels, FS R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 145–58, who interprets in terms of a preaching of the gospel to Jews outside Palestine.

24

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

sion to the Gentiles.87 Even though the Gentile mission is made explicit, the circumstances and even the effect are left open: the phrase “as a testimony” implies that the gospel will bring either salvation or curse, depending on how people receive it. Again, the profile of Gentile mission remains vague. (7) Mark 14:9 par Matt 26:13. Jesus’ announcement that the anointing in Bethany will be mentioned when “the gospel is preached in the whole world” assumes a Gentile mission, and again does not elaborate its character. (8) Matt 28:18–20 (cf. Luke 24:47). The most comprehensive statement about a mission to the Gentiles is given by the risen Christ.88 The statement describes the authority of the missionaries, which is Christ’s own authority (v.17b), the charge to go to πα' ντα τα` ε’ θνη' , to make disciples, to baptize and to teach (v.18–20a) as well as the promise of Jesus’ enabling presence. As regards Jesus’ sayings involving Gentiles, this passage alone includes all elements of “mission”: Jesus envisages a change of fundamental convictions (“make disciples … teaching them”), the adoption of a new way of life (“to observe all”), loyalty to Jesus (“all that I have commanded”) and integration into the community of his followers (“baptizing them … teaching them”).

3. Conclusions The mission to the Gentiles assumes more specific characteristics in the context of Jesus’ encounters with Gentiles than in his teaching. This fact speaks against the assumption that the Evangelists created the references to a Gentile mission out of their own contexts. At the same time it anchors the reality of the later early Christian Gentile mission firmly in the ministry of Jesus. As regards the question of authenticity, we may further point to the fact that the Gentile mission pericopes in the Gospels hardly answer the pressing questions which were discussed as a result of the later Gentile mission, such ─────────────── 87 Authenticity is defended by George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future. An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13, with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory (London: Macmillan, 1954), 194ff; cf. David Bosch, Heidenmission, 149–90; Wilson, Gentiles, 19–27 (who follows Jeremias’ apocalyptic interpretation, however). Cf. the detailed source- and tradition-analytical study of David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse, Gospel Perspectives 4 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), with its implications for authenticity: “the onus of proof must be on those who deny the teaching to Jesus, not on those who affirm it” (373). 88 For details cf. Joachim Lange, Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach Matthäus, fzb 11 (Würzburg: Echter, 1973); Benjamin J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28.16–20, SBLDS 19 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974). As regards authenticity, Carson, Matthew, 592 observes that “the temptation to ascribe authenticity to ‘tradition’ but not to ‘redaction’ must be resisted”.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

25

as the question whether converted Gentiles should be circumcised and which parts of the law apply for Gentile converts.89 As further confirmation of the possibility of Jesus anticipating a universal mission among Gentiles by his disciples we notice that important elements of Jesus’ teaching had no reference to the law.90 In other words, most of the teaching of Jesus could be lifted without too much difficulty from the Jewish context with a view to applying it to Gentiles who become followers of Jesus (e.g., Mark 2:17; 8:35). Jesus’ welcoming posture regarding Gentiles fits with his concern for those looked down upon by many of his contemporaries – the “sinners and taxcollectors”, women, lepers and Samaritans. Since Jesus’ concern for the outsiders of Jewish society which often ended in fellowship around the table is generally regarded as authentic, both the criterion of coherence and that of dissimilarity can be cited in favor of the reliability of the tradition which speaks of Jesus’ concern for the Gentiles. We conclude, therefore, that the Gospels portray Jesus as ministering to Israel with salvation-historical priority as the people of God. At the same time his ministry was not confined to Jews but extended beyond the boundaries defined by the Sinai covenant. His encounters with Gentiles indicated, sometimes quite clearly, that the gospel of the kingdom of God establishes a new covenant community which encompasses Jews and Gentiles alike. In anticipation of things to come Jesus spoke of a future universal mission of his disciples, the profile of which he delineated after his death and his resurrection.

Bibliography Allison, Dale C. “Who will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt 8.11–12 – Luke 13.28–29”. IBS 11 (1989): 158–70. Beasley-Murray, George R. Jesus and the Future. An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13, with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory. London: Macmillan, 1954. —. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Best, Ernest. “The Revelation to Evangelize the Gentiles”. JTS 35 (1984): 1–30. Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990. Bosch, David J. “‘Jesus and the Gentiles’ – a Review after Thirty Years”. Pages 3–19 in The Church Crossing Frontiers. Essays on the Nature of Mission. FS Bengt Sundkler. Edited by P. Beyerhaus and C. F. Hallencreuz. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1969. —. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission. American Society of Missiology Series 16. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999 [1991]. ─────────────── 89 Extending the argument for Matt 8:5–13 of Wegner, Hauptmann, 403ff; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 18. 90 Cf. Ernest Best, “The Revelation to Evangelize the Gentiles”, JTS 35 (1984): 1–30.

26

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Bosch, David. Die Heidenmission in der Zukunftsschau Jesu. Eine Untersuchung zur Eschatologie der synoptischen Evangelien. AThANT 36. Zürich: Zwingli, 1959. Brandenburger, Egon. Markus 13 und die Apokalyptik. FRLANT 134. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Brawley, Robert L. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Carson, Don A. Matthew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995 [1984]. Cohen, Getzel M. The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration and Organization. Historia. Einzelschriften Heft 30. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Can Converts to Judaism Say ‘God of Our Fathers’?” Judaism 40 (1991): 419–28. —. “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew”. HTR 82 (1989): 13–33. —. “The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony”. JJS 41 (1990): 177–203. Combrink, H. J. Bernard. “The Structure of the Gospel of Matthew as Narrative”. TynBul 34 (1983): 61–90. Dalman, Gustaf. Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels. Translated by P. P. Levertoff. New York: MacMillan, 1935. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97. Dumbrell, William J. “The Logic of the Role of the Law in Matthew 5.1–20”. NovT 23 (1981): 1–21. Feldman, Louis H. “The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers.” BAR 12 (1986): 58–69. Finn, Thomas M. “The God-Fearers Reconsidered”. CBQ 47 (1985): 75–84. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. AB 28. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981– 85. France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Exeter: Paternoster, 1989. —. Matthew. TNTC. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1985. Frankemölle, Hubert. “Zur Theologie der Mission im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 93–129 in Mission im Neuen Testament. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 93. Freiburg: Herder, 1982. Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Gerhardsson, Birger. The Mighty Acts of Jesus according to Matthew. Lund: Gleerup, 1979. Gilbert, Gary. “The Making of a Jew: ‘God-Fearer’ or Convert in the Story of Izates”. USQR 44 (1991): 299–313. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKK II/1–2. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1978–79. —. Das Matthäusevangelium. HThK I. Freiburg: Herder, 1986–88. Goodman, Martin. “Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism”. JJS 40 (1989): 175–85. Gräßer, Erich. “Jesus in Nazareth”. NTS 65 (1969–70): 1–23. Grundmann, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. ThHK I. 6th Edition. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1986 [1968]. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Haenchen, Ernst. Die Apostelgeschichte. 7th Edition. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Die Rede von der Parusie des Menschensohnes Markus 13”. Pages 240–66 in Jesus und der Menschensohn. FS A. Vögtle. Edited by R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg: Herder, 1975.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

27

—. Das Verständnis der Mission im Neuen Testament. WMANT 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963. Harnack, Adolf von. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. Fourth Revised Edition. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924 [1902]. Hengel, Martin. Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jhr. v.Chr. 3. Aufl. WUNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. —. “The Origins of the Christian Mission [1971]”. Pages 48–64, 166–79 in Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. London: SCM, 1983. —. “Der vorchristliche Paulus [1990]”. Pages 177–293 in Paulus und das antike Judentum. Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters. Edited by M. Hengel and U. Heckel. WUNT 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. —. Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1979. Hubbard, Benjamin J. The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28.16–20. SBLDS 19. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974. Jeremias, Joachim. Jesu Verheißung für die Völker. Franz Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1953. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1959 [1956]. —. Jesus’ Promise to the Nations. London: SCM, 1958. Kasting, Heinrich. Die Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission. BEvTh 55. München: Kaiser, 1969. Kato, Zenji. Die Völkermission im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. EHS.T 252. Frankfurt/Bern: Lang, 1986. Kilpatrick, George D. “The Gentile Mission in Mark and Mark 13.9–11”. Pages 145–58 in Studies in the Gospels. FS R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwells, 1955. Kümmel, Werner G. “Das Urchristentum. II. Arbeiten zu Spezialproblemen”. ThR 52 (1987): 268–85. Lang, Friedrich Gustav. “‘Über Sidon mitten ins Gebiet der Dekapolis’: Geographie und Theologie in Markus 7.31”. ZDPV 94 (1978): 145–60. Lange, Joachim. Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach Matthäus. fzb 11. Würzburg: Echter, 1973. Lange, N. R. M. de, and C. Thoma. “Antisemitismus I. Begriff/Vorchristlicher Antisemitismus”. TRE III (1978): 113–19. Lohfink, Gerhard. “Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Mt 4.23–5.2 und 7.28f”. ThQ 163 (1983): 264–84. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. EKK I/1–4. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1985–2001. MacLennan, R. S., and A. T. Kraabel. “The God-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention”. BAR 12 (1986): 46–53. Maier, Gerhard. Matthäus-Evangelium. Bibelkommentar Band 1–2. Neuhausen: Hänssler, 1979/1980. Maier, Johann. “Beobachtungen zum Konfliktpotential in neutestamentlichen Aussagen über den Tempel”. Pages 173–213 in Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz. Edited by I. Broer. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980. —. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. —. “Jesus, Paul and John”. Aberdeen University Review 51 (1985): 18–36. —. “Jesus, Paul and John”. Pages 35–56 in Jesus the Saviour: Studies in New Testament Theology. London/Downers Grove: SPCK/InterVarsity Press, 1990. —. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

28

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Marxsen, Willi. Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums. FRLANT 67. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959 [1956]. McKnight, Scot. A Light Among the Gentiles. Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Meinertz, Max. Jesus und die Heidenmission. NTA 1/1–2. Münster, 1925 [1908]. Nolland, John. Luke. WBC 35. Dallas: Word, 1989–93. Okure, Teresa. The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1–42. WUNT 2/31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte. EKK 5. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. —. Das Markusevangelium. HThK 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1980 [1976–77]. —. “Voraussetzungen und Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission”. Pages 11–70 in Mission im Neuen Testament. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 93. Freiburg: Herder, 1982. Powell, Mark Allan. “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel”. NTS 38 (1992): 187–204. Riches, John. Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980. Rodriguez Ruiz, Miguel. Der Missionsgedanke des Johannesevangeliums. Ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie. fzb 55. Würzburg: Echter, 1987. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Matthäus. Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbständigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963 [1948]. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Das Johannesevangelium. HThK IV. Freiburg: Herder, 1965–75. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). Revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87. Sevenster, J. N. The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World. Numen Sup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Solin, Heikki. “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnischdemographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände”. ANRW II.29.2 (1983): 587–798 (Index 1222–49). Solmsen, Friedrich. Isis among the Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979. Spitta, Friedrich. Jesus und die Heidenmission. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909. Stern, Menachem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1974–84. —. “The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature”. Pages 1101–59 in The Jewish People in the First Century. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern. CRINT I.2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. Stock, Klemens. “Theologie der Mission bei Markus”. Pages 130–44 in Mission im Neuen Testament, QD 93. Hrsg. K. Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1982. Stoevesandt, Helene. Jesus und die Heidenmission. Diss. theol Göttingen, 1943. Strecker, Georg. Die Bergpredigt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. —. “Das Evangelium Jesu Christi”. Pages 503–48 in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie. FS H. Conzelmann. Edited by G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. Sundkler, Bengt. “Jésus et les païens [1936]”. Pages 1–38 in Contributions à l’étude de la pensée missionaire dans le Nouveau Testament, Arbeiten und Mitteilungen aus dem neutestamentlichen Seminar zu Uppsala 6. Edited by B. Sundkler and A. Fridrichsen. Uppsala: Das Neutestamentliche Seminar zu Uppsala, 1937. —. “Jésus et les païens”. RHPR 16 (1936): 462–99. Thompson, James W. “The Gentile Mission as an Eschatological Necessity”. ResQ 14 (1971): 18–27.

1. Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles

29

Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Wegner, Uwe. Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum (Mt 7,28a; 8,5–10,13 par Lk 7,1–10): Ein Beitrag zur Q-Forschung. WUNT 2.14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Wenham, David. The Parables of Jesus: Pictures of Revolution. The Jesus Library. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989. —. The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse. Gospel Perspectives 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Wilson, Stephen G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. SNTSMS 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher Whatever else his contemporaries thought of Jesus, they saw him as a teacher.1 Both outsiders and his followers addressed him as ρ‘ αββι' ,2 usually translated into Greek as διδα' σκαλος.3 Jesus saw himself as a teacher. This is evident not only in his self-designation as teacher in Mark 14:14 (par Matt 26:18; Luke 22:12) and in logia which imply a teacher-pupil relationship (Matt 10:24–25; 23:8; Luke 6:40) but also in the character of his public ministry: he lived with students (μαθηται' ) who wanted to learn from him, he taught in synagogues, he discussed with other rabbis (γραμματειñς), he answered theological questions posed by ordinary people. Jesus evidently always gave an answer when questions were posed to him, even when the people asking the questions did not take him seriously, or were openly hostile, and were thus not personally interested in the answer he might give. There is only one exception to Jesus’ readiness to explain what he did and what he taught: Jesus remained silent at crucial points during the legal proceedings which were carried out both by the Jewish authorities and by the Roman prefect. All of the four Gospels report this extraordinary fact for various stages of the trial: Mark 14:60, 61, 65; 15:3, 4; Matt 26:62, 63, 67–68; 27:12, 14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9).

─────────────── 1 On Jesus as teacher see Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community, CB.NT 24 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994); Detlev Dormeyer, “Jesus as Wandering Prophetic Wisdom Teacher”, HTS 49 (1993): 101–17; Martin Karrer, “Der lehrende Jesus. Neutestamentliche Erwägungen”, ZNW 83 (1992): 1–20; Pheme Perkins, Jesus as Teacher, Understanding Jesus Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer. Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung, WUNT 2.7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988 [1981]); Vernon K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A SocioRhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). 2 Followers: Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; Matt 26:25, 49 (Judas Iscariot); John 1:38, 49; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8; cf. ρ‘ αββουνι' in Mark 10:51; John 20:16. Outsiders: John 3:2; 6:25. 3 Followers: Mark 4:38; 9:38; 10:35; 13:1; John 1:38; 20:16. Outsiders: Matt 8:19; 12:38; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36; Mark 9:17; 10:17, 20; 12:14, 19, 32; Luke 7:40; [8:49]; 9:38; 10:25; 11:45; 12:13; 18:18; 19:39; 20:21, 28, 39; 21:7; John 3:2; 6:25.

32

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

In order to understand this exceptional silence of Jesus,4 I propose (1) to assess Jesus’ reactions to questions as described by the Gospel writers, (2) to analyze his reaction to questions put to him during the trial, before (3) evaluating Jesus’ silence in the trial.

1. Jesus’ Reaction to Questions In order to be able to assess the silence of Jesus in the Gospel accounts of the trial, we will discuss each of the Gospels individually in order to be able to determine whether Jesus’ silence is a literary device used by the evangelist.

1.1 Jesus’ Reaction to Questions in the Gospel of Mark 1. Jesus’ followers ask (ε’ ρωταñ ν and ε’ περωτα' ν) about the meaning of parables and puzzling sayings (Mark 4:10; 7:17), about their inability to cast out an evil spirit (9:28), about acceptable grounds for divorce (10:10), about procuring eternal life (10:17), about eschatological questions (9:11; 13:3–4), about who would betray him (14:19, λε' γειν). Jesus always gives an answer. He clarifies his pronouncement which elicited the question (9:12–13; 10:11–12), even though his explanation may be enigmatic (4:11–12; 7:18–23); he explains the power of exorcism (9:29); he quotes Scripture (10:19); he points with sovereign authority to the critical significance of his own person (10:21); he explains at length eschatological ─────────────── 4 It seems surprising that only a couple of studies have been devoted to the silence of Jesus during the trial: Johannes Schreiber, “Das Schweigen Jesu”, in Theologie und Unterricht. Über die Repräsentanz des Christlichen in der Schule. FS Hans Stock, ed. K. Wegenast (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969), 79–87 (= Johannes Schreiber, Die Markuspassion. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 2nd Edition, BZNW 68 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993], 260–72, Nachtrag: 269–72); Marion L. Soards, “The Silence of Jesus Before Herod. An Interpretative Suggestion”, ABR 33 (1985): 41–45; cf. also John Dominic Crossan, The Cross That Spoke. The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 174–87. See also the work of the Toronto philosopher Paul W. Gooch, Reflections on Jesus and Socrates. Word and Silence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996). The study of John C. O’Neill, “The Silence of Jesus”, NTS 15 (1968–69): 153–67, does not discuss Jesus’ silence during the trial but Jesus’ silence about his Messiahship, which he regards as “absolute” (162), despite the fact that he thought that he was Messiah which can be established on the basis of several key events in his ministry (163–64); O’Neill argues that Jesus’ silence about his Messiahship is part of his messianic role, as his Jewish contemporaries would have understood that “the Messiah would not be able to claim Messiahship for himself, but must wait for God to enthrone him” (165). This theory does not explain Jesus’ silence during the trial, as Jesus does respond to the questions both of the Sanhedrin and of Pilate whether he claims to be Messiah or king of the Jews, respectively.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

33

issues (13:5–37). And he is prepared to point out the follower who would betray him (14:20–21). 2. When evil spirits ask (λε' γειν) Jesus a question (1:24; 5:7) he responds: he tells them to be silent (1:25) or he asks their name and grants their request of being allowed to enter into pigs (5:9–13). When the people of Gerasa heard the story of the demon-possessed pigs they asked Jesus to leave their area (5:17, παρακαλειñν) – Jesus grants their request and thus accepts their rejection of himself. 3. In Capernaum scribes ask themselves whether Jesus is blaspheming as he pronounced a paralytic’s sins forgiven (2:7). The Pharisees and scribes ask (ε’ περωταñ ν) Jesus about the unclean lifestyle of his students (7:5), about the unorthodox sabbath observance of his disciples (2:24), about the issue of divorce (10:2), about his table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (2:16, λε' γειν). The Sadducees ask Jesus about the issue of resurrection (12:18, ε’ περωταñ ν). The Jerusalem priestly aristocracy asks Jesus about the nature of his authority (11:28, λε' γειν). Jesus always replies to queries from his opponents. He often quotes (2:25– 26; 7:6, 10; 10:7–8) or interprets Scripture (10:3–12; 12:24–27); he explains his provocative behavior (2:17); he attacks premises of their position (7:7–9, 11–14). He honors questions, albeit in an indirect manner (in good rabbinic fashion), which are hardly asked for the sake of information (thus evidently in 11:27–33) but are rather meant to embarrass him or expose him as an imposter5 and/or to gather ammunition which could be used against Jesus.6 And he answers questions that people who are skeptical are not prepared to voice publicly: he addresses the charge that he violates God’s majesty as he pronounces sins to be forgiven, thus causing the scribes in Capernaum to cause to wonder whether he indeed has the authority to forgive sins (2:8–12). 4. In 3:1–6 Mark relates a miracle of healing in the antagonistic presence of Pharisees who had already warned him against violating the sabbath (2:24). Despite their malevolent scrutiny (note in 3:2 παρετη' ρουν linked with the final clause «ινα κατηγορη' σωσιν αυ’ τουñ ) Jesus starts the proceedings which eventually lead to the healing of the man with a withered hand. He deliberately ignores the earlier warning of the Pharisees. His action shows audacious aggressiveness:7 Jesus provocatively raises the issue of permissibility and, with strong language – reversing the traditional order of the antithetical pairs “good and evil” and “life and death” (cf. Sir 33:14 and Deut 30:15, 19 LXX) in order to end on the climactic contrast between life and death – sets out ─────────────── 5 Cf. Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 657. 6 Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, HThK 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1989–91 [1976– 1977]), II, 210. 7 Cf. Gundry, Mark, 153, 155.

34

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

alternatives in human behavior which leaves the opponents speechless (οι‘ δε` ε’ σιω' πων, 3:4b). As regards the issue of “doing good and saving a life” the Pharisees would have agreed that saving a life was a legal possibility and constituted halakhic priority over the laws of sabbath observance; as regards the issue of “doing evil and killing [a life]” the Pharisees could have argued that a crippled hand did not threaten the life of the man and that a healing could wait for the day after the sabbath. Their silence thus does not demonstrate the halakhic persuasiveness of Jesus’ answer. The powerful contrast which Jesus draws between saving life and killing is variously interpreted. Most recent interpreters place the alternative of “killing” in the context of the antagonism of the Pharisees and take it as an allusion to their murderous intentions.8 Others take it to mean “not to heal” and place Jesus’ question and the response of the Pharisees in the context of the broader scope of Jesus’ proclamation of the presence of God’s redemptive rule where healing was a question of life and death as it brought the healed person the benefits of God’s restoring power (see the healing in 2:1–12 and Jesus’ fellowship with sinners in 2:13–17).9 Either way, the silence of the Pharisees does not signify their defeat, on the contrary: they conspire with the Herodians to destroy Jesus (3:6).10 Their silence indicates that they were not willing to enter into a genuine dialogue about the person and the ministry of Jesus who announced and claimed to effect the realization of God’s promised (messianic) activity in history. On another occasion a response by Jesus causes the scribes to refrain from asking further questions (12:34b και` ου’ δει` ς ου’ κε' τι ε’ το' λμα αυ’ το` ν ε’ περωτηñ σαι). 5. As is well known, the historicity of Jesus’ command for silence is linked with one of the great debates of New Testament scholarship that began with William Wrede.11 Wrede regarded narratives which spell out or imply the conception that Jesus was the Messiah as editorial interpolation into the nonmessianic account of the life of Jesus by means of the messianic secret motif, ─────────────── 8 Cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, KEK I/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966 [1937]), 68; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, Thornapple Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 1951), 222; Pesch, Markusevangelium, I, 192; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, EKK II/1–2 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1978–79), I, 127; Gundry, Mark, 151, 153. 9 Cf. Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 136. 10 On the authenticity of 3:6 and the assumption of an original connection of 3:1–6 with 2:23–28, cf. Gundry, Mark, 155–56. 11 William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums, Third Edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1963); ET William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (Cambridge: Clarke, 1971); cf. James L. Blevins, The Messianic Secret in Markan Research, 1901–1976 (Washington: University Press, 1981); Christopher Tuckett, ed., The Messianic Secret (London/Philadelphia: SPCK/Fortress, 1983).

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

35

manifestly in the Schweigegebote. Today many doubt the validity of Wrede’s theory,12 not only because it has become increasingly clear that there is no evidence of such a pre-Markan theory but also, and more importantly, because the assumption of non-messianic Jesus traditions is untenable.13 Some link the motif of Jesus’ silence during his trial with the Marcan “messianic secret”.14 I cannot see a uniform “silence motif” in Mark15 for the following reasons. (1) The rebuking of the wind with the command to be silent (σιω' πα, πεφι' μωσο) in 4:39 emphasizes the power of Jesus by echoing passages in the Scriptures concerning God’s power to rebuke and still the sea (Job 26:11–12; Ps 65:8; 66:6; 107:9; 107:29–30; Nah 1:4) as well as the accounts of exorcisms. (2) In shutting up demons (Mark 1:25, 34; 3:12; 9:25) Jesus again shows his greater power as he stops the attempt by the unclean spirits to use their knowledge of Jesus in self-defense or to gain control over Jesus.16 Jesus commands only the unclean spirits to keep silent, not the people who were healed! (3) In the passages where Jesus shuts up demons the verb σιωπα' ω does not occur (1:25, 34 have φιμουñ μαι), and a command to shut up may be lacking altogether (cf. 5:6–13). (4) The strong rebuke to remain silent in 3:12 may perhaps be interpreted (in the context of the large multitude which threatens to crush Jesus, cf. 3:9–10), without allusion to deeper theological purposes, simply in terms of “crowd control”: Jesus attracts so large a multitude “that he must have a boat ready and insist that the unclean spirits not publicize him as ─────────────── 12 See more recently Heikki Räisänen, Das “Messiasgeheimnis” im Markusevangelium. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch, Suomen Eksegeettinen Seura julkaisuja 28 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1976); ET Heikki Räisänen, The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark, trans. C. Tuckett, Studies of the New Testament and Its World (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990); Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 36–37; Georg Strecker, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. F. W. Horn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), 362–71; see also Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990–95), III, 67. 13 Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “The Messianic Secret in Mark [1970]”, in The Messianic Secret, ed. C. Tuckett (London/Philadelphia: SPCK/Fortress, 1983), 116–31; Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, AGAJU 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 437–56; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God II (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 477–539; Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992–99), I, 107–117; Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 41–58, 63–72.217; see also Gerd Theißen and Annette Merz, Der historische Jesus. Ein Lehrbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 467–70. Many scholars would of course disagree with this argument. 14 Cf. Till Arend Mohr, Markus- und Johannespassion: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der markinischen und johanneischen Passionstradition, AThANT 70 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1982), 256, 287. 15 Pace Gnilka, Markus, I, 128 n.18. 16 Thus the interpretation of Gundry, Mark, 76, 84, 88, who asserts: Mark’s “emphasis on the wide publication of Jesus’ miracles and the comparative infrequence of commands to silence about miracles of healing weaken the argument that those commands will interpret the shutting up of unclean spirits in terms of a messianic secret rather than apotropaically” (84).

36

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

God’s Son lest the throngs crush him”.17 (5) The command which Jesus issued to the disciples to keep his messiahship private (8:30) is to be explained on the background of contemporary Jewish hopes of a coming agent of God who would be king, fighting with success Israel’s battles against her enemies, restoring the Temple and the nation – hopes which were so powerful that they could cause large crowds to follow leaders who believed themselves to be messiahs into battle against Roman legions. In the words of Tom Wright: “Once Jesus was thought of as a potential or would-be Messiah, the movement would swiftly attract attention of the wrong sort”.18 (6) When Jesus orders the three disciples to keep silent about what they saw on the mountain (9:9), this can be explained in the context of 8:31–38: “a premature publicizing of the Transfiguration would counteract both the teaching that the son of man must suffer and the general summons to cross-taking”.19 (7) The silence of the disciples in 9:34 (οι‘ δε` ε’ σιω' πων) is neither theologically motivated nor of special interest to Mark who leaves the reason for their silence unidentified. (8) Similarly the attempt of “many” (πολλοι' ) to silence Bartimaeus who calls out to Jesus “son of David” (10:48) should be explained without reference to a Marcan or pre-Marcan messianic secret: the crowds want to stave off unwelcome disturbance from a blind beggar.20 The contexts in which Mark refers to or implies silence are diverse, as is the rationale for rebukes to keep silent. Each pericope in which the issue of “silence” occurs must be interpreted on its own terms. However, nobody disputes that Jesus always responded when people asked questions, whether sympathizers or opponents, friends or hostile religious or political leaders. This makes his silence during the trial all the more striking.

1.2 Jesus’ Reaction to Questions in the Gospel of Matthew 1. Jesus’ disciples inquire (λε' γουσιν) whether Jesus realized that he had offended the Pharisees (Matt 15:12); they ask questions (ε’ περωταñ ν) about eschatological issues (17:10, ε’ περωταñ ν), about hierarchy in God’s kingdom (18:1, λε' γοντες), about the sudden withering of the fig tree (21:20, λε' γοντες), ─────────────── 17 Thus Gundry, Mark, 159; see ibid., 163, for a discussion of the view that Jesus did not want people to think of him as God’s Son apart from the crucifixion and resurrection which had yet to take place. 18 Wright, Jesus, 529. 19 Gundry, Mark, 462. 20 Cf. Gnilka, Markus, II, 110; pace Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 172, who assumes that people who accompany Jesus, “am ehesten Jünger”, attempt to silence the beggar who declares Jesus to be the son of David because they are afraid of political misunderstanding. In the larger context of the story, the rebuke of the crowd also functions as providing an obstacle which magnifies the faith of Bartimaeus.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

37

about which of the disciples would betray him (26:22, λε' γειν). John the Baptist sends his disciples with the question whether Jesus is the Messiah or not, considering the fact that he did not bring judgment on the unrighteous (11:3). A potential follower inquires about what he must do in order to gain eternal life (19:18, 20). A trusting Roman officer implores to heal his servant (8:5–6, παρακαλω ñ ν ... λε' γων). Jesus always gives an answer. He tells John’s disciples to assess his ministry and come to their own conclusions about whether he fulfills messianic prophecy or not (11:4–6). He affirms with strong words had his criticism of the Pharisees was both fundamental and intentional (15:13–14); he explains how he understands the prophetic hope of the return of Elijah (17:11–12); he provocatively rejects their notion of the importance of status (18:2–5); he responds by quoting Scripture (19:18–19). Answering the question about the requirements for participation in God’s kingdom Jesus goes beyond the traditional answers which pointed to obedience to God’s commandments to demand that one must follow him and be prepared even to give away one’s wealth to the poor (19:21). He honors the “somewhat irrelevant question”21 of the disciples concerning how Jesus had made the tree wither so suddenly and gives an answer (21:21–22). He points to Judas as the disciple who would betray him (26:23–25). He heals the son of the Roman officer (8:7–13). 2. When evil spirits come with a request (λε' γειν) Jesus responds (8:31), granting their plea of being allowed to enter a herd of pigs. And he grants the request of the people living in the city who ask him to leave (8:34, παρακαλω ñ ). 3. Matthew’s version of the story of the Gentile woman who asks Jesus to expel a demon from her daughter includes the remark that Jesus reacted, at first, with silence (15:23 ο‘ δε` ου’ κ α’ πεκρι' θη αυ’ τηñ, λο' γον). Most interpreters do not comment on the silence of Jesus. Davies and Allison are an exception, offering this explanation: “He is either turning her down or trying her faith”.22 ─────────────── 21 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew, WBC 33 (Dallas: Word, 1993–95), II, 606. 22 William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97), II, 549, who regard v.23 as redactional, as do many other commentators. An argument in favor of inauthenticity is the fact that Jesus regularly answers requests of people, even if they are spurious. On the other hand, the very particularism of a silence of Jesus as “answer” to a genuine request may be taken to support the authenticity of the remark. The response of the disciples in v.23b (α’ πο' λυσον αυ’ τη' ν, ο« τι κρα' ζει ο» πισθεν η‘ μω ñ ν), if understood in the sense of “send her away with her request granted” – which is likely, as v.24 states the case not for sending her away but for not helping her – also supports authenticity (unless the request of the disciples, understood in this way, is explained by their annoyance and the assumption that Jesus would be willing to use his healing powers simply to get rid of an inconvenience). If the possibility that Jesus himself spoke 15:24 cannot be excluded (ibid., II, 551), the same may be said for 15:23, particularly if v.23 “serves primarily to set the stage for the declaration in V.24” (ibid. 549). Don A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995 [1984]), 353–55, defends the authenticity of the dialogue in v.23–25.

38

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Jesus explains his lack of response by pointing to the fundamental thrust of his mission which is directed to the covenant people (15:24). 4. Scribes who witnessed Jesus’ forgiving the sins of the paralyzed man question in their mind whether Jesus is blaspheming (9:3). Pharisees ask (ε’ περωταñ ν) Jesus, with dishonest intentions, whether the law allows healing on the sabbath (12:10). One of their scribes asks Jesus, with hostile intentions (ε’ πηρω' τησεν ... πειρα' ζων αυ’ το' ν), which is the most important commandment (22:35–36) – a critical question since the answer to it “will establish whether Jesus belongs to some radical fringe group or within the piety of mainstream Judaism”.23 They try to trap him with a question regarding his view on justifiable grounds for divorce (19:3, πειρα' ζοντες αυ’ το` ν ... λε' γοντες). Together with Sadducees they request Jesus (ε’ περωταñ ν) to give them a sign in or from the heavens – a heavenly voice? or some eschatological cosmic sign? – which would need no interpretation and thus compel them to believe in him (16:1). Together with partisans of the Herodian family the Pharisees ask (λε' γει) Jesus about his view on paying imperial taxes (22:15–17), trying to trap him (συμβου' λιον ε» λαβον ο« πως αυ’ το` ν παγιδευ' σωσιν ε’ ν λο' γω, V.15). The Sadducees ask (ε’ περωταñ ν) Jesus about his view of the resurrection hope, attempting to show the absurdity of his belief with a bizarre case study (22:23–28). The priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem together with Temple scribes ask Jesus whether he was not upset when children in the Temple who had observed healings of some blind and lame people chanted to him “Hosanna to the Son of David” (21:16, λε' γειν), implying that any claim of Jesus to this title could have no truth.24 Together with representatives of the Sanhedrin the chief priests ask (λε' γειν) Jesus about the nature and the source of the authority which he presumed to underlie his actions and his teaching (21:23). Jesus always gives an answer. He responds to the charge of blasphemy and challenges the scribes in Capernaum to draw conclusions from the fact that he was able to heal the paralytic and infer that he can also forgive sins (9:5). He responds even in cases where the questioners do not honestly seek an answer ─────────────── 23 Hagner, Matthew, II, 644. 24 Cf. Hagner, Matthew, II, 602. The episode in Matt 21:14–17 is usually regarded as due to Matthean redaction, cf. Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, HThK I (Freiburg: Herder, 1986–88), II, 206; Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, EKK I (Zürich/ Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1985–2001), III, 179–80. But why would a Christian author try to expose the theological ignorance of the Scripture experts in the Temple by making Jesus quote a Scripture passage which necessitates the redactional introduction of children into the story? There is no reason why Matthew should include a quotation from Ps 8:3. If the messianic interpretation of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem by the crowd which accompanies Jesus is accepted as authentic (cf. e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 187–88; Gundry, Mark, 623–34, who correctly comments that “lack of historical imagination can distort critical judgment as badly as historical credulity can distort it” [632]), it is not impossible to assume that children (perhaps of pilgrims who entered Jerusalem with Jesus) mimicked the chant they had heard earlier, maybe “in all good fun” (thus Hagner, Matthew, II, 602).

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

39

but attempt to elicit a response which might be used in court against him (12:10 «ινα κατηγορη' σωσιν αυ’ τουñ ; also 21:23–25), or which are aimed at discrediting him as a conservative Jewish teacher and at gathering information that might prove useful in future legal proceedings against him (22:18–21),25 or which are specifically designed to make him appear ridiculous (22:29–32). Jesus honors questions even in instances (16:1–4) where petitions are challenges of unbelief (note πειρα' ζοντες in 16:1). He answers questions concerning halakhic issues in a way which seems to challenge the authority of Moses (19:4–9). His answers demonstrate a fearless sovereignty, whether he is confronted by ordinary Pharisees or by their scribes, by Sadducees or by Herodians, by the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem or by representatives of the Sanhedrin. And he has no qualms to unmask his opponents as “hypocrites” (22:18). Jack Dean Kingsbury has described Matthew’s presentation of the last great confrontation between Jesus and the religious leaders which took place in the Temple in Jerusalem and lasted for two days in the following manner: the tone of these controversies is acutely confrontational (cf. 21:16, 23; 22:15–17, 23, 34–36), the issues which are debated are all of critical importance for the Jewish religious and political leadership (21:15–16, 23; 22:42–45), the controversies continue virtually unabated for two days (cf. 21:15, 23; 22:16, 23, 35, 41), and the atmosphere is one of profound hostility (cf. 21:15–16, 45–46; 22:15–17, 35). In none of the debates the Jewish leaders and law experts are able to outdo or to outmaneuver Jesus. At the end of this climactic confrontation, they are reduced to silence, as the narrator comments: “And no one was able to answer him a word (ου’ δει` ς ε’ δυ' νατο α’ ποκριθηñ ναι αυ’ τω ñ, λο' γον), nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions” (22:46).26 All the more surprising is Jesus’ silence during his trial which was secured and carried out by the same people.

1.3 Jesus’ Reaction to Questions in the Gospel of Luke 1. Jesus’ followers ask (ε’ ρωταñ ν, ε’ περωταñ ν) for healing (Luke 4:38), they ask about the meaning of the parable of the sower (8:9), and about the signs which would signal the imminence of the destruction of the Temple (21:7). Sympathetic Pharisees ask Jesus to share a meal in his house, probably after the synagogue service on the Sabbath (7:36; 11:37).27 Peter asks whether the call to ─────────────── 25 Cf. Hagner, Matthew, II, 634. 26 Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, Second ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988 [1986]), 6–7, 122–23. 27 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 308, 493–94.

40

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

be alert is directed only to those disciples who have responsibilities of leadership or to disciples at large: he finds the imagery which Jesus had used ambiguous (12:41).28 Later the disciples ask about the location of the judgment which accompanies the visible coming of God’s kingdom (17:37a). John the Baptist sends two of his disciples who inquire whether Jesus is the Coming One or whether they have been mistaken in believing this (7:18–20). A leading man of society asks Jesus how he can be sure that he will be saved in the final resurrection (18:18). A Roman officer asks Jesus to come and cure his slave (7:3). Jesus answers all of these questions. He heals Peter’s mother-in-law (4:39); he heals the centurion’s slave (7:6–10); he interprets the parable of the sower (8:10–15); he accepts invitations from Pharisees to share a meal (7:36; 11:37); he tells John’s disciples to evaluate his ministry of miraculous healing and come to the appropriate conclusions (7:21–23); he answers Peter’s request to clarify what he meant when he talked about being prepared for the master’s return (12:42–48); he tells the rich ruler to do God’s will in being wholly committed to Jesus and sell his possessions (18:19–22); he explains to the disciples the coming judgment will be visible, universal, and permanent (17:37b); he warns his disciples against false prophets and against misunderstanding catastrophes such as wars or natural disasters as signs of the end (21:8–11). 2. When evil spirits ask him to be allowed to enter a herd of swine (8:32, παρακαλειñν), Jesus grants their request. When the Gerasene people ask Jesus to leave after they witnessed the healing of the possessed man and the destruction of the swine (8:37, ε’ ρωταñ ν). Jesus fulfills this request: he accepts that they reject him (8:38c). 3. Scribes and Pharisees in Capernaum ask whether Jesus is not aware that only God can forgive sins (5:21). A scribe challenges him with the question what requirements must be fulfilled to receive eternal life (10:25, λε' γειν). Pharisees ask when the kingdom of God is coming (17:20a, ε’ περωταñ ν). A deputation of members of the priestly aristocracy and of scribes asks whether it is permitted by the law for God’s people to pay taxes to the Roman emperor (20:22, ε’ περωταñ ν). Sadducees ask a question regarding the resurrection hope (20:27, ε’ περωταñ ). Leading aristocratic representatives of the Sanhedrin and scribes ask Jesus about the nature and source of his authority, evidently to trap him (20:2, λε' γειν). Jesus always answers. He answers the scribes and Pharisees in Capernaum by trying to make them wonder, on account of a stunning miracle which he performs in front of their eyes, whether his declaration of forgiveness does not indeed result from the power of God (5:22–26). He answers questions put to him indirectly, via his disciples, about eating with tax-collectors and sinners ─────────────── 28 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 540; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995– 96), II, 1178.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

41

(5:30–32). He answers the question of the scribe about the reception of eternal life by discussing Torah and by illustrating the fundamental requirement of love for God with a provocative parable (10:26–37). When scribes and Pharisees who had shared a meal with Jesus and who had heard his accusations and his harsh condemnation of hypocrisy crowded around him, pressing hostile questions (δεινω ñ ς ε’ νε' χειν) and examining him closely and trying to catch him in things he says (α’ ποστοματι' ζειν has been translated both ways), lying in ambush and trying to catch him (ε’ νεδρευ' οντες αυ’ το` ν θηρευñ σαι' , 11:53–54), Jesus evidently stood his ground: the aspect of the verbs and the term περι` πλειο' νων hint at a prolonged discussion.29 Jesus tells the Pharisees that God’s kingdom is not accompanied by supporting signs, it is present in their midst (17:20b-21). He takes up the issue of authority which official envoys of the Sanhedrin raise and implies with his answer that the source of his authority is the same as that of John the Baptist: heaven, i.e., God himself (20:3–8).30 Despite the hypocritical flattery of the influential priests who claimed to accept his teaching when they asked about taxes wanting to find incriminating evidence which they could use against him before the Roman prefect, Jesus gives them an answer, even though he recognized their ruse (20:23–25). He answers the Sadducees even though they evidently wanted to ridicule his belief in the resurrection: he attacks the basis of their case which assumed the continuation of ordinary human relationships and then positively defends the doctrine of the resurrection by reference to the nature of God (20:34–38).31 The evidence in Luke corresponds to what we have found in surveying Mark and Matthew: Jesus invariably responds to questions, whether they are genuine or deceitful, amiable or hostile, direct or indirect, religious or political in nature, innocuous or dangerous if answered.

1.4 Jesus’ Reaction to Questions in the Gospel of John 1. When Jesus tells his disciples that he has food of which they know nothing, they do not understand that he wants to teach them a lesson: they speculate whether someone else has brought him food (4:32–33). This is one instance of many where statements of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are misunderstood by the disciples, the crowds or opponents, prompting questions which Jesus

─────────────── 29 John Nolland, Luke, WBC 35 (Dallas: Word, 1989–93), II, 669, defends the possibility that Luke may be following his source in 11:53–54. 30 Cf. Bock, Luke, II, 1582. 31 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 737–38.

42

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

always answers. He tells the disciples that doing the will of God is the real ground of his life and the source of his power (4:34).32 The disciples ask (ε’ ρωταñ ν33) Jesus about the cause of the blindness of a man born blind (John 9:2); they want to ask him what he meant when he said that “in a little while” they will not see him any more and “then again in a little while” they will see him (16:16–19). Peter asks Jesus whether he really wants to wash his feet (13:6, λε' γειν). Peter prompts the disciple “whom Jesus loved” to inquire (πυνθα' νομαι) from Jesus whom he meant when he had said that one of them would betray him (13:24), and the disciple puts the question to Jesus (13:25, λε' γειν). Peter asks Jesus what he meant when he said that he won’t be with them much longer (13:36a, λε' γειν) and why he cannot follow him (13:37, λε' γειν), and Thomas asks for directions in order to find the way to where Jesus is going (14:5). Jesus always gives an answer. He tells his disciples that the question is not who is the cause of the blindness of the man who was born blind but what is God’s purpose in his blindness (9:3). Jesus answers the question of the disciples about the meaning of what would happen “in a little while” before they had asked it, talking about his death and resurrection (16:20–23);34 on that day, when their joy has been renewed, they will have “no more questions” to put to Jesus (16:23). He responds to Peter’s indignant objection when wanted to wash his feet (13:7, 8b). He answers the question about the disciple who would betray him (13:26). He replies to Peter’s questions about where he will go, although his answer can be understood fully only later (13:36b,38), and he answers Thomas’ question by explaining that he represents the way to get to the Father (14:6–7). 2. In conversations with sympathetic listeners, Jesus answers their questions, often prompting them with ambiguous statements. When Nicodemus asks, incredulously, how a new birth could be possible (3:9, λε' γειν), Jesus gives a sharp retort, blaming him as a teacher who lacks understanding (3:10). ─────────────── 32 Cf. Adolf Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes. Ein Kommentar zum vierten Evangelium, 4th Edition (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975), 130. 33 In John 4:31, 40, 47 ε’ ρωταñ ν (see further 14:16; 16:26; 17:9) is used as synonym for αι’ τειñν in the sense of “to ask for something”: the disciples ask Jesus to eat; people of Samaria ask Jesus to stay with them; a Roman officer in Capernaum asks Jesus to come and heal his son. Jesus always fulfills the request. 34 Cf. Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1983 [1921]), 595–96; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, HThK IV (Freiburg: Herder, 1986–1986 [1965–1975]), III, 175–76; Ulrich Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, NTD 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 253–54. Augustin, Tractatus in Joannem CI, 5–6 (CC 592–594), interpreted in terms of the parousia. Some have interpreted in terms of the descent of the Paraclete (cf. 14:23), see C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London/Philadelphia: SPCK/Westminster, 1978), 494. Some commentators understand 16:16ff to imply double or treble references, see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1966–70), II, 729–30.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

43

The Samaritan woman at the well asks, surprised by Jesus’ request, why he as a Jew wants to have a drink from her (4:9, λε' γειν). In the course of the ensuing conversation Jesus explains that the old distinctions between Jews and Samaritans do not count any longer. 3. The crowds ask Jesus how long he had been on the other side of the lake (6:25, λε' γειν). Jesus does not answer their question directly, but he responds, questioning their motives in looking for him (6:26). When they ask (λε' γειν) “what must we do in order to work the works God requires?” (6:28), i.e., about works they can do, Jesus sets them straight by putting the emphasis on faith, which means submission to God’s work in Jesus.35 The crowd responds by asking (λε' γειν) for a sign which would validate Jesus’ authority, something equivalent to God’s provision of manna (6:30–31). Jesus responds by telling them that the manna in the desert was not the true bread from heaven but only a foreshadowing of the true bread from heaven which is Jesus himself (6:32– 35). During the feast of Tabernacles people in Jerusalem ask with amazement how someone who had not studied in one the rabbinical schools could carry on learned disputations with such a command of Scripture (7:15).36 Jesus responds by stating that he draws his teaching from his Father (7:16). The Pharisees react to a statement Jesus had made about his unique relation with his father, by misunderstanding him as they think in purely human terms, and they ask Jesus who his father is (8:19a, λε' γειν). Jesus responds with the accusation that they know neither him nor his father (8:19b), which leads to a discussion about the origin and departure of Jesus and of his parentage and that of “the Jews” (8:21–58). When Jesus asserts that he will go away to a place where they cannot come, they suggest they he may contemplating suicide (8:22) – probably not a misunderstanding37 but meant to scoff at the apparent nonsense of what he is saying,38 or perhaps suggesting that the content of Jesus’ teaching and his skirmishes with the Jerusalem authorities constitute a provocation of death which amounts to suicide.39 Jesus reacts by declaring that they belong to the realm of fallen creation whereas he comes from the realm of God himself (8:23). When he asserts that men must believe that he comes from above with the power of the forgiveness of sins and that he therefore is ε’ γω' ει’ μι (8:23–24), the crowds fail to grasp the real force of Jesus’ implicit claim to divinity and ask who he is (8:25a, λε' γειν). Jesus answers by pointing out (8:25b) that “from the beginning, from his very first ─────────────── 35 Cf. Brown, John, II, 265. 36 I cannot see why this question of the Jerusalem crowd is “scornful” (Barrett, John, 317). 37 Thus most commentaries, cf. Barrett, John, 341; Brown, John, II, 351. 38 Cf. Zahn, Johannes, 410, who suggests that the assumption that Jesus may consider suicide is not meant seriously; also Wilckens, Johannes, 144. 39 Thus Ernst Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar, ed. U. Busse (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 368.

44

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

discourse with Nicodemus, he has claimed to be from above and to be uniquely representative of the Father”.40 And he tells them that he has “much to say” (8:26): he is anything but reluctant to speak!41 As Jesus continues to talk about truth which liberates, a truth which is linked with commitment to Jesus and the revelation he brings (8:31–32), the audience grasps that Jesus implies that they are currently slaves. This they deny, affirming that they are the children of Abraham and thus possess “inward freedom of soul”.42 Jesus answers their question “what do you mean” (8:33, λε' γειν): he explains what he means by freedom and slavery (8:34–36), he asserts that they are falsely claiming Abraham as their father (8:37–44) and he reasserts his own unique authority which can alone guarantee eternal life (8:45–51). When opponents crassly misinterpret the assertion of Jesus that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, implying that Abraham’s hopes find fulfillment in his person and ministry: they contentiously ask whether Jesus claims to be Abraham’s contemporary (8:57, λε' γειν). Jesus’ response “before Abraham was born, I am” provoked the Jews to pick up stones to kill him (8:59). As Jesus brings out the underlying theological meaning of the miracle which he had just performed on the man born blind, talking about those who do not see but receive sight and those who see but become blind (9:39), some Pharisees ask (λε' γειν) him whether he considers them to be blind as well, expecting him to answer in the negative (9:40, μη` και` η‘ μειñς). Jesus replies that since they claim to be βλε' βοντες, making confident pronouncements to the effect that Jesus is not the Messiah but a sinner (9:16, 22, 24, 29, 34), but refuse to acknowledge the light of revelation that Jesus brings, claiming that they have sufficient illumination as they have the law (9:28, 29), they become incurably blind since they deliberately reject the only cure for blindness.43 During the feast of Dedication Jews surround Jesus in Solomon’s Colonnade in the Temple precincts and ask him (10:24, λε' γειν): “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are really the Messiah, tell us so in plain words”. If the question ε« ως πο' τε τη` ν ψυχη` ν η‘ μω ñ ν αι»ρεις; means in effect “How long are you going to annoy us?”44 the “Jews” are opponents who attempt to procure a clear statement from Jesus which they could use against him. Jesus did not do them this favor to publicly declare himself to be the ─────────────── 40 Brown, John, II, 350, who considers the wisdom tradition (Prov 8:22; Sir 24:9) to provide additional background for Jesus’ answer in 8:25b. 41 Don A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 344. 42 Barrett, John, 345; cf. Carson, John, 349; pace Brown, John, 363, who interprets the reaction of the audience as a misunderstanding in political terms and as evidence of “nationalistic pride”. The boast of Eleazar to the besieged Jews at Masada (Josephus, B.J. 7.323) is irrelevant here since the Zealots attempted to throw of the bondage of Roman power – unsuccessfully, as it turned out. 43 Cf. Barrett, John, 366. 44 Cf. Barrett, John, 380; Carson, John, 392.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

45

Messiah, but he does give them an answer which points in this direction (10:25–30): he reminds them of his ministry in words and deeds, he tells his opponents that they do not belong to the sheep of the flock (i.e., God’s people) and that only those have eternal life who listen to his teaching and commit themselves to himself who is one with the Father. The Jews understand this statement to meet the criteria of blasphemy, they want to execute him by stoning (10:31, 33). After Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when he spoke about being “lifted up”, the crowd asks how he can claim that the Son of Man must be lifted up since the Scriptures state that the Messiah would remain forever: “Who is this Son of Man?” (12:34). The crowd knew that Jesus referred to himself as “Son of Man” and evidently interpreted the circumstances of his entry into Jerusalem as a messianic gesture.45 Jesus does not answer the questions of the crowd directly; he summaries his ministry with the terminology of light and darkness, he warns of the impending judgment which is associated with the Son of Man, and he urges the crowd to trust him as he is the light of the world as the power of darkness is closing in for the final struggle (12:35– 36). “Thus, Jesus ends his ministry to the Jews on a note of challenge”.46

2. Jesus’ Reaction to Questions in the Trial We have seen that Jesus is described as consistently answering questions, whether they were put to him by friends or adversaries, by followers or strangers, by simple people or by theological experts, by priests or by Roman soldiers. He answered questions no matter what the motives of those asking them. His answers could be direct or enigmatic, favorable or provocative, “traditional” or “broad-minded”. This makes the silence during his trial unexpected. Of course Jesus did not maintain complete silence. He did respond to questions during his trial. In order to be able to understand his silence, we must first assess the narratives of the cross-examination.47 ─────────────── 45 Cf. Brown, John, II, 478. 46 Cf. Brown, John, II, 479. 47 In the following remarks we will concentrate on the meaning conveyed by the extant Gospel narratives, disregarding literary critical issues. On the question of historicity see the commentaries, with regard to the trial of Jesus see notably August Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit. Untersuchungen zum Strafverfahren gegen Jesus, WUNT 21 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980); also Bruce Corley, “Trial of Jesus”, DJG, 841–54. Hypercritical is the recent study of Wolfgang Reinbold, Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu. Literarische Analyse und historische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien, BZNW 69 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), who regards the entire trial scene before the Sanhedrin and the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate as unhistorical.

46

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

2.1 The Cross-Examination in the Gospel of Mark Mark begins his account of the trial against Jesus with the High Priest (Caiaphas)48 and the leading members of the Sanhedrin seeking evidence which would allow them to condemn Jesus over the issue of the threat that he posed to the Temple; they want his execution (Mark 14:53–59). The question of the High Priest: “Have you nothing at all to answer to what these are testifying against you?” (ου’ κ α’ ποκρι' νη, ου’ δε' ν; τι' ουð τοι' σου καταμαρτυρουñ σιν; Mark 14:60) implies that Jesus evidently listened in silence (I) to the accusations brought forward by the witnesses. The High Priest seeks to obtain a deposition from Jesus about the Temple which would compensate the lack of agreement in the witnesses. But Jesus stays silent (II) and answers nothing at all (ο‘ δε` ε’ σιω' πα και` ου’ κ α’ πεκρι' νατο ου’ δε' ν, 14:61). The High Priest was persistent (πα' λιν): since the testimony about Jesus’ views on the Temple did not move the proceedings any further, “he tries another tactic to see if he can get Jesus to speak”.49 He puts the question to ─────────────── 48 Mark mentions no High Priest by name in his gospel. Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 425, assumes that the narrative of the passion account took shape in the Jerusalem community at such an early date that the High Priest was still in office and thus didn’t need to be identified. A perhaps more straightforward explanation may be seen in the assumption that the Christian readers of the Gospel knew that Jesus died during the long administration of the High Priest Caiaphas – his rule of eighteen to nineteen years (AD 18–36) were by far the longest of the nineteen High Priests in Jerusalem in the 1st cent. AD; on Caiaphas see Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 409–11. 49 Brown, Death, 465. The link between the inadmissible testimony of the witnesses and the question of the High Priest whether Jesus is “the messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” can be discussed on the tactical level as follows (see Gundry, Mark, 908–9, who thinks the third option to be the more likely): (1) The High Priest asks the question out of frustration at the Sanhedrin’s failure to convict Jesus of a capital offense – assuming that not only the office of “messiah” but also the phrase “the Son of God” (understood in the sense of divine appointment) were understood in human terms. In this case the High Priest lowered the stakes: the discussion about destroying the Temple and building the Temple seems to entail the charge that Jesus arrogated to himself a divine role, as only God (rather than the messiah, in prerabbinic Jewish literature!) was portrayed as destroyer (Jer 7:12–15; 26:4–6,9; 1 Enoch 90:28–29) and builder (Exod 15:17; 1 Enoch 90:28–29; Jub 1:17; 11QTemple XXIX, 8–10; 4QFlor I, 3,6) of the Temple. The High Priest asks whether Jesus claims the office of messiah – the subject of a new Temple might have prompted the High Priest to think of the messianic age – a high but still only human office. Jesus does the High Priest an unforeseen favor: he provides a statement which implies a claim that fulfills the criteria of blasphemy. (2) The High Priests asks the question out of determination to follow up on the arrogation of divine activity implied in the claims of Jesus to destroy and rebuild the Temple – assuming that the phrase “the Son of God” is understood as implying divine nature, rather than (only) divine appointment. In this case the High Priest does not lower the stakes, but demonstrates the determination of a skilled interrogator. Jesus does the High Priest the favor he is looking for: he assert

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

47

Jesus (ε’ πηρω' τα αυ’ το` ν): “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” (συ` ειò ο‘ Χριστο` ς ο‘ υι‘ ο` ς τουñ ευ’ λογητουñ ; 14:61b). Jesus answers (III) in the affirmative: “I am” (ε’ γω' ει’ μι, 14:62a), and elucidates: “and you (plural) will see the Son of Man sitting at the right of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (και` ο» ψεσθε το` ν υι‘ ο` ν τουñ α’ νθρω' που ε’ κ δεξιω ñ ν καθη' μενον τηñ ς δυνα' μεως και` ε’ ρχο' μενον μετα` τω ñ ν νεφελω ñ ν τουñ ου’ ρανουñ , 14:62bc).50 The question which Jesus had turned by with a counter-question in 11:27–33 and to which he replied only indirectly in 12:1–9, is now answered with decisive lucidity. When the High Priest hears Jesus’ claim that he will share in heavenly glory at God’s right hand and that he will return as heavenly judge,51 he tears his garments, states that the offense of blasphemy has been committed, and prompts the Sanhedrin to issue a death sentence (14:63–64).52 No response of Jesus (IV) to the following abuse by members of the Sanhedrin is reported. After being handed over to the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate (15:1), he questions Jesus (ε’ πηρω' τησεν αυ’ το` ν) whether he is the king of the Jews (συ` ειò ο‘ βασιλευ` ς τω ñ ν ’ Ιουδαι' ων; 15:2a), suggesting political accusations by the Jewish leadership against Jesus who evidently was charged he was a revolutionary ─────────────── that he possesses divine status and that he will fulfill divine functions. (3) The High Priests asks the question as an attempt to put test claims of Jesus to be the messiah – assuming that he was aware of such claims, which is likely given the circumstances of Jesus’ recent entry in Jerusalem and the reaction of the people accompanying him, and given the possibility that Judas Iscariot may have told Sanhedrin members that Jesus had accepted the title of messiah from his disciples (thus C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966], 443). Or he may have introduced the subject of messiahship after the witnesses talked about claims of Jesus to build a new temple, which may have prompted him to think of the messianic age. The scene where members of the Sanhedrin cover the face of Jesus and challenge him to prophesy who had hit him (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63–64; Matt 26:67–68) might have been a messianic test (which then turned into a repudiation of blasphemy). Jesus provides the High Priest with a statement which can readily be interpreted in terms of the capital charge of blasphemy – much more easily than a conviction as a messianic pretender who is a false prophet. 50 Cf. Otto Betz, “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu”, ANRW II/25.1 (1982): 565–647, here 634–35, who regards the second part of 14:62c as redactional. The authenticity of 14:62 is defended by Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 437–39, 443; Gundry, Mark, 912–14. 51 Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospel (London/Philadelphia: Collins/Fortress, 1973), 147–49, 183–84, regards the entire answer of Jesus in Mark 14:62 to be redactional, since elsewhere in the gospel Jesus is reticent about messiahship. Apart from the necessity to qualify the earlier reticence of Jesus as regards the claim to be messiah, it should be noted that the circumstance of Jesus’ trial make it perfectly clear that an uprising under the leadership of Jesus is no longer a threat, that a political reading of his ministry is no longer an option – which means that there is no further need for Jesus to buy time with silence regarding the question whether he is the messiah (see Gundry, Mark, 913). 52 The question what exactly established the offense of blasphemy is disputed. See the commentaries and Brown, Death, 520–47. The most plausible options are (1) Jesus’ words and attitude toward the Temple; (2) the charge that Jesus was a false prophet; (3) Jesus’ claim to be the Son of Man sitting at God’s right hand coming with the clouds he heaven.

48

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

with monarchical pretensions. Jesus answers (V) with συ' λε' γεις, a formulation which should very probably be understood as evasive.53 When the chief priests seize on the ambiguity of this answer they press their case with many other accusations (πολλα' , 15:3), evidently following up on the issue of his claims to kingship. But Jesus does not defend himself (VI), as Pilate notices with amazement (ου’ κ α’ ποκρι' νη, ου’ δε' ν; 15:3), pointing out that to keep silent in the face of so many accusations is dangerous.54 But Jesus answers nothing (VII) (ο‘ δε` ’ Ιησουñ ς ου’ κε' τι ου’ δε` ν α’ πεκρι' θη, 15:4).

2.2 The Cross-Examination in the Gospel of Matthew Matthew’s narrative closely follows that of Mark. Jesus does not respond (I) to the contradictory accusations which focus on his views on the Temple (ου’ δε` ν α’ ποκρι' νη, ; Matt 26:62). And he does not respond (II) to the challenge of Caiaphas to comment on these accusations (ο‘ δε` ’ Ιησουñ ς ε’ σιω' πα, 26:63a). When the High Priest charges Jesus under oath (ε’ ξορκι' ζω σε κατα` τουñ θεουñ τουñ ζω ñ ντος, 26:63b) to tell truthfully whether he considers himself to be “the Messiah, the Son of God” (ει’ συ` ειò ο‘ Χριστο` ς ο‘ υι‘ ο` ς τουñ θεουñ , 26:63c), Jesus answers (III) with a qualified affirmative: “You have said it” (συ` ειòπας)55 and continues by invoking the image of the Son of Man coming in judgment: “Yet I say to you (plural), ‘From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven’” (πλη` ν λε' γω υ‘ μιñν, α’ π´ α» ρτι ο» ψεσθε το` ν υι‘ ο` ν τουñ α’ νθρω' που καθη' μενον ε’ κ δεξιω ñ ν τηñ ς δυνα' μεως και` ε’ ρχο' μενον ε’ πι` τω ñ ν νεφελω ñ ν τουñ ου’ ρανουñ , 26:64). The Sanhedrin reacts with ─────────────── 53 Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 457–58; Gundry, Mark, 932–33; Klaus Haacker, “Wer war schuld am Tode Jesu?” Theologische Beiträge 25 (1994): 23–36, here 34 n.49. Pace David R. Catchpole, “The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi.64)”, NTS 17 (1970– 71): 213–26, who argues against evasiveness, followed by Brown, Death, 488–89, 733, who interprets in terms of an answer which is “affirmative in content, and reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation”. The decisive arguments are the following: (1) The συ' is emphatic; (2) if Jesus wanted to give an affirmative answer, he could have given the same answer which he gave to the very similar of the High Priest in 14:62; (3) if Pilate had heard an affirmative answer, he would have taken it as challenge to the authority of the emperor, and thus would have responded accordingly (both historically and on the narrative level!); (4) Mark 15:3 records no response of Pilate but further accusations of the chief priests; (5) Pilate points out to the crowd that they call Jesus the king of the Jews (15:12), he does not say that Jesus claimed the title. (6) The parallels in Luke 22:70; John 18:34–37 support this interpretation. 54 Cf. Brown, Death, 734, who points out Pilate’s fairness. Origen, Contra Celsum, Preface 2, believes that Pilate would have released Jesus immediately had he chosen to defend himself, which he would have done effectively. 55 Brown, Death, 489–91; Hagner, Matthew, II, 799; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, II, 429. Gundry, Mark, 932, thinks that the formulation in Matt 26:64 “avoids the terms of an oath under which Matthew’s Jesus would otherwise have answered in contradiction of his own, uniquely Matthean prohibition of oath-taking”.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

49

the charge of blasphemy and the death sentence. The mockery and abuse by members of the Sanhedrin elicit evidently no response from Jesus (IV). In the trial before Pilate, the prefect asks Jesus: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Συ` ειò ο‘ βασιλευ` ς τω ñ ν ’ Ιουδαι' ων; 27:11b). Jesus responds (V): “You say (so)” (συ` λε' γεις, 27:11c). Most interpreters understand this answer as a (qualified) affirmative.56 It seems preferable to take it as evasive.57 The chief priests and leading members of the Sanhedrin continue to bring charges against Jesus (27:12a), evidently on the issue of his claims to kingship, but Jesus gives no answer (VI) (ου’ δε` ν α’ πεκρι' νατο, 27:12b). When Pilate points out that it is dangerous to refuse to answer their accusations, Jesus continues to be silent (VII) and responds “to not even one charge” (ου’ κ α’ πεκρι' θη αυ’ τω ñ, προ` ς ου’ δε` ε‹ ν ρ‘ ηñ μα, 27:14a), so that Pilate is astonished.

2.3 The Cross-Examination in the Gospel of Luke Luke begins the account of the trial before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:54, 63–71) with the blindfolding and mocking of Jesus during the night. The depiction of the morning session of the Sanhedrin (22:66) moves right into the central question: “If you are the Messiah, tell us!” (ει’ συ` ειò ο‘ Χριστο' ς, ει’ πο` ν η‘ μιñν, 22:67a). Jesus responds (I) by refusing to answer their demand: “If I tell you, you will not believe (εα` ν υ‘ μιñν ει»πω ου’ μη` πιστευ' σητε); if I ask, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (22:67b-69). According to Luke, Jesus avoids a positive answer, as he is certain that the members of the Sanhedrin would not believe ─────────────── 56 Cf. Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1984 [1922]), 710; David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 350; R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/InterVarsity Press, 1988), 388–89; Carson, Matthew, 568; Hagner, Matthew, II, 818; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, II, 455; Brown, Death, 733, 736. 57 Note the following arguments: (1) Pilate seems to know that Jesus is not really a threat to the political stability he was charged to represent (thus correctly Hagner, Matthew, 818 – but not “despite Jesus’ answer”!); (2) on the historical level, as regards the sense in which Pilate presumably understood the title “king of the Jews”, Jesus could hardly affirm the charge of such a political claim (thus correctly France, Matthew, 388); (3) it seems not very likely that Jesus would answer a political question, asked by the Roman prefect, in terms of spiritual fulfillment of prophecies of Scripture; (4) Matthew reports neither a cross-examination after Jesus’ answer nor an immediate verdict by Pilate, but further accusations from the chief priests and leading members of the Sanhedrin (27:12–13) – which is strange if Jesus just confessed that he was “the king of the Jews”; (5) the symbolic washing of hands and Pilate’s comment “I am innocent of the blood of this one” (27:24) show that the Roman prefect found no reason to be worried about Jesus claiming to be king – which is less likely if Jesus would have directly affirmed his question whether he claim to be king of the Jews.

50

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

him whatever answer he would give, and he knows that they would not be willing to answer a question if he asked one.58 The remark about questions he might ask himself “begins to shift Jesus over from being defendant to being judge who prosecutes with questions”.59 The last part of his answer (22:69) is affirmative: as Messiah (= Son of God) he is exalted as the Son of Man – he will go directly into God’s presence and sit at his right hand, ruling as judge from his side. Thus Jesus gives the council members more than they expected: a statement which can be used to indict him of a capital offense, as he profaned the Shekinah, the incommensurateness and unity of God. The question of the interrogators: “Are you, then, the Son of God?” (συ` ουò ν ειò ο‘ υι‘ ο` ς τουñ θεουñ ; 22:70a) shows, that the Jewish leaders correctly infer Jesus’ status claimed by him to that of the Messiah.60 Jesus responds (II) to this question by saying: “You yourself are saying that I am” (υ‘ μειñς λε' γετε ο« τι ε’ γω' ει’ μι, 22:70b). The drift of Jesus’ basic statement in 22:67–68 suggests that Jesus avoids an affirmative answer:61 the council members are not prepared to face and answer his identity and ministry as Messiah, they just want to elicit a confession which can be used for a capital verdict. The official charges of the Sanhedrin against Jesus which are put before Pilate (23:2) claim that he misleads the nation (as a false prophet), that he instigates people not to pay taxes to the emperor and that he claims to be the messianic king (of the Jews). When Pilate asks Jesus: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (συ` ειò ο‘ βασιλευ` ς τω ñ ν ’ Ιουδαι' ων; 23:3a), Jesus replies (III): “You have said so” (συ` λε' γεις, 23:3b) – a statement which in the absence of further cross-examination by the Roman prefect who, rather states that he finds no chargeable offense in Jesus, is (again) evasive.62 ─────────────── 58 Bock, Luke, II, 1796, insists that Jesus’ response in Luke 22:67–69 makes much sense in a second trial in the morning in which the chief priests under the leadership of Caiaphas, who had found Jesus guilty of blasphemy during a meeting held at night, sought to obtain official sanction from the Sanhedrin: Jesus “knows that this ‘official’ meeting is not for the purpose of trying to get a fair hearing, but to formalize the earlier inquiry ... Jesus is refusing to engage the council directly”. 59 Brown, Death, 487. 60 Cf. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 796; pace Nolland, Luke, II, 1112, who thinks that for the council members “all remains ambiguous”. 61 Nolland, Luke, II, 1111, punctuates the Greek phrase as a question: “Do you say/are you saying that I am?” Pace Brown, Death, 493; Marshall, Luke, 851, speaks of a “grudging admission”. 62 If Jesus’ answer is taken to be evasive, there is no need to declare the link between 23:3 and 23:4 to be “poor”, as Nolland, Luke, II, 1117, does (“innocence inferred from an [equivocal] confession of ‘guilt’”). An affirmative answer hardly fits into the “fundamental historicity of Pilate’s skepticism about the charges against Jesus laid before him by Jewish leaders” that Nolland argues for (1116–7) – unless we must assume that Jesus explained his claim to messiahship as non-political, at least as not threatening for the Roman empire.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

51

Pilate sends Jesus to Herod Antipas (23:6–12) who tries for some time to question him (ε’ πηρω' τα δε` αυ’ το` ν ε’ ν λο' γοις ι‘ κανοιñς, 23:9a), but Jesus refuses to respond (IV) to his queries: “but he would not answer him at all” (αυ’ το` ς δε` ου’ δε` ν α’ πεκρι' νατο αυ’ τω ñ, , 23:9b).

2.4 The Cross-Examination in the Gospel of John John narrates an interrogation of Jesus by the former High Priest Annas (John 18:12–24) and a trial before Pontius Pilate (18:28–19:16). Annas crossexamines Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching (18:19). These questions may reflect, on a theological level, the concern of the religious leaders that Jesus was a false prophet, and on a political level, the question whether his growing movement was likely to cause an uprising.63 Jesus responds (I) with defiant self-assurance (18:20–21) by pointing to the fact that he has “spoken openly to the world (ε’ γω` παρρησι' α, λελα' ληκα τω ñ, κο' σμω, ), both in synagogues and in the Temple, that he spoke nothing “in secret” (ε’ ν κρυπτω ñ, ε’ λα' λησα ου’ δε' ν), and that he should not try to force a convicting answer from him (τι' με ε’ ρωταñς;) but should ask witnesses who heard him teach. Either , Jesus is demanding a proper trial with witnesses, or he accuses the Jewish leadership of having made up their minds without evidence (or both).64 Jesus’ sovereign attitude toward Annas results in an insulting rebuke and slap by an aide, to which Jesus replies (II), equally unafraid, that he should produce evidence if he said anything wrong, asking for a fair trial (18:23). Pilate cross-examines Jesus about the charge of the Jewish authorities that he was guilty of a capital civil offense (18:31) and asks him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” (συ` ειò ο‘ βασιλευ` ς τω ñ ν ’ Ιουδαι' ων; 18:33). Jesus answers (III) with a counter-question,65 asking him to clarify the origin and thus the nature of charge implicit in the question (α’ πο` σεαυτουñ συ` τουñ το λε' γεις η› α» λλοι ειòπο' ν σοι περι` ε’ μουñ ; 18:34). When Pilate replies that he was just reiter─────────────── 63 Cf. Brown, John, II, 835; Brown finds “no clear Johannine theological motive that would explain the invention of the Annas narrative”; for questions of regarding the historicity of the scene, see also Brown, Death, 404–408. Many commentators have grave doubts, however, cf. Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, III, 263–64, referring to Anton Dauer, Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh. 18, 1–19, 30, StANT 30 (München: Kösel, 1972), and Ferdinand Hahn, “Der Prozeß Jesu nach dem Johannesevangelium”, EKK Vorarbeiten Heft 2 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 23–96. 64 Cf. Brown, John, II, 826, 836; Brown, Death, 415–16. 65 Brown, John, II, 868, notes that “the accused criminal asks questions as if he were the judge”. Brown’s suggestion that in 18:34 the “Johannine Jesus first distinguishes between ‘king’ used in a political sense which the Romans would understand and ‘king’ in the Jewish sense with religious implications”, is not very helpful since early Jewish tradition knows of no a-political “religious” king – this is a feature of the (later) Christian view of Jesus.

52

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

ating what he has been told by the “Jewish nation” and the High Priest, asking him bluntly what he has done (τι' ε’ ποι' ησας; 18:35), Jesus answers (IV) by defining his kingdom in a way which shows that it poses no threat for the Roman empire (η‘ βασιλει' α η‘ ε’ μη` ου’ κ ε» στιν ε’ κ τουñ κο' σμου του' του ..., 18:36). Pilate has not understood what Jesus’ statement means and presses for clarification: “So then, you are a king?” (18:37a). Jesus gives an evasive answer (V) (συ` λε' γεις ο« τι βασιλευ' ς ει’ μι), spelling out the distinctive nature and the extent of his reign which reveals the truth (of God, of his son, of judgment), a fact which is grasped by those who belong to the truth (ε’ γω` ει’ ς τουñ το γεγε' ννημαι και` ει’ ς τουñ το ε’ λη' λυθα ει’ ς το` ν κο' σμον, «ινα μαρτυρη' σω τηñ, α’ ληθει' α, · παñ ς ο‘ ω › ν ε’ κ τηñ ς α’ ληθει' ας α’ κου' ει μου τηñ ς φωνηñ ς, 8:37b). The last remark may imply a test of Pilate, challenging him to hear Jesus’ voice and to establish that he knows the truth. In this case Pilate’s response “What is truth?” (τι' ε’ στιν α’ λη' θεια; 8:38a) echoes “the imperiousness of the Roman when challenged”.66 As Pilate allows the trial to continue, we must conclude that he either took Jesus’ answer to the question whether he is a king to be negative or he did not take his claim to kingship seriously.67 When Pilate had scourged Jesus and sought to release him, convinced of his innocence, “the Jews” confront him again with the demand that Jesus must be executed since he made himself God’s Son. Pilate begins the ensuing second interrogation of Jesus with the question: “From where are you?” (Πο' θεν ειò συ' ; 19:9a). He evidently realizes that the identity of Jesus is the real issue, rather then what Jesus has done. Jesus (V) refuses to give an answer (ο‘ δε` ’ Ιησουñ ς α’ πο' κρισιν ου’ κ ε» δωκεν αυ’ τω ñ, , 19:9b). Pilate reacts surprised, or irritated, and threatens Jesus by pointing to the fact that he possesses (for provincials who were not Roman citizens) final judicial authority as a consequence of the imperium (ε’ ξουσι' α) which the emperor had given to him (19:10). Jesus responds (VI) by asserting that the power over Jesus’ life – indeed the entire turn of events, particularly the betrayal which “gave” (δεδομε' νον) Jesus into the hands of Pilate68 – was given to him by God (ου’ κ ειòχες ε’ ξουσι' αν κατ´ ε’ μουñ ου’ δεμι' αν ει’ μη` ηò ν δεδομε' νον σοι α» νωθεν), and that his sin is less than the guilt of the one who handed Jesus over to him – prominently Caiaphas, presumably all of “the Jews” (δια` τουñ το ο‘ παραδου' ς με' σοι μει' ζονα α‘ μαρτι' αν ε» χει, 19:11). On hearing this statement, Pilate seeks to release Jesus but is pressured by “the Jews” to condemn Jesus to death by crucifixion. The evidence of the four Gospel narratives with regard to the response of Jesus to questions put to him during the interrogation by Annas, the Sanhedrin ─────────────── 66 Cf. Brown, Death, 752, who remarks: “the judge is being judged”. 67 Cf. Joel B. Green, The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative, WUNT 2.33 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 287. 68 Cf. Carson, John, 601–2.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

53

trial, the Herod Antipas scene and the trial before Pilate can be summarized as follows: MARK MATTHEW LUKE JOHN ───────────────────────────────────────────────────── Annas: Question (disciples and teaching) Jesus (I): Answer (defiant selfassurance Annas’ aide: Abusive insult Jesus (II): Answer (challenge) Witnesses: Charges Witnesses: Charges (Temple) (Temple) Jesus (I): Silence Jesus (I): Silence High Priest: Request High Priest: Request for comment for comment Jesus (II): Silence Jesus (II): Silence High Priest: Question High Priest: Question Sanhedrin: Question (claim to messiah- (claim to messiah(claim to messiahship) ship) ship) Jesus (III): Answer Jesus (III): Answer Jesus (I): Answer (affirmative: heaven- (qualified affirma-) (refusal to respond; ly glory and judge) tive) affirmative addition) High Priest: High Priest: Sanhedrin: Conclusion Conclusion Question (charge of (charge of (Jesus as Son of God) blasphemy) blasphemy) Jesus (II): Answer (evasive) Sanhedrin: Abuse Sanhedrin: Abuse Jesus (IV): Silence Jesus (IV): Silence (inferred) (inferred) Pilate: Question Pilate: Question Pilate: Question Pilate: Question (claim to be king) (claim to be king) (claim to be king) (claim to be king) Jesus (III): Question (denial & clarification) Pilate: Question (Jesus’ actions) Jesus (V): Answer Jesus (V): Answer Jesus (III): Answer Jesus (IV): Answer (evasive) (evasive) (evasive) (political defense) Pilate: Question (clarification of kingship) Chief priests: Chief priests: Accusations Accusations

54

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Mark MATTHEW LUKE JOHN ───────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jesus (VI): Silence Jesus (VI): Silence Jesus (V): Answer (theological defense: challenge) Pilate: Warning Pilate: Warning Jesus (VII): Silence Jesus (VII): Silence Herod Antipas: Questions Jesus (IV): Silence Pilate: Question (Jesus’ identity) Jesus (V): Silence Pilate: Threat (as prefect he has imperium) Jesus (VI): Answer (theological explanation)

3. Jesus’ Silence in the Trial Why did Jesus refrain from defending himself? This question is critical precisely because the trial was not the first time that Jesus stood in front of religious and political leaders who were determined to find incriminating evidence which would warrant a death penalty. For three years Jesus had to defend himself against all sorts of accusations. In the controversies which the Gospel writers relate we encounter a Jesus who needs no help to defend himself. Jesus can use arguments which remind us of (later) Rabbinic argumentation. He can use logic. His answers may leave people wondering what he meant. Or they make people understand only too well, leaving them behind seething with active hostility, eager even to destroy this Galilean teacher. Jesus is never reduced to silence, he always has something to say.

3.1 The Evidence In their narration of the cross-examination of Jesus during the trial, the Gospel writers portray Jesus as responding to critical questions and as being silent at crucial occasions. The evidence is as follows: Responses by Jesus: 1. When the former High Priest Annas questions him about his disciples and about his teaching, Jesus responds (John 18:20–21).

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

55

When one of the aides of Annas slaps Jesus on the face, Jesus asks for a fair trial (John 18:23). When the High Priest Caiaphas asks whether he claims to be “the Messiah, the Son of God”, Jesus responds (Mark 14:62; Matt 26:64; Luke 22:67). When the members of the Sanhedrin seek confirmation whether he claims to be the Son of God, Jesus responds (Luke 22:70). When the Roman prefect Pilate asks whether he claims to be king, Jesus responds, apparently in an evasive manner (Mark 15:2; Matt 27:11; Luke 23:3; John 18:34, 36, 37). When Pilate threatens Jesus with his imperium which gives him the power to pronounce the death sentence which would lead to execution on a cross, Jesus responds (John 19:11).

Silence of Jesus: 7. Jesus does not interact with accusations of witnesses who report about his views on the Temple (Mark 14:59, 60; Matt 26:62). 8. Jesus does not respond to the High Priests’ challenge to discuss his views on the Temple (Mark 14:61; Matt 26:63). 9. Jesus evidently does not respond to the blindfolding and abuse by the members of the Sanhedrin who mock him with what is possibly a messianic test (Mark 14:65; Matt 26:68). 10. Jesus stays stubbornly silent when the chief priests accuse him before Pilate with regard to claims to be king (Mark 15:4; Matt 27:12). 11. Jesus does not respond when Pilate suggests that he should answer the accusations of the chief priests and elders (Mark 15:5; Matt 27:14). 12. Jesus refuses to answer the questions put to him by Herod Antipas (Luke 23:9). 13. Jesus refuses to answer Pilate’s question “From where are you?” (John 19:9). We note the following observations: (1) Jesus never replies to accusations, whether they are articulated by witnesses at the beginning of the Jewish trial (no. 7) or by the chief priests and leading members of the Sanhedrin in the crucial Roman trial (nos. 10, 11). (2) Jesus refuses vis-à-vis the chief priests to clarify his convictions about the Temple (nos. 7, 8). (3) Jesus refuses vis-àvis the members of the Sanhedrin to defend himself in the context of their mocking test of his messiahship (no. 9). (4) Jesus refuses vis-à-vis the chief priests to clarify his convictions about his kingship (nos. 10, 11). (5) Jesus refuses to interact with Herod Antipas (no. 12). (6) Jesus refuses to answer

56

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

when Pilate inquires about his true identity (no. 13) – an issue which he was prepared to address when (according to Luke) the members of the Sanhedrin pressed him to clarify his messiahship (no.4; note the πα' ντες in Luke 22:70). (7) Jesus responds to the crucial questions: to Annas’ questions about his followers and about his teaching, to the chief priests and the members of the Sanhedrin when they question him directly on the issue of his claim to be Messiah and Son of God, to Pilate when he asks him whether he claims to be king (nos. 1, 3, 4, 5). We may summarize the evidence as follows: Jesus is silent with regard to accusations brought against him by the Jewish leadership, but is prepared to respond to the question whether he is “the Messiah, the Son of God”. Jesus is prepared to answer the questions of the Roman prefect, but is silent when he solicits information about his true identity. Before we probe the reasons for Jesus’ silence, we must briefly look at possible parallels in Greco-Roman or Jewish trials which might explain Jesus’ behavior during the trial.

3.2 Analogous Scenes in Jewish, Greek or Roman Trials? The Old Testament stories depicting a conflict between a prophet and a king, varying widely in details, exhibit the following similarities: (1) The impetus for confronting the king comes from the “word of the Lord”, i.e., from outside the prophet. (2) Prophets who are brought before kings deliver an oracle of judgment which condemns the behavior and the attitudes of the king and spell out consequences. (3) During the confrontation the prophet may perform miracles which authenticate his credentials as messenger of the Lord and establish the efficacy of the word of the Lord. (4) The accusation, oracle, threat or miracle usually triggers a hostile response from the king who refuses to listen.69 This pattern surfaces in the conflicts between Moses and the Pharaoh (Exodus 5–11), Samuel and Saul, Nathan and David, an unnamed seer and Jeroboam (1 Kgs 13:1–10), Elijah and Ahab (1 Kgs 18:18; 21:20–26), Micaiah ben Imlah and Ahab (1 Kgs 22:8; 22:17), Jeremiah and Jehoiakim (Jer 34:1–7; 37:3–10; 37:17). Even though the narrators sometimes point out the weaknesses of the prophets – Elijah flees from Ahab and Jezebel, Micaiah ben Imlah falsifies his message in order not to upset Ahab –, the prophets never seem to choose to be silent in the presence of the king. In climactic confrontations between prophet and king, the messenger of God proves to be the ruler’s superior in some way. ─────────────── 69 Cf. John A. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1992), 155–58.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

57

The contrast to Jesus’ behavior during his trial is self-evident: Jesus does not perform miracles (even though Herod Antipas asks for “signs”), he does not establish superiority over the Jewish leaders or the Roman prefect, he does not proclaim a message of God (apart from reference to himself as heavenly judge). The Greco-Roman version of the Jewish “prophet versus king” narratives are scenes in which a wise man, usually a philosopher, confronts a tyrant. It seems that “the portrait of the vir bonus et sapiens resisting the tyrant became a stock motif in the rhetorical and philosophical schools, especially in the Roman period”.70 The following features are present: (1) The philosopher invariably exhibits the (Cynic/Stoic) ideals of self-sufficiency (αυ’ τα' ρκεια), self-control and boldness (παρρησι' α). (2) The wise man responds to threats by the tyrant with witty answers, or he expounds his philosophy, or he demonstrates preternatural gifts. (3) The impetus for confronting the ruler came from the sage. The model of the traveling philosopher confronting local rulers had become a cliché by the first century that “no self-respecting sage could afford not to confront the nearest tyrant”.71 An often quoted example was Diogenes of Sinope (cf. Dio Chrysostom’s “Diogenes, or, On Tyranny”; Epictetus wrote an essay on “How ought we to bear ourselves toward tyrants?” The influence of the “philosopher versus tyrant” pattern shows itself in Jewish hellenistic literature, notably in the narrative of Eleazar and the seven sons who oppose Antiochus (4 Macc 5:1–17:6). When the king ordered the instruments of torture to be brought forward and tried to entice the seven brothers to eat unclean food forbidden by Jewish law, they “not only were not frightened but even resisted the tyrant with their own philosophy, and by their right reasoning brought down his tyranny” (8:15). Again, while there are parallels to Jesus’ behavior during his trial – he is not intimidated by his accusers, he also has αυ’ τα' ρκεια and παρρησι' α – there are no parallels with regard to Jesus’ refusal to respond to questions and accusations. In Josephus’ descriptions of legal proceedings self-defense of the defendants is the norm. The defense may be ingratiating or rigorous. When Pilate threatens to execute the Jews who protested against his bringing the Roman standards into Jerusalem if they would not stop their protests, they cast themselves prostrate and declare that “they had gladly welcomed death rather than make bold to transgress the wise provisions of the laws”; as Pilate saw “the strength of their devotion to the laws” he removed the standards (A.J. 18.57– 59). When the leaders of a Samaritan delegation went to Ummidius Quadratus, ─────────────── 70 For the following see Darr, Character Building, 151–55, quotation p.155 from Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs I: Acta Alexandrinorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000 [1954]), 239. 71 Darr, Character Building, 151.

58

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

governor of Syria, to initiate legal proceedings because of a Jewish attack against some of their villages, the Jews defend themselves vigorously: they accuse not only the Samaritan villagers but also Ventitius Cumanus, procurator of Judaea, to be responsible for the fighting as he had accepted bribes by the Samaritans (A.J. 20.125–133). In his description of legal proceedings of the Sanhedrin against the young Herod, Josephus implies that humility, fearfulness and mercy-seeking of the defendant before a judge were normal expectations. When the Sanhedrin was overawed by Herod’s appearance before the council so that there was silence (ηò ν η‘ συχι' α) and nobody knew what to do, a certain Samaia, a δι' καιος α’ νη' ρ, reminds the Sanhedrin that whoever came before this assembly for trial, “has shown himself humble (ταπεινο` ς παρι' σταται) and has assumed the manner of one who is fearful (σχη' ματι δεδοικο' τος) and seeks mercy from you (ε» λεον θηρωμε' νου παρ´ υ‘ μω ñ ν) by letting his hair grow long and wearing a black garment” (A.J. 14.172). The story of Jesus bar Ananias (Josephus, B. J. 6.300–309) is often quoted as parallel for the silence of Jesus.72 This prophet of doom, “a rude peasant” (τω ñ ν ι’ διωτω ñ ν α» γροικος), began in the autumn of the year (AD) 62, on the Feast of Tabernacles, to announce the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple, prophesying not only in the Temple but going about “all the alleys with this cry on his lips”. Some of the leading citizens (ε’ πιστη' μων) arrested and abused him. Josephus continues: “But he, without a word on his own behalf (ο‘ δ´ ου» θ´ υ‘ πε` ρ αυ‘ τουñ φθεγξα' μενος) or for the private ear of those who smote him, only continued his cries as before (α« ς και` προ' τερον φωνα` ς βοω ñ ν διετε' λει)” (302). The magistrates (οι‘ α» ρχοντες) assumed that the man spoke on account of a supernatural impulse (δαιμονιω' τερον το` κι' νημα τα’ νδρο' ς) and brought him before the Roman prefect Albinus who had him scourged. But the prophet “neither sued for mercy (ου» θ´ ι‘ κε' τευσεν) nor shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations into his ejaculation, responded to each stroke with ‘Woe to Jerusalem!’” (304). When Albinus questioned him about his identity and his motivation “he answered him never a word” (προ` ς ταυñ τα με` ν ου’ δ´ ο‘ τιουñ ν α’ πεκρι' νατο) but continued “unceasingly” to reiterate his dirge over the city “until Albinus pronounced him a maniac (καταγνου` ς μανι' αν) and let him go” (305). However, the differences to the behavior of Jesus during the trial are apparent: (1) Jesus bar Ananias obviously made no claims about his own person. (2) Nothing is reported of large crowds becoming “followers” of this “prophet”. (3) The “message” of Jesus bar Ananias posed no direct threat for the Romans (Jerusalem was not the residence of the Roman prefects), except in the sense of potentially instigating public disorder. (4) The ─────────────── 72 Cf. Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources”, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, NTTS 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 443–78, esp. 475–76.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

59

Jewish authorities became convinced that this “peasant” spoke under divine inspiration; there is no corresponding “positive evaluation” of Jesus of Nazareth by the Sanhedrin. (5) It is not entirely clear whether Josephus implies that there were Jewish legal proceedings against Jesus bar Ananias before the Sanhedrin; as the magistrates brought him before Albinus they evidently hoped that he would be willing to silence him. (6) The Jewish authorities wanted him silenced, but they did not bring false accusations against him; evidently they were able to tolerate his predictions of a future destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple for seven years. (7) The silence of Jesus bar Ananias with regard to personal questions is absolute, whereas Jesus of Nazareth finally did respond to questions about his identity. (8) The silence of Jesus bar Ananias was not consistent as such: he “unceasingly reiterated his dirge over the city”, which led Albinus to the conviction that the man was deranged. In contrast, Jesus of Nazareth gives what we may call contextually relevant answers to questions from both the High Priest and Pilate. Another account of a trial scene in Josephus has been claimed as parallel to Jesus’ silence is the reference to the silence of Mariamme, the wife of Herod the Great, before her execution in 29 BC (A.J. 15.218–236).73 Herod gave to Mariamme the benefit of a trial (κρι' σις) when he heard of intimacies with Soemus, whom he had executed immediately; the assembly of the people “who were closest to him” were terrified as Herod was “intemperate in speech and too angry to judge (calmly)” and thus condemned her to death (229). After the trial it occurred to Herod that Mariamme “ought not to be done away with so hastily” (230), so he put her away in one of his fortresses. But Salome and her friends pressured the king to get rid of her, and “that is how Mariamme came to be led to execution” (231). As Alexandra, Mariamme’s mother, feared to be implicated in the matters with which her daughter had been charged, she “sprang up and in the hearing of all the people cried out”, accused her daughter and shouted that the pending execution was a just punishment, pulling Mariamme’s hair. Those present disapproved of her playacting (η‘ κατα' γνωσις ηò ν τηñ ς α’ πρεπουñ ς προσποιη' σεως, 234), especially (μαñ λλον δε) the condemned Mariamme “who spoke not a single word (ου» τε γα` ρ λο' γον δουñ σα τη` ν α’ ρχη` ν) nor did she show confusion as she watched her mother’s disgusting behavior, but in her greatness of spirit she did make it plain that she was indeed greatly distressed by her offense in behaving in this conspicuously disgraceful manner” (235). Josephus concludes by praising Mariamme who went to her death “with a wholly calm demeanor and without change of color, and so even in her last moments she made her nobility of descent very clear to those who were looking on” (236). It seems obvious that this narrative cannot be used to explain Jesus’ refusal to give answers show─────────────── 73 Cf. Soards, “Silence”, 41–45.

60

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

ing “nobility of silence”:74 (1) Josephus includes no account of Mariamme’s behavior during the actual trial. (2) Mariamme is silent in a situation where she has already been condemned to death. (3) Her silence is directed not against her accusers in a legal setting but against her mother who amplifies her death wishes for her daughter with theatrical behavior. The most famous trial scene in Greek literature involves the legal proceedings against Socrates.75 He was accused of being guilty “of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state and introducing other, new divinities” and of “corrupting the youth”, leading his accusers Meletus, Anytus and Lycon to demand the death penalty (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.1.1). The accusers spoke first, then Socrates answered the indictment. Plato’s account in The Apology of Socrates is devoted almost exclusively to repeating the words Socrates spoke at his trial – nearly a thousand lines in the EiglerSchleiermacher edition.76 Meletus is allowed only a few brief answers at one point in the proceedings. Socrates explains and defends his philosophical activity at length in order to establish his innocence, he proposes a series of penalties, and in his closing words he addresses the jury. Socrates is not prepared to do everything in his power to secure acquittal (Ap. 35c): he disparages appeals to pity, he does not work on the emotions of the jury since he cannot with to be exonerated except under the conditions of justice and the divine will. Socrates silences Miletus, the only voice other than Socrates’ which Plato allows us to hear (ο‘ ραñ ς, ω ò Με' λητε, ο« τι σιγαñ ς και` ου’ κ ε» χεις ει’ πειñν; Ap. 24d). Socrates requests other voices – reported voices like the words between Chaerophon and the oracle at Delphi, construed voices such as the murmurings from the jury – not to interrupt him, to let him say things which they may find surprising or difficult. Nonetheless he does interact with the accusations of people who are not present, even though this is like fighting with shadows (ω « σπερ σκιαμαχειñν α’ πολογου' μενον, Ap. 18d). The later traditions (six centuries after Socrates’ death in 399 BC) which state that Socrates said nothing in his own defense (Appian; Maximus of Tyre; Philostratus) can perhaps be linked with Plato’s Gorgias where he has Callicles attack philosophy as linguistically impotent, as the words of the philosopher make no difference in the real world (Gorg. 485e, 486a, 508a); Socrates acknowledges that we will not make speeches at a trial in order to gratify the listener – in a situation analogous to the trial of a doctor who is charged by cook in front of a jury of children, he “won’t know what to say in court” (ου’ χ ε« ξω ο« τι λε' γω ε’ ν τω ñ, ─────────────── 74 The “nobility” that Josephus speaks of is Mariamme’s nobility of descent. 75 For the following see Gooch, Reflections, 81–106. 76 Platon, ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ; cf. Platon, “Des Sokrates Apologie. Kriton. Euthydemos. Menexenos. Gorgias. Menon”, in Werke in acht Bänden. Griechisch und Deutsch, ed. Gunther Eigler; Band 2; Deutsche Übersetzung von Friedrich Schleiermacher (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990 [1973–1818]), 1–69.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

61

δικαστηρι' ω, , Gorg. 521e). “It is not that he is unable to speak; rather, because of the condition of the listeners, he cannot be heard”.77 Both Socrates and Jesus are unwilling to save their lives at all costs using whatever means would prove effective. But the differences are more significant. Socrates silences all accusing voices, Jesus becomes silent himself. Socrates defends himself, Jesus incriminates himself by going beyond the High Priest’s question about his messiahship when he claims to possess the heavenly divine status of the Son of Man. This survey of analogous conflict narratives which use the Jewish “prophet versus king” pattern or the Greco-Roman “philosopher versus tyrant” pattern, and of apparently parallel trial scenes, allows us – in the context of the evidence of the narrative strategy of the authors of the Gospels which we traced earlier – to answer the question whether Jesus’ silence in the trial can claim historical authenticity.78 The answer must be yes, for the following reasons: (1) None of the authors of the Gospels has prepared his readers for the possibility that Jesus could choose not to answer questions put to him. (2) In analogous scenes in both Greco-Roman and Jewish literature, philosophers and prophets defend themselves or delivering oracles of judgment. (3) Jewish martyrs who stood before a tyrannical interrogator, surrounded by insistent accusers usually gave a defiant speech in their defense, explaining at length their convictions and actions (2 Macc 6:23–28; 7:2, 9, 11; 4 Macc 5:14–38; 9:1–9; 11:1–9).79 (4) In analogous scenes in early Christian literature, followers of Jesus always defend themselves during interrogations (Acts 4:8–12; 5:29–32; 7:2–53; 16:37–38; 18:14–15; 21:40–22:21; 22:25–30; 23:1–6; 24:10–21; 25:8–11; 26:1–29; cf. Mart. Pol. 9–11).80 (5) When later Christian authors refer to the silence of Jesus or of persecuted Christians, it is usually81 ─────────────── 77 Cf. Gooch, Reflections, 93. 78 Critics who regard Jesus’ silence in Mark 14:60.61a; 15:4–5 as due to Markan redaction include Schreiber, “Schweigen”, 79 (Schreiber, Markuspassion, 260); Detlef Dormeyer, Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell, NTA 11 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974), 163–64, 177; Wolfgang Schenk, Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974), 239, 245; Mohr, Markus- und Johannespassion, 255–56, 286–87; Crossan, Cross, 186–87. 79 This argument was used already by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919), 306 n.1; Robert H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels, The Bampton Lectures (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 145; Vincent Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice (London: Macmillan, 1937), 157. 80 It is not entirely surprising that some ancient copyists were disturbed by Jesus’ silence and thus proceeded to make emendations: the old Syriac MS Curetonianus) adds “as if he were not present”, the old Latin MS Colbertinus “as if he did not hear”. Cf. Brown, Death, II, 772. 81 Exceptions are Justin, Dial. 102–103; John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 86:1 (on Matt 27:11–12); Origen, Contra Celsum, Preface 1–2. Origen begins his introduction to his eight books against Celsus by pointing out that “our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ” remained “silent” (ε’ σιω' πα) when false testimony was brought against him, that he “answered nothing” (ου’ δε`ν α’ πεκρι'νετο) when accusations were brought against him.

62

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

a silence during torture (cf. Odes Sol. 31:8–13;82 Dionysius of Alexandria;83 Gos. Pet. 4:10;84 Mart. Pol. 2:285). (6) When the Gospels writers narrate Jesus sayings which relate to behavior during trials, they always imply defense, promising the supernatural help of the Spirit who would teach the followers of Jesus during cross-examinations what to say (Mark 13:11; Matt 10:19–20; Luke 12:11–12; 21:12–15; cf. John 15:26–27). Christian missionaries are passive in the sense that they do not resist arrest and imprisonment, but they are active in the sense that they defend themselves verbally: “Their only action is speaking”.86 As the authors of the Gospels describe Jesus as possessor and vehicle for God’s Spirit,87 it is not likely that they invented a Jesus who, during his own trial, would sometimes speak and sometimes be silent.88 ─────────────── 82 Odes Sol. 31:8–13: ”And they condemned me when I stood up, me who had not been condemned. Then they divided my spoil, though nothing was owed them. But I endured and held my peace and was silent, that I might not be disturbed by them. But I stood undisturbed like a solid rock, which is continuously pounded by columns of waves and and endures. And I bore their bitterness because of humility, that I might save my nation and instruct it. And that I might not nullify the promises to the patriarchs, to whom I was promised for the salvation of their offspring” (translation by J. H. Charlesworth, OTP II, 763). 83 “Blows, spittings, scourgings, death, and the lifting up in that death, all came upon Him; and when all these were gone through, he became silent (ε’ σιω' πα) and endured in patience unto the end, as if He suffered nothing, or was already dead” (ANF VI, 118). 84 Gos. Pet. 4:10: ”And they brought two malefactors and crucified the Lord in the midst between them. But he held his peace (αυ’ το` ς δε` ε’ σιω' πα), as if (ω‘ ς) he felt no pain” (translation by R. McL. Wilson, from E. Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963–64], I, 184). This text does not reflect docetism (explaining Jesus’ silence by the fact that he did not really suffer at all; here ω‘ ς whould be translated by “because”) but “underlines the silence of Jesus despite the pain” (Crossan, Cross, 180). 85 Mart. Pol. 2:2: “For some were torn by scourging until the mechanism of their flesh was seen even to the lower veins and arteries, and they endured so that even the bystanders pitited them and mourned. And some even reached such a pitch of nobility that none of them groaned or wailed (ω « στε μη' τε γρυ' ξαι μη' τε στενα' ξαι τινα` αυ’ τω ñ ν), showing to all of us that at the hour of their torture the noble martyrs of Christ were absent from the flesh, or rather that the Lord was standing by and talking with them”. On this passage and the early Christian concept of μα' ρτυς see now Gerd Buschmann, Das Martyrium des Polykarp, Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern Band 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1998), 92–105. 86 Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 185, with regard to Matt 10:19. 87 Mark 1:10; Matt 3:16; 12:18,28; Luke 3:22; 4:1,14,18–19; John 1:32–33; 7:37–39; 14:15–26. 88 Even Mohr, Markus- und Johannespassion, 287–88, who takes Mark 14:60; 15:4–5 as redactional is forced to admit that the redaction-critical verdict on the purpose of the Schweigemotiv must not prevent us from accepting that Jesus factually remained silent during several stages of the trial. This caveat prompts the question why one should resort to redaction-critical assumptions about the introduction of a “silence motif” into a traditional passion account if the latter already reported the fact of Jesus’ repeated silence. Crossan, Cross, 185.186, asserts that “it is not at all clear that Mark is primarily or even secondarily interested in Jesus’ silence in terms of passion prophecy. He may be much more interested in giving a model to his community for reaction under interrogation and trial” – model which says that Christians should “answer questions of confessional identity but to ignore questions

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

63

We conclude that Jesus’ complete lack of self-defense during his trial, and his refusal to respond to questions, has no genuine analogies. The Gospel writers’ reference to Pilate’s astonishment is a historical reminiscence utterly intelligible in an ancient setting, whether Jewish or Greco-Roman, whether non-Christian or Christian. The silence of Jesus is not a traditional topos, on the contrary, it surprised the readers of the Gospel narratives.89

3.3 Reasons for Jesus’ Silence In our effort to understand Jesus’ silence we will first survey proposed solutions which work on the literary level of the Gospel narratives as understood by readers in the first century. 1. Kerygmatic explanation: Jesus as the Suffering Servant. As the intended readers of the Gospels have usually been assumed to be Christians whose understanding of tradition was controlled by the literary categories of the OT and early Jewish literature – even in the case of Gentile Christians most of whom were either former proselytes or Godfearers – it has frequently been suggested that the silence of Jesus corresponds to silence on the part of the Suffering Servant in Isa 53:7 with whom Jesus is thus identified.90 This has

─────────────── of false accusation”. This position is untenable for the following reasons: (1) Mark’s text is a narrative of Jesus’ life rather than a community manual, a fact which suggests that Mark is indeed interested in details of Jesus’ behavior, particularly during his final days. Even if Mark intends Jesus to be a model for discipleship, this does not obliterate historical interests. (2) The “false accusations” that Jesus refused to respond to were false because they were contradictory. Would Mark want his Christian readers to “learn” from this that they should abstain from clarifying contradictory accusations which their persecutors might throw against them? (3) The answers of Jesus cannot uniformly interpreted in terms of a model for “confessional” acknowledgments, since Jesus’ answer to the decisive question of Pilate whether he is the king of the Jews is elusive at the least, and thus surely not mean as a model for Christians. 89 Origen, Contra Celsum, Preface 2, and “people with average intelligence”. 90 Cf. Carson, Matthew, 554, 568; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, II, 427; Hagner, Matthew, II, 799, 819; Lohmeyer, Markus, 335; Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 435; Marshall, Luke, 856 (“probably”); Nolland, Luke, II, 1123; Green, Luke, 805; Brown, John, II, 861, 878; Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium, 539; Soards, “Silence”; Green, Death of Jesus, 71, 276; Brown, Death, 734 n. 13; Eta Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte, FRLANT 102 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 131–32; Mohr, Markus- und Johannespassion, 257, 287; Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 148–51; Johannes Schreiber, Der Kreuzigungsbericht des Markusevangeliums: Mk 15.20b-41. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und methodenkritische Untersuchung nach William Wrede (1859–1906), BZNW 48 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986), 208 n.1 (one of several explanations); Reinbold, Bericht, 152, 200; John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, eds., The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 53 with n. 46.

64

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

been disputed: (1) There are no linguistic parallels between the Isaianic text and the Gospel narratives.91 Matt 26:62 και` α’ ναστα` ς ο‘ α’ ρχιερευ` ς ειòπεν αυ’ τω ñ, , Ου’ δε`ν α’ ποκρι'νη, ; Matt 26:63 ο‘ δε` ’ Ιησουñ ς ε’ σιω' πα Matt 27:12 και` ε’ ν τω ñ, κατηγορειñσθαι αυ’ το` ν υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν α’ ρχιερε' ων και` πρεσβυτε' ρων ου’ δε` ν α’ πεκρι' νατο Matt 27:14 και` ου’ κ α’ πεκρι' θη αυ’ τω « στε θαυμα' ζειν το` ν η‘ γεμο' να ñ, προ` ς ου’ δε` ε‹ ν ρ‘ ηñ μα, ω λι'αν Mark 14:60 και` α’ ναστα` ς ο‘ α’ ρχιερευ` ς ει’ ς με' σον ε’ πηρω' τησεν το` ν ’ Ιησουñ ν λε' γων, Ου’ κ α’ ποκρι'νη, ου’ δε' ν; Mark 14:61 ο‘ δε` ε’ σιω' πα και` ου’ κ α’ πεκρι'νατο ου’ δε' ν Mark 15:4 ο‘ δε` Πιλαñ τος πα' λιν ε’ πηρω' τα αυ’ το` ν λε' γων, Ου’ κ α’ ποκρι'νη, ου’ δε' ν; Mark 15:5 ο‘ δε` ’ Ιησουñ ς ου’ κε' τι ου’ δε`ν α’ πεκρι'θη, ω « στε θαυμα' ζειν το` ν Πιλαñ τον Luke 23:9 ε’ πηρω' τα δε` αυ’ το` ν ε’ ν λο' γοις ι‘ κανοιñς· αυ’ το` ς δε` ου’ δε`ν α’ πεκρι'νατο αυ’ τω ñ, John 19:9 και` λε' γει τω ñ, ’ Ιησουñ , Πο' θεν ειò συ' ; ο‘ δε` ’ Ιησουñ ς α’ πο' κρισιν ου’ κ ε» δωκεν αυ’ τω ñ, Isa 53:7 (LXX): και` αυ’ το` ς δια` το` κεκακω ñ σθαι ου’ κ α’ νοι'γει το` στο' μα· ω‘ ς προ' βατον ε’ πι` σφαγη` ν η» χθη και` ω‘ ς α’ μνο` ς ε’ ναντι'ον τουñ κει'ροντος αυ’ το` ν α»φωνος ου« τως ου’ κ α’ νοι'γει το` στο' μα αυ’ τουñ Isa 53:7 (MT):

‫ִנ ַג ּׂש ְוהּוא ַנֲעֶנה ְוֹלא ִיְפַּתח־ִּפיו ַּכ ֶּׂשה ַלֶּטַבח יו ָּבל‬ ‫ו ְּכ ָרֵחל ִלְפֵני ֹג ְזֶזיָה ֶנֱאָלָמה ְוֹלא ִיְפַּתח ִּפיו‬

The Servant in Isa 53:7 does not even open his mouth, which underlines the quiet submission of the Servant which is expressed in the language of slaughter (‫ טבח‬,‫ ענה‬,‫ גזז‬,‫ )יבל‬in this passage. He did not verbally accuse or retaliate, despite physical abuse, but trusted in God for his vindication as his suffering ─────────────── 91 Cf. Hans Kosmala, “Der Prozess Jesu”, Saat auf Hoffnung 69 (1932): 24–39; Hans Walter Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum (Giessen: Brunnen, 1984 [1942]), 75–76; Brown, Death, 464, 840 (“secondary at most”); Gnilka, Markus, II, 281, is also uncertain, referring to T. Benj. 5:4 where the pious shows mercy for those who revile him “and is silent”. See Gundry, Mark, 908, 933, who stresses that the phraseology does not carry over; he points out that the reference to Pilate’s marveling at the silence of Jesus (Mark 15:5) does not reflect Isa 52:13–15 since there the astonishment is not related to the silence of the Servant (in 53:7) but to kings. Morna D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1959), 88–89, argued that it is not necessary to assume an influence of Isa 53:7 on the silence motif in the passion narratives (1) since the silence motif forms a definite pattern, in terms of an authentic feature, of Jesus’ behavior during the trial, and (2) since the allusion is not made more explicit by the Gospel writers. Moo, Old Testament, 150, is correct in arguing that one cannot deny a correspondence of Jesus’ silence during the trial with Isa 53:7 on the grounds that the allusion gives no evidence of an awareness of Jesus that he was fulfilling the same purpose as that of the Servant. Still, the linguistic parallels should be stronger in order to be certain of a link with Isa 53:7. The recent volume by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, eds., Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, FAT 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), does not relate Isa 53:7 to the passion story (except in passing Stuhlmacher, ibid. 101).

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

65

is part of God’s plan (cf. 53:4,6,10).92 It has been claimed that this lack of linguistic parallels is less important than “the presence of multiple points of contact between Luke’s portrayal of Jesus in his passion and the Isaianic Servant of the Lord”.93 While we do not want to dispute the latter claim,94 and while we recognize that Luke includes a quotation from Isa 53 in his passion narrative (Luke 22:37, during the Last Supper, in the context of Jesus’ last discourse in the Third Gospel), we plead for caution in using a general portrayal of Jesus in terms of the Servant of God for linking specifics of Jesus’ behavior during the trial (such as Jesus’ silence mentioned in Luke 23:9 and the other passages) to Isa 53:7.95 (2) The statement in Isa 53:7 does not refer to or imply accusers of the Servant but is related to physical violence to which the Servant offered no verbal resistance; it is concerned with the fact that animals go with blind subjection whatever the destination, whereas the Servant goes with knowing submission to what awaits him, and this leads him to maintain selfimposed silence as he goes into death. (3) Jesus was not consistently silent during the trial, and it is therefore not surprising that the Gospel writers make nothing of a possible correspondence between the silence of the Suffering Servant in Isa 53:7 and the silence of Jesus during his trial.96 ─────────────── 92 Cf. J. A. Thompson and E. A. Martens, NIDOTTE III, 585; V. P. Hamilton, NIDOTTE, III, 717; Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied im deuterojesajanischen Kontext”, in Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, FAT 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 1–25, esp. 15. 93 Green, Luke, 805 n.50. 94 Cf. J. Jeremias, Art. παιñς θεουñ , TDNT V, 713; David P. Seccombe, “Luke and Isaiah”, in The Right Doctrine from the Wrongs Texts? ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 248–56; Joel B. Green, “The Death of Jesus, God’s Servant”, in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. D. D. Sylva, BBB 73 (Frankfurt: Hain, 1990), 1–28.170–73; R. T. France, “Servant of Yahweh”, DJG, 744–47, esp. 746; Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfilment in Lukan Christology, JSNTSup 110 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). 95 It is correct that Luke presents a formal citation from Isa 53 in the Synoptic Gospels (“and he was numbered among the lawless”, Isa 53:12, in Luke 22:37), introduced by the formula “this which is written must be fulfilled in me” and followed by the affirmation “for what is [written] about me has its fulfillment”. We note, however: (1) Luke’s quotation is the only formal citation from Isa 53 in the synoptic gospels; (2) the point in Luke 22:37 is the assertion of Jesus that he will die a shameful death between criminals; (3) Luke cites Isa 53 “as a text that prophetically anticipates the fulfillment Jesus brings” (Bock, Luke, 1749); (4) Luke, as some have argued, has ignored Mark’s allusions to the suffering Servant in the passion story, cf. Heinz Schürmann, Jesu Abschiedsrede Lk 22,21–38. 3. Teil einer quellenkritischen Untersuchung des lukanischen Abendmahlsberichtes Lk 22,7–38, NTA 20/5 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1957), 126–28; (5) the contrast inherent in Luke’s narrative between Jesus and his accusers (Luke 23:9–10) does not link Jesus’ silence in Luke 23:9 with Isa 53:7 (pace Soards, “Silence”, 41–45). 96 The fact that the silence of Jesus during the trial cannot easily be explained as reflecting Isa 53:7, leads to the conclusion the silence of Jesus can not be regarded as historical invention based on prophecy (even assuming influence of Isa 53:7 on the way the Gospel writers

66

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

The picture of the Suffering Servant going silently into (sacrificial) death might perhaps provide the hermeneutical background for Jesus’ general refusal to defend himself, and more specifically for his presumed silence during the mocking and abuse by the members of the Sanhedrin who had just condemned him to death (Response IV in Mark/Matt).97 But it seems wise not to generally link Jesus’ silence during his trial with Isa 53:7 as the Gospel writers do hint at such an allusion explicitly. Other scholars suggest that the silence of Jesus corresponds to the silence on the part of the righteous sufferer (Ps 38:14–16; 39:10).98 This view is not very likely either, since the suffering psalmists remain silent out of penitence for their own sins: “They are suffering, but they are not righteous”.99 Again, the vocabulary of silence in these passages is not the same as in the passion narratives.100 In a similar vein, it has been suggested101 that the silence of Jesus is a fulfillment of Ps 22:16: “My strength dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue was fused to my jaws, and you deposited me in death’s dust”. Even though Psalm 22 is used by the Gospel writers to describe Jesus’ passion (Mark 15:29, 34; Matt 27:39,46), it should be recognized that the description of Jesus’ silence does not borrow from Ps 22. And Ps 22:16 does not refer to silence, but (in the context of V.15–16) to the “fear evoked by enemies who are waiting and watching for death to come”.102 To be sure, Psalm 22 refers to silence – but to the silence of God (22:3) which the sufferer bemoans as he feels deserted by God despite the fact that he is sick and feels death approaching and is spurned by fellow human beings. 2. Reader-oriented explanation. It has been suggested that Greek and Roman readers may have been able to regard Jesus’ silence as an “expression ─────────────── narration of Jesus’ silence, the inauthenticity of the latter did not follow, since all the Gospels consistently portray Jesus as being prepared to respond to any questions put to him). 97 Cf. Crossan, Crossan, Cross, 174, who links Isa 53:7 with Jesus’ “silence under suffering”, who appropriately points out that it is easier to find allusions to silence under suffering than there are parallels to silence under interrogation. This fact underlines the necessity to seek differentiated explanations for the silence of Jesus during his interrogation. 98 Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, II, 436; Gnilka, Markus, II, 427; Hagner, Matthew, II, 799; Reinbold, Bericht, 152, 199–200; cf. Strobel, Stunde, 96. Some link this motif with the notion of the Suffering Servant of Isa 53:7. On the Righteous Sufferer in general see Lothar Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte. Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Alten Testament und zwischentestamentlichen Judentum, fzb 5 (Würzburg: Echter, 1972); Karl Theodor Kleinknecht, Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. Die alttestamentlich-jüdische Tradition vom ‘leidenden Gerechten’ und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus, WUNT 2.13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988 [1984]). 99 Thus Gundry, Mark, 908. 100 Cf. Brown, Death, 464. 101 Justin, Dial. 102–103. 102 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19 (Dallas: Word, 1983), 200.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

67

of admirable self-control, perhaps even nobility”. 103 However, as Jesus’ silence must be linked both with his refusal to defend himself against accusations and with his extraordinary confession to be the heavenly Son of Man, this does not seem likely. (1) In narratives of trial scenes the defendant is exactly that: an accused person who defends himself. (2) In the literary scenes of conflict between teacher and ruler the former demonstrates his self-control in the way in which he conducts his defense, never in refusing to fend for his survival, or in the way in which he accepts the punishment (which may well have been a death sentence). (3) Without doubt Jesus displayed – in the eyes of readers who are used to these terms of Cynic-Stoic values – remarkable αυ’ τα' ρκεια and παρρησι' α during his trial. But self-control is a feature of the entire narrative of the trial, beginning with the arrest in Gethsemane and ending with his last words on the cross, and therefore not a specific quality of his silence. 3. Rhetorical explanation. Can Jesus’ silence during his trial be explained by reference to the “rhetoric of silence” which can be traced in Greco-Roman poetry, theater, literature and historiography? According to Pseudo-Longinus (Subl. 9.2) and Quintilian (Inst. 2.13.12–13) the virtue of not telling everything, of leaving things unsaid, of narrative suspense, intends to solicit the imagination of the reader and to lead him to supply the outcome of the story through his own reflection.104 It is not clear, however, how the reader of the passion narratives would “complete” the story, especially since Jesus breaks his silence at different stages of the trial. For example, the silence of Jesus vis-à-vis the charges regarding his views on the Temple could hardly be expected to be “completed” in a way which results in his subsequent claim to be the heavenly Son of Man. If Jesus’ silence serves a rhetorical function all we can say is that (1) his silence startled readers in the Greco-Roman world who would expect any defendant to defend himself in a trial where the issue is life and death,105 (2) his silence would make readers think that Jesus had given up and was prepared to die, (3) his silence serves to highlight his responses which he gave during the trial, i.e., on his claim to be the messianic heavenly Son of Man.

─────────────── 103 Thus Green, Luke, 805. 104 Cf. Daniel Marguerat, “The End of Acts (28:16–31) and the Rhetoric of Silence”, in Rhetoric and the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht, JSNTSup 90 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 74–89, esp. 75–82. 105 Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, Preface 2, who asserts that even people with average intelligence (παρα` τοιñς μετρι'ως φρονειñν δυναμε' νοις) must have been astonished that the accused, who was threaten by false testimony, would not defend himself, even though we was perfectly able to do so and demonstrate his complete innocence, his glorious life and his wonderful deeds.

68

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

4. Sapiential explanation. A further possibility could be to explore Jesus’ silence as reflecting his portrayal as a sage or teacher of wisdom.106 In the wisdom tradition silence is linked with wisdom: “If you would only keep silent, that would be your wisdom” (ει»η δε` υ‘ μιñν κωφευñ σαι, και` α’ ποβη' σεται υ‘ μιñν ει’ ς σοφι' αν, Job 13:4 LXX). Qohelet knows that “there is a time to be silent and a time to speak” (καιρο` ς τουñ σιγαñ ν και` καιρο` ς τουñ λαλειñν, Qoh 3:7). Proverbs repeatedly speaks of or implies silence as sign of wisdom (Prov 11:13; 15:23; 20:19; 23:9; 30:32ff). Similarly Ben Sira links silence and wisdom: “There is one who by keeping silent is thought to be wise” (ε» στιν σιωπω ñ ν ευ‘ ρισκο' εμνος σοφο' ς, Sir 20:5). In his teaching on silence (Sir 20:1– 8)107 Ben Sira condemns not only waste of words in talkativeness, but emphasizes on a more positive note two motives for silence: silence for want of knowledge and silence in wait for the proper time (και' ρος) to speak in order to be effective. Motives for silence are (1) prudence, lest somebody pass on wrong information because he speaks without sufficient insight (5:12), (2) staying loyal to one’s friends (19:5–12), (3) perplexity or embarrassment in not knowing the proper answer one needs to give (20:5), and, most importantly, (4) waiting for the propitious time to speak with maximum effectiveness (20:6–7). Granted that there are numerous features in Jesus’ teaching and behavior which can be correlated with the wisdom tradition,108 it is difficult to see how the sapiential silence motif could be relevant for explaining Jesus’ silence during his trial: he did not have to be careful so as not to pass on wrong information, he didn’t have to cover for his friends, he surely cannot have been perplexed by the questions which his accusers asked, and he certainly didn’t just wait for a more propitious time to speak. And consistent silence such as is narrated with regard to the interrogation before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:9) would indicate stubbornness or even arrogance rather than wisdom.109 ─────────────── 106 Cf. Frederic W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age. A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 355–56, who refers to Diogenes Laertius 3.19; 9.115, for occasions where the accused is silent. See also Bock, Luke, II, 1819–20, who refers to Sir 20:1 for the silence of the sage when reproof is not required. 107 For an analysis cf. J. I. Okoye, Speech in Ben Sira with Special Reference to 5,9–6,1, EUS 23.535 (Frankfurt: Lang, 1995), 151–67. 108 Cf. M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970); James M. Robinson, “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels”, in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. R. L. Wilken (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 1–16; Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition. The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus, SNTSMS 61 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Hermann von Lips, Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament, WMANT 64 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990). 109 Pace Danker, Jesus and the New Age. A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, 355–56, and Bock, Luke, II, 1819–20, who relate Jesus’ silence in Luke 23:9 to the wisdom tradition.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

69

5. Other suggestions include the opinions that (1) Jesus proves by his silence that he is in command of the scene,110 (2) Jesus shows that he is the eschatological judge before the final verdict,111 (3) Jesus shows his contempt for the hostile proceedings,112 (4) Jesus accepts his pending death as the will of the Father.113 It appears that these explanations, while most likely correct for some contexts, or in general terms, or on a theological level, do not suffice as explanation since Jesus does not remain silent throughout the trial, and because Jesus’ refusal to answer is “intimately related to the context in the storyline”.114 6. Historical explanation. It is precisely in this context of the narration of Jesus’ behavior during his trial that we must keep in mind two facts. First, the references to Jesus’ silence in the four Gospels appear in different contexts and therefore necessitate individual explanations. Second, both Greco-Roman and Jewish readers of the narrative of Jesus’ cross-examination would have been disturbed by Jesus’ lack of self-defense, culminating in his silence. “The Roman criminal courts were more familiar with the absentee accuser than with the defendant who would not defend himself”.115 These two facts taken together require that we look for an explanation which moves beyond the purely literary level and which seeks to understand the Jesus of history who ─────────────── 110 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, AB 28 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981–85), II, 1480. 111 Cf. Schreiber, “Schweigen”, 81–85 (= Schreiber, Markuspassion, 262–65, assuming that Jesus’ silence is a redactional motif). 112 Brown, Death, 464, 841. Jesus’ silence before Pilate can hardly explained in terms of contempt, as Pilate alerts Jesus about the danger of keeping silent, which gives an impression of fairness, cf. Brown, ibid., 734, 841, who claims that Pilate understands “that by not answering Jesus is somehow looking down on him”; I cannot detect such a nuance in John 19:9–10. 113 Cf. Gundry, Mark, 886; Hagner, Matthew, II, 799. 114 Brown, Death, 841. This “inconsistent” silence of Jesus is the reason why other explanations are not compelling, such as the view of Schreiber, “Schweigen”, 81–85 (= Schreiber, Der Kreuzigungsbericht des Markusevangeliums: Mk 15.20b-41. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und methodenkritische Untersuchung nach William Wrede [1859–1906], 208 n.1), who wishes to correlate the silence of Jesus with the eschatological “primeval silence for seven days” of 4.Ezra 7:30; the further suggestion that Jesus as the “stranger” does not want to disclose his identity before satanic powers or sinners, is not helpful either; see similarly (?) Odes Sol. 31:8–13 where Jesus’ silence during his suffering is explained theologically by “that I might not be disturbed by them”, i.e., that he may elude the powers which control Sheol so that he can descend into Sheol and release the holy ones of Israel. The tradition-historical suggestion by Johannes Weiß, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Schriften zum Neuen Testament I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1907), 214, that “die Überlieferung hatte kein Wort Jesu”, is consistent in explaining all references to Jesus’ silence, but hardly convincing. Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: Beck, 1986 [1922–1928]), I, 1005, 1031, II, 51, 263, 572, provides no parallels to Jesus’ silence from rabbinic literature. 115 Adrian Nicolas Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, The Sarum Lectures 1960–1961 (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004 [1963]), 25.

70

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

stands before accusers as defendant in a criminal trial and who refuses to defend himself and who is repeatedly silent during cross-examination. We will treat the various instances for which the Gospel writers narrate that Jesus remained silent and attempt to provide a explanation that takes the respective contexts seriously. (1) Mark 14:59, 60 par Matt 26:62 (Response I in Mark/Matt): Jesus does not interact with accusations of witnesses who report about his views on the Temple. The view that legally Jesus’ silence stopped the Sanhedrin from using the testimony of the witnesses,116 is not convincing because Jesus remains silent when the High Priest questions him about his refusal to respond to the witnesses (on this view he could have explained his silence without putting himself in jeopardy), and because he responds when questioned about his messiahship. Does Jesus’ silence show contempt for his accusers?117 The context in both passages does not allow a definite answer. Perhaps Jesus remained silent because, at least according to later Jewish law, it was improper to have an accused person convict himself;118 however, it cannot be demonstrated that this principle was in effect in the first century. The narratives simply report that Jesus refuses to defend himself: evidently he is willing to put up with any sentence to which the legal proceedings might lead – which could hardly be less than the death sentence, judging both from the circumstances of his arrest and cross-examination during the night of a festival, and from the critical subject matter of Temple destruction. Jesus’ lack of self-defense appears to signal his willingness to die. His silence evidently shows an acceptance of his passion as the will of the Father (cf. Mark 14:36, 39 par Matt 26:39, 42 par Luke 22:42, cf. John 12:27; cf. also Mark 8:31 par; 9:31 par; 10:32–34 par; 10:45).119 (2) Mark 14:61 par Matt 26:63 (Response II in Mark/Matt): Jesus does not respond to the High Priest’s challenge to discuss his views on the Temple. Jesus remains silent because the testimony of the witnesses is contradictory and is leading nowhere, which is recognized by the priests who conduct the cross-examination. It is unnecessary for him to answer acknowledgedly contradictory accusations. Some see Jesus’ silence as “a contemptuous rebuke for the low quality of the charade”.120 However, the context of the reference to Jesus’ silence again gives no clues that Jesus regarded the members of the ─────────────── 116 Thus Josef Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus: The Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ Described and Assessed from the Oldest Accounts, Translated from the Second Revised and Enlarged Edition by Isabel and Florence McHugh (Cork/Westminster: Mercier/ Newman, 1959), 101–2. 117 Thus Brown, Death, 463. 118 Brown, John, II, 826, referring to Maimonides. 119 Cf. Gundry, Mark, 886; similarly already Schreiber, “Schweigen”, 80–81 (= Schreiber, Markuspassion, 262; as motif of the redaction). 120 Brown, Death, 463.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

71

Sanhedrin with contempt. Others suggest that Jesus’ silence was probably understood by the High Priest as consent to the truthfulness of the charge: “Jesus submits to the faulty reasoning of his accusers and opponents in order to accomplish the will of God and so fulfill the scriptures”.121 Since we are not certain what the reasoning of the witnesses with their contradictory testimony was, it is difficult to speculate on a submission by Jesus to his accusers. More likely is the explanation that Jesus refuses to assist the High Priest who is determined not to discover the truth about Jesus’ claims but, rather, to destroy him 122 – a fact which evidently was known in the circle of Jesus’ friends (cf. Mark 14:1, 10). The aorist middle voice of the phrase ου’ κ α’ πεκρι' νατο ου’ δε' ν, which is rare in the New Testament, has been interpreted on the background of evidence in the papyri as a “technical legal term for response”: the phrase describes “Jesus’ failure to cooperate with the high priest”.123 The unique doubling of Jesus’ refusal to answer (ο‘ δε` ε’ σιω' πα και` ου’ κ α’ πεκρι' νατο ου’ δε' ν, Mark 14:61) can be seen as emphasizing “Jesus’ strength in withstanding the attempt to browbeat him into an admission of guilt”.124 Again, Jesus silence evidently shows his acceptance of suffering and impending death as the will of God. This becomes evident in Mark 14:62 par Matt 26:64 where Jesus breaks his silence – not to defend himself but to make a “deposition” which speaks of his divine authority as heavenly judge, a statement which must lead to the death sentence.125 ─────────────── 121 Hagner, Matthew, II, 799; cf. his comment on Matt 27:12–13: “It is not the silence of defeat or confusion but of a triumphant resolution”. 122 Cf. John Chrysostomus, Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 86:1 (on Matt 27:11– 12): “Wherefore then did he not bring forward these things, it may be said, at that time, when accused of usurpation? Because having the proofs from His acts, of His power, His meekness, His gentleness, beyond number, they were willfully blind, and dealt unfairly, and the tribunal was corrupt. For these reasons then He replies to nothing, but holds His peace, yet answering briefly (so as not to get the reputation of arrogance from continual silence) when the High Priest adjured Him, when the governor asked, but in reply to their accusations He no longer saith anything; for He was not now likely to persuade them” (NPNF 10, 511). This explanation is more appropriate with regard to Jesus’ silence during the Sanhedrin trial, less so during the interrogation by Pilate. See also Origen, Contra Celsum, Preface 1, who suggests that Jesus remained silent since he was convinced (πειθο' μενος) that his entire life and his deeds were more powerful evidence testifying for him than any discourse which attempted to refute the false testimony could ever be. 123 Brown, Death, 464, referring to MM 64. The referent of an aorist middle of α’ ποκρι'νομαι is not automatically a legal context, however. More likely is the possibility that the middle voice adds a note of solemnity to Jesus’ silence, cf. Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963 [1944]), § 229, who points out that the passive deponent α’ ποκρι'νομαι “answer” is common in Hellenistic Greek and that the middle voice adds a note a solemnity. See Gundry, Mark, 885. 124 Gundry, Mark, 885. 125 Cf. Schreiber, “Schweigen”, 81 (= Schreiber, Markuspassion, 262): “Erst Jesu vollmächtiges Wort von 14,62 ermöglicht das Todesurteil (14,63f)”.

72

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

(3) Mark 14:65 par Matt 26:68 (inferred Response IV in Mark/Matt): Jesus evidently does not respond to the blindfolding and abuse by the members of the Sanhedrin who mock him with what is possibly a messianic test. Jesus has never been willing to provide an objective demonstration of his mission, and therefore refuses to yield to the brutal demand for a sign.126 And what is probably more important, as Jesus had, in a way, “asked” for the death sentence by claiming to be the heavenly Son of Man who possesses divine glory and divine functions, he cannot expect – in the first century – restrained behavior of the people who just condemned him to death. As he had not defended himself during cross-examination, he would not defend himself now. (4) Mark 15:4 par Matt 27:12 (Response VI in Mark/Matt): Jesus stays stubbornly silent when the chief priests accuse him before Pilate with regard to claims to be king. As he had been silent during the cross-examination at the night session of the Sanhedrin members, he could hardly begin defending himself against accusations from the Jewish leaders at this stage of the proceedings.127 (5) Mark 15:5 par Matt 27:14 (Response VII in Mark/Matt): Jesus does not respond when Pilate suggests that he should answer the accusations of the chief priests and elders. Some interpret Jesus’ silence again as his showing contempt for the accusations which were hurled against him by the authorities. The context does not help us to determine whether this is the case: Jesus is simply silent, he does not review his treatment by the Sanhedrin. Others suggest that when Jesus refuses to respond to the many accusations of the chief priests, after he had affirmed that he indeed claims to be “king of the Jews”, the narrators – and why not Jesus himself?! – emphasize the fact “there is only one real question and that is the theme of the whole trial; beyond the King issue the many other things are subordinate and irrelevant, and that is why Jesus answers to them nothing at all”.128 Assuming that Jesus wanted to die, in fulfillment of what he knew to be God’s will for him, we may ask whether his silence intended to force Pilate to condemn him. This seems to be a correct appraisal of the situation, generally speaking, since Jesus’ refusal to defend himself warranted Pilate’s judgment of guilt, as he would be bound to condemn him; in the Roman legal system both a verdict and a regular quaestio became unnecessary if the accused admitted his guilt or if he abandoned defending himself (defensionem relinquere) which indicated renunciation of his claim to be innocent and relin─────────────── 126 Cf. Betz, “Probleme”, 639. 127 Cf. Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti, Editio octava (Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1887 [1742]), 162: Accusatoribus nil novi proferentibus silentium Jesu eorum quae jam dixerat, confirmatio subinde fuit. 128 Brown, Death, 734.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

73

quishing to demand from the plaintiff to prove his guilt.129 Who thus confesses to be guilty brings the trial to an end: confessus pro iudicato est.130 (6) Luke 23:9 (Response IV in Luke): Jesus refuses to answer the questions put to him by Herod Antipas. Does Jesus’ silence show contempt for Herod?131 I cannot detect a nuance of contempt in the context. Jesus’ silence may signal his awareness that Herod is not seriously interested in establishing the truthfulness of the accusations which were reported to him. He evidently has no interest at all to somehow impress Herod and gain him as intercessor before Pilate. He does not defend himself and he does nothing which might at least delay the trial. Jesus seems determined to let the trial run its course – a course which would in all probability lead to a death sentence since the entire ─────────────── 129 Cf. Wolfgang Kunkel, “Prinzipien des römischen Strafverfahrens [1968]”, in Kleine Schriften zum römischen Strafverfahren und zur römischen Verfassungsgeschichte (Weimar: Böhlau, 1974), 11–31, esp. 19; Peter Garnsey, “The Lex Iulia and Appeal under the Empire”, JRS 56 (1966): 167–89, here 173: “According to the lex Rubria (XXI, de pecunia certe credita), the confessus, the non respondens, and the indefensus, were all iudicati, or ‘iure lege damnati’”. Cf. Haacker, “Wer war schuld”, 34–35. Of course the defense would depend heavily on the response of the defendant, cf. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 25–26, referenced by Carson, Matthew, 568. The more specific version of this view, that silence means admission of guilt, cannot be defended, however: the principle Qui tacet, consentire videtur, i.e., “The one who is silent is considered to have consented”, cannot be traced back beyond ca. AD 1200. In everyday encounters the silence of a person who is accused of something often is indeed a sign of guilt and embarrassment, thus the proposition of Euripides: “Silence itself constitutes your admission” (Iph. Aul. 1142). But a court of law “requires more than impressions”, and the principle “silence means consent” does not explain Pilate’s amazement with regard to the fact that Jesus does not defend himself; cf. Brown, Death, 735; pace Haacker, ibid. 34. 130 See Kunkel, “Prinzipien”, 19–20, for evidence regarding the Roman legal system. With regard to the trial of Jesus Kunkel states: “Wenn Christus nach Matth. 27,11ff auf die Frage des Pilatus, ob er der Juden König sei, antwortete: ‘du sagst es’ (was ‘ja’ bedeutet), und wenn er auf die Anschuldigungen der Juden nicht antwortete [italics mine], so war er ein confessus. Eines auf Schuldfeststellung gerichteten Verfahrens bedurfte es nicht mehr. Vielmehr war Pilatus, wenn die Ankläger darauf bestanden, genötigt, die Strafe zu verhängen, und zwar die Todesstrafe, die für einen Nichtbürger, der sich das Königtum anmaßte, allein in Betracht kam” (20–21). Jesus’ refusal to defend himself is seen in the fact that he does not invoke means which assert circumstances which are favorable for him (lat. praescriptio), such as prescribed periods of time (praescriptio temporis), absence of prerequisites for the trial such as lack of jurisdiction, or procedural flaws. On the praescriptio in criminal and private law see Max Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozeßrecht, Second Edition, Edited by K. Hackl, HdA X/3,4 (München: Beck, 1996 [1966]), 385–86. 131 Thus Brown, Death, 841; cf. Nolland, Luke, II, 1124 (with some reservation); similarly Schreiber, “Schweigen”, 84 (= Schreiber, Markuspassion, 266), who thinks that the silence of Jesus in Luke 23:9 signals Jesus’ superiority. Walter Radl, “Sonderüberlieferungen bei Lukas? Traditionsgeschichtliche Fragen zu Lk 22,67f; 23,2 und 23,6–12”, in Der Prozess gegen Jesus. Historische Rückfrage und theologische Deutung, ed. K. Kertelge, QD 112 (Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 131–47, esp. 139, thinks that Luke 23:9 is secondary, derived from Mark 14:60.61 and Mark 15:4–5. This assumption would be a possibility only in the case one can show (and not just postulate) Mark used a Schweigemotiv which Luke found necessary to introduce into the Herod scene.

74

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Jewish leadership is determined to do away with him. Thus, if Jesus saw indeed his death as part of the mission which his Father had given to him, he remained silent because he accepted God’s will which was his death.132 (7) John 19:9 (Response VI in John): Jesus refuses to answer Pilate’s question about his identity as God’s son. He has just affirmed that the charge of the Jewish authorities is correct, that he is king of the Jews, but he had started to clarify the nature and the extent of his reign which poses no threat to Pilate’s imperium but is concerned with the truth of God, of his son and of judgment, and with those people who belong to the truth and listen to his teaching. In this context Jesus’ silence may reflect a “recognition that Pilate, who could not understand when Jesus explained about his being a king, will never understand his origins from above”, 133 as the Roman prefect is only interested in uncovering a political agenda.134 Pilate was amazed at the persistent silence of Jesus (ω « στε θαυμα' ζειν το` ν η‘ γεμο' να λι' αν, Matt 27:14). He must have wondered – as any reader of the passion narratives would wonder – what kind of man Jesus was. Who would refuse to defend himself in a criminal trial where the accusers demand the death sentence? (1) The accused knows that the accusers have made up their mind and that he has no chance at all to get away with his life. This could have been Jesus’ frame of mind in the Sanhedrin trial – even though it should be noted that the Sanhedrin trial was no sham: the testimony of the witnesses was thrown out of court because it was conflicting and thus “false”, i.e., the witnesses were not manipulated, which seems to imply that Jesus could have had a chance if he chose to defend himself. This sense of total resignation would probably not have been Jesus’ frame of mind during the Roman trial, since Pilate is not portrayed as being on the side of the accusers – on the contrary, he seems intent in releasing Jesus (if only to provoke the Jewish lead─────────────── 132 Similarly Nolland, Luke, II, 1124, as “perhaps” best idea. 133 Brown, Death, 841. 134 Rosel Baum-Bodenbender, Hoheit in Niedrigkeit: Johanneische Christologie im Prozess Jesu vor Pilatus (Joh 18,28–19,16a), fzb 49 (Würzburg: Echter, 1984), 150, suggests that the silence of Jesus in John 19:9 is consistent from the narrator’s point of view since he had stated in 18:36–37 that the βασιλειñα of Jesus is not “of this world”, therefore a second answer to the πο' θεν of Jesus is superfluous. However, the second question of Pilate as to the πο' θεν of Jesus is not simply a repetition of his first question, and it is by no means “erzählerisch konsequent” for a narrator of a trial scene with a defendant being interrogated by a Roman prefect to simply be silent. Carola Diebold-Scheuermann, Jesus vor Pilatus. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zum Verhör Jesu durch Pilatus (Joh 18,28–19,16a), SBB 43 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996), 62–63, 277–78, thinks that Jesus’ silence in John 19:9 is a literary device meant to achieve a dramatic effect, used by the author to carry on the dialogue. However, this is not plausible since the dialogues in the Fourth Gospel never included the feature of “silence” and therefore should not be regarded as merely a literary device.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

75

ership, as he did on other occasions.135 (2) Or the accused has been totally broken, by the massiveness of the accusations and/or by torture, so that he is not able to say anything. This was not the case in Jesus’ trial, either before the Sanhedrin or before Pilate. (3) Or the accused knows that he is “guilty” of the charges brought against him – as determined by the accusers, who are at the same time the judges, on the basis of their own prepositions – but has no strong convictions about his deed and thus is not interested in making it public. 136 This option does not account for Jesus’ silence either since nobody doubts that Jesus had strong convictions about his mission and his teaching and could have defended the purpose of his mission as Messiah. (4) This seems to leave only two options: either the accused knows that he won’t be able to make himself understood because the accusers would not be able to grasp the true nature of his claims and actions, or the accused intends to die – or both. It is precisely in this combination of factors that the silence of Jesus in view of his impending condemnation to death confirms (for himself to start with) both the claims to divine dignity137 and the inevitability of his death.

3. Conclusion The mystery of Jesus’ identity and mission could be grasped only after his resurrection. According to the Gospel narratives not even his closest followers were able to understand what he meant when he spoke about his coming suffering, death and resurrection. Jesus’ silence was a sovereign silence. He had come as obedient Son to accomplish the will of his heavenly Father,138 in fulfillment of the prophecies of old, to bring blessing to the spiritually poor, to bring comfort to those who mourn, to bring satisfaction to those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, to bring those who were willing to receive a pure ─────────────── 135 Cf. the description of his rule by Josephus, B.J. 2.169–177); A.J. 18.55–89) and Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 299–310. On Pilate and his tactic see Strobel, Stunde, 99–130. 136 In contrast to the Jewish and the later Christian martyrs who were “guilty” of the “crimes” they were accused of but insisted that their behavior was correct and proper in the context of their convictions, and who gave a courageous defense of their views when given the opportunity. 137 Alexander Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1986), 550, wants to move this implied confirmation from the historical to the theological level. I am not sure whether Jesus or his first followers or the Gospel writers would have made such a distinction, believing in Jesus’ divine dignity as a “metahistorical reality”. 138 Peter Egger, “Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato”. Das “crimen” Jesu von Nazareth im Spannungsfeld römischer und jüdischer Verwaltungs- und Rechtsstrukturen, NTA 32 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1997), 198, 209, has correctly pointed out that the intimate, exclusive relationship which Jesus claimed to have with God – as his authorized representative, establishing his kingdom as reality in his own ministry – was the basic cause of the progressing opposition against him, leading eventually to his arrest, trial and execution.

76

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

heart and who had repented into the real – and in the end visible – presence of God. He knew himself to be the messianic Son of Man, whose mission as Son of God was the giving of his life as a ransom for the many.139 Jesus went to Jerusalem not just to preach, but to die, so that the promised new covenant could become a reality. He had enacted this mission of his in the Temple and in the Upper Room: he had indicated that the present experience of God and his mercy had come to an end, that he is the Messiah through whom the God of Israel, who is the God of all the world, would save Israel and thereby the nations, and that all this would come about through his own death. Jesus must have known that these actions and the accompanying message, after all the opposition that he had attracted during the past three years, finally would very likely get him put on trial as a false prophet and messianic pretender leading the people astray. Jesus was willing to die. Therefore he did not defend himself against the charges with which the Jewish leaders accused him during the cross-examination in his trial. He was willing to speak to the charges that he claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God. He was evasive with regard to the Messiah charge because he had no immediate political agenda and because he knew the possible misunderstanding concerning the messianic role. Jesus reserves the right to “define his terms”.140 But he was adamant about his identity as Son of God, claiming much more than a rhetorical dignity. But this could not be understood during the trial, before his death – and vindication – had taken place. Thus Jesus maintained silence.

Bibliography Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. Second Edition. London/Philadelphia: SPCK/Westminster, 1978. Baum-Bodenbender, Rosel. Hoheit in Niedrigkeit: Johanneische Christologie im Prozess Jesu vor Pilatus (Joh 18,28–19,16a). fzb 49. Würzburg: Echter, 1984. Bengel, Johann Albrecht. Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Editio octava. Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1887 [1742]. Betz, Otto. “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu”. ANRW II/25.1 (1982): 565–647. Billerbeck, Paul. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. München: Beck, 1986 [1922–28]. ─────────────── 139 On the authenticity of Mark 10:45 see Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, I, 120–22, 127–30; recent attempts to refute Stuhlmacher’s arguments by Werner Zager, “Wie kam es im Urchristentum zur Deutung des Todes Jesu als Sühnegeschehen? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Peter Stuhlmachers Entwurf einer 'Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments'”, ZNW 87 (1996): 165–86, are not convincing. On Jesus’ prediction of his own death, and the essential meaning of that death in the context of his mission, see Wright, Jesus, 540–611, for a fresh, integrative line of argumentation; cf. ibid., 609–10, for the following remarks. 140 Green, Death of Jesus, 286.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

77

Blevins, James L. The Messianic Secret in Markan Research, 1901–1976. Washington: University Press, 1981. Blinzler, Josef. The Trial of Jesus: The Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ Described and Assessed from the Oldest Accounts. Translated from the Second Revised and Enlarged Edition by Isabel and Florence McHugh. Cork/Westminster: Mercier/ Newman, 1959. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995–96. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994. —. The Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966–70. Buschmann, Gerd. Das Martyrium des Polykarp. Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1998. Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. CB.NT 24. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Carroll, John T., and Joel B. Green, eds. The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. Carson, Don A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. —. Matthew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995 [1984]. Catchpole, David R. “The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi.64)”. NTS 17 (1970– 71): 213–26. Corley, Bruce. “Trial of Jesus”. Pages 841–54 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Dallas: Word, 1983. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966 [1959]. Crossan, John Dominic. The Cross That Spoke. The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Danker, Frederic W. Jesus and the New Age. A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. Revised Edition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Darr, John A. On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts. Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1992. Dauer, Anton. Die Passionsgeschichte im Johannesevangelium. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh. 18, 1–19, 30. StANT 30. München: Kösel, 1972. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97. Diebold-Scheuermann, Carola. Jesus vor Pilatus. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zum Verhör Jesu durch Pilatus (Joh 18,28–19,16a). SBB 43. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Dormeyer, Detlef. Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell. Literarische und theologische Analyse der Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Markuspassion. NTA 11. Münster: Aschendorff, 1974. Dormeyer, Detlev. “Jesus as Wandering Prophetic Wisdom Teacher”. HTS 49 (1993): 101– 17. Dunn, James D. G. “The Messianic Secret in Mark [1970]”. Pages 116–31 in The Messianic Secret. Edited by C. Tuckett. London/Philadelphia: SPCK/Fortress, 1983. Egger, Peter. “Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato”. Das “crimen” Jesu von Nazareth im Spannungsfeld römischer und jüdischer Verwaltungs- und Rechtsstrukturen. NTA 32. Münster: Aschendorff, 1997.

78

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Evans, Craig A. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. AGAJU 25. Leiden: Brill, 1995. —. “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources”. Pages 443–78 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. AB 28. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981– 1985. France, R. T. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. —. “Servant of Yahweh”. Pages 744–47 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Garnsey, Peter. “The Lex Iulia and Appeal under the Empire”. JRS 56 (1966): 167–89. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKK II/1–2. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1978–79. —. Das Matthäusevangelium. HThK I/1–2. Freiburg: Herder, 1986–88. Gooch, Paul W. Reflections on Jesus and Socrates. Word and Silence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Green, Joel B. “The Death of Jesus, God’s Servant”. Pages 1–28.170–73 in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus. Edited by D. D. Sylva. BBB 73. Frankfurt: Hain, 1990. —. The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative. WUNT 2.33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. —. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Haacker, Klaus. “Wer war schuld am Tode Jesu?” Theologische Beiträge 25 (1994): 23–36. Haenchen, Ernst. Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar. Edited by U. Busse. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. WBC 33. Dallas: Word, 1993–95. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Der Prozeß Jesu nach dem Johannesevangelium”. Pages 23–96 in EKK Vorarbeiten, Heft 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Hengel, Martin. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Hennecke, Edgar, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963–64. Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied im deuterojesajanischen Kontext”. Pages 1–25 in Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte. Edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. FAT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Hooker, Morna D. Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of DeuteroIsaiah in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959. Hübner, Hans. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990–95. Janowski, Bernd, and Peter Stuhlmacher, eds. Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte. FAT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Karrer, Martin. “Der lehrende Jesus. Neutestamentliche Erwägungen”. ZNW 83 (1992): 1–20. Kaser, Max. Das römische Zivilprozeßrecht. Second Edition. Edited by K. Hackl. HdA X/3,4. München: Beck, 1996 [1966]. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988 [1986]. Kleinknecht, Karl Theodor. Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. Die alttestamentlich-jüdische Tradition vom ‘leidenden Gerechten’ und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus. WUNT 2.13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988 [1984].

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

79

Kosmala, Hans. “Der Prozess Jesu”. Saat auf Hoffnung 69 (1932): 24–39. Kunkel, Wolfgang. “Prinzipien des römischen Strafverfahrens [1968]”. Pages 11–31 in Kleine Schriften zum römischen Strafverfahren und zur römischen Verfassungsgeschichte. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1974. Lightfoot, Robert H. History and Interpretation in the Gospels. The Bampton Lectures. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935. Linnemann, Eta. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. FRLANT 102. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Lips, Hermann von. Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament. WMANT 64. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Markus. KEK I/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967 [1937]. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. EKK I. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/ Neukirchener, 1985–2001. Marguerat, Daniel. “The End of Acts (28:16–31) and the Rhetoric of Silence”. Pages 74–89 in Rhetoric and the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Mohr, Till Arend. Markus- und Johannespassion: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der markinischen und johanneischen Passionstradition. AThANT 70. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1982. Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Musurillo, Herbert. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs I: Acta Alexandrinorum. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000 [1954]. Nolland, John. Luke. WBC 35. Dallas: Word, 1989–93. Okoye, J. I. Speech in Ben Sira with Special Reference to 5,9–6,1. EUS 23:535. Frankfurt: Lang, 1995. O’Neill, John C. “The Silence of Jesus”. NTS 15 (1968–69): 153–67. Perkins, Pheme. Jesus as Teacher. Understanding Jesus Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. HThK 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1989–91 [1976–77]. Piper, Ronald A. Wisdom in the Q-Tradition. The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus. SNTSMS 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Platon. “Des Sokrates Apologie. Kriton. Euthydemos. Menexenos. Gorgias. Menon”. In Werke in acht Bänden. Griechisch und Deutsch, Gunther Eigler, Reprint of the Third Edition. Band 2. Deutsche Übersetzung von Friedrich Schleiermacher. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990 [1918, 1973]. Radl, Walter. “Sonderüberlieferungen bei Lukas? Traditionsgeschichtliche Fragen zu Lk 22,67f; 23,2 und 23,6–12”. Pages 131–47 in Der Prozess gegen Jesus. Historische Rückfrage und theologische Deutung. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 112. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. Räisänen, Heikki. The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark. Translated by C. Tuckett. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990. —. Das “Messiasgeheimnis” im Markusevangelium. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch. Suomen Eksegeettinen Seura julkaisuja 28. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1976. Reinbold, Wolfgang. Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu. Literarische Analyse und historische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien. BZNW 69. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer. Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Überlieferung. WUNT 2.7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988 [1981].

80

Jesus – Messianic Teacher

Robbins, Vernon K. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Robinson, James M. “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels”. Pages 1–16 in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by R. L. Wilken. London, 1975. Ruppert, Lothar. Der leidende Gerechte. Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Alten Testament und zwischentestamentlichen Judentum. Forschungen zur Bibel 5. Würzburg: Echter, 1972. Sand, Alexander. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1986. Schenk, Wolfgang. Der Passionsbericht nach Markus. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Passionstraditionen. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974. Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes. Ein Kommentar zum vierten Evangelium. 4th Edition. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975. Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Das Johannesevangelium. 3 vols. HThK IV. Freiburg: Herder, 1986–86 [1965–75]. Schreiber, Johannes. Der Kreuzigungsbericht des Markusevangeliums: Mk 15.20b-41. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und methodenkritische Untersuchung nach William Wrede (1859– 1906). BZNW 48. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986. —. Die Markuspassion. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Second Edition. BZNW 68. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993. —. “Das Schweigen Jesu”. Pages 79–87 in Theologie und Unterricht. Über die Repräsentanz des Christlichen in der Schule. FS Hans Stock. Edited by K. Wegenast. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969. Schürmann, Heinz. Jesu Abschiedsrede Lk 22,21–38. 3. Teil einer quellenkritischen Untersuchung des lukanischen Abendmahlsberichtes Lk 22,7–38. NTA 20/5. Münster: Aschendorff, 1957. Seccombe, David P. “Luke and Isaiah”. Pages 248–56 in The Right Doctrine from the Wrongs Texts? Edited by G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Sherwin-White, Adrian Nicolas. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. The Sarum Lectures 1960–1961. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004 [1963]. Soards, Marion L. “The Silence of Jesus Before Herod. An Interpretative Suggestion”. ABR 33 (1985): 41–45. Strauss, Mark L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfilment in Lukan Christology. JSNTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Strecker, Georg. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Ergänzt und herausgegeben von FriedrichWilhelm Horn. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996. Strobel, August. Die Stunde der Wahrheit. Untersuchungen zum Strafverfahren gegen Jesus. WUNT 21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992–99. Suggs, M. Jack. Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Thornapple Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 [1951]. —. Jesus and His Sacrifice. London: Macmillan, 1937. Theißen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. Der historische Jesus. Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Tuckett, Christopher, ed. The Messianic Secret. London/Philadelphia: SPCK/Fortress, 1983.

2. The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher

81

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospel. London/Philadelphia: Collins/Fortress, 1973. Weiß, Johannes. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Schriften zum Neuen Testament I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1907. Wilckens, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Witherington, Ben. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Wolff, Hans Walter. Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum. 4th Edition. Giessen: Brunnen, 1984 [1942]. Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. Cambridge: Clarke, 1971. —. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums. Third Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God II. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Zager, Werner. “Wie kam es im Urchristentum zur Deutung des Todes Jesu als Sühnegeschehen? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Peter Stuhlmachers Entwurf einer ‘Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments’”. ZNW 87 (1996): 165–86. Zahn, Theodor. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Reprint of the 6th Edition. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1983 [1921]. —. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. Reprint of the 4th Edition. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1984 [1922]. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1963 [1944].

Paul – Missionary Theologian

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence As the Apostle Paul proclaims Jesus as crucified and risen Savior in the Athenian agora, Epicurean and Stoic philosophers involve him in a debate. Luke notes two different reactions in Acts 17:18: some comment on the unsystematic nature of his teaching about God, the world, and human beings,1 while others think that he proclaims foreign divinities (ξε' να δαιμο' νια), that is, deities that are not worshipped in Athens, a possibility that prompts an investigation by the Areopagus Council (Acts 17:19). While Greek and Roman cities did not stipulate which deities the population had to worship, the introduction of new deities was subject to the “official authorization of the state”.2 This can be illustrated both by literary and documentary evidence.

1. Literary Evidence The literary evidence for the aversion of the Athenians to the introduction of new deities and their cults into the city ranges from Isocrates and Xenophon (fifth/fourth century BC) to Josephus and Maecenas in the first century AD. 1. Isocrates (436–338 BC) praises the Athenians for guarding “against the elimination of any of the ancestral sacrifices and against the addition of any sacrifices outside the traditional ones” (ο« πως μηδε` ν μη' τε τω ñ ν πατρι' ων καταλυ' σουσιν μη' τ• ε» ξω τω ñ ν νομιζομε' νων προσθη' σουσιν). For they thought that piety existed not in great expenditures, but rather in not changing any of those things that their ancestors had handed down to them (ε’ ν τω ðν ñ, μηδε` ν κινειñν ω αυ’ τοιñς οι‘ προ' γονοι παρε' δοσαν)” (Areop. 30; Trans. J. D. Mikalson, LCL). This traditionalism, which rejects the novelty of non-traditional gods and cults, is seen in Greek literature right from the start: see Hesiod (“in whatever way a city sacrifices, the ancient rule is the best” [ω « ς κε πο' λις ρ‘ ε' ζηισι, νο' μος δ• ─────────────── 1 The term σπερμολο' γος can be translated as “a third-rate intellectual devoid of method”. C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98), 830 suggests “third-rate journalist”; Richard I. Pervo, Acts, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2008), 427, “a bird-brain devoid of method”. 2 Hendrik S. Versnel, “ΕΙΣ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΣ: The Tragic Paradox of the Bacchae”, in Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 96–131, here 122.

86

Paul – Missionary Theologian

α’ ρχαιñος α» ριστος]; Frag. 322); 3 a law of Draco (sixty century BC ) which, according to Porphyry, Abst. 4.22, instructs the Athenians “as a group to honour the gods and local heroes in accordance with the ancestral practices and in private as best they can (θεου` ς τιμαñ ν και` η« ρωας ε’ γχωρι' ους ε’ ν κοινω ñ, ε‘ πομε' νοις νο' μοις πατρι' οις, ι’ δι' α, κατα` δυ' ναμιν)”; the Delphic oracle’s answer to the question of how to perform the sacrifices to the ancestors (“according to the law of the city” [νο' μω, πο' λεως], Xenophon, Mem. 1.3.1; cf. Cicero, Leg. 2.16.40). 2. Xenophon (ca. 430–354 BC) describes the indictment against Socrates (399 BC) as follows: “Socrates is guilty of rejecting the gods acknowledged by the state and of bringing in strange deities; he is also guilty of corrupting the youth (α’ δικειñ Σωκρα' της ου‹ ς με` ν η‘ πο' λις νομι' ζει θεου` ς ου’ νομι' ζων, ε« τερα δε` καινα` δαιμο' νια ει’ σφε' ρων: α’ δικειñ δε` και` του` ς νε' ους διαφθει' ρων); he is also guilty of corrupting the youth” (Mem. 1.1.1; Trans. E. C. Marchant, LCL).4 Xenophon relates that Socrates, who defended himself against the charge that he did “not believe in the existence of the gods (in the way it is traditionally done by the polis)” (Plato, Apol. 24C; Favorinus, in Diogenes Laertius 2.40; Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.1), “to be on the safe side, was at pains to prove that nobody had ever seen him ‘sacrificing to strange gods καινοιñς δαι' μοσιν – not δαιμονι' οις), nor swearing by or acknowledging other gods (ου» τε ο’ μνυ` ς ου» τε νομι' ζων α» λλους θεου' ς); Apol. 24)’”.5 3. The case of Phryne: In the early part of the fourth century, the hetaira Phryne was accused of asebeia, based on the fact that “she held a komos in the Lykeion. She introduced a new god and she organized thiasoi of men and women (α’ σεβει' ας κρινομε' νη η‘ Φρυ' νη: και` γα` ρ ε’ κω' μασεν ε’ ν Λυκει' ω, και` καινο` ν ει’ ση' γαγε θεο` ν και` θια' σους α’ νδρω ñ ν και` γυναικω ñ ν συνη' γαγεν)”; the plaintiff Euthias states in what is regarded as an authentic epilogue: “So I have now proven that Phryne is impious because she has participated in a scandalous revelry, because she has introduced a new god, and because she has assembled unlawful thiasoi of both men and women (ε’ πε' δειξα τοι' νυν υ‘ μιñν α’ σεβηñ Φρυ' νην, κωμα' σασαν α’ ναιδω ñ ς, καινουñ θεουñ ει’ σηγη' τριαν, θια' σους ─────────────── 3 Reinhold Merkelbach and Martin L. West, Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), Frag. 322; Porphyrius, Abst. 2.18. 4 Cf. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989); Versnel, “Paradox”, 124–27; on Socrates’ trial cf. Robert Garland, Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), 136–51. 5 Versnel, “Paradox”, 127, with further reference to Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.2–4; 1.3.1; 1.3.4; Apol. 10–11; Anab. 3.1.4–8; Plato, Apol. 21B; 33C; Phaedo 60B–61B: Socrates participated in, and advocated, the traditional Athenian cults. Much later, Servius (ca. 400 CE) confirms in connection with Socrates’ trial that the Athenians prohibited the introduction of new gods: “The Athenians saw to it that nobody should introduce superstitious cults (ne quis introduceret religiones): on this charge Socrates was sentenced” (ad Virgil, Aen. 8.187).

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

87

α’ νδρω ñ ν ε’ κθε' σμους και` γυναικω ñ ν συναγαγουñ σαν”; Ars rhet. 215). 6 Illegal thiasoi were, strictly speaking, “all thiasoi that had not been officially ratified by boule and demos”.7 Plato suggests that all should be punished who celebrate other ceremonies than those that belong to the official cult (ε« τερα και` ο’ ργια' ζοντα πλη` ν τα` δημο' σια; Leg. 910b-c).8 4. Maecenas’s speech to Augustus, as related by Cassius Dio, summarizes the principal objections against both foreign and new gods and rites: “Do you not only yourself worship the Divine Power (το` θειñον) everywhere and in every way in accordance with the traditions of our fathers (κατα` τα` πα' τρια), but compel all others to honour it. Those who attempt to distort our religion with strange rites (ξενι' ζοντας) you should abhor and punish, not merely for the sake of the gods (since if a man despises these he will not pay honour to any other being), but because such men, by bringing in new divinities in place of the old, persuade many to adopt foreign practices (καινα' τινα δαιμο' νια οι‘ τοιουñ τοι α’ ντεσφε' ροντες πολλου` ς α’ ναπει' θουσιν α’ λλοτριονομειñν), from which spring up conspiracies, factions, and cabals, which are far from profitable to a monarchy. Do not, therefore, permit anybody to be an atheist (α» θεος) or a sorcerer (γο' ης) … The same thing is done also by many who are philosophers; hence I advise you to be on your guard against them, too” (Cassius Dio 52.36; Trans. E. Cary, LCL). 5. Josephus writes that the Athenians severely punished impiety with numerous examples of such misbehavior that included uttering “a single word about the gods contrary to their laws” (Apollonius), claiming to have received “communications from a daimon” (Socrates), arguing that the sun is not a god but “an incandescent mass” (Anaxagoras), jeering at their mysteries (Diagoras), writing about the gods in a manner that conflicts with Athenian tenets (Protagoras), initiating people into the mysteries of foreign gods (Ninos), the latter being “forbidden by their law, and the penalty decreed for any who introduced a foreign god was death (κατα` τω « ριστο ñ ν ξε' νον ει’ σαγο' ντων θεο` ν ω θα' νατος)” (C. Ap. 2.262–268; Trans. St. J. Thackeray, LCL). The case of Ninos, a priestess of Sabazios (before 343 BC), is also mentioned by Demosthenes (19, 281).9 ─────────────── 6 Karl Müller, ed., Oratores Attici: Fragmenta Oratorum Atticorum (Paris: Didot, 1888), II, 426; cf. Versnel, “Paradox”, 118–19. 7 Versnel, “Paradox”, 119. 8 On the traditional gods in Plato cf. Aikaterini Lefka, “Tout est plein de dieux”. Les divinités traditionnelles dans l’oeuvre de Platon. Du rapport entre religion et philosophie (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2013). 9 See the scholion ad loc. Versnel, “Paradox”, 116, 127–28, following Eudore Derenne, Les procès d’impiété intentés aux philosophes à Athènes au Vme et au IVme siècles avant J.C., History of Ideas in Ancient Greece (New York: Arno, 1976 [1930]), 224ff, defends Josephus’ testimony against those who argue against the authenticity of either one of the versions of the Ninos incident. John S. Kloppenborg and Richard S. Ascough, Greco-Roman

88

Paul – Missionary Theologian

2. Documentary Evidence The documentary evidence demonstrates that magistrates and the demos of Athens, and other Greek cities, did in fact discuss, investigate, and decide whether a new cult can be allowed to be added to the pantheon of deities worshipped in the city. 1. IG I3 78 (ca. 435 BC)10 1 [Τιμο]τε' λ[ε]σ ’Αχαρνε[υ` ς] ε’ γραμμα' τευε. [ε» δοχσ]εν τεñι βολεñι και` τοñ ι δε' μοι· Κεκροπι`ς ε’ πρυτα' νευε, Τιμοτε' [λες ε’ ]γραμμα' τευε, Κυκνε' ας ε’ πεστα' τε· τα' δε οι‘ χσυγγραφεñς χσυνε' [γρ]αφσαν· α’ πα' ρχεσθαι τοιñν θεοιñν τοñ καρποñ κατα` τα` πα' τρια και` τε` 5 ν μαντει' αν τε` ν ε’ γ Δελφοñ ν ’Αθεναι' ος α’ πο` τοñ ν hεκατο` ν μεδι' μνον [κ]ριθοñ ν με` ε» λαττον ε› h.εκτε' α, πυροñ ν δε` α’ πο` τοñ ν hεκατο` ν μεδι' μνον με` ε» λαττον hεμιε' κτεον· ε’ α` ν δε' τις πλει' ο καρπο` ν ποιεñι ε› τ[οσουñ το]ν ε› ο’ λει' ζο, κατα` το` ν αυ’ το` ν λο' γον α’ πα' ρχεσθαι. ε’ γλε' γεν δε` [το` ς δ]εμα' ρχος κατα` το` ς δε' μος και` παραδιδο' ναι τοιñς hιεροποιοιñς τοιñς 10 ’ Ελευσινο' θεν ’ Ελευσιñνα' δε. οι’ κοδομεñσαι δε` σιρο` ς τρεñς ’ Ελευσιñνι κατα` τα` πα' τρια hο' πο α› ν δοκεñι τοιñς hιεροποιοιñς και` τοñ ι α’ ρ[χ]ιτ─────────────── Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary. I. Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, BZNW 181 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 30, follow Garland, New Gods, 150, who argues that Ninos was executed because her office forbade her from participating in the rites of foreign deities, rather than because she introduced foreign cults. 10 David Lewis, ed., Inscriptiones Graecae I. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores. Fasc. I, Decreta et Tabulae Magistratuum, Editio Tertia (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981), No. 78; Syll.3 83 (Wilhelm Dittenberger and Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum [Hildesheim: Olms, 1960 [1898–1901]]); Johannes von Prott and Ludwig Ziehen, Leges graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1988 [1896/ 1906]) II, No. 4; Franciszek Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris: Boccard, 1969), No. 5; I. Eleusis 28 (Kevin Clinton, Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone: Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme, 3 vols. [Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens, 2005–8], II, 5–7); Russel Meiggs and David M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988 [1969]), No. 73; Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, No. 5; Charles W. Fornara, Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Volume 1: Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 [1977]), No. 140; Bernhard Smarczyk, Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attischen Seebund, Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 5 (München: Tuduv, 1990), 167–198; Kai Brodersen, Wolfgang Günther, and Hatto H. Schmitt, eds., Historische griechische Inschriften in Übersetzung, 3 Bände, Texte zur Forschung 59.68.71 (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt, 1992/1996/1999) I, No. 123; Matthew Dillon and Lynda Garland, Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Socrates, Second Edition (London: Routledge, 2000 [1994]) No. 12.6. For the date of the inscription in the mid 430’s see Clinton, Eleusis II, 52–53. Translation from Fornara, Documents I, 160–63. Location: Athens, Epigraphical Museum, EM 10050.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

ε' κτονι ε’ πιτε' δειον εñ’ ναι α’ πο` τοñ α’ ργυρι' ο τοñ τοιñν θεοιñν. το` [ν δε` κα]ρπο` ν ε’ νθαυθοιñ ε’ μβα' λλεν hο` ν α› ν παραλα' βοσι παρα` τοñ ν δεμα' ρ[χον], α’ πα' ρχεσθαι δε` και` το` ς χσυμμα' χος κατα` ταυ’ τα' . τα` ς δε` πο' λες [ε’ γ]λ[ο]γε' ας hελε' σθαι τοñ καρποñ , καθο' τι α› ν δοκεñι αυ’ τεñσι α» ριστα ο‘ καρπο` [ς] ε’ γλεγε' σεσθαι· ε’ πειδα` ν δε` ε’ γλεχθεñι, α’ ποπεμφσα' ντον ’Αθε' ναζε· το` ς δε` α’ γαγο' ντας παραδιδο' ναι τοιñς hιεροποιοιñς τοιñς ’ Ελευσινο' θεν ’ Ελευσιñνα' δε· ε’ [α` ]ν δε` με` παραδε' χσονται πε' ντε ε‘ μεροñ ν vvvv ε’ πειδα` ν ε’ παγγελεñι, παραδιδο' ντον τοñ ν ε’ κ τεñς πο' λεος hο' θεν α› ν [εñ’ ][ι] ο‘ κα[ρπ]ο' ς, ευ’ θυνο' σθον hοι hιεροποιοι` χιλι' αισιν v δραχμεñσι [h][ε' κασ]τος· και` παρα` τοñ ν δεμα' ρχον κατα` ταυ’ τα` παραδε' χεσθαι. [κε' ρ]υ[κα]ς δε` hελομε' νε hε βολε` πεμφσα' το ε’ ς τα` ς πο' λες α’ [γ]γε' λλον[τ]ας [τα` ] [νυñ ν] hεφσεφισμε' να τοñ ι δε' μοι, το` με` ν νυñ ν εñ’ ναι hος τα' χιστα, το` δε` [λ]οιπο` ν hο' ταν δοκεñι αυ’ τεñι. κελευε' το δε` και` hο hιεροφα' ντες και` [ο‘ ] δαιδοñ χος μυστερι' οις α’ πα' ρχεσθαι το` ς hε' λλενας τοñ καρποñ κατα` τα` πα' τρια και` τε` ν μαντει' αν τε` ν ε’ γ Δελφοñ ν. α’ ναγρα' φσαντες δε` ε’ [μ] πινακι' οι το` με' τρον τοñ καρποñ τοñ τε παρα` τοñ ν δεμα' ρχον κατα` το` [ν δ][εñ]μον hε' καστον και` τοñ παρα` τοñ ν πο' λεον κατα` τε` ν πο' λιν hεκα' σ[τεν] [κ]αταθε' ντον ε» ν τε τοñ ι ’ Ελευσινι' οι ’ Ελευσι' νι και` ε’ ν τοñ ι βολ[ευτ]ε[ρ]ι' οι. ε’ παγγε' λλεν δε` τε` ν βολε` ν και` τεñσι α» λλεσι πο' λεσιν [τ]εñ[σι] hε[λ]λενικεñσιν α‘ πα' σεσι, hο' ποι α› ν δοκεñι αυ’ τεñι δυνατο` ν εñ’ ναι, λ[ε' γο]ντας με` ν κατα` hα` ’Αθεναιñοι α’ πα' ρχονται και` οι‘ χσυ' μμαχοι, ε’ κε' [νοι][ς] δε` με` ε’ πιτα' ττοντας, κελευ' σοντας δε` α’ πα' ρχεσθαι, ε’ α` ν βο' λονται, [κ]ατα` τα` πα' τρια και` τε` ν μαντει' αν τε` ν ε’ γ Δελφοñ ν. παραδε' χεσθαι δε` και` παρα` του' τον τοñ ν πο' λεον ε’ α' ν τις α’ πα' γει το` ς ιεροποιο` ς κατα` ταυ’ τα' . θυ' εν δε` α’ πο` με` ν τοñ πελανοñ καθο' τι α› ν Ευ’ μολπι' δαι [ε’ χσhε][γοñ ]νται, τρι' ττοιαν δε` βο' αρχον χρυσο' κερον τοιñν θεοιñν hεκα[τε' ρ][αι α’ ]πο` τοñ ν κριθοñ ν και` τοñ ν πυροñ ν και` τοñ ι Τριπτολε' μοι και` τοñ ι [θε]οñ ι και` τεñι θεαñ ι και` τοñ ι Ευ’ βο' λοι hιερειñον hεκα' στοι τε' λεον και` τεñι ’Αθεναι' αι βοñ ν χρυσο' κερον· τα` ς δε` α» λλας κριθα` ς και` πυρο` ς α’ ποδομε' νος το` ς hιεροποιο` ς μετα` τεñς βολεñς α’ ναθε' ματα α’ νατιθε' ναι τοιñν θεοιñν, ποιεσαμε' νος αττ’ α› ν τοñ ι δε' μοι τοñ ι ’Αθεναι' ον δοκεñι, και` ε’ πιγρα' φεν τοιñς α’ ναθε' μασιν, hο' τι α’ πο` τοñ καρποñ τεñς α’ παρχεñς α’ νεθε' θε, και` hελλε' νον το` ν α’ παρχο' μενον· [τοιñ]ς δε` ταυñ τα ποιοñ σι πολλα` α’ γαθα` εñ’ ναι και` ευ’ καρπι' αν και` πολυκαρπι' α[ν, hοι' ]τινες α› ν [μ]ε` α’ δικοñ σι ’Αθεναι' ος μεδε` τε` ν πο' λιν τε` ν ’Αθεναι' ον μεδε` το` θεο' . v [Λ]α' μπον ειòπε· τα` με` ν α» λλα καθα' περ αι‘ χσυγγραφαι` τεñς α’ παρχεñς τοñ καρποñ τοιñν θεοιñν· τα` ς δε` χσυνγραφα` ς και` το` φσε' φισμα το' δε α’ ναγραφσα' το hο γραμματευ` ς hο τεñς βολεñς ε’ ν στε' λαιν δυοιñν λιθι' ναιν και` καταθε' το τε` ν με` ν ’ Ελευσιñνι ε’ ν τοñ ι hιεροñ ι τε` ν δε` hετε' ραν [ε’ ]μ πο' λει· hοι δε` πολεται` α’ πομισθοσα' ντον το` στε' λα· hοι δε` κολ[ακρ]ε' ται δο' ντον το` α’ ργυ' ριον. ταυñ τα με` ν πε[ρ]ι` τεñς α’ παρχεñς τοñ καρ[π]οñ [τ]οιñν θεοιñν α’ ναγρα' φσαι ε’ ς το` στε' λ[α], μεñνα δε` ÷÷÷ ε’ μβα' λλεν hεκατονβαιοñ να το` ν νε' ον α» ρχοντα το` ν δε` βας[ι]λε' α hορι' σαι τα` hιερα` τα` ε’ ν τ[οñ ]ι Πελαργικοñ ι, και` το` λοιπο` ν με` ε’ νhιδρυ' εσθαι βομο` ς ε’ ν τοñ ι Πελαργικοñ ι α» νευ τεñς βολεñς και` τοñ δε' μο, μεδε` το` ς λι' θος τε' μνεν ε’ κ τοñ [Π]ελαργικοñ , μεδε` γεñν ε’ χσα' γεν μεδε` λι' θος. ε’ α` ν δε' τις παραβαι' νει v

89

90

Paul – Missionary Theologian

τ÷÷÷ου' τον τι, α’ ποτινε' το πεντακοσι' ας δραχμα' ς, ε’ σαγγελλε' το δε` h[ο] βασιλευ` ς ε’ ς τε` ν βολε' ν. περι` δε` τοñ ε’ λαι' ο α’ παρχεñς χσυγγρα' φ60 σας Λα' μπον ε’ πιδειχσα' το τεñι βολεñι ε’ πι` τεñς ε’ να' τες πρυτανει' ας· hε δε` βολε` ε’ ς το` ν δεñμον ε’ χσενενκε' το ε’ πα' ναγκες. [Timo]tel[e]s of Acharnai was Secretary. Resolved by the Boule and the People, Kekropis held the prytany, Timote[les] was Secretary, Kykneas presided. The following the Commissioners (syngrapheis) drafted: First fruits shall be offered to the two goddesses, in accordance with ancestral custom and the (5) oracular response from Delphi, by the Athenians (as follows): from each one hundred medimnoi of barley not less than one-sixth (of one medimnos); of wheat, from each hundred medimnoi, not less than one-twelfth. If anyone produces more grain than [this amount] or less, he shall offer first fruits in the same proportion. Collection shall be made by [the] Demarchs deme by deme and they shall deliver it to the Hieropoioi (10) from Eleusis at Eleusis. (The Athenians) shall construct three (storage) pits at Eleusis in accordance with the ancestral custom, at whatever place seems to the Hieropoioi and the architect to be suitable, out of the funds of the two goddesses. The grain shall be put in there which they receive from the Demarchs. The allies as well shall offer first fruits according to the same procedure. The cities shall have collectors (15) chosen for the grain by whatever means seems best to them for grain collection. When it has been collected, they shall send it to Athens, and those who have brought it shall deliver it to the Hieropoioi from Eleusis at Eleusis. If (the latter) do not take delivery of it within five days vv after it has been reported to them, although it was offered by (the envoys) of whatever city [was the source] (20) of the grain, the Hieropoioi at their euthynai shall be fined one thousand drachmas [each]. They shall also receive it from the Demarchs in accordance with the same procedure. [Heralds] shall be chosen by the Boule, which shall send them to the cities announcing [the present] decree of the People, in the present instance as quickly as possible and in the future, whenever it (the Boule) thinks best. Let an exhortation be pronounced both by the Hierophant and [the] (25) Daidouchos for the Hellenes to make offerings of the first fruits at the Mysteries in accordance with the ancestral custom and the oracular response from Delphi. After writing on a notice board the weight of the grain (received) from the Demarchs according to the demes and of that (received) from the cities according to city, (the Hieropoioi) shall set up (copies of) it in the Eleusinion in Eleusis and in the Bouleuterion. (30) The Boule shall also send a proclamation to the other cities, [the] Hellenic cities in their entirety, wherever it seems to the Boule to be feasible, telling them the principles on which the Athenians and their allies are offering first fruits, and not ordering them but urging them to offer first fruits, if they so desire, in accordance with the ancestral custom and the oracular response from Delphi. The acceptance (35) of any (grain) that anyone may bring from these cities as well shall be the duty of the Hieropoioi according to the same procedure. They shall perform sacrifice with the pelanos in accordance with what the Eumolpidai [dictate]; and (they shall sacrifice) the triple sacrifice, first, a bull with gilt horns to each of the two goddesses separately, out of (proceeds from) the barley and the wheat; and to Triptolemos and to the [god] and the goddess and Eubolos a full-grown victim each; and (40) to Athena a bull with gilt horns. The rest of the barley and wheat shall be sold by the Hieropoioi together with the Boule and they shall have votive offerings dedicated to the two goddesses, having made whatever seems best to the People of the Athenians, and they shall inscribe on the votive offerings that it was out of the first fruits of the grain that they were dedicated, and (the name) of every Hellene who made the offering of first fruits. [For those] who do this (45) there shall be many benefits in abundance of good harvests if they are men who do not injure the Athenians or the city of the Athenians or the two goddesses. Lampon made the motion: Let all the rest be as (advised) in the draft-decree (of the Commissioners) for the first fruits of

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

91

the grain for the goddesses. But their draft-decree and this decree shall be inscribed by the Secretary of the Boule on two stelai of marble (50) and set up, the one in the sanctuary in Eleusis, and the other on the Akropolis. The Poletai are to let out the contract for the two stelai. The Kolakretai are to supply the money. These things concerning the first fruits of the grain to the two goddesses shall be inscribed on the two stelai. There shall be intercalation of the month Hekatombaion by the new Archon. The King (Archon) shall delimit the sanctuaries in the (55) Pelargikon, and in the future altars shall not be erected in the Pelargikon without the consent of the Boule and the People, nor shall (anyone) cut stones out of the Pelargikon, or remove soil or stones. If anyone transgresses any of these regulations, he shall be fined five hundred drachmas and impeached by the King (Archon) before the Boule. As to the first fruits of olive oil, a draft-decree (60) shall be produced by Lampon before the Boule in the ninth prytany and the Boule shall be obliged to bring it before the People.

The Athenians’ Decree on the First Fruits, which should be dated to the 430s BC,11 introduced by the commission of the syngrapheis, was recorded on two stelae and set up on the Acropolis and in Eleusis, respectively. The decree describes the administration of the collection of 1/600 of all barley and 1/1,200 of all wheat grown in Attica and by Athens’ allies, and perhaps by other Greek cities, to be sent to Eleusis. The two goddesses are Demeter and Kore. The hieropoioi (“sacrifice makers”)12 are the administrators of the money from the aparche, located on the Acropolis (ε’ μ’ πο' λει), initially appointed by the Eleusinians, later in the century by the Athenian State, probably the Boule (Council); at the time of the Decree of the First Fruits they were the sole official body in charge of all aspects of the aparche as well as of general financial duties and construction (of additional warehouses). By 422/1 BC the hieropoioi shared jurisdiction over the financial affairs of the Two Goddesses with a board of epistatai (IG I3 32); by the end of epistatai fifth century they had assumed complete control of the financial aspects of the administration of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.13 The hierophant is the highest official in Eleusis. The Pelargikon is the early (pre-fifth century BC) circuit wall that enclosed a portion of the lower (western) slopes of the Acropolis and perhaps the entire area.14 The basileus mentioned in line 54 was one of nine archontes: the archon was responsible for religious festivals, for heiresses and orphans ─────────────── 11 SEG LX 65; Clinton, Eleusis, II, 52; Maureen B. Cavanaugh, Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion, and Politics in the Fifth Century B.C., American Classical Studies 35 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 73-98; C. Tuplin, in Gnomon 71 (1999) 422, against Smarczyk, Religionspolitik, 184–216 passim; Meiggs and Lewis, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 217.222 date the inscription to 422 B.C. 12 Ilias N. Arnaoutoglou, Thusias heneka kai sunousias. Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens, Yearbook of the Research Centre for the History of Greek Law 37, Sup 4 (Athens: Academy of Athens, 2003), 107: The hieropoioi were officials of the city which “had the task of helping in the organization of the four-year festivals”. 13 Cavanaugh, Eleusis and Athens, 75–77; vgl. IG I3 386–387. 14 John M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 19, 254; Clinton, Eleusis II, 50.

92

Paul – Missionary Theologian

and for lawsuits concerning family matters; the basileus was responsible for most religious matters and for murder trials; the polemar-chos was responsible for some religious matters and for lawsuits involving non-citizens; the six thesmothetai were responsible for the jury courts and for most of the public lawsuits. After their year in office, the archontes became lifelong members of the Areopagus.15 The decree stipulates in lines 55–56 that no altar (βομο' ς) can be set up in the Pelargikon without a decision of the Boule and the Demos (α» νευ τεñς βολεñς και` τοñ δε' μο).16 Anyone who transgresses (παραβαι' νει) this law shall be prosecuted by the basileus before the Boule (lines 58–59). The decree does not mention new deities, but the stipulation that it is the prerogative of the Boule and the Demos to decide whether an altar can be set up suggests that the Boule and the Demos would have to make a decision in the case of the introduction of the worship of new or “foreign” deities as well. 2. IG II2 337 (333/2 BC)17 1 [θ] Ε Ο Ι ε’ πι` Νικοκρα' τους α» ρχοντος ε’ πι` τηñ ς Αι’ γειñδος πρω' της πρυτανει' ας· τω ñ ν προε' δ5 ρων ε’ πεψη' φιζεν Θεο' φιλος Φηγου' σιος· ε» δοξεν τηñ ι βουλειñ· ’Αντι' δοτος ’Απολλοδω' ρου Συπαλη' ττιος ειòπε─────────────── 15 Cf. P. J. Rhodes, Art. “Archontes”, BNP I, 1028–29; Peter J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Second ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993). 16 Clinton, Eleusis II, 51 surmises that “the establishment of the boundaries of the sanctuaries within the Pelargikon and the prohibition against building altars were perhaps measures that were related to the removal of earth and stone for a building project”. 17 Johannes Kirchner, Inscriptiones Graecae II et III. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Partes I–III, Editio Secunda (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1913–40), No. 337; Syll3 280; I. Kition T 159 (Marguerite Yon, Kition dans les textes: Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions, Kition-Bamboula 5 [Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations, 2004], No. 159); Paul F. Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs. Thiases, éranes, orgéons. Avec le texte des inscriptions relatives à ces associations (Paris: Klincksieck, 1873), No. 1; Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques, No. 34; Cynthia J. Schwenk, Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws and Decrees of the “Lycourpan Era”, 338–322 B.C. (Chicago: Ares, 1985), No. 27; Brodersen, Günther, and Schmitt, Historische griechische Inschriften in Übersetzung, II, No. 262; Peter J. Rhodes and Robin Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 359–323 B.C., Second ed., London Association of Classical Teachers 9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), No. 91; Laurent Bricault, Recueil d’inscriptions concernant les cultes isaiques (RICIS), Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 31 (Paris: Boccard, 2005), I, 3–4 (No. 101); Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, No. 3; translation from ibid., 28. Location: Athens, Epigraphical Museum, EM 7173.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

93

ν· περι` ω ð ν λε' γουσιν οι‘ Κιτ10 ιειñς περι` τηñ ς ι‘ δρυ' σειως τηñ ι ’Αφροδι' τηι τουñ ι‘ ερουñ , ε’ ψηφι' σθαι τειñ βουλειñ του` ς προε' δρους οι‹ α› ν λα' χωσι προεδρευ' ειν ει’ ς τη` ν πρ15 ω' την ε’ κκλησι' αν προσαγαγειñν αυ’ του` ς και` χρηματι' σαι, γνω' μην δε` ξυνβα' λλεσθαι τηñ ς βουληñ ς ει’ ς το` ν δηñ μον ο« τι δοκειñ τηñ ι βουλειñ 20 α’ κου' σαντα το` ν δηñ μον τω ñν Κιτιει' ων περι` τηñ ς ι‘ δρυ' σειως τουñ ι‘ ερουñ και` α» λλου ’Αθηναι' ων τουñ βουλομε' νου βουλευ' σασθαι ο« τι α› ν αυ’ 25 τω ñ ι δοκειñ α» ριστον ειòναι. ε’ πι` Νικοκρα' τους α» ρχοντος ε’ πι` τηñ ς Πανδιονι' δος δευτε' ρας πρυτανει' ας· τω ñν προε' δρων ε’ πεψη' φιζεν Φα30 νο' στρατος Φιλαι' δης· ε» δοξεν τω ñ ι δη' μωι· Λυκοñ ργος Λυκο' φρονος Βουτα' δης ειòπεν· περι` ω ð ν οι‘ ε» νποροι οι‘ Κιτιειñς ε» δοξαν ε» ννομα ι‘ κ35 ετευ' ειν αι’ τουñ ντες το` ν δηñ μον χωρι' ου ε» νκτησιν ε’ ν ω ð ι ι‘ δρυ' σονται ι‘ ερο` ν ’Αφροδι' της, δεδο' χθαι τω ñ ι δη' μωι δουñ ναι τοιñς ε’ μπο' ροις 40 τω ñ ν Κιτιε' ων ε» νκτησι[ν] χ[ω]ρι' ου ε’ ν ω ð ι ι‘ δρυ' σονται το` ι‘ ερο` ν τηñ ς ’Αφροδι' της καθα' περ και` οι‘ Αι’ γυ' πτιοι το` τηñ ς » Ισιδος ι‘ ερο` ν «ιδρυντ45 αι. Gods! In the year that Nikokrates was archon, in the first prytany of the (tribe of) Aigeis, (5) Theophilos of Pegaea, (chair) of the presiders, put the following to a vote: resolved by the Boule (the motion that) Antidotos son of Apollodoros of Sypalettos made: In regard to what the Kitians propose (10) concerning the establishment of the temple to Aphrodite, it is resolved by the Council that the presiders, who are chosen by lot to preside in the first (15) Assembly, shall bring them forward and deal with the business and put to the People (dēmos) the proposal of the Council: that it seems good to the Council (20) that the People, having listened to the Kitians regarding the foundation of the temple and to any other Athenian who wishes (to speak), (25) should decide whatever seems best.

94

Paul – Missionary Theologian In the year that Nikokrates was archon, during the second prytany, of (the tribe of) Pandionis, the question was put by (30) Phanostratos of the deme of Philaidae, (chair) of the presiders; resolved by the People (the motion that) Lykourgos son of Lykophron, of the deme of Boutadai, made: Since the Kitian merchants are making a legitimate request (35) in asking the People’s assembly for (the right to) lease the land on which they propose to establish a temple of Aphrodite–: be it resolved by the People (dēmos) to grant to the merchants (40) of the Kitians the lease of the land to establish the temple of Aphrodite, in the same way that the Egyptians also established the temple of Isis.

The first section of the decree (lines 1–25) records the motion of Antidotos,18 dated with reference to Nikokrates, archon in 333/2 BC, and the prytany or executive council of the tribe of Aigei that held the presidence of the Council in the month the motion was brought before the Council. When the motion was introduced, Theophilos of Pegaea was the chair of the board of proedroi which was the board that held the presidency of the Council. The motion was to place the matter of the Kitians’ proposal regarding the establishment of a temple dedicated to the worship of Aphrodite before the entire Athenian Assembly; the motion evidently came without a recommendation of the Council. 19 Kition on Cyprus was under Phoenician control until the Hellenistic period. The Aphrodite whom the Kitian merchants worshipped is called Syrian Aphrodite or Aphrodite Ourania in other inscriptions (e.g., IG II2 1337; 4636; 3637); in Kition a temple of Aphrodite–Astarte has been excavated.20 The second section of the decree (lines 26–45), dated later in 333/2 BC, records the motion, introduced by Lykourgos, who controlled Athens’ fiscal policy from 338–326 B.C.21 Lykourgos had an active interest in religious matters and may have supported Kitian and Egyptian cults on account of the importance of Egyptians and Cyprians in Athen’s economy regarding the importation of grain.22 Lykourgos’ motion is formally moved by Phanostratos, one of the proedroi. The phrase ε» δοξεν τηñ ι βουλειñ (line 6–7) introduces the decree of the Council, the phrase ε» δοξεν τω ñ ι δη' μωι (lines 30–31; cf. lines 35– 36.38–39) introduces the decree of the People.23 The People grant (δουñ ναι, line 39) the Kitian merchants’ petition to “lease of the land on which they propose to establish a temple of Aphrodite” (ε» νκτη─────────────── 18 Cf. the discussion in Foucart, Associations, 128–132; Jon D. Mikalson, Athenian Popular Religion (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983), 93; Versnel, “Paradox”, 122 n. 108; Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 26–32. 19 Schwenk, Athens, 144 argues that an open probouleuma does not necessarily signal the opposition of the Council; vgl. Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 29. 20 Kyriacos Nicolaou, The Historical Topography of Kition, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 43 (Göteborg: P. Åström, 1976), 105–8. Aphrodite Ourania is evidently a Hellenized version of Astarte; cf. Herodotos 1.105. 21 Vgl. M. Weißenberger, Art. “Lycurgus [9]”, BNP VII, 933–35. 22 Schwenk, Athens, 145; Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 32. 23 Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 28 mistakenly translate ε» δοξεν τω ñ ι δη' μωι „resolved by the Council“; correct lines 35–36.38–39.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

95

σι[ν] χ[ω]ρι' ου ε’ ν ω ð ι ι‘ δρυ' σονται το` ι‘ ερο` ν τηñ ς ’Αφροδι' της; lines 40–42). The favourable decision of the People refers to the precedent of the Egyptians who were granted the right to establish the temple of Isis, evidently established in the Piraeus shortly before the Kitian decree.24 The decree lacks a formula ordering that the decree shall be recorded on a stele and erected near the temple that the Kitian merchants propose to build (e.g. IG II2 237, lines 31–38). This probably means that the Kitians erected the stele at their own expense.25 The decree was set up in the new temple, in the Piraeus,26 “an action that served to establish their legal claim on the land” as non-citizens “were not normally permitted either to own land or to build on it”.27 The grant of ε» νκτησις presupposes the existence, and probably legitimacy, of the Kitian cult.28 Both the Egyptians and the Kitians may have formed cult associations, perhaps sharing cultic space in another temple, before applying for a grant of land.29 While some think that the decree merely concerned the right to acquire land (ε» νκτησις),30 others argue, with more justification given the context of the Athenians’ aversion to new deities and cults, that the decree IG II2 337 constitutes evidence for the necessity of approval for the introduction of a new cult.31

─────────────── 24 On Isis in Athens cf. Ronda R. Simms, “Isis in Classical Athens”, CJ 84 (1988–89): 216– 21; generally see Fabio Mora, Prosopografia Isiaca, 2 vols., EPRO 113 (Leiden: Brill, 1990). 25 Marcus N. Todd, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985 [1933–1948]), II, 251; Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 29. 26 Cf. Peter Liddel, “The Places of Publication of Athenian State Decrees from the 5th Century BC to the 3rd Century AD”, ZPE 143 (2003): 79–93, 82. 27 Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 29–30, with reference to Peter J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 97–98; Jan Pečirka, The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague: Universita Karlova, 1966), 155; SEG XL, 98. 28 Arnaoutoglou, Thusias, 90, followed by Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 30. 29 Robert Parker, Athenian Relilgion: A History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 337–38; Martti Leiwo, “Religion, or Other Reasons? Private Associations in Athens”, in Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change, ed. J. Frösén (Helsinki: Finnish Institute at Athens, 1997), 103–17, here 115; cf. Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 30. 30 Franz Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens, Nachdruck (Leipzig: Teubner, 1967 [1909]), 81; Max Radin, The Legislation of the Greeks and Romans on Corporations (New York: Tuttle, 1910), 52; Marie-Françoise Baslez, “Tolérance et intolérance religieuses dans la cité grecque”, Revue de la société Ernest Renan 38 (1988–1889): 10–18, 14; Nicholas F. Jones, The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 40; thus evidently also Kloppenborg and Ascough, Associations I, 30. 31 Foucart, Associations, 127–28; Erich G. L. Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen (Stuttgart: Hirzel, 1969 [1896]), 168; Derenne, Procès d’impiété, 224–27; Versnel, “Paradox”, 122–31.

96

Paul – Missionary Theologian

3. I. Milet VI.3 1224 (300–250 BC)32

5

10

15

20

– – – ΤΟΝΟΜΟ – – – – – – – – – – [τ]ηñ ς τε βουληñ ς [και` τουñ δη' μου] τα` α» ρισ- v. [τα] και` τα` βε' λις[τ]α [– – – α’ πο?]δι' δοσθα v. δε` και` τ[ου` ]ς ι‘ ερε' ας – – – – – – – – με' νην τουñ [’Α]ρτεμισιω ñ νος μ[ενο` ς κατα` το` ψη' φισμα] τουñ δη' μου, κυ[ρω]θε' ντος δε` [τουñ ψηφι' σματος – – – – – – – σ]θαι το` ν δηñ [μο]ν ει»ς τε τη` ν θ[υσι' αν και` τη` ν α» γερσιν ο‘ π]ο' σον α› μ φα[ι' ][νη]ται [α’ ]ργυ' ρ[ιο]ν ι‘ [κανο' ν· του` ς δε` α’ νατα' ]κτας του’ ς ...ΠΙΟ..ΤΟΥΣ – – – – – – – – – – – – – – ον τω ñ ι τε v. [τα]μι' α, {τε} και` το[ιñς – – – – – – – τηñ ι ε’ ]τε' ραι ε’ ξαμη' νωι και` καταχωρ[ι' σαι ει’ ς το` ν ’Ανθεστ[ηρω ñ να μηñ να· v. το` δε` ψη' φισμα το' δ[ε α’ ναγρα' ψαι ει’ ς τη` ν] παραστα' δα τουñ ναουñ προγρα[ψαμε' νους το` ψη' φισμα το` ] γενο' μενον v. περι` τηñ ς ι‘ δ[ρυ' σεως τηñ ς τουñ ι‘ ερουñ ? και` το` ν ε’ κ] τηñ ς ε’ περω[τ]η' σεως τω ñ [ι δη' μωι περι` του' των] γενο' μενον χρη[σ][μ]ο' ν, τηñ ς δε` [α’ ναγραφηñ ς ε’ πιμεληθηñ ]ναι τουñ ς τειχο[π]οιου` ς μετα` τουñ α’ ρ[χιτε' κτονος, το` δε` ] γενο' μενον α’ να' λωμα ει’ ς τη` ν [α’ ναγραφη` ν δουñ ναι] το` ν ταμι' αν ε’ φ’ ο v. α› ν η‘ μι' σθωσις [γε' νηται ε’ κ τω ñ ν ει’ ς τα` κατα` ] ψηφι' σμα- v. τα ε’ ξη, ρημε' νων. ε» δο[ξε τω ñ ι δη' μωι και` ει’ ς λευ' [κωμα α’ να[γ]ρα' ψαι το` ψηφισμα, [– – – σθαι δε` ει’ ς με` ν τη` ν [α» γερσιν [σ]τατηñ ρας πε' ντε, [ει’ ς δε` τη' ν θυσι' αν α» λλους] στατηñ ρας [π]ε' ντε. vac. … The best and noblest measures that the Boule and the Demos decided … The priests shall sell (or: one shall sell to the priests ?) … in the month (5) Artemision according to the decision of the People; after the decision takes effect … from the People for the sacrifice and for the collection to the amount of money which he deems sufficient. The Anataktai who administer the revenue (10) shall allocate (?) the sum to Tamias and … in the second half-year and use (this expenditure) for the Month Anthesterion. This decision shall be recorded on the antis of the temple, at the front the decision that has been taken regarding the establishment of the sanctuary and regarding the oracle (15) given to the People in response to the inquiry. Responsible for the recording shall be the commission for wall building (Teichopoioi) together with the architect; the expenses that accrue for the recording shall be paid by the Tamias during whose period of office the contract was placed, from the fund established for expenditures (20) according to the decrees (of the People). The People decided to record the decree on a white-washed (wooden) board as well and to … for the collection five staters, for the sacrifice five additional staters.

─────────────── 32 Peter Herrmann, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt, Inschriften von Milet III, Milet VI. iii (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 141–43 (No. 1224: Volksbeschluß über die Einrichtung eines neuen Kultes). The stele is missing since at least 1912. Inv. 311. Translation adapted from W. Günther, in Inschriften von Milet III, 142.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

97

The marble block, found in two segments, with the middle third of the text missing, was part of the antis of a temple.33 The date (first half of the third century BC) is derived both from the shape of the letters Α, Π, Σ and the fact that the costs for the recording of the decree on the marble block were not paid from the funds of the τειχοποι¨κα' (as later in the third century BC)34 but from the funds of the τα` κατα` ψηφι' σματα ε’ ξη, ρημε' να (lines 19–20; cf. I. Didyma 480, 24–25).The architect who is responsible for the recording of the decree on the marble block assists the commission for wall building (Teichopoioi),35 lines 15–17; he is mentioned here for the first time in this role, more regularly in the second half of the third century. The city was determined to control the collection (α» γερσις) – a common cult practice in Asia Minor36 – whose monies went to the priest(s). The sum of five staters was collected periodically, possibly monthly. If the missing text of line 14 is correctly supplied, the decree concerns the founding, i.e., establishment of a sanctuary (ι«δρυ' σις τουñ ι‘ ερουñ ) in connection with the introduction of a new cult. Since the beginning of the inscription is missing, neither the temple nor the cult can be determined whose foundation and operation the decree regulates. The later decision regarding the cult of Artemis Bulephoros Skiris (I. Milet 1225)37 allows us to reconstruct the legal procedure: first decision regarding the dispatch of a delegation of Theopropoi to the oracle of Didyma; response of the oracle; submission of the oracle’s response in the People’s assembly; final decision after the People’s vote; recording of the decision. The final lines of the inscription record the funds that the city provides for the sacrifices and the collection, which were decided upon after the passing of the decree (lines 6–11).

─────────────── 33 The following remarks summarize the commentary of Wolfgang Günther, in Herrmann, Günther, and Ehrhardt, Inschriften von Milet III, 142–143. 34 Cf. Helmut Müller, Milesische Volksbeschlüsse. Eine Untersuchung zur Verfassungsgeschichte der Stadt Milet in hellenistischer Zeit, Hypomnemata 47 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 39–43. 35 Günther, in Herrmann, Günther, and Ehrhardt, Inschriften von Milet III, 7 (No. 1026). 36 Cf. Pierre Debord, Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’anatolie gréco-romaine, EPRO 88 (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 196. 37 Herrmann, Günther, and Ehrhardt, Inschriften von Milet III, 143–44 (No. 1225; date: 234/33 BC); cf. Michael Wörrle, “Die Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos II: Das Priestertum der Athena Latmia”, Chiron 20 (1990): 19–58, here 31–33.

98

Paul – Missionary Theologian

4. IG II2 1283 (240/39 BC)38 1 Θ Ε Ο Ι. ε’ πι` Πολυστρα' του α» ρχοντος μηνο` ς ‘ Εκατομβαιω ñ νος ο’ γδο' ηι ι‘ σταμε' νου· α’ γοραñ 5ι κυρι' αι· Σωσι' ας ‘ Ιπποκρα' του ειòπεν· vv ε’ πειδη` τουñ δη' μου τουñ ’Αθηναι' ων δεδωκο' τος τοιñς Θραιξι` μ5 ο' νοις τω ñ ν α» λλων ε’ θνω ñ ν τη` ν ε» γκτησιν και` τη` ν «ιδρυσιν τουñ ι‘ ερουñ κατα` τη` ν μ[α]ντει' αν τη` ν ε’ γ Δωδω' νης και` τη` ν πονπη` ν πε' νπειν α’ πο` τηñ ς ε‘ στι' ας τηñ ς ε’ κκ τουñ πρυτανει' ου και` νυñ ν οι‘ η‘ ι[ρη]με' νοι ε’ ν τω ñ ι α» στει κατασκευα' σασθαι ι‘ ερο` ν οι»ονται δειñν οι’ κει' ως διακειñ[σθ]αι προ` ς α’ λλη' λους· ο« πως α› ν ουò ν φα10 [ι' ν]ωνται και` οι‘ ο’ ργεω ñ νες τω ñ ι τε τηñ ς πο' λεως νο' μωι πειθαρχουñ ντες ο‹ ς κελευ' ει του` ς Θραñ ικας πε' μπειν τη` μ πομπη` ν ει’ [ς Π]ε[ι]ραιαñ και` προ` ς του` ς ε’ ν τω ñ ι α» στει ο’ ργεω ñ νας οι’ κει' ως [δ]ιακει' μενοι· v α’ γαθειñ τυ' χει δεδο' χθαι τοιñς ο’ ργεω ñ σιν v [τη` ][ν με` ν] πονπη` [ν ω‘ ]σ α› ν [ε« ]λωνται οι‘ ε’ ν τω ñ ι α» στει συνκαθι[στα' να]15 ι τη` μ πομπη` ν και` τη' νδε υò ν ε’ κ τουñ πρυτανει' ου ει’ ς Πει[ραιαñ ] πορευ' εσσθαι ε’ ν τω ñ ι αυ’ τω ñ ι τοιñς ε’ κ τουñ Πειραιε' ως· τ[ου` ς δε` ε’ ]ν τω ñ ι Πειραιειñ ε’ πιμελητα` ς υ‘ ποδε' χεσσθαι του' του[ς παρε' ]χοντας ε» ν τε τω ñ ι Νυμφαι' ωι σφ καθα' περ η« ρμοττεν αυ’ τω ñ ι· πεφιλανθρωπηκω` ς δε` και` πλει' ονας ε’ ν τοιñς α‘ ρμο' ζουσιν καιροιñς, ει»ρηκεν ─────────────── 67 Cf. Marie-Françoise Baslez, “Les immigrés orientaux en Grèce: tolérance et intolérance de la cité”, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 7 (1996): 39–50, 47. Hélène Siard, “La crypte du Sarapieion A de Délos et le procès d’Apollonios”, BCH 122 (1998): 460–86, reports the discovery of a subterranean channel which linked the crypt of Sarapieion A with the lower reservoir of the Inopos, which may suggest that the private interference in the public water supply, which occurred after the construction of the Sarapieion A temple, may have resulted in the legal prosecution of Apollonios; cf. Moyer, “Notes”, 103 n. 9. 68 Versnel, “Paradox”, 120; cf. Alvar, Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation, and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis, and Mithras, 334–335. 69 Engelmann, Aretalogy of Sarapis, 46. 70 Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey, Inscriptions de Délos. Décrets postérieurs à 166 av. J.C. (No 1497–1524). Dédicaces postérieurs à 166 av. J.C. (No 1525–2219). Textes divers, listes et catalogues, fragments divers postérieurs à 166 av. J.C. (No 2529–2879), Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres (Paris: Champion, 1937), No. 1519; Ascough, Harland, and Kloppenborg, Sourcebook, No. 223; translation adapted from Ascough et al. (Harland). Location: Louvre, Paris.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

111

δε` και` υ‘ πε` ρ τηñ ς συνο' δου ε’ ν τω ñ ι α’ ναγκαιοτα' τωι 25 καιρω ñ ι τα` δι' καια μετα` πα' σης προθυμι' ας και` φιλοτιμι' ας και` ε’ δε' ξατο' τε το` ν θι' ασον ε’ φ’ η‘ με' ρας δυ' ο υ‘ πε` ρ τουñ υ‘ ουñ · [ΙΝ] «ινα ουò ν και` ει’ ς το` ν λοιπο` ν χρο' νον α’ παρα' κλητον ε‘ αυτο` ν παρασκευα' ζηι και` η‘ συ' νοδος φαι' νηται φροντι' ζουσα τω ñ ν διακειμε' νων α’ νδρω ñ ν ει’ ς ε‘ αυ30 τη` ν ευ’ νοικω ñ ς και` α’ ξι' ας χα' ριτας α’ ποδιδουñ σα τοιñς ευ’ εργε' ταις και` ε« τεροι πλει' ονες τω ñ ν ε’ κ τηñ ς τοιñς συνο' δου δια` τη` ν ει’ ς τουñ τον ευ’ χαριστι' αν ζηλωται` γι' νωνται και` παραμιλλω ñ νται φιλοτιμου' μενοι περιποιειñν τι τειñ συνο' δωι· α’ γαθειñ τυ' χει· 35 δεδο' χθαι τω ñ ι κοινω ñ ι τω ñ ν Τυρι' ων ‘ Ηρακλειστω ñν ε’ μπο' ρων και` ναυκλη' ρων ε’ παινε' σαι Πα' τρωνα Δωροθε' ου και` στεφανω ñ σαι αυ’ το` ν κατ’ ε’ νιαυτο` ν χρυσω ñ ι στεφα' νωι ε’ ν ταιñς συντε[λου]με' ναις θυσι' αις τω ñ ι Ποσειδω ñ νι α’ ρετηñ ς ε« νεκεν και` καλοκαγαθι' 40 ας ηð ς ε» χων διατελειñ ει’ ς το` κοινο` ν τω ñ ν Τυρι' ων ε’ μπο' ρων και` ναυκλη' ρων· α’ ναθειñναι δε` αυ’ τουñ και` ει’ κο' να γραπτη` ν ε’ ν τω ñ ι τεμε' νει τουñ ‘ Ηρακλε' ους και` α’ λλαχηñ ουð α› ν αυ’ το` ς βου' ληται· ε» ςτω δε` α’ συ' μβολος και` α’ λειτου' ργητος ε’ ν ταιñς 45 γινομε' ναις συνο' δοις πα' σαις· ε’ πιμελε` ς δε` ε» στω τοιñς καθισταμε' νοις α’ ρχιθιασι' ταις και` ταμι' αις και` τω ñ ι γραμματειñ ο« πως ε’ ν ταιñς γινομε' ναις θυσι' αις και` συνο' δοις α’ ναγορευ' ηται κατα` ταυ' την τη` ν α’ ναγο' ρευσιν· η‘ συ' νοδος τω ñ ν Τυρι' ων ε’ μπο' 50 ρων και` ναυκλη' ρων στεφανοιñ Πα' τρωνα Δωροθε' ου ευ’ εργε' την. α’ ναγραψα' τωσαν δε` το' δε το` ψη' φισμα ει’ ς στη' λην λιθι' νην και` στησα' τωσαν ε’ ν τω ñ ν τεμε' νει τουñ ‘ Ηρακλε' ους· το` δε` ε’ σο' μενον α’ να' λωμ[α] ει’ ς ταυñ τα μερισα' τω ο‘ ταμι' ας και` ο‘ α’ ρχιθιασι' της. 55 ε’ πι` α’ ρχιθιασι' του Διονυσι' ου τουñ Διονυσι' ου, ι‘ ερατευ' οντος δε` Πα' τρωνος τουñ Δωροθε' ου. ο‘ δηñ μος 60 ο‘ ’Αθηναι' ων. η‘ συ' νοδος τω ñ ν Τυρι' ων ε’ μπο' ρων και` ναυκλη' ρων. When Phaidrias was archon on the eighth of the month of Elaphebolion, during an assembly in the temple of Apollo: Dionysios, son of Dionysios the head of the archithiasitēs, said: Since Patron, son of Dorotheos, who is a member of the guild, approached (5) the assembly and reaffirmed his existing goodwill towards the guild, and because he has fulfilled numerous needs without hesitation and continues to speak and do what is advanta-

112

Paul – Missionary Theologian geous for the koinon and for the guild all the time in accordance with his own existing goodwill toward everyone of the merchants (10) and shipowners who sail on the sea. Now adding even more goodwill with the goodwill of the gods, he invited the koinon to dispatch an embassy to the Demos of the Athenians so that a piece of land might be granted to them where they would build a sanctuary of Heracles, the cause of the greatest good things that (15) happen to people and the founder of our original homeland. Being chosen ambassador to the Boule and the Demos of the Athenians, he sailed, readily taking upon himself the expenses from his own resources and demonstrating the goodwill of the guild towards the Demos. (20) In this way he accomplished the will of the thiasitai and increased honor for the gods, just as it suited him. He spoke often, demonstrating love of humanity, at suitable times, and he also spoke appropriate things on the behalf of the guild at the most pressing (25) time with every kindness and with love of honor, and he received the thiasos for two days on behalf of his son. Therefore, in order that he may provide in the future without being asked and the guild may display its consideration for people who show goodwill toward (30) it by returning appropriate favours to benefactors, and in order that still other people may become zealous admirers of the guild because of the thanks shown towards that person and in order that those who show love of honor may compete for the favour of the guild: For good fortune! (35) It was resolved by the koinon of the Tyrian Heracleists of merchants and shipowners to praise Patron, son of Dorotheos and to crown him with a gold crown each year during the performance of the sacrifices to Poseidon on account of the virtue and goodness (40) which he continues to have towards the koinon of the Tyrian merchants and shipowners. It was also resolved to set up a painted image of him in the sanctuary of Heracles and in another place where he decides. Let him be free of paying his share and free from service with regard to (45) everything that happens in the synodoi. Let the appointed leaders of the society, the treasurers, and the secretary take care, during the sacrifices as they are taking place and in the guilds, of proclaiming the following proclamation: “The guild of the Tyrian merchants (50) and shipowners crown Patron son of Dorotheos, the benefactor”. Let them write this decree on a stone plaque and let them set it up in the sanctuary of Heracles, and the cost of this is to be shared by the treasurer and the head of the society. (50) his was done when the leader of the society was Dionysios, son of Dionysios, and the priest was Patron, son of Dorotheos. The People (60) of Athens. The guild of Tyrian merchants and shipowners.

The decree of the “guild of the Tyrian merchants and shipowners for the worship of Heracles” (το` κοινο' ν/η‘ συ' νοδος τω ñ ν Τυρι' ων ‘ Ηρακλειστω ñ ν ε’ μπο' ρων και` ναυκλη' ρων), dated by the year when Phaidrias was archon in Athens and the People’s assembly that took place on the eighth day of the month of Elaphebolion, honors Patron, son of Dorotheos. The motion to honor Patron was introduced by Dionysios, son of Dionysios, the president of the guild (α’ ρχιθιασι' της; line 3). Patron, himself a member of the guild, had promoted the welfare of the guild and its members for a long time and without hesitation. Patron had argued before the guild that Herkules, the great benefactor of mankind, was “the founder of our original homeland” (α’ ρχηγο` ς τηñ ς πατρι' δος υ‘ πα' ρχοντοσς; line 15), i.e., of where Herkules was worshipped as Melqart.71 ─────────────── 71 Corinne Bonnet, Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès tyrien en Méditerranée, Studia Phoenicia 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 372. Cf. Onno van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East, Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

113

He suggested that the guild, whose members worshipped Heracles-Melqart, send an embassy to Athens, which controlled Delos, to ask the Council and the Assembly to set aside a piece of land (το' πος; line 13) for a sanctuary devoted to the worship of Heracles-Melqart (ε’ ν ω ð ι κατασκευα' σουσιν τε' μενος ‘ Ηρακλε' ους; lines 13–14). The guild passed the resolution and appointed Patron as emissary. Patron travelled to Athens, assuming the cost of the project of obtaining permission to buy land and build a temple dedicated to the worship of Tyrian Heracles. His embassy was successful: “He accomplished the will of the thiasitai and increased honor for the gods” (lines 20–21). That is, the Council and the People of Athens granted the Tyrian merchants and shipowners on Delos permission to buy a plot of land and build a temple for Tyrian Heracles. Patron was honored by the People of Athens and the guild. The guild of Tyrian merchants and shipowners passed an honorary decree (lines 35–64) stipulating that Patron was to be crowned each year with a gold crown during sacrifices offered to Poseidon that a painted image of Patron was to be set up in the new temple of Heracles and in a second location of Patron’s choosing, that he would be exempt from dues and services that were expected of guild members, and that his honor would be publicly proclaimed by the appointed leaders of the society, the treasurers and the secretary. The argumentation of Patron is significant. The decree emphasizes that the petition concerns a purely religious matter in honour of Heracles, who is not only the god of the Tyrians but is generally “the cause of the greatest good things to happen to (all) people” (τουñ πλει' στων α’ γαθω ñ ν παραιτι' ου γεγονο' τος τοιñς α’ νθρω' ποις; lines 14–15), and it highlights the fact that the guild, in the person of Patron, demonstrated goodwill, i.e., loyalty, to the People of Athens (ε’ μφανι' σας τε τη` ν τηñ ς συνο' δου προ` ς το` ν δηñ μον ευ» νοιαν παρεκα' λεσεν αυ’ το` ν; lines 18–20).72 The permission of the Council and the People of Athens that allowed the guild of the Tyrian merchants and shipowners for the worship of Heracles to buy land and build a temple “was tantamount to official recognition of the cult”.73

─────────────── (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1997), 108 discusses the inscription in the context of cases, “especially if foreign traders were involved”, where official permission to build a clubhouse for an association had to be obtained. 72 Cf. Versnel, “Paradox”, 121; Bonnet, Melqart, 371–5. 73 Christian Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 260.

114

Paul – Missionary Theologian

8. I. Rhamnous II 179 (35/4–18/7 BC)74 1

θεοιñς · λιτουργοι` : υ‘ ποστα.' [της ’Αγδι' στεως] Ζη' νων 5 ’Αντιοχευ` ς : ε’ πιτι' θη[νος ...] Νικι' ας 5 Καρυ' στιος : α’ γκωνοφο' ρ[οι?) | Χρω' τωι και` Στρατονι' κη : α’ δαμμα | 5 Διονυσι' ου Μιλησι' α α’ νκωνοφο' ρος κα | double rameau (leaves with berries) ε’ κ τουñ Μητρω' ου · α’ γαθηñ, τυ' χη, · ε’ πι` Παμμε' ν. [ο]υ. , Μουνιχιω ñ νος τετρα' δι · Ξενοφω ñ ν Θρια' σιος ειòπεν · ε’ πε[ι]δη` προ' σοδον ποιησα' μενος Ζη' νων 5 ’Αντιοχευ` ς ε’ μφανι' ζει λελιτουργηκε' ναι ε’ ν τω ñ ι ι‘ ερω ñ ι τω ñ [ι ε’ ]ν ‘ Ρα10 μνουñ ντι τηñ ς ’Αγδι' στεως, ε» τι δε` και` οιðς αυ’ το` ς ι‘ ερουñ ται θεοιñς ε’ πι` χρο' νους και` πλει' ονας, τα` δε` νυñ ν ε’ πιβαρου' μενος υ‘ πο' τινων ει»ργεσθαι παρα` το` καθηñ κον, και` δια` ταυñ τα παρακαλειñ τη` ν βουλη` ν προνοουμε' νη(ν) τηñ ς τω ñ ν θεω ñ ν ευ’ σεβει' ας τη` ν καθη' κουσαν φρ[ον]15 τι' δα ποιη' σασθαι αυ’ τουñ · τυ' χη, α’ γαθηñ ι · δεδ. [ο' χθαι] τηñ ι βουληñ ι · ε’ ξειñναι Ζη' νωνι 5 ’Αντιοχειñ [λιτουρ]γειñν τοιñς θεοιñς τ[οιñς] ε.’ ν ‘ Ραμνουñ ντ. [ι καθα' περ α’ ]πο` τηñ ς α’ ρχηñ ς υ‘ πο` [μηδ]ενο` ς κωλυ. [ομε' νωι] νατο. To the gods. The leitourgoi (dedicated this): the hypostates Agdistis, Zenon, son of Zenon from Antioch; epitithenos – Nikias, son of Nikias, of Karustos; the ankon-bearers, – Chroto and Stratonikē; adamma – (5) daughter of Dionysos of Miletos; ankon-bearer and – {leaves with berries} Archive of the Metroon. For good fortune! When Pammenes was archon, on the fourth day of the month Mounichion, Xenophon from the deme Thria proposed: since Zenon, son of Zenon, of Antioch, who was present (to give a report), has clearly shown that he has until then always fulfilled his duties in the sanctuary (10) of Agdistis in Rhamnous, and he himself even now offers sacrifices to the gods in timely fashion and in great number, he now has been thwarted by some from these obligations; and for this reason he petitions the Council, the guarantor of the piety concerning the gods, (15) to deal with this case. For good fortune! It has pleased the Council: (the Council) permits Zenon, son of Zenon from Antioch, to fulfill his duties regarding the gods in Rhamnous as in the beginning, without being hindered by whomever …

─────────────── 74 Jean Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte. Étude de topographie et d’histoire, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 179 (Paris: Boccard, 1954), 139–141 (No. 24); Vasileios Petrakos, ‘Ο δηñ μος τουñ Ραμνου'ντος. Ι. Συνοψη` τω ñ ν α’ νασκαφω ñ ν και` τω ñν ε’ρευνω ñ ν (1813–1998). ΙI. Οι‘ ε’πιγραφε'ς. Athen, 1999), II, 179; Maarten Jozef Vermaseren, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque, EPRO 50 (Leiden: Brill, 1977–89), No. 245; Elodie Matricon Thomas, Recherches sur les cultes orientaux à Athènes, du Ve siècle avant J.-C. au IV e siècle après J.-C. Religions en contact dans la cité athénienne, Doctorat Histoire Ancienne, Université Jean Monnet – Saint-Étienne, 2011), 177–79 (C. 27). Translation adapted from Thomas.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

115

The cult of the Phrygian mother-goddess, venerated under the name Agdistis, may have been introduced to Rhamnous (Attica) by foreigners, perhaps mercenaries.75 When Pammenes was archon some time between 35/4 and 18/7 BC,76 a certain Zenon, son of Zenon from Antioch, who was the priest in the sanctuary of Agdistis in Rhamnous, petitioned the Council of Athens to render a decision concerning the people who had prevented the offering of sacrifices to Agdistis, presumably because she was a foreign (Phrygian) goddess. The Council decided that this action would not be tolerated, i.e., that the cultic worship of Agdistis in Rhamnous was legal and could proceed according to the practice that had previously been established. When Athenians sanctioned foreign cults, they sometimes domesticated them via identification with traditional deities. Thus, the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, was domesticated by her identification with Demeter and Rhea.77 Two types of doubt accompanied the introduction of new, or foreign, deities. First, is the new god really the same as the old god? Second, can a god preached by eccentrics be taken seriously? As regards the first concern, Paul would not want his proclamation to be understood as being about two deities (Jesus and Anastasis). He would not mind if the Athenians regarded Jesus as a deity, next to YHWH whom both Jews and Christians worshipped. But he would not want to be understood as introducing a new goddess Anastasis, whom some might identify with the Demeter of the Eleusinian mysteries. As regards the second concern, the worship of Jesus Christ that involved neither sacrifices, priests, temples, festivals or processions – a cult that focused on a crucified Jew who was believed to be Savior, and a cult community in which the distinction between male and female members and between freeborn, freedmen and slaves was rendered irrelevant – would have been regarded as very strange, indeed dangerous, cult, in particular if that cult called into question the existence of the traditional gods of the city. When new deities and new cults were introduced without being officially sanctioned by a decree of the Council of the city, legal problems might ensue (IG XI.4 1299). On the other hand, when official permission was sought, it might be granted (I. Delos 1519) – or not, as the procedure of securing an official decree and the practice of inscribing the decision on stone allowed for the latter possibility. The permission of the Council included, at least in some cases, detailed stipulations concerning sacrifices, processions, and financial matters relating to the cult, ─────────────── 75 Cf. Philippe Borgeaud, Mother of the Gods: From Cybele to the Virgin Mary (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 25–26; Maria Grazia Lancellotti, Attis. Between Myth and History: King, Priest and God, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 63. 76 For the date between 35/4 and 18/7 BC (rather than 83/2 BC), see Simone Follet, “Les deux archontes Pamménès du Ier siècle a.c. à Athènes”, REG 113 (2000): 188–92; Thomas, Cultes orientaux, 178–179. 77 Versnel, “Paradox”, 105–111. The following point ibid. 110–11.

116

Paul – Missionary Theologian

which would make matters difficult for the new community of worshippers of Jesus Messiah. Thus Paul argued before the Areopagus Council that he was not introducing new gods (Acts 17:22–31).

Bibliography Alvar, Jaime. Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation, and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis, and Mithras. Translated and edited by R. Gordon. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 165. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Arnaoutoglou, Ilias N. “‘Ils étaient dans la ville, mais tout à fait en dehors de la cité.’ Status and Identity in Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens”. Pages 27–48 in Political Culture in the Greek City After the Classical Age. Edited by O. M. van Nijf and R. Alston. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. —. Thusias heneka kai sunousias. Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens. Yearbook of the Research Centre for the History of Greek Law 37, Sup 4. Athens: Academy of Athens, 2003. Ascough, Richard S., Philip A. Harland, and John S. Kloppenborg. Associations in the GrecoRoman World: A Sourcebook. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2012. Bagnall, Roger S., and Peter Derow, eds. The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Barrett, C. K. The Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98. Baslez, Marie-Françoise. “Les immigrés orientaux en Grèce: tolérance et intolérance de la cité”. Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 7 (1996): 39–50. —. “Tolérance et intolérance religieuses dans la cité grecque”. Revue de la société Ernest Renan 38 (1988–1889): 10–18. Bonnet, Corinne. Melqart. Cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès tyrien en Méditerranée. Studia Phoenicia 8. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. Borgeaud, Philippe. Mother of the Gods: From Cybele to the Virgin Mary. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Bricault, Laurent. Recueil d’inscriptions concernant les cultes isaiques (RICIS). 3 vols. Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 31. Paris: Boccard, 2005. Brickhouse, Thomas C., and Nicholas D. Smith. Socrates on Trial. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Brodersen, Kai, Wolfgang Günther, and Hatto H. Schmitt, eds. Historische griechische Inschriften in Übersetzung. 3 vols. Texte zur Forschung 59.68.71. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt, 1992/1996/1999. Burnet, Régis. L’Égypte ancienne à travers les papyrus. Vie quotidienne. Paris: Pygmalion, 2003. Camp, John M. The Archaeology of Athens. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Cavanaugh, Maureen B. Eleusis and Athens: Documents in Finance, Religion, and Politics in the Fifth Century B.C. American Classical Studies 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Clinton, Kevin. Eleusis. The Inscriptions on Stone: Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme. 3 vols. Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens, 2005–8. Debord, Pierre. Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’anatolie grécoromaine. EPRO 88. Leiden: Brill, 1982.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

117

Derenne, Eudore. Les procès d’impiété intentés aux philosophes à Athènes au Vme et au IVme siècles avant J.-C. History of Ideas in Ancient Greece. New York: Arno, 1976 [1930]. Dillon, Matthew, and Lynda Garland. Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Socrates. London: Routledge, 2000 [1994]. Dittenberger, Wilhelm, and Friedrich Hiller von Gaertringen. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960 [1898–01]. Engelmann, Helmut, ed. The Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 44. Leiden: Brill, 1975. —, ed. Die delische Sarapisaretalogie. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 15. Meisenheim: Hain, 1964. Ferguson, William Scott. “The Attic Orgeones and the Cult of Heroes”. HTR 37 (1944): 61– 140. Follet, Simone. “Les deux archontes Pamménès du I er siècle a.c. à Athènes”. REG 113 (2000): 188–92. Fornara, Charles W. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Volume 1: Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 [1977]. Foucart, Paul F. Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs. Thiases, éranes, orgéons. Avec le texte des inscriptions relatives à ces associations. Paris: Klincksieck, 1873. Furley, William D. “Revisiting Some Textual Problems in the Delian Sarapis Aretalogy by Maiistas (IG XI 4 No. 1299)”. ZPE 180 (2012): 117–25. Garland, Robert. Introducing New Gods: The Politics of Athenian Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Garland Robert. The Piraeus: From the Fifth to the First Century B.C. London, 1987. Gauthier, Philippe. “La réunification d’Athènes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias”. REG 92 (1979): 348–99. Guen-Pollet, Brigitte. La vie religieuse dans le monde grec du Ve au llle siecle avant notre ère. Choix de documents épigraphiques traduits et commentés. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 1991. Habicht, Christian. Athen. Die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit. München: Beck, 1995. —. Athens from Alexander to Antony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Henrichs, Albert. “‘Hieroi Logoi’ and ‘Hierai Bibloi’: The (Un)written Margins of the Sacred in Ancient Greece”. HSCP 101 (2003): 207–66. Herrmann, Peter, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt. Inschriften von Milet III. Milet VI. iii. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar. Select Papyri II: Non-Literary Papyri, Public Documents. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. Janouchová, Petra. “The Cult of Bendis in Athens and Thrace”. Graeco-Latina Brunensia 18 (2013): 95–106. Jáuregui, Miguel Herrero de. Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity. Sozomena 7. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Jones, Nicholas F. The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Kirchner, Johannes and Günther Klaffenbach. Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum. Ein Bilderatlas epigraphischer Denkmäler Attikas. Berlin: Mann, 1948 [1935]. Kirchner, Johannes. Inscriptiones Graecae II et III. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Partes I–III. Editio Secunda. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1913–40.

118

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Kloppenborg, John S., and Richard S. Ascough. Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary. I. Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace. BZNW 181. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Kühn, Ernst, and Wilhelm Schubart. Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Urkunden VI. Papyri und Ostraka der Ptolemäerzeit (Nr. 1211– 1499). Berlin, 1922. Lancellotti, Maria Grazia. Attis. Between Myth and History: King, Priest and God. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 149. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Lefka, Aikaterini. “Tout est plein de dieux”. Les divinités traditionnelles dans l’oeuvre de Platon. Du rapport entre religion et philosophie. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2013. Leiwo, Martti. “Religion, or Other Reasons? Private Associations in Athens”. Pages 103–17 in Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change. Edited by J. Frösén. Helsinki: Finnish Institute at Athens, 1997. Lenger, Marie-Thérèse. Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolémées (C.Ord.Ptol.*). Bilan des additions et corrections (1964–1988). Compléments à la bibliographie. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 24, Documenta et Opuscula 11. Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth/Van Balberghe, 1990. —. Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolémées (C.Ord.Ptol.). Mémoires 64.2. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies, 1980 [1964]. Lewis, David, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae I. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores. Fasc. I, Decreta et Tabulae Magistratuum. Editio Tertia. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981. Liddel, Peter. “The Places of Publication of Athenian State Decrees from the 5th Century BC to the 3rd Century AD”. ZPE 143 (2003): 79–93. Matusova, Ekaterina. The Meaning of the Letter of Aristeas: In Light of Biblical Interpretation and Grammatical Tradition, and with Reference to its Historical Context. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Meiggs, Russel, and David M. Lewis. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Revised Edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988 [1969]. Merkelbach, Reinhold. Isis regina – Zeus Sarapis. Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt. Second Edition. Leipzig: Saur, 2001. Merkelbach, Reinhold, and Martin L. West. Fragmenta Hesiodea. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Mikalson, Jon D. Athenian Popular Religion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983. Mora, Fabio. Prosopografia Isiaca. 2 vols. EPRO 113. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Moyer, Ian S. “Notes on Re-Reading the Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis (‘IG’ XI.4 1299)”. ZPE 166 (2010): 101–7. Müller, Helmut. Milesische Volksbeschlüsse. Eine Untersuchung zur Verfassungsgeschichte der Stadt Milet in hellenistischer Zeit. Hypomnemata 47. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Müller, Karl, ed. Oratores Attici: Fragmenta Oratorum Atticorum. Paris: Didot, 1888. Nicolaou, Kyriacos. The Historical Topography of Kition. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 43. Göteborg: P. Åström, 1976. Nijf, Onno van. The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1997. Nilsson, Martin P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. 2 vols. 4th/2nd Edition. München, 1976/1961. Osborne, Michael J. “The Archons of Athens 300/299–288/7”. ZPE 171 (2009): 83–99. Parker, Robert. Athenian Relilgion: A History. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Pečirka, Jan. The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions. Prague: Universita Karlova, 1966. Pervo, Richard I. Acts. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2008.

3. Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence

119

Petrakos, Vasileios. ‘Ο δηñμος τουñ Ραμνου'ντος. Ι. Συνοψη` τω ñ ν α’ νασκαφω ñ ν και` τω ñ ν ε’ρευνω ñν (1813–1998). ΙI. Οι‘ ε’πιγραφε'ς. Athen, 1999. Planeaux, Christopher. “The Date of Bendis’ Entry into Attica”. CJ 96 (2000–2001): 165–92. Poland, Franz. Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig: Teubner, 1967 [1909]. Pouilloux, Jean. La forteresse de Rhamnonte. Étude de topographie et d’histoire. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 179. Paris: Boccard, 1954. Prott, Johannes von, and Ludwig Ziehen. Leges graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1988 [1896–1906]. Radin, Max. The Legislation of the Greeks and Romans on Corporations. New York: Tuttle, 1910. Rhodes, Peter J. The Athenian Boule. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. —. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Rhodes, Peter J., and Robin Osborne. Greek Historical Inscriptions 359–323 B.C. Second Edition. London Association of Classical Teachers 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Roussel, Pierre, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae XI. Inscriptiones Deli. Fasc. 4. Berlin: Reimer, 1914. —. Les cultes égyptiens à Délos du IIIe au Ier siècle av. J.-C. Annales de l’Est 3.6–7. ParisNancy: Berger–Levrault, 1916. Roussel, Pierre, and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos. Décrets postérieurs à 166 av. J.C. (No 1497–1524). Dédicaces postérieurs à 166 av. J.C. (No 1525–2219). Textes divers, listes et catalogues, fragments divers postérieurs à 166 av. J.C. (N o 2529–2879). Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres. Paris: Champion, 1937. Schubart, Wilhelm. “Ptolemaios Philopator and Dionysos”. Amtliche Berichte aus den Königlichen Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 38 (1916): 189–90. Schwenk, Cynthia J. Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws and Decrees of the “Lycourpan Era”, 338–322 B.C. Chicago: Ares, 1985. Scott, James M. “Dionysus and the Letter of Aristeas”. Pages 325–38 in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana, 2007. Edited by M. K. H. Peters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Siard, Hélène. “La crypte du Sarapieion A de Délos et le procès d’Apollonios”. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 122 (1998): 460–86. Simms, Ronda R. “The Cult of the Thracian Goddess Bendis in Athens and Attica”. The Ancient World 18 (1988): 59–76. —. “Isis in Classical Athens”. CJ 84 (1988–89): 216–21. Smarczyk, Bernhard. Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attischen Seebund. Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 5. München: Tuduv, 1990. Sokolowski, Franciszek. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris: Boccard, 1969. Thomas, Elodie Matricon. Recherches sur les cultes orientaux à Athènes, du Ve siècle avant J.-C. au IVe siècle après J.-C. Religions en contact dans la cité athénienne. Doctorat Histoire Ancienne. Université Jean Monnet – Saint-Étienne, 2011. Todd, Marcus N. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985 [1933–48]. Totti, Maria. Ausgewählte Texte der Isis- und Sarapis-Religion. Subsidia Epigraphica 12. Hildesheim: Olms, 1985. Turner, Eric G. “The Ptolemaic Royal Edict BGU VI 1211 is to be Dated before 215/14 B.C”. Pages 148–52 in Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Raine Cent.). Festschrift zum 100jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Wien: Hollinek, 1983.

120

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Vermaseren, Maarten Jozef. Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque. 7 vols. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 50, Leiden: Brill, 1977–89. Versnel, Hendrik S. “ΕΙΣ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΣ: The Tragic Paradox of the Bacchae”. Pages 96–131 in Ter Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism. Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion 1. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Vidman, Ladislav. Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 28. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969. Wörrle, Michael. “Die Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos II: Das Priestertum der Athena Latmia”. Chiron 20 (1990): 19–58. Yon, Marguerite. Kition dans les textes: Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et Corpus des inscriptions. Kition-Bamboula 5. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations, 2004. Ziebarth, Erich G. L. Das griechische Vereinswesen. Stuttgart: Hirzel, 1969 [1896]. Zuntz, Günther. “Once More the so-called ‘Edict of Philopator on the Dionysiac Mysteries’ (BGU 1211) [1963]”. Pages 88–101 in Opuscula Selecta: Classica, hellenistica, christiana. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters The importance of the concept of μετανοειñν/μετα' νοια, usually translated “to repent” and “repentance”, for the earliest Christian movement is easily ascertained from the fact that it occurs in the summaries of the ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples. John is described as appearing in the wilderness, “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (κηρυ' σσων βα' πτισμα μετανοι' ας ει’ ς α» φεσιν α‘ μαρτιω ñ ν; Mark 1:4). According to Luke 5:32, Jesus said: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (ου’ κ ε’ λη' λυθα καλε' σαι δικαι' ους α’ λλα` α‘ μαρτωλου` ς ει’ ς μετα' νοιαν.1 As regards the Twelve, Mark relates that “they went out and preached that people should repent” (και` ε’ ξελθο' ντες ε’ κη' ρυξαν «ινα μετανοω ñ σιν; Mark 6:12). The terms μετανοειñν/μετα' νοια occur 3 times in Mark, 7 times in Matthew, 14 times in Luke, 11 times in Acts. Scholars regularly point out that the two terms are infrequent in Paul’s letters:2 the noun occurs 4 times in the Pauline corpus (Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9, 10;3 2 Tim 2:25), and the verb is used once (2 Cor 12:21). In Acts, Luke narrates Paul’s preaching as using the noun four times: twice in references to John the Baptist’s preaching (Acts 13:24; 19:4) and twice regarding his own preaching (Acts 20:21; 26:20); the verb occurs twice (Acts 17:30; 26:20), summarizing Paul’s missionary proclamation. There is no monograph on repentance in Paul’s letters, and as far as I can see there is no essay on this subject either, with the exception of an essay by David Moessner who investigates Luke’s portrayal of Paul as “Preacher of ─────────────── 1 For studies on μετανοειñν/μετα' νοια in the ministries of John and Jesus see Helmut Merklein, “Die Umkehrpredigt bei Johannes dem Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth [1981]”, in Studien zu Jesus und Paulus, WUNT 43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 109–26; Jae Duk Choi, Jesus’ Teaching on Repentance, International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism (Binghampton: Global Publications, 2000); Guy D. Nave, The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts, Academia 4 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002); James G. Crossley, “The Semitic Background to Repentance in the Teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus”, JSHJ 2 (2004): 138–57; Tobias Hägerland, “Jesus and the Rites of Repentance”, NTS 52 (2006): 166–87; Mihamm Kim-Rauchholz, Umkehr bei Lukas: Zu Wesen und Bedeutung der Metanoia in the Theologie des dritten Evangelisten (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008); Hanna Roose, “Umkehr und Ausgleich bei Lukas: Die Gleichnisse vom verlorenen Sohn (Lk 15.11–32) und vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus (Lk 16.19–31) als Schwestergeschichten”, NTS 56 (2010): 1–21. 2 Cf. Helmut Merklein, μετα' νοια, μετανοε' ω, EDNT II, 415–19, here 416. 3 Note the excursus on μετα' νοια/μετανοειñν in Hans Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief, KEK 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970 [1924]), 231–32.

122

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Eschatological Repentance to Israel”.4 A. Boyd Luter’s essay on “repentance” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary asserts in a brief paragraph: The Pauline literature rarely uses the terms for repentance, and the Johannine epistles not at all. For Paul, like John, repentance is included in faith (IDB IV, 34). Besides several standard uses (Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 12:21; 2 Tim 2:25), Paul strongly contrasts metanoeō and metamelomai in 2 Cor 7:8–10.5

Luter’s assertion that “repentance is included in faith” is taken from Warren A. Quanbeck’s entry in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.6 Frances Taylor Gench has not advanced Quanbeck’s essay in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, when she writes, While the language of repentance is an important aspect of the apostle Paul’s missionary preaching in Acts, it is rarely found in his own letters. Paul’s understanding of the newness of life occasioned by the revelation of God in Christ is embraced by his concept of ‘faith’ and conveyed with specialized vocabulary (e.g., in terms of baptism into Christ’s death or new creation).7

Jürgen Goetzmann writes, equally briefly, in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, “The fact that this group of words does not occur often in the Pauline writings (only 6 times) and not at all in the Johannine (apart from Rev.), does not mean that the idea of conversion is not present there but only that in the meantime a more specialized terminology had developed. Both Paul and John convey the idea of conversion by that of faith. Paul speaks of faith as ‘being in Christ’, as the ‘dying and rising of a man with Christ’, as the ‘new creation’, as ‘putting on the new man’.8

Helmut Merklein, after comments on Rom 2:4 and 2 Cor 7:9–10; 12:21, similarly asserts in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, The infrequent occurrence of μετα' νοια in Paul can be explained by the fact that the event intended has been subsumed under the concept of πι'στις.9

The Dictionary of Paul and his Letters10 does not have an entry on “repentance”. The most relevant recent study is Stephan Hagenow who examines post-conversion sins of Christians in Paul’s letters and other New Testament texts;11 while he repeatedly refers to “Umkehr” and “Buße”, he focuses on rel─────────────── 4 David P. Moessner, “Paul in Acts: Preacher of Eschatological Repentance to Israel”, NTS 34 (1988): 96–104. 5 A. Boyd Luter, “Repentance B. New Testament”, ABD, V, 72–74, 673, with reference to TDNT IV, 629. 6 Warren A. Quanbeck, “Repentance”, IDB, IV, 33–34. 7 Frances Taylor Gench, “Repentance in the NT”, NIDB, IV, 762–64, here 763. 8 Jürgen Goetzmann, “μετα' νοια”, NIDNTT, I, 357–59, here 359. 9 Merklein, “μετα' νοια, μετανοε' ω”, 418. 10 Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993). 11 Stephan Hagenow, Heilige Gemeinde – Sündige Christen. Zum Umgang mit postkon-

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

123

evant perspectives for understanding the enduring reality of sin in the lives of the Christian believers.12

1. The Meaning of the Greek Terms μετα' νοια/μετανοειñν Ceslas Spicq suggests that the Greek term μετανοειñν means, if we take the particle μετα literally, “know after” in the sense of “proximity or concomitance”.13 This is the meaning of the word in its earliest attested use: Epicharmus writes ca. 460 BC, ου’ μετανοειñν α’ λλα` προνοειñν χρη` το` ν α» νδρα το` ν σοφο' ν (Fragmenta Pseudepicharmea 280). Thus, to “repent” is first of all to change one’s mind. Diodorus Siculus writes, in the context of his description of the military campaigns of Psamtik I, Pharaoh in the seventh century BC , who chased two-hundred thousand rebelling Egyptian soldiers from Syria to Egypt: προαγο' ντων δ’ αυ’ τω ñ ν παρα` το` ν Νειñλον και` του` ς ο« ρους υ‘ περβαλλο' ντων τηñ ς Αι’ γυ' πτου, ε’ δειñτο μετανοηñ σαι και` τω ñ ν τε ι‘ ερω ñ ν και` τω ñ ν πατρι' δων, ε» τι δε` και` γυναικω ñ ν και` τε' κνων υ‘ πεμι' μνησκεν (“but they marched on and entered Egypt near the river Nile, where he earnestly entreated them to change their mind and to remember their gods, their country, their wives, and their children;” Hist. 1.67.5). Changing one’s mind can mean changing intentions and plans, or to reconsider an earlier opinion; it often involves changed feelings resulting from this after-knowledge. Philo writes that kidnappers, “being aware of the former prosperous condition of those whom they have carried off, might perhaps repent (μετανοη' σαιεν ο’ ψε` λαβο' ντες οιòκτον τω ñ ν ε’ πταικο' των), feeling a tardy and late compassion for those who are thus fallen, having a proper awe of the uncertainty of fortune eluding all conjectures” (Spec. Leg. 4.18). Thus μετα' νοια is often accompanied by regret, sorrow, or shame concerning the former attitude, opinion, or action. Plutarch writes: και` γα` ρ η‘ νουθεσι' α και` ο‘ ψο' γος ε’ μποιειñ μετα' νοιαν και` αι’ σχυ' νην, ω ð ν το` με` ν λυ' πη τω ñ, γε' νει το` δε` φο' βος ε’ στι' (“admonition and rebuke engender repentance and shame, of which the first is ─────────────── versionaler Sünde bei Paulus und in weiteren Texen des Urchristentums, TANZ 54 (Tübingen: Francke, 2011); on Paul pp. 67–246. 12 See the discussion of Old Testament and early Jewish texts under the heading “Die Sünde und deren Ende” by Hagenow, Heilige Gemeinde – Sündige Christen, 27–66. In the summary of his discussion of 1 Cor 3:16–17; 5:1–13; 6:1–11; 2 Cor 6:14–7:1; 1 Cor 8:12; 11:17–34 (ibid. 79–149), he mentions the following possibilities of dealing with sin according to Paul: mutual exhortation among brothers, apostolic instruction (letter, messenger), making public in the assembly of the church, prayer or execration, intervention of the Kyrios, exclusion (ibid. 163). In his only comment on μετανοειñν/μετα' νοια in Paul’s letters, Hagenow merely states the occurrence of the term(s) in 2 Cor 12:19–13:10; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9–10 (ibid. 288 with n. 839). 13 Cf. Ceslas Spicq, “μετανοε' ω, μετα' νοια”, TLNT, II, 71–77, here 471.

124

Paul – Missionary Theologian

a kind of pain, the second a kind of fear;” De virtute morali 12 [Mor. 452C]; Trans. W. C. Helmbold, LCL). In Timoleon, Plutarch writes: αι’ σχρο` ν γα` ρ η‘ μετα' νοια ποιειñ και` το` καλω ñ ς πεπραγμε' νον, η‘ δ• ε’ ξ ε’ πιστη' μης ω‘ ρμημε' νη και` λογισμουñ προαι' ρεσις ου’ δ• α› ν πται' σωσιν αι‘ πρα' ξεις μεταβα' λλεται (“Repentance makes even the noble action base; whereas the choice which springs from a wise and understanding calculation does not change, even though its results are unsuccessful;” Tim. 6.4; Trans. B. Perrin, LCL). Decisive for the meaning of the term μετανοειñν in the NT is the OT term ‫ׁשוב‬ (“turn around”) as used in the prophets. The Hebrew term has been defined as “having moved in a particular direction, to move thereupon in the opposite direction, the implication being (unless there is evidence to the contrary) that one will arrive again at the initial point of departure”.14 Since the latter is not always fulfilled, it is more plausible to describe the basic meaning as “turn around, turn” without any explication of direction.15 In the prophets the term ‫ ׁשוב‬describes “the return to the original relation with Yahweh”16 and often includes the idea of “a totally new beginning”.17 Isaiah uses ‫ ׁשוב‬to describe the individual’s (and the nation’s) return to Yahweh, representing an act that impacts one’s entire existence. In Isa 30:15 we read: ‫ִּכי ֹכה־ָאַמר ֲא ֹדָני ְיה ִוה ְקד ֹו ׁש‬ ‫לא ֲאִביֶתם‬ ֹ ‫“( ִיְׂש ָרֵאל ְּב ׁשו ָּבה ָוַנַחת ִּת ָו ּ ֵ ׁשעּון ְּבַה ְ ׁש ֵקט ו ְּבִבְטָחה ִּתְהֶיה ְּגבו ּ ַרְתֶכם ְו‬this is what the Sovereign, the Holy One of Israel, says: In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it;” NIV). In Jeremiah and Ezekiel the term is often used in the sense of turning away from (individual) sins. Jeremiah writes: ‫ָלֵכן ֹּכה־ָאַמר ְיה ָוה ִאם־ָּת ׁשּוב ַוֲא ִ ׁשיְב ָך‬ ‫לא־ָת ׁשּוב ֲאֵליֶהם‬ ֹ ‫“( ְלָפַני ַּתֲעֹמד ְוִאם־ּת ֹו ִציא ָי ָקר ִמז ֹּוֵלל ְּכִפי ִתְהֶיה ָי ֻׁשבו ּ ֵהָּמה ֵאֶלי ָך ְוַאָּתה‬therefore this is what the Lord says: ‘If you repent, I will restore you that you may serve me; if you utter worthy, not worthless, words, you will be my spokesman. Let this people turn to you, but you must not turn to them;’” Jer 15:19 ׁ ִ ‫לא ֶאְח ּ ֹפץ ְּבמ ֹות ַהֵּמת ְנ ֻאם ֲא ֹדָני ְיה ִוה ְוָה‬ NIV). In Ezekiel 18:32, God says: ּ ‫שיבו ּ ִוְחיו‬ ֹ ‫ִּכי‬ (“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord GOD . Turn, then, and live;” NRSV). This text “emphasizes the personal responsibility of each individual and offers the opportunity for return and for new life”.18 The LXX translates ‫ ׁשוב‬in about seventy percent of all occurrences with forms of στρε' φειν, never with μετανοειñν/μετα' νοια, terms with are mostly used ─────────────── 14 William L. Holladay, The Root šubh in the OT with Particular Reference to Its Usages in Covenantal Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 53. 15 Heinz-Josef Fabry, in M. Graupner and Heinz-Josef Fabry, “‫” ׁשּוב‬, TDOT, XIV, 461– 522, here 464. 16 Hans Walter Wolff, “Das Thema ‘Umkehr’ in der alttestamentlichen Prophetie”, ZTK 48 (1951): 129–48, 134. 17 Georg Fohrer, “Umkehr und Erlösung beim Propheten Hosea [1955]”, in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, BZAW 99 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967), 222–41, 225 n. 7. Cf. Merklein, “μετα' νοια, μετανοε' ω”, 416, who cites both Wolff and Fohrer. 18 Graupner, in Graupner and Fabry, “‫” ׁשּוב‬, 496. ˘

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

125

to translate ‫“( ִנַחם‬to be sorry for something”). Heinz-Josef Fabry suggests two reasons why the LXX does not render ‫ ׁשוב‬with μετανοειñν/μετα' νοια: the terms are rarely used in Classical and Hellenistic Greek, and since these Greek words are noetic terms, they run contrary to ‫ ׁשוב‬as a verb of motion.19 It should be noted that in Symmachus’ Greek translation, ‫ ׁשוב‬is translated with μετανοειñν/μετα' νοια when the text speaks about “return to God” or “turning away from iniquity”. In the Second Temple period, repentance was a fundamental concept. The fifth of the Eighteen Benedictions says: ‫ ְוַהֲחִזי ֵרנו ּ בְת ׁשו ָּבה‬... ‫ֲה ִ ׁשיבנו ּ ָאִבינו ּ לת ֹורקֶת ָך‬ ‫“( ְ ׁשֵלָמה ְלָפֶני ָך ָּברו ּ ְך ַאָּתה יי ָהר ֹו ֶצה ִבְת ׁשּו¼בה‬Lead us back, our Father, to your Torah; and bring us, our King, to your service, and cause us to return in perfect repentance to your presence. Blessed art Thou, Lord, who delightest in repentance”). For the Jewish people, assurance of salvation was grounded in repentance which God demands and which God grants, in the works which result from repentance, and in God who grants his grace to the person who repents. Some authors emphasize the notion that it is God who leads the human heart and mind to repentance. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon writes regarding God’s dealings with the Canaanites, “But judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent (ε’ δι' δους το' πον μετανοι' ας), though you were not unaware that their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn, and that their way of thinking would never change ... Through such works you have taught your people that the righteous must be kind, and you have filled your children with good hope, because you give repentance for sins (ο« τι διδοιñς ε’ πι` α‘ μαρτη' μασιν μετα' νοιαν)” (Wis 12:10, 19)”. Philo writes that “There are many souls that God has not granted repentance even though they desired it” (πολλαιñς γα` ρ ψυχαιñς μετανοι' α, χρηñ σθαι βουληθει' σαις ου’ κ ε’ πε' τρεψεν ο‘ θεο' ς; Leg. 3.213). There is thus a twofold movement in the process of repentance: first, admission of one’s personal sin and failings and weakness, asking God for forgiveness, and second, praising God for his grace and forgiveness and commitment to a new and better obedience (cf. 1QS XI, 11–17). In sum, repentance is a change of mind, intentions, or plans resulting from a reconsideration of a first opinion, sometimes accompanied by regret, sorrow, or shame on account of the earlier opinion or action, and resulting in changed behavior. Particularly in Old Testament and Jewish traditions, repentance is a return to Yahweh that relates to one’s entire existence, and it is an act that involves turning away from individual sins. Here the standard for right opinions and correct behavior is God and his just requirements revealed in the Law. It is God himself who leads people to repentance, forgiving only those who are repentant. ─────────────── 19 Fabry, in Graupner and Fabry, “‫” ׁשּוב‬, 514; for the following comment see ibid.

126

Paul – Missionary Theologian

2. Paul and the Jewish Doctrine of Repentance Paul’s knowledge of the Jewish understanding of repentance is obvious in Rom 2:3–4:20 “Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” In Rom 2:1 Paul suggested that the persons who condemn the Gentile behavior described in 1:18–32 commit the same sins. In 2:3 Paul asks a rhetorical question which his Jewish dialogue partner21 can easily recognize as the typical argument a Jew would advance: when a Jew commits the same sins a pagan commits, he cannot hope to escape God’s judgment.22 The second rhetorical question in 2:4 points to the fact that the delay of judgment results from the kindness and patience of God who gives the sinner an opportunity for repentance. In other words: the sinner must recognize his wrong behavior, confess his sinful actions before God, and change his behavior.23 The accusation of having a “hard and impenitent heart” which stores up wrath for “the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (2:5) is reminiscent of the prophets’ indictment of Israel.24 Repentance is understood as a necessity in view of the coming judgment of God who will judge people without partiality (2:5–11), it is related to human behavior which violates the standards of the revealed will of God (1:32; 2:17–24), and it is a ─────────────── 20 Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus, Third Edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 258. 21 For the use of diatribe in Rom 2:1–6 cf. Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981); Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984), 110–11; also Thomas Schmeller, Paulus und die „Diatribe“: Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation, NTA 19 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1987). 22 Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, NTD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 40. 23 It is difficult to see how Oda Wischmeyer, “Römer 2.1–24 als Teil der Gerichtsrede des Paulus gegen die Menschheit”, NTS 52 (2006): 356–76, here 370, can claim that the pragmatics of Rom 2 does not show the path to repentance (“während der Paulustext keinen Weg zu Buße und Umkehr eröffnet”). Wischmeyer does not discuss 2:3–4, a text, interpreted in the light of 3:21–31, that indeed challenges Paul’s Jewish interlocutor to recognize and repent of his sins. 24 Cf. Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 5th Edition, KEK IV (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 114. Ian W. Scott, Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience and the Spirit, WUNT 2.205 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 106, comments: “The repentance of Romans 2:4 is a present possibility, but one which will not last forever. The present of Paul’s audience is thus in many ways the fulcrum around which the whole story moves, the pivotal point at which one’s future place n the story is determined”.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

127

divine gift resulting from God’s kindness (2:4).25 Paul sees his Jewish dialogue partner as unrepentant.26 In Rom 3:4 Paul quotes Psalm 51:6[4]: “Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, ‘So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.’” Psalm 51 asserts that the recognition of one’s guilt and the confession of one’s sin serve to prove that God is just when he passes sentence and blameless when he judges the sinner. Paul argues that Jews need to rediscover the desperate confessions of sin of the psalm.27 The style of prayer in the context of the dialectical discussion of Rom 3:1–8 is important: the sinner ponders God’s judgment of sinful actions and admits that God is justified in judging those who sin. To grant that God is justified in judging sin belongs to the Jewish language of repentance, often found in prayers and confessions.28 In Rom 7:13–25 Paul writes about human existence being subject to sin and about the discrepancy between wanting to do good and in reality doing evil. While this topic can also be found in Greek and Roman literature, it is only in Jewish texts on repentance that this reality is radically linked with the conundrum of basic human existence where human beings are in bondage to sinful action and unable to fully do the will of God.29

3. Paul’s Missionary Preaching Calls for Repentance The use of the noun μετα' νοια in Rom 2:4 demonstrates that Paul used the concept of repentance in his missionary preaching. In Rom 2:1–3:20 Paul presents his case that Jews are sinners just like the Gentiles, a reality that exists since Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4) which inaugurated a new era of salvation in which Jews and Greeks are saved by the good news ─────────────── 25 Cf. Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, 4th Edition, ThHKNT 6 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 69, who emphasizes repentance as “Geschenk Gottes ... das seine Zeit hat, die erkannt und ergriffen werden will, bevor sie unwiederbringlich vorbei ist” (with reference to Heb 12:17). 26 Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 206, who goes on to argue that “thus, Paul would assume that the sacrificial system was not effective for him, and the interlocutor himself would have a wrong attitude toward it”. 27 Cf. Michel, Römer, 138; the following point ibid. 28 Pss. Sol 2:16; 3:5; 4:9; 8:7; 1QS X, 11.13. Note Pss. Sol. 2:15–18: “I shall prove you right, O God, in uprightness of heart; for your judgments are right, O God. 16 For you have rewarded the sinners according to their actions, and according to their extremely wicked sins. 17 You have exposed their sins, that your judgment might be evident; you have obliterated their memory from the earth. 18 God is a righteous judge and he will not be impressed by appearances”. 29 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Römer, 100–101; cf. 1QS XI; 4 Ezra 3:18–22; 9:36–37.

128

Paul – Missionary Theologian

concerning Jesus, God’s messianic Son, which is the power of God for salvation (1:8–9, 16–17). In 2:4b, Paul asserts: α’ γνοω ñ ν ο« τι το` χρηστο` ν τουñ θεουñ ει’ ς μετα' νοια' ν σε α» γει; (“Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?”). The reference to God’s judgment in 2:3 links repentance with the reality of the divine judgment of all human beings. The use of the verb α’ γνοειñν indicates that repentance is linked here to a change of mind: the Jews must see not only the sins of the Greeks, but realize that God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience (2:4a) are meant to bring them to the recognition of their real status.30 Turning away from ignorance and turning to God is the essence of repentance.31 Paul presents repentance as a necessity in view of the coming day of judgment on which God will judge people without partiality (2:5–11); repentance is related to behavior which violates the standards of the revealed will of God (2:17–24); and repentance it is God’s gift resulting from his kindness (2:4). The context of God’s judgment underlines the necessity of repentance for the Jewish people. In his address to unbelieving Jews, Paul speaks like an Old Testament prophet, calling the people to repentance.32 Paul reminds the Christian believers in Thessalonica what happened during his first visit to the city: they welcomed him and “turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God (ε’ πεστρε' ψατε προ` ς το` ν θεο` ν α’ πο` τω ñ ν ει’ δω' λων δουλευ' ειν θεω ñ, ζω ñ ντι και` α’ ληθινω ñ, ) and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming” (1 Thess 1:9b–10). Paul uses the verb ε’ πιστρε' φειν, which the LXX uses most often as the term translating the term ‫ ׁשוב‬. It is generally acknowledged that ε’ πιστρε' φειν represents the language of conversion, which Paul here describes.33 The meaning of ε’ πιστρε' φειν here corresponds in many ways to μετανοειñν: former Gentiles changed their mind about the relevance of the traditional deities which they had worshiped, they changed their allegiance from the local gods to the God of Israel and pledged faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior on account of the influence of the Holy Spirit (1:6), and they changed their behavior as they began to imitate the Lord (1:6) and the ─────────────── 30 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 301. 31 Cf. Merklein, “μετα' νοια, μετανοε' ω”, 418, with respect to Acts 3:17, 19; 23:30 and Acts 20:21; 26:18, 20; cf. 19:4, respectively. 32 Cf. Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKK 6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82), 1:125. There is no hint in the text that would warrant Wilckens’ assertion that Paul’s reference to the last judgment is not meant to increase the urgency of repentance. Simon Légasse, L’épître de Paul aux Romains, LD 10 (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 165, asserts: “Paul s’exprime en Juif, ce qui n’implique pas qui’il vise les seuls Juifs”. 33 Cf. Georg Bertram, στρε' φω κτλ., TDNT VII 714–29, 728; Goetzmann, “μετα' νοια”, 359; Simon Légasse, ε’ πιστρε' φω, ε’ πιστροφη' , EDNT II, 40; Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, EKK 13 (Neukirchen-Vluyn/Zürich: Neukirchener/Benziger, 1986), 59–61; Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, AB 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 118–19, 132. See Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), II, 1365.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

129

churches in Judea (2:14), living in love for one another and in holiness (3:12– 13) and doing the will of God (4:1) which includes abstinence from sexual immorality and from exploiting others (4:3, 6) and suffering persecution (1:6; 2:14; 3:3–4, 7). In his discussion of the benefits of the words of Christian prophets, Paul asserts, “if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!’” (1 Cor 14:24–25, NIV). Whether or not the “secrets of their hearts” are the private sins of unbelieving Jews and Greeks, the result of prophetic speech in the assembly is the acknowledgment of the presence of the one true God, and thus repentance and worship.34 In a comment on the inability of the Jewish people to understand the Sinaitic covenant as temporary and to recognize the glory of the new covenant which became a reality with Jesus (2 Cor 3:14), Paul states in an allusive homily35 based on Exod 34:29–35, “Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed (η‘ νι' κα δε` ε’ α` ν ε’ πιστρε,' ψη προ` ς κυ' ριον, περιαιρειñ`ται το κα' λυμμα)” (2 Cor 3:15–16). The verb ε’ πιστρε' φειν is generally understood here as designating the conversion of Jews36 to understand Jesus as Israel’s prophesied savior.37 The reference to hardened or darkened minds (3:14; also 4:4) implies that the removal of the veil produces illumination, specifically the ability to understand the connection between God’s revelation in Scripture and God’s revelation in Jesus as Israel’s Savior, and thus to understand the gospel and become a follower of Jesus. The term ε’ πιστρε' φειν is here close in meaning to μετανοειñν: the Jews need to have a change of mind when they read ─────────────── 34 Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 708, with reference to Don A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 116. 35 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 132. 36 For a discussion of the subject of ε’ πιστρε,' ψη, see, besides the commentaries, DietrichAlex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHTh 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 126; Linda L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory. Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18, JSNTSup 52 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 248–50. 37 Cf. Paul W. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 199; Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 308–9; Thomas Schmeller, Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther, EKK VIII (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie/Patmos, 2010/2015), I, 221; Margaret E. Thrall, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–2000), I, 273; cf. Scott Hafemann, Paul, Moses and the History of Israel. The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, WUNT 81 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 390.

130

Paul – Missionary Theologian

the Hebrew Scriptures and they must abandon their initial views about Jesus; if they do, they will have a correct understanding of the Scriptures and of Jesus. If we understand the verb περιαιρειñται not as middle (with either Moses, the believer, or the Lord removing the veil) but as a divine passive,38 Paul underlines the necessity of divine agency in the process of repentance and conversion, a regular feature in Jewish repentance texts.

4. Paul’s Theological Discourse Presupposes Repentance Paul believes that believers in Jesus Christ are in a fundamentally different position from unbelievers.39 Neither sin nor death, which is the punishment for sin, have power over believers: “We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him ... For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (Rom 6:9, 14). On the day of judgment, unbelievers will be helplessly subject to the wrath of God (Rom 1:18–32). Believers will stand before God the Judge as his adopted children (Rom 8:15–17) who accepts them as righteous (8:33) on account of Jesus’ death, resurrection, exaltation, and intercession (8:34) and Christ’s love (8:35, 37). Nobody and nothing will ever be able to separate believers in Jesus “from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39). Paul does not minimize the reality of sin, which was the reason why the prophets called Israel to repentance. On the contrary, he vividly describes the power of sin in Rom 7:7–25, using the first person singular of the Jewish liturgical tradition, climaxing in the subsequent description. He argues that the pernicious power of sin that is a reality since Adam’s sin has been overcome by Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom 3:21–5:21), with the result that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). Jesus’ victory over sin and death is God’s own victory who accomplished what the Law could not accomplish: “For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful humanity to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in human flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the ─────────────── 38 Note the last phrase in 3:18: “And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit (καθα' περ α’ πο` κυρι' ου πνευ' ματος)”; cf. Harris, Second Corinthians, 309. This interpretation removes the “gewisse Hilflosigkeit” Schmeller attests for Paul (Schmeller, Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther, 221). 39 Cf. Stuhlmacher, Theologie I, 281–82, whose basic references are Gal 3:26–28; 4:4–6; 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13; 2 Cor 5:17; Rom 8:3–4; now also Hagenow, Heilige Gemeinde – Sündige Christen, 165–212.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

131

law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:3–4; NIV). This is perhaps the reason why Paul does not use more consistently the language of “repentance” in his letters to Christian believers: the primary categories of discourse, when he speaks with Christians, are theological and christological, not ethical. While Paul begins the exposition of his theology in his letter to the Romans with an explication of the sinfulness of Greeks and Jews (Rom 1:18–3:20), the horizon of his exhortation to Christians is Jesus’ atoning death on the cross which liberates believers from the power of sin (Rom 3:21–5:21). Paul’s argument that Jesus’ death has removed the sin that entered the world through Adam (cf. the summary in Rom 5:12–21) leads his critics to suggest that in Paul’s theology sin has become completely irrelevant, with the result that one might as well continue to sin: “What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?” (Rom 6:1). Paul vehemently protests, but he does not give up his premise that Christian believers who have been united with Jesus’ death have been put beyond the power of sin: “By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?” (6:2).40 A few sentences later he states even more explicitly: “whoever has died is freed from sin” (6:7). Paul’s subsequent assertion, “The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God” (6:10), underlines a twofold truth. First, Jesus’ death is a death “once for all” (ε’ φα' παξ): it marks the end point of the history since Adam through whom sin and death entered the world,41 and it introduces the new messianic era of the new covenant (cf. Rom 11:27; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6). Second, the circumstances of the life of the believer are “wholly new, with reversion to the old condition no longer possible” since God is the only effective power for those who have identified with Jesus Christ. This factual reality implies at the same time an obligation: “Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness” (Rom 6:12–13). These imperatives imply the need for repentance if and when Christians fall into sin and obey the passions. Note Rom 8:12–13: “So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh – for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”. Paul knows that Christians continue to engage in sinful actions and must repent of their sins. Thus Paul does not hesitate to confront Christians with ethical imperatives. While the necessity to obey the will of God, and acknowl─────────────── 40 Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38 (Dallas: Word, 1988), I, 307: “what Paul had in mind is a death which puts the individual beyond the power of sin”. 41 Cf. Dunn, Romans, I, 323, the following quotation ibid.

132

Paul – Missionary Theologian

edgement of failure in sinful behavior, are by no means ignored let alone denied, the focus of Paul’s theological discourse is on God’s saving action in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to which sinners can and must respond by faith, with the result that sin and death as sin’s consequence are removed. Paul is not shy to challenge Christians with imperatives and to call Christians to repent. But his theological and christological focus leads more naturally to praise, as Rom 11:32–36 demonstrates.

5. Paul’s Rhetorical Discourse in his Letters Includes the Discourse of Repentance Rhetorical questions are “clauses in the form of questions that do not normally expect an answer”.42 Rhetorical questions often reflect the conviction of the speaker or writer that the audience is in agreement. Greek authors used rhetorical questions to draw the listener into the narrative.43 Philosophers use rhetorical questions to arouse the interest of the listeners.44 Orators use rhetorical questions as recapitulation of their argument,45 as anticipation of the objections against their arguments,46 as ornament adding vigor, imagination, or emotional impact,47 and in argumentation for induction, arguing from the particular to the universal. 48 Rhetorical questions in argumentation have two important features.49 First, the question posed by the orator may or may not receive a reply. Cicero asserts, “we put a question to ourselves or cross-examine ─────────────── 42 David E. Aune, Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Philadelphia: Westminster Knox, 2003), s.v. “Rhetorical Questions”, 422; for the next point ibid. For rhetorical questions in the NT cf. Jaroslav Konopasek, “Les ‘Questions Rhetoriques’ dans le Nouveau Testament”, RHPR 12 (1932): 47–66, 141–61; Wilhelm Wuellner, “Paul as Pastor: The Function of Rhetorical Questions in First Corinthians”, in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère, ed. A. Vanhoye, BETL 73 (Leuven: University Press, 1986), 49–77; Duane F. Watson, “1 Corinthians 10:23–11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions”, JBL 108 (1989): 301–18. 43 Kenneth J. Dover, The Evolution of Greek Prose Style (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 66–67. 44 Donald A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 180, in a discussion of an anonymous late Neoplatonic text on the question, “Why did Plato compose dialogues?” 45 Cf. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 36.1444b.30–34: “by asking additional questions which will bring the most credit on yourself and the most discredit on your opponents, or, if you like, you can use the form of a simple question” (trans. E. S. Forster, LCL). 46 Cf. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 33.1439b.1–3: “Anticipation is the method by which you anticipate and demolish the objections which can be brought against your speech”. 47 Pseudo-Longinus, De sublimi 18.1–2; 23.2; 26.1; 27.1. 48 Aristotle, Topica 8.1.156a.3–6: “Induction should proceed from individual cases to the universal and from the known to the unknown” (trans. W. A. Pickard, LCL). Topica 8 discusses “the problems of arrangement and method in putting questions” (8.1.155b.1). 49 Watson, “Rhetorical Questions”, 313–14.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

133

ourselves (cum interrogamus nosmet ipsi aut percunctamur) or make an appeal or express a desire ... but we shall be able to avoid monotony by not always starting from the point we are making ... and do not always hold it necessary formally to draw the conclusion that will follow from them, if it is obvious” (Trans. H. E. Butler, LCL).50 Second, if the orator provides a reply to a question that he raises, the reply need not be a formal conclusion. Quintilian states that in a set speech “the orator either answers his own questions (sibi ipse respondet orator) or makes an assumption of that which in dialogue takes the form of a question”.51 The multiple functions of rhetorical questions in Greco-Roman rhetoric suggests that Paul’s use of rhetorical questions serves more than one purpose. This is obviously not the place to review all rhetorical questions in Paul’s letters. I am arguing that more often than not Paul uses rhetorical questions to bring his readers and listeners to a point where they have to agree with him, changing their mind about the position they were holding and changing their behavior which had resulted from the convictions against which Paul argues. Rhetorical questions that pursue the aim of changing particular convictions and behavioral patterns of the listeners can be understood as the rhetoric of a prophet’s – or missionary/pastor’s – call to repentance. Two examples must suffice to demonstrate this point. In Gal 3:1–5, which introduces the first main argumentative section of Paul’s letter to the churches in the province of Galatia who were about to demand circumcision and full obedience to the Mosaic Law, Paul formulates six rhetorical questions. The goal of theses rhetorical questions is not to suppress all cognitive resistance of the Galatian Christians, shifting the blame to the opponents, placing the burden of proof to those who disagree with him, and thus gaining a psychological advantage.52 Rather, in line with his goal to bring the Gentile believers, who had been “turning to a different gospel” (μετατι' θεσθε ... ει’ ς ε« τερον ευ’ αγγε' λιον), back to God who had called them by the grace of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:6), he wants to change their mind regarding their plans to undergo circumcision and become Jews. He wants them to feel regret about their impending commitment to a different gospel which is a false gospel. He wants them to return to contentment in having received God’s Spirit when they came to faith in the crucified and risen Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior of the world. In other words, he wants to lead them to repentance. By calling them “foolish” (α’ νο' ητοι; 3:1), he challenges them to draw the correct theological consequences from the fact that they know God (4:8–9). ─────────────── 50 Cicero, De partitione oratoria 13.47. 51 Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 5.11.5. 52 H. Richard Lemmer, “Mnemonic Reference to the Spirit as a Persuasive Tool (Galatians 3.1–6 Within the Argument, 3.1–4.11)”, Neot 26 (1992): 359–88, 374; cf. D. Francois Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, WUNT 2.190 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 102.

134

Paul – Missionary Theologian

The six rhetorical questions are posed in rapid succession. The first question (“who has bewitched you?”) in Gal 3:1, followed by a reminder of Paul’s proclamation53 of Jesus as Israel’s crucified Messiah, challenges the Galatians to withstand the disingenuous tactics of the false teachers54 and to recognize the significance of Jesus’ death on the cross for the validity of the Mosaic law. The second question (“did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?”) in 3:2 forces the Gentile Christians in Galatia to go back to their first experience as Christians: God accepted them by giving them his Spirit thus conveying his presence and holiness on them without requiring them to become Jews. Paul calls on the Galatians to repent and return to the reality of their first experience of the truth of the gospel: living by faith in Jesus Christ is quite sufficient for the experience of God’s presence. The third question (“are you so foolish?”) in 3:3a asks the Galatians to confront their inconsistency:55 if they do not want to be foolish, they should regret the influence of the false teachers, give up the plans to undergo circumcision, and rest content with the gift of God’s transforming presence that they have already received. The fourth question (“having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?”) in 3:3 confronts the Galatians with the contradiction between their experience of God’s Spirit since their conversion and their present willingness to rely on weak human efforts.56 The fifth question (“did you experience so much for nothing?”) in 3:4 warns the Galatians that their experiences as Christians will have been in vain if they follow the false teachers; the subsequent comment57 “if it really was for nothing” indicates that Paul is confident that the situation is not hopeless, and that they will ─────────────── 53 The term προεγρα' φη is generally interpreted in terms of “portray or proclaim publicly” (LSJ; BDAG; H. Balz, EDNT III, 154), understood as a purely verbal depiction of Jesus’ death on the cross. Basil S. Davis, “The Meaning of προεγρα' φη in the Context of Galatians 3.1”, NTS 45 (1999): 194–212, interprets in the context of Gal 2:19–21 in terms of Paul’s display of the crucified Christ in the persecution that he suffered for the gospel. 54 The verb βασκαι'νειν, defined as “to exert an evil influence through the eye, bewitch, as with the ‘evil eye’” (BDAG), here has a metaphorical sense: “the Teachers must indeed have been virtual magicians to have made the Galatians long to come under the Law” (J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 282–83). Susan Eastman, “The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited”, JSNT 83 (2001): 69–87, argues that the verb echoes Deut 28:53–57 and the covenantal curses of Deut 27–28. 55 Cf. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 106. 56 Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 31 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 103. 57 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 135, takes the last phrase in 3:4b as a “rhetorical exclamation”, providing the answer to the rhetorical question: “if so, it really was in vain!” It is more plausible to interpret the phase in terms of Paul expressing his hope that the catastrophe of apostasy can be prevented; cf. James D. G. Dunn, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (London: Black, 1993), 157; Jürgen Becker, Der Brief an die Galater, NTD 8.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 47 (“Man kann Gottes Geist nicht vergeblich erhalten”): Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 107–8.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

135

repent of their proposed course of action.58 If this comment implies the confidence that God will bring them back to the gospel,59 the statement highlights an important aspect of the OT and Jewish concept of repentance: it is God who leads people to regret and abandon wrong ideas and wrong behavior. The sixth question (“does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?”) in 3:5 forces the Galatians to acknowledge that God continues to be active among them as they still believe what they heard when Paul proclaimed the gospel to them, independent of the false teachers’ claim that they should submit to works of Law. The call to acknowledge the work of God and live in the presence of God is tantamount to the prophets’ call to repentance. In 1 Cor 1:10 Paul urges (παρακαλω ñ ) the Corinthian Christians to come to abandon the divisions which are caused by quarrels concerning who is the superior teacher: Paul, Apollos, or Cephas (1:11–12). In 1:13 Paul asks three rhetorical questions: “Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” These questions aim at prompting the believers to reconsider and abandon their harmful evaluation of these three men as competitors and to return to the unity of faith in the gospel.60 The question whether Christ is divided (μεμε' ρισται ο‘ Χριστο' ς;) is easily answered: of course not – and since there is only one messiah, there is only one church. The division of the church into competing factions with loyalties to human beings is as grotesque as the notion that the messiah can be divided into a ─────────────── 58 Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 185: “Paul hopes that his warning here will provoke them to reconsider and repent, so that they will obtain the full reward”. 59 Martyn, Galatians, 285: “Why does miscarriage scarcely lie within the realm of possibility? Certainly not because of a steadfast character on the part of the Galatians. The steadfast one is the God who does not commence his liberating work in order to carry it partway through (Phil 1:6; Gal 5:10). It is God’s faithfulness, then, that provides the foundation of Paul’s confidence”. Cf. also Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 [1949]), 124. 60 Wuellner, “Rhetorical Questions”, 60, argues that the rhetorical question (sic) in 1 Cor 1:13, as all rhetorical questions and other rhetorical figures in 1 Corinthians, functions as marking the status of Paul’s discourse, specifically “the mandate facing all believers, leaders and led alike, to adhere, and to increase adherence, to ‘what is already accepted.’” He explains this observation, with reference to Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1969), 47– 54, as characteristic of epideictic rhetoric “as well as all education” (ibid., 60), suggesting that Paul as pastor “functions as educator; as educator he functions as politician (i.e., moving people not as individuals, but as social entities within social structures); as politician he functions as rhetorician” (ibid. 61). Given the status of Paul as an itinerant missionary, and his focus on the message of a crucified Messiah which is nonsense for Greeks and a stumbling block for Jews (1 Cor 1:18–2:5), Paul would take issue at least with the last two of Wuellner’s descriptions. It seems preferable to say that Paul as pastor and educator functions as prophet who calls the people – both the community and individuals – to repentance.

136

Paul – Missionary Theologian

messiah of Paul, a messiah of Apollos, and a messiah of Peter.61 The answer to the question whether Paul was crucified for them (μη` Παυñ λος ε’ σταυρω' θη υ‘ πε` ρ υ‘ μω ñ ν;) is even more obvious: Paul was of course not crucified for the believers. The foundational reality is not Paul’s missionary preaching in Corinth but Jesus’ atoning death on the cross. The grotesque notion that Paul died for their sins should elicit regret for their quarrels about the superiority of Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, and a recommitment to faith in Jesus and his atoning death. The question whether they were baptized in the name of Paul (ει’ ς το` ο» νομα Παυ' λου ε’ βαπτι' σθητε;) also has a negative answer: the early Christian missionaries immersed new converts in the name of Jesus (ει’ ς το` ο» νομα ’ Ιησου),62 not in the name of the apostle or the missionary. Paul emphasizes in 1:14–16 that he personally baptized only a few converts when he preached in Corinth. Relevant is not who baptizes, not even the event of baptism per se, but the gospel of the cross of Christ (1:17). Paul calls the Corinthians to reconsider their divisions in the light of their faith. He urges them to abandon the divisions caused by their quarrels about who is the superior teacher; he challenges them to quit focusing on the teachers of the church; he calls on them to return to faith in Christ. In other words, he calls them to repentance.

6. Paul’s Ethical Discourse Entails Exhortations to Repentance The two references to μετα' νοια in 2 Cor 7:9, 10 and 12:21 demonstrate that Paul used the term in his theological-ethical exhortation. In the conclusion of his discussion of the incident which had caused him to write the “severe letter” (2 Cor 2:1–4), Paul expresses his confidence that the Corinthian believers are doing the right thing. His letter had caused pain, but it was pain which resulted in repentance. He asserts that the fact that their grief caused their repentance demonstrates the quality of their grief: it was “godly grief” that leads to salvation. The connection between a re-evaluation of earlier actions, grief, and a new disposition corresponds to the Greek understanding of μετα' νοια.63 At the same time, the Jewish understanding of repentance is evident. Repentance is a stage between grief and salvation or its alternative, i.e., ─────────────── 61 Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Second Revised Edition, Historisch-Theologische Auslegung (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2010), 96; Dieter Zeller, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, KEK 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 93. Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK 7 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001), 1:152–53, sees a reference to the church as Christ’s body, and argues that if each of the groups in the Corinthian church claims a monopoly of “Christ”, the unity of the church is destroyed when “Christ” is destroyed. 62 Cf. Acts 8:16; 19:5; see also 12:18 (ε’ πι` τω ñ, ο’ νο' ματι ’ Ιησουñ Χριστουñ ). 63 Cf. Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief, 234. There is no reason to call this the “weakened sense of repentance” of the term, as Merklein, “μετα' νοια, μετανοε' ω”, 418, does.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

137

death; repentance entails “a deeply significant change of attitude”64 regarding their recent action and inaction and at the same time “a radical change of behavior” (cf. 7:11).65 Repentance is linked with the will of God: it ensues from the “sorrow” triggered by Paul’s earlier letter, a sorrow which is κατα` θεο' ν (7:9, 11), “according to the will of God” (NASB).66 Repentance is related to salvation (μετα' νοιαν ει’ ς σωτηρι' αν) “not as cause and effect but as antecedent and result”.67 Salvation probably refers both to “present spiritual vitality and future eternal life”.68 In 7:11 Paul lists seven items as the “fruit of repentance”:69 σπουδη' , seriousness of purpose in obeying Paul’s directives (cf. 2:9) and dealing with the evildoer; α’ πολογι' α, eagerness to clear themselves from blame; α’ γανα' κτησις, indignation at the evildoer who had challenged Paul’s authority and indignation at themselves and their failure to defend Paul; φο' βος, apprehension concerning the effect of their disloyalty on Paul and on the future of their struggling church; ε’ πιπο' θησις, the yearning to see Paul in person (cf. 7:7); ζηñ λος, eagerness to accept Paul’s admonition and thus be reconciled with the apostle; and ε’ κδι' κησις, the determination to punish the evildoer. The tangible repentance of the Corinthian Christians involves grief, a change of mind, salvation, and a positive transformation of behavior.70 The fact that Paul twice uses the term μετα' νοια in 2 Cor 7:9, 10 suggests that the two reasons that Hans Windisch advances in his explanation of the infrequence of the term in Paul’s letters71 are not very convincing. First, while Paul certainly emphasizes God’s initiative and power, alluded to here with the prepositional phrase κατα` θεο' ν, and while he indeed regards the human mind ─────────────── 64 Thrall, Second Corinthians, 1:492. 65 Cf. Harris, Second Corinthians, 537, who goes on to comment that sorrow “can precede or follow μετα' νοια, but cannot be identified with that change of mind or heart”. 66 Cf. NET: “sadness as intended by God”. Most English translations render the prepositional phrase κατα` θεο' ν as an adjective: “godly grief” (RSV, NRSV), “godly sorrow” (AV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV). 67 Harris, Second Corinthians, 538; the following point ibid. 539. 68 Harris, Second Corinthians, 539. But cf. Thrall, Second Corinthians, 1:492: “In view of the contrasting θα' νατος in 10b, the word σωτηρι' α must carry the full weight of meaning that attaches to the idea in Paul’s letters, i.e., final deliverance from divine wrath and final restoration to divine glory”. Cf. Philipp Bachmann, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Leipzig: Deichert, 1922 [1909]), 302–3; Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 377. 69 For the following descriptions see Harris, Second Corinthians, 542. 70 The comment of Hagenow, Heilige Gemeinde – Sündige Christen, 179, n. 531, that the specific meaning of μετα' νοια in 2 Cor 7:9–10 remains unrecognizable, is curious. 71 Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief, 234. He argues that Paul found the emphasis in μετα' νοια on human reason disagreeable, and he argues that Paul’s view of the process of salvation must be seen in terms of a contrast to the call to repentance of the prophets and of John and Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels as well as in contrast to the intellectualism of philosophy: conversion is tied to a sacramental renewal connected to faith and it is caused by caused by God, which means that the notion of a change of mind (“Sinnesänderung”) is marginalized (“eben nur mit einschließt”).

138

Paul – Missionary Theologian

as debased (Rom 1:28), he does not downplay the relevance of human reason: the appeals to the Corinthians in the “severe letter” which caused them to grieve and to repent – if the extant letters of Paul are any guide – surely consisted of theological, christological, and ecclesiological arguments as well as personal and emotional appeals designed to cause them to think differently about his apostolic ministry and message. Paul does not despise human reason, although he emphasizes the necessity that the faculty of intellectual perception of Christians and their way of thinking as Christians must not follow the traditional secular standards and values but be renewed (Rom 12:2). Second, Paul’s view of the process of conversion, while certainly emphasizing faith in Jesus Christ, does not marginalize the change of mind that μετα' νοια connotes. In 2 Cor 7:9, 10 μετα' νοια and σωτηρι' α are closely connected. Expressing his concern about the moral state of the Corinthian believers in 2 Cor 12:20–21, Paul highlights three fears that he hopes would not materialize when he visits them in the near future: he fears that the Corinthians might not be the kind of people he wishes them to be (12:20a); he fears specifically that there continues to be internal strife and factionalism in the church (12:20b);72 and he fears he may be humiliated when he visits the Corinthian believers, leading to grief over the unrepentant sinners in the church who persist in dissolute sexual behavior: “I fear that when I come again, my God may humble me before you, and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced” (12:21). Paul describes these sinners with two verbs.73 They have persisted in their former sins (τω ñ ν προημαρτηκο' των), perhaps since his last visit, if not since their conversion (cf. 1 Cor 6:9– 11). They have not repented (μη` μετανοησα' ντων) of these sins,74 which are specified as α’ καθαρσι' α, “impurity”, i.e., moral corruption, especially involving sexual sins, πορνει' α, “immorality”, i.e., illicit sexual intercourse such as prostitution and extra-marital sex, and α’ σε' λγεια, “licentiousness”, i.e., lack of moral contraint and shameless sexual activity.75 Some have suggested that ─────────────── 72 The list of 12:19b contains eight items: quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, disorder. The first four items occur in Gal 5:20. For a discussion of the Greek terms see the commentaries, especially Margaret E. Thrall, The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), II, 863–65. 73 The two verbs are best interpreted as epexegetical genitives after πολουñ ς, not as partitive genitives; cf. Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians, AB 32A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 557; Jan Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1989), 215; Harris, Second Corinthians, 902–3. 74 In the New Testament, μετανοειñν is usually construed with the prepositions α’ πο' (Acts 8:22; cf. Heb 6:1) or ε’ κ (Rev 2:21, 22; 9:20, 21; 16:11); in the LXX, the preposition ε’ πι' is not uncommon (Joel 2:13; Amos 7:3, 6l; Jonah 3:10; 4:2). Cf. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956 [1915]), 218; Harris, Second Corinthians, 903. 75 The three terms are also listed in Gal 5:19.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

139

since μετανοειñν is a term of missionary proclamation, these unrepentant sinners had never been really converted to the Christian faith.76 While μετανοειñν is certainly a mission term in Acts,77 it is used in Paul’s letters only here, a fact that does not allow us to establish the semantic connotation of the verb for Paul. As the noun μετα' νοια is concerned, Paul uses it in 2 Cor 7:9, 10 to describe the repentance of Christian believers, specifically their re-evaluation of and grief about earlier actions, a new disposition, and transformed behavior. When Paul thinks of his upcoming visit to Corinth, he fears that the continued quarrels and dissolute sexual behavior will compel him to take formal, public action against these unrepentant sinners – a humiliating experience which Paul, however, attributes to God “because God could turn Paul’s painful discovery of those sins among his own converts into spiritual benefit if Paul himself was thereby brought low before God and if his subsequent action of ‘not sparing’ them punishment (13:2) brought about their repentance and thus their οι’ κοδομη' (v. 19; cf. 10:8; 13:10)”.78 The humbling experience that Paul fears he will have to face during his upcoming visit to Corinth would probably involve the removal of the unrepentant sinners from the congregation. In 2 Cor 2:5–8, 10; 7:11; 13:1–2 and 1 Cor 5:3–13 Paul provides hints about a congregational procedure for disciplining unrepentant sinners in the church. The congregation would hear evidence about the sinful behavior of the church member, given by at least two or three witnesses (2 Cor 13:1); the church expresses sadness about the sin of the church member (1 Cor 5:2);79 the majority of the church passes a judgment (1 Cor 5:3), followed by a penalty if the church member persists in sinning (2 Cor 2:5–6); the penalty may be exclusion from all social contact with other church members (1 Cor 5:11; cf. 2 Thess 3:14) or excommunication (1 Cor 5:3–5, 13); the penalty was not irreversible: if the punishment led to sorrow ─────────────── 76 Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 237. Cf. Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief, 410–11, for the point that μετανοειñν is a mission term. See Thrall, Second Corinthians, 2:868–69, who finds Georgi’s linguistic argument unconvincing; she suggests that the sexual sins mentioned in 12:21 were “a prominent characteristic of the pagan habits renounced at conversion (1Cor 6.9–11)”, and allows that Georgi may be correct. Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:12–20 clearly indicates that some Corinthian believers continued their sexually promiscuous behavior. 77 Cf. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; 26:20. Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief, 411, uses the term “Taufbekehrung”, a term that diverts attention from faith in Jesus as the Savior who forgives sins, which is central for Luke, to the occasion in which faith is confessed by immersion in water. Cf. Kim-Rauchholz, Umkehr bei Lukas; Hans Jörg Sellner, Das Heil Gottes. Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks, BZNW 152 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007). 78 Harris, Second Corinthians, 902. Furnish, II Corinthians, 567, is less optimistic about the outcome: “their ruin is his defeat;” cf. Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, WBC 40 (Waco: Word, 1986), 465: “Paul will be humiliated because he will feel that he failed in his mission”. 79 Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 201, state with reference to 2 Cor 12:21 that “mourning” “closely parallels the concept of godly sorrow or repentance”.

140

Paul – Missionary Theologian

and repentance, the penalty should be discontinued (2 Cor 2:7). The purpose of such a procedure “was to provoke the sinner’s repentance with a view to his restoration to the community of faith”.80 While Paul does not use μετανοειñν or μετα' νοια in 1 Corinthians, it is quite obvious that he calls upon the Corinthian believers to change their mind about various convictions and modes of behavior, to feel regret or shame about their present behavior, to turn away from specific sins, and to change their behavior. In other words, he wants them to repent. The Old Testament and Jewish connection between repentance and a return to Yahweh is present in that Paul bases his ethical exhortation on references to God or to Jesus Christ. A few examples must suffice. As regards quarrels about loyalties to a particular apostle or teacher (1 Cor 1:18–4:21), Paul argues with the gospel of Jesus, the crucified Messiah, with the composition of the church, with the missionary proclamation which led to the establishment of the church, with the wisdom and the Spirit of God, with the function of missionaries and church leaders, and with the proper evaluation of church leaders (1 Cor 1:18–25, 26–31; 2:1– 5, 6–16; 3:1–23; 4:1–21) to change the Corinthians’ mind, to change their behavior, and to get them to acknowledge the centrality of the cross (1:18– 2:5; 3:11) and the presence of God in the church who is God’s temple (3:16). The rhetorical appeal to knowledge that they should have about their identity as God’s temple (ου’ κ οι»δατε, “do you not know;” 3:16)81 is meant to cause shame,82 an implementation of knowledge that they already have,83 a reorientation of basic priorities, and changed behavior. In the discussion of the case of incest (1 Cor 5:1–13), Paul shames them for tolerating such behavior by pointing out the fact that even pagans do not tolerate incestuous relationships, challenging them to mourn, to change their thinking about this matter and to deal with the sinner. As regards lawsuits among believers (1 Cor 6:1–11), he shames84 them by pointing out their willingness to have disputes about ordinary matters be decided by pagan judges. He points them to the kingdom of God and to the power of the Lord Jesus Christ and of God’s Spirit that pro─────────────── 80 Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 596–57; cf. Harris, Second Corinthians, 228; also Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 397 on 1 Cor 5:4–5: “in hope that the experience would cause him to repent and return to the fellowship of the church”. 81 The phrase ου’ κ οι»δατε occurs quite often in Paul: cf. 1 Cor 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24; Rom 6:16; 11:2; without negation in 1 Cor 12:2; 16:15; Gal 4:13; Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 1:5; 2:1, 2, 5, 11; 3:3, 4; 4:2; 5:2; 2 Thess 2:6; 3:7. 82 Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 316, comments that the phrase ου’ κ οι»δατε “indicates both Paul’s intensity of feeling ... and his belief that the principle at issue is axiomatic for the Christian and should not have escaped attention as a cardinal element in the community’s thinking”. 83 Cf. Wuellner, “Rhetorical Questions in First Corinthians”, 67, 71. 84 Note 6:5: προ` ς ε’ ντροπη` ν υ‘ μιñν λε' γω; BDAG defines ε’ ντροπη' as “the state of being ashamed”.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

141

vided them with a new identity of people who have been washed, sanctified, and justified, as the basis and the motivation for a change of attitude and a change of behavior when it comes to dealing with other believers who may have caused harm. Paul’s warning against prostitution includes the argument that the body of believers belongs to the Lord (1 Cor 6:19–20). Read on the background of Hos 3:2–3, one may conclude, “Calling God’s people to repentance on the grounds that he is their husband and master places Paul in the tradition of the best of Israel’s prophets”.85 When Paul admonishes the Corinthians not to participate in banquets in pagan temples,86 he exhorts them, “flee from idolatry” (φευ' γετε α’ πο` τηñ ς ει’ δωλολατρι' ας; 1 Cor 10:14), appealing to their cognitive faculties (ω‘ ς φρονι' μοις λε' γω; 10:15), to Jesus death (10:16), to fellowship with Jesus in the Lord’s supper (10:16–17), and warning them of the Lord’s “jealousy” and power and thus implicitly of divine judgment (10:22). This is the language of repentance: the Corinthian Christians must abandon their visits to pagan temples, they must change their mind about their behavior on the basis of knowledge that they already have, they must return to the exclusivity of their commitment to Jesus, and they must take the reality of God’s judgment seriously. When Paul censures the Corinthians for the dynamics of the communal meals and the celebration of the Lord’s supper in the meetings of the assembly, he accuses some of the Corinthian believers of causing harm (11:17) and of enjoying their rich meals while neglecting the needs of the poorer believers who are hungry (11:21–22). He reminds them of Jesus’ death and the institution of the Lord’s supper (11:23–26). He warns them of persisting in sinning (11:27). He calls them to examine their behavior on the basis of the knowledge they have about the Lord’s Supper (11:28), surely with a view to changing their outlook and their behavior. He warns them of God’s judgment (11:29) which has already started to become a reality, demonstrated by illnesses and premature deaths in the church (11:30). And he reminds them that such judgment is not meant to condemn them but to lead them to proper discernment (διεκρι' νομεν), i.e., a proper evaluation of what constitutes proper behavior of well-to-do Christians (11:31), and to “discipline” (παιδευο' μεθα) them (11:32), a term that can be defined as “to assist ─────────────── 85 Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 265. 86 Cf. Peter David Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8–10 in its Context, Studies in Christianity and Judaism (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993); Alex T. M. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy, JSNTSup 176 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 269–301; John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1, WUNT 2.151 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 353–57; Schnabel, Erster Korinther, 428–32; Zeller, Korinther, 280–82, 336–42.

142

Paul – Missionary Theologian

in the development of a person’s ability to make appropriate choices”.87 In other words, Paul wants the affluent Corinthian believers who ignore the needs of the poorer believers to change their worldview and their behavior in the light of convictions that they already have, genuinely appropriating their faith in Jesus Christ. He wants them to repent.88 In Gal 5:16 Paul admonishes the Galatian believers to “live by the Spirit” (πνευ' ματι περιπατειñτε) and not to “gratify the desires of the flesh” and then enumerates a list of “works of the flesh” (τα` ε» ργα τηñ ς σαρκο' ς) that cannot and must not characterize the behavior of Christians (5:19–21). The first five items describe Gentile behavior (fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery),89 the following eight items depict problems of life in community (enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy); the last two items (drunkenness, carousing) could go with the previous two groups.90 While some see the list as a “random collection of items”,91 others have argued that “by ‘topping and tailing’ his list with items which he could be sure his Galatian audiences would echo warmly, his hope no doubt was that the items in the heart of the list directed more at them themselves would strike home with greater impact”,92 in particular the reference to dissensions (διχοστασι' αι) and factions (αι«ρεσις). The nine items in the list of the “fruit of the Spirit” (ο‘ καρπο` ς τουñ πνευ' ματο' ς) in 5:22–23 describe the quality of character caused by the prompting of the Spirit without which the community of believers cannot be sustained.93 The exhortation ει’ ζω ñ μεν πνευ' ματι, πνευ' ματι και` στοιχω ñ μεν (“if we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit”; 5:25) initiates in 5:25–6:10 a series of imperative and hortatory verbs after the essentially descriptive paragraph 5:13–24, emphasizing the responsibility of the Galatian believers for Christian living. Paul can build on his description of “the activity by which God has graciously created an addressable community, a church that, led by the Spirit, is able to hear the imperative and to be thankful to God for it”.94 It is in this context, explicitly addressing the Galatian Christians for the penultimate time in 6:1,95 that Paul admonishes: “My friends, if anyone is ─────────────── 87 BDAG s.v. παιδευ' ω 2. 88 Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 898, comments that Paul’s concern “anticipates Bonhoeffer’s declarations about ‘cheap grace.’ Cheap grace is ‘the preaching of forgiveness without repentance ... Communion without confession, grace without discipleship ... Christianity without Christ’” (quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, Sixth Edition [London: SCM, 1959], 38, 39, also quoted ibid. 157, 356, 1009). 89 Note that πορνει'α, α’ καθαρσι'α, α’ σε' λγεια, ει’ δωλολατρι'α, φαρμακει'α, although viewed as vices by some Greek philosophers, describe traditional pagan behavior. 90 Cf. Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, HThK IX (Freiburg: Herder, 1988 [1074]), 381. 91 Betz, Galatians, 283, quoted by Longenecker, Galatians, 254. 92 Dunn, Galatians, 306. 93 Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 309. 94 Martyn, Galatians, 536. 95 Cf. Gal 1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13, and the benediction 6:18.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

143

detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness”. The brief description of what the believers in the assemblies should do when a fellow-believer is entrapped by a particular sin (ε» ν τινι παραπτω' ματι) focuses on “you who have received the Spirit” rather than on the attitudes and actions of those who have sinned. 96 The believers who have all received the Spirit (3:2–3, 5; 4:6; 5:18) are exhorted to restore a fellow-Christian whose unacceptable conduct has come to light. The verb καταρτι' ζειν describes an action that causes something or someone to be in a condition which allows it or him to function well, specifically the restoration to a former condition, which is put to rights.97 The present tense of the imperative (καταρτι' ζετε) suggests a process that may take some time.98 Challenging the sinner and restoring him to proper Christian behavior is to be done”in a spirit of gentleness”, i.e., with spiritual maturity that embodies the fruit of the Spirit. As regards the sinner, who is not the focus of Paul’s directive, Paul would certainly imply that he acknowledges his transgression, abandons his behavior which belonged to the “works of the flesh”, and commits himself to changed behavior controlled by the Spirit and informed by the “fruit of the Spirit”. In other words, Paul expects that the sinner repents, and that the congregation helps the sinner in the process of recognizing, confessing, and abandoning sin and returning to behavior that corresponds to the new life that believers in Jesus have been given by the Spirit. The comment “take care that you yourselves are not tempted” (6:1b) directs all Christians to selfscrutiny, to an acknowledgment of their own propensity to temptation and sin. The need to repent remains a constant reality in the Christian community. A final example must suffice. The first two imperatives of Paul’s ethical discourse in Rom 12–15 appear in 12:2: και` μη` συσχηματι' ζεσθε τω ñ, αι’ ω ñ νι του' τω, , α’ λλα` μεταμορφουñ σθε τηñ, α’ νακαινω' σει τουñ νοο' ς, ει’ ς το` δοκιμα' ζειν υ‘ μαñ ς τι' το` θε' λημα τουñ θεουñ , το` α’ γαθο` ν και` ευ’ α' ρεστον και` τε' λειον (“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect;” NRSV).99 Since the present world is passing and imperfect (1 Cor 7:31; 10:11) because it is controlled by Satan (2 Cor 4:4) and thus evil (Gal 1:4), Paul exhorts Christians not to conform to the pattern of the present world, i.e., of the social, cultural, and ethical Röm traditions of secular society. The present tense of the imperative συσχηματι' ζεσθε indicates that the resis─────────────── 96 Longenecker, Galatians, 274. 97 BDAG s.v. καταρτι'ζω 1a. 98 Dunn, Galatians, 321, over-interprets when he states that “the tense implies that it might be a lengthy task”. Schreiner, Galatians, 357, suggests that what Paul describes corresponds to the first step of church discipline in Matt 18:15–20. 99 Hagenow, Heilige Gemeinde – Sündige Christen, does not discuss Rom 12:2 in his treatment of synchronic and diachronic aspects of sin in Romans (ibid. 165–212).

144

Paul – Missionary Theologian

tance of the Christian believer to secular accommodation and adaptation100 is an ongoing process, which implies that the patterns and the actions of secular behavior continue to be a temptation for Christians, which they must refuse. The second imperative exhorts Christians to let God’s grace and the power of the Spirit transform their thinking and their behavior. The verb μεταμορφουñ ν describes here an inward change in fundamental character or condition,101 a change that consists in the renewal (α’ νακαι' νωσις) of the cognitive and moral perception regarding the temptations of the works of the flesh that characterize the present world (cf. 8:1–17) on the one hand, and of the will of God that believers are called upon to exhibit on the other hand. The purpose and result of this transformation is the discernment of “what it is important to do, the best course to follow, the decision to make, and especially to discern what is pleasing to the Lord (Eph 5:10), which presupposes spiritual renewal and the possession of love, which consequently gives a religious sense, a kind of spiritual instinct that allows a person to recognize true values (Rom 12:2)”.102 The will of God (το` θε' λημα τουñ θεουñ ) is described as α’ γαθο' ς, i.e., of high standard of worth and merit; as ευ’ α' ρεστον, i.e. a goodness that is determined not by human standards but by the revelation of God’s will;103 and τε' λειον, i.e., perfect, complete, and absolute. The present tense of the imperative μεταμορφουñ σθε indicates, again, that the active, deliberate commitment to do the will of God, to changed thinking about ethical values, and to changed behavior that is in line with the will of God, is an ongoing process. Since spiritual renewal is accompanied by godly grief leading to repentance according to 2 Cor 7:9,104 remorse for sin is most likely implied as well. The passive voice of the imperative points to the power of the “mercies of God” (12:1) and the work of the Spirit (8:4–5, 9–11) in the process of cognitive and moral transformation, while the imperative as such highlights the personal responsibility of the believer to actually do the will of God. This process of refusing to accommodate secular values, of transformation according to the norms of the will of God, and of discerning what to think and what to do, corresponds to the basic definition of repentance.

─────────────── 100 Cf. Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer, 4th Edition, HNT 8a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 317–18. 101 BDAG s.v. μεταμορφο' ω 2; the first meaning is “to change in a manner visible to others, be transfigured”. 102 Ceslas Spicq, “δοκιμα' ζω”, TLNT, I, 53–61, here 356. 103 C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79), II, 610. 104 Cf. Matthew A. Elliott, Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 209.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

145

7. Conclusion There is no basis for the argument that Paul avoids the terms μετα' νοια/μετανοειñν because of antipathy to the term devalued by the penitential practices in contemporary Judaism, as Johannes Behm alleges,105 or merely because for Paul “μετα' νοια is comprised in πι' στις, the central concept in his doctrine of salvation”,106 or because this term “did not stress sufficiently God’s action in salvation”.107 The relative scarcity of the terms μετα' νοια/ μετανοειñν in Paul’s letters should not be accorded too much weight. Inferences from word statistics are, at least in this case, not helpful. Paul does use the terms μετα' νοια/ μετανοειñν. He also uses other terms and phrases in order to express the need to, and the reality of, changing mind and heart, outlook and behavior. We have seen that Paul knows the Jewish doctrine of repentance, that his missionary preaching calls for repentance, that his theological discourse presupposes repentance, that his rhetorical discourse in his letters includes the discourse of repentance, and that his ethical discourse entails exhortations to repentance. Christians are people who have repented of their sins and who have committed themselves to living for God, and they are people who continue to repent of sins they find themselves doing, continuously committing themselves to doing the will of God. While emphasizing that all sins are forgiven, once and for all, by God’s grace on account of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross, for all who believe in Jesus Christ, he also emphasizes the continued necessity of exchanging secular standards for the standards of the will of God, changing the patterns of perception concerning what is acceptable behavior, regretting false thinking and wrong behavior, returning to faith in God and in Jesus as the basis for proper Christian behavior, all the while relying on the power of God and his Spirit who continues the transformation of the justified sinner.

─────────────── 105 J. Behm, μετανοε' ω, μετα' νοια, ThWNT IV, 1000: “Antipathie gegen das durch die jüdische Bußpraxis entwertete Wort;” the English translation omits the reference to Judaism: “antipathy to a term devalued by penitential practices” (TDNT IV 1005). Behm’s view in ThWNT is taken up by Cranfield, Romans, I, 144–45 n. 2. 106 Behm, “μετανοε' ω, μετα' νοια”, 1005, with reference to Adolf Schlatter, Die Theologie der Apostel, Second Edition (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1922 [1910]), 334: “daß er aus dem Glauben und der Buße eine vollkommene Einheit macht”. Schlatter does not specifically comment on the use of μετα' νοια in Paul’s letters. 107 Francis T. Fallon, 2 Corinthians, New Testament Message 11 (Wilmington: Glazier, 1980), 64, quoted approvingly by Martin, 2 Corinthians, 230.

146

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Bibliography Aune, David E. Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Philadelphia: Westminster Knox, 2003. Bachmann, Philipp. Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. 4th Edition. KNT 8. Leipzig: Deichert, 1922 [1909]. Barnett, Paul W. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Becker, Jürgen. Der Brief an die Galater. NTD 8.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Behm, Johannes. “μετανοε' ω, μετα' νοια”. Pages 972–1004 in Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. IV. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–79. —. “μετανοε' ω, μετα' νοια”. Pages 975–1008 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. IV. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Belleville, Linda L. Reflections of Glory. Paul’s Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.1–18. JSNTSup 52. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Berger, Klaus. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984. Bertram, Georg. “στρε' φω κτλ”. Pages 714–29 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Sixth Edition. London: SCM, 1959. Carson, Don A. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. Cheung, Alex T. M. Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy. JSNTSup 176. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Choi, Jae Duk. Jesus’ Teaching on Repentance. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism. Binghampton: Global Publications, 2000. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79. Crossley, James G. “The Semitic Background to Repentance in the Teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus”. JSHJ 2 (2004): 138–57. Davis, Basil S. “The Meaning of προεγρα' φη in the Context of Galatians 3.1”. NTS 45 (1999): 194–212. Dover, Kenneth J. The Evolution of Greek Prose Style. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Dunn, James D. G. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. London: Black, 1993. —. Romans. WBC 38. Dallas: Word, 1988. Eastman, Susan. “The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited”. JSNT 83 (2001): 69–87. Elliott, Matthew A. Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006. Fallon, Francis T. 2 Corinthians. New Testament Message 11. Wilmington: Glazier, 1980. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Fohrer, Georg. “Umkehr und Erlösung beim Propheten Hosea [1955]”. Pages 222–41 in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. BZAW 99. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967. Fotopoulos, John. Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1. WUNT 2.151. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Furnish, Victor P. II Corinthians. AB 32A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

147

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Gathercole, Simon J. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gench, Frances Taylor. “Repentance in the NT”. Pages 762–64 in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. IV. Edited by K. D. Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Goetzmann, Jürgen. “μετα' νοια”. Pages 357–59 in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1. Edited by C. Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Gooch, Peter David. Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8–10 in its Context. Studies in Christianity and Judaism. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993. Graupner, M., and Heinz-Josef Fabry. “‫” ׁשּוב‬. Pages 461–522 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. XIV. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H. J. Fabry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. 4th Edition. ThHKNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Hafemann, Scott. Paul, Moses and the History of Israel. The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Hagenow, Stephan. Heilige Gemeinde – Sündige Christen. Zum Umgang mit postkonversionaler Sünde bei Paulus und in weiteren Texten des Urchristentums. TANZ 54. Tübingen: Francke, 2011. Hägerland, Tobias. “Jesus and the Rites of Repentance”. NTS 52 (2006): 166–87. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Holladay, William L. The Root šubh in the OT with Particular Reference to Its Usages in Covenantal Contexts. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Holtz, Traugott. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKK 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn/Zürich: Neukirchener/Benziger, 1986. Käsemann, Ernst. An die Römer. 4th Edition. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Kim-Rauchholz, Mihamm. Umkehr bei Lukas: Zu Wesen und Bedeutung der Metanoia in the Theologie des dritten Evangelisten. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHTh 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Konopasek, Jaroslav. “Les ‘Questions Rhetoriques’ dans le Nouveau Testament”. RHPR 12 (1932): 47–66, 141–61. Lambrecht, Jan. Second Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1989. Légasse, Simon. L’épître de Paul aux Romains. LD 10. Paris: Cerf, 2002. —. “ε’ πιστρε' φω, ε’ πιστροφη' ”. Page 40 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. II. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. Lemmer, H. Richard. “Mnemonic Reference to the Spirit as a Persuasive Tool (Galatians 3.1– 6 Within the Argument, 3.1–4.11)”. Neot. 26 (1992): 359–88. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 31. Dallas: Word, 1990. Luter, A. Boyd. “Repentance B. New Testament”. Pages 672–74 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. V. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians. AB 32B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Waco: Word, 1986. ˘

148

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Merklein, Helmut. “Die Umkehrpredigt bei Johannes dem Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth [1981]”. Pages 109–26 in Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. WUNT 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. —. “μετα' νοια, μετανοε' ω”. Pages 415–19 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. II. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. 5th Edition. KEK IV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Moessner, David P. “Paul in Acts: Preacher of Eschatological Repentance to Israel”. NTS 34 (1988): 96–104. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. 5th Edition. HThK IX. Freiburg: Herder, 1988 [1974]. Nave, Guy D. The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts. Academia 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1969. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956 [1915]. Quanbeck, Warren A. “Repentance”. Pages 4:33–34 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Roose, Hanna. “Umkehr und Ausgleich bei Lukas: Die Gleichnisse vom verlorenen Sohn (Lk 15.11–32) und vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus (Lk 16.19–31) als Schwestergeschichten”. NTS 56 (2010): 1–21. Russell, Donald A. Criticism in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Schlatter, Adolf. Die Theologie der Apostel. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1922 [1910]. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. KEK 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 [1949]. Schmeller, Thomas. Paulus und die „Diatribe“: Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation. NTA 19. Münster: Aschendorff, 1987. —. Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther. EKK VIII. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie/Patmos, 2010/2015. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. —. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Second Revised Edition. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2010 [2006]. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKK 7. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ZECNT 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Scott, Ian W. Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience and the Spirit. WUNT 2.205. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Sellner, Hans Jörg. Das Heil Gottes. Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks. BZNW 152. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Spicq, Ceslas. “δοκιμα' ζω”. Pages 353–61 in Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, vol. I. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. —. “μετανοε' ω, μετα' νοια”. Pages 471–77 in Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, vol. II. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. Stowers, Stanley K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus. Third Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. —. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

4. Repentance in Paul’s Letters

149

Thrall, M. The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians. Cambridge Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. —. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–2000. Tolmie, D. Francois. Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter. WUNT 2/190. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Watson, Duane F. “1 Corinthians 10:23–11:1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions”. JBL 108 (1989): 301–18. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. EKK 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82. Windisch, Hans. Der Zweite Korintherbrief. KEK 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970 [1924]. Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Römer 2.1–24 als Teil der Gerichtsrede des Paulus gegen die Menschheit”. NTS 52 (2006): 356–76. Wolff, Hans Walter. “Das Thema ‘Umkehr’ in der alttestamentlichen Prophetie”. ZTK 48 (1951): 129–48. Wuellner, Wilhelm. “Paul as Pastor: The Function of Rhetorical Questions in First Corinthians”. Pages 49–77 in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère. Edited by A. Vanhoye. BETL 73. Leuven: University Press, 1986. Zeller, Dieter. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. KEK 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church Tom Wright recognizes the critical importance of mission and evangelism for New Testament theology and for the church. He recognizes that his Paul and the Faithfulness of God (PFG)1 provides neither a presentation nor an analysis of Paul’s actual missionary; thus he promises that the final volume in the series in which PFG appeared, Christian Origins and the Question of God, “will deal more directly, in summary of the whole, with the question of early Christian missiology” (PFG 1483). This essay explores what we can learn from Paul, and from Wright, about mission and evangelism.

1. Paul’s Missionary Work Paul’s missionary work in space and time is both the context and the catalyst of the Apostle’s letters; it forms the content of the second half of the book of Acts. In Wright’s PFG, we do not learn much about Paul’s travels, his evangelistic preaching before Jewish and Gentile audiences, and his efforts in establishing local congregations of believers in Jesus. Wright speaks of Paul’s “endless travels” (PFG 1354) and of the fact that “he travelled restlessly” (PFG 1487). Paul’s travels always ended, of course, whenever he arrived in the city that he deemed should be the next location for preaching the gospel. And Paul surely rested, at least during the long sea voyages (if there was no storm!). Section IV entitled “Paul in History” (PFG 1269–1519) rarely uses the material in Acts 13–20. Most of what Wright says in the 250 pages of these five chapters could have been integrated into Section III which treats Paul’s theology. In Wright’s presentation, mission and evangelism seem to be largely ideas. He does say that Paul “was not just a spectator” (PFG 1489), but what Paul actually did, besides “doing theology,” is not explored. Wright gives us scattered glimpses of what a fuller presentation would have to include. Wright describes Paul’s ministry as focused on the message that God was reconciling the world to himself in the Messiah who is ─────────────── 1 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God IV (London/Minneapolis: SPCK/Fortress, 2013).

152

Paul – Missionary Theologian

the new temple where heaven and earth meet, reconciled through his sacrifice. Paul’s vocation was to announce that this had happened, to ‘name the Messiah’ after the manner of a herald proclaiming a new sovereign . . . and so to extend this temple-shaped mission into the rest of the world” (PFG 1493).

This statement could lead to an exploration of the meaning of the verb “announce” (κηρυ' σσω)2 and other verbs used to describe Paul’s preaching, teaching, counseling, exhorting, and traveling. The reference to “the rest of the world” would warrant a description of the geographical scope of Paul’s missionary work. We can explore the manner of his preaching before Jewish audiences and before Gentile audiences. We can explore the range of people he was able to establish contact with – from Roman governors and city magistrates to Jews and godfearers in synagogues to prison wardens and slave girls. The following sections gives brief examples of the material that can and should be analyzed.

1.1 Paul’s Missionary Preaching Upon Arrival in a New City Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 1:18–25 is relevant not only for underscoring the centrality of Jesus as Israel’s crucified Messiah (PFG 522), but for understanding Paul’s evangelistic preaching and aspects of his missionary procedures. Paul engages his critics in the church in Corinth concerning the values of contemporary rhetoric, which they were using to evaluate past and present teachers in the church. 3 Paul speaks very deliberately of the “entrance” (ει»σοδος) into a city and to the people in a given city before whom he proclaims the gospel (1 Cor 2:1; 1 Thess 1:9).4 Paul reflected on the factors and the conditions that came into play during the process of establishing first contacts with Jewish and Gentile listeners. It appears that Paul’s behavior as an “orator” surprised educated Gentiles both at the point of initial contact and afterwards. Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth of the events that took place when he first visited the city (1 Cor 2:1). Paul’s forceful remarks in 1 ─────────────── 2 The comments in PFG 1503 n. 72, are rather brief. 3 Cf. Duane Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and GrecoRoman Rhetoric, SNTSMS 79 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists, SNTSMS 96 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 147–165; Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 31–43; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Third Edition, Historisch-Theologische Auslegung (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2014), 110–159. 4 1 Thess 1:9 refers to ει»σοδος, defined by BDAG as an “act of arriving at a destination” and as “act of finding acceptance” (BADG s.v. ει»σοδος 2-3); in 1 Cor 2:1 Paul reminds the Corinthian believers of the time “when I came to you“ (ε’ λθω` ν προ` ς υ‘ μαñ ς). Cf. 1 Cor 16:8–9; 2 Cor 2:12; Gal 4:14; and Col 4:3.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

153

Cor 1:18–2:5 can most appropriately be understood against the background of Greek-Roman orators. In the eyes of the pagan citizens of a city, Paul was an orator who was looking for an audience. Compared with the conventions of the contemporary orators, however, Paul’s conduct was unconventional. Paul asserts that his behavior was deliberate: When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith (πι'στις) might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God (1 Cor 2:1–5, NRSV).

Paul uses the terms α’ πο' δειξις, δυ' ναμις, πει' θω, and πι' στις (1 Cor 2:4–5), which are central rhetorical terms. The term “power” (δυ' ναμις) is used by Isocrates and Aristotle in their definition of rhetoric: rhetoric is the “power” to detect the means of persuasion, rhetoric is the “power of speaking” (δυ' ναμις τουñ λε' γειν). The verb πει' θω (Lat. persuadere) is often used in definitions of rhetoric. Quintilian defines rhetoric as vis persuadendi.5 The central section of a speech, after the exordium and narratio, was the argumentatio (also called probatio, in Greek πι' στις), which presented the evidence for the position that was presented by the orator.6 When Paul writes in 1 Cor 2:1, “When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom,” he emphasizes the fact that when he preaches the gospel before Jewish and pagan audiences, he intentionally dispenses with the traditional contemporary conventions of rhetoric. He has no interest in being the center of attention by receiving praise from others. He does not want to gain prestige, he does not compete with rival orators, he does not have any financial interests. And, more importantly, Paul knows that the character of the gospel of Jesus Christ makes it impossible to rely on the strategies of traditional rhetoric as described by Aristotle, Cicero, or Quintilian. The message of a crucified Messiah is a “stumbling block” for Jewish listeners and “nonsense” for pagan listeners (1 Cor 1:23). Paul knows that the message of the cross cannot be adapted to the theological, rhetorical or aesthetic expectations of his audiences. He knows that he cannot convince his contemporaries of the truth of the gospel with traditional ─────────────── 5 Quintilian, Inst. 7.3.6: quid sit rhetorice, uis persuadendi an bene dicendi scientia. 6 For details see Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, Third Edition (München: Steiner, 1990 [1960]), 190 (§348). See Lausberg, 190–1236 (§§348–430); Walter F. Veit, “Argumentatio,” HWR, I, 904– 10; M. Kraus and H.-D Spengler, “Indiz,” HWR, IV, 333–39; J. Klein, “Beweis,” HWR, I, 1533–40; M. Kraus, “Enthymem,” HWR, II, 1197–1210; W. Gast, “Causa,” HWR, II, 140–42; J. Klein, “Beispiel,” HWR, I, 1432–1413; L. Calboli Montefusco, “Auctoritas,” HWR, I, 1177–82; W. F. Veit, “Induktion/Deduktion,” HWR, IV, 351–62.

154

Paul – Missionary Theologian

rhetoric or rational arguments. He had good “inartificial proofs”: the eyewitness testimony of people who had seen Jesus to be alive after his resurrection (1 Cor 15:5–8). But the event that these witnesses could testify to would remind Greek and Roman listeners of mythological tales, prompting doubt about the relevance of this particular πι' στις or argumentum. Moreover, the conviction that Jesus’ death on the cross represents the ultimate and universal rescue operation of the one true God who had created the world could not be proven with an appeal to eyewitnesses of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus from the dead. In the repertoire of material proofs, Paul would not have been able to find signa or argumenta with which to corroborate the salvific significance of Jesus’ death on the cross. As regards exempla, he could have referred to people who had the courage to die for their convictions, the classical example being Socrates. But such examples do not demonstrate that the death of a man hailed by his followers as the Jewish messiah brings salvation, forgiveness of sin, and adoption into God’s family to all people who believe in him. Neither would Paul have been able to appeal to the auctoritas of a generally acknowledged proposition (ε» νδοξα)7 or a generally recognized wisdom saying. Paul did have personal credibility (ηò θος) as a Roman citizen and a Torah scholar who had travelled internationally, but the shamefulness of the crucifixion of Jesus could not be overcome by such credentials. And the passions (πα' θος) which Paul, speaking about a crucified savior, could have aroused would have consisted in sympathy at best, revulsion at worst. If one follows Aristotle and defines the comedy as “an imitation of base men . . . characterized not by every kind of vice but specifically by ‘the ridiculous’ (το` γελοιñον), some error or ugliness that is painless and has no harmful effects”, or if one follows Cicero and understands “the ridiculous” (ridiculum) as “a certain ugliness or defectiveness,”8 then the message of a crucified Jew who is presented as the savior of mankind must have made a comical (κωμικο' ς, lat. comicus) and ridiculous impression upon the listeners. It was impossible, in the first century, to speak in a rhetorically alluring manner about a man who had been executed on a cross.9 The reality of cruci─────────────── 7 P. Ptassek, “Endoxa,” HWR, II, 1134: “In rhetoric, every persuasive strategy has to start with such fundamental notions which are already generally shared by people and which are thus plausible and compelling if it wants to successfully convince people of something which would remain debatable or implausible without explanation, proof, or example”. 8 Aristotle, Poet. 1449a; Cicero, De orat. 2.58.236. M. Winkler, “Komik, das Komische,” HWR, IV, 1167. 9 Cf. Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, Translated by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), on the shame connected with crucifixion. See the discussion of Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums,” ANRW II/25.1 (1982): 648–793; John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, WUNT 327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 418–23; David W. Chapman and

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

155

fixion was too gruesome, and needed too much explanation, for rhetorical competence and argumentative brilliance to be of any help. When Paul taught new converts, he described Jesus as the “new Adam,”10 as the “savior of mankind,”11 as the “Son of God,”12 and as the “firstborn of the dead”.13 These are terms and categories that could be packaged as attractive religious content when introducing the message about Jesus to Jewish and pagan audiences. Paul asserts, however, that he never dispensed with preaching Jesus the crucified Savior in his missionary proclamation (1 Cor 2:2). Paul relies for conversions of men and women – whether Jews or Gentiles – not on the powers of rhetorical strategies and techniques, but on the power of God. The “proof” (α’ πο' -δειξις) for the validity of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not to be found through the application of logical inference or deduction. The “proof” for the truth of the gospel is to be found in the power of the Holy Spirit (emphasized in PFG 917, without discussion of the rhetorical context of 1 Cor 1–2). When Paul proclaims the gospel (ο‘ λο' γος μου και` το` κη' ρυγμα' μου; 1 Cor 2:4), he speaks “not with plausible words of wisdom” (ου’ κ ε’ ν πειθοιñς σοφι' ας λο' γοις). Rather, he relies “on the demonstration of the Spirit and of power (ε’ ν α’ ποδει' ξει πνευ' ματος και` δυνα' -μεως)” (1 Cor 2:4). The preaching of the gospel is a demonstration effected by the Spirit and by “power,” i.e., by God himself. The powerful Spirit of God “proves” the truth of the proclamation of God’s redemptive revelation in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.14 This “proof” consists in the fact that Jews and pagans living in Corinth are being persuaded to accept the message of Jesus the crucified and risen Messiah. The supernatural proof for the validity of Paul’s missionary proclamation is the conversion of Jews and pagans to faith in Jesus, ─────────────── Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary, WUNT 344 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), Part 3. 10 Cf. Otfried Hofius, “Die Adam-Christus-Antithese und das Gesetz. Erwägungen zu Röm 5,12–21,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, The Third Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism, Durham, September 1994, ed. J. D. G. Dunn, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 165–206. 11 Cf. David Gill, “A Saviour for the Cities of Crete: The Roman Background to the Epistle to Titus,” in The New Testament in its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background, FS Bruce W. Winter, ed. P. J. Williams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 220–30. 12 Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 101–108. 13 Cf. Otfried Hofius, “‘Erstgeborener vor aller Schöpfung’ – ‘Erstgeborener aus den Toten’. Erwägungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Christushymnus Kol 1,15–20,” in Auferstehung – Resurrection, The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium: Resurrection, Transfiguration, and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger, WUNT 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 185–203. 14 Cf. Florian Voss, Das Wort vom Kreuz und die menschliche Vernunft. Eine Untersuchung zur Soteriologie des 1. Korintherbriefes, FRLANT 199 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 131; Hans-Christian Kammler, Kreuz und Weisheit. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 1,10–3,4, WUNT 159 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 171.

156

Paul – Missionary Theologian

the crucified Messiah and Lord. Paul reaffirms in 1 Cor 2:5 why he renounces traditional rhetorical methods: “so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God (ι«να η‘ πι' στις υ‘ μω ñ ν μη` ηò, ε’ ν σοφι' α, α’ νθρω' πων α’ λλ’ ε’ ν δυνα' μει θεουñ ). Wright surely would not disagree with any of this. However, his focus on Paul’s engagement with Israel’s story, back story, plot, and sub-plot moves the realities of Paul’s world and work to a theological plane in which specific missionary experience with its goals and challenges is strangely muted. The truth of Paul’s theology was inextricably rooted in the truth of the good news of a crucified Messiah, a truth that did not fit the hermeneutical framework of either Jews or polytheists. Missionaries certainly tell stories, but they also encounter specific people with diverse cultural backgrounds living in specific cities and belong to various social classes. An exploration of the historical, cultural, religious, and social realities in which Paul preached, taught, and wrote is as important as an exploration of the theological traditions with which he worked.

1.2 Geographical Strategies Paul’s geographical movements, including his plan to initiate missionary work in Spain, are explained by Wright in terms of an effort to establish messianic communities in the very places where Caesar’s power was strongest … in the places where another kyrios, another world ruler, another basileus, was being named and was being worshipped as the one and only sovereign. (PFG 1502–3)15

This is another suggestion that seeks to explain the geographical scope of Paul’s missionary work. Wright rejects, correctly I think, the view that Paul wanted to carry out the missionary “program” of Isa 66:18–20 that reaches the “end of the earth” (cf. Isa 49:6) via Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Tubal, Javan, and the distant coastlands. To suggest that Paul wanted to visit places “where Caesar’s power was strongest” does not explain Paul’s actual travels hinted at in his letters and explicitly mentioned in the book of Acts. (1) Paul does not focus exclusively on “the Roman world,” as is demonstrated by his missionary work in Arabia/Nabatea (cf. Gal 1:17; 2 Cor 11:32), which was not a Roman province in ─────────────── 15 Wright refers to John L. White, The Apostle of God: Paul and the Promise of Abraham (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 130–32; John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom: A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), 354–56; Ksenija Magda, Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy: Searching for the Geographical Awareness Paradigm behind Romans, WUNT 2.266 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 52–53.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

157

the first century.16 (2) Small towns such as Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Beroea were not renowned for a particularly strong zeal for the emperor cult.17 (3) The imperial cult has been documented for nearly 200 cities in Asia Minor, attested by altars, temples, imperial priests, or inscriptions. During the time between 35 BC and AD 60, about fifty-two imperial temples and shrines were built.18 In the New Testament, twenty-four of these cities in which the imperial cult plays an important role are mentioned: Adramyttium, Alexandria Troas, Pisidian Antioch, Assos, Chios, Colossae, Cos, Derbe, Ephesus, Hierapolis, Iconium, Laodicea, Miletus, Mitylene, Patara, Pergamon, Perge, Philadelphia, Rhodes, Samos, Sardis, Smyrna, Tarsus, and Thyatira. In some of these cities Paul engaged in missionary work, but there were many more in which Paul evidently did not preach the gospel, which means that Wright’s suggestion does not explain what he deems “the otherwise strange suggestion that Paul had ‘no room’ for further work in the east” (PFG 1503), unless we assume that in every city in the East for which the emperor cult is attested, other missionaries were already preaching the gospel – in cities such as Aezani, Ancyra, Anazarbus, Bargylia, Cotenna, Daldis, Eumeneia, Halicarnassus, Ilium, Limyra, Mylasa, Nicomedia, Oenoanda, Patara, Sagalassus, Selge, Teos, and Xanthos, to name only a few places in Asia Minor in which Caesar was “being named” and in which Paul, as far as we know, did not initiate missionary work. Before going to Spain, Paul could have found plenty of missionary opportunities in cities and towns in Syria, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Pamphylia, Asia, Pontus-Bithynia, Macedonia, Achaia, Illyrium, Italy, and Gaul. (4) The imperial cult, while focused on the emperor, included female members of the imperial family, a fact that should not be forgotten in discussions of the significance of the imperial cult for Paul. Thus, the explanation of Paul’s plan to preach the gospel in Spain in terms of an attempt to reach the “ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6; Acts 1:8; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.8) remains the more plausible option, without prejudicing the discussion concerning the imminence of Jesus’ parousia in Paul’s theology. Wright’s suggestion gives Caesar too much credit for Paul’s movements. Paul was less concerned about the emperor than about “all people” and “all Gentiles” (1 Cor 9:22; Rom 1:5; 15:11) who needed to hear the gospel, turn away from whatever Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or local (αυ’ το' χθων) deity people worshiped to serve the living and true God and believe in Jesus who rescues from the coming wrath (1 Thess 1:1–10). ─────────────── 16 On Paul’s mission in Arabia/Nabatea cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), II, 1032–45; cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Paul in Arabia,” CBQ 55 (1993): 732–37. 17 Cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 1111–13, 1121, 1168, regarding these cities. 18 Cf. Simon R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 [1984]), 249–74.

158

Paul – Missionary Theologian

1.3 Establishing Local Congregations Wright asserts, importantly, that Paul saw his vocation in terms of “bringing into being ‘places’ – humans, one by one and collectively – in which heaven and earth would come together and be, yes, reconciled” (PFG 1493). This emphasis should lead to a thorough exploration of the establishment of new communities of believers in Jesus, not only from the perspective of Scripture’s triple story and its fulfillment in Jesus, but from religious, social, ethnic, organizational, and liturgical perspectives. We get some of this: the churches that Paul started: were indeed to be a kind of philosophical school, teaching and modelling a new worldview, inculcating a new understanding, a new way of thinking. They were to train people not only to practise the virtues everyone already acknowledged but also to develop some new ones . . . They were indeed, despite their lack of priests, sacrifices and temples, to be a new kind of ‘religion’: to read and study their sacred texts and to weave them into the beginnings of a liturgical praxis …These communities were indeed, despite their powerlessness or actually because of it, on the way to becoming a new kind of polis, a social and cultural community cutting across normal boundaries and barriers, obedient to a different kyrios, modelling a new way of being human and a new kind of power. (PFG 1491–92)

This is a significant description of the churches that Paul wanted to establish and nurture. The general description would benefit greatly from a detailed elaboration from Paul’s letters and from Luke’s description of the churches Paul founded. There are other details that would warrant more discussion. I agree with Wright that “Paul did not think the parousia would necessarily happen at once, and he certainly was not trying to provoke or hasten it by his missionary work,” and that “Paul’s gospel was a Jewish message for the nonJewish world … he believed the God of Israel to be the God of the whole world and Israel’s Messiah to be the world’s true lord” (PFG 1497, 1498). Wright explores this in the context of his repeated discussion of, and references to, Scripture’s triple story of God and the world, God and humankind, and God and Israel. It can and should also be explored in terms of Paul’s ethics, which are, largely, the ethics of Israel’s Scriptures, seen in his critique of a hedonistic lifestyle (1 Cor 5–6). There is much more that can be developed further. Note, for example, the statement, The ‘gospel’ is not mere information: it is summons. Something has happened which requires action. Better, someone is now named, acclaimed, exalted as the world’s true kyrios, and one cannot name and acclaim him as such without summoning all people everywhere to submit to his rule. (PFG 524)

The phrase “summoning all people everywhere to submit to his rule,” if applied to the history of the early church and to Paul’s ministry, means, specifically, evangelism, missionary work, church planting. The planting and sus-

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

159

taining of churches is briefly addressed (PFG 549–50), while evangelism and missionary work is missing in the summary description of the ekklesia, where Wright writes, “generating its own necessary and organically appropriate praxis in worship, prayer, scripture reading and (what came to be called) the sacraments” (565).

1.4 The Missions of Paul and Peter What we know about Peter and Paul from the book of Acts suggests that Peter and Paul never agreed on a division of labor along ethnic lines, which later broke down (pace Wright, PFG 1497–99).19 An interpretation of Gal 2:7–9 in terms of a “Jewish mission” and a “Gentile mission” which excludes Paul from preaching in synagogues and bars Peter from preaching the gospel before Gentiles is not warranted.20 Paul’s description of his missionary flexibility in 1 Cor 9:19–20 demonstrates that he preaches among Jews with the same intensity as he preaches to Gentiles, long before he wrote Romans 11. Furthermore, Luke has Paul preaching in the synagogues of Damascus right after his conversion and throughout his missionary career, while he has Peter preaching before Gentiles in Caesarea (Acts 10) and asserting at the Apostles’ Council that God had chosen him so that the Gentiles might hear the Gospel (Acts 15:7). A division of the areas of missionary responsibility along geographical lines would have been impractical, especially for Paul since Jewish communities existed in all larger cities of the eastern Mediterranean region. If “preaching the gospel to the circumcised” limited Peter to Judea and Galilee, the question arises as to where Peter would actually have been active, since he evidently had left Jerusalem, and probably Judea as well, in AD 41. The following factors are important. (1) Gal 2:1–10 does not describe a “division” or “separation” but a κοινωνι' α, a “close association involving ─────────────── 19 Thus many interpreters, e.g., Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 100; J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 202, 211–16; Gerd Lüdemann, Paulus der Heidenapostel. Band I: Studien zur Chronologie, FRLANT 123 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 96; Wolfgang Reinbold, Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum. Eine Untersuchung zu den Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der frühen Kirche, FRLANT 188 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 168–72. For those who speak of Jewish and Gentile “spheres” or “regions” that Peter and Paul divided up, cf. Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1990 [1949]), 107; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 79–80; Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 128; Lucien Legrand, “Gal 2.9 and the Missionary Strategy of the Early Church,” in Bible, Hermeneutics, Mission. A Contribution to the Contextual Study of Holy Scripture, Missio 10 (Uppsala: Swedish Institute for Missionary Research, 1995), 21–83, esp. 36–63. 20 For arguments see Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 992–99.

160

Paul – Missionary Theologian

mutual interests and sharing.”21 The subject of the consultation was not the question of whether there should two separate branches of missionary work, nor of whether Paul should “join” Jerusalem or whether Peter should “join” the missionary work of Paul. Josef Hainz comments that “the fellowship that was confirmed by a handshake is specifically defined in terms of being established on the mutual recognition of the different expressions of the one gospel and in terms of being realized in the collection that had been agreed upon.”22 (2) Gal 2:8 suggests that the issue was not geographical or ethnic areas of missionary work but the effectiveness of the work of Peter among Jews and the work of Paul among Gentiles, which in both cases is completely dependent upon God. The work of the two apostles may have been distinct in terms of larger numbers of Jews being converted to faith in Jesus in Peter’s ministry, and larger numbers of Gentiles in Paul’s ministry. (3) Paul’s concerns at the consultation of AD 44, expressed in Gal 2:2, were focused on the recognition of his missionary work and of the churches that he had established as having validity equal to the missionary work of Peter and of the other apostles. (4) Gal 2:6–10 indicates that the Jerusalem apostles committed themselves not to interfere with the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas and not to make any demands, with the exception that they should remember the poor believers in the Judean churches. The fact that Paul’s visits to Jerusalem became much more frequent might indicate that Paul took the Jerusalem apostles’ request seriously. This shows again that the issue was not the division of spheres of missionary influence but the recognition of the independent mission of Paul who had worked for eleven years without direct contact with the Jerusalem apostles and who was in the process of planning missionary outreach with Barnabas to Cyprus and to Galatia.

2. Conversion Wright repeatedly emphasizes that the concept of “getting in” was not a category for Roman religion, nor was it a category “that first-century Jews were much bothered about”; rather, the idea of “getting in” was a Christian innovation (PFG 1336). Wright’s discussion of conversion seems to depend on his extensive interaction with Troels Engberg-Pedersen who argues that for Paul and the Stoics, “conversion” is an “all or nothing” moment in which one leaves

─────────────── 21 BDAG s.v. κοινωνι'α. 22 Josef Hainz, Koinonia. “Kirche” als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus, BU 16 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982), 134; cf. Zahn, Galater, 102; Legrand, “Missionary Strategy”, 59–61.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

161

the old life behind for ever.23 Wright emphasizes that when Paul acknowledged Jesus as Israel’s Messiah on the road to Damascus, has not stopped believing in the one God whose ‘grace’ is proclaimed right across Israel’s scriptures … He has always invoked the one God in personal prayer, and he continues to do so; he has not (that is) been ‘converted’ in some modern sense, from having belief in or awareness of a supreme deity to having such a thing for the first time. (PFG 1425, 1426)24

The last sentence raises the point of definition. Wright’s threefold definition of “conversion” (PFG 1418–19) is idiosyncratic: Conversion describes the moment when 1) the adherent of one religion abandons it and adopts another religion; 2) an atheist or agnostic enters a community of faith; or 3) a nominal adherent of a religion or community of faith moves from formal membership and outward ritual observance to a living inner reality. As Wright bases his discussion of Paul’s experience on this tripartite definition, it is obvious why he does not want to use the term “conversion” to describe what happened to Paul, focusing instead on the term “call” as referring not only to missionary vocation but, in the context of Rom 8:29, to the effect of the gospel on Paul’s life. Wright points to Gal 1:15–17 were Paul states that God “called me by his grace” and without further analysis goes on to assert, “There is nothing about repentance and faith; nothing about his heart strangely warmed; nothing about replacing ‘works’ with ‘faith’” (PFG 1421).25 Wright seems quite comfortable in abandoning the term “conversion” in a description of Paul’s experience. At the same time he points to the concepts of dying and rising with the Messiah in Rom 6:2–11 and to the stark contrast between his present and his former life in Phil 3 for the statement that this “does indeed look for all the world like the kind of change we might want to call ‘conversion’” (PFG 1423). There are several problems here. (1) While the first definition was rare in antiquity, where new deities (or civic officials) were frequently added to the range of beings they worshipped (with the exception of non-Jews joining the Jewish religion becoming proselytes) the definition does fit Greeks and Romans who became believers in Jesus. It is thus a definition that is certainly not relevant for Paul himself, but surely for the ε» θνη that he led to faith in Jesus. (2) Wright claims that the second definition – the conversion of the atheist or agnostic – is the sort of definition people assume for Paul; he does not, however, document this claim. Obviously, before Paul accepted faith in Jesus, he was neither an atheist or agnostic. Wright’s second definition is rele─────────────── 23 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 8–9, 38, 70–71; cf. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); see PFG 1383–1406. 24 For Paul’s conversion cf. PFG 1417–26; for “call” as a preferable term see 1420–22. 25 Wright follows, with some modification, Krister Stendahl, “Call Rather Than Conversion,” in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 7–23.

162

Paul – Missionary Theologian

vant for many people living in post-Christian Europe, especially, but neither for the ancient world nor for the majority of people in the 21st century; nor is it the standard definition of conversion by missionaries. (3) While Paul does not refer to repentance and faith in Gal 5–17, this is surely implied: he persecuted and tried to destroy the church (Gal 1:13–14), because he regarded as blasphemy the proclamation of a crucified Messiah whose death atones sins (cf. Gal 3:10, quoting Deut 27:26), but in Damascus he turned away (repented) from his rejection of Jesus and of his persecution activities and turned to faith in Jesus as Israel’s crucified and risen Messiah and joined the community of believers (Acts 9:19). In his speech before Festus and Agrippa Paul describes the task that the risen Lord gave him in these terms: “to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18). Paul goes on to say, “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:19–20, NRSV). Before Paul could preach repentance, he had to repent himself before he could lead others to faith in Jesus, he had to come to faith in Jesus Messiah himself. (4) A better definition of conversion is that of Longenecker: “a radical change of thought, outlook, commitments, and practices, which involves either an overt or a subconscious break with one’s past identity.”26 Considering Paul’s description of the event on the road to Damascus and Luke’s descriptions of the event, as well as Paul’s reevaluation and partial but thoroughgoing transformation of traditional Jewish beliefs in the areas of theology, anthropology, salvation history, Messiah, Law, soteriology, and eschatology,27 the term “conversion” indeed captures what happened to Paul (although it should be emphasized, pace Longenecker’s definition, that Paul did not “break” with his Jewish identity in the sense that he stopped being a Jew). Dunn acknowledges, “It is hard to see what Paul’s conversion (from persecutor to apostle) could have meant had it not at least included a radical ‘change of mind’ on his part with regard to the first Christian claims regarding Jesus”.28 ─────────────── 26 Richard N. Longenecker, ed., The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), xiii, used by Peter T. O’Brien, “Was Paul Converted?” in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 361–91, here 362; Wright does not interact with Longenecker or O’Brien. 27 Cf. Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, WUNT 2.4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 [1981]), a study that is still relevant. 28 J. D. G. Dunn “Paul’s Conversion – A Light to Twentieth Century Disputes [1997],” in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 347–65, here 352; he goes on to emphasize that Paul understood his conversion “more or less from the

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

163

In other discussions, Wright uses the term conversion without quotations marks. He castigates “the modernist assumption that conversion is undesirable, thus making evangelism among Jews politically incorrect, despite Romans 11.11–24, and leaving ‘messianic Jews’ high and dry as an embarrassment to both ‘sides’” (PFG 1414). One would wish for an analysis of Paul’s missionary work among Jews, both from geographical, exegetical, rhetorical, and theological perspectives. The discussion of 1 Cor 9:19–23 (PFG 1435–43) focuses nearly exclusively on the phrase “like a Jews to the Jews” and misses both the focus of the passage in the context of 1 Cor 8–10 (one can have certain rights, but one does not have to insist on using these rights) and the “missionary rule” that Paul formulates. I have explored elsewhere the following emphases of this passage:29 1) The basic rule of missionary existence requires the missionary to take the listener seriously. 2) Paul makes himself dependent upon his listeners, he becomes their “slave.” 3) Paul does not exclude anybody from his preaching: He preaches to Jews and Gentiles and to the weak. The “weak” are not, as Wright argues, “Christians who still harbour scruples on certain issues, and whose consciences must be respected” (PFG 1442),30 but the “simple” people in Corinth, people without Roman citizenship, people without power and influence. They are the freedmen and the foreigners and the slaves who are dependent upon a patron, an employer, or an owner.31 4) Paul’s missionary accommodation formulates no limitations in advance: He becomes “all things” to all people. (5) Paul seeks to win “more” people, which perhaps means that he would win fewer people if he behaved differently – for example if he always displayed the full scope of his freedom. (6) Paul emphasizes that the goal of his missionary work is to “win” people (1 Cor 9:19, 20a, 20b, 21, 22), i.e., to “rescue” them. (7) The normative center of Paul’s accommodation to his varied audiences is the gospel, not pragmatic ─────────────── first as conversion from a Judaism anxious to preserve its distinctiveness from Gentile corruption, as conversion from a zealous determination to defend Israel’s Torah defined boundaries, and as conversion to fulfill Israel’s eschatological mission to the nations” (364). The focus on Jewish boundary markers is too narrow for an explanation of what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. 29 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 953–60. 30 Cf. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914), 192; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville: Knox, 1997), 155; Samuel Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung. Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei Paulus und in seiner Umwelt, FRLANT 147 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 213. 31 For arguments see Schnabel, Korinther, 507–8. Thus also Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, ThHK VII/2 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984 [1982]), 204; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 706; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 434; cf. Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK 7 (Zürich/ Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001), II, 346.

164

Paul – Missionary Theologian

effectiveness: “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings” (1 Cor 9:23). There are indeed boundaries for missionary accommodation: sin as defined by the word of God remains sin. Paul does not argue for cultural relativism but for cultural relevance.

3. Explicating the Gospel Paul uses ευ’ αγγε' λιον as a summary term for his activity as an apostle and for the content of his proclamation. The reference to ευ’ αγγε' λιον in the opening sentence in Romans (Rom 1:1), immediately after a reference to Jesus and to his calling as an apostle, signals that the gospel was an integral, indispensable part of his mindset. Wright discusses “The Mindset of the Apostle” in Part II (PFG 351–569). It takes him nearly 170 of the 219 pages of this section to comment on the meaning and content of ευ’ αγγε' λιον, as he discusses narrative, plots and sub-plots; God and creation; the vocation, failure, rescue and reinstatement of human beings; the role of Torah, in Israel’s story. Paul gets to the gospel quickly, decisively, and concisely, offering a basic definition in Rom 1:2–4 and an expanded definition in Rom 1:16–17.32 The term ευ’ αγγε' λιον refers to “news,”33 to “something fresh happening” (PFG 517). Instead of beginning with 1 Cor 15:3–8, Wright may have started his discussion with Rom 1:2–4, 16–17 where Paul emphasizes the following: (1) God is the One who has caused the good news, who initiated the events that are so significant that they need to be made known as news, and who authorized the proclamation that Paul publicizes (ευ’ αγγε' λιον θεουñ in 1:1 as genitivus auctoris and/or genitivus subjectivus). (2) The news consists in the fact that the promises of Israel’s prophets, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have been fulfilled (ο‹ προεπηγγει' λατο) in Jesus, the Son of God (1:2–3a). (3) Jesus the Son of God was born (τουñ γενομε' νου), he was a member of the Davidic dynasty (ε’ κ σπε' ρματος Δαυι' δ), and he lived as a human being (κατα` ─────────────── 32 Cf. Robert M. Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1, WUNT 2.316 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), whose work may have appeared too late to be seen by Wright. See Calhoun, 9–84, on the characteristics and function of a definition according to Greek and Roman authors. One characteristic is conciseness, something that Wright does not strive for, as he develops the meaning of key terms such as “gospel” through references to the stories and their plots and sub-plots of both Israel and the Greeks and Romans. Wright comments on Rom 1:1–6 only briefly, with the focus on Jesus’ messianic identity (PFG 523–24). 33 Cf. John P. Dickson, “Gospel as News: ευ’ αγγελ- from Aristophanes to the Apostle Paul,” NTS 51 (2005): 212–30, 212–220, with reference to Lycurgus, Leocrates 1.18; Pausanias Descr. 4.19.5; Plutarch, Pomp. 41.3; Sert. 11.4; Mor. 184A, 266B, 347D; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.28.37; 8.27.2; Vit. soph. 1.508.14; 2.572.12; Chariton, Chaer. 6.5.5; 17.7.1; Philo, Legat. 18, 99, 231; Opif. 34, 115; Mos. 2.186; Josephus, B.J. 1.607; 2.420; 3.143; 4.618, 656; A.J. 2.45; 5.24; 7.50; 11.65; 18.229.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

165

σα' ρκα; 1:3b).34 (4) Jesus was proclaimed by God as Son of God (τουñ ο‘ ρισθε' ντος υι‘ ουñ θεουñ ), he participates in God’s power (ε’ ν δυνα' μει), and he participates in God’s Spirit and thus in God’s divine identity (κατα` πνευñ μα α‘ γιωσυ' νης; 1:4a).35 (5) The date and the foundation of Jesus’ status as divine and powerful Son of God is his resurrection from the dead (ε’ ξ α’ ναστα' σεως νεκρω ñ ν; 1:4b).36 (6) Jesus is thus both Messiah and Lord (’ Ιησουñ Χριστουñ τουñ κυρι' ου η‘ μω ñ ν; 1:4c). (7) The function and effect of the gospel, hinted at in 1:4 with the terms holiness (α‘ γιωσυ' νη), power (δυ' ναμις), and resurrection (α’ να' στασις), is explicated in 1:16 in terms of consisting in the salvation (ει’ ς σωτηρι' αν) of all human beings who believe (παντι` τω ñ, πιστευ' οντι) in Jesus, Messiah and Son of God, irrespective of ethnic identity (’ Ιουδαι' ω, τε πρω ñ τον και` « Ελληνι; 1:16). (8) The gospel saves human beings because God the judge exercises his power to justify and declare righteous those who believe in Jesus (1:17). When Wright comments on Rom 1:1–6, he explains Paul’s understanding of “the gospel” as denoting a message which, in fulfillment of the scriptural prophecies and in implicit confrontation with the newer imperial realities, declared the ‘good news’ of God’s kingdom in and through the life, messianic achievement and supremely the death and resurrection of Jesus. (PFG 915–16)

Had Wright recognized that 1:16–17 is a second definition of the gospel (after 1:2–4), in the same context of the prooemium, he would have to revise his assertion that Paul’s gospel summaries do not mention justification (PFG 915 n. 386).37 If Wright was less polemical over against his (evangelical reformed) critics, he would not have stated, somewhat contradictorily, that ─────────────── 34 The reference in v. 3–4 to Jesus’ birth (γενομε' νου) and Jesus’ proclamation as powerful Son of God in connection with his resurrection from the dead (ο‘ ρισθε' ντος … ε’ ξ α’ ναστα' σεως νεκρω ñ ν) describe, as synecdoche, Jesus’ entire life, concisely focused on two fundamental events. On synedoche as supporting conciseness in definitions cf. Calhoun, Definitions, 76–79. 35 Cf. Thomas Söding, “Davidssohn und Gottessohn. Zur paulinischen Christologie von Röm 1,3f,” in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, FS Klaus Berger, ed. A. von Dobbeler, K. Erlemann, and R. Heiligenthal (Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 325–56, 341, and C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79), I, 64. Romano Penna, Lettera ai Romani, SdOC 6 (Bologna: Dehoniane, 2010), 20, speaks of an implicit (discretamente) trinitarian structure of the Easter event. 36 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 235; Simon Légasse, L’épître de Paul aux Romains, LD 10 (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 58; Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, 4th Edition, ThHKNT 6 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 28. 37 Wright refers, approvingly, to Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 69, who comments on Rom 1:3–4 (not 1:1–6); 1 Cor 15:3–8; 2 Tim 2:8 as “the most concise summaries of the gospel in the New Testament.” Note that Bird, in the same paragraph, mentions Rom 1:16–17 and Gal 3:8, and comments, “Thus, the gospel and justification are conceptually welded together.”

166

Paul – Missionary Theologian this gospel message far transcended the individualistic message of ‘how to be saved’ which the world ‘gospel’ has come to denote in much contemporary western Christian expression. (PFG 916)

only to continue in the next sentence, “It remained intensely personal in its radical application” (PFG 916). In commenting on Rom 1:16, Wright insists, “‘The gospel’ is not itself ‘how to be saved’ or ‘how to be justified’” (PFG 916). If one recognizes that Rom 1:16 is part of the definition of ευ’ αγγε' λιον, that the phrase ει’ ς σωτηρι' αν is the first particularity (το` »ιδιον)38 of the function of the gospel, 39 and that the definition of the gospel in Rom 1:16–17 immediately leads Paul to explain the wrath of God against human beings who suppress the truth by the wickedness and engage in perverted, sinful behavior (Rom 1:18–32), Wright’s insistence on separating the gospel from individual salvation remains an exegetical curiosity, especially given the fact that he repeatedly emphasizes that “the cross stands at the heart of Paul’s worldview, as of his theology” (PFG 521, explained in 879–911). The explication of the ευ’ αγγε' λιον in 1 Cor 15:3–8 focuses on Jesus’ death and resurrection. In his comments about this passage (PFG 518–21), Wright focuses on Jesus’ messianic identity, on the phrase “for our sins” (υ‘ πε` ρ τω ñν α‘ μαρτιω ñ ν η‘ μω ñ ν), and on the phrase “in accordance with the Bible” (κατα` τα` ς γραφα' ς). He emphasizes, importantly: Something has happened, which can be spoken of in one breath (verse 3) as accomplished through the Messiah’s death and in almost the next (verse 17) as effected or at least validated through his resurrection . . . And the thing that has happened is that a condition or state which could not otherwise be broken, a state of ‘being in sin’, has been dealt with, so that ‘you’ or ‘we’ are no longer ‘in (y)our sins’. (PFG 519)

These formulations can be stated, more succinctly, as follows: Jesus the Messiah’s death on the cross dealt with sin, making possible the forgiveness of the sins of sinners who believe, a fact that is validated through Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus’ death, highlighted by Paul’s reference to Jesus’ burial (1 Cor 15:4), would seem to warrant more comment, especially in a discussion that emphasizes story, back story, plot, and sub-plot. The interest in the biblical narrative threatens to overshadow the explanation of the reality and the significance of Jesus’ death, as Wright explains how Scripture’s triple story of God and the world, God and humankind, and God and Israel, each of which faced a great problem, is resolved. As Israel’s Messiah, Jesus has accomplished Israel’s need of being rescued; as Israel-in-person, Jesus brought rescue and restoration to the human race; as the truly human one, Jesus has defeated the creator’s enemies and re-established God’s rule over the cosmos. Jesus’ death on the cross brought about the divine judgment on evil, and thus solved the prob─────────────── 38 Cf. Aristoteles, Analytica posteriora 101b39–102a40. 39 Calhoun, Definitions, 150.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

167

lem of the world, of human beings, and of Israel. This is why, as Wright argues, “the cross stands at the heart” of Paul’s worldview (PFG 521). Some may be less certain about Wright’s consistent distinction between the world and humans. Note that Paul can use the term κτι' σις for the sum total of everything created (Col 1:23; cf. Rom 1:25; 8:19–22) and for created individuals (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). He uses κο' σμος for the sum total of everything here and now, for the world, the universe (Rom 1:20; Eph 1:4; Tit 1:15), and also for humankind (Rom 3:6, 19). Note the assertion in Röm 4:13, “for the promise that he would inherit the world (το` κληρονο' μον αυ’ το` ν ειòναι κο' σμου) did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:13, NRSV). He uses τα` πα' ντα for the universe (Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6) and for humanity (Gal 3:22). What Wright says about Jesus’ messianic identity and about the centrality of Jesus’ death on the cross as the event in which God solved the problem of the world, of human beings, and of Israel, is fundamentally important as an explication of the central message of the good news. At the same time, while it is true that the term “gospel” implies a narrative, the “back story” of Scripture’s triple story of God and the world, humankind, and Israel should not take center stage (to stay with the metaphor of the “play”). This is not what Wright claims, but it is an impression that one might get from the rhetoric in the chapter and the attention devoted to the triple “back story”. When Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell the “story” of Jesus, they devote thirty percent of their narrative to the events of Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection.

4. Defining Evangelism In PFG Chapter 16, which treats Paul’s aims and achievements, Wright asserts, Just as the principal and ultimate goal of all historical work on J. S. Bach ought to be a more sensitive and intelligent performance of his music, so the principal and ultimate goal of all historical work on the New Testament ought to be a more sensitive and intelligent practice of Christian mission and discipleship. (PFG 1483–84)

I fully agree, both with regard to Bach and with regard to Paul, although the content of the 3,371 pages written up to this point in the four volumes of his project Christian Origins and the Question of God render this statement somewhat a surprise. The claim that there is no agreement in sight on the meanings of words like “mission” and “evangelism” is technically correct, but vastly exaggerated. He writes, “Both words are labels which different groups stick on different activities which for whatever reason they believe they ought to undertake ... The meanings shift with the activities” (PFG 1484). It has been fashionable for some time to accept the disdain of secular anthropologists and agnostic plural-

168

Paul – Missionary Theologian

ists for missionaries. Wright appears to join them when he polemicizes against “soul-saving” and against “collecting inhabitants for this future ‘heaven’” (PFG 1485).40 Wright can speak movingly about α’ γαπη' ,41 but there is not much α’ γα' πη in the way he speaks about real, existing missionaries. While he censures “the sneering negativity of contemporary western anti-ecclesiasticalism” particularly “in the world of academic biblical studies” (PFG 1414), he repeats caricatures of missionaries drawn up by mostly Western liberal academics, people who would not want to be caught dead or alive with a missionary. In the light of that Wright might call “the sneering negativity of contemporary western anti-missions bias,” he might want to revisit his own critique of missionaries. Anti-missionary critics do not seem to be aware of the fact that most missionaries today are not “cultural imperialists” from the West but committed, courageous Christians from the global south, from Korea and Brasil, from Nigeria and China. When Wright refers to “the normal modern western meanings of words like ‘mission’ and ‘evangelism’” (PFG 1484), he needs to clarify whether “modern” refers to the missionary movement of the 18th, 19th, or 20th century, and whether “western” includes the missionary work, e.g., of Korean, Brasilian, Nigerian, and Chinese churches whose evangelism and missionary work is virtually undistinguishable from the evangelism and mission of western churches.42 Apart from Wright’s willingness to hold up for ridicule missionaries of the past and present, his grand critique of wrong understandings of “mission” and “evangelism” may suggest that he sees himself as the savior from the morass of problematic definitions and problematic praxis. Defining “mission” is indeed difficult, so much so that Scott Moreau does not provide a definition in his entry “Mission and Missions” in the Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions; instead, he traces developments in the discussion about the meaning of “mission.” 43 David Bosch writes that “ultimately, mission remains undefinable,” and then goes on to describe “mission” as the missio Dei,

─────────────── 40 Such polemic is repeatedly found: “Paul did not seem himself as simply snatching souls out of the world’s wreck in order to populate a Platonic heaven ... For Paul, then, ‘evangelism’ was not just about soul-rescuing and ‘mission’ was not just about the wider advancement of Christian understanding” (PFG 1490, 1493). 41 PFG 391, 401, 430, 1116, 1120, 1361, 1382, 1404. 42 One wonders what Ludwig Rütti would say about these developments, fifty years after his assertion that the missionary enterprise is so polluted by its origins and association with Western colonialism that it is irredeemable; cf. Ludwig Rütti, Zur Theologie der Mission. Kritische Analysen und neue Orientierungen (München: Kaiser, 1972). 43 A. Scott Moreau, “Mission and Missions,” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. S. Moreau, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 636–38.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

169

God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world, God’s involvement in and with the world, the nature and activity of God, which embraces both the church and the world, and in which the church is privileged to participate,

while “missions” “refer to particular forms, related to specific times, places, or needs, of participation in the missio Dei.”44 According to Thomas Ohm, mission is the first step of the confrontation of non-Christians with the gospel; the significant elements of “mission” are establishing contact, attempt at understanding, representation of Christ and of what it means to be a Christian, ministry of the word (proclamation, preaching, teaching, sermons, catechesis, witness), ministry of grace, of moral life, of social realities, and charity.45 When we study the New Testament, definitions of mission and evangelism are best derived from the specific activity of the early Christian missionaries, rather than from later developments and assorted critiques. As regards the early church, we have a wealth of information about Paul as a missionary, particularly if we include the Book of Acts as a reliable account of Paul’s missionary work.46 I define the term “mission” (or missions) as the activity of a community of faith that distinguishes itself from its environment both in terms of religious belief (theology) and in terms of social behavior (ethics), that is convinced of the truth claims of its faith, and that actively works to win other people for the contents of faith and the way of life of whose truth and necessity the members of that community are convinced. This definition of “mission” involves a threefold reality: (1) People communicate to people of different faiths a new interpretation of reality, i.e., a different, new view of God, of mankind and of salvation. (2) People communicate a new way of life that replaces, at least partially, the former way of life. (3) People integrate those whom they win over to their faith and their way of life into their community. This definition implies geographical movement, at least movement from the places where Christians live to their neighbors, then to other cities (such as Damascus, Antioch, both cities belonging to Syria, the larger entity to which the Roman prefect of Judea was responsible), and to cities in other provinces. As far as the ancient world was concerned, this definition always implies the oral communication of convictions. The communication of beliefs and behavior happens through active, expansive proclamation (the centrifugal dimension of mission) or through winsome, attractive presence (the centripetal ─────────────── 44 David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission, American Society of Missiology Series 16 (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999 [1991), 9, 10. 45 Thomas Ohm, “Mission,” in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Second Edition, ed. J. Höfer and K. Rahner (Freiburg: Herder, 1957–68), VII, 453. 46 For an overview, cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies, and Methods (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008); Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Paul the Missionary,” in The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies, ed. R. B. Matlock (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

170

Paul – Missionary Theologian

dimension of mission).47 This understanding of mission does not include attempts by the church and its representatives to change unjust structures and practices of society, a concern that is often part of modern definitions of mission. Changing society was not an option for Christians in the first century who were a minority within a minority – Jewish Christians and also Gentile Christians were regarded by Roman authorities and, probably, by the pagan populations in the cities in which Paul proclaimed the gospel, as part of the Jewish community, which, in the Roman Empire, represented a minority of the people living in Rome and its provinces. The notion that missionaries should work towards establishing a more just government, that women should be treated equally to men, that slavery should be abolished, as well as a host of other important and worthy causes, was not on Paul’s agenda, although it would have been on his eschatological horizon for the new creation in the new heavens and the new earth. Wright’s critique is at times absolute and across-the-board. He claims that “the whole picture of ‘what Paul was doing’ has in my view been radically pulled out of shape by the two main drivers of modern western Christianity” (PFG 1484). He goes on to single out, first, the middle ages and the Reformation “in which Christian sights were firmly fixed on ‘going to heaven’” (PFG 1484), understood in an essentially Platonic spiritual sense, with the effect of turning Paul into a “soul-winner” (PFG 1485). The second pernicious influence was the Enlightenment which separated God and the world and combined a Platonist eschatology with an Epicurean polity where God is absent (PFG 1485). It is not clear whether Wright links the second factor with the missionary movement of the western churches. The first factor is largely a strawman. Many medieval theologians were certainly Platonists, but there were also apocalyptically motivated thinkers and activists who spoke of, and wanted to bring about, a new world order.48 Lutz von Padberg has traced the effects and changes that the work of the missionaries of the 7th and 8th centuries had for society: social welfare, increased legal protections, a new approach to slavery (albeit inconsistently), economic innovations and technical innovations in agriculture, protection of life, a new view of women, marriage and family and children, and organization of educational institutions.49 The charge that in the middle ages missionaries went about collecting inhabitants for a future heaven (PFG 1485) is a gross simplification and distortion of what actually happened. ─────────────── 47 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, I, 11. 48 See the contributions in Jan A. Aertsen and Martin Pickavé, eds., Ende und Vollendung. Eschatologische Perspektiven im Mittelalter, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 29 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001). 49 Lutz E. von Padberg, Mission und Christianisierung. Formen und Folgen bei Angelsachsen und Franken im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995), 267–349.

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

171

Paul’s aims and intentions can be summarized with the word “reconciliation” (καταλλαγη' ). This is not a new proposal, as Wright concedes (PFG 1487),50 nor is his important observation that Paul was not just a spectator. He was called to do and say things through which new creation was happening already: each personal ‘new creation’, through Messiah-faith and baptism, was another signpost to the larger ‘new creation’ of which the Psalms and the prophets had spoken ... He was in the business ... of transforming humans as wholes, to be both signs of that larger new creation and workers in its cause. (PFG 1489)51

Wright’s caveat that Paul was neither “a glorified social worker” nor “a global politician” (PFG 1490), is important, not only rhetorically in order to avoid being accused of moving away from the gospel; it is substantially relevant because neither Paul, nor other missionaries, nor any bishops and their churches, were ever able to abolish all social ills and institute a just global political order. Paul indeed aimed “to generate and sustain communities which would not only point to, but actually be an advance part of, the coming renewed world” (PFG 1490), without believing that “the world has started on a smooth and steady upward path to utopia, or that the church itself is now launched into a triumphant development” (PFG 1491).52

Bibliography Adam, Jens. Paulus und die Versöhnung aller. Eine Studie zum paulinischen Heilsuniversalismus. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. Aertsen, Jan A., and Martin Pickavé, eds. Ende und Vollendung. Eschatologische Perspektiven im Mittelalter. Miscellanea Mediaevalia 29. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001. ─────────────── 50 Wright mentions Ralph P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology (Atlanta: Knox, 1981); Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992–99), II, 320–21; I. Howard Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007). He does not mention relevant German literature: Otfried Hofius, “Sühne und Versöhnung. Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu [1983],” in Paulusstudien (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994 [1989]), 33–49; Peter Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), ET Peter Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law & Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Robert Vorholt, Der Dienst der Versöhnung. Studien zur Apostolatstheologie bei Paulus, WMANT 118 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008); Jens Adam, Paulus und die Versöhnung aller. Eine Studie zum paulinischen Heilsuniversalismus (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009). 51 The second omission in the quotation is another polemical aside: “[Paul was in the business], not of rescuing souls from corrupting bodies and a doomed world.” 52 Wright is afraid that the term reconciliation “will collapse back into one of the shrunken versions of Paul’s task” (PFG 1487).

172

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission. American Society of Missiology Series 16. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1999 [1991]. Calboli Montefusco, L. “Auctoritas.” HWR, I, 1177–82. Calhoun, Robert M. Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1. WUNT 2.316. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Chapman, David W., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary. WUNT 344. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. WUNT 327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79. Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom: A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World. San Francisco: Harper, 2004. Dickson, John P. “Gospel as News: ευ’ αγγελ- from Aristophanes to the Apostle Paul.” NTS 51 (2005): 212–30. Dunn, James D. G. “Paul’s Conversion – A Light to Twentieth Century Disputes [1997].” Pages 347–65 in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. —. Paul and the Stoics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Gast, W. “Causa.” HWR, II, 140–42. Gill, David W. J. “A Saviour for the Cities of Crete: The Roman Background to the Epistle to Titus.” Pages 220–30 in The New Testament in its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background. FS Bruce W. Winter. Edited by P. J. Williams. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. 4th Edition. ThHKNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Hainz, Josef. Koinonia. “Kirche” als Gemeinschaft bei Paulus. BU 16. Regensburg: Pustet, 1982. Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Knox, 1997. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Hofius, Otfried. “Die Adam-Christus-Antithese und das Gesetz. Erwägungen zu Röm 5,12– 21.” Pages 165–206 in Paul and the Mosaic Law, The Third Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism, Durham, September 1994. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. —. “‘Erstgeborener vor aller Schöpfung’ – ‘Erstgeborener aus den Toten’. Erwägungen zu Struktur und Aussage des Christushymnus Kol 1,15–20.” Pages 185–203 in Auferstehung – Resurrection. The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium: Resurrection, Transfiguration, and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. —. “Sühne und Versöhnung. Zum paulinischen Verständnis des Kreuzestodes Jesu [1983].” Pages 33–49 in Paulusstudien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994 [1989].

5. Evangelism and the Mission of the Church

173

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Kammler, Hans-Christian. Kreuz und Weisheit. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 1,10–3,4. WUNT 159. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Second Edition. WUNT 2.4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 [1981]. Klein, J. “Beispiel.” HWR, I, 1432–1413. —. “Beweis.” HWR, I, 1533–40. Kraus, M. “Enthymem.” HWR, II, 1197–1210. Kraus, M., and H.-D Spengler. “Indiz.” HWR, IV, 333–39. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums.” ANRW II/25.1 (1982): 648–793. Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Third Edition. München: Steiner, 1990 [1960]. Légasse, Simon. L’épître de Paul aux Romains. LD 10. Paris: Cerf, 2002. Legrand, Lucien. “Gal 2.9 and the Missionary Strategy of the Early Church.” Pages 21–83 in Bible, Hermeneutics, Mission. A Contribution to the Contextual Study of Holy Scripture. Missio 10. Uppsala: Swedish Institute for Missionary Research, 1995. Litfin, Duane. St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric. SNTSMS 79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Longenecker, Richard N., ed. The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paulus der Heidenapostel. Band I: Studien zur Chronologie. FRLANT 123. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Magda, Ksenija. Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy: Searching for the Geographical Awareness Paradigm behind Romans. WUNT 2.266. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Marshall, I. Howard. Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Martin, Ralph P. Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology. Atlanta: Knox, 1981. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Moreau, A. Scott. “Mission and Missions.” Pages 636–38 in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Edited by A. S. Moreau. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Paul in Arabia.” CBQ 55 (1993): 732–37. O’Brien, Peter T. “Was Paul Converted?” Pages 361–91 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Ohm, Thomas. “Mission.” Pages 453–54 in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Vol. VII. Second Edition. Edited by J. Höfer and K. Rahner. Freiburg: Herder, 1957–68. Padberg, Lutz E. von. Mission und Christianisierung. Formen und Folgen bei Angelsachsen und Franken im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995. Penna, Romano. Lettera ai Romani. Scritti delle origini cristiane 6. Bologna: Dehoniane, 2010. Price, Simon R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 [1984]. Reinbold, Wolfgang. Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum. Eine Untersuchung zu den Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der frühen Kirche. FRLANT 188. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994 [1914]. Rütti, Ludwig. Zur Theologie der Mission. Kritische Analysen und neue Orientierungen. München: Kaiser, 1972.

174

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. KEK 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 [1949]. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. —. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Third Edition. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2014 [2006]. —. Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies, and Methods. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008. —. “Paul the Missionary.”. In The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies. Edited by R. B. Matlock. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKK 7. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ZECNT 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Söding, Thomas. “Davidssohn und Gottessohn. Zur paulinischen Christologie von Röm 1,3f.” Pages 325–56 in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. FS Klaus Berger. Edited by A. von Dobbeler, K. Erlemann, and R. Heiligenthal. Tübingen: Francke, 2000. Stendahl, Krister. “Call Rather Than Conversion.” Pages 7–23 in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992–99. —. Reconciliation, Law & Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. —. Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Veit, Walter F. “Argumentatio.” Pages 1:904–10 in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1992–2007. —. “Induktion/Deduktion.” HWR, IV, 351–62. Vollenweider, Samuel. Freiheit als neue Schöpfung. Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei Paulus und in seiner Umwelt. FRLANT 147. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Vorholt, Robert. Der Dienst der Versöhnung. Studien zur Apostolatstheologie bei Paulus. WMANT 118. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008. Voss, Florian. Das Wort vom Kreuz und die menschliche Vernunft. Eine Untersuchung zur Soteriologie des 1. Korintherbriefes. FRLANT 199. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. White, John L. The Apostle of God: Paul and the Promise of Abraham. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. Winkler, M. “Komik, das Komische.” HWR, IV, 1167. Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. —. Philo and Paul among the Sophists. SNTSMS 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Wolff, Christian. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. ThHK VII/2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984 [1982]. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God IV. London/Minneapolis: SPCK/Fortress, 2013 Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1990 [1922].

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1 Paul begins the fourth and final section of his description of the gospel as the justification of sinners through God’s salvific revelation in Jesus Christ with a statement of the fundamental reality that is to characterize the everyday being and behaviour of the believers in Jesus, focused on the metaphor of selfsacrifice. As Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus have experienced the mercies of God, accorded to them in Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection when they were sinners, they will, they shall, and they can worship God in the context of everyday life in a manner that reflects the fact that they are not controlled by the values and standards of society but by the will of God which they fulfil as people who are being renewed in their thinking in the midst of the realities of every living (Rom 12:1–2). These two verses – a single sentence in the Greek text – have been described as formulating the main theme of 12:1– 15:13,1 as introduction,2 summary,3 heading,4 or a combination of “basic rule” and “heading”.5 The connections between 12:1–2 and Paul’s exposition of the gospel in chaps. 1–11 are significant: Paul describes in 12:1–15:13 the ethos of the believers in Jesus in the historical, theological and christological context of the gospel.6 Paul exhorts (παρακαλω ñ ) the believers in Jesus, who are brothers (α’ δελφοι' ) as adopted children in God’s family (cf. 8:14–17), to offer their bodies to God as sacrifice (παραστηñ σαι τα` σω' ματα υ‘ μω ñ ν θυσι' αν). The metaphor of “sacrifice” means, among other connotations, that the believers’ bodies do not belong to themselves – they belong to God, which means that the actions they ─────────────── 1 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 326; Romano Penna, Lettera ai Romani, SdOC 6 (Bologna: Dehoniane, 2010), 807. 2 C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79), II, 595. 3 James D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 707; Anton GrabnerHaider, Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus. Mensch und Welt im Anspruch der Zukunft Gottes, NTA 4 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1968), 116–17. 4 Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 5th Edition, KEK IV (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 365; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKK 6 (NeukirchenVluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82), III, 1. 5 Wolfgang Schrage, Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese. Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Ethik (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1961), 124. 6 Cf. Jürg Buchegger, Erneuerung des Menschen. Exegetische Studien zu Paulus, TANZ 40 (Tübingen: Francke, 2003), 144–48.

176

Paul – Missionary Theologian

carry out with their bodies are determined by the new life which consists in the newness of God’s Spirit who shapes their daily lives (θυσι' αν ζω ñ σαν, 6:4, 7:6), by the holiness of the righteousness that God has granted them (θυσι' αν α‘ γι' αν; cf. 6:19, 22), and by personal and communal correspondence to God’s expectations as they have become obedient from the heart and as they have set their mind not on the flesh but on God’s Spirit (θυσι' αν ευ’ α' ρεστον; cf. 6:17, 8:7–9). The use of the term “sacrifice” as a metaphor that describes not what happens in the Temple in Jerusalem but in the everyday lives of Jewish and Gentile believers in the city of Rome underscores the significance of 3:25: the “Holy of Holies” where God revealed his atoning presence has been replaced by God’s atoning revelation in Jesus’ death who, as the Crucified and Risen One, mediates the salvation of sinners, access to God, and the life of God’s people who embody in their daily existence the life, the holiness, and the will of God (3:20–8:39). The appositional phrase η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α υ‘ μω ñ ν comments on the believers’ presentation of their bodies as sacrifice. The term λατρει' α, generally translated in English versions as “worship” (AV, KJV, NET translate “service”, NASB “service of worship”), is used in literary and documentary texts in the sense of “service (for wages), work” by order of a superior, then “labour, effort”, as well as cultic “service” in the sense of the “veneration” or “worship” of the gods. 7 Paul uses the term λατρει' α here to describe the behaviour of the believers in Jesus in their everyday lives which they are to surrender to God. Believers in Jesus serve and worship God not only in their regular assemblies in which they pray to God and read and study God’s word, but also, and foundationally, in their everyday actions.

1. Translations of λογικο' ς The interpretation of the adjective λογικο' ς in Rom 12:1 is difficult, as a survey of the standard translations shows. We find “intelligent” (PHILLIPS), “by mind and heart” (NEB), “proper” (TNIV), “reasonable” (AV, KJV, NET), “spiritual” (ESV, MOFFAT, NASB, NCV, NIV 1984, NRSV, RSV), “true” (GNB; cf. NLT), “true and proper” (NIV 2011), “worthy” (JB). Essentially the same range of

─────────────── 7 Cf. H. Strathmann, λατρευ' ω, λατρει' α, TDNT IV, 58–65; H. Balz, λατρευ' ω, λατρει' α, EDNT II, 344–45. Paul uses the noun λατρει'α in Rom 9:4; 12:1, the verb λατρευ' ω in Rom 1:9 (service for the gospel); 1:25 (pagan veneration of deities); Phil 3:3; 2 Tim 1:3; cf. Acts 24:14; 26:7; 27:23.

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

177

glosses is found in the commentaries: “logical”,8 “rational” or “reasonable”,9 “spiritual”,10 “thoughtful”,11 “true”,12 or “understanding”.13 The suggested translations often morph into each other, e.g., from “rational” to “reasonable” or from “spiritual” to “true”, generally without explanation.14 W. Schmithals ─────────────── 8 Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 195; Stanley E. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary, New Testament Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 231 (“logical and reasonable”, “logical or reasonable”). 9 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 637, 640; Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 362; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 642, 645; Charles H. Talbert, Romans, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 283 (285: “true worship”); Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 724; Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 921. Cf. Hans Wenschkewitz, Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1932), 127; Georg Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament, SUNT 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 216–17; Franz-Josef Ortkemper, Leben aus dem Glauben. Christliche Grundhaltungen nach Römer 12–13, NTA 14 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 27; George H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, WUNT 232 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 389–90; George H. van Kooten, “Man as God’s Spiritual or Physical Image? Theomorphic Ethics versus Numinous Ethics and Anthropomorphic Aesthetics in Early Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, and the New Testament”, in Anthropologie und Ethik im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. M. Konradt and E. Schläpfer, WUNT 322 (Tübingen, 2014), 99–138, here 129–131. 10 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977 [1959/1965]), II, 112 (“spiritual … Reasonable or rational is a more literal rendering”); Matthew Black, Romans, NCBC (Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1989 [1973]), 167; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, BNTC (London: Black, 1971 [1957, 1962]), 231; F. F. Bruce, Romans, rev. ed., TNTC (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1985 [1963]), 226; Dunn, Romans, 707, 711–212; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/InterVarsity Press, 1988), 434; James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC 6 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 283–84; Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 286–87. Cf. Wolfram Strack, Kultische Terminologie in ekklesiologischen Kontexten in den Briefen des Paulus, BBB 92 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1994), 297–98: λογικη` λατρει' α has the sense of πνευματικο' ς; Hanna Stettler, Heiligung bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag aus biblisch-theologischer Sicht, WUNT 2.368 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 465 (“geistgewirkte[r] Gottesdienst”). 11 Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 463 (“true and proper”). 12 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 753. combines the meanings “spiritual” (“inner”) and “spiritual” (“rational”). 13 Cranfield, Romans, II, 595, 603–4 (“intelligent understanding”). 14 William Sanday and Arthur Cayley Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1902 [1895]), 353: “a service to God such as befits the reason (λο' γος), i.e., a spiritual sacrifice and not the offering of an irrational animal”; N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans”, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 393–770, 705 (“the thing that thinking creatures ought to recog-

178

Paul – Missionary Theologian

goes so far as to assert that Paul uses the phrase λογικη` λατρει' α without assuming a particular meaning.15

2. The Stoic Polemic against Religious Cult Practice and “Reasonable” Worship Most scholars think that Paul took over the concept of “rational”, “reasonable” or “true” worship from the polemic of Stoic popular philosophy against the superstition of the sacrificial cults which were “unreasonable” since the deity was worshipped with material gifts rather than, as befits the deity’s nature, with the mind (or reason).16 Epictetus’ statement in Diatr. 1.16.20–21 is often quoted in support of this interpretation: If, indeed, I were a nightingale, I should be singing as a nightingale; if a swan, as a swan. But as it is, I am a rational (λογικο' ς ει’ μι) being, therefore I must be singing hymns of praise to God. This is my task; I do it, and will not desert this post, as long as it may be given me to fill it; and I exhort you to join me in this same song (Trans. W. A. Oldfather, LCL).

In Stoic popular philosophy, nature was described as λο' γος which was also the nature of the divine. Diogenes Laertius writes, And this is why the end may be defined as life in accordance with nature, or, in other words, in accordance with our own human nature as well as that of the universe, a life in which we refrain from every action forbidden by the law common to all things, that is to ─────────────── nize as appropriate”; emphasis Wright); Grant R. Osborne, Romans, IVPNTC 6 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 320–21 (who combines “logical or reasonable”, “rational”, “spiritual”, and “understanding”); Ben Witherington and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 285 (“reasonable” or “logical”). 15 Walter Schmithals, Der Römerbrief. Ein Kommentar (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988), 429 (“ohne mit ihr eine bestimmte Deutung zu verbinden”). 16 G. Kittel, “λογικο' ς”, TDNT,IV, 141–43; H.-W. Bartsch, “λογικο' ς”, EDNT II, 355; Wenschkewitz, Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament, 49–66; Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer, 5th Edition, HNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971 [1906]), 108–9; Käsemann, Romans, 328–29; Cranfield, Romans, II, 602–3; Michel, Römer, 370; Wilckens, Römer, III, 4–6; Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK IV (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 336; Lohse, Römer, 336; Christopher Evans, “Romans 12.1–2: The True Worship”, in Dimensions de la vie chrétienne (Rm 12–13), ed. L. De Lorenzi, Sezione biblico-ecumenica 4 (Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1979), 7–33, here 17–21; Folker Siegert, “Die Synagoge und das Postulat eines unblutigen Opfers”, in Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer, WUNT 118 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 335–56, here 351–52; cf. Georg Strecker and Udo Schnelle, eds., Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Band II: Texte zur Neutestamentlichen Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), 177–80.

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

179

say, the right reason (ο‘ ο’ ρθο` ς λο' γος) which pervades all things, and is identical with this Zeus, lord and ruler of all that is. And this very thing constitutes the virtue of the happy man and the smooth current of life, when all actions promote the harmony of the spirit dwelling in the individual man with the will of him who orders the universe (Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 7.88; Trans. R. D. Hicks, LCL).

The λο' γος is the power of reason which characterizes human beings as “rational beings”, as Epictetus writes: For what is a man? A rational, mortal animal (ζω ñ, ον λογικο` ν θνητο' ν), someone says. To begin with, from what are we distinguished by the rational element? From the wild beasts. And from what else? From sheep and the like. See to it, then, that you never act like a wild beast; if you do, you will have destroyed the man in you, you have not fulfilled your profession (Diatr. 2.9.2–3).

Since human beings have λο' γος, “they are also, it is declared, godlike (ε» χειν γα` ρ ε’ ν ε‘ αυτοιñς οι‘ ονει` θεο' ν; for they have something divine within them; whereas the bad man is godless” (Diogenes Laertius 7.119). For this reason, the true veneration of the gods is not the offering of animal sacrifices to anthropomorphically imagined deities but veneration of the divine with pure reason: Will you think of God as great and placid, and a friend to be reverenced with gentle majesty, and always at hand (semper in proximo)? Not to be worshipped with the immolation of victims and with much blood – for what pleasure arises from the slaughter of innocent animals? – but with a pure mind (mente pura) and with a good and honourable purpose (Seneca, Frag. 123, in Lactantius, Inst. 6.25.3; Trans. W. Fletcher, LCL).

In the philosophical mysticism of the Corpus Hermeticum, this notion is transposed into the transcendent. Commentators on the phrase λογικη` λατρει' α υ‘ μω ñ ν in Rom 12:1 often quote the final prayer in Poimandres: Holy is god, the father of all … Holy are you, mightier than praises. You whom we address in silence, the unspeakable, the unsayable, accept pure speech offerings (δε' ξαι λογικα` ς θυσι' ας α‘ γνα' ς) from a heart and soul that reach up to you (Corp. herm. 1:31; Trans. B. P. Copenhaver).17

The phrase λογικη` θυσι' α is used several times (Corp. herm. 13:18, 19, 21). The same phrase occurs in Nag Hammadi: “Receive from us these spiritual sacrifices (logeikē thysia)” (The Discourse on the Eighty and Ninth, Codex

─────────────── 17 Brian P. Copenhaver, Hermetica. The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation, with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995 [1992]). Cf. Jens Holzhausen, Das Corpus Hermeticum Deutsch. Übersetzung, Darstellung und Kommentierung in drei Teilen, Clavis Pansophiae 7 (Stuttgart– Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1997), I, 22, who translates the phrase λογικα` ς θυσι' ας α‘ γνα' ς “in heiligen Worten dargebrachte Opfer”. Note G. Strecker on the difficulty of translating λογικο' ς in this text; cf. Strecker and Schnelle, Neuer Wettstein II, 179 note 3.

180

Paul – Missionary Theologian

VI, 57, 18–19; Trans. P. A. Dirkse, D. M. Parrott).18 Porphyry uses a similar expression: Both inward, therefore, and external purity pertain to a divine man, who earnestly endeavours to be liberated from the passions of the soul, and who abstains from such food as excites the passions, and is fed with divine wisdom; and by right conceptions of, is assimilated to divinity himself. For such a man being consecrated by an intellectual sacrifice (τηñ, νοεραñ, θυσι'α, ), approaches to God in a white garment, and with a truly pure impassivity of soul, and levity of body, and is not burdened with foreign and external juices, and the passions of the soul (De abstinentia 2.45; Trans. T. Taylor, LCL).

Similar motifs are found in contemporary Jewish texts. T. Levi 3:6 describes the heavenly worship of the archangels as presenting “to the Lord a pleasing odor, a rational and bloodless oblation (λογικη` και` α’ ναι' μακτος θυσι' α)” (Trans. H. C. Kee).19 Philo writes in his explanation of the incense offering which precedes the bloody animal sacrifice: This symbolical meaning is just this and nothing else: that what is precious in the sight of God is not the number of victims immolated but the true purity of a rational spirit (πνευñ μα λογικο' ν) in him who makes the sacrifice (Spec. 1.277; Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL).

Since God is more interested in the “rational spirit” than in the animal sacrifice, he is less interested in the perfection of the sacrificial animal than in the question whether the person’s “own mind (δια' νοια) stands free from defect and imperfection (ο‘ λο' κληρος και` παντελη` ς)” (Spec. 1.283). Philo concludes, “And thus we have the clearest proof that he holds the sacrifice to consist not in the victims but in the offerer’s intention and his zeal (τη` ν δια' νοιαν προθυμι' αν) which derives its constancy and permanence from virtue” (Spec. 1.290). This shows that Stoic notions of “rational” sacrifice had been taken up by Jewish authors who agreed with the contrast between true sacrifices and true worship on the one hand and material animal sacrifices on the other.

3. Interpretations of η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in the Context of Stoic Motifs The specific relevance of the Stoic critique of anthropomorphic cults and animal sacrifices for the phrase η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α in Rom 12:1 has been variously assessed. A few examples shall suffice. H.D. Betz translates the phrase λογικη` λατρει' α as “rational religion” which he understands to be “enlightened reli─────────────── 18 James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper, 1988 [1977]). Siegert, “Synagoge”, 351 suggests “Wortopfer” (sacrifice consisting in words) as translation of λογικη` θυσι'α. 19 J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City/London: Doubleday/Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–85), I, 775–828.

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

181

gion, not an irrational, diffuse superstition”.20 O. Michel detects an implicit antithesis to animal sacrifices which are stipulated in Old Testament and Jewish tradition, as well as an emphasis on the “reasonable understanding” of worship that corresponds to the eschatological situation of the Christian believers.21 C. E. B. Cranfield also highlights both the Stoic as well as the OT and Jewish parallels and argues against C. K. Barrett who thinks that the distinction between inward sacrifice and material sacrifice in the OT (Ps 51:17) influenced Paul’s thinking more than the Stoic parallels,22 and that the reference to τα` σω' ματα υ‘ μω ñ ν in v.1 makes it difficult to interpret λογικη` λατρει' α in terms of the “inwardness” of true Christian worship; Paul does not contrast internal and external or immaterial and material worship but rational and irrational worship; he asserts that “rational” (λογικο' ς) does not refer to the natural rationality of human beings but to “being consistent with a proper understanding of the truth of God revealed in Jesus Christ”.23 J. D. G. Dunn thinks that Cranfield’s explanation is contextually correct but asserts that it reads too much into the wording of 12:1; the implied contrast with ritual worship should not be overplayed but not disregarded either, as for Paul the worship of the new community of Christians is distinct from the cultic hallmarks of traditional Judaism; Paul does not simply speak of a worship offered by the mind but, in contrast to the Hermetic literature, of a worship expressed in the bodily reality of everyday living; the worship he calls for is λογικη' in the sense of “being proper for man the creature – the logical expression of his creatureliness properly understood, and lived out”.24 E. Käsemann asserts that Paul picks up motifs and terminology of the diaspora synagogues when he adapts the Stoic polemic against sacrificial cults in his description of the Christians” spiritual worship; Paul emphasizes neither noetic reasonableness nor mystical detachment – he incorporates all life and he stresses corporeality “as the characteristic sphere of this worship”; he asserts, in an “anti-cultic thrust”, that “Christian worship does not consist of what is practiced at sacred sites, at sacred times, and with sacred acts (Schlatter). It is the offering of bodily existence in the otherwise profane sphere “which is constantly demanded and which takes place in daily life”.25 U. Wilckens asserts ─────────────── 20 Hans Dieter Betz, “Das Problem der Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik (Röm 12,1–2) [1988]”, in Paulinische Studien. Gesammelte Aufsätze III (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 184–205, here 198 (my translation). He specifically rejects an interpretation in terms of “spirituality” or “spiritualization” which, according to Betz, says little (ibid.). 21 Michel, Römer, 370 (“Einsichtigwerden”); he comments: “Nicht nur das rechtliche, sondern auch das kultische Denken kommt in unserem Brief unter dem eschatologischen Gesichtspunkts zur Entfaltung”. 22 Barrett, Romans, 231. 23 Cranfield, Romans, 604–5. 24 Dunn, Romans, 711–12, quotation 712. 25 Käsemann, Romans, 329; the reference is to Adolf Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein

182

Paul – Missionary Theologian

similarly that while Paul uses the term λογικο' ς for its hermeneutical function in Stoic and mystical usage where it distinguishes between the true cult and the plurality of existing “improper” cults, Paul departs both from Stoicism and mysticism by focusing the believers” total commitment to God not on an internal logos but, rather, on the salvific reality of God’s grace and by highlighting the bodily existence of the believers as the realm in which their “spiritual worship” takes place.26 R. Jewett grants that the phrase “reasonable worship” may have been mediated from Stoic tradition by the Hellenistic synagogue, but argues that it more clearly “signals the desire to set claim to a broad tradition of Greco-Roman as well as Jewish philosophy of religion”; in contrast to “the enlightened individual, touted by Greco-Roman philosophers”, Paul emphasizes “the rationality of a redeemed community committed to world mission”.27 J. A. Fitzmyer interprets the phrase as “a cult suited to your rational nature” which is a “spiritual cult” governed “by the logos, as befits a human being”; it is “worship governed by the logos, as befits a human being with nous and pneuma, and not merely one making use of irrational animals. This cult is a way of expressing Christian noetic dedication. Faith living itself out through love enables Christians to live according to the highest aspects of their beings”.28 F. Siegert concedes that the phrase λογικη` θυσι' α in Corp. herm. 1:31; 13:18, 19, 21; Nag Hammadi Codex VI, 57, 18–19, and Porphyry (De abst. 2.45), all later texts, could represent the after-effects of Rom 12:1; he believes, however, that the fixed expression derives more likely from the philosophical critique of religion of the Pythagoreans and Stoics; he highlights the parallels between the synagogue services which consisted in listening to the words of Moses, oral instruction and prayers, and the “pure” and “bloodless” worship of the gods in Pythagorean and Stoic tradition.29 A philosopher attending synagogue services would have been surprised about the modernity of synagogal worship in which no animals were slaughtered, in which purely verbal prayers ─────────────── Kommentar zum Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975 [1935]), 333; cf. Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), on Rom 12:1. 26 Wilckens, Römer, III, 6, with reference to Philipp Seidensticker, Lebendiges Opfer (Röm 12,1). Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus, NTA 20 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1954), 256–63; Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, HThK VI (Freiburg: Herder, 1987 [1977]), 358. Wilckens uses the phrase “geistiger Gottesdienst” which can be translated “spiritual worship” or “mental, intellectual worship”. 27 Jewett, Romans, 730, 731. 28 Fitzmyer, Romans, 640. 29 Siegert, “Synagoge”, 336–45; the following point ibid. 343. Siegert is followed by Volker Gäckle, Allgemeines Priestertum. Zur Metaphorisierung des Priestertitels im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament, WUNT 331 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 343–45. Unconvinced by Siegert’s evaluation of the importance of T. Levi 3:6, Gäckle asserts that λογικη' has the same metaphorical meaning as ζω ñ σαν; he expresses resignation regarding the possibility of defining λογικη' more precisely (“was auch immer λογικη' bedeuten mag”); cf. 343, 344–45.

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

183

were offered, and in which instruction took place in terms of the reading of and reflection upon the words of a master.

4. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α as Communication Since Paul refers to the sacrifice of the believers’ bodies (σω' ματα), and since λογικο' ς is not limited to the meaning “rational, reasonable, intellectual”, an interpretation of λογικη` λατρει' α becomes possible in which the primary semantic field is determined by the meaning “speech, speaking, word” (communication). Some scholars have alluded to the possibility of understanding λογικο' ς in the sense of “word”. 30 Michel renders λογικη' as “dem Wort gemäß”, without explanation and without evaluating the consequences for Paul’s statement which he interprets in terms of an implicit contrast between animal sacrifices and the understanding of worship that results from the truth of the Gospel, identifying at one point λογικη` λατρει' α with “the will of God”.31 He seems to think of a connection between λογικο' ς and the “word” (λο' γος) of the gospel that is being proclaimed, highlighting the revelatory dimension of Christian worship. Cranfield mentions Michel’s translation which he calls “not quite satisfactory” and then apodictically asserts the “fact” (with the qualifier “as it surely is”) that the word λογικη' “is here used with reference to λο' γος in its sense of “reason” rather to λο' γος in its sense of “word’”.32 Siegert considers the meaning “worship in the word”, without elaboration.33 The derivation of the phrase λογικη` λατρει' α from Hellenistic motifs and traditions is not as certain as scholars think. First, the expression λογικη` λατρει' α is not attested before Paul, and the post-Pauline evidence in Christian literature is scant. In the first and second centuries AD, the expression occurs, outside of Rom 12:1, only six times: Irenaeus, Fragmenta deperditorum operum 36; Athenagoras, Legatio 13.4; Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 12.2; Commentarii in evangelium Ioannis 13.25.148; Selecta in Ezechielem ─────────────── 30 Michel, Römer, 367; Ernst Käsemann, “Gottesdienst im Alltag der Welt. Zu Römer 12 [1960]”, in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970 [1964]), II, 198–204, here 201; Ulrich Kellermann, Das Achtzehn-Bitten-Gebet. Jüdischer Glaube in neutestamentlicher Zeit. Ein Kommentar (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 92; Martin Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen, WUNT 230 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 303. 31 Michel, Römer, 370. 32 Cranfield, Romans, 605 note 1. 33 Siegert, “Synagoge”, 351 (“Gottesdienst im Wort”). Cf. Peter Wick, Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste. Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen-, und Hausfrömmigkeit, BWANT 150 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 182.

184

Paul – Missionary Theologian

13.785.44; Fragmenta in Lucam 123.4. Both Irenaeus and Origen’s commentary on Romans quote Rom 12:1.34 Second, only six of the nearly 750 uses of λογικο' ς in Greek literature before AD 100 are used in contexts that explicitly refer to sacrifice, distinguishing proper or real sacrifices from material sacrifices: T. Levi. 3:6; Philo, Spec. 1.277; Corp. herm. 1:31; 13:18, 19, 21 (see the quotations above). The Corpus Hermeticum is post-Pauline, originating between the late first and third centuries AD, compiled in the 10th or 11th century by Byzantine scholars.35 The four references are thus not relevant for interpreting Rom 12:1. Since T. Levi was originally written in Hebrew, with the Urfassung being lost, and since the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs underwent a Christian revision, the significance of the reference in T. Levi 3:6 remains restricted.36 This leaves one single reference – Philo’s Spec. 1.277 – which uses the phrase πνευñ μα λογικο' ν (“rational spirit”). In sum, the expression λογικη` λατρει' α is neither a fixed formula nor attested before Paul. Third, the word λογικο' ς has different meanings in different contexts. LSJ distinguishes two main meanings, the first of which denotes “speech”:37 I.1. of or for speaking or speech,38 2. of or in eloquence,39 3. suited for prose;40 II.1. possessed of reason, intellectual,41 2a. dialectical, argumentative,42 2b. sub─────────────── 34 Angelika Reichert, “Gottes universaler Heilswille und der kommunikative Gottesdienst. Exegetische Anmerkungen zu Röm 12,1–2”, in Paulus, Apostel Jesu Christi, FS G. Klein, ed. M. Trowitzsch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 79–95, here 88–89 note 41. 35 Cf. J. Holzhausen, “Corpus Hermeticum”, BNP III, 846–50; also Holzhausen, Corpus Hermeticum Deutsch, passim. 36 Cf. Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, SVTP 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 138, who point to related formulations in Christian texts regarding T. Levi 3:6. 37 LSJ, 1056, s.v. λογικο' ς. 38 με' ρη λ. “organs of speech”; Plutarch, Cor. 38: η‘ λογικη' , “speech”, opposed to μουσικη' , Dionysius Halicarnassus, Comp. 11; Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 2.61: λ. φαντασι' α “expressed in speech”. Cf. Theon, Prog. 97.11–13, 16; 98.21; 99.4; 101.24, 30; 102.8 for the technical use of λογικο' ς designating one of the subgenres of the chreia which focuses on a word (rather than on an action or a mixture of word and action). 39 Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 1.22.1: α’ γω ñ νες; SEG II 184, 6 (Tanagra, 2nd cent. BC ): α’ κροα' σεις λ. και` ο’ ργανικαι'. 40 Demetrius Phalereus, De Elocutione 42: ο‘ η‘ ρω ñ, ος σεμνο` ς και` ου’ λ.; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. Phil. 5.85: λογικοι' of persons, “writing in prose”; IG IX,2 531, 43 (Larisa, late 1st cent. BC/early 1st cent. AD): ε’ γκω ' μιω, λ. “in prose”. 41 Timaeus Locrus 99e: με' ρος; Chrysippus, Stoic. 3.95: το` λ. ζω ñ, ον; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1108b9: α’ ρεται` λ. = διανοητικαι', opposed to η’ θικαι'. 42 οι‘ λ. δια' λογοι of Plato, such as the Theaetetus and Cratylus (Diogenes Laertius, Vit. Phil. 3.58); in Aristotle usually like διαλεκτοκο' ς, λ. συλλογισμο' ς (Pol. 93a15; cf. Top. 162b27; Metaph., 1080a10: δια` λογικωτε' ρων και` α’ κριβεστε' ρων λο' γων “more abstract”); but also, “logical”: Rhet. 1355a13: λ. συλλογισμοι', opposed to ρ‘ ητορικοι' .

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

185

stantive, η‘ λογικη' logic;43 3. of the “dogmatic” school of physicians.44 The evidence for λογικο' ς I comes from documentary and literary texts contemporary to Paul. One should note that in some texts, “rationality” and “verbal articulation” are closely linked, see Philo, Op. 119.5 (“words issue from it [the head], words which are deathless laws of a deathless soul, by means of which the λογικο' ς life is steered”); Leg. 1.10.1 (“They say a man becomes λογικο' ς in his first seven years, by which time he is already capable of expressing ordinary nouns and verbs through having acquired the λογικο' ς faculty”).45 BDAG prejudices the evaluation of the sense of λογικο' ς. The meaning λογικο' ς I (LSJ) is ignored; instead, we read that the term is “a favorite expr[ession] of philosophers since Aristot[le]”; λογικο' ς is defined as “pert[taining] to being carefully thought through”, and “thoughtful” is suggested as a gloss; the phrase λογικη` λατρει' α in Rom 12:1 is translated as “a thoughtful service”, with the explanatory comment “in a dedicated spiritual sense”.46 There is no a priori reason why the meaning of λογικο' ς in the expression η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α should denote “reason” or “intellect” rather than “speaking” or “speech”. Since λογικο' ς occurs in different contexts with different meanings related to either “speaking” (λογικο' ς I, LSJ) or “reason” (λογικο' ς II, LSJ), and since the expression λογικη` λατρει' α is not attested before Paul, it is possible that the phrase λογικη` λατρει' α was coined by Paul himself.47 Since Paul uses the word λο' γος nearly always in a context related to speech, speaking and word(s),48 it is plausible to ask whether λογικο' ς in Rom 12:1 can be understood in the sense of λογικο' ς I. The only other New Testament passage that uses the word λογικο' ς is 1 Pet 2:2. In the context, Peter speaks of the new birth caused by the “living and enduring word of God” (δια` λο' γου ζω ñ ντος θεουñ και` με' νοντος; 1:23), the imperishable seed that is “the word of the Lord” (ρ‘ ηñ μα κυρι' ου) that “endures forever” (1:25a) – “that word is the good news that was announced to you” (τουñ το δε' ε’ στιν το` ρ‘ ηñ μα το` ευ’ αγγελισθε` ν ει’ ς υ‘ μαñ ς, 1:25b). The description of the Christian believers as “newborn babies” in 2:2 picks up the reference to their new birth mentioned in 1:23. This means that the expression το` λογικο` ν γα' λα, which most English versions translate as “spiritual milk” (ESV, GNB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), refers to the λο' γος that effected the believers’ new birth, ─────────────── 43 Cicero, Fin. 1.7.22; also τα` λογικα' , Tusc. 4.14.33. 44 η‘ λ. αι«ρεσις, Galen, De sectis ingredientibus 1. 45 Dan G. McCartney, “λογικο' ς in 1 Peter 2,2”, ZNW 82 (1991): 128–32, here 131–32. See also Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 11.119; 14.86, 108 (Epitome); Plutarch, Alc. 2.5. 46 BDAG, 598 s.v. λογικο' ς. 47 Reichert, “Gottesdienst”, 90; cf. Evans, “Worship”, 23. 48 Paul uses λο' γος 84 times; for Rom cf. 3:4; 9:6, 9, 28; 13:9; 14:12; 15:18; for 1 Cor cf. 1:5, 17, 18; 2:1, 4 (2x), 13; 4:19, 20; 12:8 (2x); 14:9, 19 (2x), 36; 15:2, 54. For meanings not connected with “speaking”, “speech” or “word” cf. Rom 14:12; Phil 4:15, 17; cf. BDAG, 600 s.v. λο' γος 2 “computation, reckoning”.

186

Paul – Missionary Theologian

the “word” of the proclamation of the gospel. This means that the expression το` λογικο` ν γα' λα means “the milk of the word” (KJV, NASB),49 “having to do with the Word [of God]”,50 “the milk of God’s word”.51 The meaning of λογικο' ς in the sense of “having to do with speech” is not only attested in non-Jewish Hellenistic texts but also in Jewish texts, cf. Philo, Mos. 1.84; Somn. 1.106; Praem. 2. This renders it plausible that Paul uses the word λογικο' ς with reference to “speech” or “word”. The objection that this meaning would be unique52 is unconvincing: the expression λογικη` λατρει' α itself is unique. Paul does not take up a fixed formula. The expression η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α in Rom 12:1 is most plausibly understood in terms of “speech” that is communicated by the λατρει' α (“worship”) of Christian believers. Paul, after using the term θυσι' α (“sacrifice”) in a metaphorical sense, indicated by the adjective ζω ñ σα (“living”) and the reference to τα` σω' ματα (“the bodies”) of the believers, uses a second metaphor: the believers’ λατρει' α “speaks”, their worship “communicates”.53 First, the interpretation of λογικο' ς in the sense of “speaking” and of λογικη` λατρει' α in the sense of “worship that speaks” takes up the exhortation in v.1 that believers in Jesus shall present their bodies (τα` σω' ματα υ‘ μω ñ ν) as a “living sacrifice” (θυσι' αν ζω ñ σαν). The word σω ñ μα (“body”)54 describes here the personal bodily existence of the individual Christian,55 a corporeality which, as Käsemann emphasizes, “is the nature of man in his need to participate in ─────────────── 49 John H. Elliott, 1 Peter, AB 37B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 394, 400–1. Cf. Reinhard Feldmeier, Der erste Brief des Petrus, ThHKNT 15/I (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005), 83 (“Milch des Wortes [Gottes]”), 84 (“Wortmilch”). 50 McCartney, “λογικο' ς”, 132. 51 Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 143; in the context of 1:23, 25, “some relationship between the divine word and the adjective λογικο' ς seems most likely” (146). Cf. Norbert Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, EKK 21 (Zürich/NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1979), 92: “das Wort Gottes und dessen reine, unverfälsche Wahrheit”. Cf. Leonhard Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief, KEK 12/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 136: he translates “spiritual milk” but interprets λογικο' ς as “von der Art des Wortes und Geistes Gottes”, “eine dem Logos der Christen, d.h. dem Evangelium (1,25), entsprechende geistliche Nahrung” (n. 47). 52 Gäckle, Priestertum, 343 (“ein völlig singulärer Wortgebrauch”). 53 The following arguments are adapted and expanded from Reichert, “Gottesdienst”, 88– 94; Angelika Reichert, Der Römerbrief als Gratwanderung. Eine Untersuchung zur Abfassungsproblematik, FRLANT 194 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 240–47, whose research seems to have been overlooked by most scholars. Reichert differentiates her results from Michel in the sense that the latter implied the revelatory nature of the church’s λατρει'α whereas she emphasizes its communicating power. 54 Cf. Rom 1:24; 4:19; 6:6, 12; 7:4, 24; 8:10, 11, 13, 23; 12:1, 4, 5. 55 Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 9th Edition. ed. Otto Merk, UTB 630 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 [1948–53]), 196–97; Karl-Adolf Bauer, Leiblichkeit, das Ende aller Werke Gottes. Die Bedeutung der Leiblichkeit des Menschen bei Paulus, StNT 4 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1971), 179–80.

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

187

creatureliness and in his capacity for communication in the widest sense, that is to say, in his relationship to a world with which he is confronted on each several occasion [sic]”.56 The verb παραστηñ σαι (“present”) describes, as Wilckens explains, “the realization of this communication which takes places first and foundationally with God in specific obedience (vv.1[–2]) and then in living together in the Christian community in brotherly love (vv.9[–21])”.57 Since the body of the believer is the place where the powers of the present world and God’s salvific will encounter each other, and since the body of the believer is no longer at the disposition of the believer but, as the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, is called to faithful obedience by which he glorifies God (8:1–17; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19–20), the body of the believer is not only “one’s self-understanding in the present world” but also expresses the fact of “being incorporated into God’s creative saving act”.58 Since the latter happened not only in Jesus’ death on the cross and in the believer’s past conversion to faith in Jesus, but also in the life of the believer in the context of the community of believers, the communication of God’s saving revelation in and through Jesus continues to take place in the everyday life of the believer. When Christians commit their body, i.e., their way of life in all aspects of everyday living, to holy behaviour that pleases God, this will not remain a hidden reality. The life of the individual believer and the life of the local community is λογικο' ς – their lives “speak”, communicating to believers and unbelievers alike their commitment to God whom they serve. Second, the interpretation of η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α in the sense of “the worship that speaks” takes up the phrase οι‘ οι’ κτιρμοι` τουñ θεουñ (“the mercies of God”) in v.1 which marks the authority of and the reason for the exhortation of the believers to present their bodies as a living sacrifice. As the body of a human being communicates with the world, the bodies of believers communicate to the world the reality of God’s mercies which redeemed them from the power of sin (1:18–3:20; 5:12–21; 7:7–25) as a result of Jesus’ saving death and resurrection (3:21–5:11), and which transforms their life as persons who experience the freedom of the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” as they walk according to the Spirit, thus pleasing God (8:1–8). The λατρει' α of the believer which takes place in everyday living is worship that communicates the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16). Since the believers experienced the gracious ─────────────── 56 Ernst Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology”, in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 1–31, here 21; cf. Ernst Käsemann, “Zur paulinischen Anthropologie”, in Paulinische Perspektiven (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993 [1969]), 9–60, here 43: “in seiner Fähigkeit zur Kommunikation im weitesten Sinne, nämlich seiner Bezogenheit auf eine ihm jeweils vorgegebene Welt”. 57 Wilckens, Römer, III, 3 (my translation). 58 Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 498.

188

Paul – Missionary Theologian

mercies of God in their own lives, the continual and consistent presentation of their bodies to God in everyday living is “worship that speaks” in that they exemplify the reality and the consequences of God’s mercies in the world. The life of the believers in Jesus is “worship that speaks” in the everyday realities of life in the world – the visible, observable exterior of the community which is stamped by God’s mercies and which is made to participate in the mission of God who is merciful to all, both Jews and Gentiles (11:32).59 Third, the interpretation of η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α in the sense of “the worship that speaks” connects Paul’s statement with the negative and positive exhortation in v.2. The refusal to live according to the values and patterns of behaviour of the present world living in rebellion against God (μη` συσχηματι' ζεσθε τω ñ, αι’ ω ñ νι του' τω, ) and the continual transformation that happens as a result of the renewal of their minds (μεταμορφουñ σθε τηñ, α’ νακαινω' σει τουñ νοο' ς) constitute the two foundational dimensions of the believers’ worship that speaks to the world. The mercies of God removed the believers from the sinful powers that control the world. As they actively refuse the temptations of a mindset shaped by the reality of sin that seeks to occupy the self (7:7–25), willing to risk persecution for the sake of the cross (Gal. 6:12), their non-aligned behaviour participates in the revelation of God’s wrath against all godlessness and wickedness (1:18) and exemplifies and communicates to the world God’s judgment on the sinful desires of people’s hearts (cf. 1:24). If and when believers present their bodies as “living sacrifice” that “speaks” to the world, they prove God to be true as his words (λο' γοι) of judgment will prevail (3:4) – the promises of sin are unmasked as deception (7:7–11), God’s law is shown to be holy and his commandments to be holy, just and good (7:12). And as the mercies of God cause the believers’ transformation to renewed reasoning, thinking and desires, their lives, controlled by God’s Holy Spirit (8:1–8), communicate to the world that it is possible to fulfil “the just requirement of the law” since they are people “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (8:4), and that it is possible to “discern what is the will of God” and to do “what is good and acceptable and perfect” (12:2). Fourth, the interpretation of λογικη` λατρει' α as “worship that speaks” connects with Paul’s description of his proclamation of the gospel with the verb λατρευ' ω in 1:9. As Paul “serves” God (ο‘ θεο' ς ω ð, λατρευ' ω) by announcing the gospel of his Son (ε’ ν τω ñ, ευ’ αγγελι' ω, τουñ υι‘ ουñ αυ’ τουñ ), believers individually and communally are engaged in the “service” (λατρει' α) of God which “speaks” as

─────────────── 59 Reichert, “Gottesdienst”, 94: the “worship that speaks” is “die wahrnehmbare Außenseite der Gemeinde, die von Gottes Erbarmen überwunden und geprägt ist und die für dessen Tendenz auf ‘weiteren Raumgewinn in der Welt’ in Anspruch genommen wird”, quoting Günter Klein, “Der Friede Gottes und der Friede der Welt”, ZThK 83 (1986): 340.

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

189

they live out the reality of God’s grace revealed in Jesus Christ in “word and deed” (λο' γω, και` ε» ργω, , 15:18).60

5. Conclusions The interpretation of η‘ λογικη` λατρει' α in Rom 12:1 in the sense of “reasonable” or “true” worship, in the context of a perceived contrast between external, material worship (with animal sacrifices) and internal, immaterial worship (involving the heart and mind),61 or in the context of a perceived contrast between worship that is, or is not, consistent with a proper understanding of the gospel,62 is plausible. The main reasons for the plausibility of this interpretation are the context in 12:2 where Paul speaks of the renewal of the Christians’ νουñ ς, Paul’s exposition of Jesus as the “place” of God’s atoning presence (3:25) in the context of Rom 1–8, and Paul’s exposition of Israel’s quest for righteousness which can be attained only through the Messiah Jesus (Romans 9–11). The interpretation in terms of a “worship that speaks” is at least as plausible, if not more so, given the equally standard meaning of λογικο' ς as “speaking”, the meaning of λογικο' ς in 1 Pet. 2:2, and the context in Rom 12:1–2 in which Paul exhorts the believers to present their “bodies” with which they “communicate” with the world as a “living sacrifice”. Paul reminds the believers of the missional power of the “mercies of God”, and he exhorts them to refuse the sinful values of the present world and to submit to God’s renewal of their minds, transforming them into people who discern the will of God and who do what is good, acceptable, and perfect. This happens in and through their “body” as they “serve” God in the manifold realities of everyday living. The life of a follower of Jesus and the life of each local congregation of believers “speaks” of the transforming power of God’s mercies and thus of God’s reality and power, “for the glory of God” (15:7) and for the salvation of Jews and Gentiles (1:16).

─────────────── 60 Cf. Vahrenhorst, Sprache, 299–303, who accepts Reichert’s interpretation but connects λογικο' ς more closely with λο' γος in the sense of “word of God”; he renders λογικη` λατρει'α as “botschaftsgemäßer”, “wortgemäßer Gottesdienst” (303). However, in 12:1 Paul does not refer to God speaking through his word but to the life of the believers which “speaks” as they present their bodies to God as living sacrifice. 61 Karl Barth, Der Römerbrief, 15th Edition (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989 [1919, 1922]), 416–17; Schlatter, Römerbrief, 333; Barrett, Romans, 231; Käsemann, Romans, 317; Wilckens, Römer, III, 4–6, 8; cf. Strack, Terminologie, 297–301; Stettler, Heiligung, 462–65. 62 Cranfield, Romans, 605. Cf. Schreiner, Romans, 645: “Since God has been so merciful, failure to dedicate one’s life to him is the height of folly and irrationality”.

190

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Bibliography Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. —. 1 Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. London: Black, 1971 [1957, 1962]. Barth, Karl. Der Römerbrief. 15th Edition. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1989 [1919, 1922] Bauer, Karl-Adolf. Leiblichkeit, das Ende aller Werke Gottes. Die Bedeutung der Leiblichkeit des Menschen bei Paulus. StNT 4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1971. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition Revised and Edited by F. W. Danker, based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, Sixth Edition Edited by K. Aland and B. Aland, 1988. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Betz, Hans Dieter. “Das Problem der Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik (Röm 12,1–2) [1988]”. Pages 184–205 in Paulinische Studien. Gesammelte Aufsätze III. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Black, Matthew. Romans. Second Edition. NCBC. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1989 [1973]. Brox, Norbert. Der erste Petrusbrief. EKK 21. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. Bruce, F. F. Romans. Rev. ed. TNTC. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1985 [1963]. Buchegger, Jürg. Erneuerung des Menschen. Exegetische Studien zu Paulus. TANZ 40. Tübingen: Francke, 2003. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 9th Edition. Edited by Otto Merk. UTB 630. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 [1948–1953]. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina 6. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996. Cancik, Hubert, Helmuth Schneider, and Manfred Landfester, eds. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. 22 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002–1012. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Garden City/London: Doubleday/Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–85. Copenhaver, Brian P. Hermetica. The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation, with Notes and Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995 [1992]. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79. Dunn, James D. G. Romans. WBC 38. Dallas: Word, 1988. Edwards, James R. Romans. NIBC 6. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992. Elliott, John H. 1 Peter. AB 37B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Evans, Christopher. “Romans 12.1–2: The True Worship”. Pages 7–33 in Dimensions de la vie chrétienne (Rm 12–13). Edited by L. De Lorenzi. Sezione biblico-ecumenica 4. Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1979. Feldmeier, Reinhard. Der erste Brief des Petrus. ThHKNT 15/I. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Gäckle, Volker. Allgemeines Priestertum. Zur Metaphorisierung des Priestertitels im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament. WUNT 331. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Goppelt, Leonhard. Der erste Petrusbrief. KEK 12/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

6. Lives That Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12:1

191

Grabner-Haider, Anton. Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus. Mensch und Welt im Anspruch der Zukunft Gottes. NTA 4. Münster: Aschendorff, 1968. Hollander, Harm W., and Marinus de Jonge. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Holzhausen, Jens. Das Corpus Hermeticum Deutsch. Übersetzung, Darstellung und Kommentierung in drei Teilen. 2 vols. Clavis Pansophiae 7. Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt: FrommannHolzboog, 1997. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. —. “Gottesdienst im Alltag der Welt. Zu Römer 12 [1960]”. Pages 198–204 in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Vol. II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970 [1964]. —. “On Paul’s Anthropology”. Pages 1–31 in Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. —. “Zur paulinischen Anthropologie”. Pages 9–60 in Paulinische Perspektiven. Third Edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993 [1969]. Kellermann, Ulrich. Das Achtzehn-Bitten-Gebet. Jüdischer Glaube in neutestamentlicher Zeit. Ein Kommentar. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Klein, Günter. “Der Friede Gottes und der Friede der Welt”. ZThK 83 (1986): 325–55. Klinzing, Georg. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament. SUNT 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Kooten, George H. van. “Man as God’s Spiritual or Physical Image? Theomorphic Ethics versus Numinous Ethics and Anthropomorphic Aesthetics in Early Judaism, Ancient Philosophy, and the New Testament”. Pages 99–138 in Anthropologie und Ethik im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. Edited by M. Konradt and E. Schläpfer. WUNT 322. Tübingen, 2014. —. Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity. WUNT 232. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. New Ninth Edition Revised and Augmented Throughout by Henry Stuart Jones, with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie, completed 1940, with Revised Supplement Edited by Peter G. W. Glare. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer. 5th Edition. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971 [1906]. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK IV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Matera, Frank J. Romans. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. McCartney, Dan G. “λογικο' ς in 1 Peter 2,2”. ZNW 82 (1991): 128–32. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. 5th Edition. KEK IV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids/Leister: Eerdmans/InterVarsity Press, 1988. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977 [1959, 1965]. Ortkemper, Franz-Josef. Leben aus dem Glauben. Christliche Grundhaltungen nach Römer 12–13. NTA 14. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980. Osborne, Grant R. Romans. The IVPNTC 6. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Penna, Romano. Lettera ai Romani. SdOC 6. Bologna: Dehoniane, 2010.

192

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Porter, Stanley E. The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary. New Testament Monographs 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015. Reichert, Angelika. “Gottes universaler Heilswille und der kommunikative Gottesdienst. Exegetische Anmerkungen zu Röm 12,1–2”. Pages 79–95 in Paulus, Apostel Jesu Christi. FS G. Klein. Edited by M. Trowitzsch. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. —. Der Römerbrief als Gratwanderung. Eine Untersuchung zur Abfassungsproblematik. FRLANT 194. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco: Harper, 1988 [1977]. Sanday, William, and Arthur Cayley Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 5th Edition. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1902 [1895]. Schlatter, Adolf. Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975 [1935]. —. Romans: The Righteousness of God. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief. HThK VI. Freiburg: Herder, 1987 [1977]. Schmithals, Walter. Der Römerbrief. Ein Kommentar. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Schrage, Wolfgang. Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese. Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Ethik. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1961. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT 6. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Seidensticker, Philipp. Lebendiges Opfer (Röm 12,1). Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. NTA 20. Münster: Aschendorff, 1954. Siegert, Folker. “Die Synagoge und das Postulat eines unblutigen Opfers”. Pages 335–56 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Stettler, Hanna. Heiligung bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag aus biblisch-theologischer Sicht. WUNT 2/368. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Strack, Wolfram. Kultische Terminologie in ekklesiologischen Kontexten in den Briefen des Paulus. BBB 92. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1994. Strecker, Georg, and Udo Schnelle, eds. Neuer Wettstein. Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Band II: Texte zur Neutestamentlichen Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996. Talbert, Charles H. Romans. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Vahrenhorst, Martin. Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen. WUNT 230. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wenschkewitz, Hans. Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament. Angelos Beiheft 4. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1932. Wick, Peter. Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste. Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen-, und Hausfrömmigkeit. BWANT 150. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. EKK 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82. Witherington, Ben, and Darlene Hyatt. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wright, N. T. “The Letter to the Romans”. Pages 393–770 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 10. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002.

7. How Paul Developed His Ethics: Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics The following discussion of motivations, norms and criteria of Pauline ethics proceeds on the basis of the following observations. First, while speaking of Paul’s “ethics” we must be conscious of the fact that it is hardly possible to speak of “the ethics” of the Apostle Paul in the proper sense of the word1 – if we define “ethics” as rational conception, systematic explication and methodical verification of human behavior. If we understand the term “ethics” in a more general sense as “evaluation, description and orientation of the human conduct of life”,2 we may well speak of “Pauline ethics”: Paul reflected not only on questions of christology, salvation and salvation history or ecclesiology, but also on the behavior of the believers in Jesus Christ.3 If one intends to use an alternate term for “ethics”, paraklesis4 is to be preferred to the traditional term paraenesis.5 Second, the present study is not concerned to trace possible “developments” of ethical conceptions and perspectives between Paul’s first and last letters. Rather, the focus is on the material content of Paul’s ethics. Third, I will not attempt to present the history of research nor will I discuss different positions which have been held.6 A few remarks at this point may suffice. The majority of non-evangelical theologians, at least on the continent, deny that Scripture teaches a “material ethics”. They maintain that the New ─────────────── 1 Rudolf Hasenstab, Modelle paulinischer Ethik: Beiträge zu einem Autonomie-Modell aus paulinischem Geist, Tübinger Theologische Studien 11 (Mainz: Grünewald, 1977), 208– 12. 2 Trutz Rendtorff, “Ethik VII. Neuzeit,” TRE 10 (1982): 481–517, here 481. 3 Cf. Wolfgang Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, Second Edition, Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 [1982]), 13–14 with regard to the entire New Testament. 4 Anton Grabner-Haider, Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus. Mensch und Welt im Anspruch der Zukunft Gottes, NTA 4 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1968), 4; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. Band 2: Die urchristlichen Verkündiger, HThK Supplementband II, Völlige Neubearbeitung (Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 8 with n. 2. 5 Since Martin Dibelius, paraenesis is a technical term referring to exhortations with a general moral content for a specific addressee, cf. Martin Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 [1921]), 16–18; cf. Johannes Thomas, παραινε' ω, EWNT III, 52–53. 6 Consult Victor P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 242–79; Hasenstab, Modelle, 29–138.

194

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Testament approach to ethics implies a reduction of the will of God to the love commandment and an emphasis on Christian freedom; thus it can be summarized in Augustine’s dictum ama, et fac quod vis.7 This view of New Testament ethics is inadequate, however. It is a modern interpretation of Pauline or NT ethics along the lines of an “autonomous morality”8 which owes more to the moral philosophy of Kant9 and a one-sided interpretation of Luther10 than an unbiased reading of Paul’s letters. Finally, it is not possible within the confines of the present study to present a systematic discussion of the sources, forms and the material content of Pauline ethics.11 The following remarks presuppose the conviction that the ethics of the Apostle Paul can be grasped and described only in consideration of the theological foundations and impulses of his thought and his faith: God’s action in Jesus Christ, the Risen One who is the Kyrios of the church, establishes, implies and inspires Christian behavior.12 ─────────────── 7 Cf. Wolfgang Schrage, “Zur formalethischen Deutung der paulinischen Paränese,” ZEE 4 (1960): 207–33, here 207, who refers to Rudolf Bultmann, “Das christliche Gebot der Nächstenliebe [1930],” in Glaube und Verstehen I, Second Edition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954), 229–44, here 234–235. See also Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 233–37, 241; HeinzDietrich Wendland, Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Eine Einführung, Second Edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 59–63, 86–87; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (London: SCM Press, 1975), 50–60, 64–65; Eduard Lohse, “Kirche im Alltag: Erwägungen zur theologischen Begründung der Ethik im Neuen Testament,” in Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments. Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 187–200, here 401–6, 412–14. 8 See the Roman-catholic authors Anton Auer, Autonome Moral und christlicher Glaube (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971); Wilhelm Korff, Theologische Ethik (Freiburg: Herder, 1975); Franz Böckle, Fundamentalmoral (München: Kösel, 1991 [1977]), and the Protestants Peter Richardson, Paul’s Ethic of Freedom (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979); Georg Strecker, “Autonome Sittlichkeit und das Proprium der christlichen Ethik bei Paulus,” TLZ 104 (1979): 865–72; B. Gerhardsson, The Ethos of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 64–71. 9 Cf. Hasenstab, Modelle, 263–64; Ludger Honnefelder, “Die ethische Rationalität der Neuzeit,” in Handbuch der christlicher Ethik I, ed. A. Hertz, Freiburg/Gütersloh: Herder/ Mohn, 1978), 19–46, here 34–36; Klaus Bockmühl, Gesetz und Geist. Eine kritische Würdigung des Erbes protestantischer Ethik. I: Die Ethik der reformatorischen Bekenntnisschriften (Giessen/Basel: Brunnen, 1987), 522. 10 Cf. Klaus Bockmühl, Gesetz und Geist. Eine kritische Würdigung des Erbes protestantischer Ethik (Gießen: Brunnen, 1987), 523ff. 11 Cf. Furnish, Theology and Ethics; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament (Philadelphia/London: Fortress/ SCM Press, 1975); J. Leslie Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament (London/Oxford, 1979); Jean-François Collange, De Jésus à Paul: L’éthique du Nouveau Testament, Le champ éthique 3 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980); Schrage, Ethik; Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, Zürcher Grundrisse zur Bibel (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987); Schnackenburg, Sittliche Botschaft II. 12 Cf. Otto Merk, Handeln aus Glauben. Die Motivierungen der paulinischen Ethik, Marburger Theologische Studien 5 (Marburg: Elwert, 1968), 5: “The act of God as presupposition and substantiation of Christian being and doing” (heading of the first chapter; my translation). Similarly the heading of the first chapter in Schnackenburg, Sittliche Botschaft II, 14: “The

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

195

I shall attempt to develop the answer to the question how Paul arrives at ethical decisions and how he substantiates and motivates these decisions inductively by considering specific ethical questions as they are discussed by Paul. In order to obtain the broadest possible insight into the variety of motivations, norms and criteria of Pauline ethics it seems advisable to focus on a topic of Paul’s exhortation to Gentile Christians which receives extensive treatment. The exhortation to overcome envy and strife and to pursue love and peace is such a subject.13 At first sight the subject “strife and peace” appears insignificant and not of great consequence for the present ethical discussion. However, at closer inspection the relevance of this topic becomes apparent, both with regard to ecclesiological questions and with regard to the praxis of church life. Of course the discussion of the role of women in society and in the church, or the question of Paul’s view of slavery, or the issue of the Christians’ attitude with regard to state authority appear more exciting and stimulating for a discussion of Paul’s ethics. Still, the issue of why and how Christians should overcome discord and obtain peace is a more comprehensive and therefore a more basic ethical problem: church history, the present state of the church and the reality of Christian existence in the local churches may be taken as a proof. I will discuss the relevant passages on the subject of “strife and peace” with the focus on the motivations, norms and criteria of orientation which Paul adduces or implies.14 The form of a summary essay requires that exegetical decisions are presented as results; as regards the argumentative details one may consult the literature cited in the notes.

1. Exegetical Analysis 1.1 Galatians 5:13–6:10 In his letter to the Christian in the Galatian churches Paul defends the truth of the gospel against the threat which the Jewish-Christian demands for observance of the (cultic) Torah presented. I follow those interpreters who regard ─────────────── foundation of Pauline morality: God’s way of salvation in Jesus Christ” (my translation). Wolfgang Schrage, “Ethik IV. Neues Testament,” TRE 10 (1982): 435–62, here 445–46. 13 Schnackenburg, Sittliche Botschaft II, 63, regards this topic – besides the exhortation to holy living, the warning of immorality and greed and the exhortation to keep distance from the world and its enticements – as a central theme of the Gentile Christian paraklesis of the apostle, but does not elaborate beyond a brief descriptive sketch. 14 Schrage, “Ethik IV. Neues Testament”, 436, speaks of a “motivation level” and an “orientation level”. I suggest that one needs to add a “normative level”, cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, WUNT 2.16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 299–342 passim.

196

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Gal 5:13–26 as prophylactic argument concerning possible objections against his gospel, rather than as a discussion of actual conditions in the Galatian churches; the pericope is an integral part of the presentation of justification by faith in the earlier chapters of the letter and is thus to be regarded as a general exhortation.15 Paul compares quarrel between believers with the behavior of wild animals which assault and devour each other in their fight for the prey (5:15). He urges the Christians to love each other (v.13–14) and to live by the Spirit (v.16–26). We note the following argumentative motifs in Paul’s exhortation to proper ethical behavior. (1) The hyperbolic comparison of human behavior with the atrocious aggressiveness of predaceous animals (5:15) implies the argument that human beings do not behave like animals who can destroy each other. Paul presupposes here the order of God’s creation with the fundamental discrimination between man and animal as criterion of human, and particularly Christian behavior. (2) The behavior of animals fighting for the prey, attacking and destroying each other (analiskō, v.15), should be regarded ruled out since the result of such conduct is evident: self-destruction is unreasonable. The impact of the biting irony of v.15 derives from man’s power of judgment: human reason discerns the obvious consequences of such bestial aggressiveness and recognizes the self-laceration of animals as absurd and ridiculous. (3) Comparisons of wrong behavior with the conduct of wild animals are well-known motifs in Greek-Hellenistic literature.16 Paul is not afraid to take up elements of contemporary pagan ethics. He presupposes evidently that Christians and non-Christians share important moral norms, in this case the discrimination between man and animal and the urge for self-preservation. (4) Paul contrasts (de) the “beastly behavior” which he denounces with brotherly love (v.13c, 14). He who loves his neighbor does not fight with him; the person who loves does not inflict wounds. The agapē of the believer has its roots in God’s love and in the life of Christ: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who love me and gave himself for me” (2:20). The love of the believer means self-sacrifice, becoming concrete in specific acts of commitment to others (douleuete allēlois, 5:13c). Love as service to others is concrete and specific, it is expressed in behavior which is free from fighting each other. ─────────────── 15 Cf. Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, 5th Edition, HThK IX (Freiburg: Herder, 1988 [1974]), 374; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 277; Udo Borse, Der Brief an die Galater, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1984), 20–21, 189–90; recently Joachim Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, HThK IX (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 226– 27. Differently F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 242. 16 Cf. Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 [1949]), 246 n. 1; Betz, Galatians, 277 n. 43 for references.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

197

Such love is the result of faith (5:6) and is part of the fruit of the Spirit (5:22). The agapē of the believers is not a natural human capacity but a soteriological reality of life in the Spirit. Paul grounds proper Christian behavior in the reality of Christ’s rule. (5) The agapē which the believers are exhorted to exhibit as proper behavior is a command of the law: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (5:14, quoting Lev 19:18). Paul cites a statement of the Old Testament as norm of Christian behavior. The formulation ho pas nomos does not designate the sum total of the individual stipulations of the Torah but, rather, the law which is in its entirety the expression of the will of God.17 And Paul does not argue for or imply a material reduction of Torah to the love command:18 the commandment to love, designated as heis logos in the sense of the Jewish (rabbinic) kelal, the basic principle or “common denominator” of the Torah.19 The Christian believer who is “in Christ” and lives by the Spirit and whose faith becomes effective in love (5:5– 6) fulfills the law as a whole by obeying the commandment to love. The Christian is not absolved from fulfilling the Torah as “law of Christ” (6:2), which is, however, for Gentile Christians, not a new way to salvation.20 The Torah has received a new controlling criterion as a result of the atoning death of Jesus who is the Messiah and it has acquired new contours as revelation of God’s will: what has been accomplished in the death of Christ once and for all and what has become possible through association with that death – righteousness/justification, atonement of sin, does not have to be re-acquired again and again by those who have been identified with Christ by faith. Consequently ─────────────── 17 Cf. BDF §275.3; Betz, Galatians, 275; Mußner, Galaterbrief, 370; Bruce, Galatians, 241; Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 229; also Hans Hübner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie, Third Edition, FRLANT 119 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 37–38. 18 Contra Hübner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie, 38–39, 76–77; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law, WUNT 29 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987 [1983]), 26–27. The kelal is not a commandment, and logos in v.14 does not necessarily mean “commandment” either! 19 Cf. Bruce, Galatians, 241, following Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, trans. H. Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 208; also Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKK 6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82), III, 68–69, 70–71, with regard to Rom 13:8 and Gal 5:14. 20 For this interpretation cf. Eberhard Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Präzisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie, HUTh 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979 [1962]), 61; Andrea van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus, SBM 5 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), 66–68; Ulrich Wilckens, “Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzesverständnisses,” NTS 28 (1982): 154–90, here 175–76; Wilckens, Römer, I, 245; III, 71–72; Betz, Galatians, 166, 179, 229–30; Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 277–78; cf. Ferdinand Hahn, “Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer- und Galaterbrief,” ZNW 67 (1976): 29–63, here 57.

198

Paul – Missionary Theologian

large parts of the Torah, particularly of the cultic Torah, have no further factual validity as normative will of God. But the Torah remains the revelation of God’s will in its new relation to Jesus Christ.21 (6) Paul explains the exhortation to love each other and to abstain from egotistical fighting with reference to the Spirit: “But I say, live by the Spirit, and will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (5:16, NIV). The Spirit of God enables the believers to do the will of God (v.14). Those who live in the context of a new reality on account of their identification with Jesus Christ (2:19–20), a reality of true existence determined by God’s Spirit (zōmen pneumati), can live in accordance with the Spirit (pneumati stoichōmen, 5:25). Paul’s ethics is pneumatologically motivated. (7) The introductory reference to the call to freedom (v.13) which has been effected through Christ (v.1) and the reference to the future inheritance of God’s kingdom (v.21) show that the fundamental and most comprehensive substantiation of Paul’s ethic is God’s salvational act in Jesus Christ. The eleutheria which has been given in and with Christ implies liberation from all other ways to salvation, liberation from sin as dominating power, liberation from the death sentence of the law – a liberty which is being demonstrated as real in the ability to serve one’s neighbour.22 The obedience of the Christian (douleuete, v.13) is both the proof and the test of faith. The christological motivation of Christian behavior is the foundational introductory statement at the beginning of Paul’s paraklesis in Gal 5–6. (8) Paul includes a catalogue of vice in order to warn the believers of specific acts of the godless sinner (5:19–21). Central place in the list occupy eight terms which are related to community life and which are linked with envy and discord:23 enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy. The exhortation to proper behavior implicit in the lists concludes with the threat of exclusion from the future kingdom of God (v.21b) and presupposes the conviction that adaptation and assimilation to the behavior patterns of the world determined by sinful sarx are still possibilities for the Christian believer. He may be “entrapped” by some sin without having acted willfully (prolēmphthē en, 6:1). The locus of Christian ethics is determined, for Paul, by the salvation-historical time between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his parousia. The simultaneousness of the old “evil” aeon determined by the flesh and the newly inaugurated aeon of the new creation determined by the Spirit establishes the situation of the believer “between the ages”. This salva─────────────── 21 Cf. Wilckens, Römer, III, 71, who states that Christians hear in God’s law the binding instruction for a life in righteousness: the fulfillment of God’s law constitutes Christian righteousness as true righteousness. 22 Kurt Niederwimmer, ε’ λευθερος κτλ., EWNT I, 1055–56. 23 Mußner, Galaterbrief, 381, who assumes an inclusio formed by five initial (fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery) and two final terms (drunkenness, carousing).

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

199

tion-historical tension explains why the indicative and the imperative appear side by side (zōmen … stoichōmen, 5:25). (9) Both form and content of the catalogues of virtue and vice remind the reader of Greek-Hellenistic parallels24 as well as of Jewish adaptations of such lists.25 Paul did not simply borrow traditional lists of ethical values from such sources nor did he assimilate his message completely to the moral perspectives of other systems.26 Scholars have repeatedly pointed out the differences between the meaning and function of traditional catalogues of virtue and vice in the Hellenistic or Jewish traditions and in Paul.27 However, it cannot be denied that there are links both with regard to terminology and with regard to conceptual contents. Paul appeals here and in similar passages28 to a widespread recognition in conventional morality in the Mediterranean realm that there are phenomena of social life which are to be condemned and which must be shunned and other features which are to be praised and promoted.29 Paul is not reluctant to take up contemporary moral criteria in the promulgation of Christian ethics. (10) Finally we notice that in order to substantiate his exhortations Paul refers to the future inheritance of the God’s kingdom (5:21), to the judgment of God over all who mock God by despising his Spirit and his fruit (6:7),30 to the final judgment with the dual consequences of destruction and eternal life (6:8)31 and to the rich harvest of God’s blessing (6:9). The future hope of the Christians carries weight for their present conduct. The relation between sowing and reaping implies motivating power for the behavior of the believer in the present aeon.32 The indicative continues in the imperative as appeal to the responsibility of the individual not to become weary in doing good. 33 The eschatological reference of Paul’s exhortation emphasizes the “Not yet” with ─────────────── 24 Cf. Siegfried Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte, BZNW 25 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1959); Ehrhard Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament, WUNT 7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964). 25 Cf. Wis 14:23–31; 4 Macc 1:26–27; 2:15; T. Reu. 3:3–6; T. Levi 17:11; T. Jud. 16; 2 En. 10:4–5; 2 Bar. 8:5; 13:4; 1QS IV, 2–14; Philo, Abr. 32. 26 Thus James D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38 (Dallas: Word, 1988), I, 67, with regard to the catalogue of vices in Rom 1:29–31. 27 Cf. Mußner, Galaterbrief, 329–95 with regard to 1QS IV; Wilckens, Römer, I, 112 in the context of his discussion of Rom 1:29. 28 Catalogues of virtues: 2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22–23; Phil 4:8; Eph 4:2–3, 32; 5:9; Col 3:12; catalogues of vices: Rom 1:29–31; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10–11; 6:9–10; 2 Cor 12:20–21; Gal 5:19– 21; Eph 4:31; 5:3–5; Col 3:5, 8. Cf. Mußner, Galaterbrief, 380 n. 33. 29 Dunn, Romans, I, 67. 30 Mußner, Galaterbrief, 404–5. 31 Cf. Schlier, Galater, 277; Mußner, Galaterbrief, 405; Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 267. 32 Friedrich Hauck, διαθη' κη, ThWNT II, 132–33. 33 Alexander Sand, θερι'ζω, θερισμο' ς, EWNT II, 359.

200

Paul – Missionary Theologian

regard to the present and influences and determines the behavior of the Christians by pointing to the future as warning and as promise.

1.2 Romans 12–13 In order to make concrete what he has said earlier in chapters 6–8,34 Paul begins his exhortation in Rom 12:1–15:13 with a general paraklesis in chap. 12– 13. Part of his representation is the subject of overcoming envy and strife and seeking love and harmony. (1) Starting in 12:3 Paul speaks of the conduct of the believers in the context of the organism of the church. He admonishes the members of the church to avoid anything which may break up the fellowship of the believers who have different gifts but form one body in Christ.35 Nobody should “think of himself more highly than he ought to think”. Rather, everyone should think of himself with sober judgment in accordance with the “measure of faith” given to him (v.3b). Overestimation of one’s own capacities leads to envy and discord. The criterion for proper self-assessment is indicated by par‡ ho dei phronein: the measure of his convictions which is set by God36 (implying a theocentric norm for Christian behavior), or reasonableness which has become possible as a result of the renewal of his nous (v.2). The second interpretation is to be preferred if Paul uses the seemingly traditional play on the word phronein37 in order to allude to elements of general Greek ethics in which sōphrosynē was included among the cardinal virtues as skill to find and maintain the reasonable and sensible “golden mean” in the diverse situations of life.38 If this interpretation is correct, Paul appeals to the reasonable mind of the believers as criterion of brotherly behavior. We should note at this point that Paul had emphasized earlier that the nous of man which had become quite useless as a result of sin (1:28), incapable to reach beyond the knowledge of what is good while recognizing its own inefficiency (7:23),39 has been drawn into the renewal of man through Christ. ─────────────── 34 Cf. Wilckens, Römer, III, 2. 35 Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, NTD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 172. 36 Walter Grundmann, δειñ, δε' ον ε’ στι' , ThWNT II, 25, speaks with regard to Rom 12:3 of necessity grounded in the will of God; cf. Wiard Popkes, δειñ, EWNT I, 669, who understands dei as term implying in a more or less direct manner mostly a divine ruling. Also Wilckens, Römer, III, 11. 37 hyperphronein – sōphronein. 38 Wilckens, Römer, III, 11; Dunn, Romans, II, 721. 39 Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, “Das Problem der Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik (Röm 12,1– 2),” ZTK 85 (1988): 199–218, here 214.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

201

(2) In 12:3c Paul mentions the “measure of faith” which God has given to each individual believer as standard of proper behavior. On closer inspection we notice two criteria: the apportioning action of God and pistis as gospel of the atoning death of Jesus Christ and his resurrection which applies to all believers in the same manner and which has been given to them as measure (metron), i.e. as norm and criterion for their behavior.40 Proper conduct in the church which makes harmonious living together as “body in Christ” (v.5) possible is motivated theocentrically in the context of christocentric norms. (3) Paul introduces his exhortation to self-effacing behavior for the sake of harmony with the sentence: “For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you” (12:3a). The verb legō signifies here an imperative: it expresses Paul’s consciousness of his apostolic call and mission.41 As in 1:5, the term charis designates Paul’s apostolic office which God by his grace and by his enabling call has given to him and which thus implies authority for the panti tō onti en hymin.42 Paul evidently regards his apostolic instructions and injunctions as normative for the behavior of the believers in the churches. (4) In 12:14 Paul admonishes the Christians not to respond to hostility with hostility: if this holds good with regard to persecuting enemies it applies even more so with regard to the brother and sister in the church. The background of the exhortation to bless those who persecute is the exhortation of Jesus in Matt 5:43–44; Luke 6:27–2843 to which Paul alludes.44 Paul does not explicitly designate the statement as a word of Jesus, perhaps because for him dominical sayings possessed a self-evident validity which is not dependent upon external juridical quotation formula or upon literal correctness.45 (5) The exhortation in 12:3 is taken up again in v.16: Paul calls upon the believers to “have a common mind”, i.e., to “live in harmony with one another” (RSV, NIV). The admonition to abstain from haughtiness (“do not cherish proud thoughts”, v.16a) corresponds to the injunction “do not be wise in your own estimation” (v.16d, RSV: “never be conceited”). Since Paul has brought together various motifs from the Jewish wisdom tradition we may ─────────────── 40 Thus C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975– 79), II, 615–16; Wilckens, Römer, III, 11–12; Stuhlmacher, Römer, 172; pace Dunn, Romans, II, 721–22. 41 Hans Hübner, λε' γω, EWNT II, 856. Cf. the commentaries ad loc. 42 Cf. Wilckens, Römer, III, 10; Dunn, Romans, II, 720. 43 Cf. Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer, HNT 8a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980 [1973]), 334; Wilckens, Römer, III, 22–23; Stuhlmacher, Römer, 176. 44 Cf. Dunn, Romans, II, 744–45, for the relevant arguments. Cf. recently Michael B. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13, JSNTSup 59 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 90–109, who regards 12:14 as “an echo” and leaves the question open whether Paul intended the readers to recognize Jesus tradition. 45 Schrage, Ethik, 201; Schrage, “Ethik IV. Neues Testament”, 448. For a recent discussion on criteria for evaluating allusions and echoes cf. Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 30–36.

202

Paul – Missionary Theologian

assume that the exhortation of v.16d was drawn from Prov 3:7 (cf. also Isa 5:21; Prov 26:5, 12; 28:26) and that Paul expected his readers to recognize the allusion and thus acknowledge the scriptural force of the injunction.46 (6) The aim of the general paraklesis in Rom 12–13 is the lifelong commitment to the love command (13:8–10): those who love their neighbours will not hurt them (v.10a). Paul grounds the love command in the stipulations of the Torah: the four commandments of the second half of the Decalogue which Paul quotes in v.9a are only a selection (“and any other commandment”, v.9b). As those who have been loved by God respond to God’s love by loving their “neighbours”, they fulfill the law: love is that behavior in which the law is being fulfilled.47 Recent commentators recognize the significance of the implied “Christian reception of the Torah for the life of Christians”48 Paul includes the admonition to overcome discord and strive for love and harmony in his general exhortation and in his discussion of specific situations. The following observations serve to elucidate the application of Paul’s general exhortation to specific local church situations.

1.3 First Thessalonians 4:9–12 Paul does not consider it necessary, in view of their present conduct, to impress upon the believers in Thessalonica the commandment of brotherly love: they themselves have been “taught by God” (autoi theodidaktoi, 1 Thess 4:9). (1) Paul evidently implies that the apostolic proclamation of the gospel conveys “being taught by God” (having been made effective by the Holy Spirit).49 If this interpretation is correct, Paul’s formulation in v.9 claims divine authority for the apostolic dicta: he designates the apostolic instruction, including the ethical exhortation, as “God’s teaching” without differentiating qualitatively between apostolic exhortation and divine will. (2) Other scholars relate the phrase “taught by God” on the basis of Jer 31:33–34 to the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit. 50 If the Thessalonian ─────────────── 46 With Dunn, Romans, II, 747. Many commentators note the allusion to Prov 3:7. 47 Wilckens, Römer, III, 71. 48 Wilckens, Römer, III, 70 (my translation); he provides a concise statement of Paul’s argumentation in Rom as “horizon of the thesis in 13:8–10”; cf. also Dunn, Romans, II, 781; Stuhlmacher, Römer, 187–88. 49 Thus Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, EKK 13 (NeukirchenVluyn/Zürich: Neukirchener/Benziger, 1986), 175. 50 Cf. recently F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, WBC (Waco: Word, 1982), 90; I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 115; Hans-Heinrich Schade, Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus: Studien zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Eschatologie in den Paulusbriefen, Second Edition, GThA 18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 [1981]), 149.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

203

believers recognized this reference, Paul’s statement implies the pneumatological foundation and motivation of brotherly love as center and principle of Christian ethics. The Spirit of God effects understanding and praxis of brotherly love both with regard to its scope (“all the brethren throughout Macedonia”, v.10a) and with regard to its necessity ([ou] chreian echete, v.9).51 (3) If Paul thinks of the prophetic saying Isa 54:1352 where the sons of the new Jerusalem are said to be “taught by the Lord”53 he may draw upon early Christian tradition;54 according to John 6:45 Jesus quotes this passage and applies it to all those who hear his voice. The early church may have interpreted its life on the basis of Isa 54:13 as fulfillment of the prophet’s promises for the people of God in the last days:55 as members of the new covenant56 they are “taught by God” in the new era of salvation. Paul does not proceed to unfold in specific and concrete terms what brotherly loves as life in the new aeon entails for the Thessalonian believers; apart from hospitality and help for travelers one may think of caring for widows and the poor. (4) The statement in 4:10b, “We exhort you, brethren, to do so more and more”, expresses Paul’s consciousness of his apostolic authority which he obviously links with God’s authority. The conviction that the church is “taught by God” does not exclude the possibility, or necessity, of further exhortation by the apostle. (5) The admonition in 4:11 shows that love is not to be confused with vague benevolence but implies “richtungskonstante Inhalte und Signaturen”,57 i.e., ─────────────── 51 Bruce, Thessalonians, 90, alludes to the christological norm of love: “Love of one’s neighbor was enjoined in the OT law (cf. Lev 19:18) and reaffirmed in the teaching of Jesus (Mark 12:31; cf. John 13:34 … where Jesus’ love for his followers is the model for their love one for another)”; when the Christians are said to be divinely taught to love one another, “the reference may be both to the teaching of Jesus and to the inward action of the Spirit”. The term theodidaktoi may then imply the deity of Christ (cf. T. Isaac Tambyah, “θεοδι' δακτοι: A Suggestion of an Implication of the Deity of Christ,” ExpTim 44 [1932–33]: 527–28). 52 Thus many commentators, cf. Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC (London: Black, 1972), 172–73; Bruce, Thessalonians, 90; emphasized by Holtz, Thessalonicher, 174. 53 Isa 54:13 LXX: kai pantas tous hyious sou didaktous theou. 54 Cf. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 174. 55 Cf. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 174 with n.160, who takes up the suggestion of Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, NovT Sup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 150, who argued that Isa 54:13 is often quoted in the rabbinic tradition in order to show that God himself will teach the Torah in the age to come. See also Pss. Sol. 17:32 (didaktos hypo theou with regard to the kingly messiah); 1QH XV, 10 (Sukenik VII, 10): “You have … in your covenant and my tongue is like your disciples”. 56 Cf. Ethelbert Stauffer, θεοδι'δακτος, ThWNT III, 122, who refers to Isa 54:13; Jer 31:34; John 6:45. 57 Schrage, Ethik, 207. He rightly rejects the opinion of Rudolf Bultmann who argued that the commandment to love never implies a specific content of behavior and that formulated

204

Paul – Missionary Theologian

consistent substance and specific injunctions. Under the heading of brotherly love Paul insists on the obligation to work with one’s own hands. In other words, the admonition that the believers must earn their own living is substantiated by the criterion of brotherly love. Love for the brother leads to a committed58 way of life which does not burden the life of others with one’s own life. The urge of one’s own personal experience must not become the burden of the fellow believer but should rather help towards liberation from the brother’s burdens.59 Paul establishes his exhortation to work by referring to the independence of people: “so that you be dependent on nobody” (v.12b). Brotherly love not only requires that we help our “neighbor” but demands that we makes ourselves the burden of others willfully. We may assume that the believers in Thessalonica participated in the general shortage of goods: in this context the admonition that everybody must earn his own living in order to stay economically independent of the others was probably vital: the fellowship would destroy itself if its members disregarded the need to work.60 Thus, apart from brotherly love as criterion of Christian behavior we may have here an (indirect) ecclesiological motif of Pauline ethics. (6) The reason for the unsettled lifestyle of some believers who evidently meddled in the affairs of fellow Christians and who refused to earn their own living is probably linked with a consistently exaggerated expectation of the parousia.61 As Paul corrects the one-sided eschatology of the Thessalonians62 by condemning idleness and admonishing to a life characterized by quiet order (in 4:15 he quotes a “word of the Lord” to substantiate his answer to the confusion in eschatological matters), the salvation-historical perspective of early Christian ethic becomes manifest. The parousia has not yet taken place, which means that the old order of the world has not been suspended yet: “The ─────────────── positive stipulations contradict its character; cf. Bultmann, “Nächstenliebe”, 235; Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 9th Edition, ed. Otto Merk, UTB 630 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 [1948–53]), 570. 58 v.11a: philotimeisthai “to love or seek after honour, to be ambitious”; in Hellenistic Greek the meaning seems to have been weakened to “to engage, to seek something with all out effort”; cf. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 176 n. 173; Greg H. R. Horsley and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012), I, Nos. 48, 88. Thus in 1 Thess 4:11a one’s honour is not the criterion of behavior. 59 Correctly Holtz, Thessalonicher, 181, even though “liberation” is not mentioned. 60 Holtz, Thessalonicher, 181. Marshall, Thessalonians, 117 sees the exhortation as related to non-Christians: believers must not become a nuisance and a burden to other people. 61 Paul does not state the connection explicitly, but most commentators see the expectation of an imminent parousia implied, cf. the remarks on idleness in 4:11–12 and 5:14 which frame the eschatological section 4:13–5:11; Cf. Marshall, Thessalonians, 117; Bruce, Thessalonians, 91; pace Holtz, Thessalonicher, 178 who explains the Thessalonians’ behavior with their excitement over their newly found faith and the new fellowship with others. 62 1 Thess 4:13–5:11; cf. 2 Thess 2:1–12; in 2 Thess 3:6–12 Paul again discusses the problem of Christians neglecting work for earning their daily bread.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

205

grip of the future cannot negate the creaturely maintenance of life in the present. The course of history still continues, we still need to live in accordance with it”.63 (7) Paul points to the conventions of society as argument for the way of life on which he insists, conventions which show what it means to “live in a seemly manner” (euschēnonōs, v.12; RSV: “command the respect of outsiders”).64 The Christian way of life corresponds, at least as regards order and work, the accepted standards of the society in which Christians live. Christians meet the requirements which non-Christians expect from life. Paul thus presupposes that such standards of society correspond to God’s orders.65 The reason for Paul’s admonition is surely not the aim that Christians should avoid any offense and thus discrimination and persecution but rather (perhaps primarily?) the missionary effectiveness of the church.66

1.4 First Corinthians 1–4 In view of the situation in the Corinthian church Paul feels compelled to admonish the believers to live in harmony. The discussion on the opponents of Paul in Corinth and on the “parties” in the church continues.67 Even though this discussion is highly relevant for Paul’s argumentation and hence for his paraklesis, we will concentrate on a concise elucidation of the norms and the criteria of proper Christian behavior as put forward or implied by Paul. (1) In 1:10–13 Paul calls for harmony in speech (to auto legēte, v.10b), in conviction (to autos nous, v.10e) and in judgment (hē autē gnōmē, v.10f). The motivation for the exhortation in v.10 is fundamentally ecclesiological and ─────────────── 63 Holtz, Thessalonicher, 181 (my translation). 64 Marshall, Thessalonians, 117; Holtz, Thessalonicher, 180. 65 Cf. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 180 who refers further to Rom 13:13; 2:14–15; Phil 4:8. 66 Cf. 1 Pet 2:12; 1 Cor 10:32; Matt 5:16 and similar Jewish statements; cf. David Daube, “Jewish Missionary Maxims in Paul,” ST 1 (1948): 158–64; Willem C. van Unnik, “Die Rücksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der altchristlichen Paränese [1960],” in Sparsa Collecta II, NovTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 307–22; Merk, Handeln, 52; Holtz, Thessalonicher, 180–81. 67 Cf. Gerhard Sellin, “Das ‘Geheimnis’ der Weisheit und das Rätsel der ‘Christuspartei’ (zu 1 Kor 1–4),” ZNW 73 (1982): 69–96, who assumes only a rivalry between a Pauline group and an Apollos party. The traditional assumption of four parties is maintained by Friedrich Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, NTD 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 23– 26. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 4–15, emphasizes the common opposition of the Corinthian church against Paul, with tensions within the church along socio-economic lines. Cf. now the discussion in Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK 7 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/ Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001), I, 46–47, 142–52.

206

Paul – Missionary Theologian

christological. In the church of God (v.2) all are “brothers” (v.10a)68 with God as their common father who granted them and continues to grant them grace and peace (v.3). The phrase “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” in v.10a indicates the ground of the exhortation: the lordship of Christ over the church, the authority of the Lord over those who belong to him.69 (2) In 1:13a the ecclesiological/christological foundation of the admonition to harmony is operative as well. The existence of parties in the church threatens the unity of the body of Christ: according to Paul Christ and the church belong intimately together (3:23). If other mediators of salvation are being interposed between Christ and the church, following Alexandrinian Jewish (philonic) conceptions – particularly of part of the church maintains to live more directly in dependence on Christ – the unity of the body of Christ is destroyed. Paul emphasizes against such tendencies (3:18–23): the church as a whole has a direct relationship with Christ and the apostles are functionally subordinated to the church (3:5).70 Jesus Christ and the salvation granted by and through him establish the unity of the church which must not be divided or partitioned (merizō, 1:13). (3) Paul condemns the discord in the church as indication of a “wisdom” which is inadequate (chap. 1–2). True “wisdom” which Paul holds to be compatible with the gospel is the mystery of God’s plan of salvation whose content has been revealed in the crucifixion of the Lord of glory (1:17–31; 2:6– 10).71 We notice, again, that the most fundamental motivation of Paul’s ethics is God’s salvific action in Jesus Christ,72 in the context of 1 Cor 1–2 with emphasis on the atoning death of Christ on the cross. (4) In 3:3–4 Paul establishes the necessity of harmony with a rationalphilosophical argument: the Corinthians cannot be regarded as pneumatics since they quarrel – true pneumatics do not provoke divisions. “In the dualistic thought of Philo duality (disunion) is precisely a characteristic of the depreciated earthly, sarkic realm, while unity is the characteristic of the spiritual realm. Thus Paul beats the pneumatics with their own weapons”.73 (5) Concluding the appeal of 1:10–12 in 3:21–23, Paul gives salvationhistorical and theological reasons for his exhortation that no one should boast of men. As a result of God’s salvific revelation in Jesus Christ who is the wisdom of God, the mediator of creation and the Kyrios, the essentials of human existence – world, life, death, the present, the future (v.22) – are put under Christ’s jurisdiction. And therefore all those who live “in Christ” own these ─────────────── 68 The first of 21 occurrences of the vocative adelphoi in 1 Cor. 69 The phrase dia tou onomatos tou kyriou may refer to baptism, cf. v.13. 70 Sellin, “Geheimnis”, 93–95. 71 Sellin, “Geheimnis”, 69, 83. 72 Cf. Schrage, “Ethik IV. Neues Testament”, 446. 73 Sellin, “Geheimnis”, 82, referring to Pythagorean numerical speculations.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

207

essentials as their free possession.74 Questions concerning the apostles and the teachers of the church and questions regarding the world, life and death, the present and the future – and the answers which can be given and which may differ again and again – must not control the life of the believers in Corinth. These essentials do not “own” the believers: rather, they are the “possession” of the church. God’s complete unity as unity of father and son stands above all these essential realities (v.23): the glory of God’s activity in “all” has given all these things to the church, because God has become her God.75 And because the one God of the church has given “all” to all believers, the utilization of God’s gifts in party spirit is as uncalled for as discord and disharmony.

1.5 First Corinthians 6:1–11 Paul rebukes the Corinthians since they allow internal disputes – probably over property or regarding an offense in a business transaction (apostereō, 6:7–8) – to be decided by secular courts. He regards such behavior as a serious faux pas. (1) Paul calls on the church to settle the litigation of its members internally. The eschatological reasons given in v.2–3 do not really hold good at first sight: Paul says that “the saints” will judge the world and even the angels (at the final judgment) but does not explain what this fact means for his admonition that Christians should avoid secular jurisdiction (v.1, 6) and solve its legal problems in front of representatives of the church (v.5). Paul’s argument becomes clear if we take into consideration the Jewish attitude with regard to litigation. The synagogue referred its members to its own jurisdiction.76 The Jews regarded the administration of justice not as a disposable matter but as a religious act where the judge dispensed justice by God’s order and in submission to God’s law. To refer jurisdiction to non-Jewish courts would be tantamount to a denial of the relevance, validity and authority of the law.77 Paul designates non-Christian judges as adikoi (v.1) and apistoi (v.6): as he surely ─────────────── 74 Cf. Walter Grundmann, χρι'ω κτλ., ThWNT IX, 541, who emphasizes the liberation from all powers and authorities through the commitment to Christ; cf. also Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 154. 75 Adolf Schlatter, Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969 [1934]), 141. 76 Josephus, A.J. 14.235. Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135), revised by G. Vermes, et al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87), III, 199–200. Cf. Traugott Holtz, “Zur Frage der inhaltlichen Weisungen bei Paulus,” ThLZ 106 (1981): 385–400, here 389–90; see already Schlatter, Korinther, 188; Erich Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Erster Teil, ThHK VII/I, 4th Edition (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1988 [1975]), 169. 77 Schlatter, Korinther, 188–89.

208

Paul – Missionary Theologian

does not regard all pagan judges as “unjust” we may assume that the formulation of v.178 is derived from Jewish terminology.79 The adoption of Jewish terminology indicates at the same time that Paul takes over the material decision as well.80 Paul does not give reasons for the behavior which he demands; the order of God’s law is the self-evident norm of Christian, even Gentile Christian behavior.81 (2) The rhetorical questions in 6:2 show poignantly the ecclesiological context of Paul’s paraklesis. Paul rejects as intolerable an attitude which is an expression of contempt for the church, demonstrated by the willingness to settle legal disputes before pagan courts. If the saints judge the world, the church is responsible for judging lawsuits between its members. This responsibility implies a dignity (cf. anaxioi, v.2c) which must not be disregarded. The nature of the church as the assembly of the saints implies the competence to settle legal matters82 and to arrive at decisions – in general decisions concerning anything which belongs to everyday life (kritēria biotika, v.4).83 (3) The context of 6:1–3 reflects the eschatological motivation of Paul’s ethics. In comparison with the decisions in the final judgment, everyday disputes are most insignificant trivialities (elachistōn, v.2c). In view of this eschatological horizon Paul calls the very existence of legal actions between believers a “defeat” (holōs hēttēma, v.7a). He reminds the wrongdoer of the irrevocable fact that the unjust (cf. the specific examples in the catalogue of vice in v.9b–10a) will have not part in the coming kingdom of God (v.9a, 10b). (4) The plaintiff who has been wronged and who initiated the litigation is told that he will suffer defeat even if he wins the lawsuit (v.7a).84 He should be prepared to suffer wrong (from a brother) and to be defrauded (v.7b). Paul gives no arguments for this exhortation which goes against the general sense of justice and against the established law (the following sentences in v.8–10 apply to the wrongdoer, not to the plaintiff). Paul probably presupposes that the Corinthian believers are aware of the grounds of this striking and uncommon request: specific injunctions of Jesus85 such as Luke 6:27–2886 (par. Matt ─────────────── 78 In v.9 the term adikoi is used in the sense of “the unjust”. 79 The term adikoi signifies with regard to the pagan judges people who do not know the divine law and who are thus in an “objective” sense “lawless”, cf. Holtz, “Weisungen”, 390). 80 Holtz, “Weisungen”, 390; already Schlatter, Korinther, 193, cf. Lang, Korinther, 77. 81 Thus with emphasis Holtz, “Weisungen”, passim. 82 The term kritēria v.2, 4 signifies “legal action”; cf. Wolfgang Schenk, κριτη' ριον, EWNT II, 795; Horsley and Llewelyn, New Documents, IV, Nos. 65, 157. 83 Schlatter, Korinther, 191. 84 Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Erster Teil, 171; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 240–41. 85 Rather than similar pagan philosophical or Jewish parallels (Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 241 n.11, who gives no details, however). Cf. Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, EKK I (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1985–2001), I, 294 who comments the differences between Matt 5:39–42 and such parallels: there is no motiva-

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

209

5:43–44) and Matt 5:39–4087 (par. Luke 6:29–30) which Paul presupposes in Rom 12:9–21 and in 1 Thess 5:15.88 (5) Paul excludes the possibility of Christians carrying their lawsuits before pagan authorities. But he allows for differing ways of Christian behavior: the church may appoint arbitrators who will be responsible for settling disputes internally (v.1–6), or Christians may relinquish their rights (v.7–8). These options are not equally entitled to reflect ideal Christian behavior: Paul prefers that believers relinquish their rights. But basically he allows the church latitude for her decision.89 (6) In conclusion Paul refers again and in more detail to the christological and pneumatological motivation of proper behavior in the church (v.11). Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God effected regeneration, sanctification and justification in the lives of the believers which are the foundation and the enabling realities of holy living.

1.6 First Corinthians 8–10 Paul discusses the problem of dealing with meat sacrificed to idols (cf. Rom 14–15)90 in the context of disputes between “strong” and “weak” believers in the church.91 Theologically Paul takes the side of the “strong” (cf. Rom 15:1) who have no scruples in eating such meat, but he declares his solidarity with ─────────────── tion for non-violence, no tone of resignation, no optimistic calculation and no emphasis on the prudence of such demands. 86 Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 241 (179). 87 Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Erster Teil, 171. 88 William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97), I, 543; Wilckens, Römer, III, 22–23; Holtz, Thessalonicher, 255. 89 Schrage, Ethik, 183, who refers to Erich Dinkler, “Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus. Rechtsnahme und Rechtsverzicht (1 Cor 6,1–11) [1952],” in Signum Crucis. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 204–40. 90 The problem between the “strong” and the “weak” which Paul discusses in Rom 14–15 is not exactly identical with the situation behind 1 Cor 8–10, but the arguments which Paul adduces are similar; cf. Jürgen Becker, Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker, Second Edition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992 [1989]), 363. 91 Cf. the commentaries and monographs, e.g., Wendell Lee Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in I Corinthians 8 and 10, SLBDS 68 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985). Gordon D. Fee, “Ει’ δωλο' θυτα Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8–10,” Bib 61 (1980): 172–97; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 357ff, regards 1 Cor 10:14–22 as reflecting the position of Paul: the basic problem is not idol meat which is sold on the market but “going to the temples”; for a critique of this view cf. John C. Brunt, “Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The Contribution of 1 Cor. 8–10 to an Understanding of Paul’s Ethical Thinking,” in SBL 1981 Seminar Papers, ed. K. H. Richards (Chico: Scholars, 1981), 19–33, here 28–29 n.7.

210

Paul – Missionary Theologian

the “weak”. He grants the “weak” their differing decision in the matter and pleads for tolerance and fellowship. He calls the believers to welcome each other without trying to convert the other to one’s own lifestyle and without despising his decision, but unreservedly with all due respect. Paul acknowledges the possibility of differing decisions with regard to the believers’ mandatum concretissimum.92 (1) The basic motivation regarding the believer’s individual behavior is to be seen in the ecclesiological dimension of this situation which may threaten the unity of the church. Understanding without love leads to arrogant pomposity (physioō, 8:1b): the criterion for proper behavior is brotherly love and the upbuilding of the church (oikodomeō, 8:1c). My behavior and my freedom must not cause offence (proskomma) to the brother nor lead to his downfall (v.9). This happens when he is induced to behaving in a way which he cannot justify before his conscience (v.10–11). Such inducement would be tantamount to sin against the brother and against Christ (v.12). The criterion of right behavior is the question whether my own decision precipitates my brothers fall (skandalizō, v.13). Motivation and purpose of my personal decision is not my own benefit but the well-being of the brother (to tou heterou, 10:24), the advantage of the many fellow-Christians (symphoron … tōn pollōn, 10:33) for the edification of the church. (2) The salvation-historical horizon of the problem is seen in 8:6: here Paul mentions the criterion for deciding the question whether believers may eat sacrificial meat or not (because it renders unclean). The decisive criterion is the faith in God the Father and Creator of all things as faith in Jesus Christ who is Kyrios and whom the believers owe their entire existence (hēmeis di’ autou). In the new salvation-historical situation of the present, when Jesus Christ is Kyrios, food does no longer decide man’s status before God (v.8) as it did in the old covenant. The logic of the theological problem is to be deduced from the “truth of the gospel”, i.e., from the theo-logic of God’s action in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. (3) In view of the salvation-historical horizon of Christian existence Paul knows that whereas for him who belongs to Jesus Christ everything is “permissible”, not everything is beneficial (ou panta sympherei, 10:23). Thus Paul warns the believers to beware of the manifold temptation (peirasmos) which continues to be a reality even in the new covenant which is determined by freedom (10:13). (4) By exhorting the Corinthian believers not to cause offense to the brother (8:9, 13; cf. Rom 14:13, 21), which is the central admonition in the entire discussion on this matter, Paul evidently alludes to dominical sayings (Mark ─────────────── 92 Cf. Schrage, Ethik, 184.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

211

9:42; Matt 18:6–7; Luke 17:1–2).93 Even the theological point of view which Paul presents as the correct position – namely, that nothing is unclean by itself (8:8; 10:25–27; cf. Rom 14:14) – may be traced back to a saying of Jesus (Mark 7:15 par).94 (5) Another criterion for the behavior of the believers is the order of creation. Paul assumes the existence of a norm for correct behavior to which the Gentiles are subject despite their factual lapses. In 10:32 he formulates categorically: “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God”. Paul evidently thinks that it is possible to live among Jews and Greeks and among fellow-Christians in such a manner that nobody is turned off as a result of my behavior but becomes or remains receptive for Christ’s call.95 What is decisive here are not ethical norms of non-Christian society but rather the missionary motif to preserve the attractiveness of the gospel for outsiders. In the context of this motivation, generally accepted and expected ways of behavior can well be criteria which help to decide how to behave in this or that situation. (6) In 8:7–12 and 10:25–29 Paul refers to the conscience as criterion for the proper ethical decision. For Paul, syneidēsis is that tribunal in man which evaluates and makes conscious my own behavior or (occasionally) the behavior of others (2 Cor 4:2; 5:11) – according to existing and acknowledged norms. The conscience reviews past actions, it may accompany the action itself and may influence the process of deciding between choices. The conscience does not itself make the ethical (or religious) decision but tests and reviews thoughts, words and deeds with regard to their correspondence with the acknowledged standard of what is binding and good.96 In 1 Cor 8 it is the syneidēsis of the “weak” which prevents them from eating meat sacrificed to idols: their behavior in everyday life corresponds with their decision made on the basis of the normativity of (cultic) Torah or the normativity of their conversion “away from the idols” (1 Thess 1:9). Paul does not discuss the question whether the theological presuppositions of the “weak” are correct or not, even though he leaves no doubt that he doesn’t accepts their position as valid: they are determined by custom (synētheia) and by defective knowledge (gnōsis, 8:7). He rather discusses the behavior of the “strong”: their insistence on their gnōsis and exousia does not lead to the advancement of knowledge nor to the ─────────────── 93 Cf. Cranfield, Romans, II, 712; Dunn, Romans, II, 818, who refers to Dale C. Allison, “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels,” NTS 28 (1982): 1–32, here 13–15. The transitive form of the verb skandalizō, which is used only rarely, occurs both in 1 Cor 8:13 and in Matt 18:6. 94 Cranfield, Romans, II, 712–13; Dunn, Romans, II, 818–19; Stuhlmacher, Römer, 20; Wilckens, Römer, III, 91 is uncertain as to the possibility of a tradition-historical connection. 95 Schlatter, Korinther, 306. 96 Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. Eine neutestamentlichexegetische Untersuchung zum ‘Gewissensbegriff’, WUNT 2.100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 312

212

Paul – Missionary Theologian

renewal of the nous but hurts the brother whose conscience condemns his assimilated behavior which has not been grounded in his convictions. Thus the fellow-Christian is in acute danger. The “strong” must therefore give priority to respecting the tribunal of the conscience of the brother which judges according to primary norms, rather than insisting on a discussion of norms which is mainly linked with the nous.97 At the same time the phrase dia tēn syneidēsin in 10:25, 27 describes the conscience as the authority “which calls man to take responsibility and which points the believer, through the correspondence of his accountability, to his responsibility before God”.98 (7) The basic and decisive motivation of the believers’ ethical decisions is again theocentric. “Do all to the glory of God” (10:31; cf. Rom 14:6–7). This statement negates at the same time the assumption that the possibility of ethical plurality may be related to all and everything: there is no neutral realm in which the Christian has been dismissed from his responsibility before God, not even in questions of eating or abstinence of certain food or in questions of celebrating or not celebrating certain days.99

1.7 Philippians 1–2 An important theme of Paul’s letter to the Christians in Philippi is the unity of the church and the integration of its members. 100 Paul asserts that the believers have love (agapē) but prays that love may continuously increase (1:9). (1) The reference to love is not left abstract as “total demand” but made concrete:101 the increase of love is to lead to insight (epignōsis) and practical understanding (aisthēsis, 1:9) of the will of God and its realization in practical conduct, as the members of God’s new people are to live “pure and blameless” (1:10). An every increasing love which leads to right conduct which is pleasing to God requires epignōsis: knowledge in the sense of intellectual insight into and existential acknowledgment of the will of God which becomes effective in the actual behavior of the believer.102 And love leading to right conduct requires aisthēsis, i.e., ethical discrimination, “that practical under─────────────── 97 Cf. Eckstein, Syneidesis, 255–56. 98 Eckstein, Syneidesis, 276 (my translation). 99 Schrage, Ethik, 184. 100 Cf. Becker, Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker, 334. We cannot discuss here the literary unity of Philippians; it is defended by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, WBC (Waco: Word, 1983), xxix–xxxii; Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians. A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 10–19. 101 Schrage, Ethik, 178. 102 Wolfgang Hackenberg, ε’ πι'γνωσις, EWNT II, 63, on the basis of the meaning of “love” in the OT; note the 22 occurrences in Proverbs, of a total of 27 occurrences in the LXX.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

213

standing which is keenly aware of the circumstances of an action”.103 The context of v.9–10 shows that Paul does not establish agapē as “norm” of the new life in contradistinction to the norm of the Torah in Judaism or to the norm of reason in Stoic philosophy:104 love is regulated by the criteria of reasonable knowledge and the rational ability to discrimination between right and wrong on the basis of past experience.105 (2) In 1:10 Paul describes the function of the nous with the term dokimazein which refers to the ability to examine and discriminate options of conduct.106 The believers should be capable of examining and then deciding what is God’s will in specific situations of everyday life and thus to know how they should behave in correspondence to the will of God. The object of the rational understanding of the believers is ta diapheronta: that which matters in the specific situation, which surpasses other things in being God’s will.107 (3) In 1:9–11 Paul mentions several norms of Christian conduct: first, moral purity (eilikrineia, v.9): consistent integrity which is not afraid of being examined in broad daylight;108 second, moral inoffensiveness (aproskopos, v.10): irreproachable conduct which is without blame before God and which does not cause downfall in the last judgment; 109 third, perfect 110 righteousness (dikaiosynē, v.11): that essential quality in man which makes him that person that he should be in his relation to God and to others, 111 which has been granted as free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ and which is of enduring relevance before God (to his “glory and praise”) – as concrete and specific conduct of the believer (karpos). The holy, righteous and good will of God continues to be the norm of life in the new covenant. (4) In 1:10–11 Paul mentions fundamental motivations of Christian ethics: the last judgment as “day of Christ”, righteousness which has been granted as a result of God’s salvific action in Christ, the glorification of God in worship and the context of the church112 as realm of insight into the will of God. (5) After a review of past circumstances of his life (1:12–26) Paul resumes his effort to concretize the notion of love which was central in his prayer for ─────────────── 103 O’Brien, Philippians, 77; Gerhard Delling, αι’ σθα' νομαι κτλ. ThWNT I, 187–88. 104 Conta Collange, L’éthique, 49. 105 Cf. Hawthorne, Philippians, 27. 106 Käsemann, Römer 318, with regard to Rom 12:2. 107 Walter Grundmann, δο' κιμος, ThWNT II, 263; Lorenz Oberlinner, διαφε' ρω, EWNT I, 759, O’Brien, Philippians, 77. 108 Cf. Horst Goldstein, ει’ λικρι'νεια, ει’ λικρινη' ς, EWNT I, 949. 109 Cf. Gustav Stählin, προσκο' πτω κτλ., ThWNT VI, 757. 110 Cf. the adjectival participle peplērōmenoi. 111 Karl Kertelge, δικαιοσυ' νη, EWNT I, 787. 112 Following Collange, L’éthique, 50; Hawthorne, Philippians, 28, and others, one can interpret aproskopos in the transitive sense of carefully avoiding anything which may cause another to stumble; if the primary reference is to those within the church, the motivation of Christian behavior is linked to the ecclesiological context.

214

Paul – Missionary Theologian

the church. The community life of the church (politeuesthai, v.27)113 is carried out, as regards the outside world, in a context of conflict and struggle, 114 whereas the fellowship of the believers ought to be characterized by unanimity (1:27–30). The norm of church life (axios, v.27a) is “the gospel of Christ”, i.e., the proclamation of the gospel authorized by Christ who is its soteriological substance.115 (6) Paul substantiates the exhortation to unanimity, which he understands as unity in action, by referring to the presence of the Holy Spirit in which all believers share (1:27c)116 as well as to the necessity (v.29–30) to defend the Christian faith against attacks and to spread the gospel to outsiders (v.27). The unity effected by God’s Spirit makes the common fight for the gospel possible: a fight in which the combatants do not try to distinguish themselves as individuals but stand together “as one man”117 doing their utmost for attaining the common goal (synathlountes, v.27). The unanimity of the church which has been established by God’s salvific action in Jesus Christ and which is maintained in love is not destroyed in the conflict for the faith and in the suffering for Christ’s sake (v.29). (7) After his summons to unanimity in fighting for the faith Paul admonishes the believers to maintain peace, love, humility and unselfishness (2:1– 4). The unity of the church as community of life is a unity of thinking and will (to auto phronēte),118 of faith and action (tēn autēn agapēn echontes), of feeling (sympsychos)119 and, again, of thought and purpose (to hen phronountes, v.2). Of fundamental significance for the unity of the church is humility as modest self-assessment (tapeinophrosynē, v.3b) which enables the Philippians to count others better than themselves independent of any social ranking.120 The union granted by the Spirit is being maintained in the church if each believer marks down the perception of his own importance and seeks the advantage of his fellow believers. (8) Paul goes on to define the necessary unity ex negativo: the union of the believers in the church of God does not allow for self-interest which is determined by egotism, selfish ambition and arrogant self-seeking (eritheia, 2:3a), ─────────────── 113 Cf. Ulrich Hutter, πολι' τευμα, πολιτευ' ομαι, EWNT III, 311, contra Hermann Strathmann, πο' λις κτλ., ThWNT VI, 534. 114 Cf. the terms synathlountes v.27b; antikeimenōn v.28a; agōna v.30. 115 Cf. Georg Strecker, ευ’ αγγε' λιον, EWNT II, 181–82. 116 Phil 1:27 en heni pneumati, cf. Collange, L’éthique, 74, who refers to Bonnard, Gnilka, Martin. Others interpret in the sense of “with common purpose …having the same attitude or the same orientation of will” (O’Brien, Philippians, 150, who refers to Bultmann, Lohmeyer, Michaelis, Müller, Schweizer; cf. Hawthorne, Philippians, 56–55). 117 Alexander Sand, ψυχη' , EWNT III, 1200; cf. NIV. 118 Cf. Georg Bertram, φρη' ν κτλ., ThWNT IX, 229. 119 Cf. Horst Balz, συ' μψυχος, EWNT III, 696. 120 Cf. Heinz Giesen, ταπεινοφροσυ' νη, ταπεινο' φρων, EWNT III, 800.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

215

nor does it allow for a boastful but empty thirst for glory where people are convinced of their own grandeur, competing with others for praise (kenodoxia, 2:3a). 121 Unity is possible where Christians do not look out for their own interests nor concentrate in selfish individualism on their personal affairs (2:4a). Selfishness, boastfulness and egotism damage and, finally, destroy the life of the church. (9) The grounds for his appeal to maintain unity is, first, the apostolic proclamation and exhortation as well as to his own practice of kind-hearted and edifying encouragement and love (2:1a).122 Secondly, Paul refers to the work of God’s Spirit who effected the unity of the believers as well as to the mercy and compassion which God demonstrated and gave in Jesus Christ (v.1b).123 The christological motivation for the exhortation to unity appears again in 2:5ff: the thinking and the practical conduct of Christians are measured by Jesus Christ who determines as Kyrios the community life of the church.124 (10) In 4:2–3 Paul takes up a specific case where two women – Euodia and Syntyche –, highly valued coworkers had serious disagreements. Presupposing the authenticity of the context in 3:17–21, we may interpret Paul as establishing (hōste, 4:1a) his exhortation to reconciliation and unity by referring to the resurrection and parousia of Christ. The reference to the “book of life” (4:3d) provides eschatological grounds for the admonition. I shall break off at this point. We could analyze further passages where Paul exhorts to overcome discord and to reestablish or maintain love and unity. The passages which we looked at are examples for the manner by which Paul substantiates and evaluates ethical decisions. The second part of my study will summarize and present systematically the grounds and the criteria of ethical decision-making in the paraklesis of the apostle Paul.125

2. Systematic Concentration 2.1 Theological Motivation The fundamental motivations of Pauline ethics are substantially all related to God’s salvific action in Jesus Christ and its consequences. This theological, or ─────────────── 121 Cf. Heinz Giesen, ε’ ριθει'α, EWNT II, 131; Collange, L’éthique, 79. 122 Following Otto Schmitz, παρακαλε' ω, παρα' κλησις, ThWNT V, 793–94; Gustav Stählin, παραμυθε' ομαι κτλ., ThWNT V, 819; Hawthorne, Philippians, 65; differently O’Brien, Philippians, 172 who interprets in the sense of Christ’s love rather in terms of a reference of Paul’s love for his Philippian readers. 123 Hawthorne, Philippians, 66–67. 124 Cf. Henning Paulsen, φρονε' ω, EWNT III, 1050. 125 For the following see Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 299–342.

216

Paul – Missionary Theologian

rather theocentric, foundation of Christian existence which Paul presents under a christological horizon is clearly expressed in several passages. Cf. 1 Cor 6:20; 10:31; Rom 14:6–7). (1) Christological motivation. The foundational motivation with reference to Jesus Christ comprises the past of his death and resurrection, the present of his salvation and the lordship, and the future of his parousia. Paul reckons that the atoning death of Jesus and his resurrection possess power and authority, not least with regard to the ethical dimension of Christian existence. Cf. 2 Cor 5:14–15; Rom 6; 14:8–9; 15:30; Phil 2:5–11; Eph 5:25. (2) Salvation-historical motivation. Christian ethics belongs to the time “between the ages” and takes into account the tension between the “already” and the “not yet”. The salvation-historical basis of and reason for the dialectic of the indicative and the imperative is the dialectic correlation of the salvation which has already taken place in and with Jesus Christ and which is the “property” of the believer and the salvation which will take place in the future judgment of the world and which will only then become the full and final inheritance of the believer. The old aeon has been brought to an end by Christ and yet has not been completely done away with in the present. The new aeon has already begun but has not attained yet universal fullness and perfection. Cf. Gal 5:19–21; 1 Thess 5:21; 1 Cor 7:5; 10:23; Rom 12:2. (3) Pneumatological motivation. The Holy Spirit is the presence of Christ in the present life of those who believe in Christ. The gift of the Spirit is the fundamental power of in the life of the believers who have of those “borne again” and as such determines and shapes Christian existence. The person and the conduct of the believer is being renewed by the Spirit. The Spirit enables the Christian to do the will of God. Cf. Gal 5:13–16, 22–25; Rom 8:3–4. (4) Ecclesiological motivation. Paul’s paraklesis is always related to the fellowship of believers. The conduct of other churches, mutual responsibility of the believers, and the edification of the (local) church are basic arguments for proper behavior. Cf. 1 Cor 8; 11:16; 12; Rom 12:16; 15:5; Phil 2:2; 4:2. (5) Eschatological motivation. Paul holds that the hope of the Christian regarding the future is relevant for their present behavior. Allusion to the coming judgment warns the believers of false security and emphasizes the responsibility of the individual. The motif of reward is important as well. Cf. Gal 6:7–10; 1 Thess 5:1ff; 1 Cor 3:11–14; 4:5; 9:24–25; 2 Cor 5:9–10; Rom 13:11ff; Phil 3:14.

2.2 Normative Obligation Paul assumes binding norms in his explication and concretization of right Christian conduct. The presupposition and application of binding norms for the

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

217

behavior of the believers is implied in the use of terms such as anangkē, opheilein, dei, and kanōn. Cf. Gal 6:16; 1 Thess 4:1–2; 1 Cor 11:10; Rom 13:5–8. (1) The Torah. Paul holds that the Torah has been fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ and his atoning death on the cross. As conditio et via salutis the law has been nullified. As “law of Christ” it remains the revelation of God’s effective will. Paul believes that the messianic era which has been inaugurated through Jesus Christ hat not effected the abrogation of the Mosaic law but appointed a new qualification for the Torah. Since the death of the Messiah atoned for the sins of the world and opened up the way into the presence of God’s salvation through identification with that death by faith, the Torah, i.e., its scope of application, is modified in the light of the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. An important pointer to the continued validity of the Hebrew Bible for Christian ethics is the fact that Paul takes over individual OT texts in an entirely natural matter that goes without saying. Cf. Gal 6:1; Rom 8:1–4; 1 Cor 7:19; 5:13; 6:12–20; 2 Cor 8:15; 9:9. Paul never explains explicitly how and to what degree the Mosaic law has been affected and modified by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is evident, however, that at least the cultic stipulations of the law which regulate the atonement of sin have been affected, as well as the numerous ritual stipulations such as circumcision and the good laws which effect holiness and purity and which mark off the limits of the people of God: atonement, holiness, purity and membership in God’s (eschatological) people are now acquired through affiliation with God’s salvific action in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e., by faith. (2) The words of Jesus. For Paul, dominical sayings possess binding authority. Where the Lord has spoken, the discussion is over: the believers know what they have to do. Cf. 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; 11:23–24; 1 Thess 4:15. (3) The injunctions of the apostles. Paul regards the apostolic exhortation as normative. Being an apostle of Jesus Christ he is conscious of the fact that he speaks in the name of Christ and in the name of God: God and Christ are the true authors of the apostolic proclamation and exhortation. Paul anticipates quite naturally that the believers of his churches will carry out his instructions. Similarly he can call on the Christians to emulate his example. Cf. 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Cor 2:9; 1 Cor 4:16–17; 11:1; Phil 4:9; 3:17. (4) The orders of creation. Paul is convinced that God’s salvific action in Jesus Christ makes the cosmos recognizable again as God’s creation. On the one hand the cosmos is still the realm of sinful man who has rebelled against God, a realm dominated by God’s enemy: the cosmos thus cannot be norm of Christian behavior in an automatic and an unreflected manner. On the other hand it is significant that the will of the creator is fulfilled by, through and in Jesus Christ: he is the manifestation of the wisdom of God, the mediator of creation and the new Adam. Thus the earth in its totality belongs to the “Lord”,

218

Paul – Missionary Theologian

and consequently everything is clean for those who believe in Christ. Cf. 1 Cor 8:6; 10:26; Rom 14:20; and Rom 2:14–15; 1 Thess 4:12; 1 Cor 10:32. There is a partial ethical consensus between Christian and non-Christian ethics. Norms of Christian conduct in the context of creation and in the context of pagan Ethics are nature (with reference to God’s original orders for creation and to historical orders such as custom and generally recognized traditions), orders of creation such as marriage, political authority and work as well as consideration for social conventions. Cf. Rom 1:26; 1 Cor 11:13; 7; Rom 13:1–7; 1 Thess 5:14; 2Thess 3:6–7; Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 7:35; 13:5; 14:40.

1.3 Concretising Orientation Paul holds that the individual believer is responsible for his specific conduct in everyday life. This responsibility implies two aspects: the believer is to live in correspondence to the binding norms of Christian ethics and he is to realize the “obedience of faith” in the concrete situations of everyday life. This realization of the will of God by the Christian believer is determined and guided by the following criteria. (1) The Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is not only foundation and power of the life of the Christian believer but a guide into the “how” of right conduct as well. The power of the Spirit present in the believer overcomes the sinful tendencies of the flesh if and when the believer lets himself being guided by the Spirit. God’s Spirit helps the believer to discern the will of God and to perceive proper behavior in specific situations who is thus able to realize God’s claims in everyday life. Cf. Rom 8:4–5, 9–13; Gal 5:16–17; Col 1:9–10. (2) Love. The love of God which has been revealed in the sending of the Son is a soteriological reality which assumes central significance for the believer and his responsibility to realize God’s will in the specific situations of his everyday routine (1 Cor 13). Love is crucially important in the endeavor to master new situations. True love provides the believer with the capability to discern that which matters and helps him perceive how to behave in practical situations. Cf. 1 Cor 7:4–5, 36–38; 3:18; Phil 1:9–10. (3) The existing orders. The position of the believers “in the Lord” implies a potential and effective reservation with regard to the orders of creation and society, particularly in the realm of human conventions: creation is as fallen creation. However, Paul was prepared to take up elements of the contemporary non-Christian ethic. These traditional social orders and conventions are not eo ipso nor continuously identical with that which is appropriate “in the Lord”. The process of critical examination and selection gives a new meaning to many traditional contemporary concepts and ways of behavior and often

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

219

transforms their substance: the phrase “in Christ” is not a mere formula! Cf. 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Cor 10:32; Rom 12:2. (4) Reason. Paul occasionally refers the believers to their cognitive faculties when he talks about perceiving the will of God in the specific situations of everyday life. Human reason has become intrinsically useless as result of sin. Nevertheless, Paul refers to reason as instance in man which may distinguish between good and evil. An important aspect of Paul’s paraklesis is concerned with putting the Christian believer “in the right mind” (nouthetein), i.e., guiding him to proper insight into the right ways of proper conduct. The renewal of man in Christ and by God’s Spirit embraces the nous as well. Cf. Rom 1:28; Col 2:18; Eph 4:17; Rom 7:21–23; 8:5; 14:5; 15:14; 12:2; 2 Cor 10:5; Phil 1:9–10; 4:8–9. (5) Conscience. Paul’s treats the conscience as that inner authority which examines and makes conscious the individual’s behavior or (occasionally) the behavior of others on the basis of primary and generally acknowledged norms. The conscience is primarily related to the believer’s consciousness to be guilty or blameless before God, i.e., to the judgment whether he has made the right decision and behaved properly. The conscience is guided by love for the brother and thus directed by faith. Cf. 1 Cor 8:7–8; 10:25–27; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10, 23. (6) Mission. Some passages imply the missionary effectiveness of the church as motivation for right conduct. Cf. 1 Thess 4:12; 1 Cor 10:32; Phil 1:27; 1 Tim 2:2. As we attempt to understand the paradoxical relationship of binding norms and criteria which presuppose and require individual responsibility – law and Spirit, obedience and love, God’s will and the freedom of the Christian – the correlation of law and wisdom of the biblical-Jewish tradition proves to be significant. The believer who is determined by God’s salvific action in Jesus Christ is to live according to the demands of God’s holy will. At the same time he lives as one who is called to the freedom of the children of God by the Spirit. Law and Spirit, commandment and love, obedience and responsibility are not contrasts which contradict each other. For Paul Christian ethics is neither legalistically motivated nor antinomistically executed nor situationethically privatized. God’s salvific action in Jesus Christ grants the believers the gifts of righteousness and holiness, the Spirit and love: the believers reply with living according to God’s command in the power of the Spirit and by the love of Christ, safeguarding their responsibility regarding the brother and the world, aiming at the glorification of God.

220

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Bibliography Allison, Dale C. “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels.” NTS 28 (1982): 1–32. Auer, Anton. Autonome Moral und christlicher Glaube. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971. Becker, Jürgen. Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker. Second Edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992 [1989]. Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. BNTC. London: Black, 1972. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. —. “Das Problem der Grundlage der paulinischen Ethik (Röm 12,1–2).” ZTK 85 (1988): 199– 218. Böckle, Franz. Fundamentalmoral. 5th Edition. München: Kösel, 1991 [1977]. Bockmühl, Klaus. Gesetz und Geist. Eine kritische Würdigung des Erbes protestantischer Ethik. I: Die Ethik der reformatorischen Bekenntnisschriften. Giessen/Basel: Brunnen, 1987. —. Gesetz und Geist. Eine kritische Würdigung des Erbes protestantischer Ethik. I: Die Ethik der reformatorischen Bekenntnisschriften. Giessen/Basel: Brunnen, 1987. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. NovT Sup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Borse, Udo. Der Brief an die Galater. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1984. Bruce, F. F. Commentary on Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. —. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. WBC. Waco: Word, 1982. Brunt, John C. “Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The Contribution of 1 Cor. 8–10 to an Understanding of Paul’s Ethical Thinking.” Pages 19–33 in SBL 1981 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. Chico: Scholars, 1981. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Das christliche Gebot der Nächstenliebe [1930].” Pages 229–44 in Glaube und Verstehen I. Second Edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954. —. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 9th Edition. Edited by Otto Merk. UTB 630. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 [1948–1953]. Collange, Jean-François. De Jésus à Paul: L’éthique du Nouveau Testament. Le champ éthique 3. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79. Daube, David. “Jewish Missionary Maxims in Paul.” ST 1 (1948): 158–64. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97. Dibelius, Martin. Der Brief des Jakobus. KEK 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 [1921]. Dinkler, Erich. “Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus. Rechtsnahme und Rechtsverzicht (1 Cor 6,1–11) [1952].” Pages 204–40. in Signum Crucis. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen Archäologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. Dülmen, Andrea van. Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. SBM 5. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968. Dunn, James D. G. Romans. WBC 38. Dallas: Word, 1988. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. Eine neutestamentlich-exegetische Untersuchung zum ‘Gewissensbegriff’. WUNT 2.10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Fascher, Erich. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Erster Teil. ThHK VII/I, 4th Edition. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1988 [1975]. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

7. Motivations, Norms, and Criteria of Pauline Ethics

221

—. “Ει’ δωλο' θυτα Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8–10.” Bib 61 (1980): 172– 97. Furnish, Victor P. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Gerhardsson, Birger. The Ethos of the Bible. Translated by S. Westerholm. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Grabner-Haider, Anton. Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus. Mensch und Welt im Anspruch der Zukunft Gottes. NTA 4. Münster: Aschendorff, 1968. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer- und Galaterbrief.” ZNW 67 (1976): 29–63. Hasenstab, Rudolf. Modelle paulinischer Ethik: Beiträge zu einem Autonomie-Modell aus paulinischem Geist. Tübinger Theologische Studien 11. Mainz: Grünewald, 1977. Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. WBC. Waco: Word, 1983. Holtz, Traugott. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKK 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn/Zürich: Neukirchener/Benziger, 1986. —. “Zur Frage der inhaltlichen Weisungen bei Paulus.” ThLZ 106 (1981): 385–400. Honnefelder, Ludger. “Die ethische Rationalität der Neuzeit.” Pages 19–46 in Handbuch der christlicher Ethik I. Edited by A. Hertz. Freiburg/Gütersloh. Herder/Mohn, 1978. Horsley, Greg H. R., and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012. Houlden, J. Leslie. Ethics and the New Testament. London/Oxford, 1979. Hübner, Hans. Das Gesetz bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie. Third Edition. FRLANT 119. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Jüngel, Eberhard. Paulus und Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Präzisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie. HUTh 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979 [1962]. Kamlah, Ehrhard. Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. WUNT 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Käsemann, Ernst. An die Römer. 4th Edition. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980 [1973]. Korff, Wilhelm. Theologische Ethik. Freiburg: Herder, 1975. Lang, Friedrich. Die Briefe an die Korinther. NTD 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Lohse, Eduard. “Kirche im Alltag: Erwägungen zur theologischen Begründung der Ethik im Neuen Testament.” Pages 187–200 in Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments. Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. EKK I/1–4. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1985–2001. Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Merk, Otto. Handeln aus Glauben. Die Motivierungen der paulinischen Ethik. Marburger Theologische Studien 5. Marburg: Elwert, 1968. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. 5th Edition. HThK IX. Freiburg: Herder, 1988 [1974]. O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987 [1983]. Rendtorff, Trutz. “Ethik VII. Neuzeit.” TRE 10 (1982): 481–517. Richardson, Peter. Paul’s Ethic of Freedom. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Rohde, Joachim. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. HThK IX. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989. Sanders, Jack T. Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development. London: SCM, 1975.

222

Paul – Missionary Theologian

Schade, Hans-Heinrich. Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus: Studien zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Eschatologie in den Paulusbriefen. Second Edition. GThA 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 [1981]. Schlatter, Adolf. Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther. orig. 1934. Repr.. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. KEK 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 [1949]. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 2.16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. Band 2: Die urchristlichen Verkündiger. HThK Supplementband II. Völlige Neubearbeitung. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Translated by H. Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKK 7. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001. —. Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Second Edition. Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 [1982]. —. “Ethik IV. Neues Testament.” TRE 10 (1982): 435–62. —. “Zur formalethischen Deutung der paulinischen Paränese.” ZEE 4 (1960): 207–33. Schulz, Siegfried. Neutestamentliche Ethik. Zürcher Grundrisse zur Bibel. Zürich: Theologicher Verlag, 1987. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). Revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87. Sellin, Gerhard. “Das ‘Geheimnis’ der Weisheit und das Rätsel der ‘Christuspartei’ (zu 1 Kor 1–4).” ZNW 73 (1982): 69–96. Strecker, Georg. “Autonome Sittlichkeit und das Proprium der christlichen Ethik bei Paulus.” TLZ 104 (1979): 865–72. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Tambyah, T. Isaac. “θεοδι' δακτοι: A Suggestion of an Implication of the Deity of Christ.” ExpTim 44 (1932–33): 527–28. Thompson, Michael B. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13. JSNTSup 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Unnik, Willem C. van. “Die Rücksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der altchristlichen Paränese [1960].” Pages 307–22 in Sparsa Collecta II, NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Wendland, Heinz-Dietrich. Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Eine Einführung. Second Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Wibbing, Siegfried. Die Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Qumran-Texte. BZNW 25. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1959. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. EKK 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82. —. “Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzesverständnisses.” NTS 28 (1982): 154–90. Willis, Wendell Lee. Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in I Corinthians 8 and 10. SLBDS 68. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.

The Early Church Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

8. The Meaning of βαπτι' ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature Introduction English translations of the New Testament uniformly “translate” the Greek term βαπτι' ζειν with the English term “baptize” which is, obviously, not a translation but a transliteration. It is rather curious that New Testament scholars, content to use “baptize” as translation, rarely discuss the lexical meaning of the Greek term. The following study aims at surveying the meaning of βαπτι' ζειν by investigating the use of the verb in Greek literature outside of the New Testament. The more common verb βα' πτειν is included in the study as well since the two verbs have essentially identical meanings – the intensive force of βαπτι' ζειν is not always present; the tendency is for intensive forms of Greek verbs to replace the root form, loosing the intensified meaning in the process. This development is probably related to the fact that βα' πτειν became the standard term for dipping textiles in dyes of various colors (gloss: “to dye”).1 We will first look at the treatment of βαπτι' ζειν (and βα' πτειν) in the standard lexicons in the context of lexical semantics and lexicography, before we survey the use of βαπτι' ζειν and of βα' πτειν in literary and documentary texts outside of the New Testament.

1. Lexical Semantics, Lexicography, and the Traditional Rendering of βαπτι'ζειν The English term “baptize” is not a translation of the Greek term βαπτι' ζειν, but a transliteration. Translators of the New Testament who “translate” βαπτι' ζειν with “baptize” have to assume that the readers of their translation are familiar with the meaning of the English term – a technical religious term that is not used in contemporary English in non-Christian or non-religious contexts.2 The ─────────────── 1 Cf. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 47. 2 Only the noun “baptism” is used in a non-religious sense, albeit rarely; note the expression “baptism of fire”, understood as “the undergoing of any severe ordeal or painful experience” or “a soldier's first experience “under fire” in battle” (OED s.v. “Baptism” 2b).

226

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

meaning of the English verb “to baptize” can be defined, with the standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, as “to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God”, in most cases denoting “the Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death”.3 Merriam– Webster’s New Encylopedic Dictionary captures the popular understanding of “baptize” in the definition “to administer baptism to” (while defining “baptism” as “a Christian sacrament signifying spiritual rebirth and admitting the recipient to the Christian community through the ritual use of water”).4 The College Dictionary Edition of Merriam–Webster attempts to integrate etymological information into its definition: “to immerse (an individual) in water, or pour or sprinkle water over (the individual), as a symbol of admission into Christianity or a specific Christian church”.5 The Oxford English Dictionary seeks to include in its definition the meaning of the Greek term more consistently, while reflecting the sense of the word in ecclesial practice in the Christian traditions that practice infant baptism by sprinkling water on the newborn child: “to immerse in water, or pour or sprinkle water upon, as a means of ceremonial purification, or in token of initiation into a religious society, especially into the Christian Church”.6 What these dictionary definitions do not show is the particular understanding of the term “to baptize” that modern readers of the New Testament assume who belong to the Roman Catholic church or to Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, or Pentecostal churches. The problems in translating βαπτι' ζειν with “baptize” can be seen in the discussion of the use of βαπτι' ζειν in Acts 1:5 in a handbook for Bible translators: The verb baptize may require a direct object, that is, ‘John baptized people with water’ … Some translators have objected to using the same term for ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ and ‘baptism with water’. For ‘baptism with water’ they may have some such expression as ‘to enter the water’ or ‘to receive water on the head’; while for ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ they have ‘for the Holy Spirit to enter people’. Not to employ parallelism in these two expressions is, however, unfortunate. One can usually employ some sort of related structure, for example, ‘to cause water to come upon’ and ‘to cause the Holy Spirit to come upon’.7 ─────────────── 3 Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and Wilbur F. Gingrich, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, Revised and Edited by F. W. Danker, based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, Sixth Edition Edited by K. Aland and B. Aland, 1988 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. βαπτι'ζω 2 and 2c. The standard Greek-English Lexicon gives “baptize” as the third meaning of βαπτι'ζειν, with reference to New Testament texts (LSJ s.v. βαπτι'ζω 3). 4 Webster’s New Encylopedic Dictionary, New Revised Edition 1996. 5 Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2000. 6 Oxford English Dictionary Online, Second Edition 1989. 7 Barclay M. Newman and Eugene Nida, A Translators Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1972), 15.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

227

While the authors recognize the problem of translating βαπτι' ζειν in contexts that mention a physical substance such as water, and in other contexts where a physical substance is not present, they do not address the meaning of the Greek term. The suggestion that the verb could be translated with “to receive water on the head” is not informed by the use of the Greek term in Greek and Jewish texts but by baptismal practices in Christian churches. Another example for the lack of interest in the meaning of the Greek term and the (implicit) assumption that βαπτι' ζειν is a technical term can be found in comments on Matt 3:1 in another handbook for translators: Some translators have treated Baptist as a proper name, and simply written it as it would be pronounced in their language. Others have tried to translate it as ‘the one who baptizes’ or ‘the one they called the Baptizer’. Such translations depend on how ‘baptize’ itself is translated, and this can be a major problem. In many cultures baptism is completely unknown. Where it has been introduced by the churches, different denominations have often disagreed on method and theological implications, and have even introduced these differences into the terms they have used to translate; for example, ‘sprinkling’, or ‘immersing’. To avoid these problems, translators have either borrowed the Greek word ‘baptize’ or used expressions like ‘putting on of water’, ‘putting on God’s water’, ‘washing’, or ‘God’s washing’. Translators should always consider this problem carefully, keeping in mind the terms used by the churches in their area and the practice of the ritual itself’.8

The “theological implications” of Christian water baptism should surely not control how the Greek term βαπτι' ζειν is translated, particularly in a passage which describes an action involving water in a purely Jewish context. Christian baptism as “introduced by the churches” was unknown in Second Temple Judaism; the early Christians who used the Greek term βαπτι' ζειν did not coin an (artificial) loan word from another language in order to describe what they were doing when they marked the fact that people had repented of their sins, turned to God, had come to faith in Jesus, and pledged their allegiance to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, Savior, and Lord in a public act of immersion in water. Two factors make awareness of a “technical meaning fallacy”9 in the rendering of βαπτι' ζειν as “to baptize” difficult. First, since all Bible translations agree in their use of the English word “to baptize” as translation of the Greek term, the only exceptions being Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 where βαπτι' ζειν is usually translated as “to wash” or “to bathe”,10 readers of these translations ─────────────── 8 Barclay M. Newman and P. C. Stine, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS Handbook Series (London/Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1988), 57. 9 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996 [1984]), 45: “in this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning – a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter’s personal systematic theology”. 10 An exception is Robert Young, Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), who uses “to baptize” (and “baptism”) even here: Mark 7:4: “coming from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves, they do not eat; and many

228

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

are never informed about the standard meaning of the Greek term. Second, commentators, with very few exceptions, regard βαπτι' ζειν as a technical term which needs no elaboration as such,11 notwithstanding questions regarding the origins of Christian water baptism, the connection between water baptism and Spirit baptism, or the question whether infants were baptized in the earliest churches. A good example is W. Bieder whose entry on βαπτι' ζω, βα' πτισμα in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament includes no explanation of the meaning of the Greek terms.12 The standard lexicons for classical and New Testament Greek, especially the latter, facilitate the technical meaning fallacy. The venerable GreekEnglish Lexicon by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones, whose ninth edition (with Revised Supplement by Peter G. W. Glare)13 reports three senses in the entry for βαπτι' ζω: 1. dip, plunge, to be drowned, (of ships) sink, flood (the city); transferred sense: overwhelm, flood, to be drenched, soaked in wine, over head and ears in debt; 2. draw wine by dipping (the cup in the bowl); 3. baptize ─────────────── other things there are that they received to hold, baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches”; Luke 11:38: “and the Pharisee having seen, did wonder that he did not first baptize himself before the dinner”. English readers of the translation of Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 would have been mystified in the 19th century just as they are in the 21st century regarding the “baptisms of cups” and “baptisms before dinner”. 11 Cf. A. Oepke, βα' πτω, βαπτι'ζω κ.τ.λ., TDNT I, 530: the New Testament “uses βαπτι' ζω only in the cultic sense, infrequently of Jewish washings (Mark 7:4 K D for ρ‘ αντι' σωνται in Luke 11:38), and otherwise in the technical sense “to baptize”. This usage shows that baptism is felt to be something new and strange”. Also G. R. Beasley-Murray, “Baptism, Wash”, NIDOTTE, I, 145: “baptizo is a technical term for baptism”. George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Paternoster: Exeter, 1979 [1962]), never discusses the meaning of the Greek term; the statement that “the group of words connected with βαπτι'ζειν reflects contemporary terminology used of lustrations of all kinds practised among Jews” (27) reflects the notion that the term has a ritual meaning. 12 W. Bieder, βαπτι'ζω, EDNT III, 192–96. The view that βαπτι'ζειν is a technical term in the New Testament has become an accepted view, supported and promulgated by GreekEnglish lexicons; note, for example, the widely used lexicon in the 19th century, based on the lexicon of A. Wahl (1822, 1825), by Edward Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, A New Edition, Revised and in Great Part Rewritten (London: Longman, 1850 [1825]), s.v. βαπτι'ζω: “to dip in, to sink, to immerse;” 1. to wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing; 2. to baptize, to administer the rite of baptism a. Pr(oprie), i.e. literal, b. trop(ically) i.e. figuratively. Robinson argues against the meaning “immersion” and for the meaning “ablution or affusion” (for “Hellenistic usage”) by discussing Luke 11:38 and Acts 2:41, emphasizing the alleged impossibility that 3000 people could have been immersed on Pentecost, as well as the Latin translation of βαπτι'ζω with the loan word baptizo rather then by immergo. 13 Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, New Ninth Edition Revised and Augmented Throughout by Henry Stuart Jones, with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie, completed 1940, with Revised Supplement Edited by Peter G. W. Glare (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996); I use the traditional abbreviation LSJ.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

229

The verb βα' πτω is explained in terms of the following senses: I. 1a immerse (in a liquid), dip; 1b of slaughter; 2. colour by immersion, dye; 3. dip (a vessel in order to draw water); 4. baptize; II. (the ship) dipped, sank

These two entries are representative for LSJ’s reliance on glosses and the absence of definitions, and for the somewhat unsystematic organization of the various senses of the terms.14 The transliteration “baptize” is given as third meaning of βαπτι' ζω and as fourth meaning of βα' πτω. The organization of the entry for βαπτι' ζω in the most recent Greek dictionary, the Diccionario Griego-Español, edited by Francisco R. Adrados and published since 1980, is as follows:15 A.I (transitive, act.) 1. sumergir, hundir en el agua, empapar 2. fig. anegar, abrumar A.II (intransitive, med.) 1. ahogarse 2. estar empapado 3. fig. estar sumido en, estar apurado B en sentido ritual B.I (intransitive) 1. lavarse 2. bañarse como purificatión B.II (transitive) 1. bautizar (act.) gener. del bautismo administrado por S. Juan, por los discipulos de Cristo, (pass.) ser bautizado por el rito cristiano 2. fig. bautizados

The entry for βα' πτω organizes the information as follows: I (transitive) 1. sumergir, hundir en un liquido 2. colorear, teñir 3. coger agua hundiendo un objeto en ella 4. en sentido ritual bautizar, ser bautizado II (intransitive) 1. sumergirse, mojarse; de barco hundirse 2. teñirse; mancharse; fig. se queda teñido con un tinte de Cízico e.d. se caga de miedo ─────────────── 14 Cf. John A. L. Lee, “The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek”, in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker; ed. B. A. Taylor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 68, for the problems of LSJ. 15 Francisco R. Adrados, Diccionario Griego-Español (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1980–), III, 679; vol. III was published in 1991.

230

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

The entry for βαπτι' ζω is subdivided into a non-ritual (A.I-II) and a ritual meaning (B.I-II), the entry for βα' πτω lists the ritual use of the term (I.4) among the other senses of the term. When the “ritual” sense of the verb is located in the New Testament, DGE uses the transliteration “bautizar” rather than translations such as “lavarse” or “bañarse” – the move from intransitive uses to transitive uses certainly does not justify such a distinction of meanings which differentiates between translations proper and a transliteration. The latest edition of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and revised by Frederick W. Danker in 2000,16 provides the following definitions and suggestions for translation (glosses) for βαπτι' ζω:17 1. wash ceremonially for purpose of purification, wash, purify, of a broad range of repeated ritual washing rooted in Israelite tradition; 2. to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize; a. of dedicatory18 cleansing associated with the ministry of John the Baptist, have oneself baptized, get baptized; b. of cleansing performed by Jesus; c. of the Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death,19 baptize; 3. to cause someone to have an extraordinary experience akin to an initiatory waterrite, to plunge, baptize; a. typologically of Israel’s passage through the Red Sea; b. of the Holy Spirit (fire); c. of martyrdom

This entry is virtually unchanged from earlier editions of the English translation of W. Bauer’s dictionary.20 The definition of βαπτι' ζειν within the con─────────────── 16 Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition Revised and Edited by F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. βαπτι'ζω. 17 BDAG explains βα' πτω as “to dip something in a liquid, dip, dip in”. 18 The term “dedicatory” is not explained by Danker with reference to sense #2, nor with reference to use b and c. 19 Neither the word “sacrament” nor “initiation” is explained by Danker. 20 Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, A Translation and Adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition, 1952 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), s.v. βαπτι' ζω: “dip, immerse, middle dip oneself, wash;” in non-Christian literature also “plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm;” in our literature only in ritual sense; 1. of Jewish ritual washings; 2. in special sense: to baptize a. of John the Baptist, b. of Christian baptism; 3. in fig. sense, through related to the idea of Christian baptism, a. typologically of Israel’s passage through the Read Sea; b. (baptism with fire); c. of martyrdom. Cf. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, A Translation and Adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

231

fines of NT usage, with the standard meaning in Greek literature relegated to introductory matters, is problematic since meanings such as “overwhelm” are never considered by translators, and seldom by commentators, presumably only because this sense does not have a separate “number” in BDAG. More representative of Greek usage was the earlier Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph H. Thayer.21 I. 1. prop(er) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge; 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; 3. metaph(orical) to overwhelm; II. In the NT “used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution” a. abs(olute) to administer the rite of ablution, to baptize; b. use with prepositions

The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains published by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida gives three senses:22 1. to wash (in some contexts, possibly by dipping into water), with a view to making objects ritually acceptable, to wash, to purify, washing, purification; 2. to employ water in a religious ceremony designed to symbolize purification and initiation on the basis of repentance, to baptize; 3. to cause someone to have a highly significant religious experience involving special manifestations of God’s power and presence, to baptize (explained as “a figurative extension of meaning” of the second sense)

A comparison of these lexicon entries reveals several problems. (1) The organization of the lexical entries is arbitrary. For βαπτι' ζω, LSJ lists both literal and metaphorical meanings in one single lexical unit, while the extended meanings for βα' πτω are listed in terms of four separate lexical units. DGE organizes the meanings according to transitive and intransitive uses. BDAG distinguishes a Jewish sense of βαπτι' ζω from a New Testament sense, which is not very convincing since it can be argued that ceremonial washings by Jews “for the purpose of purification” also renew a relationship with God, the second lexical sense which is specified for John the Baptist, for Jesus, and for the “Christian sacrament”. BDAG’s entry for βαπτι' ζω is more informed by NT tradition-history and theology rather than by lexicography. The arbitrariness of the lexical senses that the lexicons give for the two verbs is the result of the practice of indicating meaning by glosses rather than by definitions.23 ─────────────── Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Second Edition Revised and Augmented from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), s.v. βαπτι'ζω. 21 Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. Translated, revised, and enlarged (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970 [1886]), s.v. βαπτι'ζω. 22 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1:535, 536, 538, 522 (no. 53.31, 53.41, 53.49, 47.11); cf. βα' πτω (“to dip an object in a liquid, to dip in”).

232

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

(2) The entries violate the principle that in the organization of related meanings of a term, “no more meanings than are completely necessary to account for the evidence” should be adopted.24 LSJ could have integrated all three senses given for βαπτι' ζω in the lexical unit “dip, plunge”, or provided two lexical senses, one for “dip, plunge (in a liquid)” and one for “be overwhelmed (by debts, arguments, wine)”; the six lexical units for βα' πτω could either be integrated into the single sense “immerse (in a liquid), dip”, or a literal and a figurative sense could be distinguished. As regards the entry for βαπτι' ζω in DGE, there is no need as far as meaning is concerned to distinguish between the senses B.I and B.II. As regards BDAG, there is no lexicographical necessity to specify that Jews, John, Jesus, and the apostles (who were all Jews!) “use water in a rite” while creating separate sub-categories. Also, the distinction between ritual/ceremonial meanings and non-ritual meanings is superfluous if the meaning of βαπτι' ζω is indeed “to put under water” – it parallels the distinction between secular and religious which is anachronistic for the ancient world, in particular for Jewish contexts. (3) The entries in BDAG and LN suffer from the separation of the New Testament texts from the language of the New Testament authors and their audiences, which is Hellenistic (Koine) Greek.25 The authors of the New Testament texts as well as their audiences spoke and wrote Hellenistic Greek in their everyday lives, a fact that should prompt lexicographers to provide lexical meanings that first century readers would have readily understood, rather than give only (assumed) specialized meanings that ignore the full evidence of contemporary literary and documentary texts. As has already been stated, the gloss “to baptize” is not a translation of βαπτι' ζειν, but a transliteration. A transliterated word is the phonetic equivalent (or near-equivalent) of a word of language A in the alphabet of language B; such borrowed words are generally loan words which have no equivalent in language B. Usually the meaning of loan words depends on one’s understanding of the loan word, not on the meaning of the transliterated term in the original language. For example, the meaning of the term “gnosis” or “gnosticism” as a system of thought or worldview that does not depend on the meaning of the Greek term γνω ñ σις. If the loan word has the same meaning as the term in the original language, one can move straight from the word in language A to the loan word in language B. For example, one can say “α’ να' λυσις means anal─────────────── 23 Cf. Lee, “The Present State of Lexicography”, 69. 24 Eugene A. Nida and Johannes P. Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, SBLRBS 25 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 42. 25 The entry for βαπτι'ζω in DGE also distinguishes NT meanings in B.I–II from the meanings of A.I–II; on the other hand, the editors are at least consistent as they use the transliteration “bautizar” for the “ritual” sense of βα' πτω (I.4) as translation for a non-Christian text (Arrianus, Epict. 2.9.20).

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

233

ysis” if one refers to logic: in Aristotle’s texts, the Greek term α’ να' λυσις denotes the resolution of a problem by an investigation – or “analysis” – of its conditions.26 The qualification “if one refers to logic” is important, however, since in other contexts the Greek term α’ να' λυσις describes, for example, the dissolution of the body in death.27 If the loan word is not understood, its use obviously makes no sense. For example, to say “γλω ñ σση, λαλειñν means glossolalia” borders on the nonsensical, unless the audience understands the loan word “glossolalia” to mean “speaking in unlearnt languages”. As explanations of terms in the original language, the use of the corresponding loan words in definitions often produce tautological statements. For example, to say “κρι' σις means crisis” makes no sense since the Greek term denotes “decision, judgment, choice, interpretation, condemnation, event, issue, turning point”;28 the meaning usually assumed in contemporary texts in the sense of “times of difficulty, insecurity, and suspense in politics or commerce” (OED) can be derived from the Greek term κρι' σις, and even linked with some Greek texts in which the term is used, but the English term “crisis” does not “explain” the range of meanings of the Greek term κρι' σις. And to say that “the Greek term μεταφορα' means metaphor” is equally unhelpful in view of the numerous definitions of what is called “metaphor” by English speaking scholars and writers.29 The assertion “to baptize means to immerse (an individual) in water, or pour or sprinkle water over (the individual), as a symbol of admission into Christianity or a specific Christian church”30 makes sense, at least linguistically (a lack of theological sophistication notwithstanding). But the assertion “βαπτι' ζειν means to baptize” makes sense only if three conditions are fulfilled: first, people understand what “to baptize” means; second, the Greek term generally denotes what is described with the English term “to baptize”; third, the Greek term has a technical meaning for an event which cannot be adequately described with other English terms, a fact which would make the use of a transliterated loan word necessary. The first condition depends on the ecclesial context of the reader of translations of the New Testament using the expression “to baptize”. The various options given in the definitions of “to baptize” cited earlier – immerse in water, or sprinkle water upon someone, or pour water upon someone; means of ceremonial purification (i.e., the contact with water effects purification), or ─────────────── 26 LSJ s.v. α’ να' λυσις I.3. 27 LSJ s.v. α’ να' λυσις I.2, with reference to Secundus, Sent. 19. 28 These are some of the glosses suggested by LSJ s.v. κρι'σις. 29 Note the lengthy dictionary entry by Ekkehard Eggs, “Metapher”, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, ed. G. Ueding (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001), V, 1099–83. LSJ s.v. μεταφορα' lists as meaning I “transference” (of ownership), then “transport, haulage”, then “change, phase of moon”, and only as meaning II (for Rhetoric) “transference of a word to a new sense, metaphor”. 30 Merriam-Webster, College Dictionary Edition.

234

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

symbol of spiritual rebirth, or token of initiation into a religious society such as the church, or sacrament – reflect the debates about the meaning of Christian water baptism in the history of the church. This means that readers of translations of the New Testament in a Roman Catholic context will have a certain understanding of the meaning of the word “to baptize” (newborn infants receive divine grace and the gift of God’s Spirit and become members of the church by the sprinkling of water over their foreheads), which is different from the understanding of the term among readers who belong to the Baptist tradition (new believers in Jesus publicly confess their faith through full immersion in water). Since Bible translations are not, or at least should not be, “party literature” but faithful renderings of the original text, the lack of consensus regarding the administration and the understanding of water baptism suggests that it is preferable to choose other words as translation of βαπτι' ζειν that do not prejudice the readers in terms of later ecclesial debates.31 As the following study will demonstrate, there is no need to use, in English, the term “to baptize” as a loan word rendering the Greek term βαπτι' ζειν in New Testament texts: the meaning of βαπτι' ζειν in Greek texts is neither mysterious nor difficult to translate into English. As regards the second condition, in Greek texts contemporary with the texts of the New Testament, βαπτι' ζειν does not describe a “sacrament” (or a ritual act) in which water is applied to a person, signifying spiritual rebirth or purification, admitting that person into a community of faith. In other words, the term βαπτι' ζειν, in the everyday Greek language of the early church, does not generally denote what is described with the English term “to baptize”. The third point is equally problematic. While what we call Christian baptism is unique in terms of its meaning in connection with faith in Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Savior (irrespective of the disputes regarding details), the action described with the term βαπτι' ζειν is not “technical” in a sense that would have only been understood in a Christian context. Immersion in water symbolizing purification or cleansing was known both among Jews and among Greeks.32 The problem of the perceived meaning of the term in the New Testament can be illustrated by two remarks in BDAG. On the one hand, the entry for βαπτι' ζω asserts (before the first definition) that in Greek literature, βαπτι' ζειν generally means “to put or go under water in a variety of senses”, and is also used in a figurative sense for example with the meaning “to soak” (in wine), before asserting that “in our lit[erature]”, i.e., in the New Testament ─────────────── 31 It should be noted that the term “immersion” does not prejudice readers in terms of believers baptism: Greek Orthodox churches immerse infants three times in the water of the baptismal font. 32 For purification by immersion in water pools cf. William D. Furley and Jan Maarten Bremer, Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 9–10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 210.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

235

and in early Christian texts, the term is used “only in ritual or ceremonial sense”33. On the other hand, Danker adds the following remark to the definition quoted above: “The transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies the ceremonial character that NT narratives accord such cleansing, but the need of qualifying statements or contextual coloring in the documents indicates that the term β[απτι' ζω] was not nearly so technical as the transliteration suggests”.34 This comment suggests that translations other than with a transliterated loan word can and should be considered. Two key characteristics of a good lexicographical definition of a term are the following. (1) The definition of a term should enumerate “only the most important semantic features of the defined lexical unit, which suffice to differentiate it from other units”.35 (2) The definition is a “substitution equivalent” which can take the place of the word in its context.36 The lexical definition of βαπτι' ζειν must be capable of being substituted for the Greek term in the text in which the term occurs.37 The definitions offered by LN and BDAG are sometimes problematic on both counts.38 While some lexicons have “flat” entries in which all the senses of a term have equal status (the sense numbers running 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.), it is more helpful to have hierarchical entries which allow for “a grouping of senses in a more intuitively satisfying way” (the sense numbers running 1, 1a, 1b, 2, 2a, 2b, etc.).39 In hierarchical entries, the sequence of the senses can be either histori─────────────── 33 BDAG s.v. βαπτι'ζω, head of the entry. 34 BDAG s.v. βαπτι'ζω 2. 35 Ladislav Zgusta, Manual of Lexicography, Janua linguarum 39 Series Maior (Prague: Academia, 1971), 252–53; this principle is often quoted by lexicographers; cf. Geoff Barnbrook, Defining Language: A Local Grammar of Definition Sentences, Studies in Corpus Linguistics 11 (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2002), 23; Sue Atkins, “Theoretical Lexicography and its Relation to Dictionary-Making [1992–93]”, in Practical Lexicography: A Reader, ed. T. Fontenelle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 46. 36 Yuri D. Apresjan, Systematic Lexicography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 172; cf. John A. L. Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, Studies in Biblical Greek 8 (New York: Lang, 2003), 160, with reference to the practice of the Oxford English Dictionary and the Oxford Latin Dictionary. 37 This characteristic, accepted by most lexicographers (Lee, History of New Testament Lexicography, 160), is ignored by Young’s Literal Translation, when βαπτι'ζειν is translated in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 as “baptize” (depending on Young’s definition of “baptize”). Equally difficult is the attempt to use BDAG’s definition of sense #3 of βαπτι' ζω (“to cause someone to have an extraordinary experience akin to an initiatory water-rite, to plunge, baptize”) as an equivalent for βαπτι'ζω in the sentence for which it is suggested: “and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor 10:2; NRSV). Lee observes that the definitions of BDAG “have been generated out of and grafted on to the existing glosses” (ibid. 166). This is obvious in the definition of sense #3 of βαπτι' ζω, attached to which we find the comment: “Cp. ‘take the plunge’ and s. OED ‘Plunge’ II 5 esp. for the rendering of usage 3c)”. 38 Cf. Lee, History of New Testament Lexicography, 158–70. 39 Atkins, “Theoretical Lexicography”, 41.

236

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

cal, or linked to their perceived relative frequency, or divided into “basic” (or “literal”) and the more metaphorical senses. It is the lexicographer who decides whether and when usage information (register, currency, style, pragmatics, status, field)40 determines the construction of hierarchical entries. In view of the first characteristic of a good lexicographical definition described in the previous paragraph, a minimum of lexical units is preferable to a large number of sense units.

2. The Meanings of βα' πτειν and βαπτι'ζειν As regards the meaning and use of βαπτι' ζειν (and βα' πτειν), the evidence will show that we find 1. physical uses and 2. figurative uses.41 As regards the physical (or literal) meaning, there are several extended meanings, understood as senses which are “different from, and later than, its original and central sense”42. The basic, i.e., most frequent meaning of the action verbs βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν is best defined broadly as “to put into a yielding substance” such as a liquid (e.g., water or dyes) or the body of an animal; glosses for translation into English are “to plunge, to dip, to immerse”.43 Sometimes the context indicates that the Greek term focuses on the result of the action of immersion, warranting different translations in English: when a person immerses himself in water, he “washes” himself; if she stays under water, she “drowns”; if a ship is immersed in the ocean, it “sinks”; when woven cloth is immersed in water containing color pigments, it is “dyed”; when a knife is “plunged” into the flesh of an animal, it is “slaughtered”. These are extended meanings44 ─────────────── 40 Atkins, “Theoretical Lexicography”, 46. 41 Cf. Joseph Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development, Graecitas Christianorum Primaeva (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1962), 12–40. 42 Robert L. Trask, The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), 116; he points to the central sense of “head” as “top part of the body” and the extended senses of “top part” (of a list), “director” (head of a corporation),and “round thing” (a head of cabbage). When the extended sense has no semantic features in common with the original or central sense, we speak of a transferred sense; ibid. 116, 347. Whether extended senses are always later than the “original” or central sense is disputed. For the following discussion see John Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 59–62, for βα' πτειν. 43 The study of Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, suffers from the assumption that in the “general language” the verb βαπτι'ζειν means “to immerse” always with the connotation of a perishing (13–14, 40, 42), a theory that is disproved by the Greek texts in which βαπτι'ζειν occurs. The connotation of “perishing” is only one of several extended senses of the term. 44 Ferguson, Baptism, 42–45, lists examples for the meaning “to dye” or “to temper” under “metaphorical usage”, which presupposes that the basic meaning of βα' πτειν and βαπτι'ζειν is defined as “to put something or someone into water” or “to immerse, plunge, dip in(to) water.” Using Aristotle”s definition that “metaphor is the application of a strange term either transferred from the genus and applied to the species or from the species and applied to the

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

237

which focus on the result of the action of plunging or immersing. It should be noted that the primary reference to the action of immersing is not lost in the extended meanings. Extended meanings are contextual meanings, not lexical meanings in the strict sense (even if they are listed in a lexicon).45 In distinction from the physical or “literal” meaning of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν,46 a metaphorical meaning is present when the medium into which someone or something is immersed is not a tangible substance (such as water, dyes, or bodies), but an abstract reality (such as debts or an argument). The metaphorical meaning can be described as “to overcome or overpower”, a possible gloss is “to overwhelm”. In the context of Aristotle’s definition, this is the fourth form of metaphor:47 in analogy to people or objects who are plunged into a tangible medium such as water or other liquids – either drowning or sinking (people and ships in the ocean), or emerging from the liquid with a different appearance (textiles from dyes, bronze vessels from liquid gold) – it is intangible realities such as debts or arguments that “overwhelm” a person.48 The use of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν with reference to drunkenness could be taken as an extended sense of the literal meaning: as ships are “overpowered” by water when they are “immersed” in the ocean, people are “overpowered” by wine when they have drunk too much of the intoxicating liquid. Since people are not “immersed” in wine (unless they drown in a large barrel in which wine is stored), but overpowered by the effects of wine, the meaning “to be intoxicated” is more plausibly listed as a metaphorical meaning. Based on the distinction between physical (literal) and metaphorical meanings of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν, the following extended and transferred mean─────────────── genus, or from one species to another or else by analogy” (Aristotle, Poet. 81; Trans. W. H. Fyfe, LCL), the use of βα' πτειν to denote “to dye” represents the third form of metaphor, i.e. transfer of βα' πτειν from one species (water) to another species (dyes). In the context of the broader definition given above (“to put something or someone into a yielding medium”), the use of βα' πτειν to denote “to dye” is a literal, not a metaphorical use of the Greek verb. 45 For the difference between lexical meaning and contextual meaning see Peter Cotterell and Max M. B. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1989), 164– 67; see also Greg H. R. Horsley and John A. L. Lee, “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries 1”, FilN 19–20 (1997), 62–64. Lee, History of New Testament Lexicography, 160, refers to the principle that “the lexical meaning of a word is exactly what the word itself brings to the context and no more”. 46 Cf. George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 133, who suggests that “words are used literally when they are meant to be understood in their primary, matter-of-fact sense”. 47 See n. 45. 48 For the problem in lexicography of figurative meanings see Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, 70–72. For a discussion on metaphor see James D. G. Dunn, “‘Baptized” as Metaphor”, in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White, ed. S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross, JSNTSup 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 296–98.

238

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

ings can be specified, as will become obvious in the following investigation of the primary sources.49 I. Physical uses 1. 1a. 1b. 1c. 1d. 1e. 1f.

to put into a yielding substance (such as a liquid, e.g., water or dyes, or the body of an animal); glosses: “to plunge, to dip, to immerse”; to cleanse with water; gloss: “to wash” (extended meaning of 1: to remove dirt by immersion in water); to make ceremonially clean; gloss: “to purify” or “to cleanse” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse in water symbolizing, or effecting, the removal of moral or spiritual defilement); gloss of (later) ecclesiastical language: “to baptize”; to take water or wine by dipping a drinking vessel (in a stream, a fountain, a well, a bowl); gloss: “to draw” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse a vessel in water or wine to obtain a drink); to perish by submersion in water; gloss: “to drown” (extended meaning of 1: to suffer death by suffocation being immersed in water [of persons]; or to disappear by submersion in water, to sink [of ships]); to put to death a living being; gloss: “to slaughter” or “to kill” (extended meaning of 1: to plunge a knife into the body of an animal or a human being); to tinge fabric with a color; gloss: “to dye” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse fabric in liquid with color pigments); this meaning is frequently attested for βα' πτειν, but not for βαπτι'ζειν.50 II. Figurative uses

2.

3.

to be overpowered by an abstract reality, such as debts or arguments or thoughts; gloss: “to be overwhelmed” or “to be immersed” (transferred meaning of 1: a person is “immersed” in intangible or abstract realities and consequently overwhelmed by their force); to become intoxicated; transferred meaning of 1: a person is “submerged” in the effects of intoxicating liquids).

3. The Use of βα' πτειν and βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Texts The following survey of the abuse of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic texts51 cites relevant Greek texts with sufficient context that ─────────────── 49 The definitions of English terms such as “immerse” or “wash” in the following entry are adapted from OED. 50 A related meaning is “to plate an object with silver or gold” with the gloss “to silver” or “to gild” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse an object in liquid silver or gold); this meaning is attested for βα' πτειν, but not for βαπτι'ζειν; cf. Ps-Democritus Alchemista 47B. 51 The most recent survey of the meaning of βαπτι'ζειν and of βα' πτειν is that of Ferguson, Baptism, 38–59. Other recent treatments, after A. Oepke’s article in the first volume of the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, published in 1933 (ThWNT I, 527–28; in TDNT Ι, 529–30), are Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 12–83; Chadwick, Lexico-

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

239

allows readers to better grasp the use of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν in the primary sources. The following examples are cited in chronological order.52 The particular meaning of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν in each text is related to the senses suggested in the previous paragraph. (i) Physical (“literal”) uses Homer, Odyssea 9.392: ει’ ν υ« δατι ψυχρω ñ, βα' πτη, μεγα' λα ι’ α' χοντα φαρμα' σσων (“And as when a smith dips a great axe or an adze in cold water amid loud hissing to temper it”; Trans. A. T. Murray, LCL) (VIII) (sense 1) Aeschylus, Prometheus vinctus 862–863: γυνη` γα` ρ α»νδρ• ε«καστον αι’ ω ñ νος στερειñ, δι'θηκτον ε’ ν σφαγαιñσι βα' ψασα ξι' φος (“For every wife shall strike her husband down, dipping a twoedged broadsword in his blood”; Trans. H. W. Smyth, LCL) (VI) (sense 1 or 1e) Aesop, Fabulae 75 (The Monkey and the Dolphin, version 1, lines 14–15): και` ο‘ δελφι`ς ε’ πι` τοσου' τω, ψευ' δει α’ γανακτη' σας βαπτι'ζων αυ’ το` ν α’ πε' κτεινεν (“The dolphin, indignant at these falsehoods, dipped the monkey under the water and drowned him”; Trans. G. F. Townsend, LCL) (VI) (sense 1, cf. 1d) Hipponax, Fragmenta 26 + 26a: ο‘ με` ν γα` ρ αυ’ τω ñ ν η‘ συχηñ ι τε και` ρ‘ υ' δην θυ' ννα' ν τε και` μυσσωτο` ν η‘ με' ρας πα' σας δαινυ' μενος ω « σπερ Λαμψακηνο` ς ευ’ νουñ χος κατε' φαγε δη` το` ν κληñ ρον: ω « στε χρη` σκα' πτειν πε' τρας τ• ο’ ρει' ας, συñ κα με' τρια τρω' γων και` κρι' θινον κο' λλικα, δου' λιον χο' ρτον . . . ου’ κ α’ τταγε' ας τε και` λαγου` ς καταβρυ' κων, ου’ τηγανι' τας σησα' μοισι φαρμα' σσων, ου’ δ• α’ ττανι' τας κηρι' οισιν ε’μβα' πτων (“For one of them, at his ease and lavishly, dined every day on tuna and spicy cheesecake, just like some eunuch from Lampsakos, and ate up his estate. So now he has to dig rocks on the hillside, nibbling a modicum of figs and barley bread, the fodder of slaves . . . not gobbling partridges and hares, not seasoning griddle cakes with sesame, nor dipping fritters into honeycomb”; Trans. A. F. Miller, LCL) (VI) Xenophon, Anabasis 2.2.9: ταυñ τα δ• ω » μοσαν, σφα' ξαντες ταυñ ρον και` κα' προν και` κριο` ν ει’ ς α’ σπι'δα, οι‘ με`ν « Ελληνες βα'πτοντες ξι'φος, οι‘ δε` βα' ρβαροι λο' γχην (“These oaths they sealed by sacrificing a bull, a boar, and a ram over a shield, the Greeks dipping a sword in the blood and the barbarians a lance”; Trans. C. L. Brownson, LCL) (V) (sense 1, cf. 1e) Xenophon, Cyropedia 2.2.5: ε’ νταυñ θα δη` ου« τω βαρε' ως η» νεγκε το` πα' θος ω « στε α’ νη' λωτο με`ν αυ’ τω ñ, ο‹ ει’ λη' φει ο» ψον, ο‹ δ• ε» τι αυ’ τω ñ, λοιπο` ν ηò ν τουñ ε’μβα'πτεσθαι, τουñ το' πως υ‘ πο` τουñ ε’ κπεπληñ χθαι' τε και` τηñ, τυ' χη, ο’ ργι'ζεσθαι δυσθετου' μενος α’ νε' τρεψεν. ο‘ με`ν δη` λοχαγο` ς ο‘ ε’ γγυ' τατα η‘ μω ñν ι’ δω` ν συνεκρο' τησε τω` χειñρε και` τω ñ, γε' λωτι (“Thereupon he took his mishap so to heart that he lost not only the meat he had taken but also what was still left of his sauce;53 for this last he upset somehow or other in the confusion of his vexation and anger over his hard luck. The lieutenant nearest us saw it and laughed and clapped his hands in amusement”; Trans. W. Miller, LCL) (V) ─────────────── graphica Graeca, 59–62. An older study is that of Thomas Jefferson Conant, The Meaning and Use of Baptizein, Philologically and Historically Investigated (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977 [1861]). 52 Upper case Roman numerals refer to centuries BC, lower case Roman numerals to centuries AD. 53 The term ε’ μβα' πτεσθαι is the present infinitive passive of ε’ μβα' πτω which LSJ translates as “dip in”.

240

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Hippocrates, De affectionibus interioribus 7.13–14: ε’ ν υ« δατι ψυχρω ñ, βα' πτων σευñ τλα και` τω ñ, σω' ματι ε’ πιτιθει`ς, μα' λιστα προ` ς πο' νον νε' ον, η› ρ‘ α' κια βα' πτων ε’ ν ψυχρω ñ, υ« δατι και` ε’ κθλι' βων προστιθε' ναι (“dipping in cold water”; Trans. W. H. S. Jones, LCL) (V/IV) Hippocrates, De diaeta 3.79.11–12: ε» στω δε` τα` σιñτα α» ρτοι συγκομιστοι` α» ζυμοι, κλιβανιñται, η› ε’ γκρυφι'αι, θερμοι` ε’ ς οιòνον αυ’ στηρο` ν ε’μβαπτο'μενοι (“The food should consist of unleavened bread, made from unbolted meal, baked in a pot or under ashes, dipped warm into a dry wine”) (V/IV) Hippocrates, De morbis popularibus (Epidemiae) 5.63.3–7: Περι` πε' μπτην, γου' νατος α»λγημα, οι»δημα τουñ α’ ριστερουñ : και` κατα` τη` ν καρδι' ην ε’ δο' κεε' τι ξυλλε' γεσθαι αυ’ τηñ, , και` α’ νε' πνεεν ω‘ ς ε’ κ τουñ βεβαπτι'σθαι α’ ναπνε' ουσι, και` ε’ κ τουñ στη' θεος υ‘ πεψο' φεεν, ω « σπερ αι‘ ε’ γγαστρι' μυθοι λεγο' μεναι: τοιουñ το' τι ξυνε' βαινεν (a woman breathes as divers breathe after having been immersed in the sea) (V/IV) Aristotle, De mirabilibus auscultationibus 844a.136: Λε' γουσι του` ς Φοι'νικας του` ς κατοικουñ ντας τα` Γα' δειρα καλου' μενα, ε» ξω πλε' οντας ‘ Ηρακλει' ων στηλω ñ ν α’ πηλιω' τη, α’ νε' μω, η‘ με' ρας τε' τταρας, παραγι' νεσθαι ει»ς τινας το' πους ε’ ρη' μους, θρυ' ου και` φυ' κους πλη' ρεις, ου‹ ς ο« ταν με` ν α»μπωτις ηò, μη` βαπτι'ζεσθαι, ο« ταν δε` πλημμυ' ρα, κατακλυ' ζεσθαι, ε’ φ• ω ð ν ευ‘ ρι' σκεσθαι υ‘ περβα' λλον θυ' ννων πληñ θος, και` τοιñς μεγε' θεσιν α» πιστον και` τοιñς πα' χεσιν, ο« ταν ε’ ποκει' λωσιν (“They say that Phoenicians who live in what is called Gades, on sailing outside the Pillars of Heracles with an east wind for four days, came to some desert lands, full of rushes and seaweed, which were not submerged when the tide ebbed, but were covered when the tide was full, upon which were found a quantity of tunny-fish, of incredible size and weight when brought to shore”; Trans. W. S. Hett, LCL) (IV) Menander, Epitrepontes 1069–1075: κρι' νομαι προ` ς Σωφρο' νην; μετα' πεισον αυ’ τη' ν, ο« ταν »ι δηις. ου« τω τι' μοι α’ γαθο` ν γε' νοιτο Σωφρο' νη γα' ρ, οι»καδε α’ πιω' ν το` τε' λμ• ειòδες παριουñ ς; ε’ νταυñ θα' σε τη` ν νυ' κτα βαπτι'ζων ο« λην α’ ποκτενω ñ , κα’ γω' σε ταυ» τ• ε’ μοι` φρονειñν α’ ναγκα' σω και` μη` στασια' ζειν (“Is Sophrone my judge? No! When you see the girl, it’s you must make her change her mind. If not, so heaven help me, Sophrone, on my way home – you saw that pond we passed? I’ll plunge you in all night and murder you. I’ll force you to agree with me and stop this arguing”; Trans. M. Balme, LCL) (IV/III) (sense 1 or 1d) Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 1.179–184: Ται' ναρον αυò τ• ε’ πι` τοιñσι λιπω` ν Ευ» φημος «ικανε, το' ν ρ‘ α Ποσειδα' ωνι ποδωκηε' στατον α»λλων Ευ’ ρω' πη Τιτυοιñο μεγασθενε' ος τε' κε κου' ρη: κειñνος α’ νη` ρ και` πο' ντου ε’ πι` γλαυκοιñο θε' εσκεν οι»δματος, ου’ δε` θοου` ς βα'πτεν πο' δας, α’ λλ• ο« σον α» κροις »ι χνεσι τεγγο' μενος διερηñ, πεφο' ρητο κελευ' θω, (“After them from Taenarus came Euphemus whom, most swift-footed of men, Europe, daughter of mighty Tityos, bare to Poseidon. He was wont to skim the swell of the grey sea, and wetted not his swift feet, but just dipping the tips of his toes was borne on the watery path”; Trans. R. C. Seaton, LCL) (III) Aratus, Phaenomena 949–953: λακε' ρυζα παρ• η’ ¨ι ο' νι προυχου' ση, χει' ματος ε’ ρχομε' νου χερσαιñ• υ‘ πε' τυψε κορω' νη, η» που και` ποταμοιñο ε’βα'ψατο με' χρι παρ• α»κρους ω » μους ε’ κ κεφαληñ ς, , η› πολλη` στρε' φεται παρ• υ« δωρ παχε' α κρω' ζουσα (“or perhaps a η› και` μα' λα παñ σα κολυμβαñ, chattering crow along a projecting shore-line dips its head into an oncoming wave on the shore, or perhaps immerses itself in a river from its head to the top of its shoulders, or even plunges in completely, or walks restlessly to and fro at the water’s edge croaking hoarsely”; Trans. D. Kidd, LCL) (III) Polybius, Historiae 3.72.4: ε’ πιγενομε' νησ δε` τηñ σ τουñ Τρεβι'α ποταμουñ διαβα' σεως, και` προσαναβεβηκο' τος τω ñ, ρ‘ ευ' ματι δια` το` ν ε’ ν τηñ, νυκτι` γενο' μενον ε’ ν τοιñς υ‘ πε`ρ τα` στρατο' πεδα το' ποις ο» μβρον, μο' λις ε«ως τω ñ ν μασθω ñ ν οι‘ πεζοι` βαπτιζο'μενοι διε' βαινον (“when they had to cross the Trebia, swollen as it was owing to the rain that had fallen during the night higher up the valley

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

241

than where the armies were, the infantry had great difficulty in crossing, as the water was breast-high (as they were being immersed to the breasts)”; Trans. W. R. Paton, LCL) (III) Polybius, Historiae 5.47.2: οι‹ και` συνεγγι' σαντες τοιñς περι` το` ν Ξενοι'ταν δια` τη` ν α»γνοιαν τω ñ ν το' πων ου’ προσεδε' οντο τω ñ ν πολεμι'ων, αυ’ τοι` δ• υ‘ φ• αυ‘ τω ñ ν βαπτιζο'μενοι και` καταδυ' νοντες ε’ ν τοιñς τε' λμασιν α» χρηστοι με` ν ηò σαν α« παντες, πολλοι` δε` και` διεφθα' ρησαν αυ’ τω ñ ν (“On approaching Xenoetas’ force, unfamiliar as they were with the country, they had no need of any effort on the part of the enemy, but plunging or sinking54 by the impetus of their own advance into the pools and swamps were all rendered useless, while not a few perished”; Trans. W. R. Paton, LCL) (III) Septuagint, Exodus 12:22: λη' μψεσθε δε` δεσμη` ν υ‘ σσω' που και` βα' ψαντες α’ πο` τουñ αι«ματος τουñ παρα` τη` ν θυ' ραν καθι' ξετε τηñ ς φλιαñ ς και` ε’ π’ α’ μφοτε' ρων τω ñ ν σταθμω ñ ν α’ πο` τουñ αι«ματος (“And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dipping from the blood by the door, you shall also touch the lintel and on both doorposts, from the blood that is by the door”; Trans. L. J. Perkins) (III/II) (sense 1; cf. 1c)55 Septuagint, Leviticus 4:17: και` βα'ψει ο‘ ι‘ ερευ` ς το` ν δα' κτυλον α’ πο` τουñ αι«ματος τουñ μο' σχου και` ρ‘ ανειñ ε‘ πτα' κις ε» ναντι κυρι' ου κατενω' πιον τουñ καταπετα' σματος τουñ α‘ γι' ου (“and the priest shall dip is finger into some of the blood of the bull calf and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord in front of the holy veil”; Trans. D. L. Büchner) (III/II) (sense 1; cf. 1c)56 Septuagint, Joshua 3:15: ω‘ ς δε` ει’ σεπορευ' οντο οι‘ ι‘ ερειñς οι‘ αι»ροντες τη` ν κιβωτο` ν τηñ ς διαθη' κης ε’ πι` το` ν Ιορδα' νην και` οι‘ πο' δες τω ñ ν ι‘ ερε' ων τω ñ ν αι’ ρο' ντων τη` ν κιβωτο` ν τηñ ς διαθη' κης κυρι'ου ε’βα'φησαν ει’ ς με' ρος τουñ υ« δατος τουñ Ιορδα' νου (“Now when the priests who bore the ark of the covenant were entering the Jordan and the feet of the priests who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord were dipped in part of the water of the Jordan”; Trans. L. J. Greenspoon) (III/II) Septuagint, 2 Kings 5:10, 14: και` α’ πε' στειλεν Ελισαιε α»γγελον προ` ς αυ’ το` ν λε' γων Πορευθει`ς λουñ σαι ε‘ πτα' κις ε’ ν τω ñ, Ιορδα' νη, , και` ε’ πιστρε' ψει η‘ σα' ρξ σου' σοι, και` καθαρισθη' ση, ... και` κατε' βη Ναιμαν και` ε’βαπτι'σατο ε’ ν τω ñ, Ιορδα' νη, ε‘ πτα' κι κατα` το` ρ‘ ηñ μα Ελισαιε, και` ε’ πε' στρεψεν η‘ σα` ρξ αυ’ τουñ ω‘ ς σα` ρξ παιδαρι' ου μικρουñ , και` ε’ καθαρι' σθη (“And Elisaie sent a messenger to him, saying, “Going, wash seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh shall return to you, and you shall be cleansed . . . And Naiman went down and immersed himself in the Jordan seven times, according to the word of Elisaie, and his flesh returned like the flesh of a small child, and he was cleansed”; Trans. P. D. McLean) (III/II)57 ─────────────── 54 The use of καταδυ' ω (“sink”) parallel to βαπτι' ζω (“plunge”) confirms that βαπτι' ζω retains its meaning of “plunge, immerse” in contexts when people “sink”, i.e., drown. 55 LXX translations are from Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). The LXX translators generally use βα' πτω and βαπτι' ζω for the Hebrew term ‫ טבל‬which means “1. to dip something into, to immerse somebody; 2. to dive, plunge” (Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000], 368; E. A. Martens, NIDOTTE, II, 337: “to immerse”). 56 Ferguson, Baptism, p. 46, draws attention to the fact that the Greek translator distinguishes between “dipping” and “sprinkling”; see also Lev 4:6; 14:6–7, 51; Num 19:18, with different Greek terms for “sprinkling”. 57 Note Ferguson, Baptism, 57, who points out that the Greek translato uses λου' ω (“wash”) for the command of Elisha who promises that Naaman would be “purified” (καθαρι' ζω), and βαπτι'ζω for Naaman’s compliance with the command, which he did by immersing himself in the river. In v.14 βαπτι'ζω translates ‫טבל‬. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 27–28, sug-

242

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Septuagint, Psalms 68:22–23 [Hebr. Ps 67:23–24]: ειòπεν κυ' ριος ’ Εκ Βασαν ε’ πιστρε' ψω, ε’ πιστρε' ψω ε’ ν βυθοιñς θαλα' σσης, ο« πως α›ν βαφη ,ñ ο‘ που' ς σου ε’ ν αι«ματι, η‘ γλω ñ σσα τω ñ ν κυνω ñν σου ε’ ξ ε’ χθρω ñ ν παρ’ αυ’ τουñ (“The Lord said, “From Basan I will turn round; I will turn round by depths of sea so that your foot may be dipped in blood, the tongue of your dogs, from enemies, by him”; Trans. A. Pietersma) (II) Moschus, Epigrammata 9.440.28-29 η› ν δε` λε' γη, Λα' βε ταυñ τα, χαρι'ζομαι ο« σσα μοι ο« πλα, μη` τυ` θι' γη, ς πλα' να δω ñ ρα: τα` γα` ρ πυρι` πα' ντα βε'βαπται (“and if he say, “Here, take these things, you are welcome to all my armour”, then let him not touch those mischievous gifts, for they are all dipped in fire”; Trans. J. M. Edmonds, LCL) (II) Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 2.52.4: διο` και` του` ς ο’ νομαζομε' νους ψευδοχρυ' σους κατασκευα' ζεσθαι δια` τουñ θνητουñ και` υ‘ π• α’ νθρω' πων γεγονο' τος πυρο` ς βαπτομε'νων τω ñν κρυστα' λλων. τα` ς δε` τω ñ ν α’ νθρα' κων φυ' σεις φωτο` ς δυ' ναμιν ε’ μπιληθειñσαν τηñ, πη' ξει φασι` ν α’ ποτελειñν τω ñ, μαñ λλον και` ηð ττον τα` ς ε’ ν αυ’ τοιñς διαφορα' ς (“For this reason what is called “false gold”, we are told, is fabricated by mortal fire, made by man, by dipping the rock crystals into it. And as for the natural qualities of the dark-red stones, it is the influence of the light, as it is compressed to a greater or less degree in them when they are hardening, which, they say, accounts for their differences”; Trans. C. H. Oldfather, LCL) (I) Strabo, Geographica 1.2.16: κα›ν ε’ κπε' ση, δε` ει’ ς τη` ν θα' λατταν το` δο' ρυ, ου’ κ α’ πο' λωλεν: ε» στι γα` ρ πηκτο` ν ε» κ τε δρυο` ς και` ε’ λα' της, ω « στε βαπτιζομε'νου τουñ δρυι¨'νου βα' ρει μετε' ωρον ειòναι το` λοιπο` ν και` ευ’ ανα' ληπτον (“If the spear-shaft fall into the water, it is not lost; for it is made of both oak and pine wood, so that although the oaken end sinks because of its weight, the rest stays afloat and is easily recovered”; Trans. H. L. Jones, LCL) (I) (sense 1; cf. 1d) Strabo, Geographica 16.2.42: μηδε` βαπτι' ζεσθαι το` ν ε’ μβα' ντα α’ λλ• ε’ ξαι' ρεσθαι (“and no person who walks into it58 can immerse himself either, but is raised afloat”; Trans. H. L. Jones, LCL) (I) (sense 1, cf. 1d) Strabo, Geographica 16.4.10: α’ πο` τω ñ ν δε' νδρων ι’ δο' ντες α’ γε' λην δια` τουñ δρυμουñ φερομε' νην τηñ, με` ν ου’ κ ε’ πιτι' θενται, του` ς δ• α’ ποπλανηθε' ντας ε’ κ τω ñ ν ο» πισθεν λα' θρα, προσιο' ντες νευροκοπουñ σι: τινε`ς δε` και` τοξευ' μασιν α’ ναιρουñ σιν αυ’ του` ς χοληñ, βεβαμμε'νοις ο» φεων (“When from trees they first see a herd of elephants moving through the forest they do not then attack them, but stealthily follow the herd and hamstring those that have wandered from the rear of the herd. Some, however, kill them with arrows dipped in the gall of serpents; Trans. H. L. Jones, LCL) (I) (sense 1; cf. 1f) Heraclitus, Allegoriae 69.16: Ποσειδω ñ ν δ• ε’ στι` ν ο‘ ρ‘ υο' μενος παρ• ‘ Ηφαι' στου το` ν »Αρη πιθανω ñ ς, ε’ πειδη' περ ε’ κ τω ñ ν βαυ' νων δια' πυρος ο‘ τουñ σιδη' ρου μυ' δρος ε‘ λκυσθει` ς υ« δατι βαπτι'ζεται και` το` φλογω ñ δες υ‘ πο` τηñ ς ι’ δι'ας φυ' σεως κατασβεσθε`ν α’ ναπαυ' εται (“Poseidon plausibly represents the force that rescues Ares from Hephaestus, because, when the mass of iron is withdrawn red-hot from the furnace, it is plunged into water, and its fire is extinguished and laid to rest by the special nature of that element”; Trans. D. A. Russel/D. Konstan, LCL) (i) Plutarch, Artaxerxes 22: Διο` και` του` ς α»λλους Σπαρτια' τας α’ ει` βδελυττο' μενος ο‘ ’Αρτοξε' ρξης, και` νομι'ζων, ω « ς φησι Δει'νων, α’ νθρω' πων α‘ πα' ντων α’ ναιδεστα' τους ειòναι, το` ν ’Ανταλκι' δαν υ‘ περηγα' πησεν ει’ ς Πε' ρσας α’ ναβα' ντα. και' ποτε λαβω` ν ε«να τω ñ ν α’ νθινω ñ ν στεφα' νων, και` βα'ψας ει’ ς μυ' ρον το` πολυτελε' στατον, α’ πο` δει'πνου ε» πεμψε τω ñ, ’Ανταλκι'δα, , και` πα' ντες ε’ θαυ' μασαν τη` ν φιλοφροσυ' νην (“And therefore Artaxerxes, though always abominating other Spartans, and ─────────────── gests that the use of βαπτι' ζω in 2 Kgs 5 was decisive for the later use of the verb to signify taking a ritual bath for cleansing; cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, NIDNTT I, 144. 58 Strabo describes Lake Sirbonis, evidently confusing it Asphaltites Lacus (the Dead Sea).

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

243

looking upon them, as Dinon says, to be the most impudent men living, gave wonderful honour to Antalcidas when he came to him into Persia; so much so that one day, taking a garland of flowers and dipping it in the most precious ointment, he sent it to him after supper, a favour which all were amazed at”; Trans. J. Dryden, LCL) (i) Plutarch, Caesar 49: τρι'τον δε` περι` τηñ, Φα' ρω, μα' χης συνεστω' σης, κατεπη' δησε με`ν α’ πο` τουñ χω' ματος ει’ ς α’ κα' τιον και` παρεβοη' θει τοιñς α’ γωνιζομε' νοις, ε’ πιπλεο' ντων δε` πολλαχο' θεν αυ’ τω ñ, τω ñ ν Αι’ γυπτι' ων, ρ‘ ι' ψας ε‘ αυτο` ν ει’ ς τη` ν θα' λασσαν α’ πενη' ξατο μο' λις και` χαλεπω ñ ς. ο« τε και` λε' γεται βιβλι'δια κρατω ñ ν πολλα` μη` προε' σθαι βαλλο' μενος και` βαπτιζο'μενος, α’ λλ• α’ νε' χων υ‘ πε`ρ τηñ ς θαλα' σσης τα` βιβλι'δια, τηñ, ε‘ τε' ρα, χειρι` νη' χεσθαι: το` δ• α’ κα' τιον ευ’ θυ` ς ε’ βυθι'σθη (“The third danger was in the battle by sea, that was fought by the tower of Phars where meaning to help his men that fought by sea, he leapt from the pier into a boat. Then the Egyptians made towards him with their oars on every side: but he, leaping into the sea, with great hazard saved himself by swimming. It is said, that then, holding divers books in his hand, he did never let them go, but kept them always upon his head above water, and swam with the other hand, notwithstanding that they shot marvelously at him, and was driven sometime to duck into the water: howbeit the boat was drowned presently”; Trans. T. North, LCL) (i) Plutarch, Theseus 24.6: τουñ το δε` και` Σι' βυλλαν υ« στερον α’ ποστοματι' σαι προ` ς τη` ν πο' λιν ι‘ στορουñ σιν, α’ ναφθεγξαμε' νην: ’Ασκο` ς βαπτι'ζη , : δυñ ναι δε' τοι ου’ θε' μις ε’ στι' ν (“Which oracle, they say, one of the sibyls long after did in a manner repeat to the Athenians, in this verse: “The bladder may be dipped, but not be drowned”;” Trans. J. Dryden, LCL) (i) Josephus, De bello Judaico 1.437: ου’ δε` γα` ρ του' του και' περ ο» ντος παιδο` ς ε’ φει'σατο, δου` ς με`ν αυ’ τω ñ, τη` ν α’ ρχιερωσυ' νην ε‘ πτακαιδεκαε' τει, μετα` δε` τη` ν τιμη` ν κτει' νας ευ’ θε' ως, ε’ πειδη` τη` ν ι‘ ερα` ν ε’ σθηñ τα λαβο' ντι και` τω ñ, βωμω ñ, προσελθο' ντι καθ• ε‘ ορτη` ν α»θρουν ε’ πεδα' κρυσεν το` πληñ θος. πε' μπεται με` ν ουò ν ο‘ παιñς δια` νυκτο` ς ει’ ς ‘Ιεριχουñ ντα, ε’ κειñ δε` κατ• ε’ ντολη` ν υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν Γαλατω ñν βαπτιζο'μενος ε’ ν κολυμβη' θρα, τελευταñ, (“For Herod had not spared even this poor lad [i.e., Jonathan, the brother of his wife Mariamme]; he had bestowed upon him in his seventeenth year the office of high-priest, and then immediately after conferring this honour had put him to death, because, on the occasion of a festival, when the lad approached the altar, clad in the priestly vestments, the multitude with one accord burst into tears. He was, consequently, sent by night to Jericho, and there, in accordance with instructions, plunged into a swimming-bath by the Gauls and drowned”; Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL) (i) (sense 1, 1d)59 Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 3.1.3: μετεσκευαζο' μεθα ουò ν α«παντες ει’ ς τα` μετε' ωρα τηñ ς νηο' ς, ο« πως το` με`ν βαπτιζο'μενον τηñ ς νηο` ς α’ νακουφι' σαιμεν, το` δε` τηñ, προσθη' κη, βιασα' μενοι κατα` μικρο` ν καθε' λοιμεν ει’ ς το` α’ ντι' ρροπον (“We transferred ourselves therefore to that part of the boat which was highest out of water, in order to lighten that part which was down in the sea, and so if possible, by our own added weight depressing the former, to bring the whole again to a level”; Trans. S. Gaselee, LCL) (ii) (sense 1, cf. 1d) Galen, De venae sectione adversus Erasistrateos Romae degentes 11.214: προσεσθι'ειν δε` διδο' ναι τω ñ ν κιχωρι' ων συχνα` ει’ ς ο» ξος μη` δριμυ` ε’μβα' πτοντας και` ε’ πι` τω ñ ν σιτι' ων α’ ναλι' σκειν (“And you must also frequently give the patient to eat some chicory steeped in mild vinegar”; Trans. P. Brain)60 (ii)

─────────────── 59 For a fuller account see A.J. 15.55, where the word βαπτι'ζω is also used for drowning. 60 Peter Brain, Galen on Bloodletting: A Study of the Origins, Development, and Validity of his Opinions, with a Translation of the Three Works (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 51.

244

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 6.51: παρα` με' ν γε τοιñς Γερμανοιñς ου’ καλω ñ ς τρε' φεται τα` παιδι'α. α’ λλ• η‘ μειñς γε νυñ ν ου» τε Γερμανοιñς ου» τε α»λλοις τισι`ν α’ γρι' οις η› βαρβα' ροις α’ νθρω' ποις ταυñ τα γρα' φομεν, ου’ μαñ λλον η› α»ρκτοις η› λε' ουσιν η› κα' προις η» τισι τω ñ ν α»λλων θηρι'ων, α’ λλ• « Ελλησι και` ο« σοι τω ñ, γε' νει με` ν ε» φυσαν βα' ρβαροι, ζηλουñ σι δε` τα` τω ñ ν ‘ Ελλη' νων ε’ πιτηδευ' ματα. τι' ς γα` ρ α›ν υ‘ πομει'νειε τω ñ ν παρ• η‘ μιñν α’ νθρω' πων ευ’ θυ` ς α«μα τω ñ, γεννηθηñ ναι το` βρε' φος ε» τι θερμο` ν ε’ πι` τα` τω ñ ν ποταμω ñ ν φε' ρειν ρ‘ ευ' ματα, κα’ νταυñ θα, καθα' περ φασι` του` ς Γερμανου' ς, α«μα τε πειñραν αυ’ τουñ ποιειñσθαι τηñ ς φυ' σεως α«μα τε κρατυ' νειν τα` σω' ματα, βα'πτοντας ει’ ς το` ψυχρο` ν υ« δωρ ω « σπερ το` ν δια' πυρον σι' δηρον; (“Among the Germans, children are not well brought up. But we are not now writing this for the Germans or for any other savage or barbarian people, any more than for bears, boars, lions, or for any of the other wild beasts, but for Greeks and for those who, though born barbarians by nature, yet emulate the culture of the Greeks. For who of us, or of those who dwell with us, would tolerate that a newborn infant, still warm from the womb, should be taken to the waters of the rivers and there, as the Germans say, at the same time to test their nature and toughen their bodies by dipping them into cold water like white-hot iron?”; Trans. R. M. Green)61 (ii) Galen, De alimentorum facultatibus 1.24 (538): ε’ σθι' εται δε` τηñ λις υ‘ πο` τινω ñ ν και` πρι` ν ε’ κκαρπηñ σαι το` φυτο` ν αυ’ τηñ ς, α’ ποβαπτομε'νων αυ’ τη` ν ει’ ς ο» ξος και` γα' ρον (“Fenugreek is eaten by some people, even before the plant has borne seed, by dipping it in vinegar and fish sauce”; Trans. O. Powell)62 (ii) Galen, De alimentorum facultatibus 2.50 (636): ’Ανι'σχοντα τηñ ς γηñ ς α»ρτι τα` τοιαυñ τα φυτα' , πρι` ν ει’ ς α’ κα' νθας αυ’ τω ñ ν τελευτηñ σαι τα` φυ' λλα, πολλοι` τω ñ ν α’ γροι' κων ε’ σθι' ουσιν ου’ κ ω’ μα` μο' νον, α’ λλα` και` δι• υ« δατος ε«ψοντες, ε’ναποβα'πτοντες δε` τα` με`ν ω’ μα` γα' ρω, και` ο» ξει, τα` δ• ε‘ φθα` του' τοις αυ’ τοιñς ε’ πιχε' οντες ε» λαιον (“When newly emerged from the ground and before their leaves have attained thorns, many people eat such plants not only war, but also boiled in water, dipping the raw ones in fish sauce and vinegar, and pouring oil over the cooked ones as well as this”; Trans. O. Powell)63 (ii) Sense 1a: to cleanse with water; gloss: “to wash” Aristoteles, Politica 1336a: συμφε' ρει δ• ευ’ θυ` ς και` προ` ς τα` ψυ' χη συνεθι' ζειν ε’ κ μικρω ñν παι' δων: τουñ το γα` ρ και` προ` ς υ‘ γι' ειαν και` προ` ς πολεμικα` ς πρα' ξεις ευ’ χρηστο' τατον. διο` παρα` πολλοιñς ε’ στι τω ñ ν βαρβα' ρων ε» θος τοιñς με`ν ει’ ς ποταμο` ν α’ ποβα'πτειν τα` γιγνο' μενα ψυχρο' ν, τοιñς δε` σκε' πασμα μικρο` ν α’ μπι'σχειν, οιðον Κελτοιñς (“And it is also advantageous to accustom them at once from early childhood to cold, for this is most useful both for health and with a view to military service. Hence among many non-Greek races it is customary in the case of some peoples to wash the children at birth by dipping them in a cold river, and with others, for instance the Celts, to give them scanty covering”; Trans. H. Rackham, LCL) (IV) Papyrus, P. Cair. Zenon IV 59630: [ - ca. ? - ]σ η’ δι'κει πλε' ονος σ. ο. ι βα'πτων τα` ς βαφα' ς. ε’ μουñ δε' σοι [ - ca. ? - ] τα` αυ’ τα` ουð τος ε’ πικεχω' ρηκεν. Δι'καιος ουò ν σοι [ - ca. ? - ]σ. αν πορφυ' ραν τη` ν ει’ ς τα` ς ψιλοταπι'δας βα' ψειν ─────────────── 61 Robert M. Green, A Translation of Galen’s Hygiene (De sanitate tuenda) (Springfield: Thomas, 1951), 43. For further references in Galen, who uses βα' πτω and βαπτι' ζω “with no apparent difference in meaning” see Ferguson, Baptism, 41–42, 44, 50 (quotation ibid. 50). 62 Owen Powell, Galen: On the Properties of Foodstuffs (De alimentorum facultatibus) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 63. 63 The term ε’ ναποβα' πτειν means “to dip quite in” (cf. the term ε’ ναποβλε' πειν which means “to look in and see”); there seems little difference in meaning from βα' πτειν and βαπτι'ζειν.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

245

[ - ca. ? - χ]αλκι'ον και` το' πον ων [ - ca. ? - ]μα. ευ’ τυ' χει. Fragment of a letter or memorandum, apparently a complaint about a dyer who had been charging too much for his work and a proposal of a new arrangement64 (III) Papyrus, P. Mich. II 121 recto 2,ii lines 7-9 (SB III 6705): και' ε’ στιν η‘ δεδομε' νη φερνη' . . . ξυ' λινον και` στολα` ς γυν(αικει' ας) β, μιαñ ς με` ν βαπτηñς τηñ ς δε` δευτε' ρας λευκηñ ς, και` πα' λ. λ. ι.α δ συμμι' κτοις χρω' μασι (“And the dowry given is . . . women's utensils of tin of a weight of 5 minai and a wooden chest(?) and 2 women’s robes, one dyed and the other one white, and 4 cloaks of various colors”)65 (i) John Chrysostom, Homiliae 5.3 in 1 Thess. (PG 62.427): Και` γα` ρ ι’ ατρο` ς βουλο' μενος σηπεδο' να ε’ κβαλειñν, προ' τερον του` ς δακτυ' λους ει’ ς το` τραυñ μα καθι' ησι, κα›ν μη` προ' τερον μολυ' νη, τα` ς ι’ ωμε' νας χειñρας, ι’ α' σασθαι ου’ δυνη' σεται. Ου« τω κα’ γω` , α›ν μη` προ' τερον το` στο' μα μολυ' νω το` ι’ ω' μενον υ‘ μω ñ ν τα` πα' θη, ου’ δυνη' σομαι υ‘ μαñ ς ι’ α' σασθαι. Μαñ λλον δε` ου’ δε` τουñ το μολυ' νεται, ου» τε ε’ κειñναι αι‘ χειñρες. Τι' δη' ποτε; «Οτι ου’ κ ε» στιν η‘ α’ καθαρσι'α φυσικη` , ου’ δε` ε’ κ τουñ η‘ μετε' ρου σω' ματος, ω « σπερ ου’ δε` ε’ κειñ ε’ κ τω ñ ν ε’ κει' νου χειρω ñ ν, α’ λλ• ε’ ξ α’ λλοτρι' ων. Ει’ δε` ε» νθα α’ λλο' τριον σω ñ μα, ου’ παραιτειñται ε’ κειñνος βαπτι'σαι τα` ς ε‘ αυτουñ χειñρας: ε» νθα το` η‘ με' τερον σω ñ μα, παραιτησο' μεθα, ει’ πε' μοι; σω ñ μα γα` ρ η‘ με' τερον υ‘ μειñς, α’ σθενε`ς με`ν και` α’ κα' θαρτον, η‘ με' τερον δε' (“For a physician wishing to remove a putrid sore, first thrusts his fingers into the wound, and if he does not first defile his healing hands, he will not be able to cure it. So it is with me. Unless I first defile my mouth, that heals your passions, I shall not be able to heal you. But rather neither is my mouth defiled, nor his hands. Why then? Because the uncleanness is not that of nature, nor from our own body as neither in that case from his hands, but from what is another’s. But if where the body is another’s, he does not refuse to dip his own hands, tell me, shall we refuse, where it is our own body? For you are our body, sickly indeed and impure, but ours nevertheless”; Trans. P. Schaff) (iv/v) Sense 1b: to make ceremonially clean; gloss: “to purify” or “to cleanse” Septuagint, Sirach 34:30: βαπτιζο'μενος α’ πο` νεκρουñ και` πα' λιν α‘ πτο' μενος αυ’ τουñ , τι' ω’ φε' λησεν ε’ ν τω ñ, λουτρω ñ, αυ’ τουñ ; (“When one bathes due to a corpse and when one touches again – what did he gain by his washing?”; Trans. B. G. Wright; NRSV: “If one washes after touching a corpse, and touches it again, what has been gained by washing?”) (II)66 Septuagint, Judith 12:7: και` ε’ ξεπορευ' ετο κατα` νυ' κτα ει’ ς τη` ν φα' ραγγα Βαιτυλουα και` ε’βαπτι'ζετο ε’ ν τηñ, παρεμβοληñ, ε’ πι` τηñ ς πηγηñ ς τουñ υ« δατος (“And she went out each night into the ravine of Beityloua and bathed at the spring of water”; Trans. C. Boyd-Taylor) (II) 67 ─────────────── 64 Photographic Archive of Papyri in the Cairo Museum; Center for the Study of Ancient Documents (CSAD), Oxford. 65 The text belongs to the archive of Kronion son of Apion, nomographos of the grapheion of Tebtynis, and represents a day by day register of abstracts of the contracts recorded at the record-office (grapheion) of Tebtynis during the four last months of the second year of the Emperor Claudius; the text records a (demotic) alimentary contract, registered on May 11, AD 42. P. Mich XI 622, Recto (2720). 66 The noun λουτρο' ν (“bathing, washing”) describes the intention and effect of ritual immersion (βαπτιζο' μενος) in water for purification. 67 Sirach 34:25 and Judith 12:7 are early examples of the use of βαπτι'ζω for the means – immersion in water – of ritual purification.

246

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 4.81: του` ς ουò ν α’ πο` νεκρουñ μεμιασμε' νους τηñ ς τε' φρας ο’ λι' γον ει’ ς πηγη` ν ε’ νιε' ντες και` υ« σσωπον βαπτι'σαντε'ς τε και` τηñ ς τε' φρας ταυ' της ει’ ς πηγη` ν ε» ρραινον τρι'τη, τε και` ε‘ βδο' μη, τω ñ ν η‘ μερω ñ ν και` καθαροι` το` λοιπο` ν ηò σαν (“When, therefore, any had been polluted by contact with a corpse, they put a little of these ashes in running water, dipped68 hyssop into the stream, and sprinkled such persons therewith on the third and on the seventh day, and thenceforth they were clean”; Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL) (i) Justin Martyr, Dialogus com Tryphone Judaeo 46.2: Κα’ κειñνος: Το` σαββατι'ζειν λε' γω και` το` περιτε' μνεσθαι και` το` τα` ε» μμηνα φυλα' σσειν και` το` βαπτι'ζεσθαι α‘ ψα' μενο' ν τινος ω ðν α’ πηγο' ρευται υ‘ πο` Μωυσε' ως η› ε’ ν συνουσι' α, γενο' μενον (“Then he replied, ‘To keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months, and to be washed if you touch anything prohibited by Moses, or after sexual intercourse’”; Trans. A. Roberts/J. Donaldson) (ii) Sense 1c: to take water or wine by dipping a drinking vessel (in a stream, a fountain, a well, a bowl); gloss: “to draw” Euripides, Hippolytus 121–124: ’ Ωκεανουñ τις υ« δωρ στα' ζουσα πε' τρα λε' γεται, βαπτα` ν κα' λπισι παγα` ν ρ‘ υτα` ν προιειñσα κρημνω ñ ν (“There is a cliff dripping water whose source, men say, is the river Oceanus: it pours forth from its overhanging edge a flowing stream in which pitchers are dipped”; Trans. D. Kovacs, LCL) (V) Sense 1d: to perish by submersion in water; gloss: “to drown” Aesop, Fabulae 223 (The Shepherd and the Sea, version 3, lines 4–6): χειμω ñ νος δε` σφοδρουñ γενομε' νου και` τηñ ς νεω` ς κινδυνευου' σης βαπτι'ζεσθαι πα' ντα το` ν φο' ρτον ε’ κβαλω` ν ει’ ς τη` ν θα' λατταν μο' λις κενηñ, τηñ, νηι` διεσω' θη (“But a very great tempest came on, and the ship being in danger of sinking, he threw all his merchandise overboard, and barely escaped with his life in the empty ship”; Trans. G. F. Townsend, LCL) (VI) Polybius, Historiae 1.51.6–7: στρεφομε' νοις και` δυσχρηστουñ σι δια` το` βα' ρος τω ñ ν πλοι' ων και` δια` τη` ν α’ πειρι'αν τω ñ ν πληρωμα' των, ε’ μβολα' ς τε συνεχειñς ε’ δι'δοσαν και` πολλα` τω ñ ν σκαφω ñν ε’βα'πτιζον (“and as the enemy then had to turn round and found themselves in difficulty owing to the weight of the hulls (ships) and the poor oarsmanship of the crews, they rammed them repeatedly and sunk many”; Trans. W. R. Paton, LCL) (III) Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 16.80.3: πολλοι` δε` α»νευ πολεμι'ας πληγηñ ς διεφθει'ροντο σωρευομε' νων τω ñ ν σωμα' των δια' τε το` ν φο' βον και` το` πληñ θος και` δια` τα` ς ε’ ν τω ñ, ρ‘ ει'θρω, δυσχερει' ας. το` δε` με' γιστον, λα' βρων γεγενημε' νων τω ñ ν ο» μβρων ο‘ ποταμο` ς βιαιοτε' ρω, τω ñ, ρ‘ ευ' ματι καταφερο' μενος πολλου` ς ε’βα' πτιζε και` μετα` τω ñ ν ο« πλων διανηχομε' νους διε' φθειρε (“There was crowding and it was difficult to keep one's feet in the stream. Worst of all, as the rain came down heavily, the river swept downstream as a raging torrent and carried the men with it, drowning them as they struggled to swim in their heavy armour”; Trans. C. H. Oldfather, LCL) (I) ─────────────── 68 The Greek translators of Num 19:17–20 used βα' πτω in v. 18 (βα' ψει), which Josephus replaces by βαπτι' ζω. Note that Josephus distinguishes between immersing (βαπτι' σαντες) an object (hyssop) into water and sprinkling (ε» ρραινον) with water. Cf. Ferguson, Baptism, 47, who adds that Josephus “represents the tendency for βαπτι' ζω to replace βα' πτω, perhaps because he used βα' πτω for dyeing”. On Josephus’ rewriting of Num 19:17–20 cf. Louis H. Feldman and Steve Mason, Judean Antiquities 1–4. Translation and Commentary, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3 (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2004), 357.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

247

Josephus, De bello Judaico 5.525, 527: και` πλησια' ζειν τολμω ñ ντες πρι`ν δραñ σαι' τι παθειñν ε» φθανον και` συ` ν αυ’ τοιñς ε’βαπτι'ζοντο τοιñς σκα' φεσιν . . . τω ñ ν δε` βαπτισθε'ντων του` ς α’ νανευ' οντας η› βε' λος ε» φθανεν η› σχεδι' α κατελα' μβανεν, και` προσβαι' νειν υ‘ π• α’ μηχανι' ας ει’ ς του` ς ε’ χθρου` ς πειρωμε' νων η› κεφαλα` ς η› χειñρας α’ πε' κοπτον οι‘ ‘ Ρωμαιñοι (“on the other hand, when they [i.e., fugitive Jews on the Lake of Galilee] ventured to approach, before they had time to do anything they instantly came to grief and were sent to the bottom with their skiffs … when any who had been sunk rose to the surface, an arrow quickly reached or a raft overtook them; if in their despair they sought to board the enemy’s fleet, the Romans cut off their heads or their hands”; Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL) (i) (sense 1d, 1) Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 9:212: τελευταιñον δ• υ‘ περβιαζομε' νου τουñ κακουñ και` ο« σον ου» πω με' λλοντος βαπτι'ζεσθαι τουñ σκα' φους, υ‘ πο' τε τουñ προφη' του παρορμηθε' ντες αυ’ τουñ και` υ‘ πο` τουñ δε' ους τουñ περι` τηñ ς αυ‘ τω ñ ν σωτηρι' ας ρ‘ ι'πτουσιν αυ’ το` ν ει’ ς τη` ν θα' λασσαν (“but finally, as their distress pressed more heavily upon them and the vessel was on the point of sinking, and since they were driven to it both by the prophet [i.e., Jonah] himself and by fear for their own lives, they cast him into the sea”; Trans. R. Marcus, LCL) (i)69 Clemens Alexandrinus, Quis dives salvetur 34.3: τοιου' τους κτηñ σαι τω ñ, σω ñ, πλου' τω, και` τω ñ, σω' ματι και` τηñ, ψυχηñ, δορυφο' ρους, ω ð ν στρατηγειñ θεο' ς, δι• ου‹ ς και` ναυñ ς βαπτιζομε'νη κουφι' ζεται, μο' ναις α‘ γι'ων ευ’ χαιñς κυβερνωμε' νη, και` νο' σος α’ κμα' ζουσα δαμα' ζεται, χειρω ñ ν ε’ πιβολαιñς διωκομε' νη, και` προσβολη` λη, στω ñ ν α’ φοπλι'ζεται, ευ’ χαιñς ευ’ σεβε' σι σκυλευομε' νη, και` δαιμο' νων βι'α θραυ' εται, προστα' γμασι συντο' νοις ε’ λεγχομε' νη (“Obtain with thy money such guards, for body and for soul, for whose sake a sinking ship is made buoyant, when steered by the prayers of the saints alone; and disease at its height is subdued, put to flight by the laying on of hands; and the attack of robbers is disarmed, spoiled by pious prayers; and the might of demons is crushed, put to shame in its operations by strenuous commands”; Trans. A. Roberts) (ii/iii) John Chrysostom, Homiliae 33.1 in Jo. (PG 59.187): Πανταχουñ πι'στεως η‘ μιñν δειñ, α’ γαπητοι` , πι'στεως, τηñ ς μητρο` ς τω ñ ν α’ γαθω ñ ν, τουñ τηñ ς σωτηρι' ας φαρμα' κου: και` ταυ' της α»νευ ου’ δε` ν ε» στι κατασχειñν τω ñ ν μεγα' λων δογμα' των. ’Αλλ• ε’ οι'κασι τοιñς πε' λαγος νηο` ς χωρι`ς ε’ πιχειρουñ σι , οι‹ με' χρι με` ν ο’ λι' γου νηχο' μενοι διαρκουñ σι χερσι` ν ο‘ μουñ και` ποσι` χρω' μενοι, διαπεραñν, περαιτε' ρω δε` προελθο' ντες, ταχε' ως υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν κυμα' των βαπτι'ζονται: ου« τω και` οι‘ τοιñς οι’ κει' οις χρω' μενοι λογισμοιñς, πρι`ν η» τι μαθειñν, ναυα' γιον υ‘ πομε' νουσιν (“Everywhere, beloved, we have need of faith, faith the mother of blessings, the medicine of salvation; and without this it is impossible to possess any one of the great doctrines. Without this, men are like to those who attempt to cross the open sea without a ship, who for a little way hold out by swimming, using both hands and feet, but when they have advanced farther, are quickly swamped by the waves: in like manner they who use their own reasonings, before they have learnt anything, suffer shipwreck”; Trans. P. Schaff) (iv/v) Sense 1e: to put to death a living being; gloss: “to slaughter” or “to kill” Euripides, Phoenissae 1577–1578: χαλκο' κροτον δε` λαβουñ σα νεκρω ñ ν πα' ρα φα' σγανον ει»σω σαρκο` ς ε»βαψεν, α»χει δε` τε' κνων ε» πεσ• α’ μφι` νεκροιñσιν (“Then, taking from the dead a sword of ─────────────── 69 For the sense “sinking” (of ships) of βαπτι' ζω see also B.J. 2.556; 3.368, 423; also Vita 15 (βαπτισθε' ντος γα` ρ η‘ μω ñ ν τουñ πλοι' ου κατα` με' σον το` ν ’Αδρι'αν, “for our ship foundered in the midst of the sea of Adria” [H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL]; “for when our ship was flooded in the middle of the Adriatic” [S. Mason]); cf. Steve Mason, Life of Josephus. Translation and Commentary, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 24, who does not comment on the verb.

248

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

hammered bronze, she plunged it in her flesh, and in sorrow for her sons fell with her arms around them”; Trans. O’Neill, LCL) (V) Josephus, De bello Judaico 2.476: ο‘ δε` διελθω` ν παñ σαν τη` ν γενεα` ν και` περι'οπτος ε’ πιστα` ς τοιñς σω' μασιν τη' ν τε δεξια` ν α’ νατει' νας, ω‘ ς μηδε' να λαθειñν, ο« λον ει’ ς τη` ν ε‘ αυτουñ σφαγη` ν ε’βα'πτισεν το` ξι'φος (“After slaying every member of his family, he [i.e., Simon] stood conspicuous on the corpses, and with right hand uplifted to attract all eyes, plunged the sword up to the hilt into his own throat”; Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL) (i) John Chrysostom, Homiliae 1.3 in Eph. (PG 62.20): Ου’ φονευ' σεις, φησι' . Ποι' α τουñ το α’ να' γκη, ποι' α βι' α; Βι' α με`ν ουò ν ε’ στι το` φονευ' ειν. Τι'ς γα` ρ α›ν η‘ μω ñ ν ε« λοιτο βαπτι'σαι ξι' φος ει’ ς το` ν λαιμο` ν τουñ πλησι' ον, και` αι‘ μα' ξαι τη` ν δεξια' ν; Ου’ δε` ειðς (“The law says, “Thou shalt not kill”. What sort of force, what sort of violence, is there here? Violence indeed must one use to force himself to kill, for who amongst us would as a matter of choice plunge his sword into the throat of his neighbor, and stain his hand with blood? Not one. Thou seest then that, on the contrary, sin is more properly matter of violence and constraint”; Trans. P. Schaff) (iv/v) Sense 1f: to tinge fabric with a color; gloss: “to dye” Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae 216–219: πρω ñ τα με` ν γα` ρ τα»ρια βα' πτουσι θερμω ñ, κατα` το` ν α’ ρχαιñον νο' μον α‘ παξα' πασαι, κου’ χι` μεταπειρωμε' νας »ι δοις α›ν αυ’ τα' ς (“First, they dye their wools with boiling tinctures, in the ancient style”; Trans. B. B. Rogers, LCL) (V)70 Aristophanes, Plutus 530: ι‘ ματι' ων βαπτω ñ ν δαπα' ναις κοσμηñ σαι ποικιλομο' ρφων (“rich embroidered cloaks dyed with dazzling colors”; Trans. E. O’Neill, LCL) (V) Plato, Respublica 429D-E: Ου’ κουñ ν οιòσθα, ηò ν δ• ε’ γω' , ο« τι οι‘ βαφηñς, ε’ πειδα` ν βουληθω ñ σι βα' ψαι ε» ρια ω « στ• ειòναι α‘ λουργα' , πρω ñ τον με`ν ε’ κλε' γονται ε’ κ τοσου' των χρωμα' των μι'αν φυ' σιν τη` ν τω ñ ν λευκω ñ ν, ε» πειτα προπαρασκευα' ζουσιν, ου’ κ ο’ λι' γη, παρασκευηñ, θεραπευ' σαντες ο« πως δε' ξεται ο« τι μα' λιστα το` α»νθος, και` ου« τω δη` βα' πτουσι. και` ο‹ με` ν α›ν του' τω, τω ,ñ, ñ, τρο' πω, βαφη δευσοποιο` ν γι'γνεται το` βαφε'ν, και` η‘ πλυ' σις ου» τ• α»νευ ρ‘ υμμα' των ου» τε μετα` ρ‘ υμμα' των δυ' ναται αυ’ τω , ñ ν το` α»νθος α’ φαιρειñσθαι: α‹ δ• α›ν μη' , οιòσθα οιðα δη` γι'γνεται, ε’ α' ντε' τις α»λλα χρω' ματα βα' πτη ε’ α' ντε και` ταυñ τα μη` προθεραπευ' σας (“You are aware that dyers when they wish to dye wool so as to hold the purple hue begin by selecting from the many colors there be the one nature of the white and then give it a careful preparatory treatment so that it will take the hue in the best way, and after the treatment, then and then only, dip it in the dye. And things that are dyed by this process become fast-colored and washing either with or without dyes cannot take away the sheen of their hues. Otherwise you know what happens to them, whether anyone dips other colors or even these without the preparatory treatment”; Trans. P. Shorey) (V/IV) (sense 1f and 1) Aristoteles, De coloribus 794a.16–19: Τα` δε` βαπτο' μενα πα' ντα τα` ς χρο' ας α’ πο` τω ñν βαπτο'ντων λαμβα' νει. πολλα` με` ν γα` ρ τοιñς α»νθεσι βα' πτεται τοιñς φυομε' νοις, πολλα` δε` ρ‘ ι' ζαις, πολλα` δε` φλοιοιñς η› ξυ' λοις η› φυ' λλοις η› καρποιñς (“All dyed things take their color from what dyes them. For many are coloured by the flowers of plants, many by the roots, many again by bark or wood or leaves or fruit”; Trans. W. S. Hett, LCL) (IV) ─────────────── 70 Note that there are many other Greek verbs that denote “to color, dye, stain” – α’ νθι' ζω (“color, dye, stain”), γλαυκο' ω (“dye blue-grey”), δευσοποιε' ω (“dye, stain”), ε’ ρυθαι' νω (“dye red”), ε’ ρυθροδανο' ω (“dye with madder”), θαλασσοβαφε' ω (“dye purple”), καταφοινισσω (“dye red”), κογχι' ζω (“dye purple”), κοκκονο' ω (“dye scarlet”), λακκο' ω (“dye with lac”), μηλο' ω (“dye” wool), μιαι' νω (“stain, dye”), ξανθο' ω (“dye yellow”), πορφυ' ρω (“dye red”), πυρρο' ω (“dye red”), ρ‘ ε' ζω (“dye”).

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

249

Inscription, I. Milet III 1357: ι‘ μα' τια πορφυραñ βαπτα` α‘ ρχειñα κατακεκομμε' να τρι' α (“three old useless tattered purple-dyed himatia”)71 (II) Strabo, Geographica 15.1.30: βα'πτεσθαι' τε πολλοιñς ευ’ ανθεστα' τοις χρω' μασι του` ς πω' γωνας αυ’ τουñ του' του χα' ριν καλλωπιζομε' νους: τουñ το δε` και` α»λλους ποιειñν ε’ πιμελω ñ ς συχνου` ς τω ñν ’ Ινδω ñ ν (και` γα` ρ δη` φε' ρειν τη` ν χω' ραν χρο' ας θαυμαστα' ς) και` θριξι` και` ε’ σθηñ σι (“the men dye their beards with many most florid colours for the sole reason that they wish to beautify themselves; and that this practice is carefully followed by numerous other Indian peoples also … who dye both their hair and their garments”; Trans. H. L. Jones, LCL) (I) Josephus, De bello Judaico 1.490: ο‹ ν τρο' πον α’ πατηθειñεν υ‘ πο` ’Αλεξα' νδρου λε' γοντος, ω‘ ς ου’ κ ε’ ν ‘ Ηρω' δη, δε' οι τα` ς ε’ λπι' δας ε» χειν α’ ναιδειñ γε' ροντι και` βαπτομε'νω, τα` ς κο' μας, ει’ μη` δια` τουñ τ• αυ’ το` ν οι»ονται και` νε' ον (“Alexander, they said, had inveigled them by saying, “You ought not to place your hopes on Herod, a shameless old man who dyes his hair, unless this disguise has actually made you take him for a youngster”; Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray) (i)72 Claudius Aelianus, Varia historia 7.9: και` ου’ δε` ν ε’ δειñτο ου’ κροκωτουñ ου’ ταραντινι δι' ου ου’ κ α’ ναβοληñ ς ου’ κ ε’ γκυ' κλου ου’ κεκρυφα' λου ου’ καλυ' πτρας ου’ βαπτω ñ ν χιτωνι'σκων (“She felt no need for a yellow dress or a Tarentine dress, a cloak, a jacket, an upper garment, a hairnet, a veil, or dyed short frocks”; Trans. N. G. Wilson, LCL) (ii/iii) Inscription, Beth Shea’rim 188: Σαβε' ρις υι‘ ο` ς Σαβι'νο α‘ ρχιβα'φθου (“Saberis, son of Sabinos, the clothdyer”; Trans. M. Schwabe / B. Lifshitz)73 (iii/iv)

(ii) Figurative (metaphorical) uses Sense 2: to be overpowered, by an abstract reality, such as debts or arguments or thoughts; gloss: “to be overwhelmed” or “to be immersed” Pindar, Pythia 2.76–80: α»μαχον κακο` ν α’ μφοτε' ροις διαβολιαñ ν υ‘ ποφα' τιες, ο’ ργαιñς α’ τενε` ς α’ λωπε' κων »ικελοι. κε' ρδει δε` τι' μα' λα τουñ το κερδαλε' ον τελε' θει; α«τε γα` ρ ε’ ννα' λιον πο' νον ε’ χοι'σας βαθυ' ν σκευαñ ς ε‘ τε' ρας, α’ βα'πτιστος ειòμι φελλο` ς ω ‹ ς υ‘ πε`ρ ε«ρκος α«λμας (“Purveyors of slander are a deadly evil to both parties, with temperaments just like those of foxes. But what profit really results from the cunning? None, for just as when the rest of the tackle labors in the depths of the sea, like a cork I shall go undipped over the surface of the brine”; Trans. W. H. Race, LCL)74 (VI) ─────────────── 71 I. Milet III 1357 is a treasure catalogue which lists (at least after line 5) old objects, mostly garments, which had become useless and which were probably removed from a sanctuary (perhaps from the temple of Artemis Kithone which was transferred from Kalabaktepe to Miletus). Cf. Peter Herrmann, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt, Inschriften von Milet III, Milet VI. iii (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 213–15. 72 For the sense “dye” of βα' πτω see also B.J. 4.563; A.J. 3.102. 73 Moshe Schwabe and Baruch Lifschitz, Beth She’arim II: The Greek Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Massada, 1974), II, 172–73 (No. 188); the inscription is carved on the wall opposite the entrance to Hall B of catacomb 19 in Beth She’arim; the editors comment that α‘ ρχιβα' φθου is a new word, composed of βα' πτης or βαφευ' ς (“dyer”) and the prefix α’ ρχι- (“chief”); the Jew Saberis “was an artisan whose occupation was cothdyeing” (p. 173). 74 William H. Race, Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 239, n. 5 comments, “The image is that of a cork floating on the surface while the weights and nets sink into the sea”. In other words, as cork cannot be made to sink in the sea, so the person who refuses to engage in cunning will not be overpowered by his opponents.

250

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Papyrus, P. Paris 47 (UPZ I 70): ο« τι ψευ' δηι πα' ντα και` οι‘ παρα` σε` θεοι` ο‘ μοι' ως, ο« τι ε’ νβε' βληκαν η‘ μαñ ς ει’ ς υ« λην μεγα' λην και` ουð δυνα' μεθα α’ ποθανειñν και` ε’ α` ν »ι δη, ς ο« τι με' λλομεν σωθηñ ναι, το' τε βαπτιζο'μεθα (“because you lie [regarding] all and the gods that are with you also, because they have thrown us into a great morass and therein we could die, and if you have seen [in a dream] that we are going to be saved [from it], it is at this very time that we are overwhelmed”; U. Wilcken)75 (II) Septuagint, Isaiah 21:4: η‘ καρδι' α μου πλαναñ ται, και` η‘ α’ νομι' α με βαπτι'ζει, η‘ ψυχη' μου ε’ φε' στηκεν ει’ ς φο' βον (“My heart wanders, and lawlessness overwhelms me; my soul has turned to fear”; M. Silva) (II) Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 1.73: τη` ν δε` δευτε' ραν μοιñραν οι‘ βασιλειñς παρειλη' φασιν ει’ ς προσο' δους, α’ φ• ω ð ν ει»ς τε του` ς πολε' μους χορηγουñ σι και` τη` ν περι` αυ‘ του` ς λαμπρο' τητα διαφυλα' ττουσι, και` του` ς με` ν α’ νδραγαθη' σαντας δωρεαιñς κατα` τη` ν α’ ξι' αν τιμω ñ σι, του` ς δ• ι’ διω' τας δια` τη` ν ε’ κ του' των ευ’ πορι' αν ου’ βαπτι'ζουσι ταιñς ει’ σφοραιñς (“The second part of the country [i.e., Egypt] has been taken over by the kings for their revenues, out of which they pay the cost of their wars, support the splendour of their court, and reward with fitting gifts any who have distinguished themselves; and they do not swamp the private citizens by taxation, since their income from these revenues gives them a great plenty”; Trans. C. H. Oldfather, LCL) (I) Philo, Legum allegoriae 3.18: και` διαβαι' νει το` ν τω ñ ν αι’ σθητω ñ ν ποταμο` ν το` ν ε’ πικλυζοντα και` βαπτι'ζοντα τηñ, φοραñ, τω ñ ν παθω ñ ν τη` ν ψυχη' ν (“and so he crosses over the river of the objects affecting the outward senses, which wash over and threaten to submerge the soul by the impetuosity of the passions”; C. D. Yonge) (I)76 Philo, De migratione Abrahami 204: το` ν γα` ρ σιñτον α’ ποπεμπτουñ ν κελευ' ει, το` δε' ε’ στιν υ« λας και` τροφα` ς α’ φθο' νους θησαυροφυλακειñν ταιñς πε' ντε αι’ σθη' σεσιν, ο« πως ε‘ κα' στη τω ñ ν οι’ κει' ων α’ νεπισχε' τως ε’ μπιπλαμε' νη τρυφαñ, και` το` ν νουñ ν τοιñς ε’ πεισφορουμε' νοις βαρυ' νουσα βαπτι'ζη , (“or he commands them to take a fifth part of the corn, that is to say, to store up in the treasury abundant materials and nourishment for the five outward senses, in order that each of them might rejoice while filling itself unrestrainedly with suitable food, and that it might weigh down and overwhelm77 the mind with the multitude of things which were thus brought upon it”; C. D. Yonge) (I) Philo, De providentia 2.67: και` ε’ κ τουñ του` ς με` ν νη' φοντας και` ο’ λιγοδεειñς συνετωτε' ρους ειòναι, του` ς δε` ποτω ñ ν α’ ει` και` σιτι'ων ε’ μπιπλαμε' νους η« κιστα φρονι'μους, α«τε βαπτιζομε'νου τοιñς ε’ πιουñ σι τουñ λογισμουñ (“those who are continually filling themselves with meat and drink are the least sensible, as if their reasoning faculties were drowned by the quantity which they swallowed”; C. D. Yonge) (I)

─────────────── 75 The translation is adapted from F. Winter, in Peter Arzt-Grabner, Ruth Elisabeth Kritzer, Amphilochios Papathomas, Franz Winter., 1. Korinther, PKNT 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 72, who follows U. Wilcken. The text is a letter from the archive of the Temple of Sarapis in Memphis, written by a certain Apollonios to his older brother Ptolemaios who relates the shock that his faith in the gods suffered when Ptolemaios’ dreams did not come true. See Winter, 72–73 n. 69, who rejects the interpretation of R. Reitzenstein who interpreted the letter as evidence for “baptism” in a mystery religion (i.e., meaning 1b). 76 G. H. Whitaker: “that swamps and drowns the soul under the flood of the passions”. 77 G. H. Whitaker translates βαπτι'ζη, with “drown”.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

251

Philo, De vita contemplativa 46: οιòδα δε' τινας, οι‹ ε’ πειδα` ν α’ κροθω' ρακες γε' νωνται, πρι` ν τελε' ως βαπτισθηñναι, το` ν ει’ ς τη` ν υ‘ στεραι'αν πο' τον ε’ ξ ε’ πιδο' σεως και` συμβολω ñ ν προευτρεπιζομε' νους, με' ρος υ‘ πολαμβα' νοντας τηñ ς ε’ ν χερσι` ν ευ’ φροσυ' νης ειòναι τη` ν περι` τηñ ς ει’ ς το` με' λλον με' θης ε’ λπι' δα (“And I know some persons who, when they are completely filled with wine, before they are wholly overpowered by it,78 begin to prepare a drinking party for the next day by a kind of subscription and picnic contribution, conceiving a great part of their present delight to consist in the hope of future drunkenness”; C. D. Yonge) (I) (sense 2, cf. 3) Plutarch, De liberis educandis 13 (Moralia 9B): ω « σπερ γα` ρ τα` φυτα` τοιñς με` ν μετρι' οις υ« δασι τρε' φεται, τοιñς δε` πολλοιñς πνι'γεται, το` ν αυ’ το` ν τρο' πον ψυχη` τοιñς με`ν συμμε' τροις αυ» ξεται πο' νοις, τοιñς δ• υ‘ περβα' λλουσι βαπτι'ζεται (“For, just as plants are nourished by moderate applications of water, but are drowned by many in succession, in the same fashion the mind is made to grow by properly adapted tasks, but is submerged by those which are excessive”; Trans. F. C. Babbitt, LCL) (i) Plutarch, De genio Socratis 24 (Moralia 593F): ου’ γα` ρ οιðς ε» τυχε συμφε' ρεται το` δαιμο' νιον, α’ λλ• οιðον ε’ πι` τω ñ ν νηχομε' νων ε’ ν θαλα' ττη, του` ς με`ν πελαγι'ους ε» τι και` προ' σω τηñ ς γηñ ς φερομε' νους οι‘ ε’ πι` γηñ ς ε‘ στω ñ τες σιωπηñ, θεω ñ νται μο' νον, του` ς δ• ε’ γγυ` ς η» δη παραθε' οντες και` παρεμβαι'νοντες α«μα και` χειρι` και` φωνηñ, βοηθουñ ντες α’ νασω', ζουσιν, ουð τος, ω ò .... τουñ δαιμονι' ου ο‘ τρο' πος: .... η‘ μαñ ς βαπτιζομε'νους υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν πραγμα' των και` σω' ματα πολλα` καθα' περ ο’ χη' ματα μεταλαμβα' νοντας αυ’ του` ς ε’ ξαμιλλαñ σθαι και` μακροθυμειñν δι• οι’ κει' ας πειρωμε' νους α’ ρετηñ ς σω', ζεσθαι και` τυγχα' νειν λιμε' νος (“For daemons do not assist all indifferently, but as when men swim at sea, those standing on the shore merely view in silence the swimmers who are still far out and distant from land, whereas they help with hand and voice alike such as have come near . . . as long as we are head over ears in the welter of worldly affairs and are changing body after body, like conveyances, they allow us to fight our way out and persevere unaided, as we endeavour by our own prowess to come through safe and reach a haven”; Trans. P. H. De Lacy/B. Einarson, LCL) (i) Plutarch, Galba 21.2: δοκειñ δε` μηδ• α›ν ε’ πι` τοιñς ι’ δι'οις χρη' μασι μο' νον ε‘ λε' σθαι το` ν »Οθωνα κληρονο' μον, α’ κο' λαστον ει’ δω` ς και` πολυτεληñ και` πεντακισχιλι' ων μυρια' δων ο’ φλη' μασι βεβαπτισμε'νον (“Indeed he does not seem to have been so much as inclined to make choice of Otho had it been but to inherit his own private fortune, knowing his extravagant and luxurious character, and that he was already plunged in debt five thousand myriads deep”; Trans. J. Dryden, LCL) (i) Josephus, De bello Judaico 1.535: τουñ το δ• ω « σπερ τελευται' α θυ' ελλα χειμαζομε' νους του` ς νεανι' σκους ε’πεβα' πτισεν (“This was, as it were, the final hurricane which submerged the tempest-tossed youths”; Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL) (i)79 Josephus, De bello Judaico 3.196: ε’πιβαπτι'σειν γα` ρ αυ’ τοιñς τη` ν πο' λιν μηδενο` ς ε» τι τοιñς πολεμι' οις τολμω ñ ντος α’ νθι' στασθαι δι• ο‹ ν α›ν θαρσοιñεν οι’ χομε' νου (“For his departure would wreck the town [the citizens of Jotapata argued], as none would have the heart to resist the enemy any longer, when he whose presence would have given them courage was gone”; Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL) (i) Josephus, De bello Judaico 4.135-137: με' χρι κο' ρω, τω ñ ν κατα` τη` ν χω' ραν α‘ ρπαγω ñ ν α’ θροισθε' ντες οι‘ τω ñ ν πανταχουñ συνταγμα' των α’ ρχιλη, σται` και` γενο' μενοι πονηρι' ας στιñφος ει’ ς τα` ─────────────── 78 G. H. Whitaker: “before they have completely gone under”. 79 Josephus describes the fate of Aristobulus, one of Herod’s sons, who had warned Salome that Herod wanted to kill her, a warning that Salome reported to the king who then arrested Aristobulus and Alexander.

252

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

‘Ιεροσο' λυμα παρεισφθει' ρονται, πο' λιν α’ στρατη' γητον και` πατρι'ω, με` ν ε» θει παñ ν α’ παρατηρη' τως δεχομε' νην το` ο‘ μο' φυλον, το' τε δ• οι’ ομε' νων α‘ πα' ντων του` ς ε’ πιχεομε' νους πα' ντας α’ π• ευ’ νοι' ας η« κειν συμμα' χους. ο‹ δη` και` δι'χα τηñ ς στα' σεως υ« στερον ε’βα'πτισεν τη` ν πο' λιν (“In the end, satiated with their pillage of the country, the brigand chiefs of all these scattered bands joined forces and, now merged into pack of villainy, stole into poor Jerusalem – a city under no commanding officer and one which, according to hereditary custom, unguardedly admitted all of Jewish blood, and the more readily at that moment when it was universally believed that all who were pouring into it came out of goodwill as its allies. Yet it was just this circumstance which, irrespectively of the sedition, eventually wrecked the city”) (i)80 Marcus Aurelius, τα` ει’ ς ε‘ αυτο' ν (Meditations) 3.4: ο‘ γα' ρ τοι α’ νη` ρ ο‘ τοιουñ τος, ου’ κ ε» τι υ‘ περτιθε' μενος το` ω‘ ς ε’ ν α’ ρι'στοις η» δη ειòναι, ι‘ ερευ' ς τι' ς ε’ στι και` υ‘ πουργο` ς θεω ñ ν, χρω' μενος και` τω ñ, ε» νδον ι‘ δρυμε' νω, αυ’ τουñ , ο‹ παρε' χεται το` ν α»νθρωπον α»χραντον η‘ δονω ñ ν, α»τρωτον υ‘ πο` παντο` ς πο' νου, πα' σης υ« βρεως α’ νε' παφον, πα' σης α’ ναι' σθητον πονηρι'ας, α’ θλητη` ν α»θλου τουñ μεγι'στου, τουñ υ‘ πο` μηδενο` ς πα' θους καταβληθηñ ναι, δικαιοσυ' νη, βεβαμμε'νον ει’ ς βα' θος, α’ σπαζο' μενον με`ν ε’ ξ ο« λης τηñ ς ψυχηñ ς τα` συμβαι' νοντα και` α’ πονεμο' μενα πα' ντα, μη` πολλα' κις δε` μηδε` χωρι` ς μεγα' λης και` κοινωφελουñ ς α’ να' γκης φανταζο' μενον τι' ποτε α»λλος λε' γει η› πρα' σσει η› διανοειñται (“For the man who is such and no longer delays being among the number of the best, is like a priest and minister of the gods, using too the deity which is planted within him, which makes the man uncontaminated by pleasure, unharmed by any pain, untouched by any insult, feeling no wrong, a fighter in the noblest fight, one who cannot be overpowered by any passion, dyed deep with justice, accepting with all his soul everything which happens and is assigned to him as his portion; and not often, nor yet without great necessity and for the general interest, imagining what another says, or does, or thinks”; Trans. G. Long, LCL)81 (ii) Marcus Aurelius, τα` ει’ ς ε‘ αυτο' ν (Meditations) 5.16: Οιðα α›ν πολλα' κις φαντασθηñ, ς, τοιαυ' τη σοι ε» σται η‘ δια' νοια: βα'πτεται γα` ρ υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν φαντασιω ñ ν η‘ ψυχη' . βα' πτε ουò ν αυ’ τη` ν τηñ, συνεχει' α, τω ñ ν τοιου' των φαντασιω ñ ν: οιðον, ο« τι ο« που ζηñ ν ε’ στιν, ε’ κειñ και` ευò ζηñ ν (“Such as are your habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of your mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts. Dye it then with a continuous series of such thoughts as these: for instance, that where a man can live, there he can also live well”; Trans. G. Long, LCL)82 (ii) Justin Martyr, Dialogus com Tryphone Judaeo 86.6: ξυ' λον ’ Ελισσαιñος βαλω` ν ει’ ς το` ν ’ Ιορδα' νην ποταμο` ν α’ νη' νεγκε το` ν σι' δηρον τηñ ς α’ ξι' νης, ε’ ν ηð, πεπορευμε' νοι ηò σαν οι‘ υι‘ οι` τω ñν προφητω ð, το` ν νο' μον και` τα` προστα' γματα τουñ θεουñ ñ ν κο' ψαι ξυ' λα ει’ ς οι’ κοδομη` ν τουñ οι»κου, ε’ ν ω λε' γειν και` μελεταñ ν ε’ βου' λοντο: ω‘ ς και` η‘ μαñ ς βεβαπτισμε'νους ταιñς βαρυτα' ταις α‘ μαρτι' αις, α‹ ς ε’ πρα' ξαμεν, δια` τουñ σταυρωθηñ ναι ε’ πι` τουñ ξυ' λου και` δι• υ« δατος α‘ γνι' σαι ο‘ Χριστο` ς η‘ μω ñν ε’ λυτρω' σατο και` οιòκον ευ’ χηñ ς και` προσκυνη' σεως ε’ ποι' ησε (“Elisha, by throwing a piece of wood into the River Jordan, brought up to the surface the iron head of the axe with which the sons of the prophets had begun to cut wood for the construction of a building in which they proposed to read the precepts of God and study them; just as our Christ, by being crucified on the wood of the cross and by sanctifying us by water, raised up us who had been immersed in the mire of our mortal sins and made us a house of prayer and worship”; Trans. T. B. Falls) (ii) ─────────────── 80 When the people from the countryside were “pouring” (ε’ πιχεομε' νους) into Jerusalem, the city was “immersed” by masses of Jews and “overwhelmed” by the demand for supplies which soon could not be met; W. Whiston translates ε’ βα' πτισεν τη` ν πο' λιν as “the city’s destruction”. 81 Note the contrast between being “overpowered” (καταβληθηñ ναι) by passion and being “immersed” (βεβαμμε' νον) with or “imbued” by justice (or righteousness). 82 Instead of “dye” (G. Long), one can also translate with “tinge” (J. Collier).

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

253

Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus sive cohortatio ad gentess 1.4: Λι'θοι δε` και` ξυ' λα οι‘ α»φρονες: προ` ς δε` και` λι'θων α’ ναισθητο' τερος α»νθρωπος α’ γνοι' α, βεβαπτισμε'νος (“The silly are stocks and stones, and still more senseless than stones is a man who is steeped in ignorance”; Trans. P. Schaff) (ii/iii) John Chrysostom, Homiliae 40.5 in Matt (PG 57.438): Ποι' ων ουò ν ταυñ τα κυμα' των, ποι'ου κλυ' δωνος ου’ χαλεπω' τερα; Και` γα` ρ και` φυσαñ ται α’ θρο' ον υ‘ πο` τηñ ς η‘ δονηñ ς ο‘ τοιουñ τος, και` βαπτι'ζεται πα' λιν ευ’ κο' λως, ε’ ν α’ νωμαλι'α, με`ν α’ ει`, ε’ ν η‘ συχι'α, δε` ου’ δε' ποτε ω » ν (“What manner of waves then, what tempest so grievous as this? Yea, such a one is both puffed up in a moment by the pleasure, and is under water again easily, being ever in fluctuation, in tranquillity never”; Trans. P. Schaff) (ii/iii) Sense 3: to become intoxicated; gloss: “to be drunk” Plato, Symposium 176A-B: Το` ν ουò ν Παυσανι' αν ε» φη λο' γου τοιου' του τινο` ς κατα' ρχειν. , Ειòεν, α»νδρες, φα' ναι, τι' να τρο' πον ρ‘ αñστα πιο' μεθα; ε’ γω` με` ν ουò ν λε' γω υ‘ μιñν ο« τι τω ñ, ο» ντι πα' νυ χαλεπω ñ ς ε» χω υ‘ πο` τουñ χθε`ς πο' του και` δε' ομαι α’ ναψυχηñ ς τινος οιòμαι δε` και` υ‘ μω ñ ν του` ς πολλου' ς. , παρηñ στε γα` ρ χθε' ς σκοπειñσθε ουò ν τι' νι τρο' πω, α›ν ω‘ ς ρ‘ αñστα πι' νοιμεν. Το` ν ουò ν ’Αριστοφα' νη ει’ πειñν, Τουñ το με' ντοι ευò λε' γεις, ω ò Παυσανι' α, το` παντι` τρο' πω, παρασκευα' σασθαι ρ‘ α, στω' νην τινα` τηñ ς πο' σεως: και` γα` ρ αυ’ το' ς ει’ μι τω ñ ν χθε` ς βεβαπτισμε'νων (“Then Pausanias, he said, began so speak somewhat as follows, “All right, men”, he said, “What will be the easiest way for us to drink? Now I tell you that I am really in a very bad way from yesterday’s drinking, and I need a rest. I suspect that many of you do too, for you were also here yesterday. So consider what would be the easiest way for us to drink”. Aristophanes then said, “That is a good suggestion, Pausanias, to arrange our drinking in some easier way, for I too am one of yesterday’s soaks”; Trans. S. Benardete) (V/IV)83 Plutarch, Questionum convivialum 6 Intro. (Moralia 686B): με' γα γα` ρ ω‘ ς α’ ληθω ñ ς ευ’ ημερι' ας ε’ φο' διον ευκρασι' α σω' ματος α’ βαπτι'στου και` ε’ λαφρουñ και` παρεστω ñ τος α’ νυπο' πτως ε’ πι` παñ σαν ε’ νε' ργειαν (“It is truly a great contribution to our health and happiness to have our bodies in a good state of balance, not sodden with wine, but light and ready unhesitatingly for any activity”; Trans. H. B. Hoffleit, LCL) (i) Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 10.169: θεασα' μενος δ• αυ’ το` ν ου« τως ε» χοντα και` βεβαπτισμε'νον ει’ ς α’ ναισθησι' αν και` υ« πνον υ‘ πο` τηñ ς με' θης ο‘ ’ Ισμα' ηλος α’ ναπηδη' σας μετα` τω ñ ν δε' κα φι' λων α’ ποσφα' ττει το` ν Γαδαλι'αν και` του` ς κατακειμε' νους συ` ν αυ’ τω ñ, ε’ ν τω ñ, συμποσι'ω, (“Seeing him [i.e., Gedaliah] in this condition, sunken into unconsciousness and a drunken sleep, Ismaelos sprang up with his ten friends and slaughtered Gadalias and those reclining with him at the banquet table”; Trans. R. Marcus, LCL) (i)84

─────────────── 83 Plato, Plato’s Symposium, A Translation by Seth Benardete (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 5. Walter R. M. Lamb, Plato, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), translates “for I myself am one of those who got such a soaking yesterday”. 84 Josephus describes the murder by Gedaliah by Ishmael and the latter’s associates who had become drunk during a banquet; cf. Jer. 41:1–3 (LXX 32:1–3); the Scriptural text mentions neither a banquet nor the intoxication of Gedaliah.

254

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

4. Conclusion The evidence of the literary and documentary concerning the use of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν in Greek and Jewish texts can be summarized as follows. (1) The basic meaning of both verbs is “to plunge, to dip, to immerse”. The definition “to put into a yielding substance” can be substituted in essentially all occurrences of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν, particularly when the verbs are used in connection with a physical substance such as water, dyes, or bodies. (2) The uses of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν in connection with physical substances can be specified in terms of six extended meanings which focus on the result of the action of immersion: to cleanse with water (“to wash”), to make ritually clean (“to purify, cleanse”), to take (water, wine) by dipping a drinking vessel (“to draw”), to perish by submersion in water (“to drown, sink), to put to death a living being (“to slaughter, kill”), to tinge fabric with a color (“to dye”, not attested for βαπτι' ζειν). (3) Both Greek and Jewish texts use different words for bathing and washing on the one hand and dipping or immersing on the other hand, even though the extended sense of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν can designate the effect of the immersion in water, i.e., washing (sense 1a). (4) The physical idea of immersion is extended to non-physical realities in two figurative or metaphorical senses of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν; both verbs denote being overpowered by an abstract reality (debts, arguments, thoughts, passions) into which a person is “immersed”, and both verbs denote being overpowered by intoxicating drinks. (5) The verbs βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν share the basic, the extended, and the figurative senses, with the exception of the extended meaning “to dye”. The intensive verb βαπτι' ζειν seems to become more frequent as βα' πτειν often denotes “to dye”, but both verbs are used across the centuries with essentially identical senses. (6) There is no difference in the meaning of βα' πτειν and βαπτι' ζειν in terms of their use in Greek, in Jewish, or in Christian texts. (7) Neither βα' πτειν nor βαπτι' ζειν are technical terms in the strict sense of the word. Even though βα' πτειν is frequently used with the sense “to dye”, there are numerous Greek words which denote, and specify, the action of dyeing,85 which means that βα' πτειν is not a technical word for dyeing. The fact that βαπτι' ζειν is used for immersions in water which make the person ritually clean does not mean that βαπτι' ζειν is a technical term for ritual purification from spiritual or moral defilement. Translators of the non-Christian texts quoted above do not use the gloss “to baptize” as a standard English equiva─────────────── 85 See n. 70.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

255

lent for βαπτι' ζειν.86 While the church fathers use the term βαπτι' ζειν most often with reference to Christian baptism, they continue, at the same time, to use the term with the traditional physical and metaphorical senses. This suggests that βαπτι' ζειν had not become a technical term, in the narrow sense of the word, for Christian water baptism, even at a time when the Christian faith and immersion “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” had become much more common than in the first century.

Bibliography Adrados, Francisco R. Diccionario Griego-Español. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1980–2002. Apresjan, Yuri D. Systematic Lexicography Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Arzt-Grabner, Peter, Ruth Elisabeth Kritzer, Amphilochios Papathomas, and Franz Winter. 1. Korinther. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Atkins, Sue. “Theoretical Lexicography and its Relation to Dictionary-Making [1992–1993]”. Pages 31–50 in Practical Lexicography: A Reader. Edited by T. Fontenelle. Oxford Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. Barnbrook, Geoff. Defining Language: A Local Grammar of Definition Sentences. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 11. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2002. Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Second Edition. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition, 1952. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition Revised and Edited by F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. Paternoster: Exeter, 1979 [1962]. Brain, Peter. Galen on Bloodletting: A Study of the Origins, Development, and Validity of his Opinions, with a Translation of the Three Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996 [1984]. Chadwick, John. Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Conant, Thomas Jefferson. The Meaning and Use of Baptizein, Philologically and Historically Investigated. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977 [1861]. ─────────────── 86 There are some exceptions, e.g., Clement F. Rogers, “How Did the Jews Baptize?” JTS 12 (1911), 437–45.

256

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Cotterell, Peter, and Max M. B. Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. London: SPCK, 1989. Dunn, James D. G. “‘Baptized’ as Metaphor”. Pages 294–310 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross. JSNTSup 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Eggs, Ekkehard. “Metapher”. Pages 5:1099–1183 in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001. Feldman, Louis H., and Steve Mason. Judean Antiquities 1–4. Translation and Commentary. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3. Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2004. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Furley, William D., and Jan Maarten Bremer. Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. Vol. I, The Texts in Translation. Vol. II, Greek Texts and Commentary. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 9–10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Green, Robert M. A Translation of Galen’s Hygiene (De sanitate tuenda). Springfield: Thomas, 1951. Herrmann, Peter, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt. Inschriften von Milet III. Milet VI. iii. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Horsley, Greg H. R., and John A. L. Lee. “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries 1”. FilN 19–20 (1997): 55–84. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Lamb, Walter R. M. Plato. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Lee, John A. L. A History of New Testament Lexicography. Studies in Biblical Greek 8. New York: Lang, 2003. —. “The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek”. Pages 66–74 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography. Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Edited by B. A. Taylor, J. A. L. Lee, P. R. Burton, and R. E. Whitaker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. New Ninth Edition Revised and Augmented Throughout by Henry Stuart Jones, with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie, completed 1940, with Revised Supplement Edited by Peter G. W. Glare. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Mason, Steve. Life of Josephus. Translation and Commentary. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 9. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene Nida. A Translators Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1972. Newman, Barclay M., and P. C. Stine. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. UBS Handbook Series. London/Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1988. Nida, Eugene A., and Johannes P. Louw. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

8. The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature

257

Plato. Plato’s Symposium. A translation by Seth Benardete. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Powell, Owen. Galen: On the Properties of Foodstuffs (De alimentorum facultatibus). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Race, William H. Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Robinson, Edward. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. A New Edition, Revised and in Great Part Rewritten. London: Longman, 1850 [1825]. Rogers, Clement F. “How Did the Jews Baptize?” JTS 12 (1911): 437–45. Schwabe, Moshe, and Baruch Lifschitz. Beth She’arim II: The Greek Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Massada, 1974. Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. Translated, revised, and enlarged. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970 [1886]. Trask, Robert L. The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Young, Robert. Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Ysebaert, Joseph. Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development. Graecitas Christianorum Primaeva. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1962. Zgusta, Ladislav. Manual of Lexicography. Janua linguarum 39 Series Maior. Prague: Academia, 1971.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι' ζω in the New Testament In his short but important book Exegetical Fallacies, D. A. Carson specifies “false assumptions about technical meaning” as one of the categories of errors that “preachers and others” make when they describe the meaning of biblical terms; he writes that “in this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning – a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter’s personal systematic theology”.1 One of the examples that he cites is the understanding of “baptism in the Spirit”, a phrase, he argues, that should not be treated as a terminus technicus either in the sense of a post-conversion effusion of the Spirit or in terms of the effusion of the Spirit at conversion; he commends the Puritans for apparently not viewing the expression as having a consistent, technical meaning, taking it to mean “effusion in Spirit” or “inundation in Spirit”.2 What Professor Carson has left for other scholars to accomplish, I attempt here: to question the use of the English term “baptize” in Bible translations, commentaries, and other studies as “translation” for the Greek term βαπτι' ζω in all (or almost all) passages in which the term occurs in the New Testament. Elsewhere I have discussed the treatment of βαπτι' ζω in the standard Greek lexicons, argued for the necessity of re-visiting the meaning of βαπτι' ζω, and surveyed the meaning of βαπτι' ζω (and of βα' πτω: the two verbs have essentially identical meanings) in Greek and Jewish literary and documentary texts.3 The result of this study was the following lexical entry for βαπτι' ζω, distinguishing the physical (“literal”) and metaphorical meanings of the verb. I. Physical uses. 1. to put into a yielding substance (such as a liquid, e.g., water or dyes, or the body of an animal); glosses: “to plunge, to dip, to immerse”; 1a. to cleanse with water; gloss: “to wash” (extended meaning of 1: to remove dirt by immersion in water); ─────────────── 1 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 45; for the reference to “preachers and others”, see p. 28. 2 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 46. 3 Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristric Literature”, Filologia Neotestamentaria 24 (2011): 3–40 [See Chapter 8 in this volume].

260

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts 1b. to make ceremonially clean; gloss: “to purify” or “to cleanse” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse in water symbolizing, or effecting, the removal of moral or spiritual defilement); gloss of (later) ecclesiastical language: “to baptize”; 1c. to take water or wine by dipping a drinking vessel (in a stream, a fountain, a well, a bowl); gloss: “to draw” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse a vessel in water or wine to obtain a drink); 1d. to perish by submersion in water; gloss: “to drown” (extended meaning of 1: to suffer death by suffocation being immersed in water [of persons]; or to disappear by submersion in water, to sink [of ships]); 1e. to put to death a living being; gloss: “to slaughter” or “to kill” (extended meaning of 1: to plunge a knife into the body of an animal or a human being); 1f. to tinge fabric with a color; gloss: “to dye” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse fabric in liquid with color pigments); meaning attested for βα' πτειν, not for βαπτι'ζειν.4 II. Figurative uses 2. to be overpowered by an abstract reality, such as debts or arguments or thoughts; gloss: “to be overwhelmed” or “to be immersed” (transferred meaning of 1: a person is “immersed” in intangible or abstract realities and consequently overwhelmed by their force); 3. to become intoxicated; gloss: “to be drunk” (transferred meaning of 1: a person is “submerged” in the effects of intoxicating liquids).

The following study seeks to clarify the meaning of the terms βα' πτω and βαπτι' ζω, particularly the latter, with regard to two questions.5 Can the New Testament use of the terms βα' πτω and βαπτι' ω be compared with the use of these verbs in earlier and contemporary Greek and Jewish sources? Is there a shift in meaning when New Testament authors use βαπτι' ζω, a shift towards a technical meaning which can only be expressed in English with the loan word “to baptize”? After a discussion of the four occurrences of the verb βα' πτω, I will treat the New Testament passages in which βαπτι' ζω 6 is used in the sequence of the “senses” given in BDAG, starting with Jewish rites of purification, proceeding to John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early church, and ending with references in which βαπτι' ζω denotes, according BDAG, some kind of experience akin to an initiatory water-rite.7 ─────────────── 4 A related meaning is “to plate an object with silver or gold” with the gloss “to silver” or “to gild” (extended meaning of 1: to immerse an object in liquid silver or gold); this meaning is attested for βα' πτειν, but not for βαπτι'ζειν; cf. Ps-Democritus Alchemista 47B. 5 The understanding (or “theology”) of baptism/immersion in the New Testament is a different, albeit related, question which will not be discussed here. 6 The verb βαπτι' ζειν occurs 77 times in the New Testament in 64 verses, with 43 occurrences in the four Gospels, 21 in the Book of Acts, and 13 in Paul’s letters. 7 Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition Revised and Edited by F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 164–65. Note that Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 106, lists the following meanings for βαπτι'ζω: 1. middle voice, to immerse oneself: so as to wash oneself (Judith 12:7); therapeutic (4 Kings 5:14); ritual (Sirach 31:30); 2. active voice and figuratively, to affect thoroughly (Isa 21:4).

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

261

1. The Use of βα' πτω in Luke 16:24; John 13:26; Rev 19:13 Luke 16:24: πα' τερ ’Α βραα' μ, ε’ λε' ησο' ν με και` πε' μψον Λα' ζαρον «ι να βα' ψη , το` α» κρον τουñ δακτυ' λου αυ’ τουñ υ« δατος και` καταψυ' ξη, τη` ν γλω ñ σσα' ν μου, ο« τι ο’ δυνω ñ μαι ε’ ν τηñ, φλογι` ταυ' τη, (“Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames”).8

Here βα' πτειν has sense 1: the finger is put into water. As glosses, both “dip”9 and “put into” can be used as translations, although “plunge” and immerse” work as well.10 John 13:26: α’ ποκρι' νεται ο‘ ’ Ιησουñ ς, ’ Εκειñνο' ς ε’ στιν ω ð, ε’ γω` βα' ψω το` ψωμι' ον και` δω' σω αυ’ τω ñ, . βα'ψας ουò ν το` ψωμι' ον λαμβα' νει και` δι'δωσιν ’ Ιου' δα, Σι'μωνος ’ Ισκαριω' του (“Jesus answered, ‘It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.’ So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot”; NRSV).

The meaning of βα' πω again corresponds to sense 1. The standard gloss used in translations is “dip”.11 The definition “put into” can be used as a substitute for “dip”. Rev 19:13: και` περιβεβλημε' νος ι‘ μα' τιον βεβαμμε'νον αι«ματι, και` κε' κληται το` ο» νομα αυ’ τουñ ο‘ λο' γος τουñ θεουñ (“He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God”).

The verb βα' πτειν again is used with sense 1. The standard translation is “dip”,12 although “plunge” and “immerse” could be substituted. It is not possible to formulate general conclusions regarding the use of a term from four occurrences in a large corpus. We note, however, that βα' πτω is always used in the physical sense of “to put into a yielding substance” (dip, plunge, immerse). The fact that no extended senses nor any of the two metaphorical senses occurs does not mean that the meaning of βα' πτω has become more narrow – no New Testament text refers to the dyeing of textiles or to the ─────────────── 8 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations in this chapter are from the NRSV. 9 ESV, GNB, NASB, NET, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NLT, TNIV all translate as “dip”. 10 Note the large number of examples that can be retrieved in internet searches of “plunge your finger” and “immerse your finger”. 11 ESV, GNB, NASB, NET, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NLT, TNIV all translate as “dip”. Internet searches do not yield many results for the collocation “to plunge a piece of bread” nor for “to immerse a piece of bread”. For the former, Google produces the following reference: 56th Congress, Hazing at the Military Academy: Testimony Taken by the Select Committee of the House of Representatives, Report 2768 Part 3 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1901), 936, which explains the “sammy straight” method as follows: “to make a man eat so much of that on bread [sic], take a soup plate and fill that with sammy, and then immerse a piece of bread in it and make him eat a certain number of slices of bread”. 12 ESV, NASB, NET, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NLT, TNIV; GNB has “the robe he wore was covered with blood”. Eugene H. Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002), has “soaked with blood”.

262

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

plating of objects with silver or gold. When authors refer to the (potential) drowning of people (Matt 14:30) or to the sinking of ships (Luke 5:7), other verbs are used.13 The evidence from the later church fathers demonstrates that βα' πτω retained its full range of extended and metaphorical senses.

2. The Use of βαπτι'ζω for Jewish Immersion Rites Mark 7:3–4: οι‘ γα` ρ Φαρισαιñοι και` πα' ντες οι‘ ’Ιουδαιñοι ε’ α` ν μη` πυγμηñ, νι'ψωνται τα` ς χειñρας ου’ κ ε’ σθι' ουσιν, κρατουñ ντες τη` ν παρα' δοσιν τω ñ ν πρεσβυτε' ρων, και` α’ π´ α’ γοραñ ς ε’ α` ν μη` βαπτι'σωνται ου’ κ ε’ σθι' ουσιν, και` α»λλα πολλα' ε’ στιν α‹ παρε' λαβον κρατειñν, βαπτισμου`ς ποτηρι' ων και` ξεστω ñ ν και` χαλκι' ων και` κλινω ñ ν (“For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles”).

The passage expresses a progression from washing (νι' ψωνται) hands before meals14 to immersion of the entire body after visiting the local marketplace which, according to the tradition of (some?) Pharisees, required purification from defilement (potentially) contracted in the marketplace. 15 The verb βαπτι' ζω denotes more than merely washing (hands) for the purpose of hygiene: the “traditions of the elders” refer to the Pharisaic interpretation of Old Testament laws concerning ritual purification. The verb thus means “to make ceremonially clean” (sense 1b) and can be translated with “cleanse” (NASB) or “purify” (RSV); NLT interprets in terms of “immerse their hands in water”. Commentators argue that in the context of Second Temple Judaism and in the context of what we know about the purity concerns of the Pharisees, “the washing in this case is not merely of the hands, but apparently involves immersion of the whole person”.16 The noun βαπτισμο' ς is usually translated as “washing”, a gloss that is easily (mis)understood in the hygienic ─────────────── 13 In Matt 14:30 καταποντι'ζω, and in Luke 5:7 βυθι'ζω. 14 The meaning of πυγμηñ, , translated by NRSV as “thoroughly”, is unclear in connection with the washing of hands; it can mean “up to the fist or wrist” (implying immersion of the hands in water), “with a fistful of water”, or “with a cupped hand”. Cf. BDAG s.v. πυγμη' ; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 364–65; Joel Marcus, Mark, AYB 27 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000–2009), 1:441. Regarding the Old Testament purity laws and the Jewish traditions concerning hand washing cf. Roger P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7, JSNTSup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 117–87. 15 Guelich, Mark, 365. 16 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2002), 282; cf. Guelich, Mark, 365; Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 360. The translation of JB (“sprinkling themselves”) follows the reading ρ‘ αντι'σωνται (‫ א‬B pc sa), which is less likely to be original; cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 80.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

263

sense of “removal of dirt”. The Pharisaic traditions that Mark refers to concern the washing of containers and utensils which have contracted ritual impurity. This idea can be communicated in a translation either with the gloss “ceremonial washing” (NLT) or with “immersion”.17 In Mark 1:44; Luke 2:22; 5:14; John 2:6, Jewish rites of purification are described with the noun καθαρισμο' ς which emphasizes the purpose and result of ceremonial immersion in water. Since the ceremonial washing of hands can be described with the verbs νι' πτω, βαπτι' ζω, and καθαρι' ζω, the term βαπτι' ζω cannot be described as a “technical” term denoting “to make ceremonially clean”. Rather, it is one of several terms that describe ceremonial cleansing, a term that focuses on the process of cleansing (hands and/or the entire body is immersed in water) while the other two terms focus on the purpose and result of the action.18 Luke 11:37–38: ’Εν δε` τω ñ, λαληñ σαι ε’ ρωταñ, αυ’ το` ν Φαρισαιñος ο« πως α’ ριστη' ση, παρ´ αυ’ τω ñ, · ει’ σελθω` ν δε` α’ νε' πεσεν. ο‘ δε` Φαρισαιñος ι’ δω` ν ε’ θαυ' μασεν ο« τι ου’ πρω ñ τον ε’βαπτι'σθη προ` τουñ α’ ρι' στου (“While he was speaking, a Pharisee invited him to dine with him; so he went in and took his place at the table. The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first wash before dinner”).

The context of the invitation of a Pharisee who comments on Jesus’ behavior suggests that βαπτι' ζω denotes ceremonial cleansing (sense 1b), as in the parral passage Mark 7:3–4. This is recognized by NASB (“ceremonially washed”) and NLT (“performing the hand-washing ceremony”).19 Glosses such as “purify” and “cleanse” express the ceremonial aspect of βαπτι' ζω better than “wash”. The term can refer to the ceremonial washing of hands or to total immersion.

─────────────── 17 Thus Marcus, Mark, 1:442. 18 Cf. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus: Judean Antiquities, Books XVIII–XIX, Josephus IX, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981 [1965]), 81 note b, who asserts that Josephus may have used two different forms – βαπτισμο' ς and βα' πτισις in A.J. 1.117 (the latter term is attested in Greek literature only in A.J. 1.117) – “since there was no established Greek word for baptism” (evidently understanding “baptism” as used in the Christian tradition). Contra Robert L. Webb, “John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus”, in Studying the Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, NTTS 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 179–230, 188 n. 25, who claims that neither the verb βαπτι'ζω nor the nouns βα' πτισμα and βαπτισμο' ς are “the usual terms used for a Jewish ritual bath”; the fact that he mentions as “exceptions” Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38; Heb 9:10 undercuts his case. 19 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 494; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, AB 28 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981–85), II, 947; John Nolland, Luke, WBC 35 (Dallas: Word, 1989–93), II, 663. Fitzmyer recognizes that more than the ceremonial washing of hands may be involved, i.e., that the Pharisee may have expected Jesus to immerse himself in a miqveh before eating dinner (663).

264

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

3. The Use of βαπτι'ζω for the Immersion Practiced by John The next passages listed by BDAG concerns the activity of John, son of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5), who is called ο‘ βαπτιστη' ς20 or ο‘ βαπτι' ζων,21 which can be translated as “the Immerser”22 Apart from verbs which denote proclaiming a message of judgment and renewal through the Coming One, and verbs which denote exhorting people, John’s activity is described with the verb βαπτι' ζω.23 The following two passages are representative for the description of John’s activity in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts. Matt 3:5–6: το' τε ε’ ξεπορευ' ετο προ` ς αυ’ το` ν ‘Ιεροσο' λυμα και` παñ σα η‘ ’Ιουδαι'α και` παñ σα η‘ περι'χωρος τουñ ’Ιορδα' νου, και` ε’βαπτι'ζοντο ε’ ν τω ñ, ’Ιορδα' νη, ποταμω ñ, υ‘ π´ αυ’ τουñ ε’ ξομολογου' μενοι τα` ς α‘ μαρτι'ας αυ’ τω ñ ν (“Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins”). Mark 1:4–5: ε’ γε' νετο ’Ιωα' ννης ο‘ βαπτι'ζων ε’ ν τηñ, ε’ ρη' μω, και` κηρυ' σσων βα' πτισμα μετανοι' ας ει’ ς α»φεσιν α‘ μαρτιω ñ ν. και` ε’ ξεπορευ' ετο προ` ς αυ’ το` ν παñ σα η‘ ’Ιουδαι' α χω' ρα και` οι‘ ‘Ιεροσολυμιñται πα' ντες, και` ε’βαπτι'ζοντο υ‘ π´ αυ’ τουñ ε’ ν τω ñ, ’Ιορδα' νη, ποταμω ñ, ε’ ξομολογου' μενοι τα` ς α‘ μαρτι'ας αυ’ τω ñ ν (“John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins”).

The translation of βαπτι' ζω with “baptize” in the passages that describe John’s ministry is both universal24 and unfortunate, the latter because it presupposes ─────────────── 20 Matt 3:1; 11:11, 12; 14:2, 8; 16:14; 17:13; Mark 6:25; 8:28; Luke 7:20, 33; 9:19; cf. Josephus, A.J. 18.116. 21 Mark 1:4; 6:14, 24, 25, 8:28. The participle βαπτι' ζων explains the function of John, while the substantival term βαπτιστη' ς is more formal; cf. France, Mark, 65. 22 Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 49–50. Note James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 356, who argues that since the term ο‘ βαπτιστη' ς was coined in Greek for John, probably as translation of the Aramaic term tabela (‫ )טבלא‬used in descriptions of John’s ministry, which presumably was a fresh usage as well; Dunn suggests that the new term was coined in recognition of John’s uniqueness, which carries over into the English term “the Baptist”. It should be recognized, however, that the rendition of Aramaic tabela (‫ )טבלא‬into Greek as ο‘ βαπτιστη' ς cannot be explained in terms drawing a foreign word into another language denoting “something for which there is no adequate native equivalent” (356) – ο‘ βαπτιστη' ς is a direct translation of the Aramaic term, not a transliteration; it is an expression that communicated, for native Greek speakers, precisely the same action that the Aramaic term described. 23 Matt 3:6, 11, 13, 14, 16; Mark 1:4, 5, 8, 9; 6:14, 24; Luke 3:7, 12, 16, 21; 7:29, 30; John 1:25, 26, 28, 31, 33; 3:23; 10:40; Acts 1:5; 11:16; the noun το` βα' πτισμα is used in Matt 3:7; 21:25; Mark 1:4; 11:30; Luke 3:3; 7:29; 20:4; Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24; 18:25; 19:3, 4. 24 ESV, GNB, JB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV, TNIV; cf. Stanley E. Porter, “Mark 1.4, Baptism and Translation”, in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White, ed. S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross, JSNTSup 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 81–98, who addresses various

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

265

that the verb is a (Christian) technical term, and because it artificially separates John’s activity from Jewish purification rites involving immersion in water. The result are statements like the following: John’s distinctive rite was a new phenomenon. Ritual washing was common enough, both in the OT and increasingly in later Judaism (see on 7:3–4). It was a prominent element in the religious life of Qumran, and its importance in mainstream Judaism is indicated by the increasing number of miqwā’ōt (ritual immersion baths) which archaeological discovery is revealing in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Palestine, as well as by a whole tractate entitled Miqwā’ōt in the Mishnah. But these were all regular, repeated washings, whereas John was calling for a single, initiatory baptism, indicating the beginning of a new commitment. For this many believe that the most likely Jewish precedent is the ritual cleansing by immersion of a Gentile on becoming a proselyte. But John’s baptism was for Jews; to ask them to undergo the same initiatory ritual as was required of a Gentile convert was a powerful statement of John’s theology of the people of God, one which is reminiscent of the ‘remnant’ theology of the prophets.25

While I agree with R. T. France’s historical and theological analysis,26 the move from Jewish “washings” and “cleansing by immersion” to John’s “baptism” is confusing, particularly as France insists that the “cleansing by immersion” required of a Gentile proselyte, that is, a person converting to Judaism, represents “the same initiatory ritual” – evidently the “cleansing by immersion (in water)”. Commentators who reject parallels between John’s activity at the river Jordan and suggested parallels in the Qumran community or in proselyte baptism seem to be, at first sight, more justified to use the word “baptism” as a technical term: they can claim that “John was called ‘the Baptist’ because the specific form and meaning of his baptism was his own ‘original creation’”.27 However, the authors of the Gospels use βαπτι' ζω and the derivative βα' πτισμα to describe John’s activity at the river, a word choice that was readily understood by Greek speaking readers in the sense of “to immerse” (or, in the middle form, “to be immersed”) and “immersion”, and by their Greek speaking Christian readers with the additional extended meaning of an immersion resulting in cleansing from moral and spiritual defilement. The authors of the ─────────────── matters relevant for the translation of Mark 1:4, particularly the translation theory of Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1969), but never raises the issue of what βαπτι'ζω or βα' πτισμα means. 25 France, Mark, 66, emphasis mine. 26 Note, however, the continuing dispute concerning the historical questions connected with proselyte baptism in the first century; cf. Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study, JSNTSup 62 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 122–28; Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony [1990]”, in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Hellenistic Culture and Society 31 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 198–238, here 222–25. 27 Guelich, Mark, 18, quoting Philipp Vielhauer, “Johannes, der Täufer”, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–62), III, 804–8, here 806.

266

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Gospels do not create a new “technical term” when they use either the verb βαπτι' ζω or the noun βα' πτισμα.28 Joel Marcus speaks of “ritual washings” in the Old Testament period, of “immersion in a ritual bath” required of proselytes who “thereby purged themselves of the uncleanness of their pagan life”, of the “ritual bathing” of the members of the Qumran community which was “linked with the end-time cleansing” and renewal effected by God’s Spirit just as in “John’s baptism”.29 The sudden switch from “washing” and “immersion” to “baptism” may find its explanation in Marcus’ assertion that John’s “baptism, however, departed from the Qumran pattern by being a onetime rite performed by a second party, not a continually repeated self-immersion”.30 The statement that “before the NT, the word [i.e., βαπτι' ζω] does not have the technical sense of an act of water initiation”31 is correct if the focus is on the act or process of “initiation”, and if it is related to Christian water baptism. However, it is confusing when applied to John, unless one assumes that he “initiated” people into a particular movement (which Marcus does not seem to claim). The (often undeclared) assumption that “baptism” is a technical term leads to curious formulations. For example, R. L. Webb asserts that “John’s baptism involved bathing, that is, an immersion”,32 which is tantamount to saying that “John’s immersion involved immersion”. Similarly, E. Ferguson asserts that like the Jewish washings, including the baths of the Essenes and proselyte baptism, “John’s baptism was an immersion”.33 If βαπτι' ζω and βα' πτισμα indeed mean “to immerse” and “immersion” respectively, which Ferguson argues in his chapter on the meaning of the words from the βα' πτ-root,34 this statement reads “John’s immersion was an immersion”, a tautological statement which is triggered by the (sudden) shift from translating βαπτι' ζω as “to immerse, dip, plunge” to treating the term as a terminus technicus that is transliterated rather than translated. ─────────────── 28 Edward W. Burrows, “Baptism in Mark and Luke”, in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White, ed. S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross, JSNTSup 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 99–115, 110, speaks of “the action of baptism as John the Baptist practised it”, suggesting that the following ideas are inherent in John’s action: “(1) Total commitment: as symbolized by the submersion of the whole body. (2) Complete cleansing: as symbolized by the ritual washing in water. (3) A new beginning: as symbolized by being raised from the water”. 29 Marcus, Mark, 154–55. 30 Marcus, Mark, 155, emphasis mine. 31 Marcus, Mark, 150. 32 Webb, “John the Baptist”, 188, cf. 188 n. 25 for the meaning of βαπτι' ζειν. 33 Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 88; cf. ibid. 95: “John’s baptism” was “an immersion”. 34 Ferguson, Baptism, 38–59.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

267

While the number of ritual immersions and the presence of a person assisting in the process of immersion varies when Old Testament and Jewish immersion rites and the ministry of John are compared, the action itself – described by the same Greek verb – did not change: people who listened to and accepted John’s message, who repented of their sins, and who were willing to receive the One who would bring to fulfillment God’s promises that his Spirit would be poured out on all flesh, were immersed in water. Note that John 3:25–26 represents John and his practice of immersing people in the river Jordan as belonging to the Jewish tradition of purifications.35 There does not seem to be any need to use a different English term (let alone a Greek loan word) when speaking of Jewish immersions in water for purification and of John’s immersions in water for purification. In the passages that describe John’s message and activity, βαπτι' ζω is used with the extended meaning of “to make ceremonially clean” (1b); that is, in sense of “to immerse in water symbolizing, or effecting, the removal of moral or spiritual defilement”. There is no reason why one should not translate βαπτι' ζω in these passages in terms of the basic meaning “to immerse” since Matt 3:6 / Mark 1:5 specify that the action of βαπτι' ζειν took place “in the river Jordan” (ε’ ν τω ñ, ’ Ιορδα' νη, ποταμω ñ, ). The translation “they were baptized by him in the river Jordan” invites readers to introduce their particular (ecclesial) understanding of the term “baptize” as a technical Christian term. The statement “they were immersed by him in the river Jordan” communicates clearly and unambiguously what happened.36 Alternately, in order to highlight the extended meaning of ritual purification, one can translate “they were cleansed by him in the river Jordan”.37

4. The Use of βαπτι'ζω for the Immersion Practiced by Jesus and his Disciples The third group of passages that use βαπτι' ζω listed in BDAG, all in the Gospel of John, concern “cleansing performed by Jesus”. John 3:22, 25–26: Μετα` ταυñ τα ηò λθεν ο‘ ’ Ιησουñ ς και` οι‘ μαθηται` αυ’ τουñ ει’ ς τη` ν ’ Ιουδαι' αν γηñ ν, και` ε’ κειñ διε' τριβεν μετα’ υ’ τω ñ ν και` ε’βα'πτιζεν … ’ Εγε' νετο ουò ν ζη' τησις ε’ κ τω ñ ν μαθητω ñν ─────────────── 35 Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, Second Edition (London/Philadelphia: SPCK/Westminster, 1978), 219. 36 Also note Mark 1:9, 10 which describes Jesus being “immersed by John in the Jordan” (ε’ βαπτι' σθη ει’ ς το` ν ’ Ιορδα' νην ) and “coming up out of the water” (α’ ναβαι'νων ε’ κ τουñ υ« δατος); cf. Matt 3:16. 37 On the meaning of John’s practice of immersing people in the river Jordan cf. Robert L. Webb, “Jesus’ Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications”, BBR 10 (2000): 261–309; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 339–82; Ferguson, Baptism, 93–95.

268

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts ’ Ιωα' ννου μετα` ’ Ιουδαι'ου περι` καθαρισμουñ . και` ηò λθον προ` ς το` ν ’ Ιωα' ννην και` ειòπαν αυ’ τω ñ, , ð, συ` μεμαρτυ' ρηκας, »ιδε ουð τος βαπτι'ζει και` ‘ Ραββι', ο‹ ς ηò ν μετα` σουñ πε' ραν τουñ ’ Ιορδα' νου, ω πα' ντες ε» ρχονται προ` ς αυ’ το' ν (“After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized . . . Now a discussion about purification arose between John’s disciples and a Jew. They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him;’” NRSV).

The reference to a discussion about “purification” (καθαρισμο' ς) between disciples of John and other Jews clarifies that Jesus’ and his disciples’ activity38 involved immersion in water as a sign of repentance.39 This demonstrates that both the basic meaning of βαπτι' ζω as “to immerse” (sense 1) and the extended sense “to cleanse, purify”, which denotes ritual purification (sense 1b), are present. The assertion of A. Köstenberger that “the issue of ritual purification, while of significant interest to first-century Jews . . . clearly is peripheral to the ministries of Jesus and John the Baptist”,40 makes sense only if “ritual” is understood in the context of the specific stipulations regarding purification in the Mosaic Law and in Jewish tradition. If the immersion in water administered by John and by Jesus (and his disciples) signaled removal of moral and spiritual defilement, most scholars would describe the use of βαπτι' ζω here also as “ritual”. In a similarly unclear vein, E. Ferguson asserts on the one hand that, like the Jewish washings, including the baths of the Essenes and proselyte baptism, “John’s baptism was an immersion. Unlike all of them, it was an administered rite and not a self-immersion . . . John’s baptism, moreover, shared with all the Jewish practices the feature of purification or cleansing. It differed from them, however, in being an eschatological rather than a ceremonial or ritual purification”.41 If John’s purification was “an administered rite”, there is no reason why it cannot be called “ritual”, a term that is not invalidated by the eschatological dimension of John’s message. There is again no need to use the loan word “to baptize” in translating these texts: both the gloss “to immerse” (sense 1) and the glosses “to cleanse, purify” (sense 1b) are translation options for βαπτι' ζω in these passages. ─────────────── 38 Cf. also John 4:1; as regards the comment in 4:2 that “it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized” (NRSV) note the explanation of D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 215: “Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples did – or, more pedantically, Jesus baptized only by using his disciples as the agents”. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), I, 578, suggests that 4:2 might help explain why the practice of baptism by Jesus and his disciples does not appear in the synoptic tradition. 39 Cf. Keener, John, I, 578: “If John demanded immersion as a sign of repentance and Jesus regarded him as a prophet, presumably Jesus would have carried on the same tradition”. See also Taylor, John, 299. 40 Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 136. 41 Ferguson, Baptism, 88.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

269

5. The Use of βαπτι'ζω Designating Christian Water Baptism The fourth group of passages listed in BDAG concern “the Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death”, with the suggested gloss “baptize in or with respect to the name of someone”.42 As the reality and the practice of what we call Christian water baptism involved repentance and confession of faith in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior, the forgiveness of sins and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy (cf. Acts 2:38),43 the apostolic practice which is described with the verb βαπτι' ζω and with the nouns βα' πτισμα and βαπτισμο' ς is a unique event. What we are concerned with in this section is not the meaning of Christian water baptism in terms of its connection with the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus and with the requirement of repentance and faith in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.44 Our concern is the meaning of the Greek term βαπτι' ζω and its translation into English. We will discuss five passages which are either representative for other passages or “classical” passages for the understanding of Christian baptism. Matt 28:19: πορευθε' ντες ουò ν μαθητευ' σατε πα' ντα τα` ε» θνη, βαπτι'ζοντες αυ’ του` ς ει’ ς το` ο» νομα τουñ πατρο` ς και` τουñ υι‘ ουñ και` τουñ α‘ γι'ου πνευ' ματος (“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”).

Jesus’ post-resurrection commission in Matt 28:19–2045 focuses on the missionary work of taking the good news of God’s sending of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and Savior, to all nations, teaching new converts who have become followers of Jesus. Although theoretically possible, it is unlikely that βαπτι' ζω in v.19 has the metaphorical meaning of “overpower” (sense 2).46 In the context of Jewish washings and in the context of the activity of John and of Jesus and his disciples who immersed people in water as a sign of repentance with a ─────────────── 42 BDAG s.v. βαπτι'ζω 2c, with reference to Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12–13, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 22:16; 1 Cor 1:14–17; also Acts 8:16; 19:5; 1 Cor 1:13, 15; Matt 28:19; also Acts 2:38 (variant reading); 10:48; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 12:13; 15:29. 43 Cf. Max M. B. Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, JPTSup 9 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). On questions of authenticity regarding Luke’s account of baptisms in Acts, cf. Friedrich Avemarie, Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte. Theologie und Geschichte, WUNT 139 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 44 Ferguson, Baptism, 165, describes the understanding of baptism that Paul shared with the early church in Jerusalem in terms of baptism being “a bath of cleansing, into the name of Jesus, and in unity with the work of the Spirit”. 45 Besides the commentaries, cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), I, 348–67, for critical, grammatical and missiological matters. 46 This sense is also rendered unlikely due to the fact that the reality which overpowers a person is usually expressed with a dative, not with the preposition ει’ ς.

270

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

view to the forgiveness of sins and as an expression of preparation for the reception of God’s Spirit as cleansing power, βαπτι' ζω most plausibly denotes “immerse” (in water) in the extended sense of “cleanse, purify” (sense 1b). This extended sense is confirmed by the following prepositional phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The phrase ει’ ς το` ο» νομα (“into the name”)47 can be taken as expressing transfer (as in commercial and legal documents), communicating the idea of “into the ownership of”, or, in the context of the Hebrew and Aramaic expressions ‫ ל ׁשם‬/ ‫ל ׁשום‬, it can be taken as expressing a relationship, communicating the idea of “in order that they may enter into relationship with”. While these two interpretations do not exclude each other and at the end lead to the same result,48 the lack of a consensus suggests that it is wise to interpret the phrase ει’ ς το` ο» νομα in terms of a semantic minimum denoting “with reference to”. The expression “in the name of” names the one called on. In the LXX, the formulation “in the name of the Lord” (ε’ ν ο’ νο' ματι κυρι' ου)49 is used in connection with lifting up one’s hand, praising or blessing Yahweh (κυ' ριος).50 In the narrative context of the Gospel of Matthew, where the βαπτ- word group was used only with reference to John son of Zechariah and his message and practice,51 the phrase ει’ ς το` ο» νομα may serve mainly to distinguish the immersion that Jesus’ followers are to administer from the immersion practiced by John.52 The immersion in water to be practiced by Jesus’ disciples receives its basic reference and meaning from the one divine name (note that ο» νομα is singular) which is shared by God the Father, by Jesus the Son, and by the Holy Spirit.53 It relates ─────────────── 47 Note other passages which construe the terms βαπτι'ζω and βαπτισμο' ς with the preposition ει’ ς and a reference to the “name” (ο» νομα) of the Lord (Acts 8:16), the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5), Christ Jesus (Rom 6:3), Christ (Gal 3:27). Other prepositions linked with βαπτι' ζω and βαπτισμο' ς and with ο» νομα are ε’ πι' (Acts 2:38) and ε’ ν (Acts 10:48). Cf. Lars Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus: Baptism in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 37–50; idem, Art. ο» νομα, EDNT II, 519–22; Avemarie, Tauferzählungen, 26–43; Ferguson, Baptism, 182–83; see also H. Bietenhard, Art. ο» νομα, TDNT V, 242–81, who emphasizes the Semitic influence on the syntax (271). 48 Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus, 41 n. 23. 49 The LXX uses the prepositions ε’ ν and ε’ πι' in constructions with ο» νομα without a difference in meaning; Avemarie, Tauferzählungen, 36. 50 Ps 129:8 (LXX 128:8); cf. Ps 63:5 (LXX 62:5); 105:3 (LXX 104:3). Cf. Adelheid Ruck-Schröder, Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu. Eine neutestamentliche Studie, WMANT 80 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), with a survey of scholarship ibid. 11–63. 51 Matt 3:1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16; 11:11, 12; 14:2, 8; 16:14; 17:13; 21:25. 52 Cf. Avemarie, Tauferzählungen, 34, with regard to the significance of the phrase ει’ ς το` ο» νομα in Acts. The people immersed by John were not immersed “in the name of John”. 53 Cf. William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97), III, 685–86, with reference to John 17:11 and Phil 2:9, noting that there are no comparable texts regarding the Father giving his name to the Spirit.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

271

the person who is immersed to God the Father who revealed himself through Jesus, and to the Son who bestows the Holy Spirit, The verbal expression of the meaning and purpose of the immersion in water was presumably made by the person who was immersed, as a confession of faith. If translations continue to use the gloss “baptize” for βαπτι' ζω, the translators should at least include a note explaining that βαπτι' ζω denotes “to immerse” (here in water), signifying spiritual cleansing with reference to and on the basis of the new relationship to God who revealed himself through Jesus, the messianic Son, through whom people receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:37–41: ’Ακου' σαντες δε` κατενυ' γησαν τη` ν καρδι'αν ειòπο' ν τε προ` ς το` ν Πε' τρον και` του` ς λοιπου` ς α’ ποστο' λους· τι' ποιη' σωμεν, α»νδρες α’ δελφοι' ; Πε' τρος δε` προ` ς αυ’ του' ς· μετανοη' σατε, φησι' ν, και` βαπτισθη'τω ε«καστος υ‘ μω ñ ν ε’ πι` τω ñ, ο’ νο' ματι ’ Ιησουñ Χριστουñ ει’ ς α»φεσιν τω ñ ν α‘ μαρτιω ñ ν υ‘ μω ñ ν και` λη' μψεσθε τη` ν δωρεα` ν τουñ α‘ γι' ου πνευ' ματος. υ‘ μιñν γα' ρ ε’ στιν η‘ ε’ παγγελι'α και` τοιñς τε' κνοις υ‘ μω ñ ν και` παñ σιν τοιñς ει’ ς μακρα' ν, ο« σους α›ν προσκαλε' σηται κυ' ριος ο‘ θεο` ς η‘ μω ñ ν. ε‘ τε' ροις τε λο' γοις πλει' οσιν διεμαρτυ' ρατο και` παρεκα' λει αυ’ του` ς λε' γων· σω' θητε α’ πο` τηñ ς γενεαñ ς τηñ ς σκολιαñ ς ταυ' της. οι‘ με`ν ουò ν α’ ποδεξα' μενοι το` ν λο' γον αυ’ τουñ ε’βαπτι'σθησαν και` προσετε' θησαν ε’ ν τηñ, η‘ με' ρα, ε’ κει'νη, ψυχαι` ω‘ σει` τρισχι'λιαι (“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what should we do?’ Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added”).

In the context of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14–36, the exhortation to repent means that the listeners regret their (active or passive) involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus, that they turn away from their former, negative attitude concerning Jesus, that they believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah and exalted Lord. The last emphasis is connected with the imperative βαπτισθη' τω which happens “in the name of Jesus the Messiah”. In view of the fact that Peter’s audience includes diaspora Jews who were visiting Jerusalem as pilgrims attending the festival of Pentecost, they would have understood the term βαπτι' ζω – whether the Aramaic equivalent, or the Greek term – in the sense of “to be immersed in water”, an immersion expressing cleansing from moral and spiritual defilement (sense 1b).54 Peter expects listeners who repent to go to an immersion pool and let themselves be immersed in water as a sign of their repentance, of being cleansed from their sin and guilt in the name of Jesus, and of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. The importance of immersion for purification in Second Temple Judaism explains why numerous miqvaot have been discovered in Jerusalem ─────────────── 54 Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98), II, 717, “baptism was a bath and could therefore be associated with cleansing” (commenting on Acts 15:9; in his comments on 2:38, 41, he does not explain the meaning of the term βαπτι' ζω).

272

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

throughout the city as well as on and near the Temple Mount.55 Among the six large pools was the Pool of Siloam and the Pool of Bethesda. The Pool of Siloam, which was discovered in excavations in 2004 at the junction of the Tyropoeon Valley and the Kidron Valley, had a trapezoidal shape and measured 40 by 60 by 70 meters (ca. 130 by 195 by 230 feet). The Pool of Bethesda was located in the northeast section of the city in the area of the Sheep Gate (on the grounds of the Church of St. Anne); it had two large basins surrounded on four sides by colonnaded halls; the northern pool (53 by 40 meters, ca. 174 by 130 feet) served as the upper reservoir or otzar;56 the southern pool (47 by 52 meters, ca. 154 by 170 feet) was used for immersion, as suggested by the series of steps extending down along the entire western side of the pool, with sets of steps connecting several landings.57 These landings were capable of accommodating large numbers of people entering and leaving the water.58 According to the stipulations recorded in the Mishnah, the persons who enter a miqveh disrobe and completely immerse themselves in the water. The passive voice (βαπτισθη' τω) indicates that the new converts would not be immersing themselves, as Jews were in practice of doing, but would be immersed by one of the 120 followers of Jesus (1:15; 2:1), allowing them to confess their former rejection of Jesus and to express their new faith in Jesus as Messiah and exalted Lord. Peter expected of the Jews of Jerusalem and the ─────────────── 55 Cf. Eyal Regev, “The Ritual Baths Near the Temple Mount and Extra-Purification Before Entering the Temple Courts”, IEJ 55 (2005): 194–204; Yonatan Adler, “The Ritual Baths Near the Temple Mount and Extra-Purification Before Entering the Temple Courts: A Reply to Eyal Regev”, IEJ 56 (2006): 209–15. Shimon Gibson, “The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period”, Proche-Orient chrétien 55 (2005): 270–93, 280–83, who argues that the miqvaot proper on the Temple Mount which were relatively small must have been used “for the select immersion of Temple officials, dignitaries, or other people of special status” (ibid. 281). 56 An otzar, built adjacent to the miqveh, was a reserve pool which was filled with “living water” which could be transferred to the miqveh by opening a channel. For the archaeological evidence see Benjamin G. Wright, “Baths: Interpreting the Digs and the Texts. Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism”, in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, ed. N. A. Silberman and D. B. Small, JSOTSup 237 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 190–214; Jodi Magness, The Archaelogy of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 134–62; Gibson, “Pool of Bethesda”, 270–83; Jonathan D. Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, SBL Academia Biblica 23 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 155–83, 206–17. 57 Cf. Gibson, “Pool of Bethesda”, 283–88. Gibson argues that the Pool of Bethesda was a “well planned building initiative” which was probably built “before the construction of the new quarter on the Bezetha Hill and most likely at the time of Herod the Great, perhaps circa 25 BC, when the major building activities relating to the rebuilding of the Temple Mount were first initiated” (ibid. 286). 58 Cf. Urban C. von Wahlde, “Archaeology and John’s Gospel”, in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 523–86, 562–65.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

273

visitors from the Jewish diaspora communities – those who were prepared to repent and to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah and Savior – to be immersed in one of the immersion pools in Jerusalem: not for purification in preparation for participation in the Temple cult, but for purification “in the name of Jesus the Messiah” (ε’ πι` τω ñ, ο’ νο' ματι ’ Ιησουñ Χριστουñ ). This was a new, unprecedented feature of immersion for the purpose of purification. Jews who immersed themselves may invoke the name of Yahweh, but they did not invoke the name of Moses, or the name of John son of Zechariah (the “Baptist”). In Acts 2:38, the preposition ε’ πι' may refer to pronouncing the name of Jesus in acknowledgement of Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the exalted Lord and Israel’s promised Messiah (2:36).59 There is no reason why βαπτι' ζω in Acts 2:38, 41 should not be translated with the basic meaning of the verb (sense 1) “to immerse” (“Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit . . . So those who welcomed his message were immersed”), or with the extended meaning (sense 1b) “to cleanse, purify” (“Repent, and be cleansed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit … So those who welcomed his message were cleansed”). Acts 8:36–39: ω‘ ς δε` ε’ πορευ' οντο κατα` τη` ν ο‘ δο' ν, ηò λθον ε’ πι' τι υ« δωρ, και' φησιν ο‘ ευ’ νουñ χος· ι’ δου` υ« δωρ, τι' κωλυ' ει με βαπτισθηñναι; και` ε’ κε' λευσεν στηñ ναι το` α«ρμα και` κατε' βησαν α’ μφο' τεροι ει’ ς το` υ« δωρ, ο« τε Φι' λιππος και` ο‘ ευ’ νουñ χος, και` ε’βα' πτισεν αυ’ το' ν. ο« τε δε` α’ νε' βησαν ε’ κ τουñ υ« δατος, πνευñ μα κυρι' ου η« ρπασεν το` ν Φι' λιππον και` ου’ κ ειòδεν αυ’ το` ν ου’ κε' τι ο‘ ευ’ νουñ χος, ε’ πορευ' ετο γα` ρ τη` ν ο‘ δο` ν αυ’ τουñ χαι' ρων (“As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?’ He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing”).

The description of the Ethiopian’s baptism provides more details about the manner in which the ritual was practiced than any other passage in the New Testament. The medium in which the rite expressing conversion–initiation60 takes places is water (υ« δωρ, v.36). As the carriage of the official travels on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, the reference to “some water” (τι υ« δωρ) could refer to a stream61 or to a pool. Both the preacher who has proclaimed the good ─────────────── 59 Cf. Ferguson, Baptism, 168–69. 60 The term was coined by James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (London: SCM, 1970), 5–7. 61 There is sufficient precipitation on the coastal plain in winter and spring to produce intermittent streams of water; cf. Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, The Acts of the Apostles: English Translation and Commentary, ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity I/4 (London: Macmillan, 1933), 98. Cf. Fred L. Horton and Jeffrey A. Blakely, “‘Behold, Water!’ Tell el-Hesi and the Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26–40)”,

274

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

news of Jesus and the convert who has accepted the message go down into the water (κατε' βησαν α’ μφο' τεροι ει’ ς το` υ« δωρ, v.38). The preacher immerses the convert in the water (ε’ βα' πτισεν αυ’ το' ν, v.38).62 The preacher and the convert come up out of the water (α’ νε' βησαν ε’ κ τουñ υ« δατος, v.39). Luke’s description shows that βαπτι' ζω means “to immerse” (sense 1). In the context of the other references to βαπτι' ζω in Acts, the extended meaning (sense 1b) denoting “to cleanse, purify” may be present as well, although this is less clear here since βαπτι' ζω is not linked explicitly with the name of Jesus.63 Rom 6:3–5: η› α’ γνοειñτε ο« τι ο« σοι ε’βαπτι'σθημεν ει’ ς Χριστο` ν ’ Ιησουñ ν, ει’ ς το` ν θα' νατον αυ’ τουñ ε’βαπτι'σθημεν; συνετα' φημεν ουò ν αυ’ τω ñ, δια` τουñ βαπτι'σματος ει’ ς το` ν θα' νατον, «ινα ω « σπερ η’ γε' ρθη Χριστο` ς ε’ κ νεκρω ñ ν δια` τηñ ς δο' ξης τουñ πατρο' ς, ου« τως και` η‘ μειñς ε’ ν καινο' τητι ζωηñ ς περιπατη' σωμεν. ει’ γα` ρ συ' μφυτοι γεγο' ναμεν τω ñ, ο‘ μοιω' ματι τουñ θανα' του αυ’ τουñ , α’ λλα` και` τηñ ς α’ ναστα' σεως ε’ σο' μεθα (“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried 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 in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his”).

Most English translations render βαπτι' ζω in v.3 with the transliterated term “baptize”; an exception is NLT which translates “joined with”, Wuest has “placed in”. 64 Cranfield’s comment on the phrase ο« σοι ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν ει’ ς ─────────────── RB 107 (2000): 56–71, who suggest Wadi el-Hesi north of Gaza. Older tradition that localized a “well of Philip” in Beth Sur (En Dirweh) north of Hebron is geographically implausible. 62 It has been suggested that if the body of water was an intermittent stream resulting from recent rains, there may not have been sufficient water for immersion, and baptism may have been practiced by effusion (sprinkling), as allowed by the Didache in cases were running water was not available (Did. 7:1–3); cf. I. Howard Marshall, “The Meaning of the Verb ‘Baptize’”, in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross, JSNTSup 234 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 8–24, here 18–23. Luke’s vivid description indicates that “a dipping administered by Philip is the most natural explanation” (Ferguson, Baptism, 173). 63 This is “remedied” by readings which insert a v.37 into the text (“And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may’. And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’”; cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.12.8, and codices E 36. 323. 453. 945. 1739. 1891 pc). The verse is not likely to be original; cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 315–16; see the recent discussion of Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Apg 8,37, der Westliche Text und die frühchristliche Tauftheologie”, in The Book of Acts as Church History: Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations, ed. T. Nicklas and M. Tilly, BZNW 120 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), 225–39. 64 NLT: “Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death?” Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 [1956–59]): “Do you not know that all we who were placed in Christ Jesus, in His death were placed?” Peterson, Message, translates 6:3–5 as follows: “That’s what baptism into the life of Jesus means. When we are lowered into the water, it is like the burial of Jesus; when we are raised up out of the water, it is like the resurrection of Jesus. Each of us is raised into a light-filled world by our Father so that we can see where we’re going in our new grace-sovereign country”.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

275

Χριστο` ν ’ Ιησουñ ν is typical: “all that Paul wishes to convey in this clause is the simple fact that the persons concerned have received Christian baptism”.65 Similarly, D. J. Moo asserts that “by the date of Romans, ‘baptize’ had become almost a technical expression for the rite of Christian initiation by water, and this is surely the meaning the Roman Christians would have given the word”.66 He argues that since ten out eleven occurrences of βαπτι' ζω denote Christian water baptism (with the exception of 1 Cor 10:2), the same meaning should be assumed here. If βαπτι' ζω was “almost” a technical expression, it should probably not be treated as such. Even if it could be established that the term βαπτι' ζω had become a technical term denoting Christian water baptism, it does not follow that it had lost the basic meaning “to immerse” or the metaphorical meaning “to be overwhelmed” for Paul’s readers who would have regularly used the term in their everyday lives with the meaning “to immerse” and the various extended and metaphorical senses.. Many commentators explain Rom 6:3 without clarifying the meaning of the word βαπτι' ζω. 67 T. R. Schreiner does not specifically comment on the meaning of βαπτι' ζω, but speaks of “incorporation into Christ” and of being “plunged into his death, immersed together with him in it”. 68 K. Haacker asserts that Paul presents Jesus’ death “as a space into which we enter”.69 While a few commentators show interest in the meaning of βαπτι' ζω, they often do not relate it to Paul’s statement,70 or if they do, give explanations which are one-sided or too narrow.71 ─────────────── 65 C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79), I, 301. 66 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 359; for the following observation see 359 n. 38. 67 Recently Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 396–98. When he asserts that “their baptism was some form of incorporation into Christ” (ibid. 397), he could have pointed out that “incorporation” is an extension of the meaning “immersion” to a metaphorical sense of the Greek term. 68 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 307, 308. 69 Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, ThHKNT 6 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 128: “wie ein Raum, in den man hineinkommt”. 70 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 433, who defines βαπτι' ζω as “dip into, wash, plunge into” but relates this meaning only indirectly to Paul’s statement when he asserts that the preposition ει’ ς connotes “the initial movement of introduction or incorporation by which one is born to life ‘in Christ’” (emphasis Fitzmyer) – “introduction” and “incorporation” could be taken as metaphorical meanings of βαπτι'ζω. 71 Cf. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 246–47, who comments on the meaning of βαπτι' ζω, but wants to distinguish between the meanings “immerse” and “dip”; he asserts that the verb “evoked associations of violence” and infers that Paul uses the term to describe Christian initiation (baptism) as “death to a whole way of life”. Some of the extended senses of βαπτι' ζω connote violence (senses 1d “drown, sink” and 1g “slaugher, kill”), but “violence” is not a general connotation of the Greek term. Joseph Shulam and Hilary Le Cornu, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans (Baltimore: Lederer/

276

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

In comments that seek to interpret Rom 6:3 in terms of the basic meaning of βαπτι' ζω, H. Lietzmann, O. Kuss, and U. Wilckens insist that ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν connotes, apart from the reference to the tradition of Christian water baptism, the concrete meaning “to immerse”72 – the convert who is immersed in water is placed into the event of Jesus’ death.73 After asserting that “baptize” is not a translation but a transliteration of βαπτι' ζω, Wuest defines the term as used by Paul in Rom 6:3 as “the introduction or placing of a person or thing into a new environment or into union with something else so as to alter its condition or its relationship to its previous environment or condition”.74 Dunn has made the case for understanding βαπτι' ζω in Rom 6:3 in a metaphorical sense, which he defines as “movement into in order to become involved with or part of”.75 He suggests that in the phrase ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν ει’ ς Χριστο` ν ’ Ιησουñ ν in v.3, the verb βαπτι' ζω has a metaphorical meaning, stating that Paul “uses the imagery of immersion as a drowning to reinforce the point: their death by drowning was a sharing in Christ’s death – as Jesus himself had hinted”.76 He thinks ─────────────── Messianic Jewish Publishers, 1997), 213, think that “the primary meaning” of βαπτι' ζω is “to dye”, concluding for Rom 6:3 that as a cloth “takes on” the color of the dye, so “a person can be said to ‘put on’ Yeshua when they are ‘dyed.’” One should note, however, that the connotation “to dye” is merely one of several extended senses of βα' πτω (ant not of βαπτι'ζω). 72 Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer, HNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971 [1906]), 65; Otto Kuss, Der Römerbrief übersetzt und erklärt (Regensburg: Pustet, 1957–78), I, 298; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKK 6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82), II, 11; cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Der Brief an die Römer, NTD 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 85; Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus, Third Revised Edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 218–19. 73 Wilckens, Römer, II, 11–12: “Die Übereignung des Täuflings an Christus bedeutet, daß er im Akt des Untertauchens hineingegeben wird in das Geschehen des Todes Christi”. Cf. Ulrich Wilckens, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002–9), I.3, 197: baptism in the name of Jesus Messiah has resulted in the reality that “we have been immersed ‘into his death’” (noting in n. 76 the context of the immersion of the baptizand into water); see also II/2, 19, 23. 74 Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 96; he continues: “It refers to the act of God introducing a believing sinner into vital union with Jesus Christ, in order that the believer might have the power of his sinful nature broken and the divine nature implanted through his identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, thus altering the condition and relationship of that sinner with regard to his previous state and environment, bringing him into a new environment, the kingdom of God”. 75 James D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38 (Dallas: Word, 1988), I, 311; cf. Dunn, Baptism, 140–41; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 447–52. Cf. Sorin Sabou, Between Horror and Hope: Paul’s Metaphorical Language of Death in Romans 6:1–11 (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 95–109. 76 James D. G. Dunn, “‘Baptized’ as Metaphor”, in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White, ed. S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross, JSNTSup 171 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 294–310, 307, with reference to Mark 10:38. Dunn nevertheless “translates” ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν ει’ ς Χριστο' ν as

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

277

that it is the noun βα' πτισμα in v.4 that introduces the water-rite which expresses the relationship between the metaphors (immersion/drowning and burial) and the rite itself (immersion in water). For a proper understanding of Rom 6:1–11 it is important to recognize that Paul describes the spiritual reality of death to sin and life to God (v.2) with a series of metaphors in v.3–6:77 “immersion” (βαπτι' ζω) into the Messiah Jesus (v.3), signifying union with Jesus and with the reality of his death and resurrection; “fusion” (συ' μφυτος) with the reality of Christ’s death which is effective in the present (v.5), signifying union with the continuing growth and development that Jesus’ death has made possible; “crucifixion” (συσταυρουñ ν) together with Jesus’ death on the cross (v.6), signifying the break with the past of the old creation. The subject of 6:1–11 is not Christian water baptism but the reality and power of God’s grace granted through the death and resurrection of Jesus who justifies sinners and thus deals effectively with the reality and power of sin introduced by Adam into the human condition (3:21–5:21): the question of 6:1 is given a basic answer in 6:2 which is further elaborated in 6:3–11 (and further developed in 6:12–8:30). If indeed βαπτι' ζω in Rom 6:3 is not merely a technical term for Christian water baptism but has a metaphorical meaning – βαπτι' ζω sense 2: to be immersed into an intangible reality and consequently being overpowered by the force of this reality – there is no reason why the phrase ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν ει’ ς Χριστο` ν ’ Ιησουñ ν cannot be translated as “we have been immersed into Jesus the Messiah”,78 and the phrase ει’ ς το` ν θα' νατον αυ’ τουñ ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν as “we have been immersed into his death” (with a note explaining the meaning of the metaphor). If the metaphorical meaning is spelled out, one could translate “we have been incorporated into Jesus the Messiah” and “we have been united with his death”. Or, one could translate “we have been overwhelmed (by God) toward Christ Jesus” and “we have been overwhelmed (by God) toward Christ’s death”.79 As regards βα' πτισμα in v.4, since “baptism” is the established term for the water-rite expressing conversion–initiation, “we have been buried with him by baptism into death” is an acceptable translation (perhaps with a note explaining the English term “baptism” as denoting immer─────────────── “baptized into Christ”. As long as such translations are used, it will be difficult for interpreters to recognize the force of the metaphorical sense of βαπτι'ζω in this passage, since “immerse” is not the default connotation of the English term “baptize”. 77 Dunn, Baptism, 139–42. 78 Cf. Frédéric Godet, Commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains, Troisième édition (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1968 [1879]), II, 17: “être plongé en lui, en sa mort”; Alphonse Maillot, L’Épître aux Romains (Paris: Centurion/Labor et Fides, 1984), 155: “nous tous qui avons été immergés dans le Christ-Jésus, nous avons aussi été immergés dans sa mort”; see also Dunn, Romans, I, 311, who uses “baptize” in his translation, however (304). 79 Cf. Sabou, Death, 101–9.

278

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

sion in water); alternately, “we have been buried with him into death by (our) immersion” is a possible translation. 1 Cor 12:13: και` γα` ρ ε’ ν ε‘ νι` πνευ' ματι η‘ μειñς πα' ντες ει’ ς ε‹ ν σω ñ μα ε’βαπτι'σθημεν, ει»τε ’ Ιουδαιñοι ει»τε « Ελληνες ει»τε δουñ λοι ει»τε ε’ λευ' θεροι, και` πα' ντες ε‹ ν πνευñ μα ε’ ποτι' σθημεν (“For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and we were all made to drink of one Spirit”).

English translations nearly unanimously translate ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν as “we were baptized”. An exception is Wuest who translates with “by means of one Spirit we all were placed into one body”. BDAG suggests, apart from “baptize”, the translation “plunged into one body”.80 While some commentators claim that since Paul never uses βαπτι' ζω in a metaphorical sense, the term ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν is a reference to Christian water baptism pure and simple,81 many recognize that the verb has a metaphorical sense.82 Since βαπτι' ζω is not a technical term in Hellenistic Greek, it does not automatically denote Christian water baptism. It can thus be argued that “the imagery of ‘baptized in Spirit’ is both coined as a metaphor from the rite of baptism and set in some distinction from or even antithesis to the rite of baptism”.83 The term βαπτι' ζω can serve as a metaphor independently from the Christian rite of immersion in water: all believers in Jesus have been “immersed” in (ε’ ν) the Spirit of God and into (ει’ ς) the reality of the community of God’s people (described as “body”, also a metaphor). When people come to faith in Jesus, they are “immersed” or “plunged” into ─────────────── 80 BDAG s.v. βαπτι'ζω 2c. 81 Cf. Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK 7 (Zürich/NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001), III, 216 n. 607. Without stating such a postulate, Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 997–98, does not explain βαπτι' ζω, which he interprets as reference to water-and-Spirit baptism. See also George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Paternoster: Exeter, 1979 [1962]), 167–71. 82 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 603–6; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 591; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Historisch-Theologische Auslegung (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006), 728–29; Dunn, Baptism, 129–31; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 450–51; Thomas W. Gillespie, The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 120. Also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AYB 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 477: “all Christians have been plunged into or immersed in ‘one body’, i.e., into Christ”; however, Fitzmyer goes on to assert that “it is highly unlikely that Paul is referring to anything different from the well-known early Christian tradition about baptism by water and its effects”. Similarly Raymond R. Collins, First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 462–63: Paul refers to “Spirit-inspired ritual baptism as the act of incorporation into the one body”. 83 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 451. This is not to deny that Paul’s readers may have thought of their past experience of water baptism; the point is that while the English term “baptize” as “translation” of βαπτι' ζω automatically connotes Christian water baptism, the Greek term βαπτι' ζω, as used in everyday life by Paul’s readers, had a much larger pool of semantic options, both physical (literal) and metaphorical.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

279

the sphere of the Holy Spirit, with the goal or effect of being incorporated into the community of the followers of Jesus. The statement in v.13b that “we were all made to drink of one Spirit” is another metaphor (ποτι' ζω means “to give to drink” and “to water, irrigate”): as a field or a garden is watered, so the believers in Jesus have experienced the “outpouring” of the Spirit of God. There is thus no reason why the phrase ε’ ν ε‘ νι` πνευ' ματι η‘ μειñς πα' ντες ει’ ς ε‹ ν σω ñ μα ε’ βαπτι' σθημεν should not be translated as “we have all been immersed in the one Spirit into one body” (sense 2 of βαπτι' ζω); not impossible is the translation “we have all been overwhelmed by the Spirit with the goal of the body”. The following statement may serve as a paraphrase of the expression: “we have all been given the one Spirit, and we have all been incorporated into the body”.

6. The Use of βαπτι'ζω Designating Christian Experience The fifth and final group of passages listed in BDAG for βαπτι' ζω are texts which, thus the suggestion, describe “an extraordinary experience akin to an initiatory water-rite”.84 1 Cor 10:1–2: οι‘ πατε' ρες η‘ μω ñ ν πα' ντες υ‘ πο` τη` ν νεφε' λην ηò σαν και` πα' ντες δια` τηñ ς θαλα' σσης διηñ λθον και` πα' ντες ει’ ς το` ν Μωυ¨ σηñ ν ε’ βαπτι' σθησαν ε’ ν τηñ, νεφε' λη, και` ε’ ν τηñ, θαλα' σση, (“our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”).

When scholars interpret Paul’s statement as “the baptism of the Israelites in terms that recall Christian baptism”,85 we again see the default reflex of Christian scholars who think that βαπτι' ζω actually means “to baptize” and always (or nearly always) describes Christian water baptism. Most English translations use “were baptized” as “translation” of ε’ βαπτι' σθησαν. Most scholars agree that the unique formulation in v.2 was coined by Paul in the context of a comparison of Jesus Christ as Israel’s eschatological Savior with Moses as Israel’s first savior: Paul transferred the language of baptismal immersion from Jesus Christ to Moses.86 Since Paul presents a typological interpretation of Israel’s wilderness wanderings, a translation which preserves the clearly metaphorical meaning of βαπτι' ζω is “all were immersed into Moses” or “all were incorporated in Moses” (sense 2).87 ─────────────── 84 BDAG s.v. βαπτι'ζω 3. 85 Collins, First Corinthians, 368; similarly Schrage, Korinther, II, 389–92; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 724–25; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 381–82. 86 Cf. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 445; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 448; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 450. 87 Less likely, but not impossible, is the translation “all were overwhelmed in the cloud and in the sea toward Moses”, i.e., establishing Moses as their leader.

280

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Several passages link βαπτι' ζω with fire and/or with the Holy Spirit in a context that describes the experience of Jesus’ followers. Matt 3:11: ο‘ δε` ο’ πι' σω μου ε’ ρχο' μενος ι’ σχυρο' τερο' ς μου' ε’ στιν, ουð ου’ κ ει’ μι` ι‘ κανο` ς τα` υ‘ ποδη' ματα βαστα' σαι· αυ’ το` ς υ‘ μαñ ς βαπτι'σει ε’ ν πνευ' ματι α‘ γι'ω, και` πυρι' (“one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”). Cf. Luke 3:16. Mark 1:8: αυ’ το` ς δε` βαπτι'σει υ‘ μαñ ς ε’ ν πνευ' ματι α‘ γι' ω, (“he [i.e., the One coming after John] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”). John 1:33: ε’ φ’ ο‹ ν α›ν »ιδη, ς το` πνευñ μα καταβαιñνον και` με' νον ε’ π’ αυ’ το' ν, ουð το' ς ε’ στιν ο‘ βαπτι'ζων ε’ ν πνευ' ματι α‘ γι'ω, (“He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit”). Acts 1:5: υ‘ μειñς δε` ε’ ν πνευ' ματι βαπτισθη'σεσθε α‘ γι'ω, ου’ μετα` πολλα` ς ταυ' τας η‘ με' ρας (“you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now”). Cf. Acts 11:16; also 1 Cor 12:13 (see above).

The connection between βαπτι' ζω and fire is not an oxymoron88 since the Greek term in and of itself does not connote water. The link between βαπτι' ζω and God’s Spirit (and fire) is not an implied reference to Christian water baptism; it is a metaphorical reference to the fulfillment of the OT promises concerning the Spirit whom God will “pour out” (ε’ κχεω ñ ) on all people (Joel 2:28; LXX 3:1) who are thus immersed into the reality of God’s Spirit. The verb βαπτι' ζω, as related to the Spirit (and fire) and thus used in a nonphysical, metaphorical sense, can be translated as “immerse” (sense 2; “he will immerse you in the Holy Spirit” and “you will be immersed in the Holy Spirit”).89 Another possibility is the meaning “to overwhelm” or “to be overwhelmed with” (“he will overwhelm you with the Holy Spirit” and “you will be overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit”). 90 A third possibility is the extended

─────────────── 88 Thus BDAG s.v. βαπτι'ζω 3b. 89 The objection of Turner, Power, 181, who acknowledges the possibility of such an understanding, that this is “simply unparalleled, and so improbable”, is unconvincing: as the basic meaning of βαπτι' ζω is “to put into (a yielding substance)”, the range of possibilities for substances into which somebody or something can be put is not predetermined, but potentially endless. 90 I. Howard Marshall, “The Meaning of the Verb ‘to Baptize’”, EQ 45 (1973): 130–40; Max M. B. Turner, “Spirit Endowment in Luke-Acts: Some Linguistic Considerations”, VoxEv 12 (1981): 45–63, here 50–53; now rejected in Turner, Power, 181–82, with arguments that I do not find convincing; the best point is the objection that if Luke 3:16 (Matt 3:11) expressed a contrast between what John was doing (immersing people) and what the Messiah would do, and if the Aramaic term used in both statements was ‫טבל‬, the contrast does not work because ‫ טבל‬does not mean “overwhelm”. However, it is conceivable that John used two different Aramaic words – ‫“( טבל‬to dip, dive, plunge”) and ‫“( ׁשטף‬to flood over”, nifal “to be overwhelmed, flooded away”) – which were translated by the earliest Christians with a single Greek word.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

281

meaning “to purify, cleanse” (sense 1b; “he will cleanse you with the Holy Spirit” and “you will be cleansed by the Holy Spirit”).91 Mark 10:38: ου’ κ οι»δατε τι' αι’ τειñσθε. δυ' νασθε πιειñν το` ποτη' ριον ο‹ ε’ γω` πι'νω η› το` βα' πτισμα ο‹ ε’ γω` βαπτι'ζομαι βαπτισθηñ ναι; (“You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”). Cf. also Jesus’ response to the disciple’s answer in 10:39. Luke 12:50: βα' πτισμα δε` ε» χω βαπτισθηñναι, και` πω ñ ς συνε' χομαι ε«ως ο« του τελεσθηñ, (“I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed!”).

While most English translations use “baptize” and “baptism” for Jesus’ statement concerning his imminent death,92 some translators recognize that here βαπτι' ζω has a metaphorical meaning. The New International Reader’s Version (NIRV) translates “can you go through the baptism of suffering I must go through?”, rendering βαπτι' ζω with “go through” and βα' πτισμα with “baptism of suffering” (thus indicating that the Greek noun has a metaphorical meaning). 93 Wuest translates, “Are you able to be drinking the cup which I am drinking, or with the immersion with which I am to be overwhelmed, are you able to be immersed?” Commentators who use “baptize” and “baptism” recognize the metaphorical sense of the Greek terms, usually without considering exchanging the baptismal language for terms such as “immerse” or “overwhelm”.94 The editors of BDAG suggest that “perhaps the stark metaphor of ─────────────── 91 Turner, Power, 183–84; on Acts 1:5; 11:16 see pp. 301, 387: the Spirit is explained as “the power of Israel’s cleansing and restoration” as Jesus the Messiah “cleanses and restores his Israel through the executive power of the Holy Spirit which he pours out”. As regards the suggestion of Marshall, “Meaning of the Verb ‘Baptize’”, 8–24, who argues on the basis of Jesus’ promise that he would “baptize with the Holy Spirit”, that the word “baptize” focuses not primarily on “the mode of drenching” (by an act of immersion), but on “the fact of the drenching and the cleansing which is conveys”, note Ferguson, Baptism, 59 n. 56: “this conclusion emphasizing the result rather than the mode of the action neglects the basic resultant characteristic that the person (or object) was covered, submerged, or overwhelmed”. Also, the basic meaning and the range of (extended and metaphorical) meanings of a Greek term should not be determined on the basis of NT usage alone, since the readers of the New Testament texts encountered Greek not only in the writings of the apostles but in everyday life. 92 ESV, GNB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV, TNIV. 93 Similarly Peterson, Message: “Are you capable of drinking the cup I drink, of being baptized in the baptism I’m about to be plunged into?” Here the second occurrence of βαπτι'ζω is translated with “plunged into”. 94 Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, HThK 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1980 [1976– 77]), II, 156–57; Gundry, Mark, 577, 584; also Marcus, Mark, 2:747–48, who asserts that “Jesus now speaks of being overwhelmed by the flood of death and of his disciples going down with him” (ibid. 752, 754). France, Mark, 416–47, suggests that “Jesus has coined a remarkable new metaphor, drawing on his disciples’ familiarity with the dramatical physical act of John’s baptism, but using it (somewhere along the lines of the secular usage mentioned above [i.e., βαπτι' ζω used as a metaphor for being “overwhelmed” or “swamped” by misfortune, sorrow, etc.] to depict the suffering and death into which he was soon to be ‘plunged’” (417). Such explanations fail to acknowledge that βαπτι' ζω in and of itself does not refer to

282

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

impending personal disaster is to be rendered, ‘are you prepared to be drowned the way I’m going to be drowned?’”95 This translation represents extended sense 1d, understood metaphorically. Since Jesus uses a metaphor in Mark 10:38a, the metaphorical sense “to overwhelm” for βαπτι' ζω (sense 2) is also possible (“are you able … to be overwhelmed by the submersion (or: flood) by which I am overwhelmed?”).96

7. Conclusions The evidence for the use of βαπτι' ζω in the New Testament can be summarized as follows: (1) The range of senses of βαπτι' ζω in the New Testament is much smaller than in Greek and Jewish texts. The senses “to wash”, “to drown”, “to dye”, “to slaughter”, “to be drunk” do not occur. Three senses of βαπτι' ζω are present in the New Testament: “to immerse” (basic meaning, sense 1), “to cleanse (from moral and spiritual defilement)” (extended sense 1b), “to be overwhelmed” (metaphorical meaning, sense 2). This means that there is not sufficient evidence to establish whether the early Christian use of βαπτι' ζω can be compared with the use of the verb in earlier and contemporary Greek and Jewish-Greek sources for the full scope of meanings. However, since the Greek church fathers use βαπτι' ζω with the same range of meanings as the non-Christian Greek texts, and since it is implausible to assume that the Christians of the first century used βαπτι' ζω in a completely unique sense, the available evidence warrants the conclusion that the use of βαπτι' ζω in the New Testament falls within the parameters of general Greek usage. (2) Since the verb βαπτι' ζω in and of itself does not refer to water, nor to a particular rite or ceremony, the view that essentially all occurrences of βαπτι' ζω in the New Testament have a “ritual” meaning and should be “translated” as “to baptize” should be abandoned. Translators and commentators need to ─────────────── water, nor to John’s water baptism, nor to Christian water baptism. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34B (Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 117, does not comment on the meaning of βαπτι'ζω, which he translates as “baptize”. 95 BDAG s.v. βαπτι' ζω 3c. Cf. Ferguson, Baptism, 140, who writes that “‘baptize’ here draws on its usage for being drowned or overwhelmed … (Jesus) was submerged; he was completely overwhelmed in suffering and death”. 96 Cf. Marshall, Luke, 547: βαπτι' ζω is used “in the metaphorical sense of being overwhelmed by catastrophe”; similarly Darrell L. Bock, Luke, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995–96), II, 1193–94; Turner, Power, 182; M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary, The New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 301; he translates with “baptize” and “baptism” (298); Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 73.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

283

evaluate each occurrence of the verb in the context of the full range of meanings that βαπτι' ζω has in Greek. (3) It is indeed correct, as often stated, that the majority of occurrences of βαπτι' ζω in the New Testament have a “ritual” sense, describing an immersion in water which symbolizes the removal of moral and spiritual defilement (extended sense 1b), that is, a rite of cleansing and purification – whether the referent is the ritual immersions of Jews, or the activity of John and of Jesus and his disciples, or the activity of the early Christians. However, there is no reason to treat the rites of purification by immersion practiced by Jews, by John, and by Jesus’ disciples as separate “meanings” in the lexical entry for βαπτι' ζω. (4) The editors of BDAG are certainly correct when they assert that “the transliteration ‘baptize’ signifies the ceremonial character that NT narratives accord such cleansing”.97 However, the fact that βαπτι' ζω is consistently used for what we call Christian water baptism does not mean that βαπτι' ζω has become a technical term.98 The fact that the full range of physical (literal) and metaphorical senses of βαπτι' ζω continues to be present in all sources of the first century AD , including the Greek church fathers, proves that βαπτι' ζω retained the extended and metaphorical senses it had since centuries – meanings which would have been familiar to the readers of the New Testament. (5) There is no linguistic necessity to translate, or rather transliterate, βαπτι' ζω with “baptize”. The full and varied meaning of Christian baptism is not tied up with the English term “baptize” or “baptism”, nor is the significance of Christian baptism implicit in the Greek terms βαπτι' ζω or βα' πτισμα. Rather, the “theology” of baptism is expressed in statements about what happens when people come to faith in Jesus as Israel’s crucified and risen Messiah, when they are immersed in water in the name of Jesus expressing commitment to Jesus who forgives sins, and when they receive the promise of God’s Spirit. The term “immerse” preserves the meaning of βαπτι' ζω quite satisfactorily, and the term “cleanse” adequately expresses the extended meaning “removal of moral and spiritual defilement” which God grants to those who believe in Jesus.

─────────────── 97 BDAG s.v. βαπτι' ζω 2, as comment on sense 2, “to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize”. 98 Cf. Joseph Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development, Graecitas Christianorum Primaeva (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1962), 44: when the meaning of βαπτι' ζω became more technical (as a reference to Christian water baptism), the meaning “to immerse” may have receded into the background; he asserts at the same time that the New Testament authors and readers were still aware of the meaning “to immerse” since “it is possible to play on it when using the verb in a metaphorical sense”.

284

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Bibliography Adler, Yonatan. “The Ritual Baths Near the Temple Mount and Extra-Purification Before Entering the Temple Courts: A Reply to Eyal Regev”. IEJ 56 (2006): 209–15. Avemarie, Friedrich. Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte. Theologie und Geschichte. WUNT 139. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Barrett, C. K. The Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98. —. The Gospel According to St. John. Second Edition. London/Philadelphia: SPCK/ Westminster, 1978. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition Revised and Edited by F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beasley-Murray, George R. Baptism in the New Testament. Paternoster: Exeter, 1979 [1962]. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995–96. Booth, Roger P. Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7. JSNTSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Burrows, Edward W. “Baptism in Mark and Luke”. Pages 99–115 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross. JSNTSup 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. —. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Rabbinic Conversion Ceremony [1990]”. Pages 198–238 in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society 31. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Collins, Raymond R. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. London: SCM, 1970. —. “‘Baptized’ as Metaphor”. Pages 294–310 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross. JSNTSup 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. —. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making I. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. —. Romans. 2 vols. WBC 38. Dallas: Word, 1988. —. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Nelson, 2001. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus: Judean Antiquities, Books XVIII–XIX. Josephus IX. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981 [1965]. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians. AYB 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. —. The Gospel According to Luke. AB 28. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981–85. —. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. NIGTC. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2002. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

285

Gibson, Shimon. “The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem and Jewish Purification Practices of the Second Temple Period”. Proche-Orient chrétien 55 (2005): 270–93. Gillespie, Thomas W. The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Godet, Frédéric. Commentaire sur l’Épître aux Romains. Troisième édition. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1968 [1879]. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. ThHKNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999. Hartman, Lars. Into the Name of the Lord Jesus: Baptism in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Apg 8,37, der Westliche Text und die frühchristliche Tauftheologie”. Pages 225–39 in The Book of Acts as Church History: Text, Textual Traditions and Ancient Interpretations. Edited by T. Nicklas and M. Tilly. BZNW 120. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. Horton, Fred L., and Jeffrey A. Blakely. “‘Behold, Water!’ Tell el-Hesi and the Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8,26–40)”. RB 107 (2000): 56–71. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Kuss, Otto. Der Römerbrief übersetzt und erklärt. Regensburg: Pustet, 1957–1978 Lake, Kirsopp, and Henry J. Cadbury. The Acts of the Apostles: English Translation and Commentary. Edited by F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake. The Beginnings of Christianity I/4. London: Macmillan, 1933. Lawrence, Jonathan D. Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. SBL Academia Biblica 23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer. 5th Edition. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971 [1906]. Magness, Jodi. The Archaelogy of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Maillot, Alphonse. L’Épître aux Romains. Paris: Centurion/Labor et Fides, 1984. Marcus, Joel. Mark. 2 vols. AYB 27. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000–2009. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. —. “The Meaning of the Verb ‘Baptize’”. Pages 8–24 in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross. JSNTSup 234. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. —. “The Meaning of the Verb ‘to Baptize’”. EQ 45 (1973): 130–40. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/InterVarsity Press, 1988. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Nolland, John. Luke. WBC 35. Dallas: Word, 1989–93. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. HThK 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1980 [1976–77]. Peterson, Eugene H. The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002.

286

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Porter, Stanley E. “Mark 1.4, Baptism and Translation”. Pages 81–98 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross. JSNTSup 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Regev, Eyal. “The Ritual Baths Near the Temple Mount and Extra-Purification Before Entering the Temple Courts”. IEJ 55 (2005): 194–204. Ruck-Schröder, Adelheid. Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu. Eine neutestamentliche Studie. WMANT 80. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998. Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Sabou, Sorin. Between Horror and Hope: Paul’s Metaphorical Language of Death in Romans 6:1–11. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. —. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006. —. “The Meaning of βαπτι' ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristric Literature”. Filologia Neotestamentaria 24 (2011): 3–40. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKK 7. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT 6. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Shulam, Joseph, and Hilary Le Cornu. A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans. Baltimore: Lederer/Messianic Jewish Publishers, 1997. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus. Third Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. —. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Taylor, Joan E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Turner, Max M. B. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. JPTSup 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. —. “Spirit Endowment in Luke-Acts: Some Linguistic Considerations”. VoxEv 12 (1981): 45– 63. Vielhauer, Philipp. “Johannes, der Täufer”. Pages 3:804–8 in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957–62. Wahlde, Urban C. von. “Archaeology and John’s Gospel”. Pages 523–86 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Webb, Robert L. “Jesus’ Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications”. BBR 10 (2000): 261–309. —. “John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus”. Pages 179–230 in Studying the Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994. —. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study. JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. EKK 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn/Einsiedeln: Neukirchener Verlag/Benzinger, 1978–82. —. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002–9. Wright, Benjamin G. “Baths: Interpreting the Digs and the Texts. Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism”. Pages 190–214 in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Edited by N. A. Silberman and D. B. Small. JSOTSup 237. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

9. The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament

287

Wuest, Kenneth S. The New Testament: An Expanded Translation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 [1956–1959]. —. Romans in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader. Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955. Ysebaert, Joseph. Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development. Graecitas Christianorum Primaeva. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1962. 56th Congress. Hazing at the Military Academy: Testimony Taken by the Select Committee of the House of Representatives. Report 2768 Part 3. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1901.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century Luke reports in the Book of Acts that while Paul and his missionary team were initially received cordially in the synagogues of the cities which they visited, opposition by members of the local Jewish community was a regular occurrence, an opposition which on some occasions culminated in outright persecution. This opposition is usually explained with reference to Paul’s message that salvation comes not through obedience to Torah, including the practice of circumcision and the food laws, but through Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah.1 Some scholars have suggested that political considerations need to be taken into account as well when we seek to understand the opposition of Jewish diaspora communities against Paul.2 The following observations will explore the validity of this suggestion. Since there are few sustained discussions of these issues in the scholarly literature, the focus will be ─────────────── 1 Cf. Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 257: “preaching anti-nomianism as virtue for Jew and God-fearer alike … when one tried to defend Paul’s position, potential transgression could be seen as apostasy and, what is worse, as inciting others to abandon Judaism”. Similarly Colin G. Kruse, “Afflictions, Trials, Hardships”, in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 18–20, here 19–20; Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 164; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2 vols. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), II, 1348–51; Steven T. Katz, “The Rabbinic Responses to Christianity”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. S. T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 259– 98, here 262–66. For a thorough discussion of the evidence in Paul’s letters see Dieter Sänger, Die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel. Studien zum Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel bei Paulus und im frühen Christentum, WUNT 75 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). 2 Schnelle, Paul, 163 refers to “the explosiveness of Paul’s missionary success for the political stability of Judaism”; similarly Claudia J. Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians. History and Polemics, 30–150 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 82. See Robert F. Stoops, “Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23–41”, JBL 108 (1989): 73–91, for the anti-Jewish riot of the citizens of Ephesus in Acts 19. Stoops argues that as Luke distinguishes Jews and Christians, “it was therefore natural that Luke should interpret opposition to Christian assemblies in the cities of the eastern Mediterranean according to an established argument within Jewish apologetic” (81). It is doubtful, however, whether the tradition of the Roman confirmation of Jewish rights as a reaction to anti-Jewish riots by Gentiles could be easily transferred to Gentile (and Jewish) opposition to Christian assemblies: Luke never reports that Roman officials confirmed the right of Christians to meet in regular assemblies.

290

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

on the primary source material, notably Luke’s Book of Acts and Josephus’ historical works. Questions regarding the historical reliability of Luke’s account and of Josephus’ reporting will not be discussed. Despite the obvious significance of the editorial decisions of both Luke and Josephus, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that their narratives can be compared to the historiographical standards of the Hellenistic-Roman period.3

1. Opposition of Jews to Christians in Asia Minor Luke relates that Jewish residents of the cities in Asia Minor opposed both the Jewish Christian missionaries as well as the new Christian communities.

1.1 The Evidence in the New Testament 1. Pisidian Antioch (Colonia Caesarea Antiocheia) is the first city in Asia Minor for which Christian missionary work and Jewish opposition is reported. When Paul and Barnabas arrived in the city in the summer of AD 46,4 their encounter with the Jewish community is initially positive (Acts 13:14–16, 42– 43). Luke asserts in his account of the events on the second sabbath that “the Jews” (οι‘ ’ Ιουδαιñοι) were “filled with jealousy” (NRSV; ε’ πλη' σθησαν ζη' λου) when they saw the crowds (οι‘ ο» χλοι) who turned out to hear Paul and Barnabas speak (Acts 13:45). Luke adds that “blaspheming, they contradicted what was spoken by Paul” (13:45). After he notes the conversion of Gentiles in the city and in the towns and villages controlled by Antioch (13:48–49),5 he points out that “the Jews” (οι‘ ’ Ιουδαιñοι)6 “incited the devout women of high ─────────────── 3 For Luke see Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. C. H. Gempf, WUNT 49 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001 [1989]); Rainer Riesner, “Lukas (1. Jh. n.Chr.)”, in Hauptwerke der Geschichtsschreibung, ed. Volker Reinhardt (Stuttgart: Kröner, 1997), 391–94; Ben Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 174–78. For Josephus see Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance, JSPSup 2 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 196–97; Per Bilde, “The Geographical Excursuses in Josephus”, in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, FS Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers, SPB 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 247–62; Klaus-Stefan Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus, TANZ 9 (Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1994); Steve Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method”, RRJ 6 (2003): 145–88; concerning the relevant Greek and Roman documents quoted in Josephus’ works see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius, TSAJ 74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). 4 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 1098–10. 5 Cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 1107. Antioch controlled over fifty villages, cf. Cilliers Breytenbach, Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien. Studien zu Apostel-

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

291

standing and the leading men of the city (τα` ς σεβομε' νας γυναιñκας τα` ς ευ’ σχη' μονας και` του` ς πρω' τους τηñ ς πο' λεως), and stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their region” (13:50). The verb παροτρυ' νειν, which is generally translated as “to incite”, means “to stir up strong emotion against somebody” or “to stir up hostility against somebody”.7 The phrase “leading men of the city” (οι‘ πρω' τοι τηñ ς πο' λεως), while not a technical term for the duoviri, the highest municipal magistrates, certainly refers to influential members of the local aristocracy. The subject of ε’ πη' γειραν διωγμο' ς (“they stirred up persecution”, i.e., caused persecution to happen”) may be either the Jews, or the aristocratic women and their husbands, or both.8 The result of the “persecution” was the expulsion of the Christian preachers from the city (ε’ ξε' βαλον αυ’ του` ς α’ πο` τω ñ ν ο‘ ρι' ων αυ’ τω ñ ν). 2. This pattern is repeated in Iconium (Colonia Iulia Augusta Iconium).9 After preaching in the synagogue and after “a great number (πολυ` πληñ θος) of both Jews and Greeks became believers” (Acts 14:1), members of the Jewish community “stirred up (ε’ πη' γειραν) the Gentiles and poisoned their minds (ε’ κα' κωσαν τα` ς ψυχα' ς) against the brothers” (Acts 14:2). The verb κακο' υν means here not “to cause harm, mistreat”, but “to cause someone to think badly about someone, to make angry, to embitter”.10 The Jews who rejected Paul’s preaching incited the Gentiles to oppose both the new converts. It was possible, however, for Paul and Barnabas to stay in Iconium “for a long time” (ι‘ κανο` ν χρο' νον) and preach the gospel (Acts 14:3). Luke relates that at some point an “attempt” (ο‘ ρμη' ) was made by pagans and by Jews, “together with their leaders” (συ` ν τοιñς α» ρχουσιν αυ’ τω ñ ν) to mistreat and to kill the apostles (Acts 14:5). The term α» ρχοντες presumably refers to the Gentile magistrates,11 possibly to both the synagogue rulers and the leading magistrates of the city.12 ─────────────── geschichte 13f.; 16,6; 18,23 und den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes, AGAJU 38 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 50. 6 TNIV translates with “the Jewish leaders”. 7 BDAG 780 s.v. παροτρυ' νω, and LN 492 s.v. 39.8. 8 Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98), I, 660; Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 365. 9 For Iconium and Paul’s mission cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 1110–12. 10 BDAG 502 s.v. κακο' ω 2. Barrett, Acts, I, 668 interprets the term to mean that the Jews caused the Gentiles “to be disaffected towards the brothers”. 11 Barrett, Acts, I, 672 who argues that αυ’ τω ñ ν refers to both ε» θνη and ’ Ιουδαιñοι “so that these will not be rulers of the synagogue”; cf. also Josef Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1994), 526. CIG 4001 attests for Iconium the existence of a πρω ñ τος α»ρχων; cf. Stephen Mitchell, “Iconium and Ninica: Two Double Communities in Roman Asia Minor”, Historia 28 (1979): 409–38, here 413, 415. 12 Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 420 n. 265. Frederik J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity, Part. I: The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. IV: English Translation and Commentary (London: Macmillan, 1933), 162 and Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostel-

292

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

The aim of their “attempt” against the missionaries is formulated with two infinitives: υ‘ βρι' σαι και` λιθοβοληñ σαι αυ’ του' ς (“to mistreat them and to stone them”, Acts 14:5). It is unclear how Luke wants his readers to understand the attempt to stone the missionaries. On the one hand he seems to report a concerted attack organized not only by opposing Jews and Gentiles but also by leading magistrates, which seems to suggest official action. However, while stoning was known as a legal form of punishment among both Jews and Greeks, it had no place in the Roman legal system13 which we should assume for Iconium.14 On the other hand, Luke does not report a spontaneous outburst of violence, as the missionaries manage to slip away to cities in Lycaonia (Acts 14:6). The “plot” (TNIV) of the opposing Jews and Gentiles, which included members of the local elites, is most plausibly understood as a deliberate attempt to provoke lynch justice.15 3. The third city for which we have evidence of Jewish opposition against Christian missionary work is Lystra (Colonia Iulia Felix Gemina Lystra; Acts 14:8–20).16 Luke focuses on the encounter with the Gentile citizens who link Barnabas with Zeus and Paul with Hermes and who want to offer sacrifices to honor the missionaries. The presence of a Jewish community is attested by the reference in Acts 16:1–2 to the Jewish mother of Timothy who came from Lystra,17 and it is suggested by the successful attempt of Jews from Antioch and Iconium to stir up the crowd in the city (Acts 14:19).18 The lame man who heard Paul preach and who was healed (Acts 14:8–9) may have been a Jewish man who listened to Paul in the local synagogue, but Luke’s report does not ─────────────── geschichte, HThK 5 (Freiburg: Herder, 1980–82), II, 152 n. 32 think that the term may refer to either Jewish leaders or to the leaders of both the Jews and Gentiles. As Iconium was a double community, i.e. both a Roman colony and a Greek polis (Mitchell, “Iconium and Ninica”, 414–16), the term α»ρχοντες might possibly refer to the leaders of the Greek city rather than to the Roman magistrates of the colony. 13 A. Völkl, Art. “Steinigung”, KP V, 353–54. 14 Augustus founded the Roman colony of Iulia Augusta Iconium, which continued to exist beside the old Greek polis; cf. Mitchell, “Iconium and Ninica”, 411–25. 15 G. Bertram, ο‘ ρμη' κτλ., TDNT V, 470; Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 526 (“Mordkomplott”). Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, KEK 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 404 interprets in terms of the mental state that precedes the onrush of a lynch mob; cf. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, II, 152 n. 31. 16 Cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 1112–21. 17 If Timothy came from Derbe (Barrett, Acts, II, 759 on Acts 16:1; thus already the Latin translation of Origen’s commentary on Rom 16:21), this argument becomes void. Most regard Timothy as hailing from Lystra; cf. Haenchen, Apostelgeschichte, 461; Alfons Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte, ÖTK 5 (Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/Echter, 1981–85), II, 400–1; F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 303; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 574. 18 Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, II, 157 n. 12, 162 interprets Acts 14:8–9, 19 as indication that there was no Jewish community in Lystra. He fails to link Acts 14:8–9, 19 with Acts 16:1–2; similarly Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 533.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

293

specify the location of Paul’s missionary preaching on this occasion. The arrival of Jews from Antioch and Iconium (α’ πο` ’Αντιοχει' ας και` ’ Ικονι' ου ’ Ιουδαιñοι) suggests, in the context of their “persuasion activity” (Acts 14:19), that they pursued the missionaries from a distance of several days travel – Lystra is c. 35 km south of Iconium, which is c. 160 km east southeast of Antioch.19 This level of animosity is less surprising when we take into account the fact that Lystra was called the “sister city” (’αδελφη' ) of Pisidian Antioch, indicating or claiming mutual relationships.20 The “persuasion” (πει' θειν) of the people of Lystra by the Jews from Antioch and Iconium resulted in the stoning of Paul, who is left for dead outside the city walls (Acts 14:19).21 4. The fourth city for which we have evidence of missionary work and of Jewish opposition to the Christian missionaries and the new converts is Ephesus (Acts 19:1–20:1).22 The fact that Paul is able to teach in the local synagogue for three months (Acts 19:8) suggests a tolerant attitude of the Ephesian Jews concerning Paul’s preaching of the gospel and concerning listeners being persuaded by his arguments. The only negative reaction by Jews in Ephesus is formulated with three verbs: “some stubbornly refused to believe and spoke evil of the Way” (τινες ε’ σκληρυ' νοντο και` η’ πει' θουν κακολογουñ ντες τη` ν ο‘ δο' ν) – σκληρυ' νειν means “to cause to be unyielding in resisting information, harden” (pass. “to be hardened, to become hardened”); α’ πειθειñν means “to disobey, to be disobedient”; κακολογειñν means “to speak evil of, to revile, to insult, to slander”. The evidence of the papyri does not suggest, as Moulton and Milligan have maintained, that the New Testament uses the verb in the weaker sense of “to speak evil of”.23 The papyrus evidence indicates that the verb often describes verbal abuse, suggesting that the meaning “to abuse, revile, slander” is appropriate, particularly in Acts 19:9.24 Verbal slan─────────────── 19 Richard J. A. Talbert, ed., Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 62, 65, 66; cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 1074. 20 J. R. Sitlington Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor, Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens III (Boston: Damrell & Upham, 1888), 218 No. 352; W. M. Calder, “Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia”, JRS 2 (1912): 78–109, 84 No. 3 (= IGR 3.302; OGIS II 536; available at ). Text of the inscription: τη` ν λαμπροτα' την / ’Αντιοχε' ων κολω / νι' αν η‘ λαμπροτα' / τη Λυστρε' ων κολω / νι' α τη` ν α’ δελφη` ν / τω ñ, τηñ ς ‘Ομονοι' ας / α’ γα' λματι ε’ τει' μη / σεν. Cf. Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), I, 76. See Foakes-Jackson and Lake, Beginnings IV, 162; Barrett, Acts, I, 683. 21 Paul’s reference to the fact that he had been stoned in 2 Cor 11:25 may refer to the same incident. 22 Cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, II, 1206–31. 23 MM 316 s.v. κακολογε' ω. 24 Greg H. R. Horsley and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012), II, 88 No. 54, with reference to SB XII 11018; P. Ryl II 150; BGU VI 1247; see also P. Lond VII 2193; P. Fay I 12.

294

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

der involves the spreading of false rumors about Christians. 25 While the Ephesian Jews contradicted Paul teaching and initiated a controversy, the context in Acts 19:9 does not indicate how “evil” the words with which they spoke about Paul in the course of this controversy. It is unclear whether the phrase ε’ νω' πιον τουñ πλη' θους refers to the new Christian converts in the synagogue, to the synagogue community as a whole, or to the general public of the city.26 The riot in the city is traced back not to the Jews of Ephesus, who come under attack themselves (Acts 19:33–34),27 but to local silversmiths (Acts 19:24–27, 38). 5. John states in his message to the church in Smyrna (Rev 2:8–11) that he knows about the “slander” (βλασφημι' α) that the Christians have to endure from the local Jews (ε’ κ τω ñ ν λεγο' ντων ’ Ιουδαι' ους ειòναι ε‘ αυτου' ς) whom he calls “synagogue of Satan” (συναγωγη` τουñ σαταναñ , Rev 2:9). The name “Satan” means literally “adversary” or “opponent”. The term βλασφημι' α refers here either to verbal slander or to the “denunciation of Christians before Roman or civic authorities”.28 John reminds the Christians in Asia Minor of the fact that Antipas, a Christian in Pergamum (Rev 2:13), has been killed, and he expects Christians to be imprisoned and executed in Smyrna as well (Rev 2:10). David Aune comments that “if Christians had suffered legal penalties at the hands of Roman authorities in Smyrna, such actions were probably initiated by local citizens, and this passage strongly suggests that the Jews actively participated in the process”.29 6. The Christians in Philadelphia (Rev 3:7–13) evidently also experienced opposition from local Jews; this is suggested by the fact that John refers to the Jews of Philadelphia as belonging to “the synagogue of Satan” (ε’ κ τηñ ς συναγωγηñ ς τουñ σαταναñ , Rev 3:9), just as the Jews of Smyrna. 7. For several cities in which missionaries were active and established Christian communities in the first century, there is no evidence of Jewish opposition (which does not mean that there was none): Derbe (Acts 14:20– 21), Perge (Acts 14:25), Alexandria Troas (2Cor 2:12; Acts 20:6–12), ─────────────── 25 Cf. David E. Aune, Revelation, WBC 52 (Dallas: Word, 1997–98), I, 162, who refers to Justin, Dial. 17:1; 108:2; 117:3; Tertullian, Ad Nat. 1.14; Origen, Contra Celsum 6.27. 26 Converts: see Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, EKK 5 (Zürich/NeukirchenVluyn: Benziger/ Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), II, 168. Synagogue community: Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, II, 268; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina 5 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 339; Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 688; Fitzmyer, Acts, 648. General public: Barrett, Acts, II, 904. 27 It remains unclear who Alexander was, why the Jews of Ephesus put him forward in the theater, and what he sought to achieve by his “defense”; Barrett, Acts, II, 932–33. 28 Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, JSNTSup 11 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 7–9; Aune, Revelation, I, 162. 29 Aune, Revelation, I, 163. Aune notes that “the author is not condemning Jews generally but only those associated with synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia” (162).

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

295

Laodicea (Col 2:1; 4:13, 15; Rev 1:11; 3:14), Hierapolis (Col 4:12–13), Colossae (Col 1:1, 7; 4:12–13), Sardes (Rev 3:1–6), Pergamon (Rev 2:12–17), Thyatira (Rev 2:18–29), Magnesia (Ignatius, Magn., prol.), Tralles (Ignatius, Trall., prol.), and possibly in Attalia (Acts 14:25) and Miletus (Acts 20:15, 17–38). 8. A final passage that needs to be mentioned is Acts 21:27–28 (cf. 24:19). Luke reports that Paul’s arrest in the Jerusalem Temple in AD 57 was caused by “Jews from Asia” (οι‘ α’ πο` τηñ ς ’Ασι' ας ’ Ιουδαιñοι) who had seen Paul in the city in the company of Trophimus from Ephesus, and, when they saw Paul in the Temple, assumed that he had brought a Gentile into the Temple and thus violated the prohibition for non-Jews to enter the Temple beyond the Court of the Gentiles.30 They seize Paul and vociferously inform the crowds in the Temple court that “this is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place (ουð το' ς ε’ στιν ο‘ α» νθρωπος ο‘ κατα` τουñ λαουñ και` τουñ νο' μου και` τουñ το' που του' του πα' ντας πανταχηñ, διδα' σκων); more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place” (Acts 21:28). The attempt to kill Paul (21:31) for profaning the Temple was thwarted by the Roman commander (tribunus) of the cohort (21:32–33) which was stationed in the Antonia fortress (Josephus, B.J. 5.242).

1.2 Explanations Luke’s account of the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:13–52 is the longest report of Paul’s missionary work in Asia Minor.31 The observations on the Jewish opposition in 13:45, 46–47, 50 (14:19) explain why many commentators concentrate their comments on the Jewish opposition to the Christian missionaries on this passage. The ζηñ λος of the Jews in Acts 13:45 is a key term. It has been interpreted in terms of the ─────────────── 30 It is a well know fact that inscriptions warning Gentiles not to proceed beyond the Court of the Gentiles was placed on the wall surrounding the inner precincts. See OGIS II 598 [now CIIP 1.1 No. 2]. On the significance of the Temple in the first century see Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: The History of Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Palestine Within the Greco-Roman Period (200 B.C.E. – 135 C.E.), Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 277–331; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 45–189; Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002); Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 87–102. 31 Compared with 94 lines of text in NA27, Luke’s account of Paul’s missionary work in Iconium (14 lines), Lystra (33 lines), Derbe (3 lines), and Perge (2 lines) is much shorter, as are the accounts concerning Philippi (72 lines), Thessalonica (24 lines), Beroea (13 lines), Athens (50 lines), and Corinth (42 lines). The account for Ephesus (103 lines) is long, mostly due to Luke’s focus on the hostile reaction of the pagan citizens (46 lines).

296

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Jews’ “zeal” for the law, or in terms of their “envy” regarding the missionary success of Paul and Barnabas. Some combine these two explanations. R. Pesch argues that the “jealousy” of the Jews derives from their “zeal” for the law which Paul had declared to be powerless.32 J. Roloff suggests that the “jealousy” is their conviction that “the purity, indeed the very existence of Israel was jeopardized if Gentiles are admitted into Israel on the basis of faith in Christ alone”.33 For J. Zmijewski “jealousy” describes a theological position of the Jews in Antioch who are convinced that the purity of Israel is at stake: they regard the new teaching about salvation as an offense against the Mosaic law, particularly against circumcision and the cultic commandments.34 Others interpret in terms of the envy of the Jewish community with regard to the missionary success of Paul and Barnabas. G. Schneider argues that “in view of the presupposed historical situation, the jealousy of the Jews is unwarranted: the Jews should have been rejoicing in the popularity of their religion among the pagans in the city; their jealousy becomes plausible, however, when one works with the notion that Paul, the Christian convert, draws off Gentile sympathizers from the synagogue for his own project”.35 J. Jervell argues for the same position: the jealousy of the Jews becomes plausible when one takes into account the outcome of Paul’s missionary work: the Gentiles of the city join the missionaries, rather than the Gentile sympathizers in the synagogue.36 For C. K. Barrett the phrase ε’ πλη' σθησαν ζη' λου “implies that they would have been glad to make an equal impression on their Gentile neighbors”.37 Ben Witherington similarly surmises that the Jews’ reaction involved jealousy “presumably because Paul and Barnabas were attracting a large Gentile audience while apparently the local Jews themselves had been less successful in attracting Gentiles”.38 Some scholars combine the theological and the psychological interpretations. I. H. Marshall writes, “The effect of the crowds, however, was to make the Jews envious of the missionaries; presumably their own missionary efforts had been much less successful. At the same time, they probably disagreed with the message that was being preached, and so they argued against the missionaries and defamed them”.39 ─────────────── 32 Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, II, 45. 33 Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte, NTD 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 209. 34 Zmijewski, Apostelgeschichte, 518. 35 Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, II, 145. 36 Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 362. 37 Barrett, Acts, I, 655, who continues to assert that “Luke however is probably giving his standard picture of Jewish opposition”. 38 Witherington, Acts, 414–15. 39 I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles. An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 229–30.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

297

J. D. G. Dunn suggests a social and theological explanation for the jealousy and the opposition of the Jews in Antioch against Paul and Barnabas. After describing the Jewish community in Antioch as “substantial and influential”, he suggests that it was not so much Paul’s message which caused the offence to the bulk of Antioch’s Jews as its surprising appeal to Antioch’s wider citizenry. The fear would be of an untried and untested new sect upsetting and undermining the good standing and good relations which the Jewish community had established for itself within the city … We may also deduce that there would be a theological dimension in the local Jewish hostility.40

Similarly Brian Rapske, who writes in a note: The jealousy of the Jews in the Diaspora (Acts 13:45; 17:5; cf., 5:17) was not solely on account of the numbers of converts but what those numbers represented. They raised serious questions regarding the acceptable terms for inclusion and constituted a diminution of power for the ruling élites in the Jewish community. Significant numbers of conversions from among the God-fearers would have diminished Jewish standing and protection within the Gentile community, particularly when converts were, or had connections with, the Gentile ruling élites.41

Some leave the Jewish opposition to the early Christian missionaries unexplained.42 Judith Lieu regards the New Testament material as “ambiguous” since it is unclear “when and whether it is appropriate there to speak of ‘internal’ or ‘external’ action or perception”.43 This position is hardly convincing, since the question is not who regarded whom as “insider” and “outsider”, but whether Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah opposed and persecuted fellow-Jews – missionaries such as Paul and Barnabas – because ─────────────── 40 James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles, EpComm (London: Epworth, 1996), 183. 41 Brian M. Rapske, “Opposition to the Plan of God and Persecution”, in Witness to the Gospel. The Theology of Acts, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1998), 235–56, here 247 n. 32. Note also the very brief remark of Skarsaune, Jewish Influences, 171: “The sometimes violent measures taken by the latter [i.e. the Jews] are proof that they considered Paul a real threat to their community”. Skarsaune does not explain why and in what sense the local Jewish communities felt threatened by Paul’s activities. 42 Justin Taylor, “St Paul and the Roman Empire: Acts of the Apostles 13–14”, ANRW II.26.2 (1995): 1189–1231, here 1210–11; see also Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) on the relevant Acts passages. Also Geoffrey E.M. Ste Croix, “Why were Early Christians Persecuted?” in Studies in Ancient Society, ed. M. I. Finley, Past and Present (London/Boston: Routledge/Paul, 1974), 210–49, here 212: “In consequence of riots provoked by Christian missionary preaching, action was sometimes taken by the official of local communities. But any Christians who were martyred, like Stephen and James ‘the Just’ (the brother of Jesus), were victims of purely Jewish enmity, which would count for little outside Judaea itself”. Ste Croix’s essay concerns the persecutions of Christians by Roman authorities in the second and third century. 43 Judith M. Lieu, “Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp”, in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. G.N. Stanton and G.G. Stroumsa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 279–95, here 280.

298

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

of their beliefs and because of their dissemination of their beliefs. Lieu argues with regard to Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and the Martyrdom of Polycarp that Christian accusations of Jewish persecution are generally found in non-historical contexts.44 In a discussion of the evidence of the Book of Acts, this argument works only if one is willing to assume that the selfdefinition of Christians included the conviction that followers of Jesus share in the experience of Jesus Christ, an experience which demands a negative role for the Jews. This then implies a rhetoric in which persecution, in particular Jewish persecution, “is but the necessary condition and foil for a Christian response which defines their new identity and values”. 45 Neither such an assumption nor its inference is convincing. E. Bammel points out that “the data of persecution are merely mentioned in Acts. Hardly any attempt is made to embellish the details and to work out a martyrological history or a hagiographical portrait of nascent Christendom”.46 This is not the place to engage scholars who argue that Luke’s comments regarding Jewish opposition and hostility to the Christian missionaries are “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Jewish”,47 or that “in Luke’s presentation of Paul’s ‘mission’ he was little concerned with historical precision”.48 These positions are the result of a prejudiced reading of a few select passages, a reading which gives less than a full account of the historical situation that pertained in the first century.49 Dunn refutes J. T. Sanders’ accusation that Luke’s narration is ─────────────── 44 Lieu, “Jewish Persecution”, 280. 45 Lieu, “Jewish Persecution”, 290. 46 Ernst Bammel, “Jewish Activity Against Christians in Palestine According to Acts”, in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, ed. R. Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting, Volume 4 (Exeter: Paternoster, 1995), 357–64, here 361. 47 Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 73; H. Dixon Slingerland, “‘The Jews’ in the Pauline Portion of Acts”, JAAR 54 (1986): 305– 21, here 314–18; Jack T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 80– 83, 297–99. 48 Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 342. Slingerland, “The Jews”, 314 believes that “Acts has carefully created the false impression that Paul saw his own people as the focus of his apostleship”. 49 For a critique of the charge of antisemitism or antijudaism with regard to Luke cf. Lloyd Gaston, “Anti-Judaism and the Passion Narrative in Luke and Acts”, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Volume 1: Paul and the Gospels, ed. P. Richardson and D. Granskou, StCJ 2 (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986), 127–53; Robert C. Tannehill, “Rejection by Jews and Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul’s Mission in Acts”, in LukeActs and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives, ed. J. B. Tyson (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 83–101; Craig A. Evans, “Is Luke’s View of the Jewish Rejection of Jesus Anti-Semitic?” in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. D. D. Sylva, BBB 73 (Frankfurt: Hain, 1990), 29–56, 173–83; James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways (London/Philadel-phia: SCM/Trinity Press International, 1996 [1991]), 150–51; Helmut Merkel, “Israel im lukanischen Werk”, NTS 40 (1994): 371–98.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

299

distorted by anti-Semitic rhetoric, concluding that “even the most negative of Luke’s statements regarding the Jews may be best explained by a combination of historical fact, rhetorical effect, stylistic variation, and awareness of current tensions between the different groups claiming the heritage of second Temple Judaism”.50 In order to clarify the reasons for the Jewish opposition to the Christian missionaries, it will be necessary to review the political status of the Jewish diaspora communities in Asia Minor and their contact with Jerusalem, before attempting an explanation for the hostility of the Jewish communities.

2. The Political and Social Status of the Jewish Communities in Asia Minor 2.1 The Legal Status of the Jews The legal status of the Jews in the Roman Empire can be described in the context of a three-tiered system of laws: the Common law which governed the life of every person living in the empire, Jewry law (a later term)51 which granted the Jews of a city or of a province certain privileges, and legal traditions which were developed from the injunctions of the Hebrew Bible and from scribal and rabbinic discussions and decisions. Paul is a good example: as a citizen of both Rome and Tarsus he was subject to the Roman law as well as to the law of his home town; as a Tarsic Jew he shared in Jewry-law privileges based on custom and on legal dispositions enacted by Hellenistic and Roman magistrates; and as an observant Jew he recognized the authority of the halachah and endeavored to act according to its precepts within the limits allowed by the other two laws.52

The Jews who lived in cities outside of the Holy Land were regarded as a distinct entity. They were allowed, in principle, to live according to their national “law”, as the “laws” of Solon were recognized as typical of the Athenians.53 Julius Caesar allowed the Jews to live according to their ancestral laws, according to a letter that he wrote in the second half of June 47 BC to the mag─────────────── 50 Dunn, Partings, 151; cf. James D. G. Dunn, “The Question of Anti-semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period”, in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135, ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 177–211, here 187–95. 51 Jewry law: Amnon Linder, “The Legal Status of the Jews in the Roman Empire”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, ed. S. T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 128–73, here 130. Legal traditions: ibid., 130–33, with reference to Aline Rousselle, “Vivre sous deux droits: la pratique familiale polyjuridique des citoyens romains juifs”, Annales 45 (1990): 839–59. 52 Linder, “Legal Status”, 131. 53 Linder, “Legal Status”, 140.

300

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

istrates, the council and the people of Sidon, a letter that accompanied an alleged decree which he issued concerning Hyrcanus II, the ethnarch of the Jews (Josephus, A.J. 14.190–195).54 Gaius Julius Caesar, Imperator and Pontifex Maximus, Dictator for the second time, to the magistrates, council and people of Sidon, greeting. If you are in good health, it is well; I also and the army are in good health. I am sending you a copy of the decree, inscribed on a tablet, concerning Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, in order that it may be deposited among your public records. It is my wish that this be set up on a bronze tablet in both Greek and Latin (βου' λομαι δε` και` ε‘ λληνιστι` και` ρ‘ ωμαι¨στι` ε’ ν δε' λτω, χαλκηñ, τουñ το α’ νατεθηñ ναι) … it is my wish that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and his children shall be ethnarchs of the Jews and shall hold the office of high priest of the Jews for all time in accordance with their national customs, and that he and his sons shall be our allies and also be numbered among our particular friends; and whatever high-priestly prerogatives or privileges exist in accordance with their laws, these he and his children shall possess by my command. And if, during this period, any question shall arise concerning the Jews’ manner of life, it is my pleasure that they shall have the decisions (α»ν τε μεταξυ` γε' νηται' τις ζη' τησις περι` τηñ ς ’ Ιουδαι'ων α’ γωγηñ ς, α’ ρε' σκει μοι κρι' σιν γι' νεσθαι παρ• αυ’ τοιñς) (A.J. 14.190–191, 194–195). (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)

According to Josephus, Caesar’s decree concerning the Jews was confirmed six times by a senatus consultum on October 47 BC (A.J. 14.196–198; 14.199; 14.202–210), in February 44 BC (A.J. 14.200–201), on February 9, 44 BC (A.J. 14.211–212), and on April 11, 44 BC (A.J. 14.219–222).55 The decree that Augustus sent to the magistrates, the council and the people of Paros concerning the Jews of Delos (A.J. 14.213–216) guaranteed the Jews the right to assemble, to engage in cultic activity in the synagogue, and to collect the tribute for the Jerusalem Temple.56 This policy was not devised for the benefit of the Jews, however. Caesar granted the right to use their own laws to the citizens of Pergamon, of Mitylene, and of Thessalia as well.57 Augustus adopted Julius Caesar’s policies and granted the same religious freedom to the Jews of Rome (A.J. 14.214), Delos (A.J. 14.213–216), Alexandria (CPJ II 153)58, and of the province of Asia (A.J. 16.162–165; 16.166).59 Even though there was

─────────────── 54 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 31–52 (No. 1). Cf. also Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 88–89. 55 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 55–106, 121–36 (Nos. 2–6, 8). 56 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 107–18 (No. 7). Jürgen Malitz, “Mommsen, Caesar und die Juden”, in Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion. Band II: Griechische und Römische Religion, FS Martin Hengel, ed. H. Cancik (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 371–87, here 384 comments that these stipulations “provided the Jews of the Diaspora with a precise definition of their status which was absolutely vital”. 57 Cf. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 417, for documentation. 58 Victor A. Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks, eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–64) (= CPJ) No. 153. 59 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 342, 443–44; cf. No. 7 (Delos, Rome), 22, 23 (Asia).

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

301

no “Magna Charta” of Jewish rights,60 Caesar’s formal recognition of the traditional rights of the Jews “allowed the Jews in later times to recall it and to request that it be applied whenever the need was felt”.61 The confirmation of Jewish rights was often made necessary on account of tensions that arose in the cities in which Jews lived. This was the case in Republican times as well as during the principate.62 For the former, there is evidence for Greeks trying to prevent the Jews from living according to their traditional laws with regard to Asia Minor, Delos (A.J. 14.213–216), Sardis (A.J. 14.235), Laodicea and Tralles (A.J. 14.241–243), Miletus (A.J. 14.244– 246), and Ephesus (A.J. 14.252–254). During the principate of Augustus, Jews were prevented from following their traditional laws and customs in Asia Minor (A.J. 16.162–165; 16.166; 16.167–168; 16.171; 16.172–173) and in Cyrene (A.J. 16.169–170), necessitating the confirmation of the traditional Jewish rights. During the principate of Caligula, the cruel pogrom in Alexandria in AD 38 (A.J. 18.257–260) prompted both the Greeks and the Jews of the city to send an embassy to the emperor Gaius Caligula.63 The five-member delegation of the Jewish community which was led by Philo presented their demands for the re-establishment and the confirmation of their civil rights in the spring and autumn of AD 40. Philo writes, Surely it was a cruel situation that the fate of all the Jews everywhere should rest precariously on us five envoys (ε’ ν η‘ μιñν δε` πε' ντε πρεσβευταιñς σαλευ' ειν τα` τω ñ ν πανταχουñ πα' ντων ’ Ιουδαι'ων ου’ χαλεπο' ν). For if he should decide in favour of our enemies, what other city will keep tranquil or refrain from attacking its fellow inhabitants (τι'ς ε‘ τε' ρα πο' λις η’ ρεμη' σει; τι'ς ου’ κ ε’ πιθη' σεται τοιñς συνοικουñ σι), what house of prayer will be left unscathed (τι'ς α’ παθη` ς καταλειφθη' σεται προσευχη' ), what kind of civic rights will not be upset for those whose lot is cast under the ancient institutions of the Jews? (ποιñον πολιτικο` ν ου’ κ α’ νατραπη' σεται δι'καιον τοιñς κοσμουμε' νοις κατα` τα` πα' τρια τω ñ ν ’ Ιουδαι'ων) First upset, then shipwrecked, then sunk to the very bottom will be both their peculiar laws and the rights which they enjoy in common in every city (α’ νατετρα' ψεται, ναυαγη' σει, κατα` βυθουñ ─────────────── 60 Tessa Rajak, “Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?” JRS 74 (1984): 107–23; Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius. Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1. Jahrhundert, Hermes Einzelschriften 71 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996), 107–32. The claim that there was a “Jewish Magna Charta” had been made by Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l’empire romain. Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale, 2 vols. (Paris: Geuthner, 1914), I, 213–17; cf. Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, “The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire”, ANRW II.13 (1980): 662–762, here 692. 61 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 419. 62 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 420 with n. 38. 63 For the historical and chronological questions of the Alexandrian embassy to Rome cf. E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Second Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 14–50; cf. E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, SJLA 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 235–45; on the role of the Mosaic Law in Philo’s position cf. Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for his Time, NTSup 86 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 176–93.

302

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts χωρη' σει και` τα` ε’ ξαι' ρετα νο' μιμα και` τα` κοινα` προ` ς ε‘ κα' στας τω ñ ν πο' λεων αυ’ τοιñς δι'καια) (Legat. 370–371). (Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL)

The first lines of this quotation indicate that the Jewish delegates from Alexandria evidently “assume that their compatriots in other centres of the Diaspora are as unpopular with their gentile neighbours as their own community is in Alexandria”.64 In his depiction of the coexistence of Jews and Greeks in Alexandria and in the Jewish diaspora in general at the time of the accession of Gaius Caligula in March AD 37, Philo describes both the ideal situation and the potential areas of conflict: For who that saw Gaius when after the death of Tiberius he succeeded to the sovereignty of the whole earth and sea, gained not by faction (α’ στασι'αστον) but established by law (ευ» νομον), with all parts, east, west, south, north, harmoniously adjusted (παñ σι τοιñς με' ρεσιν η‘ ρμοσμε' νην ει’ ς το` συ' μφωνον), the Greek in full agreement with the barbarian (τουñ με`ν βαρβαρικουñ γε' νους τω ñ, ‘ Ελληνικω ñ, , τουñ δ• ‘ Ελληνικουñ τω ñ, βαρβαρικω ñ, ), the civil with the military (και` τουñ με` ν στρατιωτικουñ τω ñ, κατα` πο' λεις, τουñ δε` πολιτικουñ τω ñ, στρατευομε' νω, ), to enjoy and participate in peace (συμφρονη' σαντος ει’ ς μετουσι' αν και` α’ πο' λαυσιν ει’ ρη' νης) – who I say was not filled with admiration and astonishment at his prodigious and indescribable prosperity?” (Legat. 8). (Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL)

The Jewish embassy to Caligula seeks to assure the emperor that it is not the fault of the Jewish community that factional uprisings disturbed the order and the peace of civic life, arguing that the confirmation of the established rights of the Jews would guarantee the harmonious coexistence of Greeks and nonGreeks and of civil service and the military authorities and thus the “prodigious and indescribable prosperity” of the cities.65 After Claudius acceded to the throne on 24 January 41, the delegation led by Philo presented their case to the new emperor, who then issued an edict in the spring of AD 41 (A.J. 19.280–285)66 in which, after commenting on the antiquity of the Jewish community in Alexandria, on the earlier privileges and the religious liberty granted by Augustus, and on the “great folly and madness” of Gaius Caligula who had humiliated the Jews when they refused to address him as a god, he writes: I desire that none of their rights should be lost to the Jews on account of the madness of Gaius, but that their former privileges also be preserved to them, while they abide by their own customs; and I enjoin upon both parties to take the greatest precaution to prevent any disturbance arising after the posting of my edict (βου' λομαι μηδε`ν δια` τη` ν Γαι¨'ου παραφροσυ' νην τω ñ ν δικαι'ων τω ñ, ’ Ιουδαι'ων ε» θνει παραπεπτωκε' ναι, φυλα' σσεσθαι δ• αυ’ τοιñς και` τα` προ' τερον δικαιω' ματα ε’ μμε' νουσι τοιñς ι’ δι'οις ε» θεσιν, α’ μφοτε' ροις τε διακελευ' ομαι τοιñς με' ρεσι πλει' στην ποιη' σασθαι προ' νοιαν, ο« πως μηδεμι' α ταραχη` γε' νηται μετα` το` προτεθηñ ναι' μου το` δια' ταγμα) (A.J. 19.285). (Trans. L. H. Feldman, LCL) ─────────────── 64 Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 342. 65 Karl Leo Noethlichs, Das Judentum und der römische Staat. Minderheitenpolitik im antiken Rom (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996), 75. 66 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 295–326 (No. 28).

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

303

It appears that after this edict was posted, there was a Jewish uprising in Alexandria which led to renewed disorders, prompting Claudius, at the request of Agrippa I (king of Judea from AD 41 to 44) and Herod II (king of Chalcis from AD 41 to 48), to issue an edict addressing the Jews in general (A.J. 19. 287–291).67 Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, of tribunician power, elected consul for the second time, proclaims: Kings Agrippa and Herod, my dearest friends, having petitioned me to permit the same privileges (τα` αυ’ τα` δι'καια) to be maintained for the Jews throughout the empire under the Romans as those in Alexandria enjoy, I very gladly consented, not merely in order to please those who petitioned me, but also because in my opinion the Jews deserve to obtain their request on account of their loyalty and friendship to the Romans (η« διστα συνεχω' ρησα ου’ μο' νον τουñ το τοιñς αι’ τησαμε' νοις με χαριζο' μενος, α’ λλα` και` αυ’ του` ς υ‘ πε` ρ ω ð ν παρεκλη' θην α’ ξι' ους κρι' νας δια` τη` ν προ` ς ‘ Ρ ωμαι' ους πι'στιν και` φιλι'αν). In particular, I did so because I hold it right that not even Greek cities should be deprived of these privileges, seeing that they were in fact guaranteed for them in the time of the divine Augustus. It is right, therefore, that the Jews throughout the whole world under our sway (ε’ ν παντι` τω ñ, υ‘ φ• η‘ μαñ ς κο' σμω, ) should also observe the customs of their fathers (τα` πα' τρια ε» θη) without let or hindrance” (A.J. 19.288–290).68 (Trans. L. H. Feldman, LCL)

The phrase τα` δι' καια refers to the “rights related to the exercise of the Jewish πα' τριοι νο' μοι”.69 Claudius goes on to warn the Jews of causing further disturbances, and ends the edict with an order of publication: I enjoin upon them also by these presents to avail themselves of this kindness in a more reasonable spirit, and not to set at nought the beliefs about the gods held by other peoples, but to keep their own laws (οιðς και` αυ’ τοιñς η» δη νυñ ν παραγγε' λλω μου ταυ' τη, τηñ, φιλανθρωπι' α, ε’ πιεικε' στερον χρηñ σθαι και` μη` τα` ς τω ñ ν α» λλων ε’ θνω ñ ν δεισιδαιμονι' ας ε’ ξουθενι' ζειν, του` ς ι’ δι'ους δε` νο' μους φυλα' σσειν). It is my will that the ruling bodies of the cities and colonies and municipia in Italy and outside Italy, and the kings and other authorities through their own ambassadors, shall cause this edict of mine to be inscribed, and keep it posted for not less than thirty days in a place where it can plainly be read from the ground (A.J. 19.290–291). (Trans. L. H. Feldman, LCL)

In October of AD 41, i.e., in the same year in which he had already issued two edicts confirming the rights of the Alexandrian Jews, Claudius sent a letter to Aemilius Rectus, the Roman prefect in Alexandria (P.Lond VI 1912 = CPJ II 153), dealing among other matters with the Jewish question (lines 73–104).70 ─────────────── 67 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 328–42 (No. 29). As regards the historical background and the relationship with the edict reported by Josephus in A.J. 280–285, cf. ibid. 305–13; also Gruen, Diaspora, 98–100. 68 For bibliography, text, and commentary cf. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 328–44 (No. 29). 69 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 331, cf. ibid. 301. 70 Cf. the English translation in Louis H. Feldman and Reinhold Meyer, Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 91– 92 (Nos. 4, 19). See the discussion in Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, 248–49; Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, TSAJ 7

304

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts With regard to the responsibility for the disturbances and rioting, or rather, to speak the truth, the war, against the Jews, although your ambassadors, particularly Dionysios the son of Theon, argued vigorously and at length in the disputation, I have not wished to make an exact inquiry, but I harbor within me a store of immutable indignation against those who renewed the conflict … I conjure the Alexandrians to behave gently and kindly toward the Jews who have inhabited the same city for many years (πραε' ως και` φιλανθρω' πως προσφε' ρωνται ’ Ιουδαι'οις τοιñς τη` ν αυ’ τη` ν πο' λιν ε’ κ πολλω ñ ν χρο' νων, ll. 83– 84), and not to dishonor any of their customs in their worship of their god, but to allow them to keep their own ways (οι’ κουñ σι και` μηδε`ν τω ñ ν προ` ς θρησκει'αν αυ’ τοιñς νενομισμε' νων τουñ θεουñ λυμαι' νωνται α’ λλα` ε’ ω ñ σιν αυ’ του` ς τοιñς ε» θεσιν χρηñ σθαι, ll. 84–87), as they did in the time of the god Augustus and as I too, having heard both sides, have confirmed. The Jews, on the other hand, I order not to aim at more than they have previously had and not in the future to send two embassies as if they lived in two cities, a thing which has never been done before, and not to intrude themselves into the games presided over by the gymnasiarchoi and the kosmetai, since they enjoy what is their own, and in a city which is not their own they possess an abundance of all good things. Nor are they to bring in or invite Jews coming from Syria or Egypt, or I shall be forced to conceive graver suspicions. If they disobey, I shall proceed against them in every way as fomenting a common plague for the whole world (ει’ δε` μη' , πα' ντα τρο' πον αυ’ του` ς ε’ πεξελευ' σομαι καθα' περ κοινη' ν τινα τηñ ς οι’ κουμε' νης νο' σον ε’ ξεγει'ροντας; lines 98–100). If you both give up your present ways and are willing to live in gentleness and kindness with one another, I for my part will care for the city as much as I can.

Amnon Linder comments on the edicts and the letter of Claudius which reestablish and confirm the rights of the Jews: “thus embraced by the government, the principle could legitimize a range of social activities and institutions, but in practice it resulted in very few social, non-religious dispositions. Its main effect can be seen in the recognition of Jewish legal autonomy in some leading communities”.71 In Alexandria, the Greeks occupied the summit of the social pyramid, the native population formed the base, while the Jews, both as individuals and in their organized community, were in between, on a rather unstable and mutable level. They struggled to climb and acquire the legal status of the upper ranks, and at the same time to preserve their autonomous institutions and traditional status against hostile pressure emanating both from the Greeks and the provincial government. Ultimately they failed: Claudius finally denied the Jews of Alexandria the citizenship of that city, which he defined in his edict as ‘a city not their own,’ thus effectively excluding them from the Greek institutions and the way of life typical of that Greek politeuma.72

Regarding the unstable nature, on principle, of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in diaspora cities, we should note that the letters written by ─────────────── (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 310–26; Botermann, Judenedikt, 107–14; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, I, 856–57. 71 Linder, “Legal Status”, 140. 72 Linder, “Legal Status”, 141. Linder refers to the letter that the emperor Claudius sent to the Jews of Alexandria in AD 41: P.London 1912; Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, No. 153; cf. Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life, 91–92 Nos. 4, 19. The Greek phrase is α’ λλοτρι'α, πο' λει.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

305

Roman magistrates to the magistrates and the council of the Greek cities seem to have been deposited in the archives of the individual cities to which the letters were sent.73 The edicts issued by emperors may have been published in the Capitol or at the imperial residence in Rome; some edicts were published in the imperial temple of a province, as, e.g., Augustus’ edict sent to the Jews of the province of Asia which was “set up in the most conspicuous (part of the temple) assigned to me by the federation (koinon) of Asia in Ancyra” (A.J. 16.165).74 The evidence for the confirmation of Jewish rights to autonomous internal administration is as follows (in chronological order):75 1. Miletus: letter written by the proconsul Publius Servilius Galba between 46–44 BC (A.J. 14.244–246; No. 18): permission to manage their revenues (or first fruits) (A.J. 14.245). 2. Ephesus: letter sent by P. Cornelius P. f. n. Dolabella, the Roman proconsul of the province of Syria, on January 24, 43 BC (A.J. 14.225–227; No. 9): Permission to make offerings for their sacrifices (A.J. 14.227.). 3. Paros and the Jews on Delos: letter written by Octavian/Augustus76 in 42/41 BC (A.J. 14.214–216; No. 7): Permission to collect contributions of money (A.J. 14.215). 4. Ephesus and province of Asia: letter written by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa probably in the summer of 14 BC (A.J. 16.167–168; No. 24): permission regarding the care and custody of the Jewish sacred monies “belonging to the account of the Temple in Jerusalem” (A.J. 16.167). 5. Province of Asia: edict issued by Augustus in 12 BC, after March 6 (A.J. 16.162–165; No. 22): permission to collect the Jewish sacred monies and send them to Jerusalem (A.J. 16.163). 6. Cyrene: letter sent by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa in 14 BC, in the summer (A.J. 16.169–170; No. 25): permission to send Jewish sacred monies to Jerusalem (A.J. 16.169–170; cf. 16.27–28, 45, 60). 7. Province of Asia: mandatum sent by Augustus in 12 BC to Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, consul in 24 BC and later proconsul in Asia (A.J. 16.166; No. 23): permission to send Jewish sacred monies to Jerusalem. 8. Sardis: letter written by Gaius Norbanus Flaccus in 12 BC, implementing an order of Augustus (A.J. 16.171; No. 26): permission to collect sums of money and send them to Jerusalem. ─────────────── 73 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 428; for the following comment see ibid. 429. 74 On the Temple of Rome and Augustus in Ancyra cf. Daniel M. Krencker and Martin Schede, Der Tempel in Ankara, Denkmäler antiker Architektur 3 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1936); Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 103, and passim. 75 Cf. the summary of Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 376–77; the numbers refer to the text, translation and analysis in ibid. 76 See the discussion in Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 114–15.

306

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

9. Ephesus: letter written by Iullus Antonius on February 13, 4 BC, the son of Mark Antony and Fulvia (A.J. 16.172–173; No. 27): permission to collect offerings and bring them under escort to Jerusalem (A.J. 16.172). 10. Alexandria: edict issued by Claudius in the spring of AD 41 (A.J. 19.280–285; No. 28): confirmation of the rights of the Alexandrian Jews to live by their own customs. 11. The Jews in the Roman Empire: edict issued by Claudius in the summer of AD 41 (A.J. 19.287–291; No. 29): confirmation of the rights of the Alexandrian Jews for all Jews throughout the empire. 12. Alexandria: letter written by Claudius in October AD 41 (CPJ II 153): confirmation of the rights of the Jews granted by Augustus, while warning the Jews not to seek to extend their rights.

2.2 Political, Social and Religious Factors The tension between Jews and Gentiles in Asia Minor was linked with several political, social and religious aspects of Jewish life. There were repeated disputes concerning the rights of local Jews to assemble, to observe the Sabbath, to perform their cult, to hold common meals, to own “sacred” property, and to have a measure of self-government. 77 Lucius Antonius, proquaestor and propraetor in the province of Asia, writes to the city of Sardis in 49 BC to confirm the right of the Jewish citizens: Lucius Antonius, son of Marcus, proquaestor and propraetor, to the magistrates, council and people of Sardis, greeting. Jewish citizens of ours have come to me and pointed out that from the earliest times they have had an association of their own in accordance with their native laws and a place of their own, in which they decide their affairs and controversies with one another (’ Ιουδαιñοι πολιñται η‘ με' τεροι προσελθο' ντες μοι ε’ πε' δειξαν αυ’ του` ς συ' νοδον ε» χειν ι’ δι' αν κατα` του` ς πατρι' ους νο' μους α’ π• α’ ρχηñ ς και` το' πον »ιδιον, ε’ ν ω ð, τα' τε πρα' γματα και` τα` ς προ` ς α’ λλη' λους α’ ντιλογι'ας κρι'νουσιν); and upon their request that it be permitted them to do these things, I decided that they might be maintained, and permitted them so to do (A.J. 14.235).78

The city of Sardis issued a decree, sometime after October 47 recognizing three specific rights for which the Jews had asked:

BC,

formally

Decree of the people of Sardis. The following decree was passed by the council and people on the motion of the magistrates. Whereas the Jewish citizens living in our city have continually received many great privileges from the people and have now come before the council and the people and have pleaded that as their laws and freedom have been restored to them by the Roman Senate and people, they may, in accordance with their accepted customs, come together and have a communal life and adjudicate suits among themselves, and that a place be given them in which they may gather together with their ─────────────── 77 Cf. the summary of Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 430. 78 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 176–81 (No. 14).

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

307

wives and children and offer their ancestral prayers and sacrifices to God, it has therefore been decreed by the council and people (δεδο' χθαι τηñ, βουληñ, και` τω ñ, δη' μω, ) that permission shall be given them to come together on stated days to do those things which are in accordance with their laws (συγκεχωρηñ σθαι αυ’ τοιñς συνερχομε' νοις ε’ ν ταιñς α’ ποδεδειγμε' ναις η‘ με' ραις πρα' σσειν τα` κατα` του` ς αυ’ τω ñ ν νο' μους), and also that a place shall be set apart by the magistrates for them to build and inhabit, such as they may consider suitable for this purpose (α’ φορισθηñ ναι δ• αυ’ τοιñς και` το' πον υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν στρατηγω ñ ν ει’ ς οι’ κοδομι'αν και` οι»κησιν αυ’ τω ñ ν, ο‹ ν α›ν υ‘ πολα' βωσιν προ` ς τουñ τ• ε’ πιτη' δειον ειòναι), and that the marketofficials of the city shall be charged with the duty of having suitable food for them brought in (ο« πως τε τοιñς τηñ ς πο' λεως α’ γορανο' μοις ε’ πιμελε`ς ηò, και` τα` ε’ κει' νοις προ` ς τροφη` ν ε’ πιτη' δεια ποιειñν ει’ σα' γεσθαι) (A.J. 14.259–261).79 (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)

A decree by the city of Halicarnassus permits Jewish festivals, feasts and gatherings to take place (A.J. 14.256–258). The peculiar calendar of the Jews, with the weekly observance of the Sabbath and with the observance of other specifically Jewish festivals, provoked not only protests, but legal disputes, as Jews refused to appear before court or take place in other public events on their holy days. There is evidence for such disputes for Miletus (A.J. 14.244– 246), Laodicea (A.J. 14.241–243), Tralles (A.J. 14.242), Ephesus (A.J. 14.262–264), Halicarnassus (A.J. 14.256–258), and for the cities of Ionia (A.J. 16.27, 45). Josephus’ report of decrees in which he details the intervention of Roman authorities on behalf of Jewish rights ends at the beginning of the first century. The reason for Josephus’ silence concerning the legal rights of Jews in Asia Minor might be that the pax romana brought social peace and economic prosperity to the region, relaxing the pressure on the Jewish communities.80 Another reason seems to have been the influence that local Jewish communities enjoyed in the cities of Asia Minor. A major indicator of the respect which the Jewish community enjoyed at least in some cities is the presence of Gentile “Godfearers” in the local synagogues.81 An inscription from Akmonia dating to AD 50–70 honors Iulia Severa for donating funds to erect a synagogue.82 ─────────────── 79 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 216–25 (No. 20). 80 John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 279; cf. 279–80 for the following point. 81 Cf. Acts 13:16, 48–50; 14:1; 16:14; 17:4, 12. On the Godfearers see Folker Siegert, “Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten”, JSJ 42 (1973): 109–64; Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, SNTSMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 146–66; Irina A. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting, The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, Volume 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 51–126; John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 264–70; Bernd Wander, Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen, WUNT 104 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, I, 129–33. 82 MAMA VI 264; CIJ II 766. I cite the Greek text from Walter Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Band II: Kleinasien, TSAJ 99 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) (= IJudO

308

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts το` ν κατασκευασθε' ντ. α οιòκον υ‘ πο` ’ Ιουλι'ας Σεουη' ρας Π. . Τυρρω' νιος Κλα' δος ο‘ δια` βι'ου α’ ρχισυνα' γωγος και` Λου' κιος Λουκι' ου α’ ρχισυνα' γωγος και` Ποπι'λιος Ζωτικο` ς α»ρχων ε’ πεσκευ' ασαν ε» κ τε τω ñ ν ι’ δι'ων και` τω ñ ν συνκαταθεμε' νων, και` ε» γραψαν του` ς τοι'χους και` τη` ν ο’ ροφη` ν και` ε’ ποι' ησαν τη` ν τω ñ ν θυρι' δων α’ σφα' λειαν και` το` ν λυπο` ν πα' ντα κο' σμον. ου« στινας κα[ι`] 1 η‘ συναγωγη` ε’ τει'μησεν ο« πλω, ε’ πιχρυ' σω, δια` τη` ν ε’ να' ρετον αυ’ τω ñ ν δ[ι]α' θ[ε-] σιν και` τη` ν προ` ς τη` ν συναγωγη` ν ευ» νοια' ν τε και` σπ ουδη' ν 11

This building was erected by Iulia Severa; P(ublius) Tyrronios Klados, the archisynagogos for life, and Lucius, son of Lucius, archisynagogos, and Publius Zotikos, archon, restored it with their own funds and collected (from the community), and they had the walls and the ceiling painted, and they reinforced the windows and made all the rest of the ornamentation. And the synagogue honored them with a gilded shield on account of their virtuous disposition and their goodwill and zeal for the synagogue.

Iulia Severa, a Gentile woman, belonged to a leading family of the city of Akmonia, related to “a Galatian dynasty which could trace its line back to the tetrarchs and kings of the Hellenistic period”.83 She is depicted on coins of the city, she was a member of the city council, a priestess of the imperial cult in Akmonia, and agonothete of the games of the city.84 P. Turronius Cladus, who is named as archisynagogos, was a member of an emigrant Italian family. Another member of the Turronii, a certain Turronius Rapo, a priest of the imperial cult, appears alongside Iulia Severa on coins issued by the city. 85 Iulia Severa was connected by marriage to another Italian emigrant family, the Servenii; the son, L. Servenius Cornutus, became a senator in Rome.86 Mitchell comments, ─────────────── II), 348–55 (No. 168); the translation is from Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 58–59, adapted with the help of the translation in IJudO III, 349; cf. Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life, 69–70 (Nos. 3, 23); Lee I. Levine, “The Hellenistic-Roman Diaspora CE 70 – CE 235: The Archaeology Evidence”, CHJ III (1999): 991–1024, here 1008. 83 Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 9; Stephen Mitchell, “The Plancii in Asia Minor”, JRS 64 (1974): 27–39, here 38. 84 MAMA VI 153, 262–65; Andrew M. Burnett, Michel Amandry, and Paul Ripollès, Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69) (London/Paris: British Museum/Bibliothèque Nationale, 1992), Nos. 3170–3177 (dated to AD 55, 62, 65). On Iulia Severa cf. E. Groag, Art. “Iulia Severa”, PW X.1, 946–48; Tessa Rajak, “Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora”, in Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion. Band I: Judentum, FS Martin Hengel, ed. P. Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 305–84, here 314; Donald D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of Synagogues in the Second Temple Period, SBLDS 169 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 145–46, 286–88; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 111–12, 125–26, 399–401; Philip Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 140–42; Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II, 351–53. 85 Cf. Helmut Halfmann, Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Hypomnemata 58 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 102 (No. 5a). 86 Halfmann, Senatoren, 102 (No. 5); cf. Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 9.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

309

this is the familiar milieu of aristocratic civic life of early imperial Asia Minor, with the striking modification that the Jewish synagogue, and some at least of its leading supporters, were completely assimilated within it. The synagogue had been endowed by Iulia Severa, a gentile, just as any other temple might be; closely related persons associated with her held and advertised positions, on the one hand in the synagogue, on the other hand in the hierarchy of emperor worship.87

Even though the inscription from Aphrodisias, which dates to the fourth century,88 is too late to be directly relevant for our discussion, the fact that it lists eight members of the city council (βουλευται' ; B lines 34–38) as benefactors of the synagogue illustrates the support that some local Jewish communities enjoyed in the cities of Asia Minor.89

2.3 Financial Factors The tension between Jews and Gentiles in the diaspora was intricately linked with the economic conditions. Jewish communities were repeatedly challenged as a result of their acquisition and use of funds. The earliest reference to the collection of monies for the Jerusalem Temple in the Jewish diaspora communities comes from 88 BC when Mithridates attacked Cos and seized, according to Josephus, 800 talents belonging to the Jews of the province of Asia (Josephus, A.J. 14.112–113).90 In a famous case dating to 62 BC, the Jews of Asia Minor took L. Valerius Flaccus, the proconsul of the province of Asia, to court for prohibiting the transfer of monies to the Temple in Jerusalem, having confiscated 20 pounds of gold from Laodicea and 100 pounds from Apamea. Cicero defends Flaccus with the following words: It was the practice each year to send gold to Jerusalem on the Jews’ account from Italy and all our provinces (cum aurum Iudaeorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus ─────────────── 87 Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 9. For a similar honorific inscription from Kyme or Phokaia in Ionia see IGR IV 1327 = CIJ II 738; cf. Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II, 162–67 (No. 36); Horsley and Llewelyn, New Documents, I, 111–112. 88 Cf. Joyce Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association Supp. 12 (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987); Horsley and Llewelyn, New Documents, IX, 73–80 (No. 25); Wander, Gottesfürchtige, 121–27, 235–39; Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II, 71–112 (No. 14). 89 This means that nearly 10% of the 100 council members of Aphrodisias sympathized with the Jewish community. Cf. Peter Herz, “Juden in Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft des oberen Maiandros-Tales”, in Ethnische und religiöse Minderheiten in Kleinasien. Von der hellenistischen Antike bis in das byzantinische Mittelalter, ed. P. Herz and J. Kobes, Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998), 1–23, here 20. 90 Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian, 125, surmises that the figure of 800 might be an error for 80, “or large voluntary gifts for the Temple may have been included”.

310

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts nostris provinciis Hierosolymam exportari soleret), but Flaccus issued an edict forbidding its export from Asia. Who is there, gentlemen, who cannot genuinely applaud this measure? The Senate strictly forbade the export of gold on a considerable number of previous occasions, notably during my consulship. To oppose this outlandish superstition was an act of firmness, and to defy in the public interest the crowd of Jews that on occasion sets our public meetings ablaze was the height of responsibility. But the victorious Gnaeus Pompeius did not touch anything in the Temple after his capture of Jerusalem. In this he showed exceptional good sense – as he has on many other occasions – in that he did not give his detractors any opportunity for gossip in a city so prone to suspicion and slander. I do not believe that the illustrious commander was restrained by the religious susceptibilities of Jews and enemies, but out of respect for public opinion. Where, then, is there any ground for accusing Flaccus? Nowhere do you find any evidence of theft, you approve his edict, you admit the previous decision, you do not deny that the investigation was held in public, and it is self-evident that it was conducted by men of distinction. At Apamea a little less than a hundred pounds of gold was seized as it was being exported and weighed in the forum at the feet of the praetor through the efforts of Sextus Caesius, a thoroughly upright and honest Roman knight; at Laodicea a little more than twenty pounds was seized by Lucius Peducaeus who is here in court and a juror in this case; at Adramyttium a hundred pounds by Gnaeus Domitius, one of Flaccus’ subordinate officers; at Pergamum not much (Cicero, Flacc. 67–68). (Trans. C. Macdonald, LCL)

Cicero’s narration constitutes evidence that the contributions in gold which the Jews sent annually to Jerusalem, were collected in the centers of the assize districts (conventus, διοικη' σεις) into which Roman Asia had been divided and which continued to be a key element of the provincial administration.91 The inscription I.Didyma 140, dating to AD 40, lists twelve assize districts: Cyzicus, Adramyttium, Pergamum, Sardis, Ephesus, Miletus, Alabanda, Halicarnassus, Laodicea, Apamea, Synnada, and Philomelium. Apameia is ca. 120 km (75 miles) from Pisidian Antioch, as is Synnada, while Philomelium, the assize center of the Lycaonian district of Asia,92 is 30 km (19 miles) east of Antioch. Around 46 BC,93 the proconsul of the province of Asia directs the city of Miletus not to interfere with the way in which the Jewish community manages its funds (A.J. 14.245). The city of Parium is instructed by Caesar to allow the local Jews “to contribute money to common meals and sacred rites” (A.J. 14.214). The city of Ephesus is told by P. Dolabella, the governor of the province of Asia, to allow the Jewish community “to make offerings for their sacrifices” (A.J. 14.227). Augustus issues an edict in 12 BC which includes the ─────────────── 91 Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 33; Stephen Mitchell, “The Administration of Roman Asia from 133 BC to AD 250”, in Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Eck and E. Müller-Luckner, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 42 (München: Oldenbourg, 1999), 17–46, here 27; for the following comment ibid. 23. On the collection of the Jewish temple tax in the assize centers of Asia Minor, see also Walter Ameling, “Drei Studien zu den Gerichtsbezirken der Provinz Asia in republikanischer Zeit”, EA 12 (1988): 9–24. 92 Mitchell, “Administration of Roman Asia”, 20. 93 For the following survey cf. Barclay, Jews, 268–69.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

311

provision that the Jews’ “sacred monies shall be inviolable and may be sent up to Jerusalem and delivered to the treasurers in Jerusalem” (A.J. 16.163). The edict reads: Caesar Augustus, Pontifex Maximus with tribunician power, decrees as follows. Since the Jewish nation has been found well disposed to the Roman people not only at the present time but also in time past, and especially in the time of my father the emperor Caesar, as has their high priest Hyrcanus, it has been decided by me and my council under oath, with the consent of the Roman people, that the Jews may follow their own customs in accordance with the law of their fathers, just as they followed them in the time of Hyrcanus, high priest of the Most High God, and that their sacred monies shall be inviolable and may be sent up to Jerusalem and delivered to the treasurers in Jerusalem (τα' τε ι‘ ερα` ειòναι ε’ ν α’ συλι' α, και` α’ ναπε' μπεσθαι ει’ ς ‘Ιεροσο' λυμα και` α’ ποδι'δοσθαι τοιñς α’ ποδοχευñ σιν ‘Ιεροσολυ' μων), and that they need not give bond (to appear in court) on the Sabbath or on the day of preparation for it (Sabbath Eve) after the ninth hour. And if anyone is caught stealing their sacred books or their sacred monies from a synagogue or an ark (of the Law), he shall be regarded as sacrilegious, and his property shall be confiscated to the public treasury of the Romans. As for the resolution which was offered by them in my honour concerning the piety which I show to all men, and on behalf of Gaius Marcius Censorinus,94 I order that it and the present edict be set up in the most conspicuous (part of the temple) assigned to me by the federation of Asia in Ancyra. If anyone transgresses any of the above ordinances, he shall suffer severe punishment (A.J. 16.162–165). (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)95

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, a general, friend and son-in-law of Augustus, governor of the eastern provinces in 23–21 BC and in 16–13 BC, writes in the summer of 14 BC a letter to Ephesus: Agrippa to the magistrates, council and people of Ephesus, greeting. It is my will that the care and custody of the sacred monies belonging to the account of the temple in Jerusalem (τω ñ ν ει’ ς το` ι‘ ερο` ν το` ε’ ν ‘Ιεροσολυ' μοις α’ ναφερομε' νων ι‘ ερω ñ ν χρημα' των) shall be given to the Jews in Asia in accordance with their ancestral customs. And if any men steal the sacred monies of the Jews and take refuge in places of asylum, it is my will that they be dragged away from them and turned over to the Jews under the same law by which temple-robbers are dragged away from asylum. I have also written to the praetor Silanus that no one shall compel the Jews to give bond (to appear in court) on the Sabbath (A.J. 16.167–168). (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)96

Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, the proconsul of the province of Asia during the principate of Augustus between 31 and 27 BC, received a letter from the emperor informing him of the following decree: Caesar to Norbanus Flaccus, greeting. The Jews, however numerous they may be, who have been wont, according to their ancient custom, to bring sacred monies to send up to Jerusalem, may do this without interference (’ Ι ουδαιñοι ο« σοι ποτ• ουò ν ει’ σι' ν, [οι‹] δι•

─────────────── 94 C. Marcius Censorinus was consul in 8 BC, proconsul of the province of Asia in AD 2–3. 95 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 235–56 (No. 22). 96 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 262–72 (No. 24).

312

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts α’ ρχαι' αν συνη' θειαν ει’ ω' θασιν χρη' ματα' τε ι‘ ερα` φε' ροντες α’ ναπε' μπειν α’ κωλυ' τως τουñ το ποιει'τωσαν ει’ ς ‘Ιεροσο' λυμα; A.J. 16.166). (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)97

Philo emphasizes in his report of the same occasion in Legat. 311–316, that Augustus, when he had discovered that the sacred “first-fruits” were being neglected, he instructed the governors of the provinces in Asia to grant the Jews alone the right of assembly (ε’ πε' στειλε τοιñς ε’ πιτρο' ποις τω ñ ν κατα` τη` ν ’Ασι'αν ε’ πικρατειω ñ ν, πυθο' μενος ο’ λιγωρειñσθαι τα` ς ι‘ ερα` ς α’ παρχα' ς, «ινα ε’ πιτρε' πωσι τοιñς ’ Ιουδαι' οις μο' νοις ει’ ς τα` συναγω' για συνε' ρχεσθαι; Legat. 311). (Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL)

Both Julius Caesar and Augustus exempted the synagogues in Italy and in the eastern provinces from the general ban on collegia, a fact that “safeguarded the collection of the α’ παρχαι' , since the right to from collegia carried with it the right to have a common fund”.98 Gaius Norbanus Flaccus writes to the magistrates of Ephesus in order to remind them of the emperor’s decision that the Jews, wherever they may be, regularly according to their old peculiar custom, make a rule of meeting together and subscribing money which they send to Jerusalem. He does not wish them to be hindered from doing this (’ Ιουδαι' ους, ουð α›ν ω ò σιν, ι’ δι' ω, α’ ρχαι' ω, ε’ θισμω ñ, νομι'ζειν συναγομε' νους χρη' ματα φε' ρειν, α‹ πε' μπουσιν ει’ ς ‘Ιεροσο' λυμα: του' τους ου’ κ η’ θε' λησε κωλυ' εσθαι τουñ το ποιειñν; Philo, Legat. 315). (Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL)

The economic aspect of the tension between Jews and Gentiles comes to the surface in the complaints of the Jews of Ionia before Marcus Agrippa in 14 BC: It was also at this time, when they (Marcus Agrippa and Herod) were in Ionia, that a great multitude of Jews, who lived in its cities, took advantage of their opportunity to speak out freely, and came to them and told them of the mistreatment which they had suffered in not being allowed to observe their own laws and in being forced to appear in court on their holy days because of the inconsiderateness of the examining judges. And they told how they had been deprived of the monies sent as offering to Jerusalem (τω ñν ει’ ς ‘Ιεροσο' λυμα χρημα' των α’ νατιθεμε' νων α’ φαιροιñντο) and of being forced to participate in military service and civic duties (στρατειω ñ ν και` λειτουργιω ñ ν α’ ναγκαζο' μενοι κοινωνειñν) and to spend their sacred monies for these things, although they had been exempted from these duties because the Romans had always permitted them to live in accordance with their own laws (A.J. 16.27–28).

Nicolaus of Damascus, who addresses Agrippa on behalf of the Ionian Jews (A.J. 16.31–57), asserts, Although we have done splendidly, our circumstances should not arouse envy (τα` δ• η‘ με' τερα και` λαμπρω ñ ς πραττο' ντων ου’ κ ε» στιν ε’ πι'φθονα), for it is through you that we, in common with all men, prosper”, and he argues that the enemies of the Jews in the Ionian cities deprive them of their sacred traditions and customs “by laying hands on the money which we contribute in the name of God and by openly stealing it from our temple (χρη' ματα με`ν α‹ τω ñ, θεω ñ, συμφε' ρομεν ε’ πω' νυμα διαφθει'ροντες και` φανερω ñ ς ι‘ εροσυλουñ ντες), ─────────────── 97 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 258–61 (No. 23). 98 Smallwood, Legatio ad Gaium, 308–309.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

313

by imposing taxes upon us, and by taking us to court and other public places of business even on holy days (A.J. 16.41, 45). (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)

The proconsul Gaius Norbanus Flaccus directs the city of Sardis in 12 BC to permit the Jews to send their sacred monies to Jerusalem, implementing Augustus’ order: Gaius Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul, to the magistrates and council of Sardis, greeting. Caesar has written to me, ordering that the Jews shall not be prevented from collecting sums of money, however great they may be, in accordance with their ancestral custom, and sending them up to Jerusalem (κελευ' ων μη` κωλυ' εσθαι του` ς ’ Ιουδαι'ους ο« σα α›ν ω ò σιν κατα` το` πα' τριον αυ’ τοιñς ε» θος συναγαγο' ντες χρη' ματα α’ ναπε' μπειν ει’ ς ‘Ιεροσο' λυμα). I have therefore written to you in order that you may know that Caesar and I wish this to be done (A.J. 16.171). (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)99

Julius Antonius, also proconsul of the province of Asia, wrote on February 13, 4 BC to Ephesus to confirm the right of the Jews, in agreement with the decrees of Augustus and Agrippa, to follow their own laws and to send their offerings to Jerusalem: To the magistrates, the council and the people of Ephesus, greeting. When I was administering justice in Ephesus on the Ides of February, the Jews dwelling in Asia (οι‘ ε’ ν τηñ, ’Ασι'α, κατοικουñ ντες ’ Ιουδαιñοι) pointed out to me that Caesar Augustus and Agrippa have permitted them to follow their own laws and customs, and to bring the offerings, which each of them makes of his own free will and out of piety toward the Deity, travelling together under escort (to Jerusalem) without being impeded in any way (συγκεχωρηκε' ναι αυ’ τοιñς χρηñ σθαι τοιñς ι’ δι' οις νο' μοις και` ε» θεσιν, α’ παρχα' ς τε, α‹ ς ε«καστος αυ’ τω ñ ν ε’ κ τηñ ς ι’ δι' ας προαιρε' σεως ευ’ σεβει' ας ε« νεκα τηñ ς προ` ς το` θειñον α’ νακομιδηñ ς συμπορευομε' νους ποιειñν α’ νεμποδι' στως). And they asked that I confirm by my own decision the rights granted by Augustus and Agrippa, I therefore wish you to know that in agreement with the will of Augustus and Agrippa I permit them to live and act in accordance with their ancestral customs without interference (υ‘ μαñ ς ουò ν βου' λομαι ει’ δε' ναι ε’ ν τοιñς τουñ Σεβαστουñ και` ’Αγρι'ππα βουλη' μασιν συνεπιτρε' πειν αυ’ τοιñς χρηñ σθαι και` ποιειñν κατα` τα` πα' τρια χωρι`ς ε’ μποδισμουñ ) (A.J. 16.172–173). (Trans. R. Marcus, LCL)100

John Barclay comments that it was evidently extremely irksome to the citizens of the Greek cities to witness a large and evidently prosperous Jewish community sending large amounts of money to the temple in Jerusalem while at the same time refusing to meet the traditional local liturgy (λειτουργι' α) obligations by which wealthy citizens contributed to the welfare and honor of the city and its temples.101 ─────────────── 99 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 280–83 (No. 26). 100 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 285–90 (No. 27). 101 Barclay, Jews, 268–69. On liturgies, see Friedrich Oertel, Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens (1965; repr., Leipzig: Teubner, 1917); Arnold H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (1998; repr., Oxford: Clarendon, 1940), 167–68, 175–76; Naphtali Lewis, The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt, Papyrologica Florentina 28 (Florence: Gonnelli, 1997 [1982]); Maurice Sartre, L’orient romain. Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux

314

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

2.4 Conclusions The lack of specific evidence for the middle of the first century AD for many of the cities in which Luke reports Jewish opposition and hostility towards Christian missionaries should not prevent us from attempting to formulate conclusions based on evidence that is slightly earlier. 1. Even though the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in the cities of Asia Minor was generally stable and respectful in the mid-first century, there were no guarantees that this could not change suddenly. As we have seen, disturbances that involved local Jewish communities repeatedly necessitated the confirmation of existing rights by imperial, provincial, or local authorities.102 The unrest in Alexandria in Egypt and in Antioch in Syria in the years AD 38– 41 – only about five years before Paul and Barnabas begin to engage in missionary work in the cities of Roman Asia – demonstrates the tenuous nature of the status of the local Jewish communities, arguably not only for cities in Syria and Egypt, but also for cities in other Roman provinces. 2. The religious freedom and social autonomy of a local Jewish community, as granted and confirmed by Roman officials, would be threatened if the laws and customs which Jews were allowed by the authorities to follow were to change. If a local Jewish community abandoned the traditional definition of being “Israelite” or “Jewish”, for example by discarding the distinction between Jews (and proselytes) and non-Jews, the local magistrates might be no longer willing to grant the members of this community privileges (e.g., assembling once a week) which the other citizens did not have. 3. Financial matters, in particular the yearly collection of the “consecrated money” and its transfer to Jerusalem, were a recurrent point of contention between Jews and non-Jews.103 If Jews and Jewish sympathizers set up alternative ways to collect and distribute monies, the local magistrate might easily modify or even revoke the customary permission that the diaspora synagogues had been granted with regard to the management of their revenues. 4. The Jewish communities of the Ionian cities were willing and capable of vigorously defending their rights before the highest representatives of the emperor (A.J. 16.27–28). Even though this was an extraordinary case which involved huge sums of money, it demonstrates that Jews were not shy to engage the Roman authorities on the highest level. It is to be expected that local Jewish communities, eager to at least maintain the political and social ─────────────── Sévères (31 avant J.-C – 235 après J.-C.), L’Univers historique (Paris: Seuil, 1991), 139–47; Horsley and Llewelyn, New Documents, VII, 93–111. 102 On documents which confirm rights previously granted by the Romans, see Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 424–27. 103 Cf. Linder, “Legal Status”, 142.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

315

status quo, would be willing to move against anyone who threatens to endanger the existing rights and privileges in their city.

3. The Contacts of the Jewish Diaspora Communities. with Jerusalem 3.1 The Evidence It is well known that Jews who lived in cities outside of the Holy Land visited Jerusalem during pilgrimage festivals and on other occasions.104 Philo writes: Countless multitudes from countless cities come, some over land, other over sea, from west and east and north and south at every feast (μυρι'οι γα` ρ α’ πο` μυρι'ων ο« σων πο' λεων, οι‘ με`ν δια` γηñ ς, οι‘ δε` δια` θαλα' ττης, ε’ ξ α’ νατοληñ ς και` δυ' σεως και` α»ρκτου και` μεσημβρι'ας καθ• ε‘ κα' στην ε‘ ορτη' ν). They take the Temple for their port as a general haven and safe refuge from the bustle and great turmoil of life, and there they seek to find calm weather (Philo, Leg. 1.69). (Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL) In fact, practically in every city there are banking places for the holy money (ταμειñα τω ñν ι‘ ερω ñ ν χρημα' των) where people regularly come and give their offerings. And at stated times there are appointed to carry the sacred tribute envoys (ι‘ εροπομποι` τω ñ ν χρημα' των) selected on their merits, from every city those of the highest repute (ε’ ξ ε‘ κα' στης οι‘ δοκιμω' τατοι), under whose conduct the hopes of each and all will travel safely. For it is on these firstfruits, as prescribed by the law, that the hopes of the pious rest (Philo, Spec. 1.78). (Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL)

In 1983 Benjamin Isaac published an inscription discovered by Benjamin Mazar in excavations south of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, “found among some debris which filled a pool in a palace of the Herodian period which was destroyed in 70 A.D.”105 ∟ ΚΕΠΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΩΣ PΠΑΡΙΣΑΚΕΣΩΝΟΣ ΕΝΡΟΔΩΙ ΡΟΣΤΡΩΣΙΝ ΡΑΧΜΑΣ

](ε» τους) κ’ ε’ π’ α’ ρχιερε' ως ]Πα' ρις ’Ακε' σωνος ]ε’ ν ‘Ρο' δωι π]ροστρω ñ σιν δ]ραχμα' ς

... year 20, under the High Priest ... paris, son of Akeson ... in Rhodos ... for the pavement ... drachmas

─────────────── 104 Cf. Shmuel Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981); Levine, Jerusalem, 245–53, 273–74; also David Noy, “Letters out of Judaea: Echoes of Israel in Jewish Inscriptions from Europe”, in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period, ed. S. Jones and S. Pearce, JSPSup 31 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 106–17. 105 Benjamin Isaac, “A Donation for Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem”, IEJ 33 (1983): 86–92, 86; SEG XXXIII 1277; Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II, 61–62 (No. 10). Cf. Klaus Bieberstein and Hanswulf Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 100 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1994), III, 144. [Now in CIIP I.1, No. 3.]

316

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

The stone on which the inscription is inscribed measures 20 by 26 cm, suggesting that it was a plaque inserted in a wall, recording a contribution for financing the pavement of the Temple complex. B. Isaac suggests that since the findspot is only 90 meters from the southern retaining wall of the Temple Mount, it is “quite possible that the inscription derives from the superstructure, perhaps from the Royal Stoa”.106 He points to Josephus’ comment that the southern court of the Temple was “completely paved with a variety of all kinds of stones” (το` δ• υ« παιθρον α« παν πεποι' κιλτο παντοδαπω ñ, λι' θω, κατεστρωμε' νον; B.J. 5.192). A “20th year” is attested only for Herod; according to the “civil” calendar, Herod’s 20th year was 18/17 BC, according to the “ecclesiastical calendar” the year 17/16 BC107 The High Priest at this time would have been Simon or Boethos.108 Rhodes belonged to the Roman province of Asia. The son of Akeson was either a Jew or a sympathizer, presumably a Godfearer, who made a donation in support of Herod’s renovation of the Temple.109 This inscription is important, as Isaac points out, “as one of the few extant epigraphical documents related to the Temple in Jerusalem”.110 It is all the more significant that this inscription documents financial donations made for the building of the Temple complex by Jews or Godfearers from the diaspora, demonstrating an interest in the metropolis of all the Jews in a diaspora community. The size of the inscription suggests the possibility that there were numerous further donations which were made public through inscriptions.111 This inscription does not prove, but certainly suggests, that other wealthy individuals from the Jewish diaspora made contributions to the Temple. This is confirmed by Josephus who knows that the gold and silver covering of several gates of the Temple had been donated by Alexander, the alabarch (chief of customs) of Alexandria (B.J. 5.205): Of the gates nine were completely overlaid with gold and silver, as were also their doorposts and lintels … The nine gates were thus plated by Alexander the father of Tiberius” (τω ñ ν δε` πυλω ñ ν αι‘ με`ν ε’ ννε' α χρυσω ñ, και` α’ ργυ' ρω, κεκαλυμ με' ναι πανταχο' θεν ηò σαν ο‘ μοι'ως τε αι« τε παραστα' δες και` τα` υ‘ πε' ρ … τουñ τον δε` ταιñς ε’ ννε' α πυ' λαις ε’ πε' χεεν ο‘ Τιβερι' ου πατη` ρ ’Αλε' ξανδρος; Josephus, B.J. 5.201, 205 (Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL)

─────────────── 106 Isaac, “Donation”, 89; for the following comment, see ibid. 107 Cf. Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology”, PEQ 114 (1982): 29–42, here 38–39; Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II, 61. 108 E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), eds. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973/1979/1986/1987), II, 229. 109 Margaret Williams, “The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Judaism”, in Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume III: The Early Roman Period, ed. W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 75–93, here 84. 110 Isaac, “Donation”, 92. 111 Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II, 62.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

317

Alexander, the father of Tiberius, was the alabarch Alexander of Alexandria, brother of the philosopher Philo (A.J. 18.259).112

The inscription found on an ossuary from Jerusalem provides the information that the bronze gate called “Nicanor Gate” was donated by an Alexandrian man named Nicanor: Nicanor of Alexandria who made the gates ο’ στατω ñ ν τουñ Νεικα' |νορος ’Αλεξανδρε' ως | ποιη' σαντος τα` ς θυ' ρας | ‫נקנר אלכסא‬ (OGIS II 599; CIJ II 1256; JIGRE 153 [now CIIP I.1 98])

Both these texts clearly reveal, as Williams points out, “the attachment of Diasporan Jews to both the Temple and the ‘Holy Land’”.113 Gruen asserts that “Jerusalem as concept and reality remained a powerful emblem of Jewish identity – not supplanted by the Book or disavowed by those who dwelled afar”.114 The regular collections of monies for the temple in Jerusalem in the Jewish diaspora communities and the transfer of these collections to the Holy Land which have already been mentioned demonstrate the close connection between the Jewish communities in the diaspora and Jerusalem.

3.2 Conclusions When the Jewish diaspora communities vigorously defended their rights and customs, they defended, among other matters, the measure of autonomous internal administration which Julius Caesar and Augustus had granted. The freedom to manage their own internal affairs included the permission to collect contributions of money for the Jerusalem temple. The struggle to protect these rights permits at least two conclusions. 1. The fact that the diaspora Jews defended the permission to collect such contributions and to send them to Jerusalem demonstrates that they regarded it as essential to maintain connections with the metropolis of all Jews. 2. Any new developments that would jeopardize the traditional relationship with Jerusalem, expressed in collections of money and in pilgrimages, would be viewed with suspicion.

─────────────── 112 Peder Borgen, “Judaism in Egypt”, ABD, III, 1068; Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, 15. 113 Williams, “Contribution”, 84. 114 Gruen, Diaspora, 240.

318

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

4. The Jewish Opposition to the Followers of Jesus: An Explanation 4.1 Concerns for Compromising Jewish Identity The self-understanding of the early Christians and of their missionaries implied a conflict which was unavoidable. The Christian missionaries taught the same God – the God who created the world and who had revealed himself in Israel – whom the Jewish communities in the cities of Asia Minor worshipped. They also taught, however, that God had sent Jesus, the promised messiah, and offered through his death and resurrection universal salvation and forgiveness – not only for the Jewish people, but for Gentiles as well. The principle “there is no longer Jew or Greek” (Gal 3:28; cf. Rom 3:9, 23, 29) signifies that Paul, and arguably other early Christian missionaries, disregarded, programmatically, the connection of ethnic and religious identity, a nexus which was essential both for the self-understanding and for the political status of the local Jewish communities.115 As the Christian missionaries regularly began their preaching and teaching in the local synagogues, as a matter of course, conflict was inevitable unless the Jewish community accepted their message of Jesus the crucified and risen messiah who had inaugurated the last days in which the nations would be converted, leading to a drastic transformation of their community. As the local Jewish communities of Roman Asia (and of Greece) were evidently not willing to accept the message of the followers of Jesus and thus the need for transformation, the establishment of new communities outside of the synagogue community was the result. The consequences of the self-understanding of these new communities of believers in Jesus Christ should not be underestimated. The emerging Christian communities did not understand themselves as a new Jewish community alongside the existing Jewish community, but as a new entity, albeit fundamentally linked with God’s revelation in and through Israel. It is surely no coincidence that the followers of Jesus did not call themselves “synagogue of the christianoi” analogous to the “synagogue of the Cyrenians” or the “synagogue of the Alexandrians”, Acts 6:9, but as “church of God” (ε’ κκλησι' α τουñ θεουñ ),116 a term that is not attested for a synagogue community. ─────────────── 115 Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Die Christen als neue Randgruppe in Makedonien und Achaia im 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr”, in Antike Randgesellschaften und Randgruppen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum, ed. H.-P. Müller and F. Siegert, Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 5 (Münster: Harrassowitz, 2000), 158–88, here 173, with regard to the events in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1– 9); for the following comments cf. ibid. 173–74. 116 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 4:1; Acts 20:28.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

319

These consequences amplified the conflict between Jews and Jewish Christians in a twofold manner.117 First, as individual members of the Jewish community – both Jews and proselytes – accepted the Christian message and joined the new community of the followers of Jesus Christ, the synagogue community would be weakened once they left.118 How much the synagogue community was weakened, and whether the departure of members and sympathizers would have been felt to be a threat, depends on which and how many members joined the followers of Jesus. The persecution of Paul and Barnabas and of other Christians by Jews in Asia Minor indicates that the new movement was not regarded as a quantité négligeable but as an entity that required robust suppressing action. Second, as Godfearers and other sympathizers accepted the Christian message and joined the emerging new community, the standing of the Jewish community in the city, already a minority, was further diminished. When this matrix of Jewish and Jewish-Christian self-understanding is placed in the historical context of the realities of the early Roman Empire in the first century, the following considerations appear to be relevant.

4.2 Concerns for the Preservation of the Social and Political Status Quo The social context of the Jewish communities in Roman Asia is a major factor in understanding the forceful reaction of the leaders of the Jewish communities in cities such as Pisidian Antioch. If Paul indeed had letters of recommendation from L. Sergius Paullus for his relatives in Pisidian Antioch, he would have directed his missionary efforts among Gentiles not at the margins of colonial society, but at its very center. The benefaction of Iulia Severa for the Jewish community in Akmonia demonstrates that, as Stephen Mitchell argues, “it would not have been unnatural for important families, perhaps even preeminently that of the Sergii Paulli, to have taken an active interest in Jewish worship”.119 If members of the local elites120 who had been benefactors of the Jewish community, together with larger numbers of Gentiles, accepted Paul’s teaching and joined the emerging new communities of the followers of Jesus, ─────────────── 117 Koch, “Randgruppe”, 174. 118 Does Paul continue to try to be part of Diaspora Jewish communities? The fact that he received on five occasions the synagogue punishment of being flogged (2 Cor 11:24) seems to suggest this, although these incidents could have happened with new locations of missionary work; cf. Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 20. 119 Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 9; cf. ibid. for the following comment. 120 On the local elites in Roman Asia see Eckhard Stephan, Honoratioren, Griechen, Polisbürger. Kollektive Identitäten innerhalb der Oberschicht des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien, Hypomnemata 143 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002).

320

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

this could be expected to have serious repercussions for the Jewish community: they would lose Jewish families, proselytes and pagan sympathizers to the new group, accompanied by financial losses and damage to the status of the Jewish community in the political landscape of the city. When Paul and Barnabas engaged in missionary work in AD 46 in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, the Jews of Asia Minor were certainly aware of the anti-Jewish pogrom in Alexandria in AD 38 during which synagogues were profaned and destroyed (Philo, Flacc. 11.86–91; Josephus, B.J. 2.385), of the unrest in Alexandria in AD 40/41 (Josephus, A.J. 19.279), and of the unrest in Antioch in Syria between Jews and Gentiles in AD 39/40 and in AD 41 (Malalas, 244.15–245.20). Even though these events evidently had no direct repercussions for the Jewish communities in Asia Minor, they certainly indicated that the imperial edicts concerning their privileges did not guarantee their safety. As the Christian missionaries focused their teaching on the death of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:27–29), their Gentile sympathizers and converts might easily turn against the local Jews as representatives of those who had killed the savior of the world, despite the involvement of the Roman prefect in Judea (Acts 13:28). There is no evidence in the first century for this kind of Christian anti-Judaism which proved so lethal for Jews in later centuries. It is conceivable, however, that the local Jews might be afraid of repercussions of the missionaries’ focus on the culpability of the Jews of Jerusalem for the death of the Messiah. When Augustus abolished the collegia, he authorized at the same time the organizations of the old associations which Julius Caesar had exempted,121 “provided they received the necessary permit from the Senate. This permit was to be granted only to those associations that were not likely to disturb the peace of the state, but would definitely serve the public interest”.122 The leaders of the Jewish communities in Roman Asia could not be sure whether the debates provoked by the novel missionary activity of Paul and Barnabas with their message of a crucified savior might not lead to disturbances which might jeopardize their legal status. As we have seen, the fear of disturbances is vividly expressed by Philo on the occasion of the embassy of the Alexandrian Jews to Gaius Caligula in AD 40. From both a Jewish and a Greek-Roman perspective, the public interest is certainly not served if citizens listen to orations about claims concerning a crucified savior who is proclaimed as the lord of ─────────────── 121 Suetonius, Augustus 32.1: “And he disbanded all collegia, except such as were of long standing and formed for legitimate purposes”. J. J. Bradley translates the term collegia as “guild” (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, LCL [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913]), which is misleading. 122 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 460. On the diaspora synagogues as associations see Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004), 207–21.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

321

the world. After all, the Roman authorities of Palestine had seen fit to eliminate Jesus of Nazareth with the ultimate punishment of crucifixion, in the context of public disturbances in Jerusalem (Mark 15:11–15). Assuming that the Jewish communities in Asia had heard of the developments in Syria where followers of Jesus Christ had established themselves since AD 32 or 35 as separate communities,123 they may have wanted to prevent the establishment of similar communities in their cities in order to avoid the unrest that the activities of the Christians had caused. There might also be a connection with the information that Luke provides in Acts 11:26 to the effect that believers in Jesus Messiah were called “Christians” for the first time in Antioch (χρηματι' σαι τε πρω' τως ε’ ν ’Αντιοχει' α, του` ς μαθητα` ς Χριστιανου' ς).124 The term Χριστιανοι' occurs only here and in 1 Pet 4:16 in the context of Christians in Asia Minor who face the possibility of having to give an account of their beliefs before the magistrates in the city in which they lived. The term christianoi is best explained as an official designation coined by the Roman authorities in Antioch for the new religious group of the followers of Jesus whom they believed to be the Christ.125 G. Schneider comments that “the designation was probably applied to the Christians by outsiders … when, not least as a result of their missionary activity to the Greeks, they began to separate themselves from the synagogue congregations and acquire an identity as a separate group”.126 M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer suggest that “perhaps the new church had to register in the provincial capital with the magistrates of the city or of the province of Syria as a Jewish ‘special synagogue’ or ‘religious association,’ i.e., as collegium, συναγωγη' or ε» ρανος”.127 Rainer Riesner surmises with reference to the unrest between the ─────────────── 123 For the connection between Syrian Antioch and Jewish communities in Asia Minor, note e.g. the inscription from Apollonia in Phrygia which mentions a certain Debbora from “Antioch” who was “born of renowned parents” and who had married a certain Eumelos from Sillyum in Pamphylia (MAMA IV 202; Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II, 384–86, Nos. 180; Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 8–9 n. 60). Mitchell and Ameling accept the identification of Debbora as a Jewish woman, which had been suggested by William M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul (New York: Armstrong, 1908), 255, and Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, 192 n. 7. Ameling argues for the identification of Antioch with Syrian Antioch (Barbara Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 128, and Schürer, History, III, 32 argues for Antioch on the Maeander), and for a date of the inscription in the first and second century AD Ameling highlights “the close connection which had always existed between Pamphylia and the Syrian Tetrapolis” (ibid. 385). 124 Cf. Justin Taylor, “Why were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11,26)”, RB 101 (1994): 75–94; Botermann, Judenedikt, 141–88. 125 Erik Peterson, “Christianus [1946],” in Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis. Studien und Untersuchungen (Rome: Herder, 1959), 64–87; Marta Sordi, The Christians and the Roman Empire (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986), 15. 126 Gerhard Schneider, “Χριστιανο' ς”, EDNT III, 478. 127 Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (orig. 2000; repr., WUNT 108Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,

322

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Jews and the Greeks in Antioch in AD 39/40, that “in connection with this newly emerging anti-Semitism, especially the Gentile Christians in Antioch probably saw the value in not being viewed as a Jewish group, a circumstance which then might have led to their special designation as Χριστιανοι' ”.128 If the Jewish leaders of the synagogue community in Pisidian Antioch were aware of these developments in the capital of the province of Syria, they might have made the decision, once they rejected the teaching of the Jewish Christian missionaries as misguided, to prevent similar developments in their city. Developments that transpired at roughly the same time in Rome might be relevant for the forceful reaction of the Jews in Roman Asia as well. According to Cassius Dio, the emperor Claudius issued an edict, to be dated in the year AD 41, in which he commanded the Jews to adhere to their ancestral way of life and not to conduct meetings: “he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life (τω ñ, δε` δη' πατρι' ω, βι' ω, χρωμε' νους ε’ κε' λευσε), not to hold meetings (μη` συναθροι' ζεσθαι)” (Cassius Dio 60.6.6).129 This measure which denied the Jews in the city of Rome the right of assembly130 suggests disturbances among the Roman Jews provoked by the missionary activity of Jewish Christians.131 Helga Botermann surmises that leading representatives of the synagogues might have complained at the imperial court about the Jewish Christian missionaries, hoping to get rid of them as the result of official charges before the Roman authorities, or that king Herod Agrippa I, a friend of Claudius, or one of his advisers, might have possibly played a role: “Any member of the Jewish upper class who knew both the Jews and the Romans and who was interested in the maintenance of a good relationship with the emperor, could easily foresee serious political conflicts if the supporters of Jesus who had been executed ten years earlier as ‘king of the Jews’ assembled and spoke of him as Messiah”.132 If the Jews in Roman Asia had knowledge of this edict of AD 41 and its background, which is again a plausible possibility, they might have been easily emboldened to recruit the help of the local authorities, e.g., in Pisidian Antioch and to move ─────────────── 1998), 348; cf. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (London/Louisville: SCM/Westminster John Knox, 1997), 226. 128 Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 114. 129 Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life, 332 (Nos. 10, 32). 130 The edict of AD 41 (Cassius Dio 60.6.6) is to be distinguished from the edict of AD 49 (Suetonius, Claud. 25.4). 131 Cf. Botermann, Judenedikt, 103–40; Hengel and Schwemer, Paulus, 389–91; Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 448–49; Riesner, Chronology, 167–79; David Alvarez Cineira, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die paulinische Mission, Herders biblische Studien 19 (Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 260–90. 132 Botermann, Judenedikt, 132.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

323

against the Jewish Christian missionaries. The right to live according to Jewish laws which the emperor had granted was not necessarily permanent. In the event that a specific point of the Jewish law, or the provocative behavior of Jews (or of groups perceived to be Jewish), “would for any reason be felt as contrary to the Roman law or interests, in Rome or wherever else in the provinces, the right to use them, which they had had in Caesar’s times, could be immediately revoked for a certain period of time or forever”.133 Another factor that affected the concerns for the preservation of the social and political status quo of the local Jewish community might have been financial. Neither Luke in the Book of Acts nor Paul in his letters written either to churches in Asia Minor (Gal) or from churches in Asia Minor (1 Cor) provide statistical evidence for the number of Jewish Christians in the churches. As most if not all churches began with the conversion of Jews, proselytes, and Godfearers, it would be natural for the leadership of the local synagogue to fear the loss of financial contributions. Paul’s later collection for the Christians in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1–4; 2Cor 8–9; Rom 15:25–28; cf. Acts 20:16; 24:17) does not explain the Jewish opposition to his missionary work in southern Galatia. Is it possible that Jews in Roman Asia would think that a rival “Jewish” group might – eventually – upset their right to send the Temple tax to Jerusalem?134

4.3 Concerns regarding the relationship with Jerusalem Another facet of the explanation for the intense opposition of Jews to Jewish Christians may be found in the fear of a deteriorating relationship with Jerusalem. When Paul engaged in missionary work in southern Galatia in AD 46, several events had taken place in Jerusalem which can hardly have escaped the attention of the Jewish communities in Asia Minor. Jesus’ ministry which had attracted thousands of sympathizers in Galilee and beyond (Matt 4:25; 14:21; 15:38; Mark 6:44; 8:9; Luke 12:1) must have been common knowledge, as his execution in AD 30 by Pontius Pilatus, the Roman prefect of ─────────────── 133 Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 448, who goes on to argue that “the Jews who lived in Josephus’ time, too, must have known this well. This explains the vein of anxiety we find in Josephus’ remarks when he explains to his public the reasons why he decided to quote the Roman and the Greek documents concerning the Jewish rights” (449). 134 I thank Paul Trebilco for this suggestion (private communication). On the church in Ephesus and Paul’s collection cf. Paul R. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, WUNT 166 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 63–64. On the collection see recently Burkhard Beckheuer, Paulus und Jerusalem. Kollekte und Mission im theologischen Denken des Heidenapostels, EHS 23.611 (Frankfurt: Lang, 1997); Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection, WUNT 2.124 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).

324

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Judea, initiated by the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. In AD 31/32, Stephen, a leading member of the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, had been killed. In AD 41, Herod Agrippa I had organized a persecution against the leadership of the followers of Jesus, executing James, son of Zebedee, and planning the execution of Simon Peter (Acts 12:1–4). Only two years before Paul’s mission in southern Galatia, Herod Agrippa I135 had suddenly died in AD 44, and control had returned again to a Roman governor, a development which evidently reawakened the earlier conflicts.136 The first Roman procurator, Cuspius Fadus (AD 44–46), tried to bring the priestly vestments under Roman control, and he was forced to crush the movement of the self-proclaimed prophet Theudas (Josephus, A.J. 20.97–99; cf. Acts 5:36) who evidently “hoped to reunite the divided religious factions of Judaism and to overthrow the Roman occupation in Palestine”.137 When Jewish communities in Roman Asia moved decisively and forcefully against Christian missionaries in AD 46, they could easily justify their actions by appealing to the actions of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in AD 30 and of king Herod Agrippa I in AD 41. If the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem had regarded it as necessary to terminate the activities of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers with targeted force in Roman Judea, the Jewish communities in Roman Asia are arguably justified in seeking to nip the emerging Christian presence in the bud, forcing the Jewish Christian missionaries to leave their cities. We should not forget that only 20 years after the establishment of the churches in Roman Asia, the Jewish revolt in Palestine in AD 66–70 had repercussions for the Jewish communities in the diaspora. Their position visà-vis their Greek neighbors became more precarious. In Antioch, the Greek citizens asked Titus to expel the Jews from the city (Josephus, B.J. 7.100– 103).138 When Vespasian ordered in AD 71/72 that all Jews throughout the ─────────────── 135 Cf. Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, TSAJ 23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). 136 Emilio Gabba, “The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 BCE–CE 70”, in Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period, ed. W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 94–167, here 142–43. 137 Clayton N. Jefford, “Theudas”, ABD 6 (1992): 527–28, here 528; cf. David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 126–62; Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 114–16. On the question of chronology see Hemer, Acts, 162–63, 224–25; Witherington, Acts, 238– 39. 138 Allen Kerkeslager, “The Diaspora from 66 to c. 235 CE I: The Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica, 66–c. 235 CE”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume IV: The Late RomanRabbinic Period, ed. S.T. Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 53–68, here 56 comments with regard to Egypt that after AD 70 “the status of Jews as defeated enemies of Rome offered a new pretext for local efforts” to deprive Jews of civic posts by legal or more

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

325

Roman Empire – men and women between the ages of three and seventy – contribute to the fiscus Judaicus (B.J. 7.218; Dio Cassius 66.7),139 the traditional right of diaspora Jews to send offerings to Jerusalem was revoked.140 This tax, valued originally at two denarii (didrachmon), increased almost immediately by the addition of the “firstfruits” (aparchai), consolidated toward the end of the first century into the Ioudaikon telesma, initially forced the Jews of the Empire to contribute to the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. This tax “was designed to proclaim in a particularly oppressive manner their national and religious subservience to Rome and the Roman state cult”,141 and “it made clear that Rome held the entire Jewish people responsible for the war waged and lost in Judaea”.142 These later developments, while not immediately relevant for the 40s, demonstrate that events in Palestine could have major repercussions for the Jewish diaspora communities. Since Jesus was accused, convicted and executed as a blasphemer and a deceiver of the people who claimed to possess comprehensive authority independent of the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem,143 the leadership of the Jewish community in Pisidian Antioch, and in other cities of Roman Asia, would have thought that inactivity in this matter could further undermine the status of the Jews in Palestine who had just lost the Jewish monarchy, coming once again under direct Roman administration. Responsible Jewish leaders in the local synagogues would certainly be warranted to conclude that members of the synagogue community should be strongly discouraged to accept faith in Jesus as savior and lord, that the Jewish preachers who proclaim Jesus as messiah and who admit Gentiles into God’s covenant with Israel without requiring them to submit to circumcision and to other cultic stipulations must be expelled, and that the establishment of new communities in which Jews and Gentiles meet and worship together needs to be prevented.

─────────────── violent means; cf. Josephus, A.J. 12.119–128; B.J. 2.487–498; 7.100–111, 361–368, 407– 421, 433–453. 139 Cf. Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life, 289–290, with reference to CPJ II 160, 192, 207, 321, 421; Suetonius, Dom. 12.2; bBB 9a. 140 Kerkeslager, “Diaspora”, 55. 141 Linder, “Legal Status”, 137. 142 Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6 (Leuven and Dudley: Peeters, 2005), 124. 143 Cf. August Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit. Untersuchungen zum Strafverfahren gegen Jesus, WUNT 21 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980); Otto Betz, “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu”, ANRW II/25.1 (1982): 565–647; Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus, WUNT 2.106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). On the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death see also Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts, JSNTSup 106 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).

326

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

4.4 The Charge of ζηñ λος in Acts 13:45 Once we take the historical, political and social situation of Jewish diaspora communities into account, it becomes evident that the ζηñ λος of the leaders of the Jewish community in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:45) cannot be reduced to a single factor. The same is surely true of the Jews in Iconium, Lystra, Ephesus, Smyrna and Philadelphia, cities for which the New Testament provides evidence for opposition of Jews to Jewish Christians. The reason for the opposition of the Jews of Roman Asia to the Jewish Christian missionaries and to their teaching is not to be seen in jealousy regarding the greater missionary success of Paul and his colleagues. This is true in view of the fact that there was no organized missionary outreach of Jews to pagans during the Second Temple period.144 The term ζηñ λος in Acts 13:45 should thus not be translated with “jealousy” or “envy”, but with “zeal”. Even though theological convictions clearly played a significant role (cf. Acts 21:27–28), the reason for the Jewish opposition cannot be explained only with reference to their zeal for the law and for the purity of the Jewish community, which is threatened if a large number of pagans join the community without being asked to submit to circumcision and other Jewish laws and customs such as the food laws. As the history of Second Temple and later rabbinic Judaism demonstrates, Jewish leaders accepted debate and controversy: the Jewish commonwealth was not a monolithic society in which everybody shared the same theological, cultural, or political convictions. However, belief in and commitment to a crucified messiah who had been opposed by the Jewish leadership was regarded as unacceptable by most Jews. The motivations that prompt people to take drastic action are usually complex. It is unwise to reduce the concerns of the Jews of Roman Asia who persecuted Paul and Barnabas and other Christians to a single motive. They certainly opposed the Christian missionaries because they disagreed with their teaching. However, there are reasons to believe that the significance of maintaining their religious and ethnic identity also played an important role in their forceful and sometimes violent reaction. The Jews of Asia Minor were surely concerned to preserve the social and political rights and privileges which they had enjoyed since Julius Caesar and which had come under pressure in different places at different times – rights and privileges which might be jeopardized if the movement of the followers of Jesus is ignored. Also, the Jews of Asia Minor might have been motivated by concerns regarding the financial strength of their community, and they were probably also concerned to avoid actions or tolerate developments which contravene decisions made by the leadership of the Jewish commonwealth in Judea. ─────────────── 144 Cf. the discussion in Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, I, 92–172.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

327

Bibliography Ameling, Walter. “Drei Studien zu den Gerichtsbezirken der Provinz Asia in republikanischer Zeit”. EA 12 (1988): 9–24. —. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Band II: Kleinasien. TSAJ 99. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. —. Revelation. WBC 52. Dallas: Word, 1997–98. Bammel, Ernst. “Jewish Activity Against Christians in Palestine According to Acts”. Pages 357–64 in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham. The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting, Volume 4. Exeter: Paternoster, 1995. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Barrett, C. K. The Acts of the Apostles. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98. Beckheuer, Burkhard. Paulus und Jerusalem. Kollekte und Mission im theologischen Denken des Heidenapostels. EHS 23.611. Frankfurt: Lang, 1997. Betz, Otto. “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu”. ANRW II/25.1 (1982): 565–647. Bieberstein, Klaus, and Hanswulf Bloedhorn. Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 100. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1994. Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance. JSPSup 2. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988. —. “The Geographical Excursuses in Josephus”. Pages 247–62 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. FS Morton Smith. Edited by F. Parente and J. Sievers. SPB 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Binder, Donald D. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of Synagogues in the Second Temple Period. SBLDS 169. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. WUNT 2.106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Borgen, Peder. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for his Time. NTSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Botermann, Helga. Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius. Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1. Jahrhundert. Hermes Einzelschriften 71. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996. Breytenbach, Cilliers. Paulus und Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien. Studien zu Apostelgeschichte 13f.; 16,6; 18,23 und den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes. AGAJU 38. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Revised Edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Burnett, Andrew M., Michel Amandry, and Paul Ripollès. Roman Provincial Coinage I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69). London/Paris: British Museum/Bibliothèque Nationale, 1992. Calder, W. M. “Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia”. JRS 2 (1912): 78–109. Cineira, David Alvarez. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die paulinische Mission, Herders biblische Studien 19. Freiburg: Herder, 1999 Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles. London: Epworth, 1996. —. The Partings of the Ways. London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity Press International, 1996 [1991]. —. “The Question of Antisemitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period”. Pages 177– 211 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

328

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Edwards, Ormond. “Herodian Chronology”. PEQ 114 (1982): 29–42. Evans, Craig A. “Is Luke’s View of the Jewish Rejection of Jesus Anti-Semitic?” Pages 29– 56, 173–83 in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus. Edited by D. D. Sylva. BBB 73. Frankfurt: Hain, 1990. Feldman, Louis H., and Reinhold Meyer. Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. AB 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Foakes-Jackson, Frederik J., and Kirsopp Lake, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity, Part. I: The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. IV: English Translation and Commentary. London: Macmillan, 1933. Gabba, Emilio. “The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 BCE–CE 70”. Pages 94–167 in Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Gaston, Lloyd. “Anti-Judaism and the Passion Narrative in Luke and Acts”. Pages 127–53 in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Volume 1: Paul and the Gospels. Edited by P. Richardson and D. Granskou. StCJ 2. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986. Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Haenchen, Ernst. Die Apostelgeschichte. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Halfmann, Helmut. Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Hypomnemata 58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Harland, Philip. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by C. H. Gempf. WUNT 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001 [1989]. —. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Hengel, Martin, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. London/Louisville: SCM/Westminster John Knox, 1997. —. Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels. WUNT 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000 [1998]. Herz, Peter. “Juden in Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft des oberen Maiandros-Tales”. Pages 1–23 in Ethnische und religiöse Minderheiten in Kleinasien. Von der hellenistischen Antike bis in das byzantinische Mittelalter. Edited by P. Herz and J. Kobes. Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998. Horsley, Greg H. R., and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012. Isaac, Benjamin. “A Donation for Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem”. IEJ 33 (1983): 86–92. Jefford, Clayton N. “Theudas”. ABD 6 (1992): 527–28. Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles, SP 5. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992 Jones, Arnold H. M. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998 [1940]. Joubert, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. WUNT 2.124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l’empire romain. Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale. Paris: Geuthner, 1914.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

329

Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. TSAJ 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Katz, Steven T. “The Rabbinic Responses to Christianity”. Pages 259–98 in The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Edited by S. T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kerkeslager, Allen. “The Diaspora from 66 to c. 235 CE I: The Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica, 66–c. 235 CE”. Pages 53–68 in The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Edited by S. T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. “Die Christen als neue Randgruppe in Makedonien und Achaia im 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr”. Pages 158–88 in Antike Randgesellschaften und Randgruppen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum. Edited by H.-P. Müller and F. Siegert. Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 5. Münster: Harrassowitz, 2000. Krencker, Daniel M., and Martin Schede. Der Tempel in Ankara. Denkmäler antiker Architektur 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1936. Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus. TANZ 9. Tübingen/Basel: Francke, 1994. Kruse, Colin G. “Afflictions, Trials, Hardships”. Pages 18–20 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Levick, Barbara. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. —. “The Hellenistic-Roman Diaspora CE 70 – CE 235: The Archaeology Evidence”. CHJ III (1999): 991–1024. —. Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Levinskaya, Irina A. The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting. The Book of Acts in Its FirstCentury Setting, Volume 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Lewis, Naphtali. The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt. Papyrologica Florentina 28. Florence: Gonnelli, 1997 [1982]. Lieu, Judith M. “Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp”. Pages 279–95 in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Linder, Amnon. “The Legal Status of the Jews in the Roman Empire”. Pages 128–73 in The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Edited by S. T. Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Malitz, Jürgen. “Mommsen, Caesar und die Juden”. Pages 371–87 in Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion. Band II: Griechische und Römische Religion. FS Martin Hengel. Edited by H. Cancik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980. Mason, Steve. “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method”. RRJ 6 (2003): 145–88. Mendels, Doron. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: The History of Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Palestine Within the Greco-Roman Period (200 B.C.E. – 135 C.E.). Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Merkel, Helmut. “Israel im lukanischen Werk”. NTS 40 (1994): 371–98. Mitchell, Stephen. “The Administration of Roman Asia from 133 BC to AD 250”. Pages 17– 46 in Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen

330

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert. Edited by W. Eck and E. Müller-Luckner. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 42. München: Oldenbourg, 1999. —. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. —. “Iconium and Ninica: Two Double Communities in Roman Asia Minor”. Historia 28 (1979): 409–38. —. “The Plancii in Asia Minor”. JRS 64 (1974): 27–39. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Noethlichs, Karl Leo. Das Judentum und der römische Staat. Minderheitenpolitik im antiken Rom. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996. Noy, David. “Letters out of Judaea: Echoes of Israel in Jewish Inscriptions from Europe”. Pages 106–17 in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by S. Jones and S. Pearce. JSPSup 31. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Oertel, Friedrich. Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemäischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Ägyptens. 1965. Repr.. Leipzig: Teubner, 1917. Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte. EKK 5. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. Peterson, Erik. “Christianus [1946].” In Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis. Studien und Untersuchungen. Rome: Herder, 1959, 64–87. Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6. Leuven and Dudley: Peeters, 2005. —. Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. TSAJ 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai. “The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire”. ANRW II.13 (1980): 662–762. Rajak, Tessa. “Benefactors in the Greco-Jewish Diaspora”. Pages 305–84 in Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion. Band I: Judentum. FS Martin Hengel. Edited by P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. —. “Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?” JRS 74 (1984): 107–23. Ramsay, William M. The Cities of St. Paul. New York: Armstrong, 1908. Rapske, Brian M. “Opposition to the Plan of God and Persecution”. Pages 235–56 in Witness to the Gospel. The Theology of Acts. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1998. Reynolds, Joyce, and Robert Tannenbaum. Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Association Supp. 12. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1987. Richardson, Peter. Building Jewish in the Roman East. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004. Riesner, Rainer. “Lukas (1. Jh. n.Chr.)”. Pages 391–94 in Hauptwerke der Geschichtsschreibung. Edited by Volker Reinhardt. Stuttgart: Kröner, 1997. —. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Roloff, Jürgen. Die Apostelgeschichte. NTD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Rousselle, Aline. “Vivre sous deux droits: la pratique familiale poly-juridique des citoyens romains juifs”. Annales 45 (1990): 839–59. Safrai, Shmuel. Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. Forschungen zum jüdischchristlichlen Dialog 3. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE. London: SCM, 1992. Sanders, Jack T. The Jews in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Sandmel, Samuel. Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.

10. Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century

331

Sänger, Dieter. Die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel. Studien zum Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel bei Paulus und im frühen Christentum. WUNT 75. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Sartre, Maurice. L’orient romain. Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C – 235 après J.-C.). L’Univers historique. Paris: Seuil, 1991. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Schneider, Gerhard. Die Apostelgeschichte. HThK 5. Freiburg: Herder, 1980–82. —. “Χριστιανο' ς”. EDNT III, 478. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). 3 vols. Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. TSAJ 23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Setzer, Claudia J. Jewish Responses to Early Christians. History and Polemics, 30–150 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Siegert, Folker. “Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten”. JSJ 42 (1973): 109–64. Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Slingerland, H. Dixon. “‘The Jews’ in the Pauline Portion of Acts”. JAAR 54 (1986): 305–21. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. SJLA 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. —. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Second Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Sordi, Marta. The Christians and the Roman Empire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986. Ste Croix, Geoffrey E. M. “Why were Early Christians Persecuted?” Pages 210–49 in Studies in Ancient Society. Edited by M. I. Finley. Past and Present. London/Boston: Routledge/ Paul, 1974. Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Stephan, Eckhard. Honoratioren, Griechen, Polisbürger. Kollektive Identitäten innerhalb der Oberschicht des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Hypomnemata 143. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Sterrett, J. R. Sitlington. The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor. Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens III. Boston: Damrell & Upham, 1888. Stoops, Robert F. “Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23–41”. JBL 108 (1989): 73–91. Strobel, August. Die Stunde der Wahrheit. Untersuchungen zum Strafverfahren gegen Jesus. WUNT 21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Talbert, Richard J. A., ed. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Tannehill, Robert C. “Rejection by Jews and Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul’s Mission in Acts”. Pages 83–101 in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives. Edited by J. B. Tyson. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Taylor, Justin. “St Paul and the Roman Empire: Acts of the Apostles 13–14”. ANRW II.26.2 (1995): 1189–1231.

332

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

—. “Why were the Disciples First Called ‘Christians’ at Antioch? (Acts 11,26)”. RB 101 (1994): 75–94. Tcherikover, Victor A., and Alexander Fuks, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–64. Trebilco, Paul R. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. WUNT 166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. —. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Wander, Bernd. Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen. WUNT 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Weatherly, Jon A. Jewish Responsibility for the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 106. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Weiser, Alfons. Die Apostelgeschichte. ÖTK 5. Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/Echter, 1981–85. Williams, Margaret. “The Contribution of Jewish Inscriptions to the Study of Judaism”. Pages 75–93 in Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. —. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Zmijewski, Josef. Die Apostelgeschichte. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1994.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in the Context of the Ethnic, Social, and Political Affiliations in Revelation John designates the nations of the world in a fourfold phrase – “every tribe and language and people and nation” – which occurs, with variations, in Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15. The fourfold phrase, repeated seven times, can be interpreted in the context of John’s numerical symbolism in which four is the number of the world and seven the number of completeness and in the context of an allusion to and interpretation of several Old Testament passages (Exod 19:5–6; Dan 3:4, 7, 31 [4:11]; 5:19; 6:25 [26]; 7:14;1 Gen 10:20, 31; Dan 7:14): the phrase refers to all the nations of the world, and the phrase is used in connection with the prophetic conviction that the nations will be transferred from the rule of the beast to the rule of God.2 While symbolic and intertextual readings are certainly important, interpreters need to keep in mind the reminder that John’s symbols “do not create a purely selfcontained aesthetic world with no reference outside itself, but intend to relate to the world in which the readers live in order to reform and to redirect the readers’ response to that world”.3 This is true not only for symbols but for intertextual references as well. This essay seeks to establish the “outside reference” of the fourfold, seven times repeated phrase “every tribe and language and people and nation”, a phrase that can and should be connected with the missionary work of the early church, a dimension that pervades the New Testament, as I. H. Marshall has emphasized when he described the writings of the New Testament as “documents of a mission”.4 The missionary task of the ─────────────── 1 Daniel speaks of “peoples, nations, and languages” (‫ּיא‬Aָ ‫יא ְוִל ָּ ׁשַנ‬mּ ָ ‫ָּיא ֻאַמ‬Z ‫) ַ ֽעְמַמ‬, which the LXX expands into a fourfold phrase: πα' ντα τα` ε» θνη, φυλαι` και` γλω ñ σσαι. 2 Richard J. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 34, 326–36. Bauckham posits a connection with John’s symbolism when he asserts with regard to the seven times repeated fourfold phrase that “in the symbolic world of Revelation, there could hardly be a more emphatic indication of universalism” (34). Bauckham is followed by David E. Aune, Revelation, WBC 52 (Dallas: Word, 1997–98), I, 361–62; Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 359–60; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 260. 3 Richard J. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 20. 4 I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers

334

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

church, to be carried out with courage and with the willingness to endure opposition, suffering, and even death, is portrayed in Revelation in the vision of the two witnesses of Rev 11:3, who are most plausibly interpreted as standing for the persevering witness of the followers of Jesus in the face of fierce opposition.5 Most readers of John’s Revelation, which was sent as a letter to churches in the province of Asia,6 presumably would not be have been able to grasp the intertextual connections between the fourfold phrase and Old Testament passages that speak of the nations of the world in a phrase that employs three or four synonyms for “nations”. This is true particularly for Gentile believers for whom Greek terms connoted not automatically, and certainly not exclusively, passages in the LXX, but historical and contemporary “secular” meanings. Most scholars treat the fourfold phrase as a universalistic formula7 without considering the range of meanings of the individual terms.8 The following survey of the four Greek terms explores how readers of Revelation, whose vocabulary was informed not primarily by the Greek Bible but by contemporary Greek usage, might have understood John’s reference to people(s), nations, languages, and tribes. And it explores how Christian believers may have understood these terms given the reality of the work of missionaries who proclaimed the gospel in the cities and villages of Asia Minor and other regions, seeking to reach all ethnic, social, and political groups. The sequence in which we discuss the nouns of John’s fourfold phrase follows the sequence of the four terms in the first occurrence of the phrase in the “new song” which celebrates the singular worthiness of the Lamb, i.e., of Jesus, who was slaugh─────────────── Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 34. This missionary theme is not developed in the section on the Revelation of John (ibid. 570–78). 5 Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [1974]), 183–84; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998 [1977]), 217–18; Beale, Revelation, 556, 573; Ben Witherington, Revelation, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 158–59; Osborne, Revelation, 418 (in addition to two historical figures whom John expects to appear); also Aune, Revelation, 603; see ibid. 598–602, for a survey of other interpretations. 6 On the epistolary character of Revelation cf. Martin Karrer, “Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort”1986). 7 Cf. Beale, Revelation, 882, who speaks of a “formula of universality”. 8 Akira Satake, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, KEK 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 212, goes so far as to claim that the individual terms does not matter much, asserting that the four terms designated together the entire human race (“Der Bedeutung der einzelnen Begriffe kommt keine große Bedeutung zu; vielmehr bezeichnen diese vier Worte in ihrer Gesamtheit die ganze Menschheit”). One exception is, not surprisingly, Theodor Zahn, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986 [1924–26]), 343–44, who relates φυλη' to the twelve tribes of Israel, and then comments on the many languages that were represented in all the larger cities of the Roman empire; he suggests that λαο' ς refers to the ruling people (the Populus Romanus), and ε» θνη to the provinces with their populations, which is not convincing.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

335

tered and who “ransomed for God” by his blood “saints from every tribe and language and people and nation” (ε’ κ πα' σης φυληñ ς και` γλω' σσης και` λαουñ και` ε» θνους; Rev 5:9).

φυλη' A general definition of φυλη' reads, “The Greeks described as phylaí groups or categories of extremely various sizes of people (or animals), and therefore also the peoples and tribes into which they divided themselves and the ‘ethnic groups’ (éthnē) of barbarians”.9 The standard lexicon of NT Greek gives two meanings for φυλη' :10 1. a “subgroup of a nation characterized by a distinctive blood line”, translated as “tribe, clan”, e.g., a tribe within a people (Agamemnon arranges the people κατα` φυñ λα, κατα` φρη' τρας, “by tribes and clans”, Homer, Il. 2.362f); the four Ionic tribes (Herodotus 5.69); the twelve tribes of Israel (Isa 49:6; Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; cf. Rev 21:12; cf. 7:4, 5–8), the Edomite tribes (Gen 36:40), the Egyptian and Arabian and Phoenician tribes who live north of Judea (Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.34). 2. A “relatively large people group that forms a sociopolitical subgroup of the human race” or “nation, people”, e.g., in the phrase “all the tribes of the earth” (Gen 12:3 LXX: παñ σαι αι‘ φυλαι` τηñ ς γηñ ς; cf. Gen 28:14; Ezek 20:32; Matt 24:30; Rev 1:7). There is a third meaning which reflects the predominant use in Greek literature and documentary texts, unfortunately not mentioned by BDAG: 3. a subgroup “by local habitation”,11 with φυλη' used as a technical term for the largest subunit of a polis state; e.g., the ten local “tribes” of Athens formed by Cleisthenes (Herodotus 5.69; 131; IG I2 10, 44), the “tribes” formed by Servius in Rome (Dionysius Halicarnassus 4.14; Plutarch, Rom. 20).12 The term φυλαι' was used in this sense originally only by the Ionians and the Dorians; it appears since the eighth century BC as the most widespread structural element of the city (polis) states; in northwestern Greece, φυλαι' were introduced only in the Hellenistic period. Initially there was general agreement between the number and the names of φυλαι' in the cities of the Ionians (Geleontes, Aegicoreis, Argadeis, Hopletes) and the cities of the Dorians (Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli). In the course of colonization, the φυλη' structure of the “mother city” (μητρο' πολις) was exported to the new foundation (α’ ποικι' α), where it could be supplemented with further φυλαι' .13 The name of a φυλη' was origi─────────────── 9 B. Smarczyk, “Phyle [1]”, BNP XI, 210. 10 BDAG s.v. φυλη' 1–2. Cf. C. Maurer, TDNT, IX, 245–50. 11 LSJ s.v. φυλη' , I.2; Maurer, TDNT IX, 245. 12 B. Smarczyk, “Phyle [1]”, BNP XI 210; the following summary is adapted from 210–12. 13 Strabo relates that Tlepolemos came to Rhodes “where his people settled in three divisions by tribes” (καταφυλαδο' ν; Geogr. 14.2.6); cf. Strabo 14.2.10 (quoting Homer on the Rhodians).

336

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

nally derived from the name of a hero or leader who was worshipped as ancestor, a fiction in which the citizens believed and which promoted the integration of the members of the local φυλη' . In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the number of φυλαι' increased. They were often renamed, taking the names of monarchs and of emperors or their followers, as a demonstration of loyalty. Membership in the φυλη' of a city was a prerequisite for full citizenship. The φυλη' cooperated in the appointment of magistrates, of members of commissions, and of judges. In many cities in Asia Minor, honorary decrees displayed in the theater or in other public places of the city reminded the public of persons who were voted by the δηñ μος to be registered as member of one of the φυλαι' of the city. Examples from Miletus include an honorary decree for the grain merchant Thyssos from Mylasa who was granted citizenship and who was voted into a φυλη' by the prytanes (the stele was to be put into the temple of Apollo), and an honorary decree for a delegation from Miletus to Athens whose members were granted Athenian citizenship and inscription into one of the φυλαι' of Athens (a stele was to be erected in Athens and another stele in Miletus).14 Most interpreters of John’s fourfold phrase understand the reference to φυλη' (φυλαι' ) as a synonym of λαο' ς, ε» θνο' ς, and γλω ñ σσα and thus, usually without discussion of the various meanings of the word, in terms of sense 2 as “nation”. It is not impossible, however, to assume that many readers would have heard a more narrow connotation as well: either in terms of “tribe”, i.e., a subgroup of a larger population unit (sense 1), or in terms of the “tribes” or gentilic groups of the cities (sense 3). As regards sense 1, Strabo still speaks of the “tribes” (φυñ λα, plural) of the Pelasgi at the beginning of the first century, emphasizing that they consisted not of one tribe (φυñ λον, singular) but of many tribes (Geogr. 13.3.2) as they were a great nation (με' γα ε» θνος). He ─────────────── 14 I. Milet III 1023, lines 12–13 (330–320 BC), and I. Milet III 1038, lines 12–13 (180– 160 BC); Peter Herrmann, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt, Milet VI. iii. Inschriften von Milet III: Inschriften n. 1020–1580, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahr 1899 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 4–5, 19–20). For the various formulae of the enrollment clauses see Nicholas F. Jones, “Enrollment Clauses in Greek Citizenship Decrees”, ZPE 87 (1991): 79–112, who comments that “among the honors and privileges conferred by the typical Greek citizenship decree is a formulaic clause calling for, or permitting, the enrollment of the honorand(s) in one or more segments of the honoring state’s citizen population. Only with such enrollment might the grant of citizenship be utilized, since customarily many, if not all, of a state’s public functions were conducted through the organizational apparatus that these segments provided. Barring enrollment, full, or even partial, participation in the public life of the honoring state was simply not possible. To take the best known example, at Athens the enrollment clause in its fully developed form enabled the honorand ‘to enroll himself in phyle, deme, and phratry, whichever he wishes, in accordance with the law’” (79). Jones presents enrollment clauses from Athens and 52 additional city states, including in Asia Minor from Smyrna, Erythrai, Ephesus, Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Priene, Miletus, and Mylasa. A search in PHI #7 yields 63 examples of the expression ει’ ς φυ' λην.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

337

deplores the fact that the parts of Asia Minor in which the Phrygians, Carians, Lydians, and Mysians live are hard to distinguish, a confusion to which the Romans contributed because they “did not divide them according to tribes (μη` κατα` φυñ λα), but in another way organized their jurisdictions” (Geogr. 13.4.12; Trans. H. L. Jones, LCL). The ethnic names of individuals, added after the patronymic and the onoma, indicated the membership of a group – of a “clan” (e.g., a genos), a “brotherhood” (e.g., a phratria), a “tribe” (a phyle), a municipality (e.g., a demos), a state (e.g., a polis), or an entire region (ethnos).15 Sub-ethnics designating a φυλη' kept the awareness of “tribal” or regional identity alive, both for the family and for the public, at least for a few generations, after which they became political. The visions of Rev 5:9 and 7:9 can be understood as prophecies that eventually members of every tribe or clan would come to faith in Jesus and worship the one true God, as prophecies of the eschatological, messianic fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (Gen 12:3). Paul refers to a Scythian (Col 3:11), a term that implies tribal affiliation, and he asserts that his missionary responsibility extends not only to Greeks but also to barbarians (Rom 1:14), whom Greeks knew to be subdivided into phylai. Jesus’ expectation that his witnesses would visit houses, i.e., families (Matt 10:13–14), told the apostles that they should not just preach to large crowds of people but also to smaller population units. The political phylai of the cities (sense 3) are such smaller units as well. Citizens of Pergamum belonged to one of at least fifteen phylai (Apollonias, Attalis, Diodoris, Eumeneia, Philetairis, and others)16 who played a highly visible role in the affairs of the city. A decree that welcomed Attalos III when he returned from a victorious campaign stipulates for the public celebration, And the day on which he [i.e., Attalos] arrives in the city is to be sacred; and the citizens are to sacrifice in a mass κατα` φυλα' ς with the phylarchs furnishing the victims; and there is to be given to each φυλη' for the victims twenty drachmas from sacred and civic revenues (I. Pergamon 246, lines 38–42).17

Christians from Pergamum (Rev 1:11; 2:12) who held Pergamese citizenship and belonged to one of the φυλαι' of the city would rather naturally think of their civic affiliation when they heard John’s vision mention that people ─────────────── 15 Mogens H. Hansen, “City-Ethnics as Evidence for Polis Identity,” in More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub, Historia Einzelschriften 108 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996), 169–96, 170; for examples of phylai as ethnics see 178–81; for the following comment see 182. 16 Cf. Nicholas F. Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 176 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1987), 353–55. 17 Cf. Max Fränkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, Altertümer von Pergamon VIII.1–2 (Berlin: Spemann, 1890–95), No. 246.

338

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

“from all phylai” (ε’ κ πα' σης φυληñ ς) will one day stand before the throne and before the Lamb (Rev 7:9). They would have known in which φυλαι' other Christians in the city had membership. And the evangelists of the church might well have regarded it as their duty to make sure that the gospel is proclaimed to members of all φυλαι' of the city. The term φυλη' /φυλαι' in Rev 5:9; 7:9; 14:6 could thus indeed remind John’s readers that Jesus’ missionary commission sends them to the members of all ethnic, regional, and civic subgroups of the city and of the area in which a congregation and its evangelists and missionaries are active. At the same time, the announcement of God’s judgment against the ethnic, social, and political subgroups of cities and regions who are affiliated with God’s enemies (Rev 10:11; 13:7) is plausible in this context as well: as God’s judgment falls on nations and on individuals, it will fall on the subgroups of the social organization of a nation and of a city. In Rev 10:11 the term φυλαι' is replaced by βασιλειñς (“kings”), which can be explained as “a good summary of one aspect of Daniel 7: the universal empires which are to be taken from their tyrannical, pagan rulers and transferred to the dominion of the ‘one like a son of man’ and the holy ones of the Most High”.18 A specific historical and local meaning in the context of Asia Minor in the first century is also possible: βασιλευ' ς can refer, particularly in Ionia (the region to which Ephesus and Smyrna belonged), to the descendants of a royal house.19 Strabo relates that Androclus, the son of Codrus, the king of Athens, was the leader of the Ionian colonisation that founded Ephesus, pointing out that “still now the descendants of his family are called kings (ε» τι νυñ ν οι‘ ε’ κ τουñ γε' νους ο’ νομα' ζονται βασιλειñς); and they have certain honors, I mean the privilege of front seats at the games and of wearing purple robes as insignia of royal descent (ε’ πι' σημον τουñ βασιλικουñ γε' νους), and staff instead of scepter, and of the superintendence of the sacrifices in honor of the Eleusinian Demeter” (Geogr. 14.1.3; Trans. H. L. Jones, LCL). The citizens of Ephesus in the first century were reminded of Androclus by the U-shaped monument built toward the end of the second century BC at the southwestern end of Curetes Street close to the Tetragonos Agora.20 Ephesian coins minted during the imperial period show the image of Androclus,21 proof that his memory was kept alive. It is not impossible that John’s use of the term βασιλειñς in Rev 10:11 would have reminded at least the Ephesian readers of ─────────────── 18 Bauckham, Climax, 331. 19 LSJ s.v. βασιλευ' ς I.2b,with reference to Aristotle, Ath. 41.3. 20 Cf. Hilke Thür, “The Processional Way in Ephesos as a Place of Cult and Burial,” in Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, ed. H. Koester, HTS 41 (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 157–99; Peter Scherrer, Ephesus: The New Guide (Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 2000), 126. 21 Cf. F. Graf, “Androclus”, BNP I, 683.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

339

the members of the local family who claimed descent from Androclus and who enjoyed elite status in the city, perhaps playing a role in the opposition against the Christians. Even if the charge “you must prophesy again about many peoples and nations and languages and kings” concerns kings universally (including the emperor, who was called βασιλευ' ς), the local “royals” are certainly affected by John’s prophecy as well. In Rev 17:15 the term φυλαι' is replaced by ο» χλοι (“multitudes”) which is linked with λαοι' (here used as the first noun) by και' in the phrase λαοι` και` ο» χλοι, while the third and fourth nouns are also linked (ε» θνη και` γλω ñ σσαι). It can be argued that since John’s vision of Babylon uses ε» θνος for the nations over which Babylon rules (18:3, 23; cf. 14:8; 16:19), whereas λαο' ς and ο» χλος is used for the people of God (18:4; 19:1, 6; cf. 7:9), the unique inclusion of ο» χλος indicates that “John has highlighted, in this form of the fourfold phrase, the contrast between the nations who serve Babylon and the people of God who suffer at her hands (17:6; 18:20, 24)”.22 If the term ο» χλοι refers to the “multitudes” controlled by Babylon,23 the term can be understood to indicate that the “peoples” (λαοι' ) consist of crowds, particularly the people living in the cities – crowds who are under the control of Babylon and to whom John’s prophecy applies, and who thus need to come to faith in Jesus if they want to escape God’s judgment and find salvation.

γλω ñ σσα In the context of John’s fourfold phrase, the term γλω ñ σσα designates “a language viewed in terms of persons using it”, particularly “as a distinctive feature of nations”.24 The term γλω ñ σσα occurs three times after φυλη' (5:9; 11:9; 14:6): it is the tribes, the sub-units of nations of peoples, who speak different languages; the term occurs twice after λαο' ς (7:9; 13:7), and twice after ε» θνη (10:11; 17:15). The term occurs four times as the third noun in the fourfold phrase: in 10:11 after ε» θνη, in 11:9 after φυλαι' , in 13:7 after λαο' ς, and in 14:6 after φυλη' . While the term can be used as a synonym of φυλη' , λαο' ς, and ε» θνος,25 it is possible, indeed likely, that John’s readers would have thought of specific people groups with specific languages. Christians living in the major cities of western Asia Minor such as Ephesus, Pergamum, and Smyrna spoke Greek, they were aware of Latin, they may have heard Hebrew and Aramaic spoken by the earliest missionaries (perhaps in prayers), and they were aware of the existence of the old indigenous languages in the region. ─────────────── 22 Bauckham, Climax, 331–32, quotation ibid. 332. 23 Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 625, who relates all four terms in 17:5 to “the sinners”. 24 BDAG s.v. γλω ñ σσα 2b, for the following comment see ibid. 25 Cf. Isa 66:18; Dan 3:4, 7; Jdt 3:8; Ascen. Isa. 3:18.

340

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Even though most Greeks did not speak another language,26 they knew that other languages existed. Galen asserts that one could write in a language other than Greek if necessary, but insists that the use of Greek is preferable: it is used everywhere, it is sweet-voiced (ευ» γλωττον) and human (α’ νθρωπικη' ), while non-Greek languages can be compared with the sounds of pigs, frogs, ravens and jackdaws (De differentia pulsuum 8.586). While Greek had become the lingua franca in Asia Minor during the Hellenistic period, the people could see inscriptions written in Latin,27 in Hebrew (in cities with a Jewish community),28 in Aramaic and in Phoenician, as well as in Carian, Lycian, Lydian and in several Pamphylian dialects dating to the classical and the Hellenistic periods. 29 Most of the ethnic groups in Asia Minor continued to use their indigenous languages: the absence of inscriptions does not prove the opposite, since the epigraphic practice was the result of Hellenization: the means of communication among the local tribes was largely oral.30 The Carian language continued to be spoken in the region around Kaunos, and in the region of Kibyra one could still hear the Lydian language (Strabo, Geogr. 14.2.3; 14.2.8). Mithradates VI Eupator (120–63 BC) was evidently to communicate in all twenty-two languages that were used in Pontus. Educated Cappadocians spoke Greek with a strong accent, while the simple people spoke various Cappadocian languages (Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 2.13), while Iranian was still spoken in the fourth century AD in some settlements in the region. In the border areas of the provinces of Asia and Lycia, four indigenous languages could be heard: Pisidian, Solymian, Greek and Lydian (Strabo, Geogr. 13.1.65). In rural Galatia, the Celtic language continued to be spoken for a long time; ethnic Galatians (Celts) who consulted the oracle of Glykon in Abonuteichos in Paphlagonia needed a translator.31 In the towns of Lycaonia, ─────────────── 26 Cf. Anika Strobach, Plutarch und die Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zur Fremdsprachenproblematik in der Antike, Palingenesia 64 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997), 183, who thinks that there was “a lack of necessity and a lack of interest”. Note Galen’s observation that “there was formerly a bilingualist, this was a miracle: a person who understood and spoke two languages” (δι'γλωττος γα' ρ τις ε’ λε' γετο πα' λαι, και` θαυñ μα τουñ το ηò ν; De differentia pulsuum 8.585). 27 Cf. Rosalinde A. Kearsley, Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III, IK 59 (Bonn: Habelt, 2001), with 171 bilingual, Latin-Greek inscriptions from Asia Minor, among them stones from Ephesus, Miletus, Smyrna (Ionia), Pergamum (Mysia), Philadelphia, Sardis, Thyatira (Lydia), Hierapolis, Laodicea (Phrygia). 28 Cf. Walter Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Band II: Kleinasien, TSAJ 99 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 29 Cf. Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), I, 172 n. 66–67. On the Lydian language see Roberti Gusmani, “Zum Stand der Erforschung der lydischen Sprache,” in Forschungen in Lydien, ed. E. Schwertheim, ASM 17 (Bonn: Habelt, 1995), 9–19. 30 On the territory controlled by Selge, two long texts have been found that have not yet be deciphered; they are probably written in Pisidian; Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 173 with n. 82. 31 Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 173.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

341

the Lycaonian language was still used in the first century (Acts 14:11–12). The Phrygian language was still in use in the fourth century: Socrates (380– 440 AD ) reports that the Arian bishop Selinus from Cotiaeum who was of mixed Gothic and Phrygian origin, used both of these languages in his sermons (Socrates, Hist. eccl. 5.23). Geographers, naturally, were aware of the languages spoken by the peoples living in the regions which they described. Strabo asserts that the distribution and difference of races (τα` ε» θνη) and languages (αι‘ δια' λεκτοι) is not the result of design (providence) but accidental (Geogr. 2.3.7). He knows that the name of the city of Pola, located on the tip of the peninsula of Histria, come from the language (γλω ñ σσα) of the Colthians who founded the city (1.2.39; 5.1.9). He describes Crete as a place where, beside the indigenous Cretans, we find Achaeans, Cydonians, Dorians, and Pelasgians, all of whom continue to speak their own languages, with the result that in Crete “one language32 with others is mixed” (α» λλη δ• α» λλων γλω ñ σσα μεμιγμε' νη; 5.2.4; also 10.4.6). Even though the Faliscan language disappeared in the second century BC, Strabo records the fact that the “special and distinct tribe” (ι»διον ε» θνος) of the Falisci, with their city of Faliscum (northeast of Rome), had “a special language all its own” (ι’ διο' γλωσσον; 5.2.9). Faliscan is known from ca. 280 inscriptions.33 Strabo criticizes Apollodoros for saying that the language of the Carians (η‘ γλω ñ ττα τω ñ ν Καρω ñ ν) is harsh, “for it is not, but even has very many Greek words mixed up with it” (14.2.28). Apart from γλω ñ σσα (Ionic) and γλω ñ ττα (Attic), Strabo uses the term δια' λεκτος to describe the language of peoples and tribes. He is aware of the fact that the nation (ε» θνος) of the Armenians, the nation of the Syrians, and the nation of the Arabians “betray a close affinity, not only in their language (κατα' τε τη` ν δια' λεκτον), but in their mode of life” (1.2.34). He knows that the language of the people who live on both sides of the Euphrates is the same (2.1.31). He relates that a certain Indian whose ship had become stranded in Egypt had to learn Greek before he could speak with the king; the people who found him could not understand his language (μη` συνιε' ντας τη` ν δια' λεκτον; 2.3.4). Strabo insists that the Greeks have four dialects: Attic, Ionic, Doric, and Aeolic (8.12.2; 14.5.26).34 He argues that since there is no difference in either the language or in other customs between the Cataonians and the Cappadocians, “it is remarkable how utterly all signs of their being a different tribe (τα` σημειñα τηñ ς α’ λλοεθνι' ας) have dis─────────────── 32 H. L. Jones translates “tongue”, departing from his normal rendering “language” (LCL). 33 G. Meiser, “Faliscan”, BNP V, 325–26. The Faliscan alphabet is derived from Etruscan, and the language is closely related to Latin. 34 Cf. Anna Panayotou, “Ionic and Attic,” in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, ed. A.-F. Christidis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 405–16; Julián Méndez Dosuna, “The Doric Dialects”, in ibid., 444–59; Julián Méndez Dosuna, “The Aeolic Dialects”, in ibid., 460–74.

342

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

appeared” (12.1.2). The Mariandyni and the Caucones are similar to the Bithynians because the people do not appear to be “characterized by any ethnic difference, either in dialect (language) or otherwise” (ου’ δε` δια' λεκτος ου’ δ• α» λλη διαφορα` ε’ θνικη' ; 12.3.4). He knows that “the whole of that part of Cappadocia near the Halys river which extends along Paphlagonia uses two languages (ταιñς δυσι` χρηñ ται διαλε' κτοις) which abound in Paphlagonian names” (12.3.25; examples follow). He records the fact that as a result of the reign of the Romans and their different partition of the country, “most of the people have already lost both their dialects and their names” (ε’ φ• ω ð ν η» δη και` τα` ς διαλε' κτους και` τα` ο’ νο' ματα α’ ποβεβλη' κασιν οι‘ πλειñστοι; 12.4.6), i.e., their indigenous languages and traditional personal names. He knows that the language of the Mysians “is, in a way, a mixture of the Lydian and the Phrygian languages” (μαρτυρειñν δε` και` τη` ν δια' λεκτον: μιξολυ' διον γα' ρ πως ειòναι και` μιξοφρυ' γιον; 12.8.3). He speaks of barbarians “who are only beginning to learn Greek and are unable to speak it accurately, as is also the case with us in speaking their languages” (14.2.28). Strabo occasionally uses words of other languages: in addition to Latin words, he uses words from Gallic (μα' δαρις, “spear”, 4.4.3), Samnite (ι«ρπος, “wolf”, 5.4.12), Mesapic (βρεντε' σιον, “ram’s head”, 6.3.6), Thracian (βρι' α, “young donkey”, 7.6.1), Molossian (πελι' αι πελι' οι, “old men and women”, 7 fr. 1a), and Medic (τι' γρις, “arrow”, 11.14.8).35 The reference to γλω ñ σσαι in John’s vision of the great multitude standing before God’s throne and before the Lamb (Rev 7:9) had a specific meaning for John’s audience. The Christians in Asia Minor would have been reminded of the various languages that they had witnessed being spoken, that they had heard about, and that they themselves were using. The vision of 7:9 speaks not about nations in a general universalistic sense but about a “great multitude” (ο» χλος πολυ' ς) whose members nobody could count but who were individuals nevertheless: they are “robed in white, with palm branches in their hands” – and they are people who speak different languages. This vision, together with the words of the “new song” that celebrates the fact that people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” have been ransomed by Jesus’ sacrificial death, implies the missionary program of John and his churches: people in all language groups need to be reached with the gospel.

λαο' ς The term λαο' ς describes 1. “people” in a general sense, both in the sense of populace (distributive use; Matt 4:23; 27:64; Acts 6:8) and in terms of a close ─────────────── 35 Daniela Dueck, Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome (London/ New York: Routledge, 2000), 92, points out that the evidence does not allow for the conclusion that Strabo had real knowledge of these languages; he probably found these terms “in written sources or in oral information acquired from local inhabitants”.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

343

gathering of people, i.e., a crowd or multitude (Strabo, Geogr. 13.1.53: Aeneas collected “a host of followers (λαο` ν α’ θροι' σαντα), also the people living in a city (Gen 19:4 LXX). 2. The “mass of a community as distinguished from special interest groups”, e.g., the people in contrast to their leaders (Matt 26:5; Acts 2:47), to the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 7:29), to the priests (Heb 2:17; 5:3; 7:5, 27). 3. A “body of people with common cultural bonds and ties to a specific territory”, thus a people-group or “people as a nation”36 (Gen 49:16 LXX for the people of Hamor and Shechem who intermarry “so that they may be one people” according to Gen 34:22 LXX; for the meaning “country” cf. 2 Kgs 16:15; Ezra 4:4; 10:2, 11; Neh 10:31). 4. The “people of God”, both the people of Israel (e.g., Mark 7:6; Acts 3:23; 7:17; 28:17) and the followers of Jesus (Acts 15:14; Rom 9:25; Rev 18:4; 21:3).37 Apart from Rev 18:4; 21:3 where the term λαο' ς refers to the followers of Jesus as the people of God, most interpreters assume sense 3 for λαο' ς in 5:9; 13:7; 14:6 and for λαοι' in 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 17:15.38 While this is both a possible and a plausible connotation, the third meaning is more complex than many New Testament scholars think, and the first and the second meanings need to be taken into account as well. The first meaning (“people, crowd, multitude, people living in a city”) is a possible connotation of the term λαο' ς/λαοι' , especially when it is the first element in John’s fourfold phrase. Without the context of the three terms mentioned subsequently, λαοι' in 10:11; 11:9; 17:15 readily denotes the populations of the cities of Asia Minor. Strabo describes the people who came from Greece to establish a colony in Ionia as λαο' ς (14.1.3 with regard to Priene).39 The proclamation of the church and her witnesses is addressed to the people living in the cities in which the believers live, to the crowds of people who could be found in the Agora and in other public places (cf. Acts 17:17). The second meaning (“the mass of a community as distinguished from special interest groups”) is also a possible connotation of λαο' ς/λαοι' in John’s fourfold phrase. Both Jesus, Peter, and Paul preached the good news to the mass of people living in a particular region (Galilee) or city (Jerusalem, or Corinth), whether the political or religious leaders approved of their activities or not, often in conscious contrast to the local leadership (e.g., Luke 13:31– 33; Acts 5:27–42; 18:1–17). ─────────────── 36 BDAG s.v. λαο' ς 3, with reference to Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15; Luke 2:31. Cf. Spicq, TLNT II, 371. 37 LN give four meanings for λαο' ς: crowd (entry 11.1), people of God (11.12), nation (11.55), common people (87.64). On λαο' ς see H. Strathmann, TDNT IV, 29–57; H. Frankemölle, EDNT II, 339–44; C. Spicq, TLNT II, 371–74. 38 Typical are Bauckham, Climax, 328, who describes the four nouns in the fourfold phrase as nouns that describe “all the nations of the world”, and Aune, Revelation, 361, who speaks of “four ethnic units”. 39 H. L. Jones translates λαο' ς in Strabo, Geogr. 14.1.3, as “colony” (LCL).

344

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

The third meaning (“a body of people with common cultural bonds and ties to a specific territory”)40 is common in Hellenistic Greek, attested in the LXX,41 in literary and documentary texts.42 Strabo refers to Herodotus for his assertion that “the Pamphylians are the descendants of the peoples (τω ñ ν λαω ñ ν) led by Amphilochus and Calchas, a miscellaneous throng who accompanied them from Troy”, and he refers to Callinus for his assertion that Mopsus, the cofounding companion of Amphilochus and Calchas, led “peoples” (του` ς λαου' ς) over the Taurus and that while some remained in Pamphylia, “the others were dispersed in Cilicia, and in Syria as far even as Phoenicia” (Geogr. 14.4.3). The first reference to λαοι' (the people from whom the Pamphylians descend) has what we would call an “ethnic” connotation, while the second reference to λαοι' (people who settled in Cilicia and Syria), designating the same original “people group”, does not describe ethnic cohesion, at least not in the first century AD when Strabo writes. While most New Testament scholars assume an ethnic meaning for λαο' ς/λαοι' in Revelation, in the ancient sources the social and political sense is primary. Spicq describes this meaning of λαο' ς as “the legal and political sense in which ‘the people’ expresses the idea of an organism, tied together by legal structures directed toward the common good”.43 There are two specific uses of the term attested in inscriptions and papyri. (1) The meaning “common people, village peasants, serfs” of the plural λαοι' is attested in inscriptions from western Asia Minor of the Hellenistic period,44 designating the native population in the villages, i.e., indigenous ─────────────── 40 Cf. LN 11.55: ε» θνος and λαο' ς both describe (sometimes) “the largest unit into which the people of the world are divided on the basis of their constituting a socio-political community – ‘nation, people’”. 41 Gen 41:40; Exod 1:22 (the Egyptians as Pharaoh’s λαο' ς); Neh 9:10 (the Pharaoh and his servants and the people of his land); Ezek 7:27 (the king mourns, the prince is in despair, the hands of the people of the land tremble). 42 Cf. Orsolina Montevecchi, “LAOS. Linee di una ricerca storico-linguistica [1979],” in Scripta Selecta, Biblioteca di Aevum Antiquum 12, ed. S. Daris (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1998), 401–19, here 415. Cf. Theo A. W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 47 (Leuven/Dudley: Peters, 2007), 181. 43 Spicq, TLNT II, 373. 44 Note the Aristodikides inscription I. Ilion 33 (275 BC) = C. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy (Chicago: Ares, 1974 [1934]), No. 11–13; the Mnesimachos inscription I. Sardes VII 1, 1 (ca. 200 BC) = William H. Buckler and David M. Robinson, Sardis VII.i: Greek and Latin Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1932), No. 1; cf. Gerassimos G. Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 320–23; the Laodike inscription I. Didyma 492 (254/253 BC) = Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, No. 18 (= OGIS 225); Aperghis, Seleukid Royal Economy, 315–18. See also UPZ 110, 100–3; P. Stras. 93, 4. Note also Gen 41:40 LXX (the Egyptians are the λαο' ς of Pharaoh); Luke 22:2; 23:13 (Pilate summons the chief priests, the elders, and the people); cf. Spicq, TLNT II, 373 with n. 7.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

345

peasants. Some have interpreted the epigraphic evidence from Asia Minor as indicating a change of the status of the common people (λαοι' ) during the Hellenistic period. P. Briant argues that the Seleucids, in their attempt to create a modern state, transformed the local serfs (slaves) into λαοι' βασιλικοι' who lived in the villages, owned houses, and had freedom of movement.45 In the Laodike inscription from ca. 254/253 BC which records the sale of land by the Seleucid king Antiochos II to Laodike, his divorced queen, the relevant lines read: “Issue orders that the village and the mansion and the surrounding land be conveyed to Arrhidaios, the bailiff of Laodike, along with the laoi with all their households and all their belongings (του` ς λαου` ς πανοικι' ους συ` ν τοιñς υ‘ πα' ρχουσιν αυ’ τοιñς παñ σιν), and record the sale in the royal registry at Sardeis and on five stone stelae” (I. Didyma 492, lines 26–27). G. E. M. de St. Croix has disputed the view that all λαοι' achieved freedom; he insists that the term λαοι' βασιλικοι' designates the native population who could be sold together with the village in which they lived, that the λαοι' , “the native population of each area”, consisted largely of serfs, and that the change during the Hellenistic period involved the transfer of the peasants from “king’s land” (and the lordship of a local dynast) to a Greek city, with the result that sometimes the serfs became slaves while sometimes they became free leasehold tenants or, conceivably, freeholders.46 In contemporary research,47 the λαοι' of Hellenistic Asia Minor are regarded as village peasants who were not slaves in the classi-

─────────────── 45 Pierre Briant, “Remarques sur ‘laoi’ et esclavages ruraux en Asie Mineure hellénistique [1973],” in Rois, tributs et paysans. Études sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien, Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 43 (Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1982), 95– 135; followe by Jean Georges Texier, “Nabis et les Hilotes,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 1 (1974): 189–205, 195. 46 Geoffrey E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 151–52, 157–58; for a critique of Briant cf. ibid. 566 n. 26. 47 Cf. J. Gerber, “Laoi”, BNP VII, 236; Pierre Debord, Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’anatolie gréco-romaine, EPRO 88 (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 250; Fanoula Papazoglou, Laoi et Paroikoi: Recherches sur la structure de la société hellénistique, Études d’histoire ancienne 1 (Beograd: Centre d’études épigraphiques et numismatiques, 1997), esp. 113–40; Christof Schuler, Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien, Vestigia 50 (München: Beck, 1998), 182–83; Aperghis, Seleukid Royal Economy, 111–12, who concludes that the term λαοι' was a technical term “adopted by Hellenistic administrations to denote all the native inhabitants subject to them, as distinct from the Greeks” (ibid. 112); Mauro Corsaro, “Sovrani, cittadini, servi: aspetti sociali dell’Asia Minore ellenistica,” Mediterraneo Antico 4 (2001): 17–40; Robartus J. van der Spek, “The Hellenistic Near East,” in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 409– 33, 415, who describes the λαοι' βασιλικοι' as “serf-like peasants” or “king’s people” who tilled the land on royal domains in the Hellenistic period.

346

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

cal sense of the term, but serfs.48 As members of the community of the village, they lived in their own houses, had private property, could take legal action within a narrow framework, and had to pay dues to the king or their lord; they were evidently free to move to a different location, but they could be sold as a community to individuals or to a god (i.e., a temple). After the Hellenistic period, epigraphic references to the λαοι' disappear. This fact, combined with the observation that this use of the term λαοι' occurs only in inscriptions but not in literary sources, calls for caution in assuming the meaning “village peasants, serfs” as a connotation that the readers of John’s Revelation would have assumed. However, since the inscriptions in question were still displayed in public places in the first century – the Laodike inscription notes that the text was to be recorded on five stone stelae, specifying, “of these one is to be set up at Ilion in the temple of Athene, another in the temple (of the Gods) in Samothrake, another at Ephesos in the temple of Artemis, the fourth at Didyma in the temple of Apollo and the fifth at Sardeis in the temple of Artemis” (I. Didyma 492, lines 27–33) – both the citizens in the urban centers and the village people in rural areas would presumably have been aware of this (former) meaning of the term λαοι' . It thus seems possible that the term λαοι' reminded John’s readers of the village people among whom missionaries preached the gospel, some of whom had responded by coming to faith in Jesus and who now belonged to the people (λαο' ς) of God. Jesus had preached in the villages of Galilee (Matt 9:35; Mark 6:6, 56; 8:23, 27; Luke 8:1; 9:6; 10:38; 13:22; 17:12), 49 and Peter and John preached in Samaritan villages (Acts 8:25). While we have no specific reference to villages in Asia Minor being reached with the gospel, Luke’s report that “all the residents of Asia (πα' ντας του` ς κατοικουñ ντας τη` ν ’Ασι' αν ), both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10) when Paul was active in Ephesus suggests that besides people living in the cities, village people (who would have been called “Greeks” in the first century) would have been in view as well. When Paul asserts in his letter to the believers in Corinth that the church consists largely of the powerless, uneducated, and disenfranchised, whether freedmen or slaves (1 Cor 1:26–28), this would have been true for most other congregations as well, allowing for the presence of (former and/or present) village people in the church, among them possibly descendants of the serfs called λαοι' of an earlier period. ─────────────── 48 The Mnesimachus inscription mentions both λαοι' (I. Sardes VII.i 1, line 11) and οι’ κε' ται, i.e., slaves (col. 2, line 5); Buckler and Robinson, Sardis VII.i. Cf. Levi Mario-Attilio, “Au sujet des laoi et des inscriptions de Mnesimachos,” in Actes du Colloque 1973 sur l’esclavage, Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1976), 257–71; Schuler, Siedlungen, 182; Papazoglou, Laoi et Paroikoi, 46–47. 49 In Mark 5:56 farms are mentioned besides villages and towns.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

347

(2) In Egyptian papyri, the term λαοι' describes “noteworthies”, the class of people who governed the villages, the officials above the common folk, distinct from the mass of farm laborers.50 They announce the beginning of harvest time, they collect taxes, they carry out public works such as excavations and drainage projects.51 They “enjoy not only a relative autonomy but also the confidence of the officials”.52 If this meaning is relevant not only for Egypt, if it would have been recognized in Asia Minor, it could denote, perhaps in the towns with little Roman influence, the local notables whom missionaries sought to reach with the gospel (cf. Acts 4:5–12; 13:6–12; 25:23–26:29), and who could make life difficult for Christians (and where thus included in the groups upon whom judgment is pronounced by John).

ε» θνος In the NT, the term ε» θνος has two meanings:53 1. A “body of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions”,54 translated as “nation, people”, e.g., the Jewish people (το` ε» θνος τω ñ ν ’ Ιουδαι' ων; Acts 10:22),55 the Samaritan people (το` ε» θνος τηñ ς Σαμαρει' ας; Acts 8:9), the seven nations in Canaan (ε» θνη ε‘ πτα` ε’ ν γηñ, Χανα' αν; Acts 13:19), all the nations of the world (πα' ντα τα` ε» θνη τουñ κο' σμου; Luke 12:30), every nation of humankind (παñ ν ε» θνος α’ νθρω' πων; Acts 17:26). In extra-biblical Greek texts, the plural term ε» θνη denotes also ─────────────── 50 Claude Vandersleyen, “Le mot λαο' ς dans la langue des papyrus”1973), evaluating 26 papyri, e.g. UPZ 110, 101; SB 7179, 4; P. Tebt. 701, 74, 80. Cf. Montevecchi, “Laos.”, 407. Claude Orrieux, Zénon de Caunos, parépidèmos, et le destin grec, Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 64 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1985), 211, thinks that Vandersleyen is essentially correct, but disagrees with his designation of the laoi as “notables”, suggesting instead that their power derived from their active solidarity. Pierre Briant, “Villages et communautés villageoises d’Asie Achéménide et hellénistique [1975],” in Rois, tributs et paysans. Études sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien, Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 43 (Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1982), 137–60, here 143 n. 26, is critical, and insists that at least in Asia Minor the term λαοι' designates without ambiguity “à toute le population rurale dépendante”. Note the term λαοκριται' which denotes a board of Egyptian judges “administering justice for the indigenous population” (S. R. Llewelyn, in Greg H. R. Horsley and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012), IX, 53. 51 PSI 577, 23; P. Petr. II, p. 52; 15, 1b; 13, 45, 3; SB 7179, 4; P. Petr. II, p. 14; 14, 11, 4; also P. Rev. 42, 11 (“let the laoi and the other farmers estimate their produce”). 52 Spicq, TLNT II, 373–74. 53 BDAG s.v. ε» θνος 1–2. Cf. G. Bertram and K. L. Schmidt, TDNT II, 364–73; N. Walter, EDNT I, 381–83. 54 LSJ s.v. ε» θνος I.1 defines “number of people living together, company, body of men”, e.g. ε» θνος ε‘ ται' ρων (“band of comrades”, Homer, Il. 3.32), ε» θνος λαω ñ ν (“host of people”, Homer, Il. 13.495). 55 Cf. Polybius, in Josephus, A.J. 12.135; Agatharchides, 86 Frag. 20b (Josephus, A.J. 12.6); Diodorus Siculus 34–35 Frag. 1, 2; Philo, Decal. 96.

348

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

tribes, clans, nations, peoples, i.e., “ethnically homogeneous groups”56 such as the Lycians (Λυκι' ων με' γα ε» θνος; Homer, Il. 12.330), the Achaian people (’Αχαιω ñ ν ε» θνος; Homer, Il. 17.552), the nations of the Greeks besides the Macedonians (I. Ephesus I 24B, lines 18–19), the Egyptian nations (μελαμπου' δων ε’ θνε' ων; I. Laodikeiai 95, line 6);57 the term is also used to designate “swarms” of animals such as birds (Homer, Il. 2.84, 459, 469). 2. The plural term τα` ε» θνη “people groups foreign to a specific people group”. In the LXX this term corresponds to Hebr. ‫ג ּ ֹוִים‬, a nationalistic expression that designates foreigners, a meaning attested in Greek texts: barbarian nations (Aristotle, Pol. 1324b10), nomadic peoples (Νομα' δων ε» θνος; Polybius, Hist. 1.31.2; Diodorus Siculus 26.23.1), at Athens for the athletic clubs of the non-Athenians (IG II 444), also for the governor of a Roman province (ο‘ η‘ γου' μενος τουñ ε» θνους, “the governor of the province”, P. Oxy. VII 1020). In inscriptions, the cities are sometimes contrasted with the “people” or “tribes” living outside the cities.58 In the LXX and the NT, the term designates in the context of this sense (a) non-Jews, Gentiles, polytheists (Matt 10:18; Acts 14:5; Rom 3:29), and (b) non-Jewish believers in Jesus, Gentile Christians (Gal 2:12; Rom 16:4; Eph 3:1). A further meaning in extra-biblical texts is (c) “class of people” such as “orders” of priests (τα` ι‘ ερα` ε» θνη; OGIS 90.17), trade associations or guilds (ε» θνη και` ε’ ργαστη' ρια; P. Petr. 3; P. Köln 206.3).59 In Revelation, the term “the nations” (τα` ε» θνη), used with meaning 1, occurs fifteen times outside of the fourfold formula, describing the nations that have aligned themselves with the powers of evil (Rev 11:2, 18; 12:5; 14:8; 18:3, 23; 19:15; 20:3; cf. 2:26). In view of 2:9 and 3:9 (“synagogue of Satan”), the “nations” include the Jewish people. Besides these negative statements, the “nations” are also said to one day worship God (15:4), a prophecy that is realized in the New Jerusalem (21:24, 26; 22:2). In John’s fourfold phrase, the term ε» θνο' ς in 5:9 and ε» θνη in 7:9 designates Christian believers who come from every people group united by kinship, culture, and common traditions, including the “others” who are despised by the general population ─────────────── 56 Louw, Transformations, 182. 57 Cf. Thomas Corsten, Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos I, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49/1 (Bonn: Habelt, 1997), 94–97; the text dated ca. AD 250 is a poem inscribed on a triumphal arch, honoring a man who held various offices in Europe, Egypt, Asia, Spain, and “the blackfooted nations”, i.e. in Egypt. 58 In the decree of Miletus concerning the inauguration of the Didyma games as crowned statues agones (SIG III 590; I. Miletus III 1052; cf. Joseph E. Fontenrose, Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988], 185–87), the public is reminded of the oracles of Apollo of Didyma which benefitted “not a few tribes, cities, and kings” (ε’ ξ ω ð ν ε» θνη τε ου’ κ ο’ λι' γα και` πο' λεις και` τω ñ ν βασιλε' ων; lines 11–12). 59 Cf. LSJ s.v. ε» θνος I.3; cf. MM s.v. ε» θνος. For the meaning “guild” or “association” see also P. Köln 260, discussed by S. R. Llewelyn in Horsley and Llewelyn, New Documents, IX, 38–41 (for the evidence see 39 n. 2).

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

349

and any associations or guilds that may be designated locally with the term ε» θνη. The term reminds the readers of Jesus’ ministry in “the Galilee of the Gentiles” (Γαλιλαι' α τω ñ ν ε’ θνω ñ ν), of Jesus’ commission to proclaim the gospel to and make disciples of “all nations” (πα' ντα τα` ε» θνη; Matt 28:19), “the whole human race” (παñ ν ε» θνος α’ νθρω' πων) that God had created from one ancestor “to inhabit the whole earth” (κατοικειñν ε’ πι` παντο` ς προσω' που τηñ ς γηñ ς; Acts 17:26), 60 and of Paul’s missionary work among the “nations” fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah who announced that the Servant of the Lord would be “light to the Gentiles” (φω ñ ς ε’ θνω ñ ν) bringing “salvation to the ends of the earth” (ει’ ς σωτηρι' αν ε« ως ε’ σχα' του τηñ ς γηñ ς; Acts 13:47). At the same time, believers in John’s audience would have heard the connotation of “foreigners” and “associations”, while Jewish Christians would have heard the connotation “Gentiles” or “polytheists”.

Conclusion While the fourfold phrase certainly suggests universality – both of the existence of believers in Jesus in “every tribe and language and people and nation” and of God’s judgment on “all peoples and tribes and languages and nations” – it also expresses ethnic, tribal, social, and political identity, both of the Christians and of their oppressors. In Rev 5:9 and 7:9 John reminds the Christians who belong to churches in the cities of Asia Minor that they should look beyond their own congregations and realize that there are followers of Jesus in every tribe (φυλη' ), i.e., in every family clan and in each of the phylai of the cities, in every language group (γλω ñ σσα), i.e., in every tribe and nation who are distinguished by the languages that they speak, in every people (λαο' ς), i.e., in every group connected through cultural bonds and ties to a specific territory, including the populace of the cities and the village people, in every nation (ε» θνος), i.e., in each group of people united by kinship, culture, and common traditions, including foreigners and members of associations. Individual people from all these ethnic, linguistic, tribal, civic, political, and social backgrounds have repented and now worship the one true and living God, having found salvation by faith in Jesus whose sacrificial death saves those who believe from God’s judgment and integrates them into the messianic people of God. Since all people without exception, irrespective of heritage or status or affiliation will be judged by God, people from all ethnic, lin─────────────── 60 In Revelation, the phrase “the inhabitants of the earth” (οι‘ κατοικουñ ντες ε’ πι` τηñ ς γηñ ς; 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10 [twice]; 13:8, 14 [twice]; 17:8; cf. 17:2) has a consistently negative overtone, describing “the universal worship of the beast and the universal corruption of the earth by Babylon” (Bauckham, Climax, 240). At the same time, the expression would have reminded the churches of Jesus’ missionary commission to reach all people “to the ends of the earth” (ε«ως ε’ σχα' του τηñ ς γηñ ς; Acts 1:8).

350

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

guistic, tribal, civic, political, and social backgrounds need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the task of the evangelists and missionaries of the congregations in the cities of Asia Minor: to proclaim the goods news of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ to all people – in every tribe and language and people and nation.

Bibliography Ameling, Walter. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Band II: Kleinasien. TSAJ 99. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Aperghis, Gerassimos G. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Aune, David E. Revelation. WBC 52. Dallas: Word, 1997–98. Bauckham, Richard J. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. —. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Beasley-Murray, George R. The Book of Revelation. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [1974]. Briant, Pierre. “Remarques sur ‘laoi’ et esclavages ruraux en Asie Mineure hellénistique [1973].” Pages 95–135 in Rois, tributs et paysans. Études sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 43. Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1982. —. “Villages et communautés villageoises d’Asie Achéménide et hellénistique [1975].” Pages 137–60 in Rois, tributs et paysans. Études sur les formations tributaires du MoyenOrient ancien. Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 43. Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1982. Buckler, William H., and David M. Robinson. Sardis VII.i: Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill, 1932. Corsaro, Mauro. “Sovrani, cittadini, servi: aspetti sociali dell’Asia Minore ellenistica.” Mediterraneo Antico 4 (2001): 17–40. Corsten, Thomas. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos I. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49/1. Bonn: Habelt, 1997. Debord, Pierre. Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’anatolie grécoromaine. EPRO 88. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Dueck, Daniela. Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome. London/New York: Routledge, 2000. Fontenrose, Joseph E. Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Fränkel, Max. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Altertümer von Pergamon VIII. Berlin: Spemann, 1890–95. Gusmani, Roberti. “Zum Stand der Erforschung der lydischen Sprache.” Pages 9–19 in Forschungen in Lydien. Edited by E. Schwertheim. ASM 17. Bonn: Habelt, 1995.

11. Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in Revelation

351

Hansen, Mogens H. “City-Ethnics as Evidence for Polis Identity.” Pages 169–96 in More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis. Edited by M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub. Historia Einzelschriften 108. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996. Herrmann, Peter, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt. Milet VI. iii. Inschriften von Milet III: Inschriften n. 1020–1580. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahr 1899. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Horsley, Greg H. R., and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012. Jones, Nicholas F. “Enrollment Clauses in Greek Citizenship Decrees.” ZPE 87 (1991): 79– 112. —. Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 176. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1987. Karrer, Martin. “Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort,” 1986. Kearsley, Rosalinde A. Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III. IK 59. Bonn: Habelt, 2001. Levi, Mario-Attilio. “Au sujet des laoi et des inscriptions de Mnesimachos.” Pages 257–71 in Actes du Colloque 1973 sur l’esclavage. Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1976. Louw, Theo A. W. van der. Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 47. Leuven/Dudley: Peters, 2007. Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Méndez Dosuna, Julián. “The Aeolic Dialects.” Pages 460–74 in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Edited by A.-F. Christidis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. —. “The Doric Dialects.” Pages 444–59 in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Edited by A.-F. Christidis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Mitchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Montevecchi, Orsolina. “LAOS. Linee di una ricerca storico-linguistica [1979].” Pages 401– 19 in Scripta Selecta, Biblioteca di Aevum Antiquum 12. Edited by S. Daris. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1998. Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977 Orrieux, Claude. Zénon de Caunos, parépidèmos, et le destin grec. Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 64. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1985. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Panayotou, Anna. “Ionic and Attic.” Pages 405–16 in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Edited by A.-F. Christidis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Papazoglou, Fanoula. Laoi et Paroikoi: Recherches sur la structure de la société hellénistique. Études d’histoire ancienne 1. Beograd: Centre d’études épigraphiques et numismatiques, 1997. Satake, Akira. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. KEK 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Scherrer, Peter. Ephesus: The New Guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 2000. Schuler, Christof. Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien. Vestigia 50. München: Beck, 1998.

352

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Spek, Robartus J. van der. “The Hellenistic Near East.” Pages 409–33 in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Edited by W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Ste. Croix, Geoffrey E. M. de. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Strobach, Anika. Plutarch und die Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zur Fremdsprachenproblematik in der Antike. Palingenesia 64. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997. Texier, Jean Georges. “Nabis et les Hilotes.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 1 (1974): 189– 205. Thür, Hilke. “The Processional Way in Ephesos as a Place of Cult and Burial.” Pages 157–99 in Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture. Edited by H. Koester. HTS 41. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995. Vandersleyen, Claude. “Le mot λαο' ς dans la langue des papyrus,” 1973. Welles, C. Bradford. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. Chicago: Ares, 1974 [1934]. Witherington, Ben. Revelation. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Zahn, Theodor. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. TVG. Reprint of the Third Edition. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986 [1924/1926].

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation: Persecution, Perseverance, and Purity in the Shadow of the Last Judgment I begin with a few methodological remarks. First, the Book of Revelation is a mixed genre: it needs to be interpreted as an apocalypse (Rev 1:1)1 which is both a prophecy (1:3; 22:7)2 and a letter (1:4–5).3 Second, new efforts to date Revelation to the time of Hadrian4 are not convincing, the traditional consensus date between AD 80–100 remains more plausible,5 although an earlier date is possible.6 Third, the origins of Revelation should be located in the area of ─────────────── 1 Since Friedrich Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes oder Allgemeine Untersuchungen über die apokalyptische Litteratur überhaupt und die Apokalypse des Johannes insbesondere, Commentar über die Schriften des Evang. Johannes IV, Second Edition (Bonn: Weber, 1852 [1832]). This is not the place to discuss the validity of the genre of “apocalyptic”, which has been questioned by Karlheinz Müller, “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen III. Die jüdische Apokalyptik. Anfänge und Merkmale,” TRE 3 (1978): 202–51: “Der Begriff ‘jüdische Apokalyptik’ entbehrt der Präzision” (202); cf. Martin Karrer, Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort, FRLANT 140 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 14: “Nahezu alle dafür verwandten Einzelkriterien erwiesen sich nämlich bei der intensiven Sichtung der hierher gerechneten Texte als ohne allgemeingültigen, in der Forschung konsensfähigen Charakter”. 2 Emphasized by George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [1974]). 20; August Strobel, “Apokalypse des Johannes,” TRE 3 (1978): 174–89, here 176. 3 Thus in the Canon Muratori, lines 47–50: beatus apostolus paulus sequens prodecessoris sui iohannis ordinē non nisi nomenati semptē ecclesiis scribat (“the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes by name to only seven churches”); emphasized by Theodor Zahn, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Reprint of the Third Edition (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986 [1924/1926]), I, 40–41, 160, and now by Karrer, Johannesoffenbarung, passim, who demonstrates that the implied communication strategy is not limited to Rev 1:4–5; 2:1–3:22 but controls the entire content. 4 Thomas Witulski, Apk 11 und der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Eine zeitgeschichtliche Interpretation, WUNT 2.337 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012); Thomas Witulski, Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian. Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalpyse, FRLANT 221 (Göttingen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/ Academic Press, 2007). 5 Most recently Akira Satake, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, KEK 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 54–57; Craig R. Koester, Revelation, AYB 38A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 79–80. 6 Cf. Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 20–27.

354

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

the cities mentioned in 1:11–12 and 2:1–3:22, i.e., in the province of Asia. Fourth, John writes to followers of Jesus in mixed congregations consisting of both Jews and Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Savior of the world. I will often use the term “followers of Jesus”; when I use the term “Christians”, for brevity’s sake, while I recognize the anachronism of the term in the first century as self-designation and the need to emphasize that the term “Christians” in the first century includes Jewish believers and Gentiles believers. Fifth, the believers to whom John writes face social, economic, and religious pressure and persecution from both Jews and pagans, at times in connection with the emperor cult, but certainly not limited to it, considering the wide variety of local contexts in which Christians were persecuted.7 Sixth, John uses the phrase “the inhabitants of the earth” (κατοικουñ ντες ε’ πι` τηñ ς γηñ ς; 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:8, 12, 14; 17:2, 8) for people irrespective of ethnic or cultural identity, grouping people according to their allegiance or opposition to Jesus Messiah. One could therefore reduce the discussion to an exploration of how followers of Jesus see and should treat unbelievers. At the same time, John explicitly refers to Jews twice (2:9; 3:9), which implies that his readers certainly would have identified people as being Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Romans, Phrygians or Lycaonians. I will use “Greeks and Romans” as a label for the majority population in the cities of Asia Minor. The Christians, Jews, and pagans mentioned in the title will be discussed in reverse order.

1. Greeks and Romans and God’s Coming Judgment John’s readers lived in cities whose citizens consisted of Greeks, some Romans, people whose identity would have been connected with the old, indigenous ethnicities, and some Jews. When John writes, his readers would have been very much aware of the fact that Jesus had been sentenced to death by Pontius Pilatus, the prefect of the province of Judea. 8 They would have known that members of the local elites in the cities of Asia Minor had persecuted Paul (Acts 13:50; 14:5; 16:19; 17:6, 8). They would have known that

─────────────── 7 Steven J. Friesen, “Ephesus: Key to a Vision in Revelation,” BAR 19 (1993): 24–37; cf. Steven J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 116 (Leiden: Brill, 1993). On the various occasions of persecution related by Luke cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Persecution in the Early Christian Mission according to the Book of Acts,” in Rejection: God’s Refugees in Biblical and Contemporary Perspective, ed. S. E. Porter (Eugene: Pickwick, 2015), 141–80. 8 For the primary sources on Pilate cf. E. J. Schnabel, in David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary, WUNT 344 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 157–198.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

355

Peter and Paul had been executed in Rome during Nero’s principate.9 They would have known what happened to Christians in Rome under Nero, described by Tacitus in the famous passage Ann. 15.44 that bears repeating: Therefore, to scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians (vulgus Christianos appellabat). Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more (repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat), not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself (per urbem etiam), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested (igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur); next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted (multitudo ingens), not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses (aut crucibus adfixi), and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle (in usum nocturni luminis urerentur), and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man. (Trans. J. Jackson, LCL)

When John denounces the Roman empire and the imperial cult, he denounces Greeks and Romans, people whom the members of the assemblies of Jesus’ followers would have known and feared, e.g., in cities such as Pergamon where the believer Antipas had been killed (2:13). John speaks of believers in Jesus having died on account of their faith in 6:9–11; 14:13; 17:6; 18:4; 19:1, and he anticipates further executions (11:7–8; 13:10, 15). John describes Pergamon as a city “where Satan’s throne is” (ο« που ο‘ θρο' νος τουñ σαταναñ ) and “where Satan lives” (ο« που ο‘ σαταναñ ς κατοικειñ; 2:13). The term “Satan” is derived from OT and Jewish tradition, and will be explained below. Four main suggestions have been offered as explanation of the phrase “Satan’s throne”: the Altar of Zeus and Athena in Pergamon;10 the Asklepieion ─────────────── 9 Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25; 3.1.2; Acts Pet. 38. Cf. Richard J. Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature,” ANRW II.26.1 (1992): 539–95, here 587–89; Harry W. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul. Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends, WUNT 2.67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 198–200. 10 Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt, 4th Edition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1923), 240 n. 8; Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1926), 25; more recently Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 174; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Pergamon in Early Christian Literature,” in Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development, ed. H. Koester (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 163–84, here 166–76. For the temple of Zeus and Athena and the Great Altar cf. Richard Bohn, Das Heiligtum der Athena Polias Nikephoros, Altertümer von Pergamon II

356

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

southwest of the city;11 Pergamon as the center of Roman rule in the province of Asia;12 Pergamon as the center of the imperial cult.13 Each of these interpretations has problems: the Great Altar was not special compared with the altars and temples of other cities; there is no reason why Asklepios should have been linked with Satan; Ephesus, not Pergamon was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and governors were not based in one city but traveled throughout their province to hold court days; there was no center of the imperial cult in the province: emperors were worshiped in many public and private contexts.14 It is better to interpret the phrase as a reference to the fierce ─────────────── (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1885); Jakob Schrammen, Der grosse Altar – der obere Markt, Altertümer von Pergamon III/1 (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1906); Max Kunze, Der Pergamon-Altar. Seine Geschichte, Entdeckung und Rekonstruktion (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, 1992); Wolfgang Radt, Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1999), 168–80. 11 Wilhelm Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis (Orig. 1906; repr., KEK 16Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 211; Zahn, Offenbarung, I, 253–263; Mathias Rissi, Die Hure Babylon und die Verführung der Heiligen. Eine Studie zur Apokalypse des Johannes, BWANT 137 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 53; cf. Otto Schmitz, “θρο' νος”, ThWNT III, 166. For the Asklepieion cf. Oskar Ziegenaus and Gioia De Luca, Das Asklepieion, Das Asklepieion, Altertümer von Pergamon XI/1–5 (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1968–2011). 12 Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 101–2; Beale, Revelation, 246. 13 William M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, rev. ed. by M. W. Wilson (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994 [1904]), 214–16; Robert Henry Charles, The Revelation of St. John, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985/1989 [1920]), I, 61; Ulrich B. Müller, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, ÖTK 19 (Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/Echter, 1984), 110; Ben Witherington, Revelation, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 102; J. Scott Duvall, Revelation, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 53–54; more specifically the imperial temple: Heinrich Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT 16a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974), 64. The temple of Roma and Augustus has not been located; it probably was in the lower city; this temple must not be confused with the temple on the acropolis built under Trajan and completed under Hadrian; cf. Daniel N. Schowalter, “The Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple,” in Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development, ed. H. Koester (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 233–49. For further explanations see David E. Aune, Revelation, WBC 52 (Dallas: Word, 1997–98), I, 182–83. 14 Steven J. Friesen, “Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation,” JSNT 27 (2005): 351–73, here 357–64; Koester, Revelation, 286–87. Friesen finds “no references to the imperial cults anywhere in Rev. 2–3” (366), in contrast to the maximalist position of Allen Brent, The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian, Vigiliae Christianae Sup 45 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 178–90. Friesen does see references to the imperial cult in Rev 13–19; see also Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). On the imperial cult cf. Stephan Witetschek, Ephesische Enthüllungen I: Frühe Christen in einer antiken Großstadt, Biblical Tools and Studies 6 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 99–136.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

357

opposition of local authorities to the followers of Jesus who had executed at least one believer, Antipas, mentioned in 2:13.15 John speaks of the devil (ο‘ δια' βολος) who will throw some believers in Smyrna into prison (2:10), presumably for the purpose of coercion, i.e., interrogation under torture evidently in connection with a death sentence (note the exhortation in 2:10: “be faithful until death”). 16 He thus calls the local authorities, who would have been Greeks and Romans, agents of Satan, God’s adversary. As the Jewish tradition saw Satan or the devil as the attacker of God’s people and the one who sought to destroy their faith, any group who attacked the believers in Jesus with a view to suppress them by legal action resulting in punishments and even executions could be associated with Satan, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans. John uses the scheme of heaven, earth, and sea (12:12), a phrase that would remind readers of God’s ultimate sovereignty over his creation, in parody fashion depicts the reality of the Roman empire, and, in terms of the symbolism more broadly, the reality of human society. There is the dragon in heaven who is cast onto the earth (12:3–4, 7–12); a beast rises the sea (13:1–10); a second beast rises from the earth (13:11–17). John thus creates a satanic trinity: “The dragon relates to the first beast as God the Father to Christ. The second beast relates to the first beast ... as the Christian prophets, inspired by the Spirit, relate to Christ”.17 We will briefly look at these figures. John associates contemporary society with “the great red dragon” (δρα' κων με' γας πυρρο' ς; 12:3). The description as “great” intimates the danger of the dragon, the term “red” indicates, in the context of the rider on the red horse in 6:4, aggression. While blood-red was evidently regarded as the color of dangerous mythological dragons,18 the red of this dragon may be connected with the blood of the executed believers.19 The dragon has seven heads and ten horns and seven diadems, symbolizing various political systems and the claim to ultimate power. Since the dragon is “that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray” (12:9) and inspires the two beasts (12:18–13:4; 13:11), he transcends the political sphere and represents the supernatural evil which attacked God in the Garden and Eve’s children since that time (12:1–4, 13–16, 17). If the reference to the serpent is connected with ─────────────── 15 Friesen, “Satan’s Throne”, 365–66; Koester, Revelation, 286. 16 Cf. Aune, Revelation, I, 166; cf. Dig. 48.19.29 (Gaius): “Those condemned to the extreme penalty immediately lose their citizenship and their freedom. this fate therefore anticipates their death, sometimes by a long period, as happens in the case of those who are condemned to the beasts. Again, it is often the custom for them to be kept [alive] after their condemnation, so that they may be interrogated under torture against others” (Trans. A. Watson). 17 Richard J. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 434. On Rome’s imperialism according to Rev 12–13 see Friesen, Imperial Cults, 201–4. 18 Homer, Il. 2.308; Virgil, Aen. 2.207. 19 Bauckham, Climax, 188 n. 40.

358

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

the myth of Apollo slaying the Python, after the dragon had threatened his mother Leto at the time of his birth, John’s readers would see that the Roman state with its claims to power and divinity is a manifestation of God’s enemy, i.e., the power that has always been fighting against God, a power that will be defeated by the divine Child in the future (19:11–20:2; 20:10). As John portrays the Roman state as a great, aggressive dragon who will eventually be slain by Jesus, he describes by association the identity and fate of Rome’s local representatives: they may be powerful and aggressive, and they may claim to be connected with universal and divine realities, but in reality they represent a monstrous system, a loosing cause that has no ultimate future. The “beast rising out of the sea” (ε’ κ τηñ ς θαλα' σσης θηρι' ον; 13:1) which has ten horns and seven heads with diadems on the horns and blasphemous names on the heads is “the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” (το` θηρι' ον ε’ κ τηñ ς α’ βυ' σσου; 11:7). The ten horns and seven heads and the description in 13:2 take up Dan 7:2–8, combining the characteristics of all four beasts of Daniel’s vision. The beast sums up, and surpasses, the empires of history. The number of horns and heads of the beast connect it with its master and source of power, the dragon (12:3). Scholars agree that John uses the symbol of the beast to portray the empire that controls the political and social reality of the churches in Asia Minor. 20 The seven heads symbolize military power, on which the Roman empire depended. The rhetorical question of 13:14, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”, prompts people to worship Rome and its emperors. John expects the universal worship of the beast (13:4, 12, 15–17); he describes its superior military power (13:4), its claims to divinity (13:5–8), and its persecution of God’s holy people (13:7–10; cf. 11:7). Several features unmask the first beast and thus the Roman empire for John’s readers as a satanic monster. 1. The beast is Satan’s agent (12:18). 2. The origin in the “sea” and the “abyss” links the Roman empire with primeval chaos, the place of the demonic from which all evil rises (9:1–2, 11; 20:1).21 3. The seven heads and ten horns characterize the beast as a fearful, unnatural monster, whatever identifications with Roman emperors and kings of the east (16:12) John might have had in mind. 4. While the description in terms of a leopard, bear, and lion may signal noble characteristics such as speed and strength and dignity, the description as “beast” connotes savage tyranny. ─────────────── 20 Cf. J. Nelson Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse, JSNTSup 132 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996); Heinz Giesen, “Das Römische Reich im Spiegel der Johannes-Apokalypse [1996],” in Studien zur Johannesapokalypse, SBAB 29 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000), 100–213; Ulrike Riemer, Das Tier auf dem Kaiserthron? Eine Untersuchung zur Offenbarung des Johannes als historischer Quelle, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 14 (Stuttgart/Leipzig: Teubner, 1998); on Nero, see Bauckham, Climax, 384–452. 21 Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, HDR 9 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 165–66, 170–71; Adela Yarbro Collins, The Apocalypse, New Testament Message 22 (Wilmington: Glazier, 1979); Bauckham, Climax, 436.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

359

Commentators commonly refer to Plutarch who compares “wild animals” (α’ γρι' ων θηρι' ων) with despots (τυ' ρρανον; Sept. sap. conv. 2; Mor. 147B), and to Philostratos who said of Nero, as for this beast, generally called a tyrant (το` δε` θηρι' ον τουñ το, ο‹ καλουñ σιν οι‘ πολλοι` τυ' ραννον), I have no idea how many heads it has (ο‘ πο' σαι κεφαλαι' ), or whether it has crooked talons and jagged teeth. This beast is said to be urban, and to live in the middle of cities, but its nature is wilder than the beasts of mountains or forests in that lions and leopards are sometimes tamed by flattery, and change their ways, whereas this beast is incited by those who stroke it, becomes even more savage than it was before, and devours everything (Vit. Apoll. 4.38.3). (C. P. Jones, LCL)

Despite claims to bring the blessing of salvation and peace, the Roman empire was a dictatorship.22 5. The destiny of the beast is not to reign (11:17) but to perish: it “ascends from the bottomless pit and goes to destruction” (17:8, 11), which applies both to the individual rulers of the empire (17:9–13) and to the empire as a whole. The belief in Rome’s eternal destiny to rule the world, exemplified in the Ephesus graffito that says, “Rome, ruler of all, your power will never die” (‘ Ρ ω' μα η‘ παμβασι' λεια το` σο` ν κρα' τος ου’ ποτ’ ο‘ λελιñται; I. Ephesus II 599), 23 contradicts the hope of a conqueror from the east who would destroy Rome, connected with the Nero redivivus legend. 6. The beast from the bottomless pit is a parody of God: the description that the beast “was and is not and is to come” (ηò ν και` ου’ κ ε» στιν, και` με' λλει, 17:8a; ηò ν και` ου’ κ ε» στιν και` παρε' σται, 17:8b; ο‹ ηò ν και` ου’ κ ε» στιν, 17:11) parodies a fundamental designation for God (ο‘ ηò ν και` ο‘ ω › ν και` ο‘ ε’ ρχο' μενος; 4:8; cf. 1:4, 8: ο‘ ω › ν και` ο‘ ηò ν και` ο‘ ε’ ρχο' μενος). 7. John announces that when Jesus returns, God will throw the beast into the lake of fire (19:20). The “beast that rose out of the earth” (θηρι' ον ε’ κ τηñ ς γηñ ς) with two horns like a lamb that spoke like a dragon (13:11–17) is best associated with “the leading families of Asia Minor, who had control of both political office and the various priesthoods. These families, as well as the general populace of the region, were very enthusiastic in supporting and even extending the worship of the emperor”.24 The second beast is the first beast’s “prophet” (cf. 16:13; ─────────────── 22 Cf. Jochen Bleicken, Augustus. Eine Biographie (Reinbek/Hamburg: Rohwolt, 2010 [1998]), 149, 180, who describes Octavian/Augustus as a henchman with blood on his hands, as a slaughterer of the nobles, “ein aus kalter Berechnung mordendes Wesen ohne eine Spur von Menschlichkeit ... ein ganz gewöhnlicher Terrorist” (482). 23 Cf. Simon R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 [1984]); Richard E. Strelan, Paul, Artemis and the Jews in Ephesus, BZNW 80 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), 104; Paul R. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007 [2004]), 34, n. 151. 24 Adela Yarbro Collins, “‘What the Spirit Says to the Churches’: Preaching the Apocalypse,” QR 4 (1984): 69–84, here 82; cf. Friesen, Imperial Cults, 203. For the imperial cult under the Flavian emperors who restored the order of the Roman empire which had collapsed after Nero’s suicide in AD 68, with Servius Sulpicius Galba, Marcus Salvius Otho, and Aulus Vitellius emperors in quick succession during AD 68–69; cf. M. Gwyn Morgan, 69 A.D.: The

360

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

19:20). The signs and wonders performed by this beast (13:13–14) and his giving voice to the image of the beast (13:15) can be explained as references to the imperial cult where miracles were engineered. 25 John describes the imperial cult as the local power that represents Rome in the cities of the provinces, that proclaims the divinity of Rome and of the emperor and that organizes its worship. He anticipates a time in which it seeks to enforce the worship of Rome by economic measures (13:12, 14–15, 16–17). Several features mark the second beast and thus the imperial cult as satanic: 1. The imperial cult diverts worship from the one true God and makes people worship a monster (13:12, 14). 2. The priests of the imperial cult are false prophets (16:13; 19:20): the peace, security, salvation, and riches that the imperial cult promises will prove to be illusory. 3. The imperial cult and its officials deceive the people (13:14). 4. This second beast is a parody of Jesus Christ: it is a lamb (α’ ρνι' ον; 13:11), which is most frequent designation for Jesus in Revelation,26 but it speaks like a dragon, i.e., it is satanically inspired. 5. John announces that when Jesus returns, God will throw the second beast into the lake of fire (19:20). Another symbol for Greco-Roman society is “Babylon”, first mentioned in 14:8 as “great Babylon” (Βαβυλω` ν η‘ μεγα' λη), described in 17:5 as ““Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations” (Βαβυλω` ν η‘ μεγα' λη, η‘ μη' τηρ τω ñ ν πορνω ñ ν και` τω ñ ν βδελυγμα' των τηñ ς γηñ ς), and portrayed as a woman in 17:1–8. Babylon sits on seven hills (17:9): it is the city of Rome in terms of its corrupting influence on the people of the empire it controls. The description of the harlot as sitting on the seven heads of the beast (17:3, 9–10) describes Rome and its civilization in terms of its corrupting influence based on Roman military power.27 The emperors who are worshiped as divine are featured in the beast, the worship of personified Roma (Dea Roma) is featured in the harlot.28 Rome’s self-promotion as the eternal city may be reflected in the harlot’s boast in 18:7: “I rule as a queen; I am no widow, and I will never see grief.“ The allusions to Jeremiah’s oracle against Babylon (Jer. 50–51) ─────────────── Year of Four Emperors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Titus Flavius Vespasianus was confirmed by the senate as emperor on Dec 21 in AD 69. 25 Stephen J. Scherrer, “Signs and Wonders in the Imperial Cult: A New Look at a Roman Religious Institution in the Light of Rev 13:13–15,” JBL 103 (1984): 559–610; Bauckham, Climax, 446–47; Rodney L. Thomas, Magical Motifs in the Book of Revelation, LNTS 416 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 77–81. 26 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 8:1; 12:11; 13:8; 14:1; 4:4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3. 27 Bauckham, Climax, 343–44. 28 On Roma cf. S. Price, “Roma”, BNP XII, 660–62; J. W. van Henten, “Roma”, DDD 710–11; Ronald Mellor, “The Goddess Roma,” ANRW II.17.2 (1981): 950–1030; Ronald Mellor, ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World, Hypomnemata 42 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975); Friesen, Twice Neokoros, 76–92.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

361

and Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre (Ezek 26–28), and to other prophecies against Babylon and Tyre (Isa 13:1–14:23; 21:1–10; 47; Jer 25:12–38; Tyre: Isa 23) in John’s prophecy of the fall of Babylon indicate that he uses the symbol of “Babylon” as the “culmination of all the evil empires of history”29 and as the enemy of God’s people par excellence. The Old Testament Babylon oracles form the background against which John describes the proud, idolatrous, and oppressive empire of his own day; and he creatively utilizes the oracles against Tyre which was the great trading center in the Mediterranean during the Old Testament period in order to describe the economic exploitation of the provinces and the people by Rome. Isaiah’s portrayal of Tyre as harlot (Isa 23:15–18) seems to be the reason for portraying Babylon as harlot. The symbol of the harlot alludes to the fact that the city’s dealings with other peoples were based on the profit it could extract from them. That Rome benefits immensely, allowing for a luxurious lifestyle by its representatives – the kings of the earth (18:9), i.e., the local ruling classes that had been co-opted by Rome; the merchants of the earth (18:11), i.e., the traders and shipowners; and the mariners (18:17), i.e., all people working in the maritime industry – is evident in the twice-repeated reference to the expensive clothes, gold, jewels, and pearls (17:4; 18:16) that the harlot enjoys at the expense of those who worship her. The luxury goods mentioned in 18:12–13 include “cargo of gold, silver, jewels and pearls, fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet, all kinds of scented wood, all articles of ivory, all articles of costly wood, bronze, iron, and marble, cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, choice flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, slaves – and human lives”.30 Aelius Aristides memorably describes the riches of Rome in Or. 26.11–13, a passage which includes the line, Whatever one does not see here, is not a thing which has existed or exists (δ’ α›ν μη` ε’ νταυñ θα »ιδη, τις, ου’ κ ε» στι τω ñ ν γενομε' νων, η› γιγνομε' νων). (Trans. C. A. Behr)

The security and stability that Rome offers come at a price. They are the favors of a prostitute. The people give far more to Rome than Rome gives to them. The reference to the intoxicating effect of the wine of the harlot’s fornication (14:8; 17:2; 18:3) reflects John’s verdict that “the political religion of Rome was the worst kind of false religion, since it absolutized Rome’s claim on her subjects and cloaked her exploitation of them in the garb of religious loyalty”.31 ─────────────── 29 Bauckham, Climax, 345; for the allusions to the Old Testament prophecies see the commentaries; also Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development, JSNTSup 93 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994); Gregory K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, “Revelation,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1081–1161, here 1137–42. 30 For a discussion cf. Bauckham, Climax, 350–71; Aune, Revelation, III, 998–1003. 31 Bauckham, Climax, 348.

362

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

For Jesus’ followers, the danger of Rome was not merely political and economic seduction, but the harsh reality of martyrdom: “And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus” (17:6). This is repeated in 18:24, with a significant addition: “And in you was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slaughtered on earth” – Rome kills not only Christians, but many other innocent people as well. Despite the imperial peace propaganda, the Pax Romana was “peace with bloodshed” (pacem ... verum cruentam; Tacitus, Ann. 1.10.4; Trans. J. Jackson, LCL). The description of Rome as Babylon and as harlot was shocking, especially for Jewish believers in Jesus who knew the OT traditions about Babylon and Tyre. 1. The description of Rome would have been shocking for any reader: Rome makes people drunk (14:8; 17:2; 18:3), is drunk with blood (17:6), fornicates (14:8; 17:2; 18:3, 9; 19:1), is a harlot (17:1), the mother of whores (17:5), the mother of all abominations (17:5), a dwelling place of demons, foul spirit, foul birds, foul and hateful beasts (18:2). 2. Since both Babylon and Tyre were destroyed, the portrayal of Rome with these symbols implies Rome’s eventual downfall. God’s judgment on Rome is announced in 16:19, described in 18:1–8, lamented in 18:9–24, and celebrated by God’s people in 19:1–10. The fall of Babylon described in Rev 17:1–19:10 is the climax of the dynamic of the three series of seven judgments in Rev. 6–16. While John emphasizes the fall of Babylon as God’s judgment (16:19; 18:8; cf. 14:8), he links the conquest and destruction of Rome with foreign powers in 17:16.32 John presents three lists of people engaged wrongful actions. In 9:20–21 he speaks of people “worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk. And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their Immorality or their thefts”; in 21:8 of “the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the immoral, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars”; in 22:15 of “the dogs and sorcerers and immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood”. All three lists refer to idolaters (οι‘ ει’ δωλολα' τραι; cf. 9:20: προσκυνη' σουσιν τα` δαιμο' νια και` τα` ει»δωλα).33 The silver idols highlight the fact that the worship of Greek and Romans gods took place not only in the temples of the cities but in private homes where people set up smaller images, sometimes made of silver (cf. Acts 19:24; Pausanias, Descr. 1.5.1). Besides idolaters, all three lists refer to murder (φο' νοι; οι‘ φονειñς), sexual immorality (πορνει' αι; οι‘ πο' ρνοι), and sorcery (φαρμα' κοι; οι‘ φα' ρμακοι). Murder was universally condemned, but universally practiced. Sexual immorality of all kinds ─────────────── 32 Aune, Revelation, III, 957 points to Jer 51 and Tg. Jer. 51:55. 33 In Jewish tradition, people who worship false gods sacrifice “to demons, not to God” (Deut 32:17 LXX: δαιμονι'οις και` ου’ θεω ñ, ); cf. Ps 106:37; 1 En 19:1; 99:7–9; Jub 1:11; 22:17; 2Q23 I, 7–8; T. Job 3:3–4.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

363

was condemned in the OT and in Jewish tradition and condemned in part – e.g., adultery of married people – among Greeks and Romans but generally condoned and accepted. Sorcery was condemned in the OT and Jewish tradition and officially in Greco-Roman society,34 but was widely practiced. Theft (κλε' μμαται; 9:21) was both universally condemned and universally practiced. The list in 21:8 includes four items specific to this list: the cowardly (οι‘ δειλοι' ), the faithless (οι‘ α» πιστοι), the polluted (οι‘ ε’ βδελυγμε' νοι), the liars (οι‘ ψευδειñς; 22:15: παñ ς φιλω ñ ν και` ποιω ñ ν ψευñ δος). The list is formulated in the context both of biblical and Christian tradition: the cowardly are people who once professed to be believers in Jesus but relinquished their faith in the context of the difficulties of living as a Christian in pagan society; the faithless are people who are not loyal to God and Christ; the vile are people who practice idolatry and immorality; liars are people who tell untruths or make false statements under oath, and, for John, who use deception to promote idolatry.35 In 22:15 the “dogs” οι‘ κυ' νες) are perhaps the unclean, the cowards, or the abominable, in John’s context the unrepentant.36 In 22:11 John speaks of “the unjust” (ο‘ α’ δικω ñ ν), i.e., the unrighteous who act contrary to the will of God the Creator; and he speaks of “the filthy” (ο‘ ρ‘ υπαρο' ς), i.e., people who are defiled on account of their sins, in particular idolatry, violence, and immorality. John’s readers could not help but think of their neighbors when hearing these lists read in the assembly. These are the people who accept the mark of the beast (13:16), i.e., who live by the standards of society opposed to God and hostile to Jesus’ followers. John specifies with three pairs of political-social terms that he speaks of society as a whole, consisting of the small and the great (του` ς μικρου` ς και` του` ς μεγα' λους), the rich and the poor (του` ς πλουσι' ους και` του` ς πτωχου' ς), the free and the slaves (του` ς ε’ λευθε' ρους και` του` ς δου' λους). John describes the future and the ultimate fate of the people who are loyal to the beast, i.e., of the unbelievers, in terms of judgment. The dragon is doomed to be defeated by the divine dragon-slayer: the defeat can be expected once the readers recognize the dragon as the dragon of Isa 27:1 and the allusion to the curse of Gen 3:15, and when they remember the fate of mythologi─────────────── 34 Cf. Apuleius, Metam. 3.16; Apol. 47; Rom. civ. 2.51; cf. I. Philadelphia 1539, 18–19: people should swear, upon entering the building, by all the gods that they “perform no malevolent magic (φα' ρμακον πονηρο' ν) or malevolent charms against others” and that they refrain from mixing love potions, from immorality and from actions that kill children; Georg Petzl, Philadelphia et Ager Philadelphenus, Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, TAM V.3 (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007). 35 For references cf. Koester, Revelation, 800–801. 36 Cf. Koester, Revelation, 842–43, who points out that “dogs” was also used for male prostitutes (Deut. 23:18), fools (Prov 26:11), greedy rulers (Isa 56:10), Gentiles (Mark 7:27), people contemptuous of the gospel (Matt 7:6), false teachers (Phil 3:2), heretics (2 Pet 2:21– 22), unbelievers (Did. 9:5); generally it was a term of contempt (cf. 1 Sam 17:43; 2 Kgs 8:13; Homer, Il. 11.360; Od. 17.248); dogs eat what is unclean (Exod 22:15).

364

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

cal dragons who attack divine heroes.37 The dragon’s defeat is described in 20:10. It is not only the kings (βασιλε' ων), the generals (χιλια' ρχων), and the powerful (ι’ σχυρω ñ ν) who will be judged at the time of Jesus’ return, but the whole society: “the free and the slaves, the small and the great” (ε’ λευθε' ρων τε και` δου' λων και` μικρω ñ ν και` μεγα' λων; 19:18). These are the same groups who were terrified by the divine wrath of the sixth seal; then their question, “Who can stand?” (6:17) was followed by an interruption of judgment. Koester comments, “But in the vision of the final battle, these groups ask no questions. They persist in their opposition to Christ and fall under his judgment”.38 They are judged together with “the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider” (19:19), i.e., the satanic and political powers that oppose Jesus Christ. God’s final and lasting victory over evil in 20:1–15 is grounded in Jesus’ victory over sin and death (1:5–6; 3:14; 5:6–10; 7:14–17) and consummated with Jesus’ return (19:11–21). Judgment affects all the dead, “the great and the small” (του` ς μεγα' λους και` του` ς μικρου' ς; 20:12), as “each person” (ε« καστος) is judged “according to what they had done” (κατα` τα` ε» ργα αυ’ τω ñ ν; 20:13). Judgment is pronounced on “anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life” (τις ου’ χ ευ‘ ρε' θη ε’ ν τηñ, βι' βλω, τηñ ς ζωηñ ς γεγραμμε' νος), together with death itself, being thrown into the lake of fire (20:14–15), which is the second death that everyone suffers to opposes God and of Jesus Messiah. The relationship between the followers of Jesus and their Greek and Roman contemporaries was strained, often hostile, with the hostility emanating from local authorities. While only a minority lived a luxurious life as a result of the rule of Rome, the majority of the people enjoyed the peace, the safety, the stability, the economic possibilities that had been established by Augustus. Many were active in the various cults that worshiped Rome and the emperors and members of their family. The Christians would have readily understood John’s protest against idolatry and moral corruptability. Biblically literate Christians would have understood John’s political protest in the light of Israel’s prophets who spoke up against political and morally corrupt kings, whether they be Israel’s or Judah’s kings or foreign rulers. The fact that “the Book of Revelation is one of the fiercest attacks on Rome and one of the most effective pieces of political resistance literature from the period of the early

─────────────── 37 Bauckham, Climax, 195. 38 Koester, Revelation, 759–60. As regards the question whether the final judgment in 20:11–15 can be understood in terms of annihilation, Koester points to the view that death simply means the cessation of existence (Lucretius, Rer. 3.861–869; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 9.124–125; tomb inscription: “I did not exist, I do not exist, I do not care”), and observes, “Revelation, however, does not include this option. Death is not an escape” (793).

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

365

empire”39 is part of this tradition. The point of John writing about Rome is not reform or rehabilitation, but the hope for its destruction and its replacement by the genuine city of God. John’s polemic is not simply a literary device in the service of impressing upon the believers the absolute need to remain uncompromisingly faithful: he writes in a historical context in which execution on account of one’s faith in Jesus was a real possibility. For John, the dangers of being co-opted by Rome, whether explicitly or implicitly, were such that accommodation and compromise were not possible. Rome had killed Christians (2:13; 6:9–11; 14:13; 17:6; 18:4; 19:1), and he knows that more Christians will face execution (11:7–8; 13:10, 15). John asserts that while Rome and her representatives are proud and powerful, arrogant and aggressive, making Christians fear for their lives, the time will come when the ruling elites and those who make their power and wealth economically possible will call out to the mountains and rocks and say, ““Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” (6:16). But this time has not yet come. The purpose of the vice lists is not to merely denounce unbelievers and call them names, but, as 22:11 demonstrates, to challenge believers to help unbelievers seek repentance (see below).

2. Jews and the Activities of Satan The early Christian movement began with Jesus in Jewish Galilee, proclaimed the salvific significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection which happened in Jerusalem, established its first communities in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, and initiated new communities in the context of preaching in Jewish synagogues throughout the Mediterranean region.40 The first disciples were Jews, as were the first converts, arguably in all towns and cities in which communities of followers of Jesus were established in the first century. The relationship with the non-believing Jewish community was characterized with tensions already during Jesus’ ministry, climaxing in Jesus’ trial which was initiated by the Jewish leadership who demanded Jesus’ execution. 41 The activities of Peter, the Twelve, and believers such as Stephen triggered legal ─────────────── 39 Bauckham, Climax, 338. Thus already Bousset, Offenbarung, 137: “Selten wohl ist eine so entschlossene fulminante Streitschrift gegen ein herrschendes System geschrieben worden”. Cf. Jens-Wilhelm Taeger, “Eine fulminante Streitschrift. Bemerkungen zur Apokalypse des Johannes [1994],” in Johanneische Perspektiven. Aufsätze zur Johannesapokalypse und zum johanneischen Kreis 1984–2003, ed. D. C. Bienert and D.-A. Koch, FRLANT 215 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 105–20. 40 For a survey of historical and theological developments see Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). 41 Matt 27:22–23; Mark 15:12–14; Luke 23:20–23; John 19:6–7, 14–15.

366

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

action and expulsion. For the time AD 30–41, Luke relates eight occasions of the persecution of followers of Jesus by Jews, persecution understood as aggressive harassment, deliberate ill-treatment, ranging from initiating court proceedings to beatings, flogging, banishment from a city to execution or lynch killings (Acts 4:1–22; 5:17–41; 6:9–7:60; 8:1/11:19; 9:1–14; 9:23–24; 9:29–30; 12:1–19).42 Luke relates persecutions of Christians initiated by Jews for Pisidian Antioch and Iconium in the province of Galatia (Acts 13:50; 14:5), for Thessalonike in Macedonia (Acts 17:5), and for Corinth in Achaia (Acts 18:12; 20:3), but not for Ephesus in the province of Asia (the uproar in the theater is caused by a pagan silversmith, Acts 19:24–25), although he relates that Jews from the province of Asia are instrumental in having Paul nearly lynched, and then arrested, in Jerusalem (Acts 21:27). Paul mentions Jewish persecution in 1 Thess 2:14–16; Gal 1:13–14, 23; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6, including himself as former persecutor of Jewish believers in Jesus. As regards Asia Minor, later authors speak of Jews persecuting Christians. According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp (AD 155), Jews in Smyrna publicly denounce Polycarp and call for his execution (Mart. Pol. 12:2–3; 13:1). Justin Martyr, whose Dialogue with Trypho (ca. AD 155–160) is set in Ephesus, says that Jews persecuted Christians43 and cursed Christians in the synagogues.44 It is thus inherently plausible that the reference to Jews who oppose the Christians in Smyrna (Rev 2:9) and Philadelphia (3:9) is historically accurate. For the early followers of Jesus, persecution was not a literary device45 but a harsh reality that led to social discrimination, economic hardship, legal proceedings, and punishments (flogging, relegatio ad insulam), and sometimes to loss of life (cf. Antipas who was killed in Pergamon; 2:13). John mentions Jews twice, and in both cases they oppose followers of Jesus, who may be ethnic Jews but who believe that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah and Savior. As regards the situation in Smyrna,46 described by Strabo as the most beautiful city of Ionia,47 John asserts that Jews of Smyrna slandered the Christians. ─────────────── 42 Cf. Schnabel, “Persecution”, 142–43. 43 Justin Martyr, Dial. 16.4; 95.4; 110.5; 131.2; 133.6; 1 Apol. 31.5. 44 Dial. 16.4; 47.4; 93.4; 95.4; 96.2; 108.3; 133.6; 137.2; cf. Aune, Revelation, I, 163. 45 Contra Aune, Revelation, I, 162–63, who speaks of a “theological convention in Christian apologetics requiring little or no evidence”, and Koester, Revelation, 275, who thinks that Jewish opposition mentioned in Christian sources of the second and third centuries “may be a literary motif designed to make the martyrs’ stories parallel the story of Jesus”. Unconvincing is Candida R. Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (New York: HarperOne, 2013); see the critical reviews of L. T. Johnson, Commonweal 140.13 (2013): 28–30; G. Carey, ChrCent 130.9 (2013): 39–41; E. Radner, First Things 233 (2013): 53–55; N. C. Croy, RBL 10.3.2013; C. Garbarino, Themelios 38 (2013): 307–8. 46 Cf. Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, JSNTSup 11 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 57–75; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, I, 820–23; also Koester, Revelation, 271–73. 47 Strabo, Geogr. 14.1.37: νυñ ν ε’ στι` καλλι'στη τω ñ ν πασω ñ ν.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

367

The term βλασφημι' α in 2:9 refers primarily to denunciation before the magistrates of the city with a view to have members, probably the leaders, of the Christian community tried, convicted, punished, perhaps executed.48 In 2:10 John refers to the prospect of imprisonment, which implies arrest before a trial. The plural ε’ κ τω ñ ν λεγο' ντων ’ Ιουδαι' ους in v.9 indicates that there had been several cases where a delator accused one or more Christians before local magistrates, thus initiating legal proceedings, and that the delator was Jewish.49 The content of the βλασφημι' α could be various accusations: that the Christians persuade the citizens of Smyrna to worship God in ways contrary to the law and the δο' γματα of the emperor (as Paul was accused of doing before Gallio, the governor of Achaia, by Corinthian Jews; Acts 18:13), on the basis of their conviction that Jesus is Messiah, the king of the Jews (cf. Acts 17:5– 7), thus showing disloyalty to the emperor; or that the Christians are engaging in sedition by causing riots (thus the accusation against Paul by Jews in Thessalonike and by the Jewish elite including the high priest before Felix, the prefect of Judea, in Caesarea; Acts 17:6; 24:5), which could be construed in terms of the crimen maiestatis, the most serious of all political charges;50 or that Christians, on account of their claims about Jesus, are no longer true Jews who belong to a recognized religion but are introducing a new superstition (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Pliny, Ep. 10.96.8–9; Suetonius, Nero 16.2).51 The statement in 2:10 that the devil (ο‘ δια' βολος) is about to throw some of the Chris─────────────── 48 Most recent commentators discuss denunciation; cf. Aune, Revelation, I, 162; Beale, Revelation, 240; Satake, Offenbarung, 160; Koester, Revelation, 274, 280. On Roman trial law see Max Kaser, Das römische Zivilprozeßrecht, Secone Edition, Edited by K. Hackl, HdA X/3,4 (München: Beck, 1996 [1966]), 151–407; Herbert Hausmaninger and Walter Selb, Römisches Privatrecht (Wien: Böhlau, 2001), 374–86. 49 On the delator see G. Schiemann, “Delator”, BNP IV, 199–200; Theodor Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961 [1899]), 509– 511; Lucia Fanizza, Delatori e accusatori. L’iniziativa nei processi di età imperiale, Studia Juridica 84 (Rome: Bretschneider, 1988); Andrew W. Lintott, “Delator and Index: Informers and Accusers at Rome from the Republic to the Early Principate,” Accordia Research Papers 9 (2001–3): 105–22; Yann Rivière, Les délateurs sous l’Empire Romain, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 311 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2002); Olivia F. Robinson, “The Role of Delators,” in Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World, ed. J. W. Cairns and P. J. du Plessis, Edinburgh Studies in Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 206–20. 50 Cf. Heike Omerzu, Der Prozeß des Paulus. Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte, BZNW 115 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002), 479, on Acts 25:8; she agrees that the crime of instigating a riot can indirectly affect the maiestas of the emperor: the formulation in v.8 functions perhaps as an escalation of the charge of sedition with the possibility of a charge of crimen maiestatis; Luke probably intends his readers to be reminded of the charge of crimen maiestatis in Jesus’ trial and as grounds of Jesus’ execution. 51 David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 56–58, with regard to the success of the early Christian mission which drew increasing numbers of Gentiles away from the traditional cults; cf. Koester, Revelation, 280, as possibility.

368

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

tians into prison confirms the interpretation of βλασφημι' α in v.9 in terms of denunciation before the local authorities. At the same time, the term βλασφημι' α, as used in the framework of John’s theological convictions, probably also reflects his conviction that Jews who accuse followers of Jesus of criminal misdeeds are blaspheming the one true God,52 perhaps based on the argument that when Jews regard the message of God’s revelation in Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah and Savior as blasphemy, a revelation which renders the temple and sacrifices obsolete,53 they deny the reality of this revelation and thus they blaspheme God. 54 The statement ε’ κ τω ñ ν λεγο' ντων ’ Ιουδαι' ους ειòναι ε‘ αυτου` ς και` ου’ κ ει’ σι` ν (“those who say that they are Jews and are not” [NRSV]; Rev 2:9) is not a reference to Gentile followers of Jesus who follow Jewish customs and who affiliate with the synagogue in order to avoid persecution by the authorities,55 nor to apostate Jews56 but to Jews who collaborate with pagan idolators in denouncing Jesus’ followers.57 The statement that Jews of Smyrna who oppose the believers are “synagogue of Satan” (συναγωγη` τουñ σαταναñ ; Rev 2:9) uses the Hebrew term sāt.ān (‫ ) ָ ׂשָטן‬as a description for the synagogue in Smyrna. In the OT sāt.ān means “adversary, opponent” in a military context (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 5:18; 11:14, 23, 24), in legal contexts (Ps 109:6), for a person who hinders a purpose (Num 22:22, 32; 2 Sam 19:22–23), and, as ha-sāt.ān (‫)ַה ָּ ׂשָטן‬, it is used as a term to describe a transcendent figure opposing the pious as heavenly prosecutor or as ─────────────── 52 Note the meaning of βλασφημι'α in Rev 13:1, 5, 6; 16:9, 11, 21; 17:3. 53 Cf. the accusation against Stephen in Acts 6:11–14. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte, EKK 5 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), II, 45, concerning the “blasphemy” against Paul by Jews in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:45), with reference to Gal 3:13 and 1 Cor 12:3 in the context of Deut 21:22–23. 54 Thus Hermann Lichtenberger, “Überlegungen zum Verständnis der Johannes-Apokalypse,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums, FS O. Hofius, ed. C. Landmesser, BZNW 86 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997), 603–18, who unnecessarily rejects the interpretation of βλασφημι'α in terms of denunciation. 55 Kraft, Offenbarung, 15; Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70–170 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 163; M. Murray, Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2004), 73–81. 56 Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem. Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes,” ZRGG 46 (1994): 143–62; Mark R. J. Bredin, “The Synagogue of Satan Accusation in Revelation 2:9,” BTB 28 (1999): 160–64; John W. Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001), 123–34. 57 Koester, Revelation, 275, with a critique of the previously mentioned interpretations; cf. Peter Hirschberg, Das eschatologische Israel. Untersuchungen zum Gottesvolkverständnis der Johannesoffenbarung, WMANT 84 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 106–8, who also explores a theological motivation of Jews who distance themselves from the believers in Jesus, perhaps with regard to the Christian congregations’ inclusion of Gentiles (ibid. 108– 127); see also Philip L. Mayo, “Those Who Call Themselves Jews“: The Church and Judaism in the Apocalypse of John, PTMS 60 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2006), 51–76.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

369

God’s adversary (Job 1:6–9, 12; 2:1–4, 6–7; Zech 3:1–2).58 The LXX translates the verb sāt.an (‫ )ׂשטן‬with various words indicating hostile behavior, most frequently with ε’ νδιαβα' λλω (“to calumniate, speak ill of”). In early Jewish texts, the transliteration ο‘ σαταναñ ς (ho satanās) is the proper name of the antidivine power (Sir 21:27; T. Dan 3:6; 5:6; 6:1; T. Gad 4:7), which also explains the use in the New Testament.59 This is, of course, quite well known, but bears repeating since John speaks of local Jews as legal adversaries who accuse them before the magistrates and may thus allude to the Hebrew connotations of the term rather than merely thinking of the name of God’s adversary. As Jews of Smyrna accuse the followers of Jesus, who regard themselves as righteous (Rev 19:8; 22:11), denouncing them to local authorities with charges that the Christians would have regarded as false, John employs the traditional description of Satan as the accuser of the righteous (Rev 12:10; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6; Zech 3:1–5) and as the deceiver who uses falsehoods to achieve his goals (Rev 12:9; John 8:44; 2 Cor 11:14; 2 Thess 2:9–10).60 As the local authorities in Smyrna are planning to have believers thrown into prison, an action that John links with the activity of the devil (ο‘ δια' βολος; 2:10), he alludes to the description of the devil as the adversary who provokes affliction in order to undermine loyalty to God (Job 1–2; Wisd 2:17–20; cf. 2 Cor 12:7; 1 Petr 5:8) and who brings death into the world (Gen 3:1–24; Wisd 2:23–24; John 8:44; Heb 2:14; Rev 12:9). The terms σαταναñ ς and δια' βολος are synonymous: in 12.9 John speaks of “that ancient serpent (ο‘ ο» φις ο‘ α’ ρχαιñος), who is called the Devil and Satan (ο‘ καλου' μενος Δια' βολος και` ο‘ Σαταναñ ς), the deceiver of the whole world”.61 Finally, there is the possibility that John’s denunciation as “synagogue of Satan” is a comment on the payment of the fiscus Iudaicus, required of all Jews after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, with the monies going to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome (Josephus, B.J. 7.218).62 ─────────────── 58 Cf. HAL s.v. ‫ ; ָ ׂשָטן‬K. Nielsen, “‫” ָ ׂשָטן‬, TDOT XIV, 73–78; G. Wanke, “‫” ָ ׂשָטן‬, TLOT III, 1268–1269; W. Foerster, “σαταναñ ς”, TDNT VI, 151–163. 59 Matt 4:10; 12:26; 16:23; Mark 1:13; 3:23, 26; 4:15; 8:33; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:3.31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; 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; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 20:7. The term is not attested in extra-biblical Greek literature, and only in later Christian papyri, cf. IGCB I 15 (NewDocs III, 83 No. 64); the adjective σατανικο' ς occurs in P.Lond. V 1731,11. 60 Koester, Revelation, 280. 61 LXX uses δια' βολος to translate ‫ ָ ׂשָטן‬in Job 1:6–8:12; 2:1–7; Zech 3:1–2; cf. Mark 1:13 σαταναñ ς par. Matt 4:1 par. Luke 4:2 δια' βολος; Mark 4:15 σαταναñ ς par. Luke 8:12 δια' βολος. 62 Kraybill, Imperial Cult, 184; deSilva, Seeing, 56; Jörg Frey, “Was erwartet die Johannesapokalypse? Zur Eschatologie des letzten Buchs der Bibel,” in Die Johannesapokalypse. Kontexte – Konzepte – Rezeption, ed. J. Frey, J. A. Kelhoffer, and F. Tóth, WUNT 287 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 473–551, here 522–23); Marius Heemstra, The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways, WUNT 2.277 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 105– 133; on the fiscus Iudaicus ibid. 7–102; cf. I. Wandrey, “Fiscus Iudaicus”, BNP V, 438; Lloyd

370

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Linking opponents with the activities of Satan is polemical, if “polemics” is defined as “controversial discourse”.63 Whether the polemics is dangerous or offensive depends on what others do with John’s text, including the Christians for whom he is writing. Since polemical language directed against Jews is used only with regard to Jews of Smyrna and Philadelphia (cf. 3:9), Koester is correct when he asserts that “the polemics of this local conflict cannot be extended to Jewish-Christian relations more broadly”.64 Also, since followers of Jesus comprised a very small minority compared with the Jewish population of the Roman empire, and perhaps of Smyrna, they would not have been in a position to endanger the livelihood or the very lives of local Jews. As we will see, John’s ethos discourages militant moves against any opponents. A further fact is relevant. Scholars rightly point to the intra-Jewish polemic in Qumran where the leaders of the community, at least those who wrote the texts that we know as the Dead Sea Scrolls, denounced Jews – probably the priestly circles controlling the Jerusalem Temple – as “assembly of Belial” (1QH X, 22 [II, 22]; 1QM IV, 9) and “assembly of wickedness” (1QM XV, 9; 1QH XIV, 5; XV, 23). Belial (‫ )בליעל‬is an alternative name for Satan (T. Reu. 2:4; Jub. 15:33; CD VI, 9; 2 Cor 6:15). The label “synagogue of Satan” has thus been explained as part of an intramural Jewish controversy between the synagogues and the congregations of Jesus’ followers.65 Yarbro Collins, focusing on the social function of the denunciation, describes the language as an attempt to claim the term “Jew” for the churches: John argues that the churches are the true Israel.66 Borgen surmises that John reworked Jewish traditions used in intramural controversies to argue that the redemptive death of Jesus constitutes the people of God who are the true Israel and the true Jews.67 ─────────────── A. Thompson, “Domitian and the Jewish Tax,” Historia 31 (1982): 329–324; Martin Goodman, “The Fiscus Iudaicus and Attitudes to Judaism,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason, J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 167–77. 63 Theo L. Hettema and Arie van der Kooij, “Introduction,” in Religious Polemics in Context, ed. T. L. Hettema and A. van der Kooij (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), xi–xxv, here xi. 64 Koester, Revelation, 281, 330, with reference to Peder Borgen, “Polemic in the Book of Revelation [1993],” in Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 275–91; Eduard Lohse, “Synagogue of Satan and Church of God. Jews and Christians in the Book of Revelation,” SEÅ 58 (1993): 105–23; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Vilification and Self-Definition in the Book of Revelation,” HTR 79 (1986): 308–20, here 320, as scholars who point to the dangers of John’s polemics. 65 Cf. Richard J. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 124. 66 Collins, “Vilification”, 314, 319. 67 Borgen, “Polemic”, who concludes, “Implicitly, John’s formulations mean then that the Synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia are the ones that are in the process of pursuing antiJewish persecutions against the members of the ekklesia, the true Jews ... the polemic between the Synagogue and the ekklesia was intra-mural, and the Christians were at this stage in history the ones who lived under the threat of persecution from the synagogal communities” (290, 291).

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

371

Friesen argues, on the basis of allusions to Old Testament passages, in Rev 3:7–13 (Philadelphia) especially to Isa 22:15–25, that the label “synagogue of Satan” is not the result of a theological indictment but “simply a satirical, sarcastic flourish embedded within the ironic reuse of Scripture”.68 Koester holds that the identification of one’s adversary with Satan fosters resistance in view of efforts to have their faith undermined and their lives threatened.69 It should be noted that while the expression “synagogue of Satan” probably implies that the communities of Jesus’ followers are regarded as the “true Israel”,70 this is a term that John does not use. The term “synagogue of Satan” might imply that John regarded all Jews who did not accept Jesus as Israel’s Messiah as people “who say that they are Jews and are not”, but it is also conceivable that he limited the term “synagogue of Satan” to those Jews who denounced followers of Jesus to the local magistrates and initiated court proceedings with the aim of having them convicted and punished. By calling the Jews in Smyrna who launch legal attacks against the church “synagogue” of Satan, John links them with the local authorities – both groups persecute members of the Christian congregation. This connection is evident in the parallel description of Pergamon as a city “where Satan’s throne is” (Rev 2:13). John describes Jerusalem as “Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified” (11:8). The reference to Sodom is derived from Isa 1:9–10; the reference to Egypt is connected with the description of the dragon in 12:3–9 which alludes to the Egyptian dragon of Ezekiel: Pharaoh is ο‘ δρα' κων ο‘ με' γας (Ezek 29:3 LXX), also thrown onto the earth (29:5 LXX). By identifying the dragon with the power who threatened Israel’s existence during the Exodus, with the city in which Jesus was crucified (11:8), and with the place where the dragon nearly succeeded in destroying the child, i.e., Jesus the Messiah (12:5), John portrays Jerusalem and thus Jews who attack believers in Jesus as God’s enemy. The dragon who persecutes the offspring of the child (12:17), i.e., the people loyal to Jesus Messiah, has a pseudo-Jewish identity: as the dragon is identified by the traits of the pharaoh of Ezek 29:3 and 32:2 and thus with the nation that threatened Israel when the nation was born, he corresponds to empirical Jerusalem where God’s enemy threatened the birth of God’s new ─────────────── 68 Steven J. Friesen, “Sarcasm in Revelation 2–3: Churches, Christians, True Jews, and Satanic Synagogues,” in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation, Symposium 39, ed. D. L. Barr, HTS 53 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 127–44, here 141. Friesen has a helpful discussion of irony and sarcasm (129–32), although he uses modern definitions and does not explore what Greeks and Romans would have found “ironic” and “sarcastic”. 69 Koester, Revelation, 281, with reference to 1 Pet 5:8–9; Mart. Pol. 3:1; 17:1; Mart. Perpetua et Felicitas 10:14; 20:1; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.5–6, 16, 24. 70 Aune, Revelation, I, 175, with the claim that this was “a widespread Christian view”, with reference to John 4:23–24; Gal 6:16; Phil 3:3; 1 Pet 2:9–10; Barn. 4:6–7; Justin, Dial. 11.5, where only the last text used the term “true Israel”; also Beale, Revelation, 241.

372

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

people when Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead.71 John’s readers will see later that the dragon also has a Roman identity. John announces in 12:10–12 the victory of the Jesus’ followers over “the accuser of the brothers” on the basis of Jesus’ death, as they remain loyal in their confession and as they are willing to risk death. Religious polemics that involve linking others with Satan belongs to a tradition that cannot be properly evaluated on the basis of political correctness, which did not exist in antiquity. This is ignored by Friesen when he asserts, “The author of the Apocalypse can be terribly offensive”, explaining that its rhetoric “has been wielded in a bewildering array of settings over the centuries, and a disturbingly high percentage of these have been lethal. Christian hostility toward Jews, Christian imperialism, and Christian sectarian violence are a few of the example that spring to mind”.72 He implies the moral superiority of his own position when he states, “I do not approve of vicious namecalling, even if it is practiced by an emerging religious group in a vulnerable and potentially lethal situation”. 73 While criticizing not only Revelation’s interpreters, but its author, he vilifies the latter, engaging himself in what John and those who accepted his theological leadership in the first century would have felt was “vicious name-calling”. The relationship between followers of Jesus and local Jewish communities was strained, particularly in Smyrna where Jews initiated legal attacks against Christians leading to legal investigations and punishments, and also in Philadelphia, where the nature of the opposition by the Jewish community is not specified but probably also consisted in accusations before the Roman authorities. 74 The evidence of Acts suggests that there were other cities in Asia Minor and beyond where Jews attacked Christians verbally and legally. John denies a truly Jewish identity to those Jews who oppose Jesus’ followers – only those who are loyal to Jesus, the Messiah and Savior, truly belong to God – and he connects them with Satan who uses hostility and violence to destroy God’s people. It should be noted that in contrast to Greeks and Romans on whom John pronounces God’s judgment in the strongest terms, there is no explicit reference to God judging the Jews. In the message to the church in Philadelphia John prophesies a reversal of eschatological expectation: unlike the expectation, expressed in Isa 60:14, that Israel’s adversaries will bow down at their feet and call them the City of the Lord, it is Jews from the “syn─────────────── 71 Jan Dochhorn, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie. Der eschatologische Teufelsfall in Apc Joh 12 und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis der Johannesoffenbarung, WUNT 268 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 326–28. 72 Friesen, “Sarcasm”, 127. Friesen insists, correctly, that the messages in Rev 2–3 are not “anti-Jewish” since there is no “blanked condemnation of Jewish people or practices” (141). 73 Friesen, “Sarcasm”, 141. 74 Cf. Aune, Revelation, I, 244.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

373

agogue of Satan” in Philadelphia who will bow down before the feet of the believers in Jesus (Rev 3:9) who bear the name “the city of my God, the new Jerusalem” (3:12). Jews in the local synagogues who attack believers in Jesus and thus do the work of Satan are included with the Gentile opponents of God’s people who will one day be forced to acknowledge the vindication of the Christians. This approach corresponds to Paul’s who regards both Gentiles (Rom 1:18–32) and Jews (Rom 2:1–3:20) as ungodly and unrighteous sinners (Rom 1:18) who can receive salvation only through acceptance of God’s revelation in Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and savior of the world (Rom 1:3–4, 16–17). The one factor that triggers “otherness” and opposition from Jews, both for Jewish believers in Jesus and for Gentile believers, is faith in God explicitly and inextricably connected with faith in Jesus.

3. The Followers of Jesus and the Challenge of Perseverance and Purity John presents his readers with a prophetic condemnation of cultural and political systems and their representatives who oppose God the Creator and who persecute those who believe in and are loyal to Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and savior of the world. How did he expect his readers to respond to the challenges presented by contemporary society and by representatives of the local Jewish communities who denounced them to the authorities? This question has a three-fold answer. First, John comforts his readers. If the believers in Jesus remember who they are, they will be secure as a result of the blessings that God bestowed upon them through Jesus, the Lamb. John begins his book by pronouncing God’s blessing on all hearers and readers who “keep what is written” in the book, i.e., who continue to be faith to God and Christ (1:3, 8), who are obedient to God’s commandments (12:17) and who behave in a manner that is acceptable to Jesus Christ (2:26). John’s ends his book with the same blessing (22:7, 10–14). He assures them of Christ’s love for them, demonstrated in the fact that he liberated them from their sin on account of his crucifixion (1:5). He reminds them that they have been made “a kingdom and priests” (1:6), which means, among other things, that they are under the protection of God, the King of the nations (15:3) and the King of kings (17:14), and Jesus, who is also “King of kings and Lord of lords” (19:16). They belong to the God who is Alpha and Omega, the One “who is and who was and who is to come” and who is the Almighty (1:8), which mean that even in the midst of affliction and turmoil, they have nothing and nobody to fear. They belong to Jesus who controls their destiny and will judge his adversaries with his word (1:16). As faithful believers, they will one day “eat from the tree of life that is in the par-

374

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

adise of God” (2:7); they will be given the crown of eternal life and not be harmed by the second death (2:10–11); they will be vindicated and honored with a new name (2:17); they will break the power of the nations by their witness to God and Jesus (2:26); they will be vindicated in God’s judgment and they will enjoy eternal life in the holy presence of God (3:5, 12) and Jesus Christ on God’s throne (3:21). As they belong to the Lord God the Almighty, they participate in his holiness (4:8), in his glory, honor, and power (4:10; cf 7:11). As they believe in the crucified and risen Jesus, they have been rescued from sin and condemnation and they now belong to God and thus are “saints” (5:9); they have been made to be a kingdom and priests serving God and reigning on earth (5:10). As they belong to Jesus, they participate in his to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” (5:12; cf. 5:13). They have been cleansed on account of Jesus’ death, they serve God in the presence of God, and they are assured that one day they will no longer suffer hunger or thirst, or pain and death, as they follow Jesus who guides them to springs of the water of life, assured that one day “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (7:15–17; 21:3–4). They are assured that they will be rewarded by God and that God will judge the adversaries of his people (11:17–18; cf. 15:3–4; 16:5–7; 19:1–10). They celebrate the salvation and the power and the kingdom of God and the authority of his Messiah as the power of Satan has been broken by Jesus’ death on the cross and by their missionary work (12:10–12). If Christians continuously and consistently remember who they are, they will be willing and they will be able to remain faithful “until death” (2:10; cf. 2:13), as it is only those who are “called and chosen and faithful” who will be with Jesus and survive God’s judgment (17:14). John seeks to consolidate the identity of the believers in the one true God and in Jesus Messiah as people who live in a pluralistic, permissive society and who face economic, social, and political pressure and persecution. This goal is served by the warnings that he presents to his Christians readers. Second, John challenges his readers with warnings to remain faithful. The believers are warned not to follow the teaching of people who can be compared with Balaam and Jezebel (2:14, 20), probably identical with the teaching of the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) who supported accommodation of Christians to pagan customs, such as eating in pagan temples, as well as looser standards of sexual morality, “for the sake of economic survival, commercial gain, or simple sociability”. 75 The imperatives directed at Christians in Rev. 2–3 ─────────────── 75 Collins, Crisis, 88. On the Nicolaitans see the commentaries, and Roman Heiligenthal, “Wer waren die ‘Nikolaiten’? Ein Beitrag zur Theologiegeschichte des frühen Christenums,” ZNW 82 (1991): 133–37; Kenneth A. Fox, “The Nicolaitans, Nicolaus and the early Church,” SR 23 (1994): 485–96; Heikki Räisänen, “The Nicolaitans: Apoc. 2; Acta 6,” ANRW II.26.21 (1995): 1602–44; Nikolaus Walter, “Nikolaos, Proselyt aus Antiochien, und die Nikolaiten in

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

375

admonish them to remember (μνημο' νευε), repent (μετανο' ησον), and do (ποι' ησον) the works of faithful believers (2:5); to not fear (μηδε` ν φοβουñ ) suffering but to be faithful (γι' νου πιστο' ς; 2:10); to repent (μετανο' ησον) of tolerating the teaching of the Nicolaitans (2:16); to hold fast (κρατη' σατε) to the gospel (2:25); to wake up (γι' νου γρηγορω ñ ν), strengthen (στη' ρισον) what remains, remember (μνημο' νευε) what they have received, obey (τη' ρει) and repent (μετανο' ησον; 3:3); to hold fast (κρα' τει) to what they have (3:11); to be earnest (ζη' λευε) and to repent (μετανο' ησον; 3:19). Later, the readers of the book are exhorted to fear (φοβη' θητε) God, to give him (δο' τε) glory and to worship him (προσκυνη' σατε; 14:7); to come out of Babylon (ε’ ξε' λθατε ... ε’ ξ αυ’ τηñ ς; 18:4); to do right (δικαιοσυ' νην ποιησα' τω) and to be holy (α‘ γιασθη' τω; 22:11). It is not only the letters to the churches in Rev. 2–3 and the occasional imperatives that warn Jesus’ followers of accommodation to idolatrous and immoral society: it is followers of the Lamb who read and hear the vision cycles in which God’s judgment is inflicted upon the followers of the beast, which culminates in the demand for an “exodus” from Babylon: “Come out of her, my people (ε’ ξε' λθατε ο‘ λαο' ς μου ε’ ξ αυ’ τηñ ς), so that you do not take part in her sins (ι«να μη` συγκοινωνη' σητε ταιñς α‘ μαρτι' αις αυ’ τηñ ς), and so that you do not share in her plagues” (και` ε’ κ τω ñ ν πληγω ñ ν αυ’ τηñ ς «ι να μη` λα' βητε; 18:4). This statement has been called, with some justification, the main paraenetic concern of the author.76 Jörg Frey argues that John’s message is “not primarily consolation in times of acute persecution but ... the harsh warning of participation in the allegedly harmless, but idolatrous practices of pagan, urban society and its commerce and behavior”.77 I see no need to label one of these goals “primary” or “secondary” – Christians and congregations who presently experience social discrimination and political would certainly “experience” Revelation as comfort and consolation. Well-to-do Christians who enjoy the benefits of life in the cities and who wonder about the ethical, economic, social, and political consequences of their faith for their lifestyle hear John’s words and visions as a harsh warning to rethink their willingness to compromise. The distancing from pagan society that John advocates corresponds to the distancing between Israel as God’s holy people from the non-Israelite nations in the Old Testament. John exhorts Christians to be faithful to God and Jesus, to maintain their faith, to remember the blessings that God has bestowed upon them through Jesus, to preserve their purity. John knows that the ethos of life ─────────────── Ephesus und Pergamon: Ein Betrag auch zum Thema: Paulus und Ephesus,” ZNW 93 (2002): 200–226; Trebilco, Early Christians, 310–11. 76 Frey, “Was erwartet”, 524, quoting Hans-Josef Klauck, “Pergamon und der Kaiserkult [1992],” in Alte Welt und neuer Glaube. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Forschungsgeschichte und Theologie des Neuen Testaments, NTOA 29 (Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 115–43, here 139. 77 Frey, “Was erwartet”, 523.

376

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

in the presence of the holy God separates from the unholiness of life in the cities of Asia Minor, a theological and ethical separation that has social, economic, and political consequences, even the possibility of being executed for one’s faith, as he states in 13:10: “If you are to be taken captive, into captivity you go; if you are to be killed with the sword, with the sword you must be killed”. John knows of martyrs not only in Pergamon (2:13) but in other cities as well (6:9–11; 14:13; 17:6; 18:4; 19:1), and he anticipates further killings of Christians (11:7–8; 13:10, 15). He advocates preparedness for martyrdom. He does not advocate militant opposition. While Jesus is the triumphant “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (ο‘ λε' ων ο‘ ε’ κ τηñ ς φυληñ ς ’ Ιου' δα) and the messianic “root of David” (η‘ ρ‘ ι' ζα Δαυι' δ; 5:5), his present significance is that of the “Lamb” (α’ ρνι' ον) that has been slaughtered but now stands (5:6). The conquering Messiah will indeed be a military victor (19:11–21), but in the past and present he “conquers” through his sacrificial death for the redemption of all nations (5:9– 10). John replaces Jewish hopes for messianic conquest by military violence with the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah who has defeated evil by his sacrificial death.78 The most political text of the New Testament does not provide justification for Christians to use military force or personal violence in order to advance the purposes of God’s kingdom. This is in marked contrast to the early Hasmoneans who, while initially unwilling react with violence against the pressure exerted by the representatives of Antiochos IV Epiphanes’ to join the allegedly more enlightened Hellenistic religiosity, prepared to die for their convictions (1 Macc 2:36–38), soon decided that since passive resistance would get them all killed, they should take up arms and fight (1 Macc 2:39– 41), recruiting „mighty warriors of Israel“, organizing an army and striking down sinners and renegades, tearing down altars, forcibly circumcising all the uncircumcised boys, hunting down the arrogant (1 Macc 2:42–47) and eventually taking up the fight against the Syrian army (1 Macc 3:10–26).79 As followers of the Lamb that was slaughtered for the salvation of the nations, Jesus’ followers they are willing to endure martyrdom as they continue to be witness for the truth of the gospel. Third, John expects the churches and the believers to be active in missionary outreach to their contemporaries. In the opening reference to Jesus’ coming (1:7), understood as a coming in blessing and judgment throughout history, includes a reference to “all the tribes of the earth” who grieve over Jesus, which is most plausibly seen as depicting repentant Gentiles.80 John expects ─────────────── 78 Bauckham, Climax, 213–15. He interprets the “messianic army” portrayed in 7:2–14 as Jesus’ followers sharing in his victory though martyrdom, as seen in 7:14 (215–29). 79 The significance of this contrast was helpfully pointed out by C. A. Evans (personal communication). 80 Beale, Revelation, 197–99; Kraft, Offenbarung, 35–36; Koester, Revelation, 219, 229; Bauckham, Climax, 319–22; Claudio Doglio, “L’oracolo profetico che annuncia la venuta (Ap

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

377

people who are hostile to God, to Jesus, and to Jesus’ followers to repent and become followers of the Lamb. As Jesus Messiah who “the Lion from the tribe of Judah” (5:5) conquers sin and evil as “Lamb standing as one who had been slain” (α’ ρνι' ον ε‘ στηκο` ς ω‘ ς ε’ σφαγμε' νον; 5:6), John expects Jesus’ followers to conquer in the same way – through the blood of the Lamb and the word of their own witness, even if their proclamation of the gospel costs them their lives (2:7, 11, 17, 28; 3:5, 12, 21).81 Christians who refuse to accommodate their lives to the evil, idolatrous and immoral system of contemporary society “conquer”, i.e., break the power of the opposition by their witness to God and Jesus – by keeping Jesus’ works, which is the works of love, faith, service, and patient endurance (2:19). They “conquer” Satan “by the blood of the Lamb (δια` το` αιðμα τουñ α’ ρνι' ου) and by the word of their testimony (δια` το` ν λο' γον τηñ ς μαρτυρι' ας αυ’ τω ñ ν), for they did not cling to life even in the face of death” (12:11). As Christians proclaim the gospel of God’s revelation in Jesus’ death and resurrection, the victory over Satan through the blood of the Lamb becomes a reality as people believe their message and receive the forgiveness of sin and God’s righteousness so that they become priests of God (1:5; 5:9–10; 7:14–16). As Koester writes, When the message about the Lamb’s self-sacrifice evokes faith, it moves people to resist the claims of the other powers that vie for dominion over them – and this is a defeat for the evil one ... The devil uses deception to persuade the world that he reigns supreme, so the faithful are to counter by testifying that the creator has the right to rule the universe and that legitimate power is exercised through the Lamb (5:9–10), not the beast (13:1– 10). Where the faithful gives such witness, truth is victorious over falsehood”.82

As the churches are called to repent of eating what had been offered to idols (2:16, 21–22), of complacency (3:3, 19), and of a lack of love (2:5), a call that implies not only the need but the possibility of repentance, the judgments described in the visions of the seven seals (6:1–17/8:1–5), the seven trumpets (8:6–9:21/11:15–19), and the seven bowls (15.1–16:21) should be interpreted as designed to bring repentance. The interruption of the first two cycles of judgments – the seven seals (6:1– 8:5) and the seven trumpets (8:6–11:19) – in 7:1–17 and 10:1–11:14, indicate that the judgements that God inflicts on nations and rulers and people throughout history are designed to lead people to repentance. When the martyrs under the altar ask how long it would take for God to inflict judgment on their enemies (fifth seal, 6:9–10), they are told that God has delayed the final judgment “until those who were their fellow servants and their brethren – who were to ─────────────── 1,7),” Teologia 33 (2008): 109–34; Marko Jauhiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation, WUNT 2.199 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 106. 81 Koester, Revelation, 386, referring to Brian K. Blount, Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation through African American Culture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005). 82 Koester, Revelation, 565; for the following point see ibid. 468.

378

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

be killed as they were – were finished” (6:11; Trans. C. Koester). Jesus’ followers still have work to do before the end comes. The judgment does not yet come “until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God” (7:3), i.e., more people of every nation will hear the gospel, repent, and become followers of the Lamb. God’s purposes will be completed (10:7), but this will happen only after the faithful have finished given their witness (11:7). The repeated references to the fact that people did not repent despite God’s judgments (9:20–21; 16:9, 11) do not lead to resignation but make room for repentance. This becomes clear in two statements given in direct speech in the visions that come between the trumpet cycle and the bowl cycle of judgments. In 14:6–7 John sees an angel flying in mid-heaven “with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth – to every nation and tribe and language and people” (14:6) who says in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come; and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (14:7). And in 15:4, the faithful who have not followed the beast and who are in God’s presence in heaven, celebrate God’s great and amazing deeds, his justice and his truth, and they say, “Lord, who will not fear and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your judgments have been revealed” (15:4). There is hope for the conversion of the nations. This is not the place to discuss the suggestion that John anticipates the conversion of all nations in the sense that all nations will become God’s people in the New Jerusalem (with reference to 21:3, 24–27; 22:2–3).83

4. Conclusion I conclude with a few comments on John’s description of the nations of the world in a fourfold phrase – “every tribe and language and people and nation” – repeated seven times, with variations, in 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15.84 While the fourfold phrase suggests universality, both in terms of the ─────────────── 83 Mathias Rissi, Die Zukunft der Welt. Eine exegetische Studie über die Johannesoffenbarung 19,11 bis 22.15 (Basel: Reinhardt, 1966), 97 (Mathias Rissi, The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Rev. 19:11–22:15, SBT 2/23 [London: SCM, 1972], 81); Mathias Rissi, Was ist und was geschehen soll danach. Die Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung der Offenbarung des Johannes, AThANT 46 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965), 136–37; Bauckham, Climax, 238–337; Bauckham, Theology, 84–108. For a critique see Eckhard J. Schnabel, “John and the Future of the Nations,” BBR 12 (2002): 243–71 [Chapter 13 in this volume]. 84 Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in the Context of the Ethnic, Social, and Political Affiliations in Revelation,” in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission, FS I. H. Marshall, ed. J. C. Laansma, G. R. Osborne, and R. Van Neste (Milton Keynes/Eugene: Paternoster/Cascade, 2011), 369–86, quoting the conclusion 386 [Chapter 11 in this volume].

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

379

existence of believers in Jesus in “every tribe and language and people and nation” and in terms of God’s judgment on “all peoples and tribes and languages and nations”, it also expresses ethnic, tribal, social, and political identity, both of the Christians and of their oppressors. In 5:9; 7:9 John reminds the Christians in the churches of Asia Minor that they should look beyond their own congregations and realize that there are followers of Jesus in every tribe (φυλη' ), i.e., in every family clan and in each of the phylai of the cities, in every language group (γλω ñ σσα), i.e., in every tribe and nation who are distinguished by the languages that they speak, in every people (λαο' ς), i.e., in every group connected through cultural bonds and ties to a specific territory, including the populace of the cities and the village people, in every nation (ε» θνος), i.e., in each group of people united by kinship, culture, and common traditions, including foreigners and members of associations. Individual people from all these ethnic, linguistic, tribal, civic, political, and social backgrounds have repented and now worship the one true and living God, having found salvation by faith in Jesus whose sacrificial death saves those who believe from God’s judgment and integrates them into the messianic people of God. Since all people without exception, irrespective of heritage or status or affiliation will be judged by God, people from all ethnic, linguistic, tribal, civic, political, and social backgrounds need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. John implicitly describes the task of the churches and their evangelists and missionaries – to proclaim the goods news of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ to all people, in every tribe and language and people and nation. If it is true that John’s visions are characterized by a “zutiefst antirömischen Affekt”,85 it is also true that John promotes humility, worship, and ongoing missionary outreach to all people. Followers of Jesus do not exact revenge against those who mistreat them, whether they are Gentiles or Jews: they follow a crucified Messiah and they continue to be Jesus’ witnesses in their cities and in the world (11:1–14). At the same time, the stark reality remains that unbelievers who oppose God, Jesus, and the assemblies of Jesus’ followers, will face certain, decisive, and irrevocable judgment (19:11–21; 20:11–15; 22:11) – unless they accept the invitation to “come” (22:17, 20), repent, change sides from the “beast” to the “Lamb” and receive the free gift of the water of life (22:17).86

─────────────── 85 Frey, “Was erwartet”, 529. 86 I thank my colleague Sean McDonough for very helpful comments on the article.

380

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Bibliography Aune, David E. Revelation. WBC 52. Dallas: Word, 1997–98. Bauckham, Richard J. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. —. “The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature.” ANRW II.26.1 (1992): 539–95. —. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Beale, Gregory K., and Sean M. McDonough. “Revelation.” Pages 1081–1161 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Beasley-Murray, George R. The Book of Revelation. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [1974]. Bleicken, Jochen. Augustus. Eine Biographie. Reinbek/Hamburg: Rohwolt, 2010 [1998]. Blount, Brian K. Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation through African American Culture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Bohn, Richard. Das Heiligtum der Athena Polias Nikephoros. Altertümer von Pergamon II. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1885. Borgen, Peder. “Polemic in the Book of Revelation [1993].” Pages 275–91 in Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Bousset, Wilhelm. Die Offenbarung Johannis. KEK 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966 [1906]. Bredin, Mark R. J. “The Synagogue of Satan Accusation in Revelation 2:9.” BTB 28 (1999): 160–64. Brent, Allen. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity before the Age of Cyprian. Vigiliae Christianae Sup 45. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Chapman, David W., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary. WUNT 344. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Charles, Robert Henry. The Revelation of St. John. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985/1989 [1920]. Collins, Adela Yarbro. The Apocalypse. New Testament Message 22. Wilmington: Glazier, 1979. —. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. HDR 9. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. —. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. —. “Pergamon in Early Christian Literature.” Pages 163–84 in Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development. Edited by H. Koester. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. —. “Vilification and Self-Definition in the Book of Revelation.” HTR 79 (1986): 308–20. —. “‘What the Spirit Says to the Churches’: Preaching the Apocalypse.” QR 4 (1984): 69–84. Deissmann, Adolf. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. 4th Edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1923. deSilva, David A. Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Dochhorn, Jan. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie. Der eschatologische Teufelsfall in Apc Joh 12 und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis der Johannesoffenbarung. WUNT 268. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Doglio, Claudio. “L’oracolo profetico che annuncia la venuta (Ap 1,7).” Teologia 33 (2008): 109–34.

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

381

Duvall, J. Scott. Revelation. Teach the Text Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Fanizza, Lucia. Delatori e accusatori. L’iniziativa nei processi di età imperiale. Studia Juridica 84. Rome: Bretschneider, 1988. Fekkes, Jan. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development. JSNTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Fox, Kenneth A. “The Nicolaitans, Nicolaus and the early Church.” SR 23 (1994): 485–96. Frey, Jörg. “Was erwartet die Johannesapokalypse? Zur Eschatologie des letzten Buchs der Bibel.” Pages 473–551 in Die Johannesapokalypse. Kontexte – Konzepte – Rezeption. Edited by J. Frey, J. A. Kelhoffer, and F. Tóth. WUNT 287. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Friesen, Steven J. “Ephesus: Key to a Vision in Revelation.” BAR 19 (1993): 24–37. —. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. —. “Sarcasm in Revelation 2–3: Churches, Christians, True Jews, and Satanic Synagogues.” Pages 127–44 in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation, Symposium 39. Edited by D. L. Barr. Harvard Theological Studies 53. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. —. “Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation.” JSNT 27 (2005): 351–73. Friesen, Steven. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 116. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Giesen, Heinz. “Das Römische Reich im Spiegel der Johannes-Apokalypse [1996].” Pages 100–213 in Studien zur Johannesapokalypse, vol. Stuttgart. SBAB 29. Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. Goodman, Martin. “The Fiscus Iudaicus and Attitudes to Judaism.” Pages 167–77 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hausmaninger, Herbert, and Walter Selb. Römisches Privatrecht. 9th Edition. Böhlau-StudienBücher. Wien: Böhlau, 2001. Heemstra,Marius. The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways. WUNT 2.277. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Heiligenthal, Roman. “Wer waren die ‘Nikolaiten’? Ein Beitrag zur Theologiegeschichte des frühen Christenums.” ZNW 82 (1991): 133–37. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Hettema, Theo L., and Arie van der Kooij. “Introduction.” Pages xi–xxv in Religious Polemics in Context, Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institue for the Study of Religions (LISOR) held at Leiden, 27–28 April 2000. Edited by T. L. Hettema and A. van der Kooij. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004. Hirschberg, Peter. Das eschatologische Israel. Untersuchungen zum Gottesvolkverständnis der Johannesoffenbarung. WMANT 84. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem. Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes.” ZRGG 46 (1994): 143–62. Jauhiainen, Marko. The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. WUNT 2.199. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Karrer, Martin. Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort. FRLANT 140. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Kaser, Max. Das römische Zivilprozeßrecht. Second Edition. Edited by K. Hackl. HdA X/3,4. München: Beck, 1996 [1966].

382

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Pergamon und der Kaiserkult [1992].” Pages 115–43 in Alte Welt und neuer Glaube. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Forschungsgeschichte und Theologie des Neuen Testaments. NTOA 29. Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Koester, Craig R. Revelation. AYB 38A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Kraft, Heinrich. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT 16a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974. Kraybill, J. Nelson. Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse. JSNTSup 132. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996. Kunze, Max. Der Pergamon-Altar. Seine Geschichte, Entdeckung und Rekonstruktion. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, 1992. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Überlegungen zum Verständnis der Johannes-Apokalypse.” Pages 603–18 in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. FS O. Hofius. Edited by C. Landmesser, H.-J. Eckstein, H. Lichtenberger. BZNW 86. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. Lintott, Andrew W. “Delator and Index: Informers and Accusers at Rome from the Republic to the Early Principate.” Accordia Research Papers 9 (2001–3): 105–22. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1926. Lohse, Eduard. “Synagogue of Satan and Church of God. Jews and Christians in the Book of Revelation.” SEÅ 58 (1993): 105–23. Lücke, Friedrich. Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes oder Allgemeine Untersuchungen über die apokalyptische Litteratur überhaupt und die Apokalypse des Johannes insbesondere. Commentar über die Schriften des Evang. Johannes IV. Second Edition. Bonn: Weber, 1852 [1832]. Marshall, John W. Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001. Mayo, Philip L. “Those Who Call Themselves Jews“: The Church and Judaism in the Apocalypse of John. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 60. Eugene: Pickwick, 2006. Mellor, Ronald. “The Goddess Roma.” ANRW II.17.2 (1981): 950–1030. —. ΘΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World. Hypomnemata 42. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Mommsen, Theodor. Römisches Strafrecht. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961 [1899]. Morgan, M. Gwyn. 69 A.D.: The Year of Four Emperors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Moss, Candida R. The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. New York: HarperOne, 2013. Müller, Karlheinz. “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen III. Die jüdische Apokalyptik. Anfänge und Merkmale.” TRE 3 (1978): 202–51. Müller, Ulrich B. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 19. Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/Echter, 1984. Murray, M. Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 13. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2004. Omerzu, Heike. Der Prozeß des Paulus. Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte. BZNW 115. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002. Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte. EKK 5. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. Petzl, Georg. Philadelphia et Ager Philadelphenus. Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. TAM V.3. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007 Price, Simon R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 [1984].

12. Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation

383

Radt, Wolfgang. Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1999. Räisänen, Heikki. “The Nicolaitans: Apoc. 2; Acta 6.” ANRW II.26.21 (1995): 1602–44. Ramsay, William M. The Letters to the Seven Churches. Revised Edition. Edited by M. W. Wilson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994 [1904]. Riemer, Ulrike. Das Tier auf dem Kaiserthron? ?:Eine Untersuchung zur Offenbarung des Johannes als historischer Quelle. Beiträge zur Altertumskundd 14. Stuttgart/Leipzig: Teubner, 1998. Rissi, Mathias. The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Rev. 19:11–22:15. SBT 2/23. London: SCM, 1972. —. Die Hure Babylon und die Verführung der Heiligen. Eine Studie zur Apokalypse des Johannes. BWANT 137. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. —. Was ist und was geschehen soll danach. Die Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung der Offenbarung des Johannes. AThANT 46. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965. —. Die Zukunft der Welt. Eine exegetische Studie über die Johannesoffenbarung 19,11 bis 22.15. Basel: Reinhardt, 1966. Rivière, Yann. Les délateurs sous l’Empire Romain. Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 311. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2002. Robinson, Olivia F. “The Role of Delators.” Pages 206–20 in Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World. Edited by J. W. Cairns and P. J. du Plessis. Edinburgh Studies in Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Satake, Akira. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. KEK 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Scherrer, Stephen J. “Signs and Wonders in the Imperial Cult: A New Look at a Roman Religious Institution in the Light of Rev 13:13–15.” JBL 103 (1984): 559–610. Schnabel, Eckhard J. “Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in the Context of the Ethnic, Social, and Political Affiliations in Revelation.” Pages 369–86 in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission. FS I. H. Marshall. Edited by J. C. Laansma, G. R. Osborne, and R. Van Neste. Milton Keynes/Eugene: Paternoster/Cascade, 2011. —. Early Christian Mission. 2 vols. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. —. “John and the Future of the Nations.” BBR 12 (2002): 243–71. —. “Persecution in the Early Christian Mission according to the Book of Acts.” Pages 141–80 in Rejection: God’s Refugees in Biblical and Contemporary Perspective. Edited by S. E. Porter. Eugene: Pickwick, 2015. Schowalter, Daniel N. “The Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple.” Pages 233–49 in Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development. Edited by H. Koester. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Schrammen, Jakob. Der grosse Altar – der obere Markt. Altertümer von Pergamon III/1. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1906. Strelan, Richard E. Paul, Artemis and the Jews in Ephesus. BZNW 80. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996. Strobel, August. “Apokalypse des Johannes.” TRE 3 (1978): 174–89. Taeger, Jens-Wilhelm. “Eine fulminante Streitschrift. Bemerkungen zur Apokalypse des Johannes [1994].” Pages 105–20 in Johanneische Perspektiven. Aufsätze zur Johannesapokalypse und zum johanneischen Kreis 1984–2003. Edited by D. C. Bienert and D.-A. Koch. FRLANT 215. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Tajra, Harry W. The Martyrdom of St. Paul. Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends. WUNT 2.67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Thomas, Rodney L. Magical Motifs in the Book of Revelation. Library of New Testament Studies 416. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

384

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Thompson, Leonard L. The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Thompson, Lloyd A. “Domitian and the Jewish Tax.” Historia 31 (1982): 329–324. Trebilco, Paul R. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. WUNT 166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Walter, Nikolaus. “Nikolaos, Proselyt aus Antiochien, und die Nikolaiten in Ephesus und Pergamon: Ein Betrag auch zum Thema: Paulus und Ephesus.” ZNW 93 (2002): 200–226. Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70–170 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Witetschek, Stephan. Ephesische Enthüllungen I: Frühe Christen in einer antiken Großstadt. Biblical Tools and Studies 6. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Witherington, Ben. Revelation. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Witulski, Thomas. Apk 11 und der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Eine zeitgeschichtliche Interpretation. WUNT 2/337. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. —. Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian. Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalpyse. FRLANT 221. Göttingen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press, 2007. Zahn, Theodor. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Reprint of the Third Edition. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1986 [1924/1926]. Ziegenaus, Oskar, and Gioia De Luca. Das Asklepieion. Das Asklepieion. Altertümer von Pergamon XI/1–5. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1968–2011.

13. John and the Future of the Nations In John’s vision for the future includes statements concerning the nations of the earth that have been interpreted in terms of a final conversion of all nations in the future. Most interpreters find such a soteriological universalism in Rev 21:3, 24–27 and 22:2–3, R. J. Bauckham seeks to establish such a hope for 11:3–13; 14:14–16 and 15:2–4 as well. Bauckham rejects the traditional view that the vision of the New Jerusalem refers only to Christians, the covenant people redeemed from all the nations, as the inhabitants of the new world. He argues that John fuses the OT promises for the destiny of God’s own people and the universal hope that all the nations will become God’s people: John foresees the full inclusion of all the nations in Israel’s and the church’s covenant privileges and promises. This paper interacts with Bauckham’s interpretation of the relevant passages in Revelation. The first book of the Hebrew Bible begins by depicting God’s creation of a perfect world (Gen 1–2) before narrating the entrance of sin and its avalanchelike growth on the path on which man and woman began to walk when they acted in violation of God’s will (Gen 3). After Adam and Eve had been expelled from the garden in which they enjoyed God’s presence and perfection, their descendants continued to walk on this path of autonomous selfdetermination (Gen 4–11). God brought ever greater judgments on mankind, but he never withdrew his mercy. God preserved the physical life of Adam and Eve in the immediate aftermath of their rebellion; he promised Cain ultimate protection; he guaranteed Noah and his descendants the physical survival of the human race. The story of the tower of Babel ends, however, without a promise of mercy: the language of mankind becomes “mixed up” as the people “they left off building the city” (Gen 11:8).1 Mankind is scattered over the face of the earth to form nations that cannot understand each other. At this point in the narrative a fundamental questions arises: What is the relationship between God and these nations? The answer to this most universal of all questions is given in Abraham’s call and YHWH’s salvation-historical plan that Gen 12:3 hints at: through Abraham “all the families of the earth shall be blessed”. We note, however, that the story of Abraham’s call not only universalizes the vision of God’s people whose foundational book of reference and identity is the book of Genesis. The story of Abraham also particu─────────────── 1 Translations will be from the NRSV, unless otherwise noted.

386

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

larizes the vision of God’s people, it narrows the historical range of vision: From now on the focus is not on mankind but, suddenly, on a single human being with his family, then a single, small nation.2 At the end of the last book of the Christian Bible, we are given the vision of a new heaven and a new earth on which primeval conditions will have been restored, or, rather, intensified (Rev 21–22). God will be not only near, he will be man’s neighbor. He will not only “walk in the garden at the time of the evening breeze” (Gen 3:8), but “he will dwell with them” (Rev 21:3). God will wipe every tear from they eyes, tears that result from the thorns and thistles that grew in the lives of people and in the societies that they form as a result of their sin. There will be no more death that had been God’s punishment for sin. There will be no more mourning, crying or pain, as “the first things have passed away” (21:4) and as God has made all things new (21:5– 6). God dwells on the new earth that is illuminated by his glory: “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it” (21:24). In the middle of the city there are trees whose leaves are “for the healing of the nations” (22:2). What is the vision of the last book of the Christian canon for the nations? Does John refer here, and perhaps in other passages, to a future general salvation of all nations?

1. The Final Conversion of the Nations in Recent Interpretation A major proponent of the view that John anticipates the conversion of the nations in the eschaton has been Mathias Rissi. He understands the vision of the New Jerusalem with the open gates (Rev 21:24–25) as symbol of the availability of divine grace, and the vision of the consummated world (Rev 22:1–5) as symbol of the unconditional grace of God that will be effectively and finally realized in universal salvation at the end: “The lake of fire, or the second death, is now done away with, for Israel, the nations, and the kings of the earth have entered into the fullness of the light of the divine glory. Revelation exhibits a hope that embraces the entire creation”.3 Rissi comments: God’s dealings with the world aim at bringing the nations to the knowledge of himself … The seer dares to believe far beyond any restrictions of salvation to those who already believe and to see all as being grasped by redemption at the end. ‘All nations’ encom─────────────── 2 Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 9th ed. (München: Kaiser, 1987 [1960]), I, 167–78. 3 Mathias Rissi, The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Rev. 19:11–22:15, SBT 2/23 (London: SCM, 1972), 81 (= Mathias Rissi, Die Zukunft der Welt. Eine exegetische Studie über die Johannesoffenbarung 19,11 bis 22.15 [Basel: Reinhardt, 1966], 97); cf. Mathias Rissi, Was ist und was geschehen soll danach. Die Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung der Offenbarung des Johannes, AThANT 46 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965), 136–37.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

387

passes the totality of the Gentiles … Healed from the sickness of their sin and freed from the curse they will be servants of God and of the Lamb in Paradise.4

Richard Bauckham has presented the most extensive discussion on the nations in Revelation.5 He links the content of the scroll that appeared in the vision of Rev 5:1–9 and that was opened in 10:1–106 with the missionary witness and the death of the faithful Christians, portrayed in 11:1–13. Here we see, according to Bauckham, the central prophetic interest of John with regard to the arrival of God’s kingly rule on the earth. God pursues a twofold strategy by which he wants to save the nations from the dominion of the beast and bring them under his own, salvific rule (cf. 14:14–16; 15:3–4): (1) The sacrificial death of the Lamb (5:6), and (2) the prophetic and sacrificial witness of his followers who have been saved “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (5:9) in order to carry the gospel to all “peoples and tribes and languages and nations” (11:9; cf. 10:11). He concludes from the assumed identity of the two scrolls in chaps. 5 and 10 that the suffering of the church is offered, from chap. 11 on, as a better strategy for achieving the repentance of the nations than the (limited) judgments portrayed in chapters 6–9. Most interpreters who find a soteriological universalism in John’s Revelation refer to 21:3, 24–27 and 22:2–3. Bauckham seeks to establish 11:3–13; 14:14–16 and 15:2–4 as passages in previous visions in which John prepares his readers for the final universalistic hope.7 The vision of the New Jerusalem in 21:3–4 and 22:2–3 is but the climax of the theme of the conversion of the nations: John’s vision has “all nations” – besides the historic nation of Israel and the eschatological people of God, that is, the church – living as covenant peoples in God’s presence on the new, restored earth. Bauckham rejects the ─────────────── 4 Mathias Rissi, Die Hure Babylon und die Verführung der Heiligen. Eine Studie zur Apokalypse des Johannes, BWANT 137 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 40–41 (my translation). See also Heinrich Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT 16a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974), 275: “Die ‘Heilung der Heiden’ ist ihre Bekehrung”. Similarly George B. Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, BNTC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1971 [1966]), 139–40; Dieter Georgi, “Die Visionen vom himmlischen Jerusalem in Apk 21 und 22,” in Kirche, FS G. Bornkamm, ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 351–72. 5 Richard J. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 238–337 (“The Conversion of the Nations”); see also Richard J. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 84–108. The following critique of Bauckham’s interpretation of the fate of the nations does in no way diminish my admiration and gratitude for his work on the Book of Revelation, from which there is much to learn. 6 For the identification of the scrolls of Rev 5 and 10 see Frederick D. Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective, BZNW 54 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989), 265–79; Bauckham, Climax, 243–57; differently David E. Aune, Revelation, 3 vols., WBC 52 (Dallas: Word, 1997–98), I, xcix. 7 For this question see J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20, JSNTSup 70 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 228, generally 59–62.

388

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

view that John’s vision of the New Jerusalem refers only to the covenant people redeemed from all the nations as the inhabitants of the new world. And he repudiates the view that the covenant people are the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem while the nations and their kings live outside, sharing in the blessings of the new creation but relegated to some secondary status. In his view the most plausible interpretation sees John fusing the OT promises for the destiny of God’s own people and the universal hope that all the nations will become God’s people: The history of the covenant people – both of the one nation Israel and of the church that is redeemed from all the nations – will find its eschatological fulfilment in the full inclusion of all the nations in its own covenant privileges and promises.8

In a footnote appended to this statement Bauckham asserts, against M. Rissi, that “this does not, of course, mean that Revelation expects the salvation of each and every human being”, since 21:8, 27 and 22:15 clearly indicate “that unrepentant sinners have no place in the New Jerusalem”.9 This disclaimer begs the question how John can envision “all the nations”, including their kings, to be fully included in the new creation blessed by God’s presence, if not each and every member of the nations finds ultimate salvation. Unfortunately, Bauckham does no raise this question, whose answer surely would make him either agree with Rissi or lead him to a reconsideration of his interpretation of 11:3–13; 14:14–16; 15:2–4; 21:3–4, 24–27 and 22:2–3. It is to these passages that we now turn.

2. The Witness of the Followers of the Lamb (11:3–13) I take the vision of Rev 11 as not referring in a literal sense to the city of Jerusalem with a rebuilt temple and two specific witnesses,10 but as a figurative portrayal of the Gentile-Jewish church with her sacrificial living that includes courageous witness despite the realities of persecution.11 The “great city” ─────────────── 8 Bauckham, Climax, 312–13, quotation 313. 9 Bauckham, Climax, 313 n.100. 10 Thus recently e.g., Robert L. Thomas, Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody, 1992–95), II, 78–102. See also Joseph A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980 [1884, 1900]), 233–41; George H. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (London: Oliphants, 1945), 182–84; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 175–77; Willem J. Ouweneel, Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi. Bibelstudien über das Buch der Offenbarung (Bielefeld: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, 1995), 295–309; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 417–18. 11 Recently and with extensive and fair discussion Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 557–608, esp. 559–71 (on the metaphors in 11:1–2), 573–75 (on the two witnesses). See also Eduard

13. John and the Future of the Nations

389

refers to the world that has been profaned by idolatry; the temple, the altar, the worshipers, the outer court and the holy city stand for God’s true people, the followers of the Lamb among whom God dwells on earth; the two witnesses represent the entire community of faith whose prophetic mission is the valid witness to God’s binding will on mankind and whose inescapable lot is the suffering that Jesus Christ himself experienced. The validity of the figurative interpretation can be established at least on the basis of the following facts: (1) The measuring of those who worship in the temple in 11:1: In the Biblical and apocalyptic tradition people are not “measured” but counted;12 (2) the explicit metaphorical identifications in 11:4 (“These are [ουð τοι' ει’ σιν] the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth”) and in 11:8 (“the great city that is prophetically called [η« τις καλειñται πνευματικω ñ ς] Sodom and Egypt”); (3) the description of the two witnesses: note in 11:5 the fire that “pours from their mouth and consumes their foes”.13 The measuring of the temple and of the believers who worship there (11:1– 2) refers to the protection of the people of God in the last days that have begun with the death of Jesus, their Lord, and that bring persecution (11:8 refers explicitly to Jesus’ crucifixion). This assertion corresponds to two previous visions: (1) The vision of the 144,000 in Rev 7: God promises to his people, portrayed in its eschatological completeness, that the followers of the Lamb enjoy the reality of God’s protective presence that empowers them to remain loyal to Christ in the midst of persecution; (2) the vision of the woman in Rev 12–13 whom God takes to a safe place in the wilderness while her “children” are being attacked: God promises to the members of his people that they stand under divine protection during the messianic woes. The narrative prophecy of 11:3–13 portrays the ministry and the mission of the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. As the seven golden lampstands that stand in God’s presence (1:12, 20; 2:1) represent “the church as the true temple and the totality of the people of God” empowered primarily “to witness as a light uncompromisingly to the world”,14 so “the two lampstands that stand ─────────────── Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, NTD 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993 [1960]), 64–67; George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [1974]), 176–87; Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John (Louisville: Westminster, 1994), 45–46; Heinz Giesen, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1997), 240–41; also Bauckham, Climax, 272–74. 12 Cf. Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation, SP 16 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008 [1993]), 119; Giesen, Offenbarung, 243. 13 Thomas, Revelation, 90, insists that John thinks of literal fire, but does not elaborate whether it literally issues from the mouth of the witnesses; Ouweneel, Offenbarung, 303, limits his observations to the exclamation: “Welch beeindruckenden Anblick werden diese zwei treuen Zeugen bieten!” 14 Beale, Revelation, 207.

390

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

before the Lord of the earth” in 11:4 represent the church in its role as witness. The number two, as is well known, derives from the Biblical law requiring at least two legal witnesses in a courtroom (Deut 17:6; 19:15; cf. Num 35:30), a requirement that is taken up by Jesus (Matt 18:16), and that is probably connected with the practice of Jesus to form teams of two followers when he sends them “into the harvest” to witness to the arrival of the Kingdom of God (Luke 10:1–2). The content of the proclamation of the church in 11:3–13 surely includes a call to repentance.15 Note (1) the preceding context in which “the nations” (τα` ε» θνη) are mentioned who trample over the “holy city”, who despise God’s law (note the identification with “Sodom” in 11:8) and who suppress God’s people (note the identification with “Egypt” in 11:8); (2) the reference to the “sackcloth” (σα' κκος, 11:3) that the two witnesses are wearing signals mourning or repentance, probably both;16 (3) the reaction of “the inhabitants of the earth” (οι‘ κατοικουñ ντες ε’ πι` τηñ ς γηñ ς, 11:10) who are identical with the members from “the peoples and tribes and languages and nations” (ε’ κ τω ñ ν λαω ñν και` φυλω ñ ν και` γλωσσω ñ ν και` ε’ θνω ñ ν, 11:9):17 The authority of the witnesses to strike the earth with plagues (11:6) implies the same (secondary) goal as the plagues of the seals (6:1–17; 8:1–5) and of the trumpets (8:6–9:21; 11:15–19) that may bring the members of the peoples and nations to repentance, as 9:21– 20 could imply: “The rest of humankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands or give up worshiping demons and idols … and they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their fornication or their thefts”); 18 (4) the fact Christian witness, even though it may focus on the announcement of divine judgment, always includes the proclamation of the Gospel that promises immediate and eternal salvation to those who believe in Jesus Christ (cf. John the Baptist’s message, or Paul’s preaching in Athens). ─────────────── 15 Akira Satake, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, KEK 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 120–21, emphasizes the silence of the text on the content of the message of the two witnesses; he asserts (121–133) that they do not preach repentance but act as God’s agents in judging the world. 16 Giesen, Offenbarung, 249, refers to Gen 37:34; Isa 3:24; 22:12; Jer 4:8; 6:26; Jonah 3:5–8; 2 Sam 21:10; Matt 11:21 par. Luke 10:13. Note that prophets are sometimes depicted as wearing sackcloth, “probably to exemplify the need for repentance and humility before God” (Aune, Revelation, II, 611; cf. Isa 20:2; Zech 13:4; Ascen. Isa. 2:10; Mark 1:6). 17 Ulrich B. Müller, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, ÖTK 19 (Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/Echter, 1984), 214; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 222. 18 Bauckham, Climax, 277; Giesen, Offenbarung, 249, 252; on the relationship of the ministry of the two witnesses and the trumpet plagues see Beale, Revelation, 585–86, who, however, thinks that the trumpet judgments are “not intended to evoke repentance but to punish because of the permanently hardened, unrepentant stance of the unbelievers toward God and his people” (472, also 517). See, however, the next point.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

391

As Jesus Christ is the “faithful witness” who has died and who was raised from the dead (1:5) and as Antipas the “faithful witness” in Pergamon had held fast to the name of Jesus and was killed since he refused to deny his faith (2:13), thus the entire church is commissioned to prophetic proclamation, a task that she is to fulfill even in the tribulations of the last days – a task that she is able to carry out since she has been promised God’s protection and the authority to carry out signs of divine judgment. The period of witness is characterized by the number 1260 days (11:3). This figure corresponds to 42 months or 3 1/2 years and is based on Daniel’s prophecy of a final period of tribulation for God’s covenant people in which the enemies of God’s people seem to triumph (Dan 7:25; 12:7, 11, and perhaps 9:27). In Revelation it corresponds to (1) the 1260 days in which the “woman” in the wilderness is provided for by God (12:6), (2) the 42 months in which the Gentiles profane the holy city (11:2), (3) the 42 months in which the “beast” claims, in an arrogant and blasphemous manner, to possess authority over the affairs of the world (13:5), (4) the 3 1/2 years for which the “woman”, that is, the church, has been promised divine protection. John uses these numbers to characterize the time of the church, from the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ until his return, as the final salvationhistorical period, as the last days that have the constant potential to bring tribulation on God’s covenant people as Satan with his demonic and earthly accomplices seeks to exploit the little time that he has left. This period is a time where the Christians are put to the test (11:2; 12:12; 13:5), a time of potential martyrdom (11:7–10), a time in which God stands by his people (11:3; 12:6, 14), and a time of mission and evangelism in which the Christians, despite continued unbelief (9:20–21), seek to reach tribes, languages, peoples and nations with God’s message (11:3–13).19 Does the sacrificial life and ministry of the church that remains faithful unto death on account of the witness for Jesus achieve at the end, what the divine judgments could not achieve: that the pagan peoples, tribes and nations truly repent and worship the true God? The crucial verse is 11:13: 13a 13b 13c 13d 13e

και` ε’ ν ε’ κει'νη, τηñ, ω « ρα, ε’ γε' νετο σεισμο` ς με' γας και` το` δε' κατον τηñ ς πο' λεως ε» πεσεν και` α’ πεκτα' νθησαν ε’ ν τω ñ, σεισμω ñ, ο’ νο' ματα α’ νθρω' πων χιλια' δες ε‘ πτα' και` οι‘ λοιποι` ε» μφοβοι ε’ γε' νοντο και` ε» δωκαν δο' ξαν τω ñ, θεω ñ, τουñ ου’ ρανουñ

Bauckham interprets 11:13d-e in the sense that there will be a mass end-time conversion of the nations: after the vindication of the witnesses and their mes─────────────── 19 Cf. Donatus Haugg, Die zwei Zeugen. Eine exegetische Studie über Apok 11,1–13, NTA 17.1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1936), 29; Bauckham, Climax, 277–78; Giesen, Offenbarung, 249–50; cf. Beale, Revelation, 646–47, who suggests, with others, that the figure of 42 months also echoes Israel’s wanderings in the desert for 42 years.

392

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

sage (11:11–13c) “the rest” (οι‘ λοιποι' ), that is, those who survived the large earthquake “were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven” (13d-e). The followers of the Lamb who die on account of their witness participate in the victory of the Lamb that has been won through his death on the cross and through his vindication in the resurrection: The reason why, in the final period of world history, God will not deliver his faithful people by the slaughter of their enemies, as he did in the days of Moses, Elijah and Esther, but instead will allow them to be slaughtered by their enemies, is that this is the way in which the nations will be brought to repentance and faith, and the sovereignty over them transferred from the beast to the kingdom of God.20

The arguments that Bauckham adduces to support his interpretation in terms of a future conversion of the nations are not convincing. First, the content of the scroll of Rev 10 is, according to 10:11 (δειñ σε πα' λιν προφητευñ σαι ε’ πι` λαοιñς και` ε» θνεσιν και` γλω' σσαις και` βασιλευñ σιν πολλοιñς), further prophecy “against” (ε’ πι' ) “peoples and nations and languages and many kings”.21 Most translations render ε’ πι' (+ dative) with “about” or “concerning” (RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, NET; NEB has “over”;22 major German versions such as LÜ, EÜ, REÜ, GNB, HFA, translate correspondingly), interpreting John’s focus in what follows in terms of a more neutral, possibly prophetic, attitude toward the nations. Only NJB translates “against”, i.e., as “a marker of opposition in a judicial or quasi-judicial context” (with dativus incommodi).23 This interpreta─────────────── 20 Bauckham, Climax, 278–83, quotation 283. Among interpreters who see 11:13b as referring to the conversion of the nations are Robert Henry Charles, The Revelation of St. John, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989 [1920]), I, 291; Haugg, Zeugen, 34; Caird, Revelation, 140; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 187; Jürgen Roloff, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, ZBK 18 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987 [1984]), 118 (= Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John. A Commentary, Continental Commentary [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993]); Charles H. Giblin, “Revelation 11.1–13: Its Form, Function, and Contextual Integration,” NTS 30 (1984): 433–59, here 444–46, 453; Harrington, Revelation, 124; Rissi, Hure Babylon, 22; Osborne, Revelation, 434. There is no consensus who the converted are: Charles sees a conversion of Jews, Haugg a conversion of apostate Christians, many conservative scholars see a conversion of those who have survived a specific earthquake in Jerusalem in the final period of world history, most interpret in terms of a conversion of those people or who survived until the end of history (e.g., Osborne, 435: the majority of humanity remains hardened, but “a portion” realizes their sin, repents, and turns to the gospel). 21 Most translations relate πολλοιñς to all four nouns (cf. RSV , NRSV , NIV , NASB ; also Giesen, Offenbarung, 237), whereas many commentators link it only with the last noun βασιλευñ σιν (cf. Charles, Revelation, I, 269; Lohse, Offenbarung, 62–63; Müller, Offenbarung, 199; Roloff, Offenbarung, 106; Aune, Revelation, II, 573; Beale, Revelation, 554) which seems to be correct: when John highlights the plurality of nations in his lists of four ethnic units, he uses παñ ν/πολλοι' at the beginning (5:9; 7:9; 13:7; 14:6; in 11:9: 17:15 παñ ν/πολλοι' is omitted). The only instance where (παñ ν) πολλοι' is mentioned at the end of the list is 10:11 where it follows “kings”, which anticipates the next visions in which the kings will be judged. 22 Also Harrington, Revelation, 116. 23 LN 90.34.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

393

tion of the preposition is surely correct:24 (1) The phrase προφητευ' ω ε’ πι' occurs in the LXX only 25 times, with 21 occurrences in Ezekiel, with only three exceptions always referring to prophecy “against” sinful Israel or another nation (cf. Jer 32:30 [MT Jer 25:30]; Ezek 4:7; 6:2; 11:4; 13:2, 17; 21:2; 25:2; 28:21; 29:2; 34:2; 35:2; 38:2; 39:1); note that Rev 10:8–10 establishes an Ezekiel context with the allusion to Ezekiel’s commission.25 (2) The fourfold phrase “peoples and nations and languages and many kings” (λαοιñς και` ε» θνεσιν και` γλω' σσαις και` βασιλευñ σιν πολλοιñς, 10:11) is used negatively, indicated by the insertion of βασιλευñ σιν πολλοιñς. Note John’s lists of ethnic units: 5:9 7:9 10:11 11:9 13:7 14:6 17:15

ε’ κ πα' σης φυληñ ς και` γλω' σσης και` λαουñ και` ε» θνους ε’ κ παντο` ς ε» θνους και` φυλω ñ ν και` λαω ñ ν και` γλωσσω ñν ε’ πι` λαοιñς και` ε» θνεσιν και` γλω' σσαις και` βασιλευñ σιν πολλοιñς ε’ κ τω ñ ν λαω ñ ν και` φυλω ñ ν και` γλωσσω ñ ν και` ε’ θνω ñν ε’ πι` παñ σαν φυλη` ν και` λαο` ν και` γλω ñ σσαν και` ε» θνος ε’ πι` παñ ν ε» θνος και` φυλη` ν και` γλω ñ σσαν και` λαο' ν λαοι` και` ο» χλοι ει’ σι`ν και` ε» θνη και` γλω ñ σσαι

In 5:9; 7:9 the list of four ethnic units describes the multinational and multiracial character of the people redeemed by the Lamb. In 11:9; 13:7–8; 14:6; 17:15 the phrase is used of unbelievers who will be judged because of they identify with the beast or with Babylon. 26 (3) The exchange of φυλαιñς for βασιλευñ σιν establishes the negative character of the ethnic units: The phrase “the kings of the earth” (1:5; 6:15; 17:2; 18:3, 9; 19:19) refers to Christ’s defeated enemies27 to which the seven and the ten kings of 17:10, 12 belong.28 ─────────────── 24 Robert G. Bratcher and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on the Revelation to John, Helps for Translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 162, note these two options, but do not discuss the issue. For the following arguments see Aune, Revelation, II, 573–74; Beale, Revelation, 554–55, both referring to Kenneth Newport, “Semitic Influence on the Use of some Prepositions in the Book of Revelation,” BT 37 (1986): 328–34, here 330–31. Pace Bauckham, Climax, 263, 265–66. 25 Reference to 22:16 in support for the meaning “concerning” (Charles, Revelation, I, cxxxiii, cf. 269) is not convincing: The phrase μαρτυρηñ σαι...ε’ πι' has a dative object (ταιñς ε’ κκλησι' αις) which, in chap. 22 and generally in Rev (particularly in chaps. 2–3), are the object of God’s blessing, whereas the dative object(s) in 10:11 are λαοιñς και` ε» θνεσιν και` γλω' σσαις και` βασιλευñ σιν πολλοιñς which are the object of divine judgment (see context!). 26 Cf. Beale, Revelation, 355, for the correspondence to the similar formulas in Daniel see ibid. 359; cf. also Bauckham, Climax, 326–37. 27 Cf. Beale, Revelation, Beale, Revelation191, 555. 28 The possible allusion to Matt 10:18 (“and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles”; par Luke 21:12) and Mark 13:9b (“and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them”; par Matt 24:18) is understood in opposite ways. Roloff, Offenbarung, 111, takes the “old early Christian apocalyptic tradition” of Mark 13:9 and Luke 21:12 as proof for the positive character of the mission which is given to the church in Rev 10:11, as the reference to the witness before kings and nations describes the task which the church has publicly before the

394

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

(4) The context of Ezek 2–3, which is the background for the scroll vision in Rev 10:8–10, confirms the interpretation of 10:13 in the sense of “prophesying against” peoples and nations: Ezekiel’s message is primarily one of judgment, a fact that explains why the scroll is described as displaying “lamentation and mourning and woe” (Ezek 2:10). (5) The following vision (11:1–13) that develops the ideas of chap. 10 focuses on God’s judgment on the “peoples and tribes and languages and nations” (11:9). The prophecy of judgment on the nations that was predominant in the early chapters continues after chap. 10. John’s focus from chap. 11 onwards is, as Beale correctly observes, “not on a new strategy for converting the world but on the world’s rejection of the church’s witness”.29 We conclude that the content of the scroll in Rev 10 does not support the view that John relates to the church a missionary mandate for an evangelistic ministry to the nations, thus anticipating the conversion of the Gentiles who respond to the witness of the church. Second, the term ε» μφοβοι ε’ γε' νοντο (11:13d) hardly has the positive sense of “fear of the Lord”. (1) John uses the word “fear” indeed in the positive sense of worshipful stance toward God, but (i) only in the subsequent context (11:18; 14:7; 15:4; 19:5), (ii) often with clear reference to “the prophets and saints” (11:18) or “his servants” (19:5), (iii) usually in the context of divine judgment on the nations (11:18; 14:7; 15:4; 19:5), and (iv) never with the use of the noun φο' βος, that is used only negatively in Rev (11:18; 18:10, 15).30 (2) In the preceding context the notion of “fear” is not used in the sense of the “fear of the Lord”, but negatively in the sense of being afraid of God (cf. the μη[δε` ν] φοβουñ in 1:17; 2:10). (3) ε» μφοβοι with a form of γι' νομαι always means “frightened”, or “terrified” in the NT, never implying faith, even though both believers or unbelievers may be in view (Luke 24:5, 37; Acts 10:4; 24:25). (4) The possible allusion to the fear of the Philistine sailors in Jonah 1:9–10, 16 confirms the interpretation of “fear” in terms of anxious apprehension: after the prophet tells them that he worships YHWH the God of heaven (το` ν κυ' ριον θεο` ν τουñ ου’ ρανουñ ε’ γω` σε' βομαι, v.9), the pagan sailors are terribly ─────────────── world. Aune, Revelation, II, 574, thinks that Matt 10:18 and Mark 13:9 confirm the negative character of the Christian witness. However, Matt 10:18 and Mark 13:9 speak of a positive “witness to them” (cf. William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97], I, 184). Cf. Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 766, who correctly points out that an accusatory witness against Gentile governors and kings makes no sense at all “for they would not have heard the good news before and therefore would not yet have had opportunity to reject it and persecute its preachers”. If the witness before kings in Matt 10:18 and Mark 13:9 is a positive, missionary-evangelistic witness, and if the witness about the kings in Rev 10:13 is a “negative” pronouncement of judgement, it seems preferable not to see an allusion to Matt 10:18; Mark 13:9 in Rev 10:13. 29 Beale, Revelation, 531. 30 In 13:13 several MSS read ε’ ν φοβω ñ, instead of ε» μφοβοι: ‫ א‬2351 pc lat syph.hmg; cf. Beale, Revelation, 605.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

395

afraid (ε’ φοβη' θησαν οι‘ α» νδρες φο' βον με' γαν, v.10; ε’ φοβη' θησαν οι‘ α» νδρες φο' βω, μεγα' λω, το` ν κυ' ριον, v.16) and offer sacrifices to Jonah’s God. There is no hint that they stopped worshipping their own gods, or that they joined God’s covenant people. (5) The parallels in Rev 9:20; 19:21; 20:5 that also speak of οι‘ λοιποι' use the phrase with regard to unbelievers who experience the beginning of the last judgment. Third, the phrase “[the rest] gave glory to the God of heaven” (ε» δωκαν δο' ξαν τω ñ, θεω ñ, τουñ ου’ ρανουñ , 11:13e) is generally used in a positive sense by John, that is, in the sense of willing acknowledgement of God. The phrase “to give glory to God” is, of course, often used for expressing true covenant faith (e.g., Ps 29:1–2; Isa 42:12; Jer 13:16; Dan 5:21–23; in the NT: Matt 5:16; Luke 7:16; 17:18; 18:43; 1 Pet 2:12). In Rev glory is given to God by John (1:6), by the four living creatures who glorify God (4:9 [using δο' ξα with δι' δωμι], 11), the heavenly angels (5:12f), the angels surrounding God’s throne (7:12), and the saints in heaven (15:4), the assembly of the believers at the consummation of history (19:1, 7); in 16:9 the phrase refers to people who blaspheme God and do not repent (16:9: “they cursed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues, and they did not repent and give him glory”). The analogy of Dan 4:34 may indicate that John does indeed anticipate the conversion of the nations: Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the “great” city (Dan 4:30; Rev 11:8) who has received divine punishment praises and honors the Most High (δο` ς δο' ξαν τω ñ, υ‘ ψι' στω, , Theodotion: δοξα' ζω το` ν βασιλε' α τουñ ου’ ρανουñ ; Rev 11:13e: ε» δωκαν δο' ξαν τω ñ, θεω ñ, τουñ ου’ ρανουñ ). However, several factors make this interpretation of Rev 11:13d-e in terms of a future conversion of the nations unlikely: (1) In the OT the phrase often occurs in the context of judgment doxology (Gerichtsdoxologie)31 and refers to the praise that God claims and enforces (by the circumstances of his intervention) on account of his majesty as creator of the universe, without reference to a conversion of those who are forced to praise God (cf. the Philistines in 1 Sam 6:5; the nations in Ps 96:7–8 and Isa 42:12; perhaps also Achan in Josh 7:19) or with reference to the judgment that is about to occur (the kings and the mighty in 1 Enoch 62:6–13; 63:2–12). (2) The glorification of God by the nations in Rev 11:13e is not the result of missionary proclamation by the church but the result of judgment.32 This confirms that their “glorification” of God is judgment doxology. And we must not forget the context of 11:1–13: The passage belongs to the second woe (note 11:14a: “11:14 The second woe has passed”) and to the sixth trumpet vision (9:12). In the seventh trumpet vision (11:15– 19) the third and final woe is fulfilled – the rage of the nations is overcome by the wrath of God, the enemies of the followers of the Lamb are defeated, the disobedient destroyers of the earth stand before the judgment seat of God and ─────────────── 31 Cf. Giesen, Offenbarung, 258–59. 32 Rissi, Hure Babylon, 22 n. 52.

396

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

are judged, and all those who were faithful to the Lord God Almighty, all who fear his name, “both small and great”, receive their reward in the kingdom of God and of his Messiah that has arrived (11:15, 18–19). (3) The analogy of Nebuchadnezzar does not necessarily prove Bauckham’s point:33 His acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty was only temporary, as the next chapter in Daniel relates his attempt to force everyone to worship an idol, and presumably simply meant that he added YHWH to the pantheon of gods he was in the habit of worshipping, that would not be “saving faith” from Israel’s point of view (cf. Exod 20:3–5; Deut 6:4–15). (4) The interpretation in terms of less than saving faith is confirmed by the fact that John speaks of a “great earthquake” in 11:13a (και` ε’ ν ε’ κει' νη, τηñ, ω « ρα, ε’ γε' νετο σεισμο` ς με' γας) that functions in John as a reference to the commencement of the last judgment – the sixth seal brought a “great earthquake” (6:12), followed by the consummation of the seventh seal, that again mentions an earthquake (together with “thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning”, 8:5), as does the seventh trumpet (11:19) and the seventh bowl (16:18).34 Fourth, the partial effect of the earthquake (“a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake”, 11:13c-d) is not meant to indicate that the survivors become genuine believers who glorify God. The reference to 7,000 killed may be an allusion to the 7,000 faithful associated with Elijah (1 Kgs 19:18) in terms of a lex talionis penalty: “Just as the figurative seven thousand faithful witnesses (= the two witnesses) were killed, so must their persecutors be killed”.35 Or, the number 7,000 could signify the totality of unbelievers who are judged at the conclusion of history. The figure of “one tenth” is more difficult to interpret.36 If the figure has been used for the survivors of divine judgment (cf. Isa 6:13; Amos 5:3; also Jub. 10:9), its use in 11:13 “would be a reversal of that conception”.37 Fifth, the focus of Rev 11:11–13 is not the fate of the inhabitants of the “great city” but the fate of the two witnesses, that is, the fate of the church. John assures the believers who continue faithfully in their witness for Christ ─────────────── 33 Beale, Revelation, 604: the allusion to Dan 4 “enforces the idea that Rev. 11:13 is speaking of those who acknowledge God’s heavenly sovereignty but remain unbelievers”. 34 Müller, Offenbarung, 216, comments: “Der festgestellte Kontrast zwischen anfänglichem Jubel der Welt und ihrem nachträglichen Erschrecken dient dazu, die Macht Gotts, die diesen Wandel bewirkt, besonders eindrücklich zu machen – die Macht dessen nämlich, der die christliche Gemeinde in ihren Zeugen endgültig bewahrt”. 35 Beale, Revelation, 602. 36 Scholars who interpret 11:1–13 literally link the figure with the 70,000 inhabitants Jerusalem might have had in the first century, thus arriving at the 7,00 casualties of the earthquake. However, it is far from certain that Jerusalem had 70,000 inhabitants: Josephus mentions 120,000 inhabitants on the basis of a figure given by Hecataeus; on the various estimates see Aune, Revelation, II, 628. 37 Aune, Revelation, II, 627.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

397

that nobody can take away their future as those who have been called to live in God’s presence, despite the rage of a hostile and united world and despite the prospect of a martyr’s death. The expansion of the sixth trumpet vision in 11:1–13 has thus the same function as the expansion of the sixth seal vision in chap. 7: John confirms that the existence and witness of the church cannot be vanquished by tribulation that may take place before Christ returns, as the church will reach the consummation through suffering.38 Sixth, Bauckham cannot explain how the vindication of the followers of the Lamb in 11:11–12 may lead the nations to repentance and faith, when he emphasizes simultaneously that the nations do not need to see the literal resurrection of the Christian martyrs before being convinced by the truth of their witness: they are converted when they recognize that the martyrs participate in Christ’s triumph over death.39 But he does not explain how this may actually happen, even though the plausibility of his interpretation depends on the implied historical possibility (as conversion is always an historical event). We conclude in regard to the thrust of 11:3–13: The life and ministry of the church that always includes the task of faithful evangelistic witness is a binding obligation in the tribulations of the last days until the parousia of Christ. As believers – missionaries and evangelists, teachers and Christians in general – live and minister to fulfill this obligation as faithful witnesses, made effective with divine authority, they encounter intensive opposition and aggressive persecution, as was the case in the days of Jesus and the apostles. The reality of the world and of the powers that rule the world requires the willingness to be faithful even unto death. But the reality of God assures them that he will eventually vanquish his enemies and that they will be vindicated in his heavenly presence. John does not give his readers a vision of ultimate salvation40 where the disobedient nations will have been converted to the worship of the one true God. John wants to encourage the Christians in Asia Minor for whom he writes by reminding them that the obligation to sacrificial life and ministry for the Gospel has not been annulled even in times when society wants to silence them. He reminds them that God’s promise of salvation and vindication remains valid even and precisely in times of dangerous antagonism. He reminds them that the death of Christians, killed by a mob or executed by city magistrates, is not the end. And he reminds them that at the end of history even their enemies will be forced to acknowledge God’s reality and sovereignty. But the willingness to live in fellowship with God in the present time, the period of the messianic last days – that means following the Lamb – is the unrenounceable prerequisite for eternal salvation.41 ─────────────── 38 Giesen, Offenbarung, 259. 39 Bauckham, Climax, 281. 40 Pace Roloff, Offenbarung, 118. 41 Cf. Giesen, Offenbarung, 261.

398

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

3. The Hour of the Harvest (14:14–16) The visions of Rev 12:1–15:4 – the center of the book of Revelation – form the longest interruption of John’s narration of the cycles of divine judgment (in 15:5 the vision of the bowl judgments begins). These visions enable the churches in Asia Minor to understand the conflict in which the followers of the Lamb are involved. In a series of seven “signs” John narrates the conflict between the church and the world beginning immediately before the birth of the Messiah (12:1–6) – or perhaps from the garden of Eden (12:9) where the conflict between the woman and the serpent began – and ending with the return of Christ and the last judgment (14:14–20; 15:1–4). The links between 12:1–15:4 and 10:1–11:13 (e.g., the eschatological “time” of the 42 months or 3 1/2 years (11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; 13:5) indicate that John writes about the same events.42 The dominant theme of chaps. 12–13 is the violent conflict between the powers of evil and the Lamb and his army who stand on Mount Zion, resisting God’s enemies triumphantly (14:1–5). According to Bauckham, the messages of the three angels in 14:6–11 symbolize the effect of the confrontation between the powers of evil and the church upon the nations of the world. The message of the first angel (14:6–7) is a positive invitation extended to the nations to repent and to worship the one true God. The second angel reinforces the message of the first angel by announcing the fall of Babylon (14:8). The third angel reinforces this message by proclaiming judgment on those who do not repent but insist on worshipping the beast (14:9–11). Thus, the three angels present the option of repentance or of continued idolatry resulting in divine judgment. This twofold option is underscored by the vision in 14:14–20 that speaks of a twofold outcome of the history of mankind: The image of the grape harvest (14:17–20) symbolizes God’s judgment on the nations, while the image of the grain harvest (14:14–16) symbolizes the gathering of the converted nations into the kingdom of God.43 Bauckham’s interpretation of the grain harvest derives from three considerations. (1) The followers of the Lamb who are victorious through martyrdom “have been redeemed from humankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb” (14:4). The notion of the firstfruits requires that there will be “a full harvest of ─────────────── 42 Cf. Bauckham, Climax, 284; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 191–92; Giesen, Offenbarung, 269–70; Beale, Revelation, 622–23. 43 Bauckham, Climax, 283–96; for other interpreters who hold that 14:14–16 refers to the gathering in of the elect at the end, and that only 14:17–20 portrays judgment, see Beale, Revelation, 776 n. 489, who mentions Alford, Swete, Holtz, Farrer, Ladd, Wilcock, Prigent, Aune, Krodel, Mulholland and P. E. Hughes; add Theodor Zahn, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1986 [1924/1926]), 517, who asserts that John paints “ein Bild der fortzusetzenden Heidenmission, welcher ein die Welt umspannender Erfolg verheißen wird”.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

399

which the firstfruits are the token and pledge”.44 (2) The grain harvest differs from the grape harvest – for which John mentions the two actions of gathering the grapes into the winepress and treading the winepress – in that only one action is specified: The reaping. The fact that John does not describe the grain harvest in terms of threshing and winnowing, traditional images of judgment, he indicates that it is a positive image referring to the ingathering of the nations of the earth. (3) The grain harvest is carried out by “one like the Son of Man” (ο« μοιον υι‘ ο` ν α’ νθρω' που, 14:14). This literal allusion to Dan 7:13–14 (used only here and in Rev 1:13) must be interpreted in the sense of that passage: The son of man in Dan 7 appears not as judge but as the person who receives his universal kingdom. Bauckham concludes that Rev 14:14–16 signals the extension of Christ’s kingdom from the church to the nations.45 Bauckham’s interpretation of 14:14 is not entirely impossible. In biblical tradition, reaping can have a positive meaning (John 4:35–38), and the absence of a reference to threshing, almost always a negative metaphor, may signal that this grain harvest refers to the eschatological salvation of those “harvested”. However, this interpretation is not as obvious as Bauckham thinks. Note the following considerations. First, the fact that the Christian believers are characterized as “firstfruit” does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there is to be further fruit that will be harvested. (1) The reference to “firstfruits” may serve to reinforce the certainty of the “harvest”, that is, of complete, visible salvation after Christ’s return, in the sense of an eschatological pledge (cf. Rom 8:23).46 (2) There is evidence that the term “firstfruits” can be taken as a holistic concept, expressing the totality of Israel (as in Jer 2:2–3; cf. also 2 Kgs 19:30–31; Sir 24:9, 25–26); note that Israel is called God’s “firstborn” (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:8), a concept that is related to that of “firstfruits”. This concept of a reference to a totality with no thought of more “fruits” to come also occurs in the OT with regard to crops and land (Ezek 48:8, 10, 20 LXX). This means that, like Jas 1:18 (“he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures”), the term firstfruits in 14:4 may affirm that the redeemed believers inhabiting the new Jerusalem (Zion) are “the beginning of the rest of the new creation, not an anticipation of more people to be redeemed”.47 (3) The characterization of the believers as “firstfruits” may also serve to remind them, in the context of the graphic description of the conflict ─────────────── 44 Bauckham, Climax, 291–92. 45 Bauckham, Climax, 296, at least acknowledges that the question is not answered in Rev 14 whether the nations will accept the witness of the church and comprehend the death of the church’s witnesses as triumph over the beast or whether they will continue to be led astray into worshipping the beast. 46 Cf. A. Sand, α’ παρχη' , EWNT I, 279. 47 Beale, Revelation, 743.

400

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

between the dangerous powers of evil and the church in Rev 12–14, that they are God’s possession and thus under his protection. (4) The context 14:14–20 suggests that believers are “firstfruits” of God’s harvest not in the course of history where the nations might (still) repent and turn to Christ,48 but at the end of history where the unbelieving nations will be judged.49 A reference to the conversion of the nations at this point would be plausible only if it had been mentioned, or hinted at, in the previous visions. But this is not the case.50 Second, the clause “for the hour to reap has come” (14:15) signals that the grain harvest of 14:14–16 refers only to punishment, as G. Beale convincingly argues.51 (1) If this phrase in 14:15 develops 14:7 (“for the hour of his judgment has come”), the metaphor of “reaping” portrays the notion of judgment in the earlier verse that clearly speaks of the last judgment of the nations. (2) The term ω « ρα refers in the other nine passages in which it occurs in Rev to the judgment of the unfaithful, particularly the nations and Babylon the Great (3:3, 10; 9:15; 11:13; 14:7; 17:12–13; 18:10, 17, 19). Third, the missing reference to threshing and winnowing must not be overinterpreted. The meaning of metaphors, always potentially variable, is to be determined primarily in the immediate literary context in which they are used. (1) The image of the grain harvest could perhaps have a twofold significance, similar to the description of the parousia in 14:14: It may refer to the return of Christ as effecting the ingathering of the elect into his kingdom, and it may refer at the same time to the judgment of those who did not repent and who are sentenced to eternal condemnation. that is, metaphor of the grain harvest may be a general picture of the coming judgment.52 This understanding of the grain harvest does not necessarily imply a conversion of the nations. (2) If the grain harvest of 14:14–16 has to be interpreted in connection with the firstfruits of 14:4, the former expanding on the latter, John would speak of the redemption of the believers in 14:14–16 and of the judgment of the rest in 14:17–20.53 The figurative use of “harvest” does not by necessity refer to redemption: Harvesting is sometimes a metaphor for judgment (Jer 51:33; ─────────────── 48 This possibility is indicated in the message of the first angel in 14:6–7, as the use of the term ευ’ αγγε' λιον and the possible allusion to Ps 96:2 indicate; Bauckham, Climax, 286–89; Osborne, Revelation, 549, 557. 49 Cf. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 223–24; Beale, Revelation, 743–44. 50 The interpretation of Aune, Revelation, II, 818, who after a long discussion of the various meanings of the term α’ παρχη' in various contexts concludes that is should be taken “in terms of a widespread Greek understanding of the term … as people who have been devoted to the deity as servants”, is not convincing, given the strong evidence of the primary importance of the Biblical tradition for the message and the metaphors of John. Still, Aune asserts that “it makes little sense, however, to construe α’ παρχη' as the first of a set, the others of which will follow, i.e., all humanity”. 51 Beale, Revelation, 774. 52 Mounce, Revelation, 278. 53 Cf. Beale, Revelation, 774.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

401

Mic 4:12–13; Matt 3:12; Luke 3:17), and the probable allusion of 14:15–16 to Matt 13:30, 39–42 confirms this interpretation.54 Matthew 13:30, 39–42 mentions a harvest in the sense of gathering unbelievers, has angels as reapers and relates this event to the “end of the age” and to the authority of the “Son of man”. Still, John does not hint at a mass conversion of people and nations that are hostile at the present time. (3) The content of the programmatic messages of the three angels in 14:6–11 who proclaim the coming judgment makes it unlikely, however, that the grain harvest signifies the gathering of the elect (or, more generally, of those who repented).55 (4) The allusion in 14:14–20 to Joel 3:13 [MT 4:13] can indeed be interpreted as a twofold metaphor describing the final battle in which God vanquishes the evil powers: The Joel text, the only OT passage where harvesting with a sickle is spoken of metaphorically, speaks only of judgment.56 Beale takes issue with Bauckham’s claim that John twists Joel’s meaning by turning the harvest image into a positive picture of redemption, pointing out the fact that “John uses the OT consistently with its contextual meaning, even when creatively developing it”.57 (5) The parallel pronouncements in 14:17–19 confirm that the metaphor of the grain harvest in 14:15–16 refers to the judgment of unbelieving mankind: 15

και` α»λλος α»γγελος ε’ ξηñ λθεν ε’ κ τουñ ναουñ

17 18

κρα' ζων ε’ ν φωνηñ, μεγα' λη, τω ñ, καθημε' νω, ε’ πι` τηñ ς νεφε' λης Πε' μψον το` δρε' πανο' ν σου και` θε' ρισον

16

και` α»λλος α»γγελος ε’ ξηñ λθεν ε’ κ τουñ ναουñ τουñ ε’ ν τω ñ, ου’ ρανω ñ, ε» χων και` αυ’ το` ς δρε' πανον ο’ ξυ' και` α»λλος α»γγελος ε’ ξηñ λθεν ε’ κ τουñ θυσιαστηρι'ου ο‘ ε» χων ε’ ξουσι' αν ε’ πι` τουñ πυρο' ς και` ε’ φω' νησεν φωνηñ, μεγα' λη, τω ñ, ε» χοντι το` δρε' πανον το` ο’ ξυ` λε' γων Πε' μψον σου το` δρε' πανον το` ο’ ξυ` και` τρυ' γησον του` ς βο' τρυας τηñ ς α’ μπε' λου τηñ ς γηñ ς ο« τι η» κμασαν αι‘ σταφυλαι` αυ’ τηñ ς

ο« τι ηò λθεν η‘ ω « ρα θερι'σαι ο« τι ε’ ξηρα' νθη ο‘ θερισμο` ς τηñ ς γηñ ς και` ε» βαλεν ο‘ καθη' μενος ε’ πι` τηñ ς νεφε' λης 19 και` ε» βαλεν ο‘ α»γγελος το` δρε' πανον αυ’ τουñ ε’ πι` τη` ν γηñ ν το` δρε' πανον αυ’ τουñ ει’ ς τη` ν γηñ ν και` ε’ θερι'σθη η‘ γηñ και` ε’ τρυ' γησεν τη` ν α»μπελον τηñ ς γηñ ς και` ε» βαλεν ει’ ς τη` ν ληνο` ν τουñ θυμουñ τουñ θεουñ το` ν με' γαν

─────────────── 54 Beale, Revelation, 777. 55 Caird, Revelation, 190–94, relates both metaphors to the ingathering of the elect, which is implausible in view of the “heading” of 14:14. 56 Cf. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 228–29; Müller, Offenbarung, 270; Giesen, Offenbarung, 338; Beale, Revelation, 774–75, who also points to Zech 5:1–3 LXX for the image of a “flying sickle”, implied in Rev 14:14, 17 as a picture of imminent judgment. 57 Beale, Revelation, 777–78. See generally Gregory K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, JSNTSup 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

402

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Fourth, Bauckham’s argument regarding the context of Dan 7:13–14 is not convincing. (1) The specific meaning of the allusion in 14:14–16 to Daniel’s vision must be established in the context of Rev 14. It is implausible that the proclamation of the angels in 14:6–11 hints at a potentially twofold outcome of the history of mankind, illustrated in the two metaphors in 14:14–20. The message that the three “other” angels (14:15, 17, 18) convey is addressed to present Christian believers who persevered in the midst of opposition, who kept God’s commandments and who held fast to their faith in Jesus (14:12): they are pronounced blessed (14:13) as God triumphs over his enemies and over the enemies of his people. The judgment metaphors confirm the message of the angels: The believers for whom John writes Revelation are assured that God and his Spirit guarantee their salvation, as God and his Messiah will be vindicated visibly and irrevocably as ruler and judge of the world at Christ’s return. (2) Even though the tradition of the coming of “one like a son of man sitting on a cloud” usually speaks of both redemption and judgment (cf. Matt 24:30 in the context of Matt 24:27–51; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; Rev 1:7; 1:13–20), the context in 14:15–20 suggests that only the Son of man’s role as judge is in mind in 14:14.58 (3) In regard to Dan 7:13–14, we must notice that the “son of man” in Dan 7 is not a figure who simply receives people into his universal kingdom, as Bauckham suggests: The son of man represents the saints, and Dan 7:22 asserts that “judgment was given for the saints of the Most High”. We also note that the preceding context in Dan 7:9–12 describes a courtroom in which the judgment of the fourth beast is declared.59 And we further note that whereas in Dan 7:13 LXX the “one like a son of man” is said to “come” with the cloud (ε’ πι` τω ñ ν νεφελω ñ ν τουñ ου’ ρανουñ … η» ρχετο), Rev 14:14 asserts that he “sits” on the cloud (ε’ πι` τη` ν νεφε' λην καθη' μενον), probably reminding the readers of the “sitting” of the judge.60 (4) The fact that the harvest instrument is a δρε' πανον ο’ ξυ' (“sharp sickle”) indicates that judgment is in view. The metaphorical use of the term δρε' πανον has often has an extremely negative meaning, signaling death, destruction and judgment (cf. Zech 5:1–5 LXX; T. Abr. 4:11; 8:9, 10; Vit. Proph. 3:6–7).61 In 14:17 the identical phrase is used to describe the harvest instrument for the grape har─────────────── 58 Cf. Giesen, Offenbarung, 337; Aune, Revelation, II, 842, 844; Beale, Revelation, 770. 59 Beale, Revelation, 777. 60 Cf. Antonius P. Schaik, “ »Αλλος α»γγελος in Apk 14,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. J. Lambrecht, BETL 53 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980), 217–28, here 223 with n. 16; Giesen, Offenbarung, 337. 61 Cf. Aune, Revelation, II, 843. If the “one like a son of man” is interpreted not as a reference to the divine Christ, but as an angelic being, one is not forced to link the “harvesting angel” of 14:14 with the early Christian tradition, going back to Jesus, that the reaping angels gather the elect (cf. Matt 13:39; Mark 13:26–27 par. Matt 24:30–31): Jewish tradition knows angels of punishment (1 En. 53:3; 56:1; 62:11; 63:1; 66:1; 3 En. 32:2; 32:1; 33:1; b. Šhabb. 55a, 88a), as does John (Rev 9:15); cf. Aune, II, 843.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

403

vest. (5) Even though in Biblical tradition reaping can have a positive meaning (John 4:35–38), it often has a negative significance (cf. Job 4:8; Prov 22:8; Isa 17:4–5; Jer 12:13; 51:33; Hos 8:7; Gal 6:7–8). And, as Aune has pointed out, in some rabbinical texts the two harvests of Joel 3:13 were both understood negatively (Midr. Ps. 8:1).62 Thus, the twofold narration of judgment in 14:14–16 and 14:17–20 “emphasizes the severity and unqualified nature of the punishment”.63 The negative metaphor of the grape harvest is placed last for emphasis, hinting in 14:20 at the worldwide destruction of the impious64 that will be described in more detail in 19:17–21.

4. The Worship of the Nations (15:2–4) In Rev 15 John resumes his description of the messianic judgments (15:1). After the symbols of the seals and of the trumpets he now uses the symbol of the bowls (15:7; 16:1) that often symbolizes God’s wrath in the Biblical tradition.65 Before John describes, for the third and last time, the plagues of divine judgment on a godless world (15:5–16:21), he relates a hymn of praise about the redemption that God has provided by the mission of the Lamb (15:2–4). John writes a new version of the “song of Moses” in Exod 15:1–18 (cf. Deut 32), as did Isaiah (12:1–2, 4–6) and some Qumran Essenes (4QFlor I, 2–7) before him. Using Jer 10:6–7; Ps 86:9–10 (LXX 85:9–10) and Ps 98:1–2, John interprets the deliverance at the Red Sea in the victory over the Egyptians in terms of the new, eschatological exodus that will bring God’s people into the promised land of God’s eternal kingdom.66 Bauckham understands 15:4 (“Lord, who will not fear and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your judgments have been revealed”) in terms of a conversion of the nations. 67 However, it is a non sequitur to link the effect of God’s mighty deeds at the Red Sea on the nations who heard about them (Exod 15:14–16) ─────────────── 62 Aune, Revelation, II, 845. 63 Beale, Revelation, 774–75. 64 Cf. Roloff, Offenbarung, 155; Giesen, Offenbarung, 339; Talbert, Apocalypse, 67; also George Wesley Buchanan, The Book of Revelation: Its Introduction and Prophecy, Mellen Biblical Commentary (Lewiston: Mellen, 1993), 382–83. 65 Cf. Isa 51:17ff; Jer 25:15ff; 49:12–13; Ezek 23:33; Hab 2:16; Ps 75:8. 66 On John’s exegetical method in Rev 15:2–4 see Bauckham, Climax, 297–306. 67 Bauckham, Climax, 306: “Just as the latter led to the awed recognition of his deity by the nations who heard of them (Exod 15:14–16), so the former leads to the repentance and worship of all the nations (Rev 15:4)” [emphasis mine]. Cf. Charles, Revelation, II, 37; George B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 198–99; Rissi, Zukunft, 99–100; Rissi, Hure Babylon, 71; Harrington, Revelation, 159–60; Aune, Revelation, II, 876; III, 1172.

404

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

with the effect that the vindication of the martyrs by God’s eschatological victory has on the nations, interpreting the latter in terms of a conversion of the nations who come to worship the one true God (15:4). His conclusion that John’s use of OT texts shifts “the emphasis in the significance of the new exodus, from an event by which God delivers his people by judging their enemies, to an event that brings the nations to acknowledge the true God”, is unlikely.68 First, the nations of Exod 15:14–16 heard and trembled (η» κουσαν ε» θνη και` ω’ ργι' σθησαν). Their terror is specified in that the inhabitants of Philistia are “seized by birth pangs”, the chiefs of Edom are “dismayed”, the leaders of Moab are “seized by trembling”, and all the inhabitants of Canaan “melted away”. Verse 16 summarizes: “Terror and dread fell upon them; by the might of your arm, they became still as a stone until your people, o Lord, passed by, until the people whom you acquired passed by”. The nations are not led to repentance, conversion and a joyous recognition of Israel’s God: They are terrified and silenced, and they remain dangerous enemies of God’s people. The broader context of the song of Moses in Deut 32 also “underscores the idea of judgment of Israel’s enemy leading to Israel’s redemption”.69 Similarly, Jer 10 emphasizes that Israel and the nations who refuse to fear God will be judged. Second, it is correct that John alludes in 15:4 to the OT tradition of the pilgrimage of the nations to worship God in Jerusalem/Zion (cf. Isa 2:2–4; 14:1– 2; 45:14; 60:1–3; 66:19–21; Jer 16:19; Zech 8:20–23; 14:9). However, John differs – perhaps deliberately? – from this tradition in that he omits reference to a proclamation before the nations (differently Isa 66:19: “And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Put, and Lud who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the nations”), nor does he mention a conscious decision of the nations to turn to God and to Jerusalem (as does Isa 2:3–4: “And many peoples shall come, and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths’”; similarly Jer 16:19; Zech 8:21).70 On the contrary, in the broader context of 15:2–4 and the bowl visions, John underscores continual impenitence (cf. 16:9, 11, 21: “They were scorched by the fierce heat, but they cursed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues, and they did not repent and give him glory … and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and sores, and they did not repent of their deeds … until they cursed God for the plague of the hail, so fearful was that plague”). ─────────────── 68 Beale, Revelation, 799. 69 Beale, Revelation, 799. 70 Cf. Müller, Offenbarung, 275; Giesen, Offenbarung, 345.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

405

Third, the context indicates that the polarity between the redeemed and the unredeemed that characterizes the past and the present continues to determine future reality. (1) In 15:1 John introduces the seven angels with the seven last plagues with whom the wrath of God “is ended”, that is, the bowl visions “portray the full-orbed wrath of God in a more intense manner than any of the previous woe visions”.71 (2) The Exodus tradition of the crossing of the Red Sea, to which 15:2–4 alludes, is controlled by the same polarity. (3) The “sea of glass mixed with fire” (15:2a) and the “sea of glass” beside which stand those who “conquered the beast and its image” (15:2b) are a reference to the church that stands victoriously in heaven while the rest of mankind is judged, as Pharaoh’s army drowned in the fiery Red Sea of God’s wrath.72 Fourth, the cause of the universal recognition of God’s rule is in 15:3b-c the comprehensive rule of God: he is the “Almighty” (ο‘ παντοκρα' τωρ) and the “King of the nations” (ο‘ βασιλευ` ς τω ñ ν ε’ θνω ñ ν). This description seems to imply that the nations are forced to recognize God’s sovereignty. This is confirmed by the rhetorical question in 15:4a: “Lord, who will not fear and glorify your name?”, a question that underlines the inescapability of this acknowledgment in the last judgment.73 Fifth, the worship of God by the nations is grounded by the first ο« τι-clause of 15:4 in God’s holiness. The reference to the nations serves the glorification of God. John does not make a pronouncement on the fate of the nations. Sixth, the third ο« τι-clause of 15:4 grounds God’s worship by the nations in the “righteous actions” (NIV, NEB) or “judgments” (NRSV) of God. The term δικαιω' ματα may refer either to God’s “righteous judgments” in terms of the punishment of the ungodly, or positively to the vindication of the saints, or perhaps to both.74 The parallel statement in 16:5–7, belonging to the same context of the bowl visions, confirms that a “negative” interpretation of δικαιω' ματα (in terms of punishment of the ungodly) should not be excluded. Note that the “angel of the waters” says: “You are just (δι' καιος), O Holy One, who are and were, for you have judged (ε» κρινας) these things; because they shed the blood of saints and prophets, you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!”, to which “the altar” responds: “Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, your judgments are true and just (α’ ληθιναι` και` δι' καιαι αι‘ κρι' σεις

─────────────── 71 Beale, Revelation, 788. 72 Mealy, Thousand Years, 75–76. 73 Müller, Offenbarung, 275; cf. Adolf Pohl, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Wuppertaler Studienbibel (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1975–76 [1969/1971]), II, 176. 74 Cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung dss Johannes, HNT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970 [1926]), 131–32. Beale, Revelation, 798, speaks of “vindication of his people by condemning their opponents”.

406

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

σου)!” The nations will be forced to recognize God’s acts of judgment as just. To say that this recognition is conversion is not warranted by the text.75 Seventh, the interpretation of 15:2–4 must also take the addressees of John’s Revelation into account – believers in Asia Minor who face difficult and dangerous situations. The Song of Moses, interpreted by John as the eschatological song of the Lamb, assures them that God’s acts of judgment, described in that the next cycle of visions, serves to procure and guarantee for them salvation.76 How are the persecuted believers to draw from the hymn in 15:2–4 strength and courage to persevere if the hostile nations will be converted anyway in the end?

5. The Open Gates of the New Jerusalem (21:1–8) The vision in 21:1–8 that describes the transition to God’s new creation narrates the effect of the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem to the new earth in terms of unimpeded access to God in the consummation. The heavenly voice that explains the meaning of the vision interprets the New Jerusalem as God’s dwelling place among the people: “See, the home of God is among mortals (μετα` τω ñ ν α’ νθρω' πων). He will dwell with them as their God; they will be his peoples (αυ’ τοι` λαοι` αυ’ τουñ ), and God himself will be with them” (21:3). Bauckham takes μετα` τω ñ ν α’ νθρω' πων in a universalistic sense as the whole of humanity, and λαοι' (in the context of 21:24–26) as “all nations”. He suggests that according to 21:3 all nations will be covenant peoples in God’s new world.77 Considering the persistent assertions and descriptions of judgment over the nations and the ungodly in Revelation in general, and in Rev 21–22 in particular, this interpretation seems unlikely. First, John’s readers would have had to conclude from the immediately preceding visions in chaps. 19–20 that the only people who “survive” the return of Jesus are the resurrected saints. Thus they are the most likely candidates for identifying the α’ νθρω' ποι and the λαοι' in 21:3: It is the followers of the Lamb,

─────────────── 75 The view that “the nations will experience the wrath of God, but at the same time some will indeed ‘fear and glorify’ … God, referring to conversion” (Osborne, Revelation, 567) is probably a fair assessment of John’s conviction: as the nations respond to the call of repentance, they will face either judgment or salvation. However, 15:4 does not differentiate between “the nations” that will experience God’s wrath and “some” who will be converted. 76 Giesen, Offenbarung, 345: “Daß Gottes Gerichtshandeln, das in den folgenden Plagen beschrieben wird, allein dazu dient, den Seinen das Heil zu verschaffen und zu sichern”. 77 Bauckham, Climax, 310–13; cf. Georgi, “Visionen”, 356–358; Kraft, Offenbarung, 264; Harrington, Revelation, 209–10; cf. Aune, Revelation, III, 1123, who asserts that the covenant language which 21:3 employs “is significant because it is applied to all people universally”.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

407

those who remained faithful to God despite the ferocious hostility of the ungodly who constitute the new, redeemed and consummated humanity.78 Second, Bauckham himself acknowledges that we must not conclude “of course” that John expects the redemption of every single human being: The list of vices in 21:8, the conditions mentioned in 21:27 that disallow access to the city, and the assertions, formulated in the indicative, about the people who are excluded from eternal salvation make it perfectly clear that unrepentant sinners have no place in the New Jerusalem. 79 If John indeed asserts that unrepentant sinners will have no access to God’s new creation, it makes no sense to suggest that “all nations” will become God’s covenant peoples. Third, the covenant language that is used with regard to οι‘ α’ νθρω' ποι and λαοι' in 21:3 is interpreted in 21:7 in terms of God’s presence among those who have overcome (ο‘ νικω ñ ν): “Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children”. The “people” of 21:3 are those who refused to compromise their faith despite the hostility of the nations, despite the persecution by the ungodly. It seems to be beyond doubt that the α’ νθρω' ποι of 21:3 are the members of the Christian churches.80 Fourth, the λαοι' in 21:3 should therefore be taken as a reference to the multi-ethnic composition of the church whose members come from many peoples and nations.81 John may have deliberately changed the traditional singular λαο' ς of the OT prophecies that speak of a final restoration in which God himself would dwell in the midst of Israel and Israelites would “be to him a people” and he would “be their God” (Lev 26:11–12; Ezek 37:27; cf. Jub 1:17, 29) in order to assert that the prophecies that originally focused on ethnic Israel have been fulfilled in every people and nation.82 This interpretation is confirmed by the “new song” of 5:9 in which the majesty of the Lamb is praised that has died a sacrificial death and has thus “ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation”. Similarly, in the vision of redeemed humanity in heaven in 7:9, the great multitude “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” derives its “standing before ─────────────── 78 Mealy, Thousand Years, 228. 79 Bauckham, Climax, 313 n. 100, against the universalism of Rissi, Future, passim. It may have changed his view of the fate of the nations in Revelation if he had discussed in more detail the questions which are raised by 21:8, 27; 22:15 and other passages. See also Buchanan, Revelation, 573–74, who argues against Celia Deutsch, “Transformation of Symbols: The New Jerusalem in Rv 21.1–22.5,” ZNW 78 (1987): 106–26. 80 Beale, Revelation, 1057, correctly asserts that 21:7 “more precisely defines who God’s people are”. 81 Cf. Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper, 1967 [1940]), 438–39; Robert H. Gundry, “The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People,” NovT 29 (1987): 254–64; Müller, Offenbarung, 351; Giesen, Offenbarung, 455; Beale, Revelation, 1047. 82 Beale, Revelation, 1047.

408

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

the throne”, that is, its worship in the presence of God, from its standing “before the Lamb, robed in white”, that is, from its association with Jesus and the forgiveness of sins through his death and resurrection. “The reference to the peoples does not annul the restriction to the Christians, who come, precisely, from all peoples and nations”.83 Fifth, the “nations” and their kings who enter the gates of the New Jerusalem in 21:24–26 are identified by John in 22:14 with those “who wash their robes” and thus obtain “the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates” (ι«να ε» σται η‘ ε’ ξουσι' α αυ’ τω ñ ν ε’ πι` το` ξυ' λον τηñ ς ζωηñ ς και` τοιñς πυλω ñ σιν ει’ σε' λθωσιν ει’ ς τη` ν πο' λιν). In other words, they are those who continue to be faithful to their original commitment to Jesus Christ and his saving work. John assures in 21:1–8 the faithful believers who come from all peoples and nations, that they will enjoy the immediate presence of God when Jesus has returned. The promise of the direct presence of God is confirmed by a new and final Bundesschluss that applies to all who overcome. Since the consummation of their redemption is not yet visible, John points his readers in the churches of Asia Minor to the significance of staying faithful to God and Christ.

6. The Healing of the Nations (22:2) In his vision of the new creation (21:9–22:5) John depicts the New Jerusalem in which “the river of the water of life” which flows “from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1) is lined by phenomenally fruitful trees84 of life. The leaves of the trees are “for the healing of the nations” (ει’ ς θεραπει' αν τω ñν ε’ θνω ν, 22:2). Bauckham interprets this phrase as climax and fulfillment of the ñ theme of the conversion of the nations: the nations that will inhabit the New Jerusalem will be healed from their idolatry and other sins so that they will never again come under the curse of God’s judgment (22:3: “Nothing accursed will be found there any more”).85 This interpretation is not convincing. First, as in 21:3, the reference to the nations does not annul the qualification of eternal redemption in terms of God’s people who persevered in being committed to God’s will, that is, specifically the saints of 5:9 who have been “ransomed for God” by the sacrificial death of the Lamb, the great multitude of 7:9 that stood “before the throne and before the Lamb.”86 The “nations” of ─────────────── 83 Müller, Offenbarung, 351: “Der Blick auf die Völker hebt die Beschränkung auf die Christen nicht auf, die eben aus allen Völkern stammen”. 84 The singular ξυ' λον ζωηñ ς in 22:2 is a collective singular; cf. Ezek 47:12. Cf. Charles, Revelation, II, 176, and most scholars. Beale, Revelation, 1106: the one tree of life in the first garden has become many trees of life in the escalated paradisal state of the second garden”. 85 Bauckham, Climax, 316–18. 86 Giesen, Offenbarung, 474; cf. Müller, Offenbarung, 363, and Beale, Revelation, 1107,

13. John and the Future of the Nations

409

22:2 are the believers “from every tribe and language and people and nation and language” (5:9; 7:9).87 Second, the nations that are “healed” are explained in 22:3 in terms of those who have been liberated from the curse: “Nothing accursed will be found there any more” (και` παñ ν κατα' θεμα ου’ κ ε» σται ε» τι). This “unexpected phrase,”88 taken from Zech 14:11, announcing the fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy in the New Jerusalem whose inhabitants will be immune from the destructive curse that is God’s punishment for the sins of mankind, may have been used deliberately by John in order to underscore two facts for his readers: (1) regarding the church whose members come from all nations, God’s curse had fallen on Christ who suffered death on their behalf so that they were released from the penalty of their sins (cf. 1:5; 5:9), that means that they never again will suffer God’s curse as paradise is restored; (2) regarding all other human beings from the nations whose name is not found written in the book of life, God’s curse has affected them as depicted in the judgment visions, and it has fallen on them once and for all as they were thrown into the lake of fire to suffer eternal punishment with the beast and the false prophet (19:20; 20:14–15). Third, the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem who eat from the “tree of life” (ξυ' λον ζωηñ ς) that stands on the banks of “the river of the water of life” (ποταμο` ν υ« δατος ζωηñ ς) that proceeds “from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1–2) are clearly identical (1) with those who, according to 21:6, have gained access to “the spring of the water of life” (ε’ κ τηñ ς πηγηñ ς τουñ υ« δατος τηñ ς ζωηñ ς) on the basis of God’s grace (δωρεα' ν) and in “overcoming” (ο‘ νικω ñ ν, 21:7) the temptation to compromise with the world, that is, – note the larger context of John’s and his entire message to the churches of Asia Minor – with those who have abandoned their arrogance and hostility toward God, who have acknowledged their “thirst”, who have come into fellowship with God as followers of the Lamb and who have maintained their faith in the atoning death of the Lamb and their witness to his redemptive work.89 And they are identical (2) with those who, according to 22:17, receive the “water of life” (υ« δωρ ζωηñ ς) as a result of the proclamation of the prophetic leaders of the church and of individual believers who are spiritually alert, on the basis of grace (δωρεα' ν), that is, whose who thirst for the spiritual fulfillment that God

─────────────── who notes that 5:9 and 7:9 are the only clear references to the “nations” as God’s people outside Rev 21–22. 87 The phrase τω ñ ν ε’ θνω ñ ν is thus not “simply mechanical”, as Aune, Revelation, III, 1178, thinks (who adds, however, correctly, that “there is no real place in the eschatological scheme of Revelation for the ‘healing of the nations’ construed as their conversion”). 88 Aune, Revelation, III, 1178. 89 Cf. Beale, Revelation, 1056.

410

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

offers in the life and proclamation of the church and that only God and Jesus Christ can provide.90 Fourth, the reference to the healing of the nations, perhaps, also implies a figurative healing of the scars of those who have suffered on account of their faith in Jesus Christ: “In their undying bliss there shall be ample recompense for the hardships endured on earth”.91 Fifth, the “nations” that are “healed” by the leaves from the tree of life (ξυ' λον ζωηñ ς) in 22:2 should be linked with the one previous reference in 2:7 to “the tree of life that is in the paradise of God” (τουñ ξυ' λου τηñ ς ζωηñ ς, ο« ε’ στιν ε’ ν τω ñ, παραδει' σω, τουñ θεουñ ). In 2:7 it is those who listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches and those who “conquer” who will be given permission to eat from the tree of life (τω ñ, νικω ñ ντι δω' σω αυ’ τω ñ, φαγειñν). The “nations” in 22:2 are those who have refused to compromise their faith in the midst of the hostility of the nations, that is, those who have held fast to the victory won by Christ in the battle between God and the evil powers.

7. Conclusion John’s vision of the history of mankind speaks, on the one hand, of the fellowship of the followers of the Lamb who persevere in their faith in the “eternal gospel” (14:6), holding fast to the victory of the Lamb in his death and resurrection, suffering patiently, prepared and willing to die on account their faith. On the other hand John speaks of the fellowship of the people associated with and controlled by the evil powers who refuse to fear God and give him glory, despite the plagues of God’s judgment, but assault the church and kill its members if and when they refuse to accommodate to their values. It is in view of this situation that John urgently impresses on his Christian readers the obligation to remain faithful to Jesus Christ even in dangerous times. He comforts and encourages by repeatedly painting a picture of the future consummation that believers in Jesus Christ are certain to inherit. And he reminds them (in 11:3–13) that the obligation to evangelistic proclamation has not been canceled, even though they live in a world that wants to silence their witness. The vision of God’s new creation that follows the vision of the last and final judgment on rebellious humanity is no longer determined by the polarity of the redeemed and the unredeemed. John nowhere predicts mass conversions. He does not predict a conversion of humanity – whether this be a conversion of all individual human beings or a conversion of nations. He does not predict a universal success of the missionary proclamation of the church. John ─────────────── 90 On the options for interpreting 22:17, see now Aune, Revelation, III, 1227–28; Beale, Revelation, 1148–49. 91 Kiddle, Revelation, 443.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

411

predicts the decisive victory that Jesus will finally win over the hostile powers and over the people who follow them when he returns (19:11–21). He predicts the eternal condemnation of Satan, of his human accomplices and of the people who were deceived by them (20:7–15). He predicts the eternal death of “the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars” (21:8). The people who have the unspeakable privilege of living in God’s new and forever perfect creation in the immediate presence of God and the Lamb are the saints “from every tribe and language and people and nation” who have been redeemed by Jesus’ sacrificial death (5:9). They are those who worship God and the Lamb (7:9–10), having received white robes (7:14). They are those who have overcome the pressures to conform to pagan society on account of the efficacy of Christ’s death and “by the word of their testimony”, willing to sacrifice their lives in the face of death (12:11). They are those who are written in the book of life (20:12, 15; 21:27). They have overcome the temptation to compromise in the time of tribulation that was a reality in the first century and that will end only when Jesus returns (21:7). They belong to the bride of the Lamb (21:9). They are the servants of the Lamb (22:3) who keep the words of the prophecy of John’s book (22:7). They are those who continue to be righteous and holy, separated from the evildoers and the filthy (22:11). They are those who continue to be faithful to their commitment to Jesus Christ and his saving work (22:14). They those who have responded to the call to come to Jesus, who thirst for full fellowship with God, who have received, by faith, the eternal life that God in his grace had offered in Jesus Christ (22:17). The inhabitants of the New Jerusalem are those who live in the presence of “the grace of the Lord Jesus” that will be with them always (22:21).

Bibliography Aune, David E. Revelation. WBC 52. Dallas: Word, 1997–98. Bauckham, Richard J. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. —. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. —. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. JSNTSup 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Beasley-Murray, George R. The Book of Revelation. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981 [1974].

412

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Bratcher, Robert G., and Howard A. Hatton. A Handbook on the Revelation to John. Helps for Translators. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993. Buchanan, George Wesley. The Book of Revelation: Its Introduction and Prophecy. Mellen Biblical Commentary. Lewiston: Mellen, 1993. Caird, George B. The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1971 [1966]. Charles, Robert Henry. The Revelation of St. John. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989 [1920]. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97. Deutsch, Celia. “Transformation of Symbols: The New Jerusalem in Rv 21.1–22.5.” ZNW 78 (1987): 106–26. Georgi, Dieter. “Die Visionen vom himmlischen Jerusalem in Apk 21 und 22.” Pages 351–72 in Kirche. FS G. Bornkamm. Edited by D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Giblin, Charles H. “Revelation 11.1–13: Its Form, Function, and Contextual Integration.” NTS 30 (1984): 433–59. Giesen, Heinz. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1997. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. —. “The New Jerusalem: People as Place, not Place for People.” NovT 29 (1987): 254–64. Harrington, Wilfrid J. Revelation. Sacra Pagina 16. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2008 [1993]. Haugg, Donatus. Die zwei Zeugen. Eine exegetische Studie über Apok 11,1–13. NTA 17.1. Münster: Aschendorff, 1936. Kiddle, Martin. The Revelation of St. John. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper, 1967 [1940]. Kraft, Heinrich. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT 16a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974. Lang, George H. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. London: Oliphants, 1945. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970 [1926]. Lohse, Eduard. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 8th Edition. NTD 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993 [1960]. Mazzaferri, Frederick D. The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective. BZNW 54. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. Mealy, J. Webb. After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20. JSNTSup 70. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Müller, Ulrich B. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. ÖTK 19. Gütersloh/Würzburg: Mohn/ Echter, 1984. Newport, Kenneth. “Semitic Influence on the Use of some Prepositions in the Book of Revelation.” BT 37 (1986): 328–34. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Ouweneel, Willem J. Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi. Bibelstudien über das Buch der Offenbarung. Bielefeld: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, 1995. Pohl, Adolf. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 3. Wuppertaler Studienbibel. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1975–76 [1969/1971]. Rad, Gerhard von. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 9th Edition. München: Kaiser, 1987 [1960]. Rissi, Mathias. The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Rev. 19:11–22:15. SBT 2/23. London: SCM, 1972. —. Die Hure Babylon und die Verführung der Heiligen. Eine Studie zur Apokalypse des Johannes. BWANT 137. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995.

13. John and the Future of the Nations

413

—. Was ist und was geschehen soll danach. Die Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung der Offenbarung des Johannes. AThANT 46. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965. —. Die Zukunft der Welt. Eine exegetische Studie über die Johannesoffenbarung 19,11 bis 22.15. Basel: Reinhardt, 1966. Roloff, Jürgen. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Second Edition. ZBK 18. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987 [1984]. —. The Revelation of John. A Commentary. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Satake, Akira. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. KEK 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Schaik, Antonius P. “»Αλλος α»γγελος in Apk 14.” Pages 217–28 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. BETL 53. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980. Seiss, Joseph A. The Apocalypse. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980 [1884, 1900]. Talbert, Charles H. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John. Louisville: Westminster, 1994. Thomas, Robert L. Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1992–95. Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966. Zahn, Theodor. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Reprint of the Third Edition. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1986 [1924/1926].

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church The references to singing and instrumental music in the New Testament are not many, but they are significant. Most are well known, the historical implications less so. A survey of the New Testament passages which mention singing and music will set the stage for a review of music in Second Temple Judaism and in the Greco-Roman world, which will help us assess the significance of singing and music in the early church. The focus of the following observations is not the content or the form of early Christian hymns, but more narrowly the practice of singing and the use of music in the early Christian congregations.1

1. Singing and Music in the New Testament: The Evidence 1.1 Terms The verb α», δω means “sing” and also describes vocal sounds other than those from humans, e.g., with the meaning “crow” (of cocks), “hoot” (of owls), or “croak” (of frogs).2 The verb occurs in Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; Rev 5:9; 14:3; 15:3.3 The noun ω’, δη' denotes a song or “ode”, used both for dirges and for joyful songs or songs of praise.4 The noun is used for sacred songs, in particular for songs of praise to God (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; Rev 5:9; 14:3; 15:3). The verb υ‘ μνε' ω means both “sing in praise to” (or “sing in praise of”) and “sing (a ─────────────── 1 It is a privilege to honor Dr. Heinrich von Siebenthal, who taught me Hebrew, with whom I worshiped and served in the Basel Christian Fellowship over thirty years ago, and who later became a valued colleague, always ready to give consistently competent counsel and encouragement. 2 Cf. LSJ s.v. α’ ει' δω; the verb α», δω is the contracted form of α’ ει' δω. Cf. BDAG s.v. α», δω, “sing (in praise)”. 3 In the LXX the verb occurs 75 times, e.g., Exod 15:1, 21; Num 21:17; Judg 1:13; 1 Chron 6:16; Esdr B 2:65, 70; Ps 7:1; 12:6; Isa 5:1; Jer 20:13. 4 LSJ s.v. ω’, δη' I.1; also used for “singing” e.g., of birds. In the LXX the noun occurs 80 times, e.g., Exod 15:1; Deut 31:19, 21, 22; 2 Sam 6:5; 3 Kgdms 5:12 (MT 1 Kgs 4:32); 1 Chron 15:16, 22; Ps 4:1; 9:17; Amos 5:23; Hab 3:1, 19.

416

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

hymn)”.5 The noun “hymn” (υ« μνος) has the general meaning of “song with religious content”, usually a song expressing praise.6 In the New Testament, the verb occurs in Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; Heb 2:12, the noun in Eph 5:19; Col 3:16. The verb ψα' λλω means “to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment”.7 In the Septuagint,8 the verb translates the Hebrew term ‫ זמר‬and describes the playing of string instruments,9 while also denoting the singing of spiritual songs.10 In the New Testament the verb is used in Rom 15:9; 1 Cor 14:15; Eph 5:19; Jas 5:13. The noun ψαλμο' ς denotes “twitching or twanging with the fingers” and refers mostly to musical strings and to the sound of the kithara or harp.11 Later the term is used for a “song sung to the harp”, often “translated” as “psalm”.12 In the Septuagint, the term ψαλμο' ς also denotes playing on a string instrument,13 but is mostly used for the songs (“psalms”) of the Book of Psalms14 and in a general sense for songs accompanied by string instruments. 15 Luke and Paul use the term ψαλμο' ς as a designation for the Psalms of the Old Testament (Lk 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:33; Col 3:16; Eph 5:19). In 1 Cor 14:26 ψαλμο' ς describes Christian songs (or hymns) in general. Musical instruments mentioned in the New Testament are the aulos/pipe (αυ’ λο' ς; 1 Cor 14:7; cf. αυ’ ληται' “pipe players”, Matt 9:23; Rev 18:22; αυ’ λε' ω “play the flute” Matt 11:17 / Luke 7:32; 1 Cor 14:7), the kithara/lyre (κιθα' ρα; ─────────────── 5 Cf. BDAG s.v. υ‘ μνε' ω 1–2, with the basic definition “to sing a song in a cultic setting, especially of praise and celebration”. Cf. LSJ s.v. υ‘ μνε' ω I, “to sing, celebrate in a hymn, commemorate”. In the LXX, the verb occurs 95 times, e.g., 1 Chron 16:9; Esdr A 5:57; Esth 4:17h; Ps 21:23 (ET 22:22); 64:14 (ET 65:13); Isa 12:4, 5; Dan 3:24, 51, 57. 6 BDAG s.v. υ« μνος; cf. LSJ s.v. υ« μνος, “hymn, ode, in praise of gods or heroes”. In the LXX the noun occurs 27 times, e.g., 2 Chron 7:6; Esdr A 5:58; Ps 6:1; 39:4 (ET 40:3); Isa 42:10. 7 BDAG s.v. ψα' λλω. The “original” meaning of the verb is “to pluck, pull”, which was then used for the playing of the strings of an instrument, with the meaning “play (a stringed instrument) with the fingers;” a later meaning, found in the LXX and in the New Testament, is “to sing to a harp” (LSJ s.v. ψα' λλω I-II). 8 The verb occurs 58 times in the LXX: e.g., Judg 5:3; 2 Sam 22:50; Ps 7:18; 9:3; 12:6 (ET 13:6); 17:50 (ET 18:49); 26:6 (ET 27:6). 9 Cf. Ps 33:2 (LXX 32:2); 71:22–23 (LXX 70:22–23). 10 Particularly in passages in which the song and the music is performed “to the name of the Lord” (τω ñ, ο’ νο' ματι κυρι'ου ), cf. Ps 7:17; 9:2; 18:49 (LXX 17:50); 61:8 (LXX 60:9); 66:4 (LXX 65:4); 68:4 (LXX 67:5); 92:1 (LXX 91:2); 135:3 (LXX 134:3). 11 LSJ s.v. ψαλμο' ς I, II.1-2. 12 LSJ s.v. ψαλμο' ς II.3, with reference to LXX 2 Kgs 23:1; Eph 5:19; Lk 20:42. Cf. BDAG s.v. ψαλμο' ς: “in our literature only song of praise, psalm in accordance with OT usage”. In the LXX the noun occurs 85 times. 13 Ps 81:2 (LXX 80:3); 98:5 (LXX 97:5); Job 21:12; 30:31. 14 Note the 49 occurrences of ψαλμο' ς in the titles of individual Psalms (often as translation of the Hebrew term ‫)ִמ ְזמֹור‬. In Codex B ψαλμο' ς is used as title of the Book of Psalms (Codex A has ψαλτη' ριον; Codex ‫ א‬has no title). 15 Ps 147:1 (LXX 146:1). Note the musical instruments mentioned in Ps 150:3–5.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

417

1 Cor 14:7; Rev 5:8; 14:2; 15:2; cf. κιθαρω, δοι' “kitharodes” or lyre players, Rev 14:2; 18:22; κιθαρι' ζω “play the lyre”, 1 Cor 14:7; Rev 14:2), trumpet (σα' λπιγξ; Matt 6:2; 24:31; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16; Heb 12:19; Rev 1:10; 4:1; 8:2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; 9:1, 13, 14; 10:7; 11:15; cf. σαλπισται' “trumpeters”, Rev 18:22), and the cymbal (κυ' μβαλον; 1 Cor 13:1).16

1.2 References to Singing and Music Mark 14:26 par. Matt 26:30. At the conclusion of the last supper, before Jesus’ arrest, Jesus and the Twelve sing a hymn (υ‘ μνη' σαντες). This song (hymn) was the second part of the Hallel (“Praise”) consisting of Psalms 115– 118, or a portion thereof, sung here at the conclusion of the Passover meal. The Hallel was also sung at Tabernacles, Hanukkah, and the Festival of Weeks.17 There is no evidence to suggest that Jewish Christians would have abandoned the tradition of singing these psalms when they participated in the celebration of these Jewish festivals. Luke 15:25. When the elder son comes back from work in his father’s fields, he hears “music and dancing” (συμφωνι' ας και` χορω ñ ν) in the house where the return of the prodigal son is celebrated. The term συμφωνι' α is used to describe the sound produced by several instruments, a group of performing musicians, the musical concord of two sounds such as the octave, as well as wind instruments and drums.18 In a Galilean context, it could refer to lyres or harps as well as drums and cymbals being played while some of the guests danced. Acts 16:25. Paul and Silas were “praying and singing hymns to God” (προσευχο' μενοι υ« μνουν το` ν θεο' ν) while locked in the innermost cell of the prison in Philippi. Since the verb translated “singing hymns” (υ‘ μνε' ω) can mean “sing in praise to” and “sing a hymn”, and since the meaning of “hymn” (υ« μνος) has the general meaning of “song with religious content”, no details about the “praises” that the two prisoners were singing can be deduced. It is plausible to assume that both the words and the melody of the song(s) that the two prisoners were singing were part of the singing in the Christian congregations. ─────────────── 16 Rev 18:22: “musicians” (μουσικοι'), mentioned with harpists, flutists, and trumpeters. 17 Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, HThK 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1989–91 [1976–77]), 2:379; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34B (Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 399; Hans F. Bayer, Das Evangelium des Markus (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2008), 510; Joel Marcus, Mark, AYB 27 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000–2009), II, 968. Cf. m. Pes. 5:7; 10:6–7; Jub. 49:6; Philo, Spec. 2.148. 18 Cf. Pliny, Nat. 8.157; Isidorus, Etym. 3.22.14; cf. LSJ s.v. συμφωνι'α III.

418

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Rom 15:9. As Paul argues for the unity of the believers in their diversity (14:1–15:13), he reminds the Roman Christians of the fact that Jesus Christ has accepted them for the glory of God, fulfilling God’s promises and bringing Gentiles to salvation who glorify God for his mercy. Paul quotes Ps 18:49 (MT 18:50; LXX 17:50) as the words of Jesus the Messiah, as the one who confesses God among the nations and who sings praises (ψαλω ñ ) to the name of God. Christian readers who knew the original context and meaning of Psalm 18 would have been reminded of David playing the harp, and the songs that he composed. Paul’s statement does not reflect practices of music and singing in early Christian congregations. 1 Cor 13:1. Paul compares the speaking in unlearned languages (glossolalia), practiced without love, with the sound of a “noisy gong” (χαλκο` ς η’ χω ñ ν) and a “clanging cymbal” (κυ' μβαλον α’ λαλα' ζον). The “noisy gong” is either a reference to a musical instrument made of brass, or to acoustical bronze vases which were set up in the theater as amplifiers of the actors’ voices and the sound of the musical instruments.19 The “clanging cymbal” is a reference to the Greek and Roman musical instrument described below. Paul’s point is that both instruments produce noise that may sound more or less pleasing but does not convey meaning. Paul’s aim is not to disparage the cymbal as a musical instrument. At the same time, his comment allows no conclusions about the use of cymbals in the worship services of the congregation in Corinth. 1 Cor 14:7–8. In a passage similar to 1 Cor 13:1, Paul refers to musical instruments to highlight his point that untranslated glossolalia is problematic: the people who are present do not understand what is being said and are thus not edified. The “lifeless objects” (τα` α» ψυχα) that Paul uses as an illustration (ο« μως) are musical instruments that produce sound (φωνη` ν διδο' ντα). He mentions the aulos (αυ’ λο' ς) 20 , the kithara or lyre (κιθα' ρα) 21 and the trumpet (σα' λπιγξ).22 Aristotle classified the αυ’ λο' ς with the τεχνικα` ο» ργανα which should be rejected due to fact that since the player cannot both play and sing and thus cannot employ λο' γος, it is worthless for education: if music is without language (α» λογος), it cannot contribute to the moral formation of the char─────────────── 19 Cf. William Harris, “Echoing Bronze”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 70 (1981): 1184–85, with reference to Vetruvius, Architect. 5.5.1.7–8; William W. Klein, “Noisy Gong or Acoustic Vase? A Note on 1 Corinthians 13.1”, NTS 32 (1986): 286–89, here 286– 89; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington: Glazier, 1983), 76. 20 The αυ’ λο' ς is mentioned only here in the New Testament, but note the αυ’ λητη' ς in Matt 9:23; Rev 18:22 and the verb αυ’ λε' ω in Matt 11:17 par. Luke 7:32. 21 Also mentioned in the New Testament in Rev 5:8; 14:2; 15:2, the verb in Rev 14:2. 22 In Matt 24:12; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16; Rev 8:2, 6, 13; 9:14, the term is used in an apocalyptic context as a signal of divine intervention.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

419

acter of the students.23 While the same could be said for the trumpet, this is not Paul’s point, as he mentions the kithara, an instrument that can be played while singing a song. Paul emphasizes that if the aulos and the kithara are played without a distinction of tones (ε’ α` ν διαστολη` ν τοιñς φθο' γγοις μη` δω ñ, ), i.e., the soloist always plays the same note (φθο' γγος) without distinction (διαστολη' ) of the individual notes, there are no intervals and thus no tune; in such a case the audience cannot recognize (πω ñ ς γνωσθη' σεται)24 what the soloist plays, as they cannot discern a melody, and that means that there is no benefit for the listeners.25 This statement reflects some musical expertise on Paul’s part; whether his comment on clearly discernible melodies indicates personal experience in playing the aulos and/or the kithara is impossible to determine. However, the main point that he makes is that speech in an unknown language which is not translated does not benefit the people who attend the meeting of the Christian congregation. 1 Cor 14:15. In his discussion of speaking in unlearnt languages (glossolalia), Paul asserts that he will “sing praise” (ψαλω ñ ) “with the spirit” and he will also “sing praise” (ψαλω ñ ) “with the mind”. Some assume that the singing of praise was spontaneous, since it is mentioned in connection with the gifts of the Spirit.26 This is not very likely regarding the singing “with the mind” (τω ñ, νοι¨' ), and glossolalic singing (τω ñ, πνευ' ματι) is not necessarily spontaneous but could have been planned in advance. While Paul’s statement unambiguously documents singing in the Corinthian congregations, it remains unclear whether the verb ψα' λλω (see on Rom 15:9) also denotes musical accompaniment. Glossolalic singing, i.e., singing in an unlearnt language, would naturally consist in the presentation of a song in glossolalic speech by one person rather than by the whole congregation, in view of the fact that not all believers who are present have the same gift (of glossolalia). Paul does not clarify how the principle that glossolalic speech in the assemblies of the congregation must be translated (14:27–28) applies to glossolalic singing; we should not assume that the translator presented the translated text in a song, a procedure that would have required a new or at least adapted melody. The reference to “singing with the mind” can denote the presentation of a solo piece, although this is not a necessary assumption.

─────────────── 23 Aristotle, Pol. 1341a 21–26; cf. Albrecht Riethmüller and Frieder Zaminer, Die Musik des Altertums, Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft 1 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989), 226. 24 The rhetorical question πω ñ ς γνωσθη' σεται expects the answer “nothing”. 25 Cf. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, HistorischTheologische Auslegung (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006), 800–1. 26 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975), 238.

420

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

1 Cor 14:26. When Paul ends his discussion of the gifts of the Spirit with a description of key elements of the assemblies, he asserts that when the members of the congregation have “a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation”, all these activities shall happen “for building up” the entire church. The Greek term translated “hymn” (ψαλμο' ς) is intelligible for Paul’s readers only if they are aware of the Septuagint use of the term (beyond the meaning “playing musical strings”) in terms of “a song sung to the harp”. Since ψαλμο' ς is here the only term denoting songs, in contrast to Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 where υ« μνοι and ω» δαι are mentioned after the reference to ψα' λμοι, it presumably denotes Christian songs in general (and not Old Testament psalms specifically) which one of the believers composed and, perhaps, wrote down; he would have sung the new song as a solo in the assembly of the congregation and then taught it to the believers.27 The fact that “hymn” stands first in the list may indicate that the Christian worship services, at least in Corinth, began with a hymn,28 but this is not certain. Eph 5:19. Paul describes the lives of Christians who are filled with the Spirit as characterized by singing, thanksgiving, and submission to the will of the Lord. The first three participles refer to singing: Spirit-filled believers are “speaking (λαλουñ ντες) to one another with psalms, hymns and songs”, and they are “singing” (α», δοντες) “making music” (ψα' λλοντες) from their heart to the Lord. The phrase “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs” (λαλουñ ντες ε‘ αυτοιñς ε’ ν ψαλμοιñς και` υ« μνοις και` ω’, δαιñς) is parallel to “singing and making music” (α», δοντες και` ψα' λλοντες), which is the same activity.29 The term translated as “psalms” (ψα' λμοι) can refer, in the context of its use in the Septuagint, generally to a song of praise, and would thus be synonymous with the two following terms; since the term is often used for the psalms of the Old Testament, and since the term is followed by more general reference to hymnic material, it seems preferable to see a reference to the Old Testament psalms as songs that were used in the assemblies of the Christian congregations.30 The term transliterated as “hymns” (υ« μνοι) denotes songs that ─────────────── 27 Cf. Christian Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, ThHK VII/2 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984 [1982]), 338–39; Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK 7 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991– 2001), III, 446; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1134; Schnabel, Korinther, 831; Martin Hengel, “Hymnus und Christologie [1980]”, in Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften IV, WUNT 201, ed. C.-J. Thornton (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 185–204, here 186. 28 Thus Adolf Schlatter, Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969 [1934]), 383; Hengel, “Hymnus”, 185. 29 Cf. Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 394. 30 Cf. Hans Hübner, An Philemon. An die Kolosser. An die Epheser, HNT 12 (Tübingen:

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

421

praise God and/or Jesus Christ. The term translated “songs” (ω’, δαι' ) refers most probably to songs of praise to God or to Jesus Christ (for the latter cf. Rev 5:9; 14:3). The expression “speaking to one another” (λαλουñ ντες ε‘ αυτοιñς) emphasizes that the psalms, hymns, and songs that are presented and used in the congregational assemblies remind the believers of God’s revelation and salvation given in the Lord Jesus Christ, instructing and edifying them in the faith.31 While the pronoun ε‘ αυτοιñς (“to one another”) could indicate antiphonal singing (cf. Ezra 3:11), which could have been expressed more clearly.32 The verbs α»δοντες (“singing”) and ψα' λλοντες (“making music”), which take , up the cognate nouns from the first part of the verse, are synonyms; while ψα' λλοντες can denote musical accompaniment, this is not a necessary implication of the term. The reference to the “heart” does not describe silent worship but “here signifies the whole of one’s being”.33 Col 3:16. Paul instructs the believers to focus on the teaching of the good news of Jesus Christ in the congregational assemblies, using psalms (ψα' λμοι), hymns (υ« μνοι), and songs (ω’, δαι' ), directing the singing (α»δοντες) to God. The , meaning of the Greek terms referring to singing is identical to Eph 5:19: the ψα' λμοι are probably the Psalms of the Old Testament,34 while the υ« μνοι and the ω’, δαι' are Christian texts and compositions. Heb 2:12. The author quotes Psalm 22:22 (LXX 21:22) as a prophecy about Jesus who proclaims the “name” of God to his brothers, which happened in the preaching of the gospel during his earthly ministry during which he was “in the midst of the assembly” singing God’s praises (υ‘ μνη' σω). In Psalm 22, the following verses constitute a hymn of praise and thanksgiving for deliverance from the suffering recounted in the first part of the psalm. The Hebrew term (‫ )הלל‬means “to praise” and does not imply singing, which the term of the Greek translation denotes. The verse does not allude to the practice of singing in Christian congregations. Jas 5:13. James encourages the believers who are suffering that they pray, and believers who are cheerful to “sing songs of praise” (ψαλλε' τω). These songs could be psalms of the Old Testament, as well as Christian compositions. ─────────────── Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 108; Ernest Best, Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 511; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 708. 31 Cf. O’Brien, Ephesians, 396–97. 32 Best, Ephesians, 511. 33 O’Brien, Ephesians, 396. 34 Hübner, An Philemon. An die Kolosser. An die Epheser, 108.

422

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Rev 5:8–10. In his vision of the scroll and the lamb, John emphasizes that the promised Messiah, who was expected as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, has come as a conqueror – who, however, conquered as the Lamb that was slaughtered and that now stands. When the Lamb takes the scroll that no one was able to open, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders are described as kitharodes who praise the Lamb with a song accompanied by the lyre (κιθα' ρα) each held in his hands. They sing a new song (α», δουσιν ω’, δη` ν καινη' ν), i.e., a newly composed song that celebrates the basis of God’s final intervention, viz., the sacrificial death of the Lamb whose death and resurrection secured for God a people from every tribe, language, people, and nation. If the twenty-four elders are interpreted as symbolizing the twenty-four priestly orders and thus as angelic beings who form part of the heavenly council,35 their worship can be compared with the role of the Levites in the worship of the Temple in Jerusalem (see below). If the number twenty-four links the angelic beings with the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of the congregation of restored Israel,36 they might be linked not only with the worship of the Jewish people in the Temple but also with the worship of Jesus’ followers. However, John does not indicate whether his description of the celestial worship is a reflection of the worship in some of the churches described in Rev 2–3. Rev 14:2–3. In a vision that celebrates the victory of the Lamb and his followers over the dragon, the beast from the sea and the beast from the earth (14:1– 5), John describes the members of God’s messianic people (the 144,000, as in 7:1–8) as engaging in worship whose sound (φωνη' ) is compared to that of many waters, loud thunder, and “harpists playing on their harps” (NRSV, TNIV; the phrase κιθαρω, δω ñ ν κιθαριζο' ντων ε’ ν ταιñς κιθα' ραις αυ’ τω ñ ν can be translated more technically as “kitharodes playing on their kitharas” or “on their lyres”). They sing a new song (α», δουσιν ω’, δη` ν καινη' ν), which is probably, like 5:9, a song which praises the Lamb who purchased the redeemed with his blood. Since the sound of lyres accompanies the singing of the followers of the Lamb who stands on Mount Zion (14:1), a description that links the earthly followers of Jesus with heavenly reality, the use of lyres may reflect the musical instruments that were used in the worship of the early Christian congregations. However, John does not explicitly make such a connection. Rev 15:2–3. The victorious saints who stand before the throne of God sing (α», δουσιν) “the song of Moses” (τη` ν ω’, δη` ν Μωυ¨ σε' ως) and “the song of the ─────────────── 35 Cf. David E. Aune, Revelation, WBC 52 (Dallas: Word, 1997–98), I, 289; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 229–30. 36 Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 322.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

423

Lamb” (τη` ν ω’, δη` ν τουñ α’ ρνι' ου) with lyres (κιθα' ρας) given them by God in their hands. They sing in the presence of God while they play on kitharas, praising God for his saving actions. As in Rev 5:8–10 and 14:2–3, this description could imply a reflection of worship in early Christian congregations, without John making such a connection explicit. Rev 18:22. The instrumentalists mentioned in John’s vision of the fall of Babylon, the political and economic system that oppresses God’s people – kithara players (κιθαρω, δοι' ), musicians (μουσικοι' ), pipe players (αυ’ ληται' ), trumpeters (σαλπισται' ) – represent the traditional musical sounds which could be heard in the temples, the odeion, and the theater of the ancient cities, and whose cessation marks the destruction of a city. While the use of these terms characterizes John as being informed about musical instruments and soloists, there is no explicit connection with the worship practices of the churches.

2. Music in Second Temple Judaism New Testament scholars and historians of early Christian liturgy generally assume that the worship of the earliest churches was modelled on the liturgy of the synagogue of the Second Temple period. In order to determine what early Christian singing owed to Jewish practice, we will survey singing and music in the Jerusalem Temple, in the synagogues, in domestic settings, and in the context of religious groups. The music of the Jewish people at the time of Jesus and Paul was influenced on the one hand by the songs and musical practices of ancient Israel, as well as by Greek music (see section 3).

2.1 Singing and Music in the Jerusalem Temple During the time of David and Solomon, musical culture was centered on the royal court and on the Temple in Jerusalem.37 Professional musicians played the lyre and harp, women played drums (tambourines), and the people played cymbals.38 Professional musicians, appointed from the Levites, were active in the Temple (1 Chron 6:31–48; 15:16–24; 16:4–6). There is an acknowledg─────────────── 37 Cf. Hans Seidel, “Music III. Ancient Israel”, BNP IX, 329–51, here 330. For the following see also Joachim Braun, Die Musikkultur Altisraels, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 164 (Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), transl. Joachim Braun, Music in Ancient Israel: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Joachim Braun, On Jewish Music: Past and Present (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2006). 38 On the musical instruments used in Israel see Braun, Music in Ancient Israel, 8–42.

424

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

ment that good music requires expertise: “Chenaniah, leader of the Levites in music, was to direct the music (‫ ;ָי ֹסר ַּבַּמָּׂשא‬LXX α» ρχων τω ñ ν ω’, δω ñ ν: chief of the singers), for he understood it” (1 Chron 15:22). This comment may suggest that Chenaniah and others could read and write music.39 The psalms attest the existence of songs performed by a leader (cantor) and a choir and/or the congregation (antiphony), as well as solo performances. There were two ways in which the Old Testament canticles (e.g., the song of Moses, Exod 15:1–18; Miriam’s song, Exod 15:21; the song of the well, Num 21:17–18) were sung.40 Responsorial singing (antiphony) could be sung by the congregation repeating each unit after the leader, by the congregation repeating a refrain after each verse sung by the leader, by the congregation completing the second half of the unit started by the leader, by the leader singing the beginning of each unit (incipit) and the congregation repeating the beginning and singing the completion of the unit, or by the leader singing the entire song and the congregation repeating the song. In corporate singing, either the entire congregation could sing the song, or the leader would sing the beginning and the congregation would sing the next part of the song.41 There were groups of musicians who played trumpets, harps, lyres, tambourines and cymbals (Ps 150:3–5), but not an “orchestra” in our sense of the word.42 Musical instruments (see section 3.2) mentioned in the LXX are the harp (να' βλα,43 ψαλτη' ριον44 σαμβυ' κη45), kithara/lyre (κινυ' ρα, from Hebr. ‫; ִכּנ ּ ֹור‬46 κιθα' ρα47), aulos/pipe(αυ’ λο' ς),48 drum (τυ' μπανον),49 cymbal (κυ' μβαλον),50 ─────────────── 39 Note that there was a written musical system in Mesopotamia; Anne Draffkom Kilmer, “World’s Oldest Musical Notation Deciphered on Cuneiform Tablet”, BA 5 (1980): 14–25. 40 Cf. John A. Smith, “Musical Aspects of Old Testament Canticles in the Biblical Setting”, in Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Music, ed. I. Fenlon, Early Music History 17 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 221–64, here 232–35; Braun, Music, 38. 41 Seidel, “Music III. Ancient Israel”, 330, claims that “by song cantillation is meant: recitation of text in elevated language”. 42 The description in terms of “a loud symphony of praise” (Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101– 150, WBC 21 (Dallas: Word, 1983), 342) should not be understood in this sense. 43 1 Kgdms 10:5 (MT 1 Sam 10:5); 3 Kgdms 10:12 (MT 1 Kgs 10:12); 1 Chron 13:8; 15:16, 20, 28; 2 Chron 9:11; etc. (15 occurrences). 44 Gen 4:21; Esdr B 22:27; Ps 32:2 (ET 33:2); 80:3 (ET 81:2); 150:3; Isa 5:12 etc. (21 occurrences). 45 Dan 3:5–15. 46 1 Kgdms 10:5 (MT 1 Sam 10:5); 2 Kgdms 6:5 (2 Sam 6:5); 1 Chron 13:8; 2 Chron 5:12 (22 occurrences). 47 The term κιθα' ρα, which occurs 24 times in the LXX, mostly translates ‫ִּכנ ֹּור‬: Gen 4:21; 31:27; Job 21:12; 30:9, 31; Ps 32:2; 42:4; 56:9; 70:22; 80:3; 91:4; 97:5; 107:3; 146:7; 150:3; Isa 5:12; 16:11; 23:16; 24:8; 30:32; Dan 3:5, 7, 10, 15. 48 1 Kgdms 10:5 (MT 1 Sam 10:5); 2 Kgdms 6:5 (2 Sam 6:5); Isa 5:12; Jer 31:36 (12 occurrences). Following the traditional dictionaries (cf. BDAG s.v. αυ’ λο' ς) often translated as “flute”; note the harsh critique of Martin L. West, Ancient Greek Music (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 1–2, 82. LSJ s.v. αυ’ λο' ς has “oboe-type musical instrument, reed-pipe, aulos”. The

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

425

bells (κω' δων),51 trumpet (σα´ λπιγξ),52 pipe (ο» ργανον).53 In the LXX, ψαλμο' ς translates ‫ ִמ ְזמ ֹור‬which designates a “song sung to an instrumental accompaniment”,54 probably plucked strings (harp or lyre), and ω’, δη' translates ‫ ִ ׁשיר‬, the general term for song; the term υ« μνος (used in LXX Psalm 53; 54; 60) does not have a Hebrew equivalent (MT has ‫ ְנִגיָנה‬which is a technical musical term that refers to music played on strings). In fifteen psalms of the Hebrew text, plucked string accompaniment is either prescribed in the superscription or mentioned in the text;55 in the Greek translation, only eight psalms use ψαλμο' ς in the superscription.56 When psalms were sung in the Temple, it was the Levites who sang and who played musical instruments,57 although accompaniment with string instruments was not indispensable. When the Temple was re-dedicated after its profanation by Antiochus IV, hymns (υ« μνοι) and songs (ω’, δαι' ) were sung while harps, cymbals and stringed instruments were played (ε’ ν κινυ' ραις και` ε’ ν κυμβα' λοις και` ε’ ν να' βλαις; 1 Macc 4:54). According to 3 Macc 6:32, 35; 7:16, Jews who celebrated their deliverance stopped their chanting of dirges (καταλη' ξαντες θρη' νων πανο' δυρ-τον με' λος) and sang songs (ω’, δη' ), psalms (ψαλμοι' ) and melodious hymns (παμμελε' σιν υ« μνοις), and a choral (χορο' ς, a dance group) performed. References to the aulos in LXX attest to Greek influence which, however, did not change the way in which Jews worshiped in the Temple.58 In contrast ─────────────── Greek term mostly translates ‫ָחִליל‬, cf. 1 Sam 10:5; 2 Sam 6:5; 1 Chron 28:12; Isa 5:12; 30:29, 32; Jer 31:8, 36; 42:2; Sir 40:21. 49 Gen 31:27; Exod 15:20; Judg 11:34; 1 Kgdms 10:5 (MT 1 Sam 10:5); 2 Kgdms 6:5 (2 Sam 6:5); Ps 80:3 (ET 81:2); 150:4; Isa 5:12 (20 occurrences). 50 1 Kgdms 18:6 (1 Sam 18:6); 2 Kgdms 6:5 (2 Sam 6:5); 1 Chron 13:8; 2 Chron 5:12, 13; Ps 150:5 (20 occurrences); 51 Exod 28:33–34; 39:25–26; Sir 45:9. 52 Exod 19:13, 16, 19; Lev 23:24; Num 10:2, 8, 9, 10; Josh 6:13, 20; 4 Kgdms 11:14 (ET 2 Kgs 11:14); 1 Chron 13:8; 15:24, 28; 2 Chron 5:12; Ps 46:6 (ET 47:5); 150:3 (95 occurrences). The LXX translates different Hebrew terms with σα´ λπιγξ: forty times ‫( ׁשֹוָפר‬the horn of a ram) and twenty times ‫ֲה ֹצ ְצ ָרה‬. 53 2 Kgdms 6:5 (2 Sam 6:5); 1 Chron 15:16; 16:5; 2 Chron 5:13; 23:13; Ps 136:2 (ET 137:2); 150:4. The term ο» ργανον denotes “instrument, tool” and is often used for “musical instrument” (Plato, Symp 215c), also with the meaning “pipe” (Melanippides 2; Telestes 1.2). 54 HALOT s.v. ‫ִמ ְזמ ֹור‬. 55 Superscriptions: Ps 4; 6; 54; 55; 61; 67; 76; text: Ps 33; 57; 71; 81; 92; 98; 108; 137. 56 LXX Ps 4; 6; 66; 75; 80; 91; 97; 107. Cf. John A. Smith, “First-Century Christian Singing and its Relationship to Contemporary Jewish Religious Song”, Music and Letters 75 (1994): 1–15, here 6. 57 Cf. Ezra 3:10; Neh 12:24; 12:27–29; 12:45; 1 Chron 15:16–22, 27; 16:5, 41–42; 23:3– 5; 25:1–7; 2 Chron 5:12–13; 7:6; 29:25; 30:21; Josephus, A.J. 20.9; in the Mishnah m. †Arak 2:3–6; m. Bik. 3:4; m. Mid. 2:5–6. 58 The Dionysus mosaic of Sepphoris, dating to the later Roman period, also portrays an aulos; cf. Rina Talgam and Zeev Weiss, The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Qedem 44 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004), 50; Mira Waner, “Music Culture in Ancient Sepphoris”, in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in

426

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

to Greek and Roman temple worship, in the Jerusalem Temple “silence accompanied the actual sacrificial rite and only the Levites provided a hymnal component”. 59 The daily morning and evening sacrifice is described in the Mishnaic tractate Tamid as follows.60 The service began when the priests sounded three blasts on their silver trumpets: the gate of the Temple was opened, the lamb was slaughtered, and the meat was prepared for the sacrifice. The participants recited the Decalogue, the Shema confession, and the (eighteen) benedictions (Tefillah). Then two priests offered incense in the sanctuary before the Holy of Holies, while the participants prayed and the Levite musicians assembled on the platform adjoining the Court of the Israelites. When the two priests emerged from the sanctuary, they blessed the assembled people together with the other priests. Then the meat of the sacrificial animal was carried up the altar ramp and thrown on the fire. Two priests sounded three blasts on their trumpets, a Temple official clashed cymbals together, and the Levites sang a psalm accompanied by stringed instruments (harp and lyre) while the libation of wine was poured on the fire. The service ended with the conclusion of the psalm. One specific psalm was prescribed for each of the seven days of the week (m. Tamid 7:4),61 performed by a minimum of twelve Levite musicians.62 There is no evidence for regular “congregational” singing in which the participants joined the priests in the singing of the psalms.

2.2 Synagogue Liturgy The synagogue liturgy consisted of a reading of a Torah passage, a reading of a passage from the Prophets, a discourse on the Scriptural text, and prayers.63 ─────────────── Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, ed. J. Zangenberg, H. W. Attridge, and D. B. Martin, WUNT 210 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 425–47, here 437–39; on the lyre depicted in the mosaic of the Sepphoris synagogue (5th century) see ibid. 443. 59 Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, Second Edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 166. 60 For the following cf. James W. McKinnon, “On the Question of Psalmody in the Ancient Synagogue”, in Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Music, ed. I. Fenlon, Early Music History 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 159–91, here 162–63. 61 For Sunday Ps 24; for Monday Ps 48; for Tuesday Ps 82; for Wednesday Ps 94; for Thursday Ps 81; for Friday Ps 93; for the Sabbath Ps 92. The baraita m. Tamid 7:4 is not included in the Mishnah but appended to Tamid; see b. Roš. Haš. 30b-31a. More generally on the use of the Old Testament psalms in Israel’s worship in the Jerusalem Temple see John A. Smith, “Which Psalms were Sung in the Temple?” Music and Letters 71 (1990): 167–86. 62 Cf. m. †Arak. 2:3–6. 63 McKinnon, “Psalmody”, 169–80, disputes that prayer formed an integral part of synagogue worship, erroneously dismissing the evidence provided by the fact that diaspora synagogues were called προσευχη' (“house of prayer”); on the latter see Martin Hengel, “Proseuche und Synagoge: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

427

However, there is no explicit evidence that the worshipers sang psalms or hymns.64 It is often assumed that since corporate worship in the early Christian congregations was adapted from synagogue worship, the reference to “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” in Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 (and 1 Cor 14:26) reflects Jewish practice.65 The earliest unambiguous reference to singing in a synagogue comes from a text written in the fifth or sixth century AD which mentions the singing of hymns in a synagogue service (Acts Pil. 16:7– 8).66 Philo, in the first century, describes a typical sabbath service as follows: [Moses] required [the Jews] to assemble in the same place on these seventh days, and sitting together in a respectful and orderly manner hear the laws read so that none should be ignorant of them. And indeed they always assemble and sit together, most of them in silence except when it is the practice to add something to signify approval of what is read. But some priest who is present or one of the elders reads the holy laws to them and expounds them point by point till about the late afternoon, when they depart having gained both expert knowledge of the holy laws and considerable advance in piety” (Hypoth. 7.13).67

Josephus, in a brief reference to the synagogue service, mentions only the reading of the Torah (C. Ap. 2.17). The description of a synagogue service in Nazareth in Luke 4:16–29 mentions the reading of a passage from the prophet Isaiah and a homily given by Jesus, while the description of a synagogue service in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:14–41 mentions a reading of the Torah, a reading of the Prophets and a discourse delivered by Paul. The brief references in Matt 6:5 and Acts 16:13 mention prayer. ─────────────── Palästina [1971]”, in Judaica et Hellenistica I. Studien zum antiken Judentum und seiner griechisch-römischen Umwelt, WUNT 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 171–95; Aryeh Kasher, “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt”, in Ancient Synagogues I. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, ed. D. Urman and P. V. M. Flesher, SPB 47/1 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 205–20. For a recent summary of the arguments supporting the existence of prayer as an integral part of diaspora synagogue worship before AD 70 see Levine, Synagogue, 162–69. 64 Cf. John A. Smith, “The Ancient Synagogue, the Early Church and Singing”, Music and Letters 65 (1984): 1–15; McKinnon, “Psalmody”; Smith, “First-Century Christian Singing”, 1–15. In his discussion of the pre-70 synagogues in Judea and in the diaspora, Levine, Synagogue, 44–134, does not once mention singing or music. 65 Egon Wellesz, “Early Christian Music”, in Early Medieval Music up to 1300, rev. ed, ed. A. Hughes, New Oxford History of Music 2 (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), 2– 6. Similarly E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 202, with reference to 1 Cor 14:26. 66 For the date see James K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 164–65; the passage referred to above is translated ibid. 184– 85. Cf. Smith, “First-Century Christian Singing”, 3. 67 The singing of hymns and of songs of praise mentioned by Philo in Flacc. 15.121 did not take place in a synagogue service.

428

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Neither the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Jerusalem Talmud nor the Babylonian Talmud mention singing in the synagogue. 68 The references in the Mishnah to the singing of psalms are related to the Festival of Passover, 69 which was a domestic celebration, or to services in the Temple. 70 As the Scripture readings were taken from the Torah and from the Prophets, the Psalms which were part of the Writings (Ketubim), did not appear regularly in the synagogue services. When psalms were used in the synagogue, they were recited,71 perhaps with an elemental cantilation.72 The evidence for the use of psalms in the synagogues is from the second century AD,73 and the religious hymns (Pijjut) that were introduced into the synagogue services in the fifth and sixth centuries had to overcome major obstacles.74 The fact that regular elements of the early Christian congregational meetings such as the manifestation of spiritual gifts of individual members (1 Cor 12:7–10; 14:1–40) and communal meals (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:33–34) were not integral elements of the synagogue assemblies should caution scholars not to regard the synagogue liturgy as the model for the early Christian congregations.75

2.3 Singing and Music in Domestic Settings The most obvious example of singing in the context of the family is the Feast of Passover, the second part of which was celebrated privately. The eating of the Passover meal was accompanied by blessings and prayers which the head of the household recited, by explanations of the meaning of the occasion and of the symbolism of the food, and by the obligatory singing of the Hallel (Psalms 115–118).76 The latter may have resembled the Levitical singing in the Temple, but his is unclear. There is no evidence for singing during the celebration of the sabbath or other festivals of the Jewish religious calendar. ─────────────── 68 Smith, “Ancient Synagogue”, 5, with reference to Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (New York: Abingdon, 1962), I, 4. 69 Cf. m. Pesah.. 9:3. 70 Cf. m. Bik. 3:4; m. Pesah.. 5:7; m. Sukkah 5:4; m. Tamid 7:4; m. Mid. 2:5. 71 Cf. m. Sukkah 3:10–11; m. Roš Haš. 4:7; m. Ta†an. 3:9; m. Sot.ah 5:4. 72 James W. McKinnon, “The Exclusion of Musical Instruments from the Ancient Synagogue”, Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 106 (1979–80): 77–87, 85; questioned by Smith, “Ancient Synagogue”, 6. 73 Smith, “Ancient Synagogue”, 7, with reference to m. Roš Haš. 4:7; m. Ta†an. 3:9. 74 Cf. Ismar Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 4th Edition (Hildesheim: Olms, 1962), 503–5. 75 Smith, “Ancient Synagogue”, 8, who is too skeptical, however, concerning the reading of the Old Testament in the Christian assemblies (ibid. 7–8). 76 Cf. m. Pesah.. 9:3; 10:4, 7.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

429

There was singing at weddings,77 at which flutes and drums were used,78 and also at funerals.79 In a devout family that provided instruction to their children, the father would sing psalms to his children, as suggested by 4 Macc 18:15, 18: “He sang to you songs of the psalmist David … he did not forget to teach you the song that Moses taught”.

2.4 Singing and Music of Religious Associations The religious meetings of the Therapeutae, a Jewish group of ascetics in Egypt, included the singing of hymns: Philo describes their meetings as follows: Then the president arises and sings a hymn composed as an address to God, either a new one of his own composition or an old one by poets of an earlier day who have left behind them hymns in many measures and melodies, hexameters and iambics, lyrics suitable for processions or in libations and at the altars, or for the chorus whilst standing or dancing, with careful metrical arrangements to fit the various evolutions. After him all the others take their turn as they are arranged and in the proper order whilst all the rest listen in complete silence except when they have to chant the closing lines or refrains, for then they all lift up their voices, men and women alike” (Philo, Contempl. 80). After the meal, “they hold the sacred vigil which is conducted in the following way. They rise up all together and standing in the middle of the refectory form themselves first into two choirs, one of men and one of women, the leader and precentor chosen for each being the most honored amongst them and also the most musical. Then they sing hymns to God composed of many measures and set to many melodies, sometimes chanting together, sometimes taking up the harmony antiphonally, hands and feet keeping time in accompaniment, and rapt with enthusiasm reproduce sometimes the lyrics of the procession, sometimes of the halt and of the wheeling and counter-wheeling of a choric dance. Then when each choir has separately done its own part in the feast, having drunk as in the Bacchic rites of the strong wine of God’s love they mix and both together become a single choir, a copy of the choir set up of old beside the Red Sea in honor of the wonders there wrought (Contempl. 83–85; Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL).

There is evidence for singing and instrumental music in the Qumran Community: the Community Rule includes the statement, I will sing with skill, and all my song (is) to the glory of God. The strings of my harp (are tuned) to the norm of his holiness, and the flute of my lips I will play in tune with his judgment … with thanksgiving hymns I will open my mouth (1QS X 9, 23).80

It is possible that this is metaphorical language (note the phrase “flute of my lips”).81 While it is plausible to assume that the thanksgiving hymns (1QH) ─────────────── 77 3 Macc 4:6–8; m. Sot.ah 9:11; b. Sot.ah 48a. 78 Cf. m. B. Mes.. 6:1; m. Sot.ah 9:14. 79 Cf. Mark 5:48; Luke 8:52; m. Ket. 2:10. 80 Translation from James H. Charlesworth, ed., Rule of the Community and Related Documents, The Dead Sea Scrolls 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). 81 Thus Smith, “Ancient Synagogue”, 12.

430

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

and the Songs of the Sabbath sacrifice (4Q400–405) were written to be sung, perhaps with musical accompaniment, there is no explicit evidence for this.

3. Music in the Greco-Roman World Since various elements of Jewish culture in Palestine had been impacted by Greek culture, and since the Jewish and Gentile converts in earliest churches in Damascus, Antioch, and the cities in Asia Minor and in Europe lived in the context of Greek and Roman culture, we need to ask what early Christian singing and music owed to Greek and Roman practice. Singing and instrumental music was a pervasive feature of Greek82 and Roman83 culture. Music was “an essential part of social life, in religion, festivals, dance, contests, conviviality, the military, and education”. 84 The public festivals of the cities included singing processions, choral dances, sacrifices accompanied by hymns. Private celebrations such as weddings and funerals included processions accompanied by people singing hymns, dancing, playing instruments. Banquets in the homes of the rich included elegiac and lyric poetry presented in song, accompanied by musical instruments such as the kithara (lyre). Games that children played often included verses or ditties that were sung. Workers often sang or were accompanied by pipers while they worked. Quintilian (ca. ─────────────── 82 Cf. Giovanni Comotti, Music in Greek and Roman Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989); Frieder Zaminer, “Musik im archaischen und klassischen Griechenland”, in Die Musik des Altertums, ed. A. Riethmüller and F. Zaminer, Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft Band 1 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989), 113–206; Albrecht Riethmüller, “Musik zwischen Hellenismus und Spätantike”, in Die Musik des Altertums, ed. A. Riethmüller and F. Zaminer, Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft Band 1 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989), 207–325; Annie Bélis, Les musiciens dans l’antiquité (Paris: Hachettes, 1999); West, Ancient Greek Music; John G. Landels, Music in Ancient Greece and Rome (London: Routledge, 1999); Thomas J. Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Publications of the Center for the History of Music Theory and Literature 2 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999); Günter Fleischhauer, “Rome I. Ancient”, Grove Music Online (2001); Andrew Barker, Greek Musical Writings. Vol. I, The Musician and his Art. Vol. II, Harmonic and Acoustic Theory (Cambridge Readings in the Literature of MusicCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004 [1984–89]); Frieder Zaminer, “Music IV. Greece”, BNP IX, 31–44; Stefan Hagel, Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 83 Cf. Günther Wille, Musica Romana. Die Bedeutung der Musik im Leben der Römer (Amsterdam: Schippers, 1967); Günther Wille, “Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Musik [1973]”, in Schriften zur Geschichte der antiken Music, Quellen und Studien zur Musikgeschichte von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart 26 (Frankfurt: Lang, 1997), 87–118; Günther Wille, Einführung in das römische Musikleben (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977); Landels, Music; Fleischhauer, “Rome I. Ancient”. 84 Zaminer, “Music IV. Greece”, 331.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

431

300) 85 remarks on the pervasiveness of music: “There is certainly no action among men that is carried out without music. Sacred hymns and offerings are adorned with music, specific feasts and the festal assemblies of cities exult in it, wars and marches are both aroused and composed through music. It makes sailing and rowing and the most difficult of the handicrafts not burdensome by providing an encouragement for the work”.86 The importance of music is documented not only by the frequent references to singers and musicians in Greek and Roman literature and inscriptions, but also in theoretical texts on music87 and in music documents with musical notation.88 The discovery that musical consonances rested on the principle of simple numerical relationships gave rise to mathematical harmonics, harmony of the spheres, theories about acoustics, tonality, and rhythm; musical notation was developed.89 Before the classical period, the term μουσικη' (“any art over which the Muses presided”90) included poetry, singing, the playing of instruments, and dance. In the Hellenistic period, μουσικη' came to refer more specifically musical practice and teaching. The Pythagoreans accorded “music” AD

─────────────── 85 Cf. Thomas J. Mathiesen, “Aristides Quintilianus”, Grove Music Online (2001); Frieder Zaminer, “Aristides [7] Quintilianus”, BNP I, 1101–2; Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre, 521–28. For a critical Greek text cf. Winnington-Ingram, ed., Aristidis Quintiliani De musica libri tres, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig: Teubner, 1963); for a German translation with commentary see Rudolf Schäfke, ed., Des Aristeides Quintilianus Harmonik. Im Urtext wiederhergestellt (Tutzing: Schneider, 1976); for an English translation with commentary see Thomas J. Mathiesen, Aristides Quintilianus, On Music in Three Books, Music Theory Translation Series (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). 86 Aristides Quintilianus, De musica 2.4 (Mathiesen, Aristides Quintilianus, On Music, 120). 87 Aristoxenus (375–360 BC), a follower of Aristotle committed to Pythagorean thought, was the founder of music theory as a filed of study. Cf. Annie Bélis, “Aristoxenus”, Grove Music Online (2001). Note the Hibeh papyrus on music from the third century BC (Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Hibeh Papyri (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1906–55), No. 13; for a translation see Barker, Greek Musical Writings, I, 184–85, No. 162), a speech whose author launches an attack on music critics of his day, criticizing them for fabricating theories about the alleged effects of specific types of music on the human character, viz. that chromatic harmonies makes people cowards while enharmonic music makes people brave. 88 Extant examples of hymns with musical notation from the Hellenistic and imperial periods have been published, with transcription and commentary, by Egert Pöhlmann, Denkmäler altgriechischer Musik. Sammlung, Übertragung und Erläuterung aller Fragmente und Fälschungen, Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 31 (Nürnberg: Carl, 1970); Martin L. West, “Analecta Musica”, ZPE 29 (1992): 1–54; Egert Pöhlmann and Martin L. West, Documents of Ancient Greek Music: The Extant Melodies and Fragments Edited and Transcribed with Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001). 89 Zaminer, “Music IV. Greece”, 331, 336–42. Consonances (synoidiai, symphoniai) were octaves, fifths, and fourths; thirds and sixths were not considered to be consonant. Among the scales or modes (harmoniai) were the Dorian, Phrygian, and Lydian, as well as the Ionian, Aeolian, Locrian, and Mixolydian, each containing “its own particular set of intervallic relationships, which we are not in a position to define” (West, Ancient Greek Music, 178). For the technical aspects of musical notation see Hagel, Ancient Greek Music, 1–102, 366–71. 90 LSJ s.v. μουσικη' I.1.

432

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

first place in education.91 Harmonics was taught in arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. In classical Athens, elementary education included reading, writing, music (singing, kithara playing) and gymnastics.92 Plato regarded “music” as the most important form of education, believing that its demise was the cause of the decline of the civil order. He believed that “young people had to be protected from pernicious influences, i.e., from aulos music, polytonality, soft modes like the Syntonolydian, Mixolydian, Ionian, Lydian, and from variegated rhythms”.93 Aristotle wrote about the difference between ethical, practical and enthusiastic music and demanded that young people learn to judge music critically. 94 In the Hellenistic and imperial periods, the schools provided elementary instruction in music; school choruses were often required by the city magistrate to sing at religious ceremonies and festivals. Music was passed on orally; written music was the exception, probably associated with trained singers: only technites (perhaps specialized scribes) understood notation, which was too complicated for practical use.95 In Telos one could learn song notation (μελογραφι' α), and elsewhere instrumental notation (κρουματογραφι' α) was taught.96 Since the Romans assimilated the culture of the regions they conquered, it is no surprise that Roman music borrowed heavily from the Greeks. The heyday of Roman music is linked with the early empire: “Professional virtuosos, mainly of Greek origin, sang and played at festivals; outstanding Egyptian and Syrian pantomimi performed in public; Greek and Roman musicians and actors constituted professional guilds at Rome and in all the larger cities; dancers and musicians were imported as slaves from all parts of the Empire; musical instruments and musical scholarship were developed; and the participation of music lovers in public events increased. At the same time writers, philosophers and historians, including Seneca, Plutarch, Juvenal and Tacitus, attacked the demoralizing and effeminate effects of theatrical music, and the ‘decline’ of music in the service of luxury, on national, social, musical and moral grounds. Many actors, dancers and musicians continued, nevertheless, to enjoy public favour, despite their low legal and social position”.97 In Roman culture, music played a fundamental role in religious rites.98 The priestly company of the Arval Brethren (fratres Arvales) performed traditional ritual songs in order to banish malevolent influences during processions around the sacred ─────────────── 91 Iamblichus, Pyth. 64. 92 Plato, Prot. 325f; for the following comment see Plato, Resp. 424c. 93 Zaminer, “Music IV. Greece”, 335, with reference to Plato, Resp. 398c-400c. For the following ibid. 336. 94 Aristotle, Pol. 8.1341b, 1340a. 95 Zaminer, “Music IV. Greece”, 342–43. 96 CIG 3088; Anon. Bellermann 2.93. 97 Fleischhauer, “Rome I. Ancient”, section 1.1. 98 Cf. Wille, Musica Romana, 26–74.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

433

grove. Tibia players constituted one of the oldest professional Roman association (Plutarch, Numa 17). The tibia, originally a bone pipe with three or four finger holes (later, like the Greek aulos, a double-pipe reed instrument with two pipes) was the national ritual instrument. The involvement of tibia players during sacrificial rites was meant to compensate for any malevolent noises, to banish evil spirits and to summon benevolent deities. They were a regular feature of funeral processions and ceremonies and sacrifices, whether offered by peasants or the highest representatives of the state. They are often depicted in reliefs on altars, triumphal arches and sarcophagi. In the worship of Dionysos, who reigned supreme in the theater, wind and percussion instruments (aulos, tympanon, kymbala, krotala) dominated.99 Livy describes the ecstatic nature of the music played in the cult of Dionysus: the loud beating of the drums (tympana) and cymbals drowned out the cries of those being violated (Livy 39.8.8). Wall paintings in Pompeii depict the different kinds of wind and percussion instruments that were used in the cult: pipes (tibiae), transverse flutes, cymbals, drums, foot-clappers and bells. After the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC, numerous Greek actors and musicians went to Italy. They organized guilds of Dionysiac artists (technites) whose members represented all the types of artists that were required for staging public festivals: tragic and comic poets and actors, musicians, players of the kithara and tibia, trumpeters and stage personnel. The existence of these guilds allowed the organizers of games to put on theatrical and musical performances.100 Most Dionysiac technites, whose members were predominantly Greeks, formed an empire-wide union that enjoyed privileges such as immunity and freedom from taxation. During gladiatorial contests, music was played. In the epitaph of Melanippus of Tarsus, put up in Alexandria Troas in the second century AD , the deceased retiarius (a lightly armed gladiator who fought without helmet, bare foot, dressed in a belted loin cloth, with a short dagger in the left hand and a trident in the right, using a net to catch the heavily armed opponents) laments, “no longer do I hear the sound of the beaten-bronze trumpet (χαλκε-[λ]α' του φωνη` ν σα' λπιγγος)), nor do I rouse the din of flutes (α’ νι' σων αυ’ λω ñ ν) during one-sided contests”.101 ─────────────── 99 R. Schlesier, Art. “Dionysus”, BNP Ι, 500; Wille, Musica Romana, 53–56. 100 On music in the theater see Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre, 94–125. 101 I. Alexandreia Troas 123; the translation follows Greg H. R. Horsley and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012), IV, 19. Marijana Ricl, The Inscriptions of Alexandreia Troas, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 53 (Bonn: Habelt, 1997), 133, refers to R. Merkelbach who suggested that the phrase (α»νισοι αυ’ λοι') is a reference to a υ« δραυλις “water organ” (Christoph Börker and Reinhold Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Ephesos V. Nr. 1446–2000 (Repertorium), Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 15 (Bonn: Habelt, 1980), No. 1601a; Reinhold Merkelbach and Johannes Nollé, Die Inschriften

434

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

3.1 Singing Greek music consisted essentially of song, either solo or choral, while instrumental accompaniment played a subordinate role.102 The latter is demonstrated by the fact that a choir of many voices was not accompanied by larger groups of instrumentalists, but often by a single piper. The fact that people prefer to listen to a singer who is accompanied by a kithara or an aulos was not because of the “fuller” musical experience but because it helps to define the time.103 The term χο' ρος denotes a “ring dance, troupe of dancers, dance floor, chorus of singers”.104 Chorus dancing (χορευ' ειν) has been described as synonymous with religious practice.105 A chorus performed as either all male (men or boys) or all female; there is evidence for mixed dancing but not for men and women singing in unison. As for voices singing in parallel, the Greek sources recognized only the octave parallelism (denying the existence of parallels at other intervals). At the time of Aeschylus, choruses of tragedy had twelve members, choruses of comedy had twenty-four, and choruses of the dithyramb fifty. At the wedding feast of a Macedonian nobleman about 300 BC a choir of a hundred sang a hymenaeum (wedding song). A fine singing voice was characterized as sweet, like honey, lily-white, i.e., smooth and pure in tone. Because people believed that the voiced is impaired by food, singers practiced before breakfast, and choirs dieted and fasted when they trained for competitions.106 The ideal singing voice was loud and clear. Seneca praises the voices in a choir when they blend into one voice without being heard individually.107 . The string soloists often sang while they played, particularly the kitharodes. This requires multitasking, a fact that Quintilian uses to illustrate the possibility that a teacher of rhetoric teaches his students several skills at once: “Do not kitharodes108 simultaneously exert the memory and pay attention to the tone and inflexions of the voice, while the right hand runs over certain strings

─────────────── von Ephesos VI. Nr. 2001–2958 (Repertorium), Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 16 (Bonn: Habelt, 1980), No. 2119). The sound of the (bronze) trumpet (χαλκε' λατος) signaled the beginning of the fight; see also I. Laodikeia 81A, an inscription honoring the gladiator Asbolas. 102 West, Ancient Greek Music, 38; the following summarizes 38–47. 103 Pseudo-Aristotle, Pr. 19.9. 104 Frieder Zaminer, “Chorus”, BNP III, 247–50, here 247. 105 Albert Henrichs, ‘Warum soll ich denn tanzen?’ Dionysisches im Chor der griechischen Tragödie, Lectio Teubneriana (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996). 106 Ps.-Aristotle, Pr. 11.22; 11.46; Plato, Leg. 665e. 107 Seneca, Ep. 84.9. 108 H. E. Butler, trans., The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920–22), I, 193, translates citharoedi as “harpists”.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

435

and the left plucks, stops or releases others, and even the foot is busy keeping strict time, all these actions being performed at the same moment?”109 An inscription from Ephesus, dated to the third century AD quotes from an old law that stipulated that a paean should be sung (α», δειν) during the sacrifices, the processions, and the nocturnal celebrations; among other people involved in the ceremony of the sacrifices, the flute player (αυ’ λητη' ς) and the trumpet player (σαλπικτη' ς) shall receive gifts according to their participation.110 In Didyma, choral singers (υ‘ μνωιδοι' ) had assigned seats.111 Since Claudius, the singing of the hymns honoring the emperor were sung by the ephebes.112 In Pergamon, an altar of the imperial cult inscribed on four sides lists the names of choral singers (υ‘ μνω, δοι' ).113 An inscription in Smyrna honors a certain Claudius Melampos, a singer (υ‘ μνω, δο' ς) and poet who discoursed about the gods (θεολο' γος).114 The cult personnel that was established for Smyrna’s second imperial temple (granted by Hadrian in AD 124) included theologoi (θεολο' γοι) and twenty-four hymnodoi (υ‘ μνω, δοι' ).115 An altar was dedicated to the “hymnodoi of the god Hadrian”.116 The inscription which lists Hadrian’s gifts to the city of Smyrna mentions “sacred games, immunity, theologoi, hymnodoi, one-and-a-half million (drachma), columns for the anointing room (in the gymnasion)”.117 The citizens of Ephesus honored a composer of hymns (υ‘ μνω, γρα' φος), and a list of members of a religious association mentions a singer of hymns (υ‘ μνολο' γος).118 Numerous Ephesian inscriptions mention choral singers (υ‘ μνω, δοι' ).119 An inscription from Pergamon honors Menophilos Herakleidou Felix ─────────────── 109 Quintilian, Inst. 1.12. 3. 110 I. Ephesus Ia 10, 12–14.22; cf. Dieter Knibbe, Der Staatsmarkt: Die Inschriften des Prytaneions – Die Kureteninschriften und sonstige religiöse Texte, Forschungen in Ephesos IX.1.1 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981), 57–58 (No. D1). Several of the curetes were trumpet players (σαλπικτη' ς): I. Ephesus IV 1029. 1030. 1033. 1035. 1039. 1041. 1042. 111 I. Didyma 50, 2 A 68; 3 St. 17. 112 Cf. I. Ephesus 17–19; also I. Ephesus IV 1145; cf. Helmut Engelmann, Dieter Knibbe, and Reinhold Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Ephesos IV. Nr. 1001–1445 (Repertorium), IK 14 (Bonn: Habelt, 1980), 101; Barbara Burrell, Neokoroi: Greek Cities of the Roman East, Cincinnati Classical Studies 9 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), 41. 113 I. Pergamon II 374; cf. II 523. Note the recurring expression υ‘ μνω, δουñ /υ‘ μνω, δοι` θεουñ Σεβαστουñ /Αυ’ γου' στου (choral singer of the divine emperor/Augustus). 114 I. Smyrna I 500. The inscription I. Smyrna I 208 mentions the association of the singers (οι‘ υ‘ μνω, δοι' ). 115 I. Smyrna II 594; the document was issued when Smyrna was granted the status of twice neokoros. 116 I. Smyrna 595. 117 I. Smyrna II 697. See the discussion in Burrell, Neokoroi, 43–44. 118 I. Ephesus IV 1149. III 973. 119 I. Ephesus Ia 17. 27. 34; II 275; III 616. 645. 742. 790. 892. 908. 921; IV 1002–1004. 1061; V 1600–1604. 1860; VI 2446; VII 3081–3088. 3247. 3801. 4336.

436

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

and Asklepiades Moschou Paris, two teachers of hymns (υ‘ μνοδιδα' σκαλοι).120 In Kremna, an inscription on a base which supported a gilded bronze statue of Chrysippus honored him as a poet who “left many illustrious written works as a boon to mortals in whose heart there is a yearning for virtue and wisdom” and who “sang his hymns for Artemis as no one else had done before him (»Αρεμιν α’ ει' σας θ’ω‘ ς ου’ πα' ρος α» λλος ε’ ν υ« μνοις)”.121 In Priene, A. Aemilius Zosimos was honored because he hired a musician who accompanied a chorus on the flute (χοραυ' λης) and a kithara player (κιθαρω, δο' ς) for two days, which is probably what popular taste wanted.122

3.2 Musical Instruments The Greeks and Romans knew and used stringed instruments (chordophones), wind instruments (aerophones), and percussion instruments (idiophones and membranophones). Three general types of stringed instruments need to be distinguished: lyres, harps, and lutes.123 (1) The kithara (κιθα'ρα) or lyre (often but erroneously called a “harp”)124 consists of a more or less rectangular resonance box with two ascending arms which are connected by a slanting crossbar or yoke, with usually seven or eight strings. Concert soloists increased the number of strings to nine, ten, eleven, or twelve. The strings (χορδαι' ), attached at the resonance box with a string holder, run over a bridge to the crossbar where they are attached to tuning pegs. The strings are struck with a plectrum (πλη• τρον), made of wood, horn, or metal, held in the right hand, while the fingers of the left hand pluck ─────────────── 120 I. Pergamon II 485. 121 I. Pisid. Cent. 32. The translation follows Greg H. R. Horsley and Stephen Mitchell, The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 57 (Bonn: Habelt, 2000), 64–66. 122 I. Priene 113, 80 (after 84 BC). Cf. William Slater, “Deconstructing Festivals”, in The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, ed. P. Wilson, Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 21–47, here 45. 123 The following summary is based on West, Ancient Greek Music, 48–80; Landels, Music, 47–68; Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre, 159–286; Frieder Zaminer, “Musical Instruments V. Greece”, BNP IX, 354–62. 124 Thus e.g., BDAG s.v. κιθα' ρα. The strings of a kithara (lyre) are of equal length and lie in a plane parallel to the soundboard, while the strings of a harp are of unequal length and lie in a plane perpendicular to the soundboard. Cf. West, Ancient Greek Music, 48–49. Not very helpful is Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th Edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988), s.v. κιθα' ρα” “die Zither, ein harfenartiges Instrument”. Note that a zither, different from the kithara, is an instrument where the strings are strung horizontally across the surface of a broad soundbox that extends along the entire length of the strings, whose numbers is considerably higher than that of a kithara; the ε’ πιγο' νειον had 40 strings and the σιμι'κιον had 35 strings.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

437

the strings or modified the sound. There were two basic types of lyres: wooden box lyres (κιθα' ρα) with round bases (φο' ρμιγχ, κι' θαρις), with square bases (κιθα' ρα, the standard concert kithara), with square or round bases and arms made of horn (the Thracian kithara), or with rectangular bases (the Italiote kithara), and bowl lyres of the standard type (λυ' ρα, and the tortoise-shell lyre called χε' λυς) and of the long-armed type (βα' ρβιτος). The patron deity of the kithara players was Apollo, while Hermes and Dionysus are depicted with the simpler types of lyres. The professional kitharodes who competed in the Pythian, Panathenaic, and other games and in other solo performances used the square-base kithara, which sometimes had gilded arms, was inlaid with ivory, or set with precious stones, while the soloists wore a richly ornamented robe or a gold wreath on the head. Usually kithara players sang while they played. In Greek iconography, the lyre is depicted in the hands of Apollo, the Muses, the Sirens, Eros, and Orpheus. It was associated with dance, conviviality, and instruction in music.125 Lysander of Sicyon, in the early fifth century, is credited by Athenaeus of having introduced innovations in kithara playing, particularly with increasing the sonority of the instrument, presumably achieved with augmenting the size of the sound-box.126 A soloist who played the kithara as a solo instrument was called the “bare kithara player (ψιλοκιθαριστη' ς). Although prizes were awarded for solo playing at the Panathenaia, it seems to have had only a limited role. Plato dismissed instrumental solo performers “as a tasteless and meaningless stunt that seeks to astonish by speed, accuracy, and the production of bestial noises”.127 Kithara players (κιθαρω, δο' ς) are often mentioned in inscriptions. Tiberius Claudius Epigonos was honored as victor in the Epheseia and Eurelius Serapion from Thyatira as victor of the boys’ competition in the Artemisia.128 Publius Aelius from Kyzikos, a member of the artists (technites) of Dionysus, who moved the motion to honor T. Aelius Alcibiades, is described as a kithara soloist (κιθαρω, δο' ς) and victor of the Capitoline and Olympic games; the said Aelius Alcibiades is praised not only for his education and his noble attitude, but also for various benefactions, including his ten year long support for the musicians (μουσικοι' ). 129 An inscription from Miletus honors Antipatros Iulianos, a kithara soloist (προκιθαριστη' ς); the Greek term designates the leading kithara player in a group of instrumentalists; it was probably his artistic abilities, apart from the prestige of his family, which explains why the young man had been ─────────────── 125 Zaminer, “Musical Instruments”, 357. 126 Athenaeus, Deipn. 637–638. Cf. Andrew Barker, “The Innovations of Lysander the Kitharist”, ClQ 32 (1982): 266–69; also West, Ancient Greek Music, 69: Lysander “was credited with increasing the power and duration of the notes, achieving fine ‘colourings’, and evoking a sort of echo at the upper octave called ‘whistling’”. 127 West, Ancient Greek Music, 70, with reference to Plato, Leg. 669e-670a. 128 I. Ephesus IV 1106; VII,2 3813. 129 I. Ephesus Ia 22, 7–8.12–13.

438

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

appointed chief priest of the local association of the artists of Dionysus.130 An inscription in Didyma honors a certain Bassos who was victorious in the games as a performer of tragedy, comedy, and as a kithara player.131 An inscription from Pergamon honors Gaius Antonius Septimius Publius, a famous kithara player (κιθαρω, δο' ς) who was a citizen of Pergamon, Smyrna, Athens, and Ephesus, active in the second half of the second century.132 The inscription provides three lists of competitions in which Antonius Septimius Publius was victorius: he won in succession the 16th Olympiad of Smyrna, the games in honor of Hadrian, twice the Capitolia games in Rome, twice the Eusebeia games in Puteoli, three times the Sebasta (Augustus) games in Neapolis, twice the Aktia (games honoring Apollo) in Argos, three times in the games in Nemea; he was also victorious in sacred games in Smyrna, Pergamon, Delphi, Ephesos, Epidaurus, Athens, Sardes, Tralles, Didyma, Rhodes, Sparta, and Mantinea; and he was also victorious in games in which money prizes were to be won. The inscription ends with a reference to his teacher, a certain Publius Aelius Agathemeros, a kithara player and lyric poet who treated his student like a father cares for his son. The importance of the kithara for Greek culture is seen in the numerous words that belong to the κιθα' ρα word-group: 133 κιθαρηφο' ρος (Lycian coin stamped with a kithara), κιθαρι' ζω (play the kithara), κιθα' ρισις/κιθαρισμο' ς (the playing on the kithara), κιθα' ρισμα (a piece of music played on the kithara), κιθαριστε' ον (one must play the kithara), κιθαριστρι' ς (used to accompany the kithara), κιθαριστη' ς (fem. κιθαρι' στρια/κιθαρι' στρια, player on the kithara), κιθαριστικο' ς (skilled in kithara playing), κιθαριστυ' ς (the art of playing he kithara), κιθαρωδε' ω (sing to the kithara), κιθαρω', δησις/κιθαρω, δι' α (singing to the kithara), κιθαρω, δικο' ς (for kithara playing), κιθαρω, δι' στρια (woman who plays and sings to the kithara), κιθαρω, δο' ς (one who plays and sings to the kithara), α’ κι' θαρις (without the harp), διακιθαρισμο' ς (competition in kithara playing), ε• γκιθαριζω (play the kithara in the midst), ε’ πικιθα' ρισμα (piece performed after a play), προκιθα' ρισμα (prelude on the kithara), προκιθαριστη' ς (leading player on the kithara),134 υ‘ ποκιθαρι' ζω (play an accompaniment on the kithara), υ‘ ποκιθαριστη' ς (sup─────────────── 130 I. Miletus III 1140. LSJ s.v. προκιθαριστη' ς translates “leading player on the kithara”. Cf. Peter Herrmann, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt, Inschriften von Milet III, Milet VI. iii (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 91–92. The inscription dates between AD 177–193. 131 I. Didyma 183. 132 I. Smyrna II 659. Cf. Georg Petzl, Die Inschriften von Smyrna II, 1, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 24/1 (Bonn: Habelt, 1987), 146–148; see the discussion in Patrick Gouw, Griekse atleten in de Romeinse keizertijd (31 v. Chr. - 400 n. Chr.) (Amsterdam: Vossiuspers, 2009), 54–55. 133 Translations are from LSJ. 134 I. Didyma 182, 17; 264, 7: the person who presents a prelude to the cultic act, perhaps with singing; cf. Albert Rehm, Didyma II. Die Inschriften, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (Berlin: Mann, 1958), 146, n. 2, on No. 182.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

439

porting kithara player), φιλοκιθαριστη' ς (lover of the kithara), χοροκιθαρευ' ς (one who plays the kithara to a chorus), χοροκιθαρι' ζω (play the kithara to a chorus), χρυσοκι' θαρις (with a golden kithara), ψιλοκιθαριστη' ς (one who plays the kithara without singing to it). (2) The harp has between nine and twenty strings attached to an arched or angled neck at one end of the resonator box, lying at a perpendicular plane to the resonator; since the strings were attached to the resonator at an oblique angle, they were of different lengths. There was no uniform term for the harp: terms used included μα' γαδις, πηκτι' ς, ψαλτη' ριον, σαμβυ' κη, and τρι' γωνον; the Latin term harpa was introduced as a designation by Venantius Fortunatus in the sixth century AD . Since the strings of the harp were plucked with both hands, the term ψαλτη' ριον (“plucking instrument”) emerged in the fourth century BC as the generic term for the harp. The ε’ πιγο' νειον (with 40 strings) and the σιμι' κιον (with 35 strings), instruments that can be regarded as zithers, seemed to have been used not only for performance but for the academic study of intervals and scale divisions.135 The harp was generally used to accompany singing, but there is some evidence that sometimes harpists sang while they played.136 The Greek comic poets linked the harp with sensual, erotic, and adulterous songs. The harp was played in the home, particularly the banquet room. In the classical period, the players were almost always women. (3) The lute (πανδουñρα) has a single extended neck along which the strings run from the (usually rounded) soundbox to the end of the neck, which was twice as long as the soundbox; the strings pressed against the board of the neck to shorten the length of the vibrating string thus obtaining different notes; the right hand uses a plectrum or plucks the strings with the fingers. The ancient lutes had one, two, or three strings; the Greeks used the τρι' χορδον (three strings), but lutes with four or five strings are also known. The player of the lute was normally a woman (in Greek iconography the Muses, or an Eros). There were three main types of wind instruments: reed instruments, flutes, and brass instruments. (1) The αυ’λο'ς is a “cylindrical pipe” or “blow tube” made of reed, wood, bone or ivory with normally five finger holes, one being on the underside for the thumb, and a mouthpiece made of calamus cane with two reed blades vibrating against each other. The aulos player almost always played on two pipes at once, one with each hand. The aulos (or plural auloi) was the most important wind instrument of the Greeks (often but erroneously called a “flute”). Later auloi had up to twenty-four holes, which could be closed by levers allowing the player to play different modal scales on the same instrument. Auloi were manufactured in different sizes (up to 57 cm long) and registers, depending on the intended use; for example, the “choral aulos” on ─────────────── 135 West, Ancient Greek Music, 78. 136 Sappho 21.22; cf. West, Ancient Greek Music, 74 with n. 116.

440

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

which higher notes could be played was used by the χοραυ' λης who accompanied a chorus, while πυθαυ' λης accompanied a solo song (the two principal aulos players who performed at public games in the imperial period). 137 Ancient writers comment on the ability of the aulos to express and arouse different emotions. Aristotle describes the aulos as capable of provoking religious frenzy, and it is not surprising that the aulos is regularly mentioned (together with drums) in connection with the cult of Dionysus/Bacchus.138 Longinus describes the aulos as causing listeners to loose both their minds and feet tapping to the rhythm, while Plutarch states that the aulos, if played with somberness and sweetness, can fill the soul with calm,139 and Philostratus thinks that the expert aulos player can “assuage grief, enhance joy, inflame the lover, exalt the devout”.140 Bagpipes, developed from the reed-blown pipe by the addition of a bag made from animal skin or an animal bladder, were sometimes played, although neither Athenaeus nor Pollux mention them in their lists of the different types of auloi.141 The flute soloist (αυ’ λητη' ς) Titus Aelius Aurelius Beryllus from Aizanoi is honored with two inscriptions in Ephesus. Inscriptions in the theater of Miletus honored the flute soloists Sokrates, Ameinias, and Poseidonion.142 (2) Flutes are instruments on which the player blows sideways across the air column, either across the end of the pipe or across a hole in the side of the pipe. The panpipe (συñ ριγξ) consists of a set of between four and ten (in the Hellenistic eighteen) tubes of reed or other material differing in length and without finger-holes, associated with shepherds and with the god Pan. The flute in the strict sense, made of bone, cane, or metal with between three and eight finger holes, is not attested in the Greek world before the Hellenistic period and was rarely used. This flute (ι»υγξ, φω' τιγξ) was called a “single stem syrinx” (συñ ριγξ μονοκα' λαμος), and was often played as a transverse flute. The pipe organ (υ« δραυλις, also υ‘ δραυ' λικον ο» ργανον or “hydraulic instrument”) was invented by the engineer Ctesibius at the court of Ptolemy II in Alexandria. It later gained in popularity in Rome and the imperial provinces.143 The player, who used both hands to press down keys producing sound through a ─────────────── 137 West, Ancient Greek Music, 93 n. 63, with reference to Varro, Sat. Men. 561; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.11; Seneca, Ep. 76.4; Juvenal 6.77; Martial 5.56.9, 6.39.19, 11.75.3, etc. 138 Aristotle, Pol. 1341a21; Euripides, Bacch. 127. 139 Longinus, Subl. 39.2; Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 7 (Mor. 713A). 140 West, Ancient Greek Music, 106, with reference to Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.21.2–3. 141 Cf. West, Ancient Greek Music, 107–109. 142 I. Ephesus IV 1137. 1149; I. Miletus II 792. 793. 143 Zaminer, “Musical Instruments”, 360: “Constant wind pressure was generated through water pressure pressing down on an air bubble caught in an under-water bell; a piston pump supplied the air and conduits, valves, windchests per register and slide valves per pipe regulated the required amount of air. With several registers, each register could play in a different key”. For a fuller description see West, Ancient Greek Music, 115–17.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

441

series of bronze pipes of different lengths and arranged in up to eight ranks, was able to play a chord by pressing one key. The pipe organ was used to convey signals in the circus and the theater, but it was also used at private gatherings for the entertainment of guests. Cicero mentions the pleasure of its sound, and Pliny calls it the favorite instrument of dolphins.144 The one extant water organ (υ« δραυλις), dated to AD 228, was discovered at Aquincum, the capital of Pannonia Inferior: “it is made up of a bronze manual or clavier, 52 pipes (the tallest is 3 feet high), four stops and a sliding sounding bar”.145 (3) Brass instruments include the trumpet (σα' λπιγξ), consisting of a fairly long (80–120 cm) tube of narrow, cylindrical bore ending in a tulip-shaped bell, made of bronze with a bone mouthpiece. The loudness of the instrument made it ideal for giving the signal to attack in battle, to coordinate the efforts of the men who were launching a big ship, to start a chariot race, or to summon people to an assembly. In some cults trumpets were used in sacrificial processions.146 Poor man’s trumpets were made of sea shells (the trumpet shell, the helmet shell, and the conch) and of cow horns (κε' ρας, κερατι' νης). Like the trumpet, they were signaling instruments and not used in musical performances. Percussion and rhythm instruments (idiophones) include clappers (κρο' ταλα), made of two short pieces of wood strung together, similar to castanets; they were used in popular, festive music situations, not in the theater or in professional contests. The drum (τυ' μπανον) was a shallow frame drum or tambourine with an animal skin stretched over the circular open frame, held upright in the left hand and struck with the fingertips or knuckles of the right hand. The drum was mostly used by women, and it appears almost exclusively in connection with orgiastic cults of Cybele, Dionysus/Bacchus and Sabazius. Cymbals (κυ' μβαλα, κρε' μβαλα, and also the ρ‘ ο' πτρον), two metal basins held in both hands and beaten against each other, were also used either alone or together with melody instruments in religious ceremonies, dance performances and drinking parties.147 There is evidence for rattles (σειñστρον) which looked like small ladders with six to twenty rungs that produced a pleasant sound when they were made to tinkle together by shaking or rattling; the object is associated with women, Aphrodite and Eros. Pollux seems to describe this instrument (which he calls ψιθυ' ρα), which he regards as an African invention.

─────────────── 144 Cicero, Tusc. 3.43; Pliny, Nat. 9.24. 145 Ricl, Inscriptions of Alexandreia Troas, 133. 146 Cf. West, Ancient Greek Music, 119, for documentation. Evidence for competitions for trumpeters at games appears from the fourth century AD and later; the chief criterion for the judges seems to have been the volume of the sound the trumpeter could produce: some champions would be heard at a distance of 10 kilometers (120–21). 147 Cf. Zaminer, “Musical Instruments”, 361.

442

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

3. Singing and Music in the New Testament: The Significance While the New Testament evidence for singing and instrumental music in the worship services that we considered above is not overwhelming, what stands out is the matter-of-fact reference to singing in the assemblies of the congregations (1 Cor 14:15; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; cf. Rev 5:8–10; 15:2–3), to the composition and presentation of new songs (1 Cor 14:26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; cf. the “new songs” of Rev 5:9; 14:2) and to the private singing of believers (Jas 5:13), even in prison (Acts 16:25), with some passages possibly implying, but not proving, musical accompaniment (Eph 5:19) with the aulos and kithara (1 Cor 14:7–8; cf. Rev 14:2; 15:2). Judging by the texts that have been interpreted as hymns (e.g., Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20; cf. Luke 1:46–55, 68– 79; 2:29–32; Rom 8:31–39; 1 Cor 13:1–13; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 2:21–24; Rev 4:11; 5:9–12, 13–14; 11:15, 17–18; 15:2–4; 19:1–8),148 there was a considerable repertoire of new material in the early churches. There is no evidence that Greek and Roman culture was the dominating factor in the development of early Christian singing in the first century. While Greek and Roman culture and cult was saturated with music, somewhat comparable to the importance of singing in the early churches, the Christians did not organize sacrifices, processions, or games that were all accompanied by music, nor did they need to ward off evil spirits through the sounds of musical instruments. But there was no reason why new Christian songs, composed by a Gentile convert who had been educated in the Greek musical tradition, would not adhere to principles of meter, rhythm, tonality and musical notation.149 If an aulos player or a kitharode came to faith in Jesus and joined the

─────────────── 148 Cf. Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background, SNTSMS 15 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971); Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, StNT 7 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972); Ralph P. Martin, “Hymns”, DPL 419–23; Gunter Kennel, Frühchristliche Hymnen? Gattungskritische Studien zur Frage nach den Liedern der frühen Christenheit, WMANT 71 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995); Ralph Brucker, ‘Christushymnen’ oder ‘epideiktische Passagen’? Studien zum Stilwechsel im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, FRLANT 176 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, Jesus’ Death in Early Christian Memory: The Poetics of the Passion, NTOA 53 (Göttingen; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Academic Press, 2004); Hengel, “Hymnus”; Martin Hengel, “Das Christuslied im frühesten Gottesdienst [1987]”, in Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften IV, ed. C.-J. Thornton (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 205–58. 149 Cf. Wille, Musica Romana, 368, who refers to an early “tendency of the Christian to separate from Judaism” for the argument that Greek and Roman influences must have been stronger than the influences of the synagogue. This argument overemphasizes separatist tendencies of the early Christians and downplays the importance of the musical traditions of Jewish culture generally and the liturgy of the Temple in particular.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

443

Christian community, he would have naturally assumed that he could use his musical abilities in the worship of the congregation.150 By the third century, Greek influence on Christian hymnody is attested. The earliest example of a Christian hymn, written with notation, is the fragment of a hymn to the Trinity from the third or fourth century AD found in Oxyrhynchus in Middle Egypt (see figure 1).151

Figure 1: P. Oxy XV 1786

Some wanted to derive the hymn not from Jewish or Syriac hymnody rather from other documents of Greek music.152 However, the metrical and rhythmic features of the hymn reflect a close relationship between the notational technique of this fragment and Greek musical texts.153 Moreover, the text and the ─────────────── 150 Whether he would have continued to work professionally as αυ’ λητη' ς or κιθαρω, δο' ς is another question: since this required membership in the guild of the Dionysiac technites and participation in pagan sacral rites, both in the local temples and in the theater, it is difficult to imagine how he could have done so without compromising his faith in Jesus as the Savior. 151 P. Oxy XV 1786; published in Pöhlmann, Denkmäler, 106–9 (No. 34); Pöhlmann and West, Documents, 190–94 (No. 59). The digital image of the transcription of Pöhlmann and West No. 59 is used by permission of Oxford University Press. 152 Egon Wellesz, “The Earliest Example of Christian Hymnody [1945]”, in Literature of the Early Church, ed. E. Ferguson, Studies in Early Christianity 2 (New York: Garland, 1993), 286–97; Wellesz, “Early Christian Music”. 153 Samson Eitrem, Leiv Amundsen, and Reginald P. Winnington-Ingram, “Fragments of

444

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

melody of the Christian hymn, composed in anapaests, can be explained with reference to Greek models, the expert Greek notation suggesting a composer with a Greek musical education.154 This suggests that Greek influence on Christian hymnody was at least as important as Jewish practices. Regarding the origins of singing in the early Christian congregations, it seems apparent that the main influence was not the synagogue, for which no regular singing can be demonstrated for the first century. In terms of Jewish culture, the most plausible influence is the singing and music of the Levites in the Jerusalem Temple, the singing in domestic settings, and the singing and composing of Jewish religious groups.155 As regards the influence of the Temple in Jerusalem, two factors should be considered. First, the practice of the Twelve in attending the regular prayer times in the Temple (Acts 3:1) and holding the meetings of the Jerusalem congregation in Solomon’s Portico on the eastern side of the Temple Mount (2:46; 3:11; 5:12), which regularly exposed the first believers to the singing and music of the Levites. Second, the self-understanding of the congregation(s) of Jesus’ followers as “God’s temple” (1 Cor 3:16–17; 2 Cor 6:16; cf. 1 Cor 6:16; also Mark 14:58; Rom 5:2; 15:16), which may have given to the Jewish-Christian leaders of the early congregations the confidence to adapt practices of Temple worship such as singing and music for their regular assemblies. The singing and playing music in Jewish domestic settings such as parental instruction, festivals such as Passover, and celebrations such as weddings may have been relevant for the development of singing in the assemblies of the early Christian congregations who met in private houses and whose main focus was instruction and celebration. The early Christian hymnic material such as Phil 2:6–11 and Col 1:15–20 “focused on the celebration of Jesus, his significance and work”.156 Pliny’s complaint to the emperor Trajan (111–112 AD) about the Christian gatherings provides evidence for antiphonal singing “to Christ as to a god” as a main feature of the worship of Christians (Pliny, Ep. 10.96.7).157 ─────────────── Unknown Greek Tragic Texts with Musical Notation (P. Osl. inv. no. 1413)”, Symbolae Osloenses 31 (1955): 1–87, here 75, 80–88. 154 West, “Analecta Musica”, 47–54. 155 Smith, “Ancient Synagogue”, 15–16, who is skeptical, however, with regard to the influence of the Jerusalem Temple on the Christian assemblies. 156 Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 148: “singing/chanting (the singing was probably unaccompanied) in honor of Jesus was a very characteristic feature of early Christian worship”. 157 Cf. Margaret Daly-Denton, “Singing Hymns to Christ as to a God (cf. Pliny Ep. X, 96)”, in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis, JSJSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 277–92.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

445

The relevance of the singing of Jewish religious groups such as the Therapeutae and the Qumran community is obvious: as they met apart from the Jerusalem Temple and apart from the synagogues in their own communal assemblies, they developed and adapted the cultural practices that they saw in society, whether in Egypt (the Therapeutae) or in Judea (the Essenes). As the early Christian congregations developed their own (sub-)culture, the practice of singing and music in such groups would have provided obvious models. A final thought. When John conveys the critique of the risen Lord concerning the life of the congregation in Laodicea (Rev 3:14–22), he accuses the church of making the claim, “I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing” (Rev 3:17). In view of the negative use of the adjective and verb in Rev 6:15; 13:16; 18:3, 15, 19, the Laodicean believers evidently boasted about their wealth, the result of their willingness to fully participate in the culture and trade of the city and the province, an economic prosperity that they may have regarded as evidence for their superior spiritual condition.158 While neither the adjective “rich” (πλου' σιος), nor the verb “to prosper” (πλουτε' ω), nor the assertion “I need nothing” (ου’ δε` ν χρει' αν ε» χω) refer explicitly to music, one wonders whether the Laodicean Christians’ full participation in the GrecoRoman culture of the city included the adoption of musical forms such as choral dance and pantomime accompanied by musical instruments such as the aulos or tibia and the kithara,159 perhaps acting scenes from biblical stories or the life of Jesus. Or they were proud of Christian compositions in all four of the important musical-poetic types of Greek culture, viz. the hymn, paean, nomos and dithyramb. To take the nomos as an example, a musical genre that was sung to the accompaniment of a kithara or an aulos or performed by a solo kitharode or aulete:160 the dactylic hexameters and other complementary rhythms, the repetition of text, and the use of the Lydian harmonia made the nomos “relaxed in an orderly and magnificent manner and in its rhythms” (Proclus); the long and diverse composition, with the tonality and the rhythm constantly changing, made it possible to portray the drama, the anguish, and the glory of the action of the narrative.161 Musical diversity and sophistication, which would have required professional players and which would thus have been a corollary of economic prosperity of many of the Laodicean Christians, could very well have been part of the boast of the church that they are “rich” and that their assemblies are so superior that they do not need any help – with─────────────── 158 Cf. Beale, Revelation, 304; Aune, Revelation, I, 259, sees only “pride in the possession of salvation”. 159 The famous Alexandrian pantomimus Bathyllus preferred single pair of tibiae (auloi) to an ensemble with chorus, which seems to have been introduced by Pylades of Cilicia, his rival, in 22 BC (Macrobius, Saturnalia, 2.7.18); cf. Fleischhauer, “Rome I. Ancient”, section 3.5. 160 On the musical genre of the νο' μος see Mathiesen, Apollo’s Lyre, 58–71; Barker, Greek Musical Writings, I, 249–55; Thomas J. Mathiesen, “Nomos”, Grove Music Online (2001). 161 Ps.-Aristotle, Pr. 19.15.

446

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

out realizing that Jesus was no longer the central focus of their assemblies and had thus left, standing at the door, outside, asking to be let in (3:20). Whether or not the “new songs” of the Book of Revelation (Rev 5:9–10, 12–13; 14:3; cf. 15:3–4) reflect actual Christian songs sung with musical accompaniment or not, it appears that the new faith of the Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus as Israel’s messianic Savior and Lord gave their worship new content, new context, and new certainty as they celebrated God’s intervention in the coming of Jesus and in his death and resurrection as Israel’s Messiah who fulfills God’s promises.

Bibliography Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. Jesus’ Death in Early Christian Memory: The Poetics of the Passion. NTOA 53. Göttingen; Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Academic Press, 2004. Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Dallas: Word, 1983. Aune, David E. Revelation. WBC 52. Dallas: Word, 1997–98. Barker, Andrew. Greek Musical Writings. Vol. I, The Musician and his Art. Vol. II, Harmonic and Acoustic Theory. Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004 [1984–89]. —. “The Innovations of Lysander the Kitharist”. ClQ 32 (1982): 266–69. Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th Edition. Edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988. Bayer, Hans F. Das Evangelium des Markus. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2008. Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Bélis, Annie. “Aristoxenus”. Grove Music Online (2001). —. Les musiciens dans l’antiquité. Paris: Hachettes, 1999. Best, Ernest. Ephesians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Börker, Christoph, and Reinhold Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Ephesos V. Nr. 1446–2000 (Repertorium). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 15. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Braun, Joachim. Music in Ancient Israel: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. —. Die Musikkultur Altisraels. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 164. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. —. On Jewish Music: Past and Present. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2006. Brucker, Ralph. ‘Christushymnen’ oder ‘epideiktische Passagen’? Studien zum Stilwechsel im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. FRLANT 176. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Burrell, Barbara. Neokoroi: Greek Cities of the Roman East. Cincinnati Classical Studies 9. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. Butler, H. E., trans. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920–22. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. The Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

447

Comotti, Giovanni. Music in Greek and Roman Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. Daly-Denton, Margaret. “Singing Hymns to Christ as to a God (cf. Pliny Ep. X, 96)”. Pages 277–92 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Edited by C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975. Eitrem, Samson, Leiv Amundsen, and Reginald P. Winnington-Ingram. “Fragments of Unknown Greek Tragic Texts with Musical Notation (P. Osl. inv. no. 1413)”. Symbolae Osloenses 31 (1955): 1–87. Elbogen, Ismar. Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung. 4th Edition. Hildesheim: Olms, 1962. Elliott, James K. The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Engelmann, Helmut, Dieter Knibbe, and Reinhold Merkelbach. Die Inschriften von Ephesos IV. Nr. 1001–1445 (Repertorium). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 14. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Nelson, 2001. Fleischhauer, Günter. “Rome I. Ancient”. Grove Music Online (2001). Gouw, Patrick. Griekse atleten in de Romeinse keizertijd (31 v. Chr. – 400 n. Chr.). Amsterdam: Vossiuspers, 2009. Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. The Hibeh Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1906–55. Hagel, Stefan. Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Harris, William. “Echoing Bronze”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 70 (1981): 1184–85. Hengel, Martin. “Das Christuslied im frühesten Gottesdienst [1987]”. Pages 205–58 in Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften IV. WUNT 201. Edited by C.-J. Thornton. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. —. “Hymnus und Christologie [1980]”. Pages 185–204 in Studien zur Christologie. Kleine Schriften IV. WUNT 201. Edited by C.-J. Thornton. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. —. “Proseuche und Synagoge: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palästina [1971]”. Pages 171–95 in Judaica et Hellenistica I. Studien zum antiken Judentum und seiner griechisch-römischen Umwelt. WUNT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Henrichs, Albert. ‘Warum soll ich denn tanzen?’ Dionysisches im Chor der griechischen Tragödie. Lectio Teubneriana. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996. Herrmann, Peter, Wolfgang Günther, and Norbert Ehrhardt. Inschriften von Milet III. Milet VI. iii. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Horsley, Greg H. R., and Stephen R. Llewelyn, eds. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Macquarie University: North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1981–2012. Horsley, Greg H. R., and Stephen Mitchell. The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 57. Bonn: Habelt, 2000. Hübner, Hans. An Philemon. An die Kolosser. An die Epheser. HNT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

448

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Kasher, Aryeh. “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt”. Pages 205–20 in Ancient Synagogues I. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Edited by D. Urman and P. V. M. Flesher. SPB 47/1. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Kennel, Gunter. Frühchristliche Hymnen? Gattungskritische Studien zur Frage nach den Liedern der frühen Christenheit. WMANT 71. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Kilmer, Anne Draffkom. “World’s Oldest Musical Notation Deciphered on Cuneiform Tablet”. BA 5 (1980): 14–25. Klein, William W. “Noisy Gong or Acoustic Vase? A Note on 1 Corinthians 13.1”. NTS 32 (1986): 286–89. Knibbe, Dieter. Der Staatsmarkt: Die Inschriften des Prytaneions – Die Kureteninschriften und sonstige religiöse Texte. Forschungen in Ephesos IX.1.1. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Landels, John G. Music in Ancient Greece and Rome. London: Routledge, 1999. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. Second Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Marcus, Joel. Mark. AYB 27. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000–2009. Martin, Ralph P. “Hymns, Hymn Fragments, Songs, Spiritual Songs”. Pages 419–23 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid. Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Mathiesen, Thomas J. Apollo’s Lyre: Greek Music and Music Theory in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Publications of the Center for the History of Music Theory and Literature 2. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999. —. Aristides Quintilianus, On Music in Three Books. Music Theory Translation Series. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. —. “Aristides Quintilianus”. Grove Music Online (2001). —. “Nomos”. Grove Music Online (2001). McKinnon, James W. “The Exclusion of Musical Instruments from the Ancient Synagogue”. Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 106 (1979–80): 77–87. —. “On the Question of Psalmody in the Ancient Synagogue”. Pages 159–91 in Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Music. Edited by I. Fenlon. Early Music History 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Merkelbach, Reinhold, and Johannes Nollé. Die Inschriften von Ephesos VI. Nr. 2001–2958 (Repertorium). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 16. Bonn: Habelt, 1980. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. New York: Abingdon, 1962. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology. Wilmington: Glazier, 1983. O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. HThK 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1989–91 [1976–77]. Petzl, Georg. Die Inschriften von Smyrna II, 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 24/1. Bonn: Habelt, 1987. Pöhlmann, Egert. Denkmäler altgriechischer Musik. Sammlung, Übertragung und Erläuterung aller Fragmente und Fälschungen. Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 31. Nürnberg: Carl, 1970. Pöhlmann, Egert, and Martin L. West. Documents of Ancient Greek Music: The Extant Melodies and Fragments Edited and Transcribed with Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001.

14. Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church

449

Rehm, Albert. Didyma II. Die Inschriften. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Berlin: Mann, 1958. Ricl, Marijana. The Inscriptions of Alexandreia Troas. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 53. Bonn: Habelt, 1997. Riethmüller, Albrecht. “Musik zwischen Hellenismus und Spätantike”. Pages 207–325 in Die Musik des Altertums. Edited by A. Riethmüller and F. Zaminer. Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft 1. Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989. Riethmüller, Albrecht, and Frieder Zaminer. Die Musik des Altertums. Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft 1. Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE. London: SCM, 1992. Sanders, Jack T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background. SNTSMS 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Schäfke, Rudolf, ed. Des Aristeides Quintilianus Harmonik. Im Urtext wiederhergestellt. Tutzing: Schneider, 1976. Schlatter, Adolf. Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969 [1934]. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2006. Schrage, Wolfgang. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. EKK 7. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1991–2001. Seidel, Hans. “Music III. Ancient Israel”. Pages 9:329–51 in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Slater, William. “Deconstructing Festivals”. Pages 21–47 in The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies. Edited by P. Wilson. Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Smith, John A. “The Ancient Synagogue, the Early Church and Singing”. Music and Letters 65 (1984): 1–15. —. “First-Century Christian Singing and its Relationship to Contemporary Jewish Religious Song”. Music and Letters 75 (1994): 1–15. —. “Musical Aspects of Old Testament Canticles in the Biblical Setting”. Pages 221–64 in Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Music. Edited by I. Fenlon. Early Music History 17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. —. “Which Psalms were Sung in the Temple?” Music and Letters 71 (1990): 167–86. Talgam, Rina, and Zeev Weiss. The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris. Qedem 44. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Waner, Mira. “Music Culture in Ancient Sepphoris”. Pages 425–47 in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Edited by J. Zangenberg, H. W. Attridge, and D. B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Wellesz, Egon. “The Earliest Example of Christian Hymnody [1945]”. Pages 286–97 in Literature of the Early Church. Edited by E. Ferguson. Studies in Early Christianity 2. New York: Garland, 1993. —. “Early Christian Music”. Pages 2–6 in Early Medieval Music up to 1300, Revised Edition. Edited by A. Hughes. New Oxford History of Music 2. London: Oxford University Press, 1955. Wengst, Klaus. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums. StNT 7. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972. West, Martin L. “Analecta Musica”. ZPE 29 (1992): 1–54. —. Ancient Greek Music. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

450

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Wille, Günther. “Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Musik [1973]”. Pages 87–118 in Schriften zur Geschichte der antiken Music. Quellen und Studien zur Musikgeschichte von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart 26. Frankfurt: Lang, 1997. —. Einführung in das römische Musikleben. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977. —. Musica Romana. Die Bedeutung der Musik im Leben der Römer. Amsterdam: Schippers, 1967. Winnington-Ingram, ed. Aristidis Quintiliani De musica libri tres. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1963. Wolff, Christian. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. ThHK VII/2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984 [1982]. Zaminer, Frieder. “Aristides [7] Quintilianus”. Pages 1:1101–2 in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester. Leiden: Brill, 2002. —. “Chorus”. BNP III, 247–250. —. “Music IV. Greece”. BNP IX, 331–344. —. “Musical Instruments V. Greece”. BNP IX, 354–362. —. “Musik im archaischen und klassischen Griechenland”. Pages 113–206 in Die Musik des Altertums. Edited by A. Riethmüller and F. Zaminer. Neues Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft 1. Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscription The confession inscriptions found in Lydia in the cities and villages of Maionia, particularly in its central region of Katakekaumene in the middle and upper course of the Hermos river, as well as in the territories of Sardis, Philadelphia, Kollyda, Tripolis, Saittai, in Phrygia, in the sanctuary of Apollo Lairbenos near Hierapolis on the upper Maeander river, and in south-east Mysia,1 have provoked less discussion among New Testament or patristic scholars than one would expect.2 The basic structure of these texts – transgression–punishment–confession– expiation–divine order to erect a stele – is well known. The more elaborate inscriptions record 1. the name of the person who has committed some wrongdoing, 2. the specific private offense, 3. the reaction of the god, sometimes involving an epiphany, e.g., in a dream (υ« πνος, ο» νειρος) or through a messenger (α» γγελος), 4. the resulting punishment (κολα' ζειν, κο' λασις) by the god, usually some illness or other calamity, sometimes even death, 5. the redressal ─────────────── 1 Main collections are published in Franz S. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike. Ein Beitrag zur näheren Kenntnis kleinasiatischorientalischer Kulte der Kaiserzeit (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913), No. 1–33; MAMA IV 270–293 (William H. Buckler, William Moir Calder, and William K. C. Guthrie, Monuments and Documents from Eastern Asia and Western Galatia, MAMA IV [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1933]); SEG IV 647–652 (1929); SEG VI 248– 260 (1932); TAM V.1, 151–596 passim (Peter Herrmann, Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. Regio septentrionalis ad orientem vergens, TAM V.1 [Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981]); SEG XXXIV 1210–1220 (ed. H. W. Pleket and R. S. Stroud 1987); SEG XXXV 1157–1158.1164.1174–1231.1269 (ed. Pleket and Stroud 1988); Kevin M. Miller, “Apollo Lairbenos”, Numen 32 (1985): 46–70, esp. 60–64; see now Georg Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, Epigraphica Anatolica 22 (Bonn: Habelt, 1994), who publishes 124 confession texts (henceforth Petzl); and Marijana Ricl, La conscience du peché dans les cultes anatoliens à l’époque romaine. La confession des fautes rituelles et éthiques dans les cultes méoniens et phrygiens, In Serbian, with a French summary (Belgrade: University of Belgrade, 1995), with 135 texts. 2 As far as I can see, the confession inscriptions are ignored by Hans-Josef Klauck, Stadtund Hausreligion, Mysterienkulte, Volksglaube (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995); he discusses them in the M. Hengel Festschrift: Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die kleinasiatischen Beichtinschriften und das Neue Testament”, in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion, FS M. Hengel, ed. H. Lichtenberger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 64–87.

452

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

of the crime by paying ransom (λυ' ειν) in order to propitiate the god, it sometimes includes a sacrifice that appeases the god and atones for the misdeed (ι‘ λα' σκεσθαι, ε’ ξιλα' σκεσθαι), 6. a public confession (ο‘ μολογειñν, ε’ ξομολογειñν), 7. the acknowledgment of the power (υ' ναμις, δυνα' μεις) of the god, 8. the erection of a stele on which the story is inscribed (στηλογραφειñν) often demanded by the god (ε’ πιζητε' ω, α’ ναζητε' ω),3 9. frequently ending with a clear profession of faith, as the sinner commits himself to praise the god “from now on” (α’ πο` νυñ ν ευ’ λογω ñ ) or warns others not to disdain the god.4 Reliefs which often illustrate the text frequently depict the god as a person or as symbol (e.g., a crescent of the moon for Men) or refer to his scepter which was erected “as the symbol or the incarnation of the judicial power of the god”;5 in several texts the scepter clearly makes visible the presence of the god’s power.6 Sometimes the evildoer is depicted with his right arm raised in adoration for the god, sometimes with a priest standing next to him officiating in a sacrificial ceremony; in some cases the public is depicted as standing in awe of the god’s power; and sometimes the trespasses themselves or the parts of the body that had been effected by the punishment. This paper describes the divine punishment of the sinner, the divine demand for public confession, the divine demand for specific confession, the divine demand for acknowledgement and praise before focusing on what was probably the main reason for the pressure to confess sins publicly: the reinforcement of the god’s control over his or her devotees, which may have been seen necessary due to the expansion of Christianity in the second and third centuries.

─────────────── 3 On this term cf. Hendrik S. Versnel, “Beyond Cursing: The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers”, in Magikas Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, ed. C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 60–106, esp. 78. 4 Cf. A. Cameron, “Inscriptions Relating to Sacral Manumission and Confession”, HTR 32 (1939): 143–79, esp. 157; Irina Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen. The Anaeitis-Dedications in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden and Related Material from Eastern Lydia. A Reconsideration”, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 54 (1979): 139–88, esp. 162; Georg Petzl and Hasan Malay, “A New Confession Inscription from the Katakekaumene”, GRBS 28 (1987): 459–72, esp. 459–60; Georg Petzl, “Sünde, Strafe, Wiedergutmachung”, EA 12 (1988): 155–66, esp. 155; Versnel, “Beyond Cursing”, 75; Klauck, “Beichtinschriften”, 85–86; Hendrik S. Versnel, “Sin”, OCD 1410; Petzl, IX. Petzl, VII, uses two major criteria for determining whether to include texts in his collection or not: the admission, or “confession”, of some wrongdoing, and the reconciliation with the deity that hat been provoked by the wrongdoing. 5 Johan H. M. Strubbe, “‘Cursed be he that moves my bones’”, in Magikas Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, ed. C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 32–59, esp. 44. 6 Versnel, “Beyond Cursing”, 76.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

453

1. The Divine Punishment of the Sinner A regular feature of the Lydian and Phrygian confession inscriptions is a reference to punishment (κολα' ζειν,7 κο' λασις8) by the god for a specific wrongdoing (α‘ μαρτι' α,9 α‘ μα' ρτημα10) that had been committed (α‘ μαρτα' νειν11). Usually it is the sinner who is punished, sometimes his or her relatives. Usually the punishment is specified. The long inscription from Silandos, published by H. Malay in 1988 and stored in the Manisa Museum, narrates the confession of a certain Theodoros from Nonou. The text begins with the following words: In the year 320, on the 12th day of the month Panemos. According to the enlightenment given by the gods, by Zeus and the great Men Artemidorou: ‘I have punished (ε’ κολασο' μην) Theodoros in respect to his eyes in consequences of the sins (κατα` τα` ς α‘ μαρτι'ας) which he committed’ (lines 1–7).12 The reference to the gods in lines 2–3 is interrupted on the left side of the stele by the representations of a crescent (for Men) and a pair of eyes. The date is 235/236 AD.

Eye ailments are often mentioned,13 other punishments affected the ability to speak,14 breasts,15 legs,16 the backside.17 Reliefs that accompany the inscriptions sometimes contain representations of the affected parts of the body.18 In some instances the delinquent may have been detained in the temple.19 Sometimes people became deranged,20 insane,21 unconscious,22 or they even died.23 ─────────────── 7 Petzl No. 5–7.9.11.12.16.22.23.26.29.33–35.41–45.47.48–50.54.57.60.62–65.71.75– 77.83–96.98.99.101.104.106.107–111.113.114.117.118.120.122. 8 Petzl No. 11.18.69. 9 Petzl No. 5.11.23.24.40.95. 10 Petzl No. 4.22. 11 Petzl No. 24.66.73.74.100.109.112.117.118. 12 Hasan Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions in the Manisa and Bergama Museums”, EA 12 (1988): 147–52, No. 5 = Petzl No. 11. 13 Petzl No. 5.16.29.45.49.50.85.90.93. Note also Ovid, ex Ponto 1.1.51–58. Cf. Petzl, “Sünde”, 156–7 with n. 11. 14 Petzl No. 1; vgl. Hasan Malay, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Manisa Museum, ETAM 19 (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994), No. 55, without text. 15 Petzl No. 63.95.70.84.95. 16 Petzl No. 70.89. 17 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, No. 31 = SEG XXIX 1174 = Petzl No. 75. 18 Eyes: Petzl Nos. 5.16.50.70.90.99; breasts: Petzl Nos. 70.95, and SEG XXXV 1205 = Hasan Malay, “The Sanctuary of Meter Phileis Near Philadelphia” EA 6 (1985): 111–25, No. 32; feet: SEG XXXV 1175.1178 = Malay, “Sanctuary of Meter Phileis,” Nos. 2.4; toes: SEG XXXV 1187 = Malay, “Sanctuary of Meter Phileis,” No. 14; male genitals: SEG XXXV 1174 = Malay, “Sanctuary of Meter Phileis,” No. 1. 19 Petzl No. 5.33; Ender Varinlioğlu, “Eine Gruppe von Sühneinschriften aus dem Museum von Uşak”, EA 13 (1989): 37–50, esp. 38. 20 TAM V.1, 460 = Petzl No. 57. 21 TAM V.1, 541 = Petzl No. 81. 22 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, No. 4 = Petzl No. 7.

454

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Sometimes the punishment is not specified: Aphphias, the daughter of Glykon, made a vow to Men Axiottenos in case she would have a child. After fulfilment of her demand she delayed (sc. to deliver what she had promised the god) and he punished (ε’ κο' λασε) her and ordered her to bring to public knowledge the powerful acts of the god.24 Great is Zeus from Twin Oaks! I, Athenaios, had been punished for a sin committed in ignorance. After I received many punishments (πολλα` ς κολα' σεις λαβω' ν) a dream demanded a stele, and I wrote down the manifestations of the power of the god (α’ νε' γραψα τα` ς δυνα' μις τουñ θεουñ ).25

The fact that the punishment is sometimes not specified26 indicates that the nature of the calamity is less significant than the fact of punishment which is clearly seen as an expression of the power of the god or the gods mentioned in the inscription. In the case of Alexandros and Iulius and his sister who provided the god Men with a stele as a λυ' τρον for “known and unknown guilt (ε’ ξ ει’ δ[ο' ]των και` μη` ει’ δο' των). P. Herrmann speculates that such dedications were offered as a “precaution” in order to propitiate the god before wrongdoing leads to punishment.27

Divine punishment as retribution for wrongdoing is repeatedly mentioned in Greek and Roman literature. The list of divine acts of punishment includes death, insanity, blindness, infestation with lice, suffering from worms, venereal diseases, drowning, being torn apart by animals.28 The length of the punishment is sometimes specified: the afflictions that the inscriptions describe lasted from three months,29 a year and ten months,30 four years31 to “over a long period of time” (πολλοιñς χρο' νοις).32 Some inscriptions emphasize the initiative of the god in investigating the misdeed of the culprit. Because Severus prevented the cutting of (branches for) garlands, the god tracked down the offence (ε’ πεζη' τησεν ο‘ θεο` ς το` α‘ μα' ρτημα).33

In the case of Hermogenes Valerius who perjured himself by negligence, the god first demonstrated his power (ο‘ θεο` ς α’ νε' ξεν τα` ς ει’ δι' ας δυνα' μις) by killing his ox and his donkey. When Hermogenes persisted in disobedience (α’ πιθουñ ν─────────────── 23 Petzl Nos. 37.54.68.69.72; perhaps also in Nos. 4.28.46.59. 24 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, No. 3 = Petzl No. 65. 25 SEG XXXIII 1013 = Petzl No. 11. 26 Cf. further Petzl Nos. 20.21.35.3.47.60.62.66.67.71.73.74.76. 27 TAM V.1, 254 = Petzl No. 51. TAM V.1, 255 = Petzl No. 53: ε’ ξ ι’ δο' των και` μη` ι’ δο' των. 28 Cf. Wolfgang Speyer, “Gottesfeind”, RAC XI, 996–1043, esp. 1017–8, for references. 29 Petzl No. 1. 30 Malay, “New Confession Inscriptions”, No. 5 = Petzl No. 5. 31 SEG XXXIII 1012 = Petzl No. 12. 32 MAMA IV 281 = Petzl No. 108. 33 Petzl No. 4 (“richtete der Gott seine Untersuchung auf diese Verfehlung”).

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

455

τος) the god killed his daughter. Now Hermogenes “annuls” his oath – and then disappears from the scene: it is his wife Aphias and his children Alexandros, Attalos, Apollonios and Amion who erect the stele and inscribe it with the record of the power of the god, acknowledging him in praise.34 In at least one case the same family from Promiase who worshipped the Theoi Pereudenoi in a sanctuary on the north slopes of Mons Toma near Sattai had to erect at least two confession steles,35 probably relating to the same matter. The steles may have stood next to each other and thus provided a serial story of the misdeeds and confessions of Eupelastos and Apollonios and other relatives. Peter Herrmann interprets these “serial steles” as illustrating the “intensity and persistence with which these simple village folk felt themselves to be persecuted by their strict gods.”36

2. The Divine Demand for Public Confession In the confession inscriptions, removing the wrath of the god (θυμολυσι' α, θυμολυτειñν)37 and atoning for sin (α’ παι' ρειν,38 ι‘ λα' σκεσθαι,39 χαρι' ζεσθαι40) included erecting a stele on which the sinner confesses (ε’ ξομολογειñν)41 his or her sins personally and publicly. This demand for public and permanent confession was perceived to have come from the god. Neither the community nor a priest is mentioned in this context, although it may be assumed that the victim and the village community pressured the victim to confess his or her sins publicly.42 In the proceedings against Theodoros from Nonou, the sentence “as my legal adviser I got Zeus (ε» σχα παρα' κλητον το` ν Δει' αν)” very probably ─────────────── 34 TAM V.1, 464 = Petzl No. 34; cf. Otto Eger, “Eid und Fluch in den maionischen und phrygischen Sühne-Inschriften”, in Festschrift Paul Koschaker, Vol. III (Weimar: Böhlau, 1939), 281–93, esp. 284–86. 35 Peter Herrmann and Ender Varinlioğlu, “Theoi Pereudenoi. Eine Gruppe von Weihungen und Sühninschriften aus der Katakekaumene”, EA 3 (1984): 1–17, Nos. 3.4 = SEG XXXIV 1212.1213 = Petzl Nos. 17.18. If l. 12 προδηλουμε' νη κο' λασις of SEG XXXIV 1213 does not refer to the consequences of the curse the mother put on Apollonios (SEG XXXIV 1212 lines 3–4) there may have been another episode mentioned on another stele; Petzl No. 18 (p. 28). 36 Herrmann and Varinlioğlu, “Theoi Pereudenoi”, 9: “Man erhält dadurch immerhin auch einen Eindruck von der Intensität und Beharrlichkeit, mit der diese einfache Landbevölkerung sich unter Umständen von ihren strengen Gottheiten verfolgt fühlte.” Also quoted by Petzl No. 18 (p. 28). 37 Petzl Nos. 6.21. 38 Petzl Nos. 5.6.13. 39 Petzl Nos. 5.6.3.45.47.54.60.68.70.73.74.80.112; ε`ξιλα' σκεσθαι in Nos. 69.123. 40 Petzl Nos. 67; χα' ρις in Nos. 58.102. 41 Petzl Nos. 3.43.109.111.112.116; ο‘ μολογειñν in Nos. 68.100.106. 42 Cf. Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, 164; cf. Varinlioğlu, “Sühneinschriften”, 49, who refers to Lucian, Alex. 23 who describes people who denounce others.

456

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

refers to the priest of Men Artemidorou, who may have uttered the next sentence: Behold, I had blinded him in consequence of his actions, but now he has made good his mistakes by propitiating the gods and by erecting an inscribed stele (lines 19–21).43

In two cases we read of the deposition of a written accusation in the temple; in both cases the injured party knew the perpetrator: For Men Axiottenos. Because Hermogenes, son of Glykon, and Nitonis, daughter of Philoxenos, slandered Artemidoros on account of wine, Artemidoros submitted a tablet (with a written complaint) (πιττα' κιον ε» δωκεν). The god punished Hermogenes, and he propitiated the god and praises him from now on.44

The πιττα' κιον (tablet) “is generally assumed to contain an exposition of the issue, its transference to the god, and the imprecations for the culprit”.45 It was fixed at a visible spot in the temple precinct so that everyone would be able to read it. Priests would have been involved in the deposition of a πιττα' κιον in the temple, in the setting up of a scepter, in the interpretation of the demonstrations of divine power in illnesses and in the ritual procedures of propitiating the god.46 The importance of personally confessing one’s sins is highlighted in an inscription that originally did not contain the name of the person who confesses his sins; he added his name subsequently in small letters, squeezed above the first line at the top of the stone.47 Stephen Mitchell surmises that it may have been the priest who forced the man to include his name: “Public acknowledgement of faults was essential to the whole procedure.”48 Thus, the confession inscriptions regularly give the name of the offender, with his or her misdeeds specifically spelled out, sometimes in elaborate detail: ─────────────── 43 Petzl No. 5, with commentary p. 10; cf. idem, Petzl, “Sünde”, 164. 44 Steinleitner, Beicht, No. 10 = TAM V.1, 251 = Petzl No. 60; also Josef Zingerle, “Heiliges Recht”, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts, Beiblatt 23–24 (1926/ 1929): 8–72, 107–24, esp. 16–17 No. 2 = Petzl No. 69. 45 Strubbe, “‘Cursed be he that moves my bones’”, 45. Petzl No. 60 (p. 77), refers to the bronze tablet, published by Ch. Dunant, Museum Helveticum 35 (1978) 231–44 (= SEG XXVIII 1568) that had a hole which allowed it to be displayed in public. Eger, “Eid und Fluch”, 287–89 interprets πιττα' κιον as “Fluchtafel” and rejects the legal interpretation of Steinleitner, Beicht, 100–4. 46 Cf. Eger, “Eid und Fluch”, 293; also Strubbe, “‘Cursed be he that moves my bones’”, 44– 45; Georg Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften im römischen Kleinasien und der Fromme und Gerechte Gott, Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Geisteswissenschaften. Vorträge G 355 (Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998), 9. 47 MAMA IV 280 = Petzl No. 107. See note of the editors in MAMA, and Petzl, XVI, with n. 47. Sometimes the name of the dedicator is lost, due to the state of preservation of the stele; e.g., in MAMA IV 267 the name of the dedicator was mentioned in the first line above the figures of Zeus and Tyche, which is now lost. 48 Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995 [1993]), I, 194.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

457

Hermogenes and Apollonius … from Syros Mandrou, when three pigs belonging to Demainetus and Papias from Azita wandered off and got mixed up with the sheep belonging to Hermogenes and Apollonius, while a five year old boy was pasturing them, and they were herded back inside, and therefore Demainetus and Papias were looking for them, they did not confess through some ingratitude. The staff of the goddess [Anaitis] and the lord of Tiamou (Men) was therefore set up, and when they did not confess the goddess duly showed her powers, and when Hermogenes died, his wife and child and Apollonius brother of Hermogenes implored her mercy and now bear witness to her and with the children sing her praises. In the year 199 [AD 114/115].49

The public nature of the confession of sins and of the acknowledgment of the power of the god is accentuated by the erection of a stele (στηλογραφειñν). An inscription in the Uşak Museum illustrates the connection between divine punishment, confession of the wrongdoing and the acknowledgement of the power of the god whose greatness is praised: [The daughter (?)] of Apollonios ... was punished by the gods (ε’ κολα' σθη υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν θεω ñ ν) so that she would make known the manifestations of their power (ι«να α’ ναδι' ξει τα` ς δυνα' μις αυ’ τω ñ ν). She paid the expenses and propitiated the gods, and she erected the inscribed stele and made known the great manifestations of their power (και` α’ νε' δειξε μεγα' λας δυνα' μις αυ’ τω ñ ν) and from now on she praises (the gods) (και` α’ πο` νυñ ν ευ’ λογειñ).50

Several inscriptions specifically mention the fact that it was the god who demanded the erection of the stele. The last lines of the inscription quoted above where Theodoros of Nonou confesses his sins link public confession of misdeeds on a stele with sacrifices as the means of atoning for sin: ‘Behold, I [i.e., Zeus] had blinded him in consequence of his actions, but now he has made good his mistakes by propitiating the gods (ει‘ λαζομε' νου) and by erecting an inscribed stele (στηλογραφουñ ντος)’. Asked by the council: ‘I [i.e., Men Artemidorou?] am merciful, because my stele (τηñ ς στη' λλην μου) gets set up (α’ ναστανομε' νης) the very day I have fixed. You may open the jail, I release the condemned after one year and ten months have passed (?)’ (lines 19–26 ).51

The present participles ει‘ λαζομε' νου and στηλογραφουñ ντος indicate that the erection of this stele was as integral an element of the process of atonement as the sacrifices to Zeus and to Men that are mentioned earlier in the inscription. The formula “I propitiated the gods as far as the children of the children and the descendants of the descendants” (δια` τε' κνα τε' κνων, ε» γγον ε’ γο' νων)52 that is attested in an inscription from Kollyda illustrates the public and permanent character of the confession. One of the confession inscriptions from the sanc─────────────── 49 TAM V.1, 317 = Petzl No. 68; the translation follows Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 192. 50 Ender Varinlioğlu, “Vier Inschriften aus Lydien”, EA 18 (1991): 91–94, No. 1 = Petzl No. 33. 51 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, No. 5 = Petzl No. 5; for an interpretation of these lines cf. Petzl, “Sünde”, 164–65. 52 Petzl No. 6. The same formula is attested in TAM V.1, 213. For the Kollyda inscription see the comment in the ed. pr. by Varinlioğlu, “Sühneinschriften”, 48.

458

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

tuary of Apollo Lairbenos illustrates that simple village folk regarded the “stories” that the steles told as “examples” for behavior they must avoid: I went up to the place and I went through the village twice unpurified. I forgot. I went back into the village. I announce (παραγε' λω) that no one will despise the god since he will have the stele as an example (ε« ξει τη` ν σει' λην [sic] ε’ ξοπρα' ρειο[ν]). The aformentioned Eutycheis did this of his own accord and confessed and has supplicated.53

An inscription from north-west Phrygia that records the illness and punishment of Babou, daughter of Mamas, who had refused repeated divine requests to assume the priesthood, ends with a reference to an “audience” that is exhorted to learn from her story: She set up this vow with her daughter –– [Maieis], the vow for herself and all of her family. As the people came together, let this be to (everyone’s) good! (κε` συνερχομε' νου λαουñ ε’ π’ α’ γαθω ñ, ).54

The fact that the narrative of these inscriptions is typically “artless” and “untutored”55 underlines the existential nature of this procedure of procuring forgiveness from the gods. The confession inscriptions are generally no exercises in religious prose or poetry but reflect the reality of divine control of specific people in specific villages in Lydia and Phrygia. However, the language of some confession inscriptions does indeed reflect poetic usage; i.e., the authors of some of the inscriptions are not “uncultured sinners”: Alan Cameron assumed that in such cases either the education of the author was better than his character or that they betray the literary touch of the hand of a priest.56 In an important passage Ovid correlates the public confession of sins with the divine power of the god, in this case Isis: I have seen one who confessed to have outraged the deity of linen-wearing Isis sitting in front of the altar of Isis. Another, bereft of sight for a similar cause, was crying out in the midst of the street that he had deserved it (clamabat media se meruisse via). The gods rejoice in such public confessions that aim at showing through a witness what power her divinity possesses (talia caelestes fieri praeconia gaudent, ut sua quid valeant numina teste probent). Often do they mitigate penalties and restore the sight they have taken away when they behold sincere repentance for sin (cum bene peccati paenituisse vident). (Ovid, ex Ponto 1.1.51–58).57 ─────────────── 53 MAMA IV 285 = Petzl No. 112; on this inscription see Cameron, “Inscriptions”, No. 4; Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 193. See also MAMA IV 279.284 = Petzl Nos. 106.111 (ε` πι` ε«ξει τη` [ν σ]τη' λην ε’ ξονπλα' ριον).121. 54 CIG 4142; translation from Marijana Ricl, “CIG 4142 – A Forgotten Confession-Inscription from North-West Phrygia”, EA 29 (1997): 35–43, here 37. 55 Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 192–93, referring to TAM V.1, 317 and MAMA IV 285. See Petzl, 163–76 (“Grammatisch-Orthographisches”), for numerous instances of abrupt changes of subject or of person. 56 Cameron, “Inscriptions”, 157. 57 The translation is adapted from A. L. Wheeler, Ovid: Tristia. Ex Ponto, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965 [1924]) 268–29. Cf. Raffaele Pettazzoni, Essays on the His-

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

459

3. The Divine Demand for Specific Confession In many texts the offender confesses specific offenses. In many cases the phraseology is not stereotypical but records individual events.58 The broad range of offenses that are mentioned provide not only “vivid glances at the social and economic conditions of village life”,59 but imply the acknowledgement that the god has authority over all areas of human activity. The transgressions that are specified include theft of clothes from a bath house,60 theft of weapons,61 theft of money,62 in one case from a granary,63 theft of pigs and sheep,64 theft of nets for fishing or hunting,65 theft of animal hides from a temple,66 infuriating one’s mother,67 cheating orphans out of their inheritance,68 cheating a temple out of an inheritance where a deceased person had promised part of the family vineyards to the god,69 driving a stepson mad by poisoning him,70 evicting one’s sister from the household,71 bringing false charges against foster-children,72 violating foster-children,73 swearing of oaths and perjury,74 lying,75 defamation,76 failure to keep a vow,77 making an imprudent vow,78 idle talk and perjury (of a woman),79 refusal to acknowledge a debt involving perjury,80 non-payment of debts,81 sexual misconduct,82 sexual ─────────────── tory of Religions, Studies in the History of Religions 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1954) 55–56, who also refers to Juvenal 6.535–541 and Aelian, Nat. an. 11.17; cf. also Petzl, “Sünde”, 157. On atonement in the Isis cult cf. Henry Chadwick, “Gewissen”, RAC X, 1025–1107, here 1040. 58 Petzl, VIII. 59 Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 191. For the following summary see ibid., 192–94. 60 TAM V.1, 159 = Petzl No. 3. 61 TAM V.1, 180 = Petzl No. 13. 62 TAM V.1, 510 = Petzl No. 46. 63 TAM V.1, 257. 64 Zingerle, “Heiliges Recht”, 6–7 (No. 1) = TAM V.1,317 = Petzl No. 68; cf. MAMA IV 279 = Petzl No. 106. 65 SEG XXXVII 1737 = Petzl No. 22. 66 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, No. 2 = Petzl No. 64. 67 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, No. 1 = Petzl No. 47. 68 TAM V.1, 231 = Petzl No. 35. 69 SEG XXXIV 1212.1213 = Petzl No. 17.18. 70 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, No. 12 = TAM V.1, 318 = Petzl No. 69. 71 TAM V.1, 329. 72 SEG XXXIV 1218 = Petzl No. 20. 73 TAM V.1, 492 = Petzl No. 44. 74 Petzl Nos. 2.15.27.34.52.54.95.102.103.105.106.107.110.119.120.124. 75 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestese”, No. 11 = TAM V.1, 317 = Petzl No. 68. 76 TAM V.1, 251 = Petzl No. 60. 77 Petzl Nos. 45.65.101. 78 TAM V.1, 453 = Petzl No. 61. 79 TAM V.1, 261 = Petzl No. 95. 80 TAM V.1, 440 = Petzl No. 54. 81 SEG XXXIV 1211.1212.1213.1219 = Petzl Nos. 17.18.

460

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

intercourse during a forbidden time,83 masturbation (perhaps in the temple),84 neglecting religious duties by absenteeism,85 being late for an appointment in the sanctuary,86 cutting down and selling wood from sacred groves,87 stoning sacred pigeons, 88 stealing sacred pigeons, 89 illegally pasturing flocks in a sacred grove,90 failure to appear before a god,91 visiting a temple without fulfilling the necessary preconditions, i.e., in a state of defilement,92 failure of a female temple official to obey purity laws after intercourse,93 engaging in cultic ablutions outside the appointed dates,94 breaking into a sanctuary,95 visiting the temple of a god in rags,96 carousing in a temple,97 removal of a holy slave from the temple (of Meter Hipta and Sabazios),98 bringing soldiers into a temple,99 eating the meat of a goat that had not been properly sacrificed,100 adultery with women attached to a temple,101 failure to transfer ownership of a slave who had been promised to the god,102 failure to provide labor to the god for a certain amount of days,103 mocking the god,104 unwillingness to take part in the mysteries of the god,105 refusal to obey a divine command to assume a ─────────────── 82 SEG XXXV 1269 = Petzl No. 67. 83 JHS 8 (1887) 381 Nr. 12 = Petzl No. 117; cf. MAMA IV 282.284 = Petzl Nos. 109.111. 84 MAMA IV 283 = Petzl No. 110. 85 SEG XXXIV 1210 = Petzl No. 16. 86 MAMA IV 286 = Petzl No. 113. 87 TAM V.1, 179a.179b.592 = Petzl Nos. 9.10.76. 88 MAMA IV 279 = Petzl No. 106. Cf. Cameron, “Inscriptions”, 155–78. 89 TAM V.1, 264 = Petzl No. 50; MAMA IV 279 = Petzl No. 106. 90 Petzl No. 7. 91 TAM V.1, 460 = Petzl No. 57. 92 Petzl Nos. 6.19.36.43.55.98.106.110.112.115.116.120. 93 JHS 8 (1887) Nr. 12 = Petzl No. 117. 94 Zingerle, “Heiliges Recht”, 23–24 (No. 3) = SEG IV 649 = Petzl No. 72. 95 MAMA IV 279 = Petzl No. 106. 96 TAM V.1, 238 = Petzl No. 43. 97 William M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1895/ 1897) I, 153–54 (No. 53) = Steinleitner, Beicht, No. 31 = Petzl No. 121. Cf. Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 192. The inscription TAM V.1, 250 contains a similar phrase: ’Α πολω' νιος Δραλλαñ ς δυνατηñ, θεω ñ, ευ’ χαριστω ñ Λητω' ; cf. Petzl No. 122 (p. 141). 98 TAM V.1, 459 = Petzl No. 49. 99 Petzl No. 1. 100 Ramsay, Cities, I, 150, No. 43 = Petzl No. 123; similarly Petzl No. 1. 101 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions.”, No. 5 = Petzl No. 5. 102 MAMA IV 279 = Petzl No. 106. Cf. Cameron, “Inscriptions”, 163, 170–71, 175–76. 103 TAM V.1, 593 = Petzl No. 77; SEG XXXIV 1210 = Petzl No. 16. 104 Hasan Malay and Georg Petzl, “Neue Inschriften aus den Museen Manisa, Izmir und Bergama”, EA 6 (1985): 55–68, No. 4 = Petzl No. 71. When Metrodoros destroyed a small statue of the goddess “as a child by mistake” (παιδι' ον ω › ν α’ κουσι' ως), he was evidently not punished; cf. Petzl No. 78, who thinks that the interpretation of Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, 162, that Metrodoros “suffered the loss of his hand”, is unwarranted. 105 MAMA IV 281 = Petzl No. 108.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

461

priesthood,106 attempting to make a god assert something that is knowingly false,107 failure to erect a stele after being healed as a result of prayer to the god,108 refusal to believe in the power of the god (α’ πιστι' α).109 Even failure to acknowledge the god’s successful involvement in a case can lead to divine punishment, as the god is deprived of a public acknowledgment of his power. The story of Syntyche, wife of Theogenes, illustrates this point:110 Somebody had stolen a precious stone from her house that her husband had found; during the search for the stone and when she was interrogated she sought help from the god Men Artemidorou Axiottenos that he may vindicate her (ι«να αυ’ τη` ν ι‘ κανοποη' σι, line 7– 8). After 31 days the stone was found: the thief brought it back to its original place, wrapped in linen and burned. The resolution of the case was due to the epiphany of the god: ου« τως τε ε’ πιφανει`ς ο‘ θεο' ς (line 11–12). The god punished the thief, a girl named Apphia, the daughter of Glykon, by death111 or by taking her virginity.112 When the mother of Apphia asked Syntyche to keep the whole affair quiet, she concealed the power of the god (περικρυβου' σης τε αυ’ τηñ ς τη` ν δυ' ναμιν τουñ θεουñ , lines 15–16) who avenged himself (και` ο‘ θεο` ς τουñ το ε’ νεμε' σησε, lines 17–18) because – and this is repeated again – Syntyche had not publicly revealed the god nor had praised him (ο« τι ου` κ ε` ξεφα' ντευσε ου’ δε υ« ψωσε το` ν θεο` ν η‘ Συντυχη' , lines 18–19). The god punished her 13 year old son which made her realize that she had acted more in the interest of people rather in the interest of the god (ο« τι το` τω ñ ν α’ νθρω' πων μαñ λλον ε’ πο' ησεν η› τουñ θεουñ , lines 22–23). In order to win back the favour of the god Syntyche erected the stele with the inscribed report of the punishment (Συντυ' χη … η‘ προγεγραφουñ σα τη` ν νε' μεσιν, lines 23–25).

In some inscriptions the description of the transgression is rather elaborate. The inscription of Theodoros from Nonou is again a good example: ‘In the praetorium I had sexual intercourse (συνεγενο' μην) with Trophime, the servant of Haplokomas, who is the wife of Eutyches.’ He [i.e., Theodoros] takes the first sin away (α’ παι' ρι τη` ν πρω' την α‘ μαρτι' αν) with a sheep, a partridge, a mole. Second sin (δευτε' ρα α‘ μαρτι'α) ‘Although I was a sacred servant of the gods in Nonou, I had sexual intercourse (συνεγενο' μην) with the unmarried Ariagne.’ He [i.e., Theodoros] takes (the sin) away with a piglet, a tuna fish. ‘At the third sin (τηñ, τρι' τη, α‘ μαρτι' α, ) I had sexual intercourse (συνεγενο' μην) with the unmarried Arethousa.’ He [i.e., Theodoros] takes (the sin) away with a chicken (or a rooster), a sparrow, a pigeon, and with a kypros of wheat mixed with barley and with a prochos of wine. Being pure (Theodoros gives) to the sacred personnel a kypros of wheat and one prochos (of wine) (lines 7–18).113 ─────────────── 106 CIG 4142, cf. Ricl, “CIG 4142”, 39–41. 107 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, No. 12 = SEG IV 648 = Petzl No. 69. 108 Varinlioğlu, “Sühneinschriften”, No. 2 = Petzl No. 62. 109 MAMA IV 287 = Petzl No. 114. 110 Georg Petzl, Die Inschriften von Smyrna II.1, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 24.1 (Bonn: Habelt, 1987) = SEG XXXII 1001 = Petzl No. 59. The editors do not give a date for the inscription. 111 Petzl, Inschriften von Smyrna II.1, 468; Petzl No. 59 (p. 75) mentioned as a possibility. 112 Angelos Chaniotis, “Drei kleinasiatische Inschriften zur griechischen Religion”, EA 15 (1990): 127–33, esp. 128–9. 113 Petzl No. 5, the translation follows Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, 151–52.

462

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

This broad range of misdeeds that the gods punish by inflicting illness or other calamities on the sinner may perhaps be taken to express the omnipotence of the god over the entire range of human activity. If the suggestion of Cameron is correct that the phrase α› ν πυ' λας ι‘ ζο' μεν[ον] και` κειñθεν α’ να' ξιν in MAMA IV 279 refers not to the gates of the sanctuary (of Apollo Lairbenos) but to the gates of hades, with Apollo announcing his intention of recovering his slave even from the gates of hades, i.e., wherever he may be,114 we see here the same implication of omnipotence claimed by the god. Some inscriptions do not specify the misdeed that has been committed. The inscription of Athenaios from “Twin Oaks” has already been quoted: Great is Zeus from Twin Oaks! I, Athenaios, had been punished for a sin committed in ignorance (κολασθει`ς υ‘ πο` θεουñ υ‘ πε` ρ α‘ μαρτει' ας). After I received many punishments a dream demanded a stele, and I wrote down the manifestations of the power of the god.115

There does not seem to be enough evidence to explain these cases where the misdeed is not identified.116 The speculation that more influential village elders managed to keep the specific offense a secret is an intriguing speculation that cannot be confirmed, however; in some cases the transgression may have been a quantité négligeable, or the relevant events may have been too complex.

4. The Divine Demand for Acknowledgement and Praise Many confession inscriptions explicitly emphasize the power and authority of the gods as rulers and kings. A stele that probably stood in the sanctuary of Meis and his Mother begins with the following lines: Great is the Mother that has begotten Meis! Great is Meis the Heavenly One, Meis of Artemidoros, who rules Axiotta, and his power! (Μεγα' λη Μη' τηρ Μηνο` ς Τεκουñ σα, με' γας Μει`ς Ου’ ρα' νιος, Μει`ς ’Αρτεμιδω' ρου ’Αξιοττα κατε' χων και` η‘ δυ' ναμις αυ’ τουñ ).117

The villagers of Azitta worship the “Great Gods” (Μεγα' λοι οι‘ θεοι` οι‘ ε’ ν Αζιττοις), 118 i.e., in this village Meter Anaitis and Meis Tiamou and Artemis Anaitis. 119 In Silandos, it is Men Artemidorou who is “great” (με' γας); in Perkon: Zeus Oreites and Men Axiottenos and Nemesis; in Twin Oaks: Zeus; in a village in the Hermos valley: Men Labanas and Men Petraeites and Meter Tazene; in Dorou: Meter Tazene and Mis Labanas and Mis Artemidorou; in ─────────────── 114 Cameron, “Inscriptions”, 171. 115 SEG XXXIII 1013 = Petzl No. 11. 116 Cf. also Petzl Nos. 24.38.51.53.66.74. 117 Varinlioğlu, “Sühneinschriften”, No. 4 = SEG XXXIX 1278 = Petzl No. 55. 118 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, No. 12 = Petzl No. 69. 119 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, Nos. 11.12 = Petzl Nos. 68.69. On the goddess Anaitis see Diakonoff, 158–65.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

463

Axiotta: the Mother of Men and the Heavenly Meis who is Men Artemidorou.120 The gods are “great” because they rule over the villages. An inscription from the village Nea Kome is a good example for the link between the greatness of the god and the manifestations of his power in punishing wrongdoers: Great are the gods who possess Nea Kome (Μεγα' λοι θεοι` Νε' αν Κω' μην κατε' χοντες)! In the year 231 [i.e., 146/147 AD]. Menophila had been provoked to anger (?) by her son Polychronius and prayed to the gods to help her to satisfaction. And after he had been punished and had propitiated the gods, he [i.e., probably Men] ordered her to write down on a stele the powerful acts of the gods (τα` ς δυνα' μεις τω ñ ν θεω ñ ν).121

Meter Tazene, Men Labanas, and Mis of Artemidoros, are the rulers of the village Dorou (Δο' ρου κω' μην βασιλευ' οντες).122 The Great Meis Axiottenos rules as king in Tarsi (Ταρσι βασιλευ' ων)123 and in Perkos.124 Apollo Tarsios and Men Axiottenos of Artemidoros “hold” Koresa (Κορεσα κατε' χοντα).125 The Great Mother Anaitis “holds” Azitta (Αζιτα κατε' χουσα),126 and Men of Artemidorus “holds”, i.e., controls Axiotta (’Αξιοττα κατε' χων).127 Men is honored as a “tyrant” who issues commands (κατα` ε’ πιταγη` ν Μηνι` Τυρα' ννω, )128 and who is, besides Zeus Masphaltenos “lord tyrant” (κατ’ ε’ πιταγη` ν τουñ κοιρι' ου τυρα' ννου Διο` ς Μας[φ]αλατηνουñ και` Μηνι` Τιαμου).129 Meter Leto, the mother of Apollo, is described as the goddess who makes impossibilities possible (ε’ ξ α’ δυνα' των δυνατα` πυειñ).130 In a stele from the Hermos valley the ─────────────── 120 Petzl Nos. 5.6.7.10–11.37.39.40.55.79. 121 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, 148–49 (No. 1). The crescent between the first two lines presumably represents Men. Cf. also the above-mentioned inscription Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, 150 (No. 3). 122 TAM V.1, 461 = Petzl No. 40. 123 TAM V.1, 159 = Petzl No. 3. 124 SEG XXXIX 1279 = Petzl No. 6. 125 TAM V.1, 460 = Petzl No. 57; cf. the unpublished inscription mentioned in Herrmann’s commentary on TAM V.1, 525. 126 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, No. 11 = TAM V.1, 317 = Petzl No. 68. 127 Petzl Nos. 55.56.79. On Men, the lord of Axiotta, see Peter Herrmann, “Men, Herr von Axiotta”, in Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens, FS F. K. Dörner, ed. Sencer Şahin, EPRO 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 415–23. 128 TAM V.1, 255 = Petzl No. 53. 129 TAM V.1, 537. Herrmann comments: “fortasse is qui titulum composuit scribere voluit κατ’ ε’ πιταγη` ν τουñ κυρι'ου Τυρα' ννου (= Μηνο' ς) Διι` Μασφαλατηνω ñ, και` Μηνι` Τιαμου” (p.176). 130 The original editors of a stele dedicated to Theos Tarsios believe that the epithet α»λυτος emphasizes the indestructibility and thus the eternal nature of the god’s existence; cf. Marie-Louise Cremer, Johannes Nollé, “Lydische Steindenkmäler”, Chiron 18 (1988): 199– 205, here 201 (No. 1) with reference to F. Büchsel, ThWNT IV, 339–41. They translate: “Dem Tarsischen Gott, dem Unzerstörbaren”. Georg Petzl disagrees: α»λυτος characterizes Theos Tarsios as a god who will not withdraw from the legal proceedings, at least as far as the delinquent is concerned; cf. Petzl, 6 (No. 4) with reference to TAM V.1, p. 63 (Testim. B 3) where the term τα` α»λυτα σκηñ πτρα is used. Petzl translates: “Dem Theos Tarsios, für den es kein Lösemittel gibt”. Both interpretations imply the comprehensive authority of the god.

464

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

reference to the god Men Petraeites Axetenos is framed by a twofold reference to “the gods of the fathers” (οι‘ πα' τριοι θεοι' ).131 The reference to the rule of the gods highlights both their claim to ownership, implying authority over the village people, and their zeal for enforcing permanent obedience. Petzl suggests that inscriptions that refer to the god as “king” make the assumption plausible that these places were organized as a temple state.132 There is, however, no archaeological or literary confirmation of this assumption. In several inscriptions the gods explicitly identify the punishments that must be inscribed on the stele as manifestations of the divine power. The boy who stole clothes from a bath house confessed and is commanded by the god Meis Axiottenos through an “angel” to write “the manifestations of his power on a stele” (στηλλογραφηñ ναι τα` ς δυνα' μεις).133 The power of the gods is specifically the power to punish transgressors with some calamity, even death, and is acknowledged by those who implore them to show mercy. The inscription that was set up by Hermogenes and Apollonius from the village of Syros Mandrou has already been quoted: The staff of the goddess [Anaitis] and the lord of Tiamou (Men) was therefore set up, and when they did not confess the goddess duly showed her powers, and when Hermogenes died, his wife and child and Apollonius brother of Hermogenes implored her mercy and now bear witness to her and with the children sing her praises.134

The punishment by the god emphasizes not the benevolence but the strength and the power of the god. The epiphany of the god in a dream often threatens further divine action, warning the sinner of the god’s power. The sinner seems more often than not to be “a mere corpus vile on whom the god’s power will be exercised”.135 One inscription describes the written report of the confession on the stele as “bearing witness” (μαρτυ' ρειν),136 or being a “witness” (μαρτυ' ριον),137 to the power of the gods who punish unbelief (α’ πιστι' α)138 and disobedience (α’ πιθουñ ντος).139 The “staff” (σκηñ πτρον) that some inscriptions refer to as a central part of the confession procedure symbolizes the authority and power of the deity.140 ─────────────── 131 Varinlioğlu, “Vier Inschriften aus Lydien”, No. 2 = Petzl No. 38 (“altangestammte Götter”). The reference to an α»γγελος in this text is discussed by Petzl, 11–23 in the context of comments on the cult of Hosios and Dikaios. 132 Petzl, “Sünde”, 159–60; Petzl, XIV. 133 TAM V.1, 159 = Petzl No. 3; cf. also Petzl No. 38. 134 TAM V.1, 317. 135 Cameron, “Inscriptions”, 172, with regard to MAMA IV 279, where Apollo seems to claim to have power that reaches even to the gates of Hades. 136 Petzl Νοs. 8.68. 137 Petzl Νο. 17. 138 SEG XXVIII 914 = TAM V.1, 179b = Petzl No. 10. 139 Steinleitner, Beicht, No. 3 = TAM V.1, 464 = Petzl No. 34. 140 Cf. Zingerle, “Heiliges Recht.”, 13–15; Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 192; Petzl No. 3 (with

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

465

The “setting up” of the staff represents either that a curse is cast on a perpetrator or that a transgression is forestalled. In reliefs it is often Men who holds the staff,141 sometimes it is the priest142 or the delinquent143 who touch the staff. The power of the god is also seen in the fact that the transgressor has recognized his illness as divine punishment and has confessed his sin. Note, again the beginning of the Theodoros inscription: According to the enlightenment given by the gods (κατα` το` ε’ φρενωθει`ς υ‘ πο τω ñ ν θεω ñ ν) by Zeus and the great Men Artemidorou: ‘I have punished Theodoros in respect to his eyes in consequences of the sins which he committed’ (lines 2–7).144

It can be assumed that the local priests played a major role in this process (see above). They are hardly ever mentioned in the confession texts as the latter focus on the gods as agents, but they are sometimes depicted on reliefs that accompany the inscriptions. 145 The village people would have visited the priests and asked for explanations for calamities that befell them.146 And the priests would have assisted them during sacrificial acts and the confession procedure.147 The acknowledgment of the god’s power in the confession of sins and the erection of a stele leads sometimes to healing, particularly when the duration of the punishment (i.e., bodily ailment) is specified: Meidon, son of Menandros, arranged a carousal in the sanctuary of Zeus Trosu, and (his) servants ate meat that hat not (yet) been sacrificed. And he [Zeus] struck him dumb for three months and came to him in his dreams so that he may erect a stele and write down what happened to him; after this he began to speak (again) (και` η» ρξατο το' τε λαλειñν).148

The concession inscriptions record a healing only in rare cases, however.149 The blindness of the above-mentioned Theodoros may have been irreversible: none of the confession inscriptions that refer to an eye ailment, presumably often blindness, mention healing after the forgiveness of sins.150 And, naturally, when a confession inscription was erected by the relatives of a person who died as a result of divine punishment, the results of the prior divine action could not be reversed. ─────────────── commentary).10.11.12; Christof Schuler, Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien, Vestigia 50 (München: Beck, 1998), 254–55. Violaters of tombs were called before the staff of the god as well, cf. TAM V.1, 160.167a.172. 141 Petzl Nos. 3.58.61. 142 Petzl Nos. 10.11.12. 143 Petzl No. 6. 144 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, No. 5 = Petzl No. 5. 145 Cf. Petzl Nos. 10.11.12.14.16. In two inscriptions the name of a priest is given (No. 33: Metras; No. 71: Alexandros Mourkos). 146 Cf. Petzl, XV.XVI. 147 Petzl, “Sünde”, 163; Schuler, Siedlungen, 254. 148 Petzl No. 1. 149 Petzl Nos. 43.62; cf. Petzl No. 63. 150 Petzl, “Sünde”, 166.

466

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Many confession inscriptions have the sinner “praise” or “celebrate” (ευ’ λογειñν) the god who had punished them but granted forgiveness of the sin. For Men Axiottenos! Artemon and Atimetus, after their father had taken for them by force animal skins out of the temple, were punished by the god and from now on they praise (him) (α’ πο` νυñ ν ευ’ λογουñ σιν). In the year 262 [AD 177/178], on the 12th of the month Audnaios.151

When reference to adoration for the god follows immediately after registering the death penalty that the god had inflicted upon family members, the primacy of the concerns of the god becomes rather apparent. Note the following inscription from the Hermos valley: Great is Meis Labanas and Meis Petraeites ... (who) killed his son Iulius and his granddaughter Maercia. And he [i.e., Apollonios] recorded the manifestations of the power of the gods on the stele, and from now on I praise you (και` α’ πο` νυñ ν συ ευ’ λογω ñ ).152 The relief above the inscription depicts not only the surviving Apollonios but also the deceased, all three raising their right hand in prayer.

Instead of references to praise, some inscriptions refer to the thankfulness (ευ’ χαριστειñν) of the sinner who had been forgiven.153 An inscription from Divlit Tepe near Sandal (Maionia) calls the confession stele “a sign of gratitude” (ευ’ χαριστη' ριον).154 Several inscriptions contain paraenesis directed to the public, exhorting the people of the village to acknowledge the power and authority of the god:erts: He [i.e., Zeus from Twin Oaks] proclaims to all people (παρανγε' λλει παñ σιν α’ νθρω' ποις) that one must not despise (καταφρονειñν) the god.”155 I [i.e., Zeus from Twin Oaks] order that nobody ever disparages his power (παρανγε' λω δε' , αυ’ τουñ τα` ς δυνα' μις μη' τι'ς ποτε κατευτελη' σι).156

The semantic field that is created by the confession inscriptions includes the terms god, power, sin, punishment, confession, with many specific details concerning local gods, transgressions and punishments. This nexus of gods and confessions, divine power and divine punishment indicates that the gods were perceived to control the daily behavior of the people in the villages by demanding specific, public and permanent confession of their misdeeds. Varinlioğlu underlines this aspect of control in his comments on the Theodoros inscription from Silandos: “Das ganze Verfahren war doch in beträchtlichem Maß so eingerichtet, daß die Priester und das Tempelgut des Gottes dabei ─────────────── 151 Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions”, 149, No. 2. Cf. Louis Robert, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes, Ier Fascicule, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, 1964), 28–30, for further examples. 152 SEG XXXV 1158 = Petzl No. 37. 153 Petzl Nos. 10.11.12.17.19.21.22.38.58.73.74.94.122.114. 154 Steinleitner, Beicht, No. 14; = Diakonoff, “Artemidi”, No. 20 = Petzl No. 76. 155 TAM V.1, 179a = SEG XXVIII 913 = Petzl No. 9. 156 SEG XXVIII 914 = TAM V.1, 179b = Petzl No. 10.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

467

ihren Vorteil fanden. Die Priester hatten ein Interesse daran, Leib und Seele der Leute gleichermaßen in der Hand zu behalten.”157 The comment of Lucian (second century) about the two tyrants who dominate the life of human beings, fear and hope (ε’ λπι' δος και` φο' βου) prompting people to go to the temples,158 would apply particularly well to sanctuaries whose priests insisted on a public confession of sins to be written on a stele. Public confession meant public humiliation. The gods want to make sure that offenders recognize their preeminence, that the people of the village who hear the confession and see the confession stele acknowledge their power to inflict punishment, and that all join the confessors in praising their divine dominance. “The object was not so much to humble the sinner as to exalt the divinity.”159 Public humiliation meant specific acknowledgment of wrongdoing that was confessed as a result of divine punishment. The goal of public humiliation was thus the public recognition of the power of the god to punish and to forgive. Public humiliation meant permanent loyalty to the god as the village people encountered the divine power to punish and to provide for atonement inscribed on steles that stood in their sanctuaries. The steles would be read for weeks, months and years to come – they survive until today. ons.

5. The Rule of the Gods and the Spread of Christianity The confession inscriptions are an expression of the “rule of the gods”, to borrow an expression of Stephen Mitchell.160 Why was this reinforcement of the gods’ control over their devotees seen to be necessary? What is the cause for the interest of the priests to maintain control over body or soul of the people?161 Josef Zingerle links the confession inscriptions with old autochthonous cults that had survived throughout centuries and resurfaced in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD in the context of intense religious sentiments in mystery cults.162 Raffaele Pettazzoni argues that the public confession of sins, not attested in Greek or Roman religion but specifically in three religions connected with a ─────────────── 157 Varinlioğlu, “Sühneinschriften”, 39; cf. ibid. 50 for the next remark. 158 Lucian, Alex. 8: ρ‘ α, δι'ωσ κατενο' ησαν το` ν τω ñ ν α’ νθρω' πων βι'ον υ‘ πο` δυοιñν του' τοιν μεγι' στοιν τυραννου' μενον, ε’ λπι' δος και` φο' βου … δι’ ου‹ ς προειñπον τυρα' ννους, τη` ν ε’ λπι'δα και` το` ν φο' βον. 159 Ricl, “CIG 4142”, 42. 160 Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 191. 161 Paraphrasing Varinlioğlu, “Sühneinschriften”, 39. 162 Zingerle, “Heiliges Recht”, 48–9: “Zufall ist es nicht, daß alle die maionischen Sühnetexte sich in das II. und in den Beginn des III. Jahrh. n. Chr. einfügen. Es ist die Zeit inbrünstig drängenden, in den verschiedensten Geheimdiensten sich genug tuenden religiösen Empfindens, das in Kleinasien uns wieder erkennbar und faßbar an die Oberfläche treibt, was alte heimische Kulte an eigentümlichen Bräuchen die Jahrhunderte hindurch zäh bewahrt hatten”.

468

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

great female divinity – the cult of Isis,163 the cult of the Dea Syria164 and the cult of the Anatolian Great Mother165 – originated in Babylonia and was introduced to Anatolia by the Hittites. The cult of the Great Mother in Anatolia explains, according to Pettazzoni, the Lydian and Phrygian confession inscriptions as “the late survival and continuance in situ of a confessional practice of very ancient origin”.166 Initiation rites of oriental mystery cults may have involved specific questions to test the conscience with subsequent confession of sins.167 Plutarch recommends self-examination combined with prompt confession of faults and wrongdoing before a friend,168 although he also acknowledges that people who interpret every mishap as divine punishment for personal misbehavior are superstitious.169 Hendrik Versnel acknowledges that “(public) confession of sins was not in vogue in Greek culture”; early hints “of something of this kind” are 4th century iamata, cure inscriptions in Epidauros that detail the healing miracles of Asclepios, and some curse tablets of the same period that add the wish that the ─────────────── 163 Cf. Ovid, ex Ponto 1.1.51–58; Juvenal 6.535–541; Aelian, Nat. an. 11.17. 164 Cf. Plutarch, Superst. 168D; Menander, Frag. 544; Porphyry, Abst. 4.15; Apuleius, Metam. 8.27–28. 165 Besides the Lydian and Phrygian confession inscriptions in Steinleitner, Beicht; MAMA IV 265–312; SEG VI 248–60, Pettazzoni refers to Ovid, Metam. 11.129–43; Fast. 4.305–27. 166 Pettazzoni, Essays, 57; cf. Raffaele Pettazzoni, La confessione dei peccati (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1937) II.3, 90–116. Similarly Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, 161; Peter Frisch, “Über die lydisch-phrygischen Sühneinschriften und die ‘Confessiones’ des Augustinus”, EA 2 (1983): 41–45. Steinleitner, Beicht, 76–82, only deals with the religious mentality that surfaces in the confession inscriptions, pointing out parallels with oriental cults. It is only in passing that he refers to the gradual trickling-in of the Christian faith (9). 167 Chadwick, “Gewissen”, RAC X, 1051, with reference to Petronius, Sat. 129–133; P. Oxy XLII 3010; Reinhold Merkelbach, “Fragment eines satirischen Romans. Aufforderung zur Beichte”, ZPE 11 (1973): 81–100. The relevant passage in Petronius has Polyaenos say to Circe: “Fateor me, domina, saepe peccasse; nam et homo sum et adhuc iuvenis. Numquam tamen ante hunc diem usque ad mortem deliqui. Habes confitentem reum: quicquid iusseris, merui. Proditionem feci, hominem occidi, templum violavi: in haec facinora quaere supplicium. Sive occidere placet, ferro meo venio; sive verberibus contenta es, curro nudus ad dominam” (Dear lady, I admit my many failings; for I am human, and still young. But never before this day have I committed deadly sin. The culprit confesses to you; I have deserved whatever you may order. I have been a traitor, I have destroyed a man, and profaned a temple: demand my punishment for these crimes. If you decide on execution, I will come with my sword; if you let me off with a flogging, I will run naked to my lady; Trans. M. Heseltine, E. H. Warmington, LCL). 168 Plutarch, Virt. prof. 82A (Mor. 82A): “And for a man who is in error (το` δ’ ε‘ αυτο` ν α‘ μαρτα' νοντα) to submit himself to those who take him to task, to tell what is the matter with him, to disclose his depravity (τη` ν μοχθηρι'αν α’ ποκαλυ' πτειν) and not to rejoice in hiding his fault or to take satisfaction in its not being known (μηδ’ α’ γαπαñ ν α’ γνοου' μενον) but to confess it (α’ λλ’ ο‘ μολογειñν) and to feel the need for somebody to take him in hand and admonish him (δειñσθαι τουñ α‘ πτομε' νου και` νουθετουñ ντος) is no slight indication of progress (προκοπηñ ς σημειñον)” (Trans. F. C. Babbitt, LCL). 169 Plutarch, De superstitione 7 (Mor. 168A).

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

469

thief or slanderer or employer of black magic should publicly confess his misdeed; he assumes that the influence of either indigenous Anatolian traditions or of oriental cults “is probable”.170 Irina Diakonoff explains the confession stele of Eastern Lydia as the result of “the increasing density of the population in the region” that generated a greater demand for steles; she has to admit, however, that among the dedications in the pre-Christian period no confession steles have surfaced171 – a fact that still holds over twenty years later. However, the reconstruction of the history of these ideas must remain hypothetical since the evidence is rather fragmentary. Peter Frisch overstates the evidence when he claims that Hebrew and Babylonian psalms as well as Egyptian and Sabaean confession steles prove that public and written confessions of sin were a widespread custom throughout the orient that survived in rural areas in Lydia and Phrygia.172 At least the Hebrew and Babylonian psalms belong to a liturgical context that can hardly be compared with the personal, detailed confessions of village people on steles erected publicly for the glory of the local god. The late and abrupt appearance of the Lydian and Phrygian confession steles is surprising and remains a mystery. Marijana Ricl acknowledges that the complex of the confession inscriptions “has an undeniable Eastern, un-Greek character: Greek religion had no institutional framework for confessional rituals.”173 Following Pettazzoni, she regards “confessional practice in late-Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia as descended from the analogous beliefs and practices of Hittite Anatolia”, speaking of an “unbroken religious continuity from the second into the first millennium BC”.174 Ricl claims that despite the gap of nearly a thousand years before we find Greek confession texts, “this fact does not compromise the theory of continuity… it is conceivable that for a long period these rituals were performed orally, in the epichoric languages of Karia, Lydia and Phrygia, before they were finally consigned to stone when the epigraphic habit took root even in remote Anatolian villages.” However, the sudden and localized appearance of the confession steles at least allows the possibility of explanations that focus less on continuity of traditions than on new influences that prompted new habits. Stephen Mitchell has recently suggested, at least with regard to the confession texts from Lydia, that the practice of singing the god’s praises, closely ─────────────── 170 Versnel, “Sin”, 1411. 171 Diakonoff, “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen”, 161 with n. 110. 172 Frisch, “Sühneinschriften”, 45. 173 Ricl, “CIG 4142”, 37 n.16, with reference to Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), 246. 174 Ricl, “CIG 4142”, 36 n. 16; for the following see ibid.

470

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

paralleled only in Jewish practice, may perhaps be due to the influence of the Jewish colonists, who arrived at Sardis at the end of the third century BC, on the native cults of Lydia, “especially in those contexts where the indigenous deities, for instance the Anatolian god Mên, exercised an ‘Old Testament’ function as dispenser of divine justice.”175 Whether the “epigraphic habit”176 of most regions of Asia Minor, introduced not until the second century AD, can explain the sudden appearance of confession steles, seems doubtful when we take into account the localized finds in parts of Lydia and Phrygia. Georg Petzl implies that no satisfactory explanation for the sudden appearance of the confession inscriptions has yet been offered: “Gerne besäße man eine Erklärung dafür, daß eine religiöse Übung, deren zentraler Bestandteil das στηλογραφειñν war … und die auf ein hohes Alter zurückblicken soll, erst so spät ihren epigraphischen Niederschlag fand.”177 I submit that the spreading of the Christian faith in Lydia and Phrygia may have been a major factor. At least five arguments seem to be relevant. (1) The confession inscriptions date essentially to the second and third century AD , a time when Christianity spread throughout the inland regions of Lydia and Phrygia, with mostly literary evidence for the former178 and epigraphic evidence for the latter region.179 The earliest fully published confession inscription dates to 81/82 AD and contains only scant details180 which, however, can hardly be taken as sufficient reason to interpret it as representing the origins of a tradition that became widespread in the second and third century. And it is not impossible, in theory, to speculate about a connection with the expanding Christian faith that had been introduced to the province of Asia at least by 52 AD when Paul of Tarsus preached in Ephesus. ─────────────── 175 Stephen Mitchell, “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians”, in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, ed. P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 81–148, esp. 112, 114, taking up a suggestion by Robert, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes, 28–30; Louis Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’ épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques (Limoges: Bontemps, 1940–66), XI–XII, 392–96. 176 R. MacMullen, “The Epigraphic Habit”, AJP 103 (1982): 233–46, quoted by Mitchell, “Cult of Theos Hypsistos.”, 108f. 177 Petzl, XVII–XVIII. Cf. Herrmann, “Men, Herr von Axiotta”, 423 who asserts “daß in dem eigenartigen Mikrokosmos des religiösen Lebens, den uns die Inschriften des nordostlydischen Berglandes erkennen lassen, immer noch viele Rätsel bestehen bleiben”. 178 For Sardis, Thyatira and Philadelphia cf. Revelation 2–3. 179 Cf. the evidence cited in Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 38–41, for Cadi, Hierapolis, Synaus, Ancyra Sidera, Temenothyrae, Dorylaeum, Cotiaeum, Dionysopolis, Bagis, Appia, Eumeneia, Apamea, Sebaste, Laodikeia Katakekaumene. 180 TAM V.1, 501 = Petzl No. 41: after the date we learn the name of the person who erected the stele (Ναι¨' ς ... α’ νε{σ}θηκεν), the god who punished her (υ‘ πο` Μητρο` ς Τασζηνηñ ς κολασθειñσα) and that both she and her children were saved (υ‘ πε`ρ τηñ ς … σωτηρι'ας). Neither the wrongdoing nor the punishment are specified.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

471

An inscription dated to 57/58 AD was copied in 1978 by Thomas Drew-Bear but has not been published or described; P. Herrmann mentions the inscription in his commentary on TAM V.1, 525, and G. Petzl quotes one line: Μηνι` ’Αρτεμιδω' ρου ’Αξιοττα κατε' χοντι.181

(2) The confession inscriptions were found in relatively close geographical proximity to the villages and cities in which epigraphic evidence for a Christian presence in the second and third century has been discovered. The territories of Silandos, Saittai, Kollyda and Maeonia where the Lydian confession inscriptions were found are only 40 to 70 km from Sardis, Thyatira, Philadelphia or Temenothyrae. The temple of Apollo Lairbenos, the source of a major series of confession texts,182 is located 40 km north of Phrygian Hierapolis which acquired control over the sanctuary in the second century AD. Sardis, Thyatira, Philadelphia and Hierapolis all had thriving Christian communities in the late first century AD, as the Revelation of John (Rev 2–3) shows. And Temenothyrae was a major local center of Christianity around 200 AD: the largest concentration of Christian Montanist texts has been found here.183 About 80 km northeast of Temenothyrae, in the upper Tembris valley, is Appia where more than twenty inscriptions by “Christians for Christians” were erected between 248–350 AD.184 (3) The practice of ευ’ λογι' α, singing the praises of the god, is a notable characteristic of many confession texts. Louis Robert pointed out that this feature is closely paralleled in Jewish practice.185 Singing God’s praises is, of course, also a fundamental feature of Christian worship and literature. Versnel has interpreted this feature as “a clear profession of faith”,186 which may imply again a link with the Christian missionary movement where public profession of one’s faith plays a major role. We note that in some confessions texts the term faith is used with respect to the god for whom the stele has been erected.187 (4) While atonement language (α’ παι' ρειν, ι‘ λα' σκεσθαι) is not specifically Christian,188 the focus of the Christian message was the atonement of universal guilt and the forgiveness of personal sins through faith in Jesus Christ and ─────────────── 181 Petzl No. 56 182 Cf. Miller, “Apollo Lairbenos”. 183 Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 39. 184 Mitchell, Anatolia, II, 40 with n. 240. 185 Robert, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes, 28–30; Robert, Hellenica, 392–36; cf. also Mitchell, “Cult of Theos Hypsistos”, 112. 186 Versnel, “Beyond Cursing”, 75. 187 SEG XXXIII 1012 = Petzl No. 12 (μη` πιστευ' ουσα τω ñ, θεω ñ, ); TAM V.1, 443 = Petzl No. 26 (text fragmentary); the meaning of τηρειñν τη` ν πι’ στιν (“to keep a pledge”) in TAM V.1, 440 = Petzl No. 54 (lines 9–10), is not religious. 188 Cf. Gabriele Thome, “Crime and Punishment, Guilt and Expiation: Roman Thought and Vocabulary”, Acta Classica 35 (1992): 73–98, esp. 86, who focuses on Latin terminology and concepts and does not comment on the role of confession in the act or process of expiation.

472

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

his sacrificial death and resurrection. Reference to the propitiation of the god in the confession inscriptions, often with the verb λυ' ω, reminds Versnel of the term λυ' τρον in the sense of “a means of escaping the consequences of sin” which often occurs in the New Testament that, in the opinion of Versnel, “the otherwise purely pagan confession inscriptions recall in many respects”.189 Jewish and early Christian traditions do not link the process of forgiveness with a deliberate public humiliation mandated by God as a means of control over the community. The purpose of the usually private confession of sins seems to be the restoration of community rather than the confirmation of God’s power. The Hebrew Bible emphasizes the eagerness of God to forgive the sins of the sinner.190 God’s forgiveness is an expression of his love. The classical text is the creedal confession in Exod 34:6–7: The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (NRSV). See Num 14:18–19; Ps 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 2:4; Neh 9:17.

The Hebrew Bible emphasizes that past sins that have been forgiven are better forgotten. The scapegoat of Lev 16:22 removes the sins of the people and carries them into the desert. In Isa 53:12 the same role is assigned to the servant of the Lord. Israel’s liturgy praises God for having taken away the transgression of the repentant sinner (Ps 32:1, 5; 85:3). The prophets promise that when Israel returns to her God, the Lord will take away the iniquity of the people (Isa 33:24; Mic 7:18) and “remove all sin” (Hos 14:3). The prophet Jeremiah announces God’s promise that he will “forgive their iniquities and their sins will no longer remember” (Jer 31:34). The same connection between God’s mercy and his not remembering wrongdoing is found in Ps 25:7 and 79:8. In Isa 43:25 the divine assurance “your sins I will not remember” is balanced by another expression for removal of sin: “your transgressions I will erase”. Other metaphors for the effectiveness and the scope of God’s mercy is the expression that God in his mercy forgives transgressions by putting them far away (Ps 103:12–13) that God “casts” sins behind his back (Isa 38:17) or into the depths of the sea (Mic 7:19) that God “covers” sin (Ps 32:1, 85:3; Neh 3:37) and that he treads iniquities under his foot (Mic 7:19). The Hebrew Bible does not seem to stress the need for public, personal confession of sins. Milgrom comments: “The Biblical postulate seems to have been that confession is made to the injured party – to God, to man, or to both”.191 ─────────────── 189 Versnel, “Beyond Cursing”, 79. 190 Cf. John S. Kselman, “Forgiveness: Old Testament”, ABD, II, 832–33. 191 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001), I, 303.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

473

Early Jewish and rabbinic texts emphasize that God who is compassionate readily forgives sins. Aseneth, the former pagan, knows that the Lord will “forgive me every sin” (Jos. As. 11:18; 13:11–13; cf. 2 Bar. 84:10). Religious Jews throughout Palestine before AD 70 memorized and recited daily the Amidah, where the sixth benediction asserts: Forgive us, our Father, for we have sinned. Pardon us, our King, for we have transgressed, for you are a forgiving God. Blessed are you, o gracious God, whose forgiveness is abundant (‫ ברוך אתה יי‬.‫ כי מולח וסולח אתה‬,‫ מחל־לנו מלכנו כי פ ׁשענו‬,‫סחל־לנו אבינו כי חטאנו‬ .‫)חנון המרהב ללסוה‬.192

Different Jewish texts give different answer to the question whether the confession was recited to God or to a person: some texts assert that the confession was made privately and inaudibly (b. Sot.a 32b; y. Yebam. 8:3) other texts know of confessions before the priest (CD IX, 13) yet other texts say that confession is made to the injured party (Philo, Spec. 1.235; t. Ta‘an. 1:8).193 Early Jewish and rabbinic texts follow the tradition of the Psalms and prophets in asserting that transgressions are best forgotten, once they have been forgiven. The confession text 4Q393 from Qumran has the community pray: Our God, hide your face from our sins (‫ )הסתר פניך מחטאינו‬and wipe out all our iniquities (‫)וכול עונותינו מחה‬. And create a new spirit in us … and bring back sinners to you. And do not thrust the broken spirit from before you, God, on account of your nation, in order that you justify them” (Frag. 1–2 col. II, lines 4–8).194

Jesus of Nazareth emphasizes the eagerness of God the Father to restore the one who humbly returns to him. In the parable of the “prodigal son” (Luke 15:11–32) “the confession for which the son had rehearsed (v. 21) is now buried between dual demonstrations of acceptance and restoration – the compassion and embrace of the father (v. 20) and the flurry of orders in preparation for the feast of homecoming (vv. 22–24).”195 The confession of the son is qualified in two ways: First, reconciliation happens as a result of the son’s return, not as a result of his confession, even though the acknowledgment of his sin is important and therefore included in the story. Second, the rehearsed confession of the son has been cut short: at the moment of the encounter the father has already launched “a full restoration to status in the family”. In the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt 18:23–35) Jesus highlights the consequences of the experience of God’s gracious forgiveness: it leads the wrongdoer to forgive freely and unconditionally those who sin against him. ─────────────── 192 J. H. Charlesworth, “Forgiveness: Early Judaism”, ABD II, 834. 193 Milgrom, Leviticus, I, 303. 194 Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997–98), II, 788–91. 195 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 582; cf. ibid. for the following remarks.

474

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Several texts in the New Testament speak of people confessing sins (usually with ε’ ξομολογειñν). People confess their sin as or after they are baptized by John (Mark 1:5; Matt 3:6). New believers in Ephesus confess their past wrongdoing (Acts 19:18). In Christian communities believers confess sins to one another (Jas 5:16). The one text that formulates with ο‘ μολογειñν is 1 John 1:9 which speaks of Christians “confessing sins” (ε’ α` ν ο‘ μολογω ñ μεν τα` ς α‘ μαρτι' ας η‘ μω ñ ν). Some interpreters argue that as God is the sole agent of forgiveness in the text, confession is to God alone;196 others argue that a public confession is in view.197 It seems that the nature of the transgression would determine who the addressee of the confession is. Significant is the fact that it is the apodosis of the ε’ α' ν-clause that bears the weight of the author’s emphasis: “he who is reliable and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all wrongdoing” (πιστο' ς ε’ στιν και` δι' καιος «ινα α’ φηñ, η‘ μιñν τα` ς α‘ μαρτι' ας και` καθαρι' ση, η‘ μαñ ς α’ πο` πα' σης α’ δικι' ας). Brown notes: “The true gospel is not that by initiation into Christianity believers are impervious to sin, but that they have been initiated into a dispensation that has effective power against sin.”198 Christians admit their sins freely, they do not need to wait for the power of divine punishment through calamities (even though his may happen, see 1 Cor 11:29–30). Sins do not destroy the existence of a Christian: not because misdeeds are insignificant, but because God who is light (1 John 1:5, 7) is also reliable and just and thus seeks and guarantees, as covenant God, the salvation of his people. (5) As the Christian faith spread from city to city and, increasingly in the second century, from village to village, with the aim of converting men and women from the worship of local gods to the worship of one true God, it posed a threat to traditional religious loyalties. We know that political authorities on a provincial level sought to curb the expansion of the Christian movement as early as the beginning of the second century.199 It would be naive to assume that there were no reactions by religious authorities on a local level. When the confession of sin is addressed to Zeus or Apollo, local epithets are added, often, e.g., in connection with confessions before Men and Meter. This fact reflects the local focus of the practice of public confession. The rule of the local gods was certainly threatened, as far as local priests and their sanctuaries were concerned, by the message and by the practices of the Christian movement. What better way to counteract this threat than the proof, written on stone and displayed to the public in the local shrines, besides tombs the only “buildings in the countryside with any architectural pretensions”,200 that ─────────────── 196 Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, HThK XIII (Freiburg: Herder, 1984), 86. 197 Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 208. 198 Brown, Epistles of John, 238; see ibid. for the following remarks. 199 Cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96.8–10. 200 Mitchell, Anatolia, I, 189.

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

475

the local gods also forgave sins as they punished evildoers, as they smote people who showed no devotion with illnesses, as they brought calamity on people who did not adhere to the established rules of ritual purity. Public confession of sins, made permanent on an inscribed stele, reinforces loyalty to the local gods who thus buttress their control over the local population. It is impossible to prove that it was the presence of Christian missionaries and churches in Lydian and Phrygian villages that prompted the priests of the local temples to “invent” the practice of public confession linked with the erection of a stele ad maiorem dei gloriam. It seems possible, however, that the increasing success of Christian preachers prompted an increased exploitation of traditional mentalities and practices with the goal of solidifying the control of the “gods of the fathers” over the village people. If this hypothesis is correct, the confession steles in the courtyards of Maionian and Phrygian sanctuaries with their catalogues of human failure and divine miracles are not simply “educational”, as M. Ricl surmises,201 but apologetic and/or polemic: the priests of the local sanctuaries may have used this practice to further the exaltation of the local gods, thus preventing the people from seeking the forgiveness of sins elsewhere. The fact that the Christian movement was both exclusive and missionary threatened the “rule” of the local gods. The apparent effortlessness of Christian atonement of guilt and forgiveness of sins, where no sacrifices and evidently no public confession of sins were required, must have been seen as a challenge by the local religious functionaries. They may very well have tried to respond to the Christian praxis of forgiveness by heightening the people’s awe concerning the power of the gods, requiring public confessions of specific sins that highlight the frightful power of the gods over all aspects of life, and by requiring the erection of steles in the hope of establishing the permanent loyalty of the people for the god who ruled over the village. It is impossible to prove that the message and praxis of Christians in West Anatolia caused devotees of the old local gods to demand the setting up of confession inscriptions. It seems quite possible, however, that the vigorous Christian expansion provoked an increased use of such practices whose message would serve to solidify the presence of the traditional divine “rulers” in the village.

─────────────── 201 Ricl, “CIG 4142”, 42.

476

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Bibliography Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. AB 30. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982. Buckler, William H., William Moir Calder, and William K. C. Guthrie. Monuments and Documents from Eastern Asia and Western Galatia. MAMA IV. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1933. Cameron, A. “Inscriptions Relating to Sacral Manumission and Confession”. HTR 32 (1939): 143–79. Chadwick, Henry. “Gewissen”. RAC 10 (1978): 1025–1107. Chaniotis, Angelos. “Drei kleinasiatische Inschriften zur griechischen Religion”. EA 15 (1990): 127–33. Charlesworth, J. H. “Forgiveness: Early Judaism”. ABD II (1992): 833–35. Cremer, Marie-Louise, and Johannes Nollé. “Lydische Steindenkmäler”. Chiron 18 (1988): 199–205. Diakonoff, Irina. “Artemidi Anaeiti anestesen. The Anaeitis-Dedications in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden and Related Material from Eastern Lydia. A Reconsideration”. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 54 (1979): 139–88. Eger, Otto. “Eid und Fluch in den maionischen und phrygischen Sühne-Inschriften”. Pages 281–93 in Festschrift Paul Koschaker. Vol. III. Weimar: Böhlau, 1939. Frisch, Peter. “Über die lydisch-phrygischen Sühneinschriften und die ‘Confessiones’ des Augustinus”. EA 2 (1983): 41–45. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1997–98. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Herrmann, Peter. “Men, Herr von Axiotta”. Pages 415–23 in Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. FS F. K. Dörner. Edited by Sencer Şahin u.a. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain 66. Leiden: Brill, 1978. —. Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti. Regio septentrionalis ad orientem vergens. TAM V.1. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981. Herrmann, Peter, and Ender Varinlioğlu. “Theoi Pereudenoi. Eine Gruppe von Weihungen und Sühninschriften aus der Katakekaumene”. EA 3 (1984): 1–17. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Die kleinasiatischen Beichtinschriften und das Neue Testament”. Pages 64–87 in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. FS M. Hengel. Edited by H. Lichtenberger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. —. Stadt- und Hausreligion, Mysterienkulte, Volksglaube. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Kselman, John S. “Forgiveness: Old Testament”. ABD II (1992): 831–33. MacMullen, R. “The Epigraphic Habit”. AJP 103 (1982): 233–46. Malay, Hasan. Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Manisa Museum. ETAM 19. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994. —. “New Confession-Inscriptions in the Manisa and Bergama Museums”. EA 12 (1988): 147– 152. —. “The Sanctuary of Meter Phileis Near Philadelphia”. EA 6 (1985): 111–25 Malay, Hasan and Georg Petzl. “Neue Inschriften aus den Museen Manisa, Izmir und Bergama mit einigen weiteren Texten”. EA 6 (1985): 55–68. Merkelbach, Reinhold. “Fragment eines satirischen Romans. Aufforderung zur Beichte”. ZPE 11 (1973): 81–100. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001. Miller, Kevin M. “Apollo Lairbenos”. Numen 32 (1985): 46–70. Mitchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995 [1993].

15. Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation

477

—. “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians”. Pages 81–148 in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Edited by P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Pettazzoni, Raffaele. La confessione dei peccati. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1937. —. Essays on the History of Religions. Studies in the History of Religions 1. Leiden: Brill, 1954. Petzl, Georg. Die Beichtinschriften im römischen Kleinasien und der Fromme und Gerechte Gott. Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Geisteswissenschaften. Vorträge G 355. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998. —. Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. EA 22. Bonn: Habelt, 1994 [= Petzl] —. Die Inschriften von Smyrna II.1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 24.1. Bonn: Habelt, 1987. —. “Sünde, Strafe, Wiedergutmachung”. EA 12 (1988): 155–66. Petzl, Georg, and Hasan Malay. “A New Confession Inscription from the Katakekaumene”. GRBS 28 (1987): 459–72. Ramsay, William M. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895/1897. Ricl, Marijana. “CIG 4142 – A Forgotten Confession-Inscription from North-West Phrygia”. EA 29 (1997): 35–43. —. La conscience du peché dans les cultes anatoliens à l’époque romaine. La confession des fautes rituelles et éthiques dans les cultes méoniens et phrygiens. In Serbian, with a French summary. Belgrade: University of Belgrade, 1995. Robert, Louis. Hellenica. Recueil d’ épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. 13 vols. Limoges: Bontemps, 1940–66. —. Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes. Ier Fascicule. Archaeological Exploration of Sardis. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, 1964. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Die Johannesbriefe. HThK XIII/3. Freiburg: Herder, 1984 [1953]. Schuler, Christof. Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien. Vestigia 50. München: Beck, 1998. Speyer, Wolfgang. “Gottesfeind”. RAC 11 (1981): 996–1043. Steinleitner, Franz S. Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike. Ein Beitrag zur näheren Kenntnis kleinasiatisch-orientalischer Kulte der Kaiserzeit. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913. Strubbe, Johan H. M. “‘Cursed be he that moves my bones’”. Pages 32–59 in Magikas Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Edited by Ch. A. Faraone & D. Obbink. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Thome, Gabriele. “Crime and Punishment, Guilt and Expiation: Roman Thought and Vocabulary”. Acta Classica 35 (1992): 73–98. Varinlioğlu, Ender. “Eine Gruppe von Sühneinschriften aus dem Museum von Uşak”. EA 13 (1989): 37–50. —. “Vier Inschriften aus Lydien”. EA 18 (1991): 91–94. Versnel, Hendrik S. “Beyond Cursing: The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers”. Pages 60– 106 in Magikas Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion. Edited by C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Wheeler, A. L. Ovid: Tristia. Ex Ponto. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965 1[1924]. Zingerle, Josef. “Heiliges Recht”. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts. Beiblatt 23/24 (1926/1929): 8–72/107–24.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion In his 2007 Tyndale Biblical Theology lecture, Brian Rosner has shown that the notion of being known by God is an important, albeit neglected, theme in the Old and New Testament. He explored the three relation notions of belonging to God, being loved or chosen by God, and being a child or son of God. After a concise survey of relevant biblical data in the Old and New Testament, he described the value of “being known by God” in terms of warning, humility, comfort and security. The following paper explores Greek and Roman religious texts with a view to establishing whether the notion of “being known by God” surfaces in the context in which the early Christian movement engaged in missionary work, seeking to win polytheists for faith in the one true God and in Jesus Messiah. New Testament scholars do not seem to have explored the subject of the Greek and Roman gods “knowing” human beings. Similar to Rosner’s biblical theological essay which surveyed texts without in-depth discussion of exegetical details and historical context, the following essay is wide-ranging, considering primary texts written over a large span of time, from Homer’s epics (which continued to be read in the first century), the Homeric Hymns, Xenophanes’ fragments, Callimachus’ Hymn to Demeter, Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, Hesiod’s Theogony, Cicero’s De natura deorum, and Plutarch’s religious texts, to the Greek Hymns in the Furley/Bremer collection and the Lydian confession inscriptions.

1. The Difficulty of Knowing the Gods That the gods are difficult to know is repeatedly stated in Homer’s epics.1 Odysseus did not know the identity of the (river-) god to whom he prayed for help: he addresses the god with the words, “Listen, sire, whoever you are” (κλυñ θι, α» ναξ, ο« τις ε’ σσι; Od. 5.445). Similarly, his son Telemachos did not know who was the god that arrived in the guise of a human being and departed as a bird (the reader knows that it is Athena): he addresses the god with the ─────────────── 1 Homer, Il. 20.131; Od. 13.312; 16.161; Hom. Hymn. Dem. 111; cf. Hendrik S. Versnel, Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Religions in the GraecoRoman World 173 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 38–39.

480

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

words, “Listen to me, you God that came to me yesterday” (κλυñ θι' μευ, ο‹ χθιζο` ς θεο` ς η» λυθες η‘ με' τερον; Od. 2.262). Xenophanes of Colophon (sixth century BC) writes: “No man knows, or ever will know, the truth about the gods (το` με` ν ουò ν σαφε` ς ου» τις α’ νη` ρ »ιδεν, ου’ δε' τις ε» σται ει’ δω` ς α’ μφι` θεω ñ ν) and about everything I speak of: for even if one chanced to say the complete truth, yet oneself does not know it; but opinion is allotted to all (men)” (Frag. 34).2

In a hymn to the ancestral gods and to Zeus, Aeschylus (525–456 BC) has the girls feel doubt and distance vis-à-vis Zeus (Supplices 86–103):3 May Zeus’ will – if it is truly his! – bring this to a good end. It is not easily tracked down for the paths of his thoughts tend to be overgrown, thick-shadowed, invisible to our eyes.

ευò θει»η Διο` ς, ει’ παναλαθω ñς Διο` ς «ιμερος. ου’ κ ευ’ θη' ρατος ε’ τυ' χθη. δαυλοι` γα` ρ πραπι'δων δα' σκιοι' τε τει' νουσιν πο' ροι, κατιδειñν α»φραστοι

Whatever Zeus, by a nod of his head, has decided to fulfill, lands safely, not falling on its back it shines in all directions even amidst darkness, accompanied by a black destiny for the tribes of men.

πι'πτει δ• α’ σφαλε`ς ου’ δ• ε’ πι` νω' τωι κορυφαñ ι Διο` ς ει’ κρανθηñ ι πραñ γμα τε' λειον πα' νται τοι φλεγε' θει κα’ ν σκο' τωι μελαι'ναι ξυ` ν τυ' χαι μερο' πεσσι λαοιñς.

From the high castles of their illusions he hurls mortals into destruction,

ι’ α' πτει δ• ε’ λπι'δων α’ φ• υ‘ ψιπυ' ργων πανω' λεις βροτου' ς, βι'αν δ• ου» τιν• ε’ ξοπλι'ζει: παñ ν α»πονον δαιμονι'ων: η« μενος ο‹ ν φρο' νημα' πως

without mobilizing any violence. Divine action is effortless: sitting, he consummates his thought nevertheless, from where he is, mysteriously even from his holy throne”

αυ’’ το' θεν ε’ ξε' πραξεν ε» μπας ε‘ δρα' νων α’ φ• α‘ γνω ñν

Furley and Bremer comment on the surprising expression of distance and doubt expressed by the girls: ─────────────── 2 Geoffrey S. Kirk, John E. Raven, and Malcolm Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, Second ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 179. 3 Martin L. West, Aeschyli Supplices, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1992); cf. William D. Furley and Jan Maarten Bremer, Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. Vol. I, The Texts in Translation. Vol. II, Greek Texts and Commentary, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 9–10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), I, 280–285; II, 241–245; cf. Pär Sandin, Aeschylus’ Supplices. Introduction and Commentary on vv. 1–523 (Göteborg: Göteborg University, 2003), 22.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

481

“they are not certain which way his decision will fall ... Nor are they certain how precisely his power will make itself felt: they know that he will remain aloof and distant, seated on his holy throne; but even so they are confident that he will put into effect what he has in mind, mysteriously.”4

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) begins the first volume of De natura deorum with the assertion that the subject of the nature of the gods is difficult: “There are a number of branches of philosophy that have not as yet been by any means adequately explored; but the inquiry into the nature of the gods, which is both highly interesting in relation to the theory of the soul, and fundamentally important for the regulation of religion, is one of special difficulty and obscurity (perobscura quaestio est de natura deorum), as you, Brutus, are well aware. The multiplicity and variety of the opinions (variae sunt ... tamque discrepantes sententiae) held upon this subject by eminent scholars are bound to constitute a strong argument for the view that philosophy has its origin and starting-point in ignorance, and that the Academic School were well-advised in ‘withholding assent’ from beliefs that are uncertain” (Nat. d. 1.1).5

The experience of Asklepios, the god of healing, illustrates the power and the knowledge that Greeks attributed to some of the gods.6 Some miracles that are claimed to have happened were truly astounding. In one of the iamata from Epidauros (IG IV2 I 121–122; dated ca. 350–300 BC) we read: “Aristagora of Troezen. She had a worm in her belly, and she slept in the Temple of Asclepius at Troezen and saw a dream. It seemed to her that the sons of the god, while he was not present but away in Epidauros, cut off her head, but, being unable to put it back again, they sent a messenger to Asclepius asking him to come. Meanwhile day breaks and the priest clearly sees her head cut off the body. When night approached, Aristagora saw a vision. It seemed to her that the god had come from Epidauros and had fastened her head on to her neck. Then he cut open her belly, took the tapeworm out, and stitched her up again. And after that she became well” (No. 23).7

In other accounts of superhuman and supernatural miracles, the god is portrayed as omnipotent, the miracles as examples of unrestricted power: “Ambrosia of Athens, blind of one eye. She came as a suppliant to the god. As she walked about in the Temple she laughed at some of the cures as incredible and impossible, that the lame and the blind should be healed by merely seeing a dream. In her sleep she had a vision. It seemed to her that the god stood by her and said that he would cure her, but that in payment he would ask her to dedicate to the Temple a silver pig as a

─────────────── 4 Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, 283. 5 Harris Rackham, Cicero. De natura deorum. Academica, Cicero XIX (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994 [1933]). 6 For the following remarks cf. Versnel, Gods, 400–419; Versnel makes a strong case that the cultic forms of Asklepios worship are not a completely new trend in fourth century Greek religion but “implicitly inherent in the notion ‘god’” (ibid., 421). 7 Emma Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1945]), I, 225, 234. Versnel, Gods, 404: “Doctors are always engaged elsewhere when your head needs readjustment”.

482

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts memorial of her ignorance. After saying this, he cut the diseased eyeball and poured in some drug. When day came she walked out sound” (No. 4).8

In such miracles, as Versnel notes, “the god can do anything he wants and he knows everything: he is omnipotent and omniscient”. 9 In his Oration for Asklepios, Aelius Aristides (AD 117–181) claims that “the god possesses all powers” (πα' σας ε» χων ο‘ θεο` ς τα` ς δυνα' μεις; Orat. 42.4). In one of the confession inscriptions from Maeonia, the person who is cured praises the goddess Leto “who makes the impossible possible” (ε’ ξ α’ δυνα' των δυνατα` πυειñ).10 And yet, Hippocrates acknowledges that “even the inventor of the medical art, Asklepios, did not achieve that, but failed in many cases as we can read in the scholarly literature (αι‘ τω ñ ν ξυγγραφε' ων βι' βλοι)” (Ep. 20.9) And Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79) writes: “not even a god can achieve anything he wants” (ne deum quidem posse omnia; Hist.nat. 2.27). The god has a distinctive personality, constituted by the specific local cult and ritual by which the god is worshiped, by various names for the same god, by the myths that people told about the god, and by the cult image. Yet, as Walter Burkert pointed out, “this complex is easily dissolved, and this makes it quite impossible to write the history of any single god.”11 Versnel asserts: “no single universal and consistently valid statement can be made about any god, except that he or she is a god (and even that one may occasionally be disputed). Gods alternate between unimaginable sublimity and the basest human behaviour, between supernatural capabilities and occasional frailties, and swiftly they bridge the distance.”12

2. Divine Self-Absorption According to Greek myth, the gods are often and rather consistently selfabsorbed, often envious and resentful. Bernard Knox writes that in Euripides’ tragedies, the gods “project on to the enormous scale of the divine those passions which human beings struggle vainly to control in themselves; these pas-

─────────────── 8 Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, I, 230 (Greek text p. 222). 9 Versnel, Gods, 418; the perspective of Asklepios as a god “does not tolerate restrictions as to type of miracle.” 10 Georg Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, Epigraphica Anatolica 22 (Bonn: Habelt, 1994), 140–141 (No. 122). 11 Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, trans. J. Raffan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985 [1977]), 119. 12 Versnel, Gods, 438, pointing out that “Homer perhaps offers the most conspicuous and often alarming examples”, n. 198, with reference to James M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector, expanded ed. [Durham: Duke University Press, 1994], 225– 247 (“The Gods of the Iliad, Amplification”).

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

483

sions, in the shape of Olympian gods, self-absorbed, unrelenting, rule the life of men and women”.13 A good example is Demeter. In the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (seventh/ sixth century BC ), the goddess appears in Eleusis after the abduction of Persephone: she sits “near the road, grief in her heart” (Hom. Hymn. 2.98).14 The daughters of Keleos, son of Eleusis, “did not know her – gods are hard for mortals to recognize” (ου’ δ• ε» γνων: χαλεποι` δε` θεοι` θνητοιñσιν ο‘ ραñ σθαι; 111); when they inquire who she is, she begins by saying, “Dear children, whoever of womankind you are (τε' κνα φι' λ• αι« τινε' ς ε’ στε γυναικω ñ ν θηλυτερα' ων), greetings. I will tell you my tale” (119–120). Then she tells the tale of her wanderings, which includes the statement, “then wandering I came here and know not at all what land this is and who lives here” (ου« τω δευñ ρ• ι‘ κο' μην α’ λαλημε' νη, ου’ δε' τι οιòδα η« τις δη` γαιñ• ε’ στι' ; 133–134). She proceeds to ask, “Now pity me, maidens, and tell me, dear children, with eager goodwill, whose house I might come to, a man’s or a woman’s there to do for them gladly such tasks as are done by an elderly woman” (137–140). Kallidike replies that she will “explain these things clearly and name the men to whom great power and honor belong here, who are the first of the people and protect with their counsels and straight judgments the high walls of the city” (150– 153). Demeter seems completely clueless: she does not even know who belongs to Eleusis’s aristocracy. When Metaneira, the wife of Keleos whose son Demophoön she raises, is shocked when she notices that Demeter buried the boy in the fire during the night, with the purpose of making him immortal, Demeter responds, “mortals are ignorant and foolish, unable to foresee destiny” (256), without noticing the irony that she had not foreseen that Metaneira would watch her one night. When Demeter changes her size and appearance and thrusts off old age, revealing herself as “honored Demeter, the greatest source of help and joy to mortals and immortals” (268–269), she demands that the people build her a great temple and follow the rites that she will lay down so that they may propitiate her spirit (ε’ μο` ν νο' ον ι‘ λα' σκοισθε; 274). She does not restore joy to Metaneira who remains voiceless for a long time and forgets her son on the floor. Despite the temple being built, Demeter keeps mourning for her daughter, and provokes a dreadful famine for humankind (304–310) which the gifts of none of the gods can bring to an end (325–334). When ─────────────── 13 Bernard M. W. Knox, “Euripides,” in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature I. Greek Literature, eds. P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1985]), 316–39, esp. 325. The later myth of Narcissus who was condemned by Nemesis to love his own image reflected in a pool is the epitome of human self-absorption. 14 Text: Nicholas J. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974); translation: Helen P. Foley, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 2–27. The Demeter hymn can be linked with the construction of the Telesterion of Eleusis in the early sixth century BC; cf. W. D. Furley, “Homeric Hymns”, BNP VI, 446.

484

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Hades is made to release Persephone who returns to Demeter in Eleusis, Demeter does not know whether her daughter had tasted any food while she dwelt below, an act that would require her to go back to the realm of darkness one third of the seasons (390–404). Again, Demeter is presented as ignorant here of what happened in the underworld. The fact that the Hymn eventually commemorates the subsequent foundation of Demeter’s temple and the Eleusinian mysteries illustrates the “acculturation of epiphany” in Homeric Hymns: while the moments of confrontation by the epiphany of the god “pose practical, ethical, and interpretative difficulties for their mortal witnesses”, the concluding injunctions to found a temple, an altar, a festival or create an image of the god in the god’s honour “serves to frame and domesticate the divinity in an appropriate ritual manner”.15 The philosophical version of the self-absorption of the gods removes the gods from such worries as Demeter had. Cicero has Velleius present the Epicurean view of “the mode of the life of the gods and how they pass their days” as follows: “their life is the happiest conceivable, and the one most bountifully furnished with all good things. God is entirely inactive (nihil agit) and free from all ties of occupation (nullis occupationibus est inplicatus); he toils not neither does he labour, but he takes delight in his own wisdom and virtue, and knows with absolute certainty that he will always enjoy pleasures at once consummate and everlasting” (Nat. d. 1.51).

3. Divine Distance Despite the anthropomorphism of Homer’s gods, the poet knows that gods are dangerous. He pleads for caution when he says, “Gods are dangerous when they manifest themselves clearly” (χαλεποι` δε` θεοι` φαι'νεσθαι ε’ ναργειñς; Il. 20.131).16 ─────────────── 15 Verity Platt, Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion, Greek Culture in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 66. 16 On the term χαλεποι' which has also been interpreted in the sense that gods are “difficult” to recognize when they appear to mortals cf. Richardson, Hymn, 185–186. Cf. Walter Burkert, “From Epiphany to Cult Statue: Early Greek theos [1997],” in Kleine Schriften VI: Mythica, Ritualia, Religiosa 3, ed. E. Krummen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 139–55, 145 paraphrases “gods may even be dangerous and are difficult to behold”. Cf. Walter Burkert, “ΘΕΩΝ ΟΠΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΑΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ. Götterfurcht und Leumannsches Missverständnis,” in Kleine Schriften I: Homerica, ed. C. Riedweg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 93–104, esp. 103, with a critique of Bruno Snell, “Der Glaube an die olympischen Götter [1942],” in Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen (Orig. 1946; repr., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 30–44, esp. 30, who famously argued that in believing in the Olympian gods, they forgot to get the creeps (“die Griechen haben offenbar das Gruseln verlernt”).

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

485

The expectation and the possibility of being punished by the gods is seen in the everyday practice of oaths.17 Later critiques of the anthropomorphism of the Homeric gods was provoked by the burlesque of gods seen, e.g., in the second song of Demodokos among the Phaiakes which recounts the adulterous love affair between Ares and Aphrodite and their punishment by Hephaestus (Homer, Od. 8.266–366). The difference between this divine story of adultery and human stories of adultery is the fact that “for the gods, the confrontation ends without any bloodshed and after the pressure on the part of Poseidon” – what they see as “no more than a game” ending in laughter, is deadly serious for humans, as for example the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles in Iliad 1, which leads to the death of many men.18 Apart from the subject of adultery, the song comments on the “cunning versus force” theme, describing Hephaestus as “devising evils in the depths of his heart” (8.273), i.e., hiding his emotions and planning revenge in silence. The critique of the concept of anthropomorphic gods is prominently linked with Xenophanes. He rejects the notion of the gods having bodies that can be compared with human bodies: “But mortals suppose that gods are born, wear their own clothes and have a voice and body” (τη` ν σφετε' ρην δ• ε’ σθηñ τα ε» χειν φωνη' ν τε δε' μας τε) (Frag. 14). “But if horses or oxen or lions had hands or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men, horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, and the oxen as similar to oxen, and they would make the bodies of the sort which each of them had” (Frag. 15) “Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black; Thracians that theirs are blueeyed and red-haired” (Frag. 16).

In other words, the gods seem to be the product of human beings who depict their gods on the basis of the bodies they have themselves.19 Aristotle (384– 322 BC) certainly drew this conclusion: ”Also this explains why all races speak of the gods as ruled by a king, because they themselves too are some of them actually now so ruled and in other cases used to be of old; ─────────────── 17 Burkert, Greek Religion, 250–54, esp. 252. 18 Irene de Jong, A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 207; cf. Walter Burkert, “Das Lied von Ares und Aphrodite [1960],” in Kleine Schriften I: Homerica, ed. C. Riedweg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 105–16. 19 James H. Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary, Phoenix Sup 30 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), 92–94. Lesher counters the suggestion that Frag. 15–16 constitute ridicule (e.g., Ernst Heitsch, Xenophanes. Die Fragmente, Sammlung Tusculum [München/Zürich: Artemis, 1983], 135), noting that Xenophanes does not supply differing views of a single trait rather than four different traits, and pointing to the tolerant acceptance of religious diversity by Herodotus 2.3 (91–92).

486

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts and as men imagine the gods in human form, so also they suppose their manner of life to be like their own” (ω « σπερ δε` και` τα` ει»δη ε‘ αυτοιñς α’ φομοιουñ σιν οι‘ α»νθρωποι, ου« τω και` του` ς βι'ους τω ñ ν θεω ñ ν). (Pol. 1252b23–26)20

Xenophanes contrasts such religiosity with a discussion of the one god (ειðς θεο' ς) who is “greatest among gods and men, not at all like mortals in body or in thought” (ε» ν τε θεοιñσι και` α’ νθρω' ποισι με' γιστος, ου» τι δε' μας θνητοιñσιν ο‘ μοι' ιος ου’ δε` νο' ημα; Frag. 23),21 for whom it is true that “whole he sees, whole he thinks, and whole he hears” (ουò λος ο‘ ραñ ι, ουò λος δε` νοειñ, ουò λος δε' τ• α’ κου' ει; Frag. 24) and “completely without toil he shakes all things by the thought of his mind (α’ πα' νευθε πο' νοιο νο' ου φρενι` πα' ντα κραδαι' νει” (Frag. 25) while “always he abides in the same place, not moving at all, nor is it seemly for him to travel to different places at different times” (Frag. 26). Xenophanes does not say what the greatness of this one god would consist in. He probably thinks of honor or glory and of power (see Homer and Hesiod on Zeus).22 For the one god to be the greatest among the gods he has to be fundamentally different from human beings. The phrase “completely without toil” removes this one greatest god from human beings, and it may be asked how this god can sympathize with, or understand, human beings whose life is toil from beginning to end. This “higher criticism” or “analytical theology” as MacMullen calls it reinterpreted the gods. “The gods really lived; but at a great remove. Cult could not reach them. It might be inoffensive, never persuasive. Mythology, not only as the poets had written it but as the Phrygians embraced Cybele in it, or the Syrians Atargatis, was folly or insult to the true beings above. The sacred had lost its story when its enlightened critics finished with it. But who cared? The inappropriateness of common forms of worship seen through the eyes of Seneca or Porphyry, appears not to have deterred a single soul from the inheritance of the tribe”.23

The distance of the gods is rather exuberantly asserted in the hymn written by the prize-winning poet Hermokles of Kyzikos on the occasion of the visit in 290 BC of King Demetrios Poliorketes to Athens. The hymn is preserved by ─────────────── 20 Harris Rackham, Aristotle. Politics, Aristotle XXI, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932). 21 Lesher, Xenophanes, 97–99 rejects the interpretation that finds some degree of monotheistic tendencies in Frag. 23 when he asserts that we find “the novel idea of a single god of unusual power, consciousness, and cosmic influence, but not the stronger view that beyond this one god there could be nothing else worthy of the name” (99). Versnel, Gods, 244–268 argues for a “double track” understanding of Xenophanes whose monotheism was not incompatible with polytheistic forms of (cult) religion. 22 Lesher, Xenophanes, 99; cf. Homer, Il. 2.350,412,515; Od. 5.4; 4.515; Hesiod, Theog. 49.534.548. 23 Ramsay MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983 [1981]), 77.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

487

Douris of Samos, and evidently enjoyed wide popularity as the Athenians sang the hymn both in public and in the home: “See how the greatest and the most beloved gods in our city are present (πα' ρεστιν). For here Demeter and Demetrios / one lucky moment brought us. She has come to celebrate the holy mysteries of Kore. Joyous as the god befits, beautiful and laughing, he is present (πα' ρεστι). An august picture is revealed. All friends around him – and he is in the centre. Just as the friends are like the stars, his semblance as the sun is. O son of mighty god Poseidon and Aphrodite, hail you! Now, know that other gods are far away (α»λλοι με`ν η› μακρα` ν γα` ρ α’ πε' χουσιν θεοι' ), or have no ears (η› ου’ κ ε» χουσιν ω ò τα) or don’t exist or do not care about us (η› ου’ κ ει’ σι`ν η› ου’ προσε' χουσιν η‘ μιñν ου’ δε` ε« ν). But thee, we see here present (σε` δε` παρο' νθ’ ο‘ ρω ñ μεν), not wood, nor stone but real to the bone (ου’ ξυ' λινον ου’ δε` λι' θινον, α’ λλ• α’ ληθινο' ν). To thee we send our prayer: So first of all make peace, most beloved, For thou hast the power (κυ' ριος γα` ρ ειò συ' ).” (Douris of Samos, Ap. Athen. 253F)24

The next twelve lines consist of a prayer with the request to defeat the Aetolian pirates. The text is an early example of the ruler cult. Noticeable is the emphasis on the presence of Demetrios in contrast to the traditional gods who, with “fourth-century scepticism”, are censured for the absenteeism, for not hearing and not caring, and who may not even exist.25 It is a well known fact that the personal god one finds in Ancient Near Eastern texts has no correspondence in Greek religion as far as the traditional gods are concerned. It is the daimōn who is perceived as an entity watching over individuals. This is true not only since Heraclitus’ reinterpretation of the gods but as early as Pindar, who says: “I shall honor with my mind whatever fortune (daimōn) attends me, by serving it with the means at my disposal” (το` ν δ• α’ μφε' ποντ• αι’ ει` φρασι' ν δαι' μον• α’ σκη' σω κατ• ε’ μα` ν θεραπευ' ων μαχανα' ν; Pindar, Pyth. 3.108–109).26 Walter Burkert translates: “Den Daimon, der mich umhegt, will ich stets mit Bewußtsein sorgsam behandeln”.27 Greeks would often say “my daimōn”, particularly as lament in a situation of misfortune.28 The daimōn, in Lat. genius, was an intangible power: you cannot come to the daimōn with a request, you cannot control it; it does not leave a human being ─────────────── 24 Douris of Samos, Ap. Athen. 253F; FGrH II.A Frag. 13, 141–142. For translation and comments cf. Versnel, Gods, 445–446. 25 Versnel, Gods, 449, with reference to Kenneth Scott, “The Deification of Demetrius Poliorcetes,” AJP 49 (1928): 217–39. 26 William H. Race, Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 262–263. 27 Walter Burkert, “‚Mein Gott?‘ Persönliche Frömmigkeit und unverfügbare Götter [1996],” in Kleine Schriften IV: Mythica, Ritualia, Religiosa 1, ed. F. Graf (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 225–36, 231 (originally published in Vol. II of the FS Martin Hengel); the following remarks ibid. 231–235; Burkert, Greek Religion, 274–275. 28 Sophocles, Ajax 534; El. 1157; Euripides, Alc. 935; Andr. 98; Iph. aul. 1136–1137; Med. 1347; Hipp. 591; in combination with the Stoic theology of Marc Aurel 5.10.6: ε» ξεστι' μοι μηδε` ν πρα' σσειν παρα` το` ν ε’ μο` ν θεο` ν και` δαι' μονα (“it is in my power to do nothing contrary to the God and the ‘genius’ within me”; C. R. Haines).

488

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

but it can become very angry. But there is no personal relationship with a god. In Homer, only the gods seem to address themselves with “dear”, thus Zeus addresses Apollo as “dear Phoebus” (φι' λε Φοιñβε; Il. 16.667). Some Greeks had the name Philotheos. 29 But, as Aristotle bluntly states, “It would be absurd if someone were to say that he loves Zeus” (α» τοπον γα` ρ α› ν ει»η ει» τις φαι' η φιλειñν το` ν Δι' α; Mag. mor. 1208b30). In Cicero’s presentation of the Stoic view of the nature of the gods, we find the following sentence: “The gods attend to great matters; they neglect small ones” (magna di curant, parva neglegunt; Nat. d. 2.167). Cicero infers from the fact that most people use their rational capabilities to do evil, “If therefore the divine intelligence and will displayed care for men’s welfare because it bestowed upon them reason, it cared for the welfare of those only to whom it gave virtuous reason (quos bona ratione donavit), whom we see to be very few, if not entirely nonexistent (si modo ulli sunt esse perpauco). We cannot, however, suppose that the immortal gods have cared for only a few; it follows therefore that they have cared for none (sequitur ergo ut nemini consultum sit)” (Nat. d. 3.70).

Cicero notes the objection that the gods gave to human beings the ability to think, and it is the responsibility of people to think and act in righteousness and not do evil, and that the existence of evil cannot be traced back to the gods (3.71–75). He counters this by pointing out that this is as if a physician complains about the severity of the illness or a helmsman about the fierceness of the storm (3.76) and asks, “Do you see then that the verdict of the gods, if they do regard men’s fortunes, has destroyed all distinction (between good and evil) between them?” (videsne igitur deorum iudicio, si vident res humanas, discrimen esse sublatum?; 3.82). The skeptics’ position is summarized in the following sentences: “‘It (providence) does not care for individuals (non curat singulos homines).’ This is no wonder; no more does it care for cities. Not for these? Not for tribes or nations either. And if it shall appear that it despises even nations, what wonder is it that it has scorned the entire human race? (quid mirum est omne ab ea genus humanum esse contemptum?)” (Nat. d. 3.93).

A review of the religious texts of Plutarch (AD 45–120) is instructive.30 As far as this Stoic philosopher is concerned, it needs to be noted that even though we have access to religious beliefs and practices through his writings only through the artificial medium of high literature, he was a religious practitioner both officially as priest in Delphi for twenty years and personally as being engaged in religious thought and practice as his description of festivals dem─────────────── 29 Michael J. Osborne and Sean G. Byrne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), s.v. Πιλθεος; earliest reference in the fifth cent. BC 30 The following remarks rely on Walter Burkert, “Plutarch: Gelebte Religion und philosophische Theologie [1996],” in Kleine Schriften VIII: Philosophica, eds. A. Szlezák and K.H. Stanzel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 223–39.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

489

onstrates.31 He participates willingly because he believes in the presence of the divine in the festival: “Outweighing this a thousand times is the element of cheerful hope, of exultant joy, and whether in prayer or in thanksgiving of ascribing every furtherance of felicity to the gods (το` ευ» ελπι και` περιχαρε`ς και` παñ σαν ευ’ πραξι'ας ο» νησιν ω‘ ς ε’ κ θεω ñ ν ουò σαν ευ’ χο' μενον και` δεχο' μενον). This is proved by the strongest kind of evidence: no visit delights us more than a visit to a temple; no occasion than a holy day; no act or spectacle than what we see and what we do ourselves in matters that involve the gods, whether we celebrate a ritual or take part in a choral dance or attend a sacrifice or ceremony of initiation” (Suav. viv. 21; Mor. 1101E).32

At the same time, Plutarch points out that without the presence of the god in the festival, the priest who sacrifices is but a butcher and the worshiper goes away “with Menander’s words on his lips: ‘I sacrificed to gods who heed me not’ (ε» θυον ου’ προσε' χουσιν ου’ δε' ν μοι θεοιñς)” (Suav. viv. 21; Mor. 1102B). There is much in traditional religion that Plutarch does not understand or does not like: this he calls “superstition” (δεισιδαιμονι' α). The very essence of superstition is fear of the gods: “Superstition, as the very name (dread of deities) indicates, is an emotional idea and an assumption productive of fear which utterly humbles and crushes a man, for he thinks that there are gods, but that they are the cause of pain and injury ... superstition is a multitude of different feelings with an underlying notion that the good is evil (κακο` ν το` α’ γαθο' ν). For the superstitious fear the gods, and flee to the gods for help; they flatter them and assail them with abuse, pray to them and blame them ... every disposition of his body, loss of property, deaths of children, or mishaps and failures in public life are classed as ‘afflictions of God’ (πληγαι` θεουñ ) or ‘attacks of an evil spirit’ (προσβολαι` δαι'μονος)” (Superst. 2, 6, 7; Mor. 165B, 167E-F, 168C).33

In the context of both Old and New Testament passages about God knowing people, this position seems to imply for Plutarch that either the behavior of people is irrelevant for true worship or that the gods do not punish human beings. In fact he asserts that philosophers and statesmen “try to prove that the majesty of God is associated with goodness, magnanimity, kindliness, and solicitude (τη` ν τουñ θεουñ σεμνο' τητα μετα` χρηστο' τητος και` μεγαλοφροσυ' νης και` ευ’ μενει' ας και` κηδεμονι' ας) ... Beings who can help them (τω ñ ν ω’ φελου' ντων)” (Superst. 6; Mor. 167E).

Plutarch prefers the term “faith” (πι' στις) to the term “fear of god” (θεοσε' βεια), with pistis being grounded in ancestral tradition (Superst. 3 [Mor. 166B]: το` θειñον και` πα' τριον α’ ξι' ωμα τηñ ς ευ’ σεβει' ας, “the god-given ancestral dignity of ─────────────── 31 Plutarch, Suav. viv. 21 (Mor. 1100E–1101E); Num. 8; Superst. 9 (Mor. 169D). 32 Cf. Plutarch, Suav. viv. 1103DE. Phillip H. de Lacy and Benedict Einarson, Plutarch. Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, LCL. Moralia XIV (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967). 33 Frank Cole Babbitt, Plutarch. De superstitione (Moralia II; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971 [1928]).

490

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

our religion”). This is the same position as that argued for by the sceptic Cotta in Cicero’s De deorum natura. Plutarch does not report on specific revelations of a god: the conviction that they are present during sacrifice is a postulate, not a matter of observable evidence. Despite observations on foreign religions in Quaestiones romanae et graecae or in De Iside et Osiride which demonstrate his curiosity, Burkert asserts that “the distance remains: the divine cannot be experienced directly”.34 As regards the mysteries, Plutarch states in De defectu oraculorum: “Regarding the rites of the Mysteries, in which it is possible to gain the clearest reflections (ε’ μφα' σεις) and adumbrations (διαφα' σεις) of the truth about the demigods (περι` δαιμο' νων α’ ληθει'ας), ‘let my lips be piously sealed,’ as Herodotus says” (Def. orac. 14; Mor. 417C).35

Religion, just as myth, provides a “reflection” (ε» μφασις) of the truth, as the rainbow (Is. Os. 20; Mor. 359A). Since non-disclosure of the ritual of initiation, which distinguished the mysteries from the public domain, was fundamental, resulting in the fact that we have no literary texts that describe what happened, we do not know how and in what sense the “emotional experiences in which a feeling of closeness to the divine was the ultimate goal of the initiate”36 was achieved and what it looked like. Religious rites allow us a “seeing through” (δια' φασις), as seeing through a curtain or dulled glass – and he speaks only of the daimones, not of the gods. Despite the fact that he was a priest in Delphi for two decades, Plutarch emphasizes both the divine origin and the indirect nature of Apollo’s speaking to human beings: it remains even unclear whether the god’s thoughts are communicated through Pythia. He writes, “I imagine that you are familiar with the saying found in Heracleitus to the effect that the Lord whose prophetic shrine is at Delphi neither tells nor conceals, but indicates (ου» τε λε' γει ου» τε κρυ' πτει α’ λλα` σημαι' νει.). Add to these words, which are so well said, the thought that the god of this place employs the prophetic priestess for men’s ears just as the sun employs the moon for men’s eyes. For he makes known and reveals his own thoughts (δει'κνυσι με`ν γα` ρ και` α’ ναφαι' νει τα` ς αυ‘ τουñ νοη' σεις), but he makes them known (δει' κνυσι) through the associated medium of a mortal body and a soul that is unable to keep quiet, or, as it yields itself to the One that moves it, to remain of itself unmoved and tranquil, but, as though tossed amid billows and enmeshed in the stirrings and emotions within itself, it makes itself more and more restless” (Def. orac. 21; Mor. 404E). ─────────────── 34 Burkert, “Plutarch”, 230: “die Distanz bleibt: Das Göttliche wird nicht direkt erlebbar.” 35 Frank Cole Babbitt, Plutarch. De defectu oraculorum, Moralia V (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993 [1936]). 36 Lucinda Dirven, “The Mithraeum as tableau vivant: A Preliminary Study of Ritual Performance and Emotional Involvement in Ancient Mystery Cults,” Religion in the Roman Empire 1 (2015): 20–50, esp. 21, with reference to Katharina Waldner, “Dimensions of Individuality in Ancient Mystery Cults: Religious Practice and Philosophical Discourse,” in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. J. Rüpke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 215–42, 226.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

491

Plutarch discusses the theory that daimones speak through Pythia, or that a pneuma rising up from the earth mediates divine reality, and tries to find a way to link the divine and the material in the body and the soul of Pythia. These remain hypotheses which do not lead to the certainty of faith. The account of a “bad trip” of a particular session during which Pythia starts to scream, leaving her eventually dead, leads Plutarch to the conclusion: “The power of the spirit (η‘ τουñ πνευ' ματος δυ' ναμις) does not affect all persons nor the same persons always in the same way ... The power comes from the gods and demigods (ε» στι δε` θει'α με`ν ο» ντως και` δαιμο' νιος), but, for all that, it is not unfailing nor imperishable nor ageless, lasting into that infinite time by which all things between earth and moon become wearied out, according to our reasoning. And there are some who assert that the things above the moon also do not abide, but give out as they confront the everlasting and infinite, and undergo continual transmutations and rebirths” (Def. orac. 51; Mor. 438D).

The commitment to tradition, not the least in the face of death, leads Plutarch to the telling statement in Consolatio ad uxorem regarding the fate of those who departed to a dispensation and a region that is better and more divine: “This is harder to disbelieve than to believe” (το` α’ πιστειñν χαλεπω' τερο' ν ε’ στιν αυ’ τοιñς η› το` πιστευ' ειν; Cons. ux. 11; Mor. 612A).37

4. Divine Care for People The texts about the god’s distance are literary texts, written by philosophers, a minority that is never representative of a society. If the gods would have been regarded as distant by all people, it would be difficult to explain the countless temples, shrines, and statues and figurines of deities that have been discovered. Ramsay MacMullen, who calls Plutarch’s approach “bookish in the extreme, and in a sense also extremely rational”, has discussed the relevant evidence that demonstrates the vitality of paganism.38 Ovid (43 BC – AD 17) expresses the closeness of Vesta, and of the deity more generally, in these words: “Vesta, be gracious! To you we now open our lips for worship – if indeed we may join your ceremonies. I was completely absorbed in prayer (in prece totus eram), I was aware of the divine powers; and the earth, joyful, shone back with a dark red glow (aetaque purpurea luce refulsit humus)” (Ovid, Fasti 6.249–252). ─────────────── 37 Phillip H. de Lacy and Benedict Einarson, Plutarch. Consolatio ad uxorem, LCL. Moralia VII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959). 38 MacMullen, Paganism, 62–73 and passim; quotation 69. He cites ibid. 71 the summary of P. Parsons in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XLII (1973) 30, n. 1 of the text P. Oxy. XLII 3008 as follows: “Philosophers agree about nothing – one of them even says that silver is black. You can hear more uproar from a household of philosophers than from a household of madmen”.

492

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Dio Chrysostom (AD 40/50–110/120) similarly states: “All men feel a powerful longing to honor deity and pay cult from close up (ι’ σχυρο` ς ε» ρως παñ σιν α’ νθρω' ποις ε’ γγυ' θεν τιμαñ ν και` θεραπευ' ειν το` θειñον), drawing near and seizing hold with persuasion, offering sacrifices and crowning with wreaths. Just as tiny children, torn away from father or mother, feel a terrible longing and desire, and often reach out their hands in their very dreams to the absent ones, so to the gods, men who rightly love them (και` θεοιñς α»νθρωποι α’ γαπω ñ ντες δικαι'ως) for their beneficence and kinship are eager to be and to talk with them by any means” (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.60–61).39

Communication with the gods is a central feature of Greek hymns, which reflect Greek and Roman religiosity much more directly than literary or philosophical texts. William Furley and Jan Bremer state, “In many hymns the rhetoric of the text works on two different levels (or channels) of communication. In every hymn there is always the internal communication addressed by the worshipping mortal(s) to the god. But in many cases there is also external communication between the poet and/or the performers and the audience”.40 Personal contact with the god is a key feature of Callimachus’ orchestration of the gods as conversation partners in his hymns, often using the second person singular for the members of the community addressing the god. Callimachus (born between 320–303 BC ) not only praises the gods, following a longestablished tradition, but he also asks questions, creating the impression that he asks them for information and indeed that he receives an answer. The last point is a third level of communication: the implicit communication of the god with the poet.41 In Callimachus’ Hymn to Artemis, the speaker addresses Artemis thus: “You must tell me that, goddess, and I shall sing about it to the others” (ει’ πε' , θεη' , συ` με` ν α» μμιν, ε’ γω` δ• ε‘ τε' ροισιν α’ ει' σω; Callimachus, Hymn. Artemis 186).42 City gods are beholden to their polis. Artemis is often mentioned as patron deity of cities in Asia Minor, probably as a result of her role in the cities of the Doric and Ionian colonization.43 In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, Artemis is described as follows: ─────────────── 39 Both quotations from MacMullen, Paganism, 63–64. 40 Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, I, 59. 41 Ivana Petrovic, Von den Toren des Hades zu den Hallen des Olymp. Artemiskult bei Theokrit und Kallimachos, Mnemosyne Supplementa 281 (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2007), 145. In Callimachus’ Hymn to Artemis, we have second-person narration in 72–190, and brief “dialogues” in which the speaker asks for information: a series of three questions and answer in 113–135, where only the first answer may be attributed to Artemis; cf. M. Annette Harder, “Callimachus,” in Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature; Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 1; ed. I. J. F. de Jong, R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie, Mnemosyne Supplementa 257 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 63–81, esp. 65. 42 Translation from Harder, “Callimachus”, 65. 43 Erika Simon, Die Götter der Griechen, 4th edition (München: Hirmen, 1998 [1985]), 154–155; Petrovic, Artemiskult, 205–207.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

493

“Nor does smile-loving Aphrodite ever overpower Artemis of the gold arrow-shafts and loud cries with love (ε’ ν φιλο' τητι); for she is interested (ε’ ναι'ρειν) in bows and in killing wild animals in the mountains, and in lyres, dances, shrill hosannahs, shady sacred groves, and the city of just men” (Hom. Hymn. Aphrod. 5.16–20).44

Anakreon entreats Artemis Leukophryene, the main goddess of Magnesia on the Maeander, to care for the citizens: “I appeal to you, fair-haired, deer-shooting daughter of Zeus, Artemis, queen of game: with pleasure, surely, now you look upon (χαι'ρους) the valiant population of the town by the river Lethaios, for the citizens in your flock are anything but uncouth” (Frag. 348).45

Patricia Rosenmeyer calls this text “a curiously personal prayer on behalf of the Magnesian citizens”.46 Ivana Petrovic emphasizes the political context of this role of Artemis.47 The “love” of Artemis for the citizens of the polis who worship her as patron deity is not a personal love for individuals, but her care for the political order. A similar claim of giving cities political order is made for Demeter in Callimachus’ hymn to the goddess: “Rather, [let us speak] of how she bestowed fair laws on cities (ω‘ ς πολι' εσσιν ε‘ αδο' τα τε' θμια δω ñ κε);48 rather, of how she first cut straw and handfuls of corn-ears and set oxen to thresh them ... The Pelasgians still inhabited holy Dotium, not yet the Cnidian land; there (?) they had built a fair grove thick with trees – an arrow could hardly have passed through. Within were pines, large elms, and pear-trees, and fair sweet-apples; and the amber-coloured water boiled up from ditches. Demeter was madly fond of the place (θεα` δ• ε’ πεμαι'νετο χω' ρω, ) as of Eleusis, as fond of Triopas as she was of Enna” (Callimachus, Hymn. Demeter 18–19, 24–30; N. Hopkinson).49

The second refrain of each of the twelve stanzas in Philodamos’ paian to Dionysos repeat the same one line acclamation (epiphthegma) and two-line prayer in aeolo-choriambic rhythm,50 ─────────────── 44 S. Douglas Olson, The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts. Text, Translation and Commentary (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 59. 45 Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, I, 178. Cf. Franyö Zoltan and Bruno Snell, Frühgriechische Lyriker III: Sappho, Alkaios, Anakreon (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976), who translate χαι'ρουσ• as “huldvoll schaust”. 46 Patricia A. Rosenmeyer, The Poetics of Imitation: Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 37. 47 Petrovic, Artemiskult, 205: “diejenige, unter deren Obhut alle wichtige Angelegenheiten einer Stadt – vor allem die politische Ordnung – stehen”. 48 Neil Hopkinson, Callimachus: Hymn to Demeter. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 27 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 96: τε' θμια refers to Demeter Θεσμοφο' ρος, “supposedly so-called either because she ‘set up’ laws after introducing agriculture (Macrob. Sat. 3.12) or because inscribed bronze tablets recording the law were ‘set up’ in her temple”. 49 Hopkinson, Hymn to Demeter, 62–63. The Πελασγοι' are the autochthonous inhabitants of Thessaly. 50 Henri Weil, “Un péan delphique à Dionysos,” BCH 19, 21 (1897): 343–418, 510–13; cf. Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, I, 121–123; II, 52–57. The paian is dated to 340/339 BC (ibid I, 124–126).

494

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

ι’ ε` Παια' ν, »ιθι σωτη' ρ, ευ» φρων τα' νδε πο' λιν φυ' λασσ• ευ’ αι' ωνι συ` ν ο» λβωι “Ie Paian, come o Savior, and kindly keep this city in happy prosperity”

Dionysos is addressed as healer (ι’ ε` Παια' ν) and savior (σωτη' ρ), formally for the first time in this hymn; generally it is Apollo and/or his son Asklepios who is addressed as healer, and Zeus as savior. Some worshippers viewed Dionysos as healing pain and as savior, and Sophocles has the Thebans state that since their city is ravaged by disease (νο' σου), Dionysos should come and bring healing.51 The patron god of a city is supposed to guard the city (φυλα' σσειν) and ensure happiness (ευ’ αι' ων) and prosperity (ο» λβιος). The gods were also invoked as protectors of the city in drinking songs (skolia), as several examples from Athens demonstrate:52 “Pallas, Triton-born, Lady Athena preserve this city and its inhabitants free of troubles and civic strife and premature deaths: you and your father”

Παλλα` ς Τριτογε' νει•, α»νασσ• ’Αθηναñ ο» ρθου τη' νδε πο' λιν τε και` πολι'τας α»τερ α’ λγε' ων [τε] και` στα' σεων και` θανα' των α’ ω' ρων συ' τε και` πατη' ρ

“Mother of Wealth, Olympian Demeter among the garlanded Seasons I sing, and you, daughter of Zeus, Persephone; and pray: protect this city carefully!”

Πλου' του μητε' ρ• ’Ολυμπι' αν α’ ει'δω Δη' μητρα στεφανηφο' ροις ε’ ν ω « ραις σε' τε, παιñ Διο' ς, Φερσεφο' νη χαι'ρετον, ευò δε` τα' νδ• α’ μφε' πετον πο' λιν

In the first song, the term ο» ρθου has a general meaning (“maintain,” “keep”), combining the ideas of continuity and prosperity; in line 4, Zeus is introduced “almost as an afterthought, but an important one” as the Olympian gods are invoked “to act in unison, not independently.”53 In the second song, the prayer “protect this city carefully“ uses the verb α’ μφε' πω which is “a favourite verb of hymnodists to describe the care and nurture they wish to procure from a god.”54

─────────────── 51 Euripides, Bacch. 772 and 576–603, 862–876; Sophocles, Ant. 1140–1141. For commentary cf. Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, II, 63. 52 Denys L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 884, 885; Elena Fabbro, I carmi conviviali attici. Introduzione, testimonianze, testo critico, traduzione e commento, Lyricorum Graecorum quae exstant 11 (Rome: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, 1995), No. 1, 2; Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, I, 259; II, 214–17. 53 Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, II, 215. 54 Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, II, 217; cf. I, 54–55 on the importance of the god’s location which often occurs in invocations. Furley/Bremer comment: “In contrast to the god of Christianity whose cosmic omnipresence is fundamental, Greek gods are related to specific locations ... Gods are immortal and enjoy freedom to appear when and where they like. But a god was born at a specific spot ... or first stepped on land there, has her/his ‘original sanctuary there ... or the location is in some other way the god’s personal domain, area of power” (54).

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

495

5. Divine Knowledge and Personal Benefit Arguably the most important factor in communicating with the gods was a benefit of some kind. The Themistocles Decree (481/480 BC) begins with the sentence: “The city shall be entrusted to Athena who guards Athens, and to the other gods, all of them, for protection and defense against the barbarian on behalf of the country”.55 One of the very few instances where the phrase “my god” is used in Greek texts is the collective of the chorus in Euripides stating, upon seeing the sculptures of the temple in Delphi: “I see Pallas, my goddess” (λευ' σσω Παλλα' δ, ε’ μα` ν θεο' ν).56 Several of Callimachus’ hymns evoke the epiphany of the deity who is expected to protect the city. In the Hymn to Zeus, the god is described in this role: “You gave them cities to guard, and sat yourself in their cities’ high places, vigilant (ε’ πο' ψιος) for who rules the people with crooked judgments (οι« τε δι'κη, σι λαο' ν) and who does the opposite. You have bestowed wealth on them, and abundant prosperity to all, but not very evenly (ου’ μα' λα δ• òισον)” (Callimachus, Hymn. Zeus 80–85).57

The last lines of the Hymn to Demeter read, “Hail, goddess, and save this city (σα' ω πο' λιν) in concord and prosperity, and produce a good return in the fields: feed our cattle, bring forth fruits and crops, bring the harvest and nourish peace, so that he who has sown may reap. Be favorable to me (ι«λαθι' μοι), thrice-invoked, most powerful of goddesses” (Callimachus, Hymn. Demeter 134–138).

The soteriological epiphany motif58 of the hymn invokes the presence of the goddess who is expected to protect the political order and thus the prosperity of the polis and her citizens. In Callimachus’ hymns, the gods “are on constant alert and more active than gods in other Greek religious poetry”.59 Callimachus uses various strategies in order to convey the impression of divine activity, particularly the depiction of the emotions of the gods, their body parts and ─────────────── 55 Lines 4–6: τη` [ν] με.` ν. πο' [λιν παρ]ακ. α. τ[αθε' ]σθαι τηñ ι ’Αθηναñ ι τηñ ι ’Αθηνω ñ / μ[μεδεο]υ' [σηι] κ[αι` τοιñς α»λλ]οις θε. οιñς α«. πα. σιν φυλα' ττει / ν κ. α. [ι`] α.’ μ. [υ' νειν το` μ βα' ]ρ. β. α. ρ. [ο]ν υ‘ πε`ρ τηñ ς χω' ρας. Editio princeps Michael H. Jameson, “A Decree of Themistocles from Troizen,” Hesperia 29 (1960): 198–223 (text 199–200, translation 200–201). See SEG XXIV 276; XXV, 376; XXX 384. Translation from Russel Meiggs and David M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988 [1969]), 48–52 (No. 23). 56 Euripides, Ion 211 (D. Kovacs). 57 Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus. The Hymns. With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 54, 56. 58 Petrovic, Artemiskult, 142–143. 59 Albert Henrichs, “Gods in Action: The Poetics of Divine Performance in the Hymns of Callimachus,” in Callimachus. Hellenistica Groningana 1, Proceedings of the Groningen Workshop on Hellenistisc Poetry, ed. M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and C. G. Wakker (Groningen: Forsten, 1993), 127–47, esp. 127; the following remark ibid. 141–143; also Petrovic, Artemiskult, 150–151.

496

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

their actions, rendering them visually imaginable and creating the impression that they are moving. Ivana Petrovic explains the soteriological epiphanies of the Hellenistic period – a time in which gods and soon rulers were called Sotēr and Epiphanes – with the desire to experience the deity as close.60 I do not see that “knowing” the citizens of a polis, or an individual, on the part of one of the gods plays any role. When previous experiences with the god are invoked, the god seems to know what the person contacting him wants. The first poem of Sappho’s extant fragments (seventh/sixth century BC) is a case in point. The “I” calls on Aphrodite to help her in a love affair: “Shimmering, iridescent, deathless Aphrodite, child of Zeus, weaver of wiles, I beg you, do not crush my spirit with anguish, Lady, but come now, if ever before you heard my voice in the distance and leaving your father’s golden house drove your chariot pulled by sparrows swift and beautiful over the black earth, their wings a blur as they streaked down from heaven across the bright sky – and then you were with me, a smile playing around your immortal lips as you asked, what is it this time? why are you calling again? And asked what my heart in its lovesick raving most wanted to happen: ‘Whom now should I persuade to love you? Who is wronging you, Sappho? She may run now, but she’ll be chasing soon. She may spurn gifts, but soon she’ll be giving. She may not love now, but soon she will, willing or not.’ Come to me again now, release me from my agony, fulfill all that my heart desires, and fight for me, fight at my side, Goddess” (Sappho, Poem 1).61

The speaker of the poem invokes a previous event of divine charis and visualizes Aphrodite’s grace being conveyed in a personal epiphany, complete with a journey from Zeus’ palace in a winged chariot, meeting her on earth with a smile on her lips. The evocation of the past, intended to promote the reappearance of the goddess, “is a form of verbal flattery designed to entice the goddess”.62 The speaker knows her sexual needs, she invokes the goddess with the argument that she knows these needs as well from a previous encounter and with the plea to help her get what she wants. It is beneath the dignity of Zeus to be described as loving human beings: “this qualification is left for Prometheus or Hermes, at best”.63 Aristophanes (ca. 445–385 BC) writes in Pax 390–399: “Don’t be so hostile to our entreaties as to prevent our getting her; but be gracious, most philanthropic of divinities and most bountiful (ω ò φιλανθρωπο' τατε και` μεγαλοδωρο' τατε

─────────────── 60 Petrovic, Artemiskult, 153–170. 61 Stanley Lombardo, Sappho. Poems and Fragments (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), 5. 62 William D. Furley, “Prayers and Hymns,” in A Companion to Greek Religion, ed. D. Ogden (Chichester: Blackwell, 2007), 117–31, esp. 126; Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, I, 97 speak of “advent myths”. 63 Burkert, Greek Religion, 274.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

497

δαιμο' νων), if you feel any loathing for Pisander’s crests and brows, and we will always, Lord, pay you homage continually with holy sacrifices and great processions”.64

The context is again collective, communal, not personal, an aesthetic “aha experience”.65 In the confession inscriptions of Maeonia, we often find the name of the authochthonos god Men linked with a personal name added in the genitive, e.g., “Men of Artemidoros” (Μη` ν ’Αρτεμιδω‘ ρου) or “Men of Pharnakes”, where the persons mentioned are seeking or have experienced healing.66 The person praying expects a benefit, a personal connection with the god is not assumed.67 One inscription states, after giving the date (the twelfth of the month Panemos in the year 320, i.e., AD 235/236), “According to the enlightenment given by the gods (κατα` το` ε’ φρενωθει`ς υ‘ πο` τω ñ ν θεω ñ ν), by Zeus and the great Men Artemidorou: ‘I have punished Theodorus in respect to his eyes in consequence of the sins which he committed”.68

The “knowledge” of the god pertains to particular sins that Theodorus has committed: in the next lines of the long inscription three occasions of sexual misbehavior are given, complete with the punishment meted out by the gods. The fact that the body part that was affected by the anger of the god, in this case a pair of eyes, is incised on the stone that carries the inscription may be due to the fact that either the god or the community, or both, needed to be reminded of where exactly the healing needs to take place. The non-Greek character of the confession inscriptions is noted by many scholars.69 The “rule of the gods” expressed by these inscriptions70 may be the result of priests of the local sanctuaries using the practice of public humiliation and confession ─────────────── 64 Jeffrey Henderson, Aristophanes. Clouds. Wasps. Peace, LCL. Aristophanes II (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998). For Prometheus see Aeschylus, Prom. 11, 28. 65 Burkert, “Mein Gott”, 234. 66 Eugene N. Lane, Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Menis, EPRO 19.1–4 (Leiden: Brill, 1971–78), III, 67–70. 67 Burkert, “Mein Gott”, 235. 68 Hasan Malay, “New Confession-Inscriptions in the Manisa and Bergama Museums,” EA 12 (1988): 147–52, 151–152 (No. 5, lines 1–2); Petzl, Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens, No. 11. On the verb translated by Malay as “enlightenment given” LSJ s.v. φρενο' ω I “make wise, instruct, inform”. 69 Josef Zingerle, “Heiliges Recht,” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts. Beiblatt 23/24 (1926/1929): 8–72/107–24, esp. 48–49; Raffaele Pettazzoni, Essays on the History of Religions, Studies in the History of Religions 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1954), 55–67; Hendrik S. Versnel, “Sin,” OCD (0012): 1369–71, esp. 1371; Peter Frisch, “Über die lydischphrygischen Sühneinschriften und die ‘Confessiones’ des Augustinus,” EA 2 (1983): 41–45; Marijana Ricl, “CIG 4142 – A Forgotten Confession-Inscription from North-West Phrygia,” EA 29 (1997): 35–43, esp. 36–37; Stephen Mitchell, “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians,” in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, ed. P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 81–148, esp. 112,114. 70 Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), I, 191.

498

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

“to further the exaltation of the local gods, thus preventing the people from seeking the forgiveness of sins elsewhere”, e.g., in the Christian churches.71 The benefit that the people who confess their sins in public seems to be mostly accruing to the god of the local sanctuary with which the steles were connected. It is instructive in the context of seeking favor from the gods that Simon Pulleyn distinguishes Greek prayers on a descending scale depending on how much charis the person who prays thinks he or she has with the god(s): ξενι' α (xenia; “friendship”) prayers draw on a perceived store of charis in order to sway the god; ι’ κετει' α (iketeia; “supplication”) prayers are at the bottom of the scale, with the person praying feeling that he or she has no amount of credit with the god and thus has to throw him- or herself upon the mercy of the god; λιται' prayers occupy the middle position.72 Dio Chrysostom insists, as do other writers, that the essential nature of the divine is goodness, in the sense of active beneficence in all areas of life. “And first of all – to begin, as I ought, with matters close at hand – rest assured of this, that all things which happen to men for their good are without exception of divine origin (πα' νθ’ ο‘ μοι' ως ε’ στι` δαιμο' νια); not only is this true if a voyager has the luck to find a pilot with experience, or a nation or a city to secure good leaders, but also if a physician arrives in time to save his patient, we must believe that he is a helper come from god, and if one hears words of wisdom, we must believe that they too were sent by god. For, in general, there is no good fortune, no benefit (ου’ δε` ν ευ» δαιμον ου’ δ ω’ φε' λιμον), that does not reach us in accordance with the will and the power of the gods (ο‹ μη` κατα` γνω' μην και` δυ' ναμιν τω ñ ν θεω ñ ν); on the contrary the gods themselves control all blessings everywhere and apportion lavishly to all who are ready to receive (πα' ντων α’ γαθω ñ ν αυ’ τοι` κρατουñ σι και` διανε' μουσι δαψιλω ñ ς τοιñς ε’ θε' λουσι δε' χεσθαι)” (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 36.15).73

In his discussion of the nature of the gods, Cicero portrays the skeptics’ position regarding the origin of virtue with a view to what people want from the gods: “But this is the way with all mortals: their external goods, their vineyards, cornfields and olive-yards, with their abundant harvests and fruits, and in short all the comfort and pros─────────────── 71 Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions,” NovT 45 (2003): 160–88, esp. 187 [Chapter 15 in this volume]. 72 Simon Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion, Oxford Classical Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 59–66. Pulleyn shows ibid. 18–38 that the ει» ποτε (“if ever“; da quia dedi [give because I gave]) mentality is a specifically Greek phenomenon for which it is “not easy to adduce convincing parallels” (18), and that it “existed in real life” (37). The constituent parts of a Greek prayer are invocation, argument (the petitioner adduces reasons why his request should be granted), and request; cf. ibid. 132–155; Furley, “Prayers and Hymns”, 122. 73 James W. Cohoon, Dio Chrysostom. Discourses 31–36 (LCL. Dio Chrysostom III; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979 [1940]).

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

499

perity of their lives, they think of as coming to them from the gods (a dis se habere); but virtue no one ever imputed to a god’s bounty ... The reason why men give to Jupiter the titles of Best and Greatest is not that they think that he makes us just, temperate or wise, but safe, secure, wealthy and opulent (sed quod salvos incolumis opulentos copiosos)” (Nat. d. 3.86, 87–88).

Cicero regularly invoked the gods, characterizing opponents such as Clodius as “the enemy of the gods”, claiming allegiance of the gods for himself, in an attempt to win an argument and promote his political goals. His political enemies argued within the same religious consensus and claimed the loyalty of the gods for themselves. The question “was not whether the gods were perceived to co-operate with the political leaders of Rome; but with which political leaders was their favor place?”74 The implicit claim to know the gods and their pleasure was used served the promotion of political advantage. In a second century hymn to Telesphoros, the gnome-like figure dressed in a hooded cape and sitting at the feet of Asklepios in Epidaurian iconography, Telesphoros is addressed as “all-knowing, relieving pain” (πα' νσοφε λυσιπο' νοι).75

6. Conclusions Concepts of belonging to God, being chosen by God and being a child of God, which we find in connection with the phrase “known by God” in biblical tradition,76 are not completely alien in the Greek and Hellenistic world. However, our survey of the concept of knowing the divine and of divine knowledge has shown that Greeks and Romans believed that it is difficult to know the gods, a conviction that is often stated and even more often implied. This is true even in the context of oracles which are believed to represent a communication of a god to human beings, since the oracles’ origin and reliability are not certain, at least not for the higher critics. The essential self-absorption of the gods focuses their attention on themselves rather than on human beings. If a god, for example Zeus, is deemed powerful or even omnipotent, his omniscience, when it is claimed, does not mean that he is interested in human beings or knows the people who pray to him or her. The power of the gods is arbitrary and unpredictable, and their omniscience is general, not personal. While in the biblical tradition the people of God may voice their lack of under─────────────── 74 Mary Beard, John North, and Simon Price, Religions of Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 140, who point to the analogous tactics of Saturninus and Catiline. 75 IG III.i 171; Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns, I, 268–269; II, 235. 76 Brian S. Rosner, “‘Known by God’: The Meaning and Value of a Neglected Biblical Concept,” TynBul 59 (2008): 206–30, esp. 206–219. R. Bultmann’s article on γινω' σκω/ε’ πιγινω' σκω in ThWNT I, 688–719 (TDNT I, 689–719) contains nothing that is helpful.

500

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

standing as to why God acts in a certain way or why does not act at all (see Eccl., Job), they know that they can entrust the present reality of their lives and their future to God because he is their Father who knows them and who cares for them. A climactic example is Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. The arbitrariness of the omnipotence and omniscience of the gods created the perception of divine distance. People experience the gods in cults, in festivals, and in processions, but communication with them generally requires mediators, such as priests, dreams, or oracles. Some people seem to have had a personal experience of a god, reflected in the active and joyful engagement in the worship of a particular god or of several gods. How that experience compared on an emotional level with the experience of Israelites, Jews, and Christians who asserted that they live in communion with Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and with Jesus, is difficult to say, since it is not easy to speak of, classify, and compare personal experience. The concepts of warning, humility, comfort, and security in the relation of Israelites, Jews, and followers of Jesus to the God whom they worship77 are also present in Greek and Roman religion. However, the personal relationship based on covenant responsibilities that we find in the texts that define and describe Israel and the ekklesia of Jesus’ followers is lacking in Greco-Roman texts. Greek and Roman religion was not about love for a deity, as Tom Carpenter points out: “it was about a relationship between unequals where a mortal hopes for some sort of reciprocity for his or her offerings to the immensely more powerful god”. 78 While Greeks and Romans can joyfully worship a deity, even speak of love, they seem to look for some material or social benefit. Although this utilitarian attitude characterized not a few Israelites, Jews, and Christians as well, it is not an exemplary, let alone central, aspect of the biblical understanding of God’s relationship with his people whom he has chosen, whom he knows, and whom he loves as his children. When interacting with Greeks and Romans who worshiped one or several of the traditional gods, the missionaries of the early churches would have wanted to emphasize that the one true God who created the world is allpowerful but not distant, omniscient but not domineering, actively involved in the affairs of the world but not arbitrary, personal but not vengeful. They pointed out that belonging to the one true God as doulos is predicated on the mercy of God who took the initiative to make them holy through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Messiah who is Lord, who calls rebellious sinners to be his holy people, and who loves them (1 Cor 1:2). They emphasized that the one true God is a personal God who knows them and who loves ─────────────── 77 Cf. Rosner, “Known by God”, 219–225. 78 Tom H. Carpenter, “Greek Religion and Art,” in A Companion to Greek Religion, ed. D. Ogden (Chichester: Blackwell, 2010), 398–420, 409.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

501

them because he forgives them as they respond to the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 1:7, in the context of Rom 1:18–15:13).79

Bibliography Babbitt, Frank Cole. Plutarch. De defectu oraculorum. Moralia V. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993 [1936]. —. Plutarch. De superstitione. Moralia II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971 [1928]. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. Religions of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Burkert, Walter. “From Epiphany to Cult Statue: Early Greek theos [1997].” Pages 139–55 in Kleine Schriften VI: Mythica, Ritualia, Religiosa 3. Edited by E. Krummen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. —. Greek Religion. Translated by J. Raffan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985 [1977]. —. “Das Lied von Ares und Aphrodite [1960].” Pages 105–16 in Kleine Schriften I: Homerica. Edited by C. Riedweg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. —. “‚Mein Gott?‘ Persönliche Frömmigkeit und unverfügbare Götter [1996].” Pages 225–36 in Kleine Schriften IV: Mythica, Ritualia, Religiosa 1. Edited by F. Graf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. —. “Plutarch: Gelebte Religion und philosophische Theologie [1996].” Pages 223–39 in Kleine Schriften VIII: Philosophica. Edited by A. Szlezák and K.-H. Stanzel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. —. “ΘΕΩΝ ΟΠΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΑΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ. Götterfurcht und Leumannsches Missverständnis.” Pages 93–104 in Kleine Schriften I: Homerica. Edited by C. Riedweg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Carpenter, Tom H. “Greek Religion and Art.” Pages 398–420 in A Companion to Greek Religion. Edited by D. Ogden. Chichester: Blackwell, 2010. Cohoon, James W. Dio Chrysostom. Discourses 31–36. LCL. Dio Chrysostom III. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979 [1940]. Dirven, Lucinda. “The Mithraeum as tableau vivant: A Preliminary Study of Ritual Performance and Emotional Involvement in Ancient Mystery Cults.” Religion in the Roman Empire 1 (2015): 20–50. Edelstein, Emma J. L., and Ludwig Edelstein. Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. 2 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1945]. Fabbro, Elena. I carmi conviviali attici. Introduzione, testimonianze, testo critico, traduzione e commento. Lyricorum Graecorum quae exstant 11. Rome: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, 1995. Foley, Helen P. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Frisch, Peter. “Über die lydisch-phrygischen Sühneinschriften und die ‘Confessiones’ des Augustinus.” EA 2 (1983): 41–45. Furley, William D. “Prayers and Hymns.” Pages 117–31 in A Companion to Greek Religion. Edited by D. Ogden. Chichester: Blackwell, 2007. ─────────────── 79 Rosner, “Known by God”. This essay was originally presented as a paper at the May 28–29, 2015 conference at Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia exploring the theme “Known by God”.

502

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Furley, William D., and Jan Maarten Bremer. Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. Vol. I, The Texts in Translation. Vol. II, Greek Texts and Commentary. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 9–10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Harder, M. Annette. “Callimachus.” Pages 63–81 in Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature, Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 1. Edited by I. J. F. de Jong, R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie. Mnemosyne Supplementa 257. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Heitsch, Ernst. Xenophanes. Die Fragmente. Sammlung Tusculum. München/Zürich: Artemis, 1983. Henderson, Jeffrey. Aristophanes. Clouds. Wasps. Peace. LCL. Aristophanes II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. Henrichs, Albert. “Gods in Action: The Poetics of Divine Performance in the Hymns of Callimachus.” Pages 127–47 in Callimachus. Hellenistica Groningana 1, Proceedings of the Groningen Workshop on Hellenistisc Poetry. Edited by M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and C. G. Wakker. Groningen: Forsten, 1993. Hopkinson, Neil. Callimachus: Hymn to Demeter. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Jameson, Michael H. “A Decree of Themistocles from Troizen.” Hesperia 29 (1960): 198–223. Jong, Irene de. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Kirk, Geoffrey S., John E. Raven, and Malcolm Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Knox, Bernard M. W. “Euripides.” Pages 316–39 in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature I. Greek Literature. Edited by P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1985]. Lacy, Phillip H. de, and Benedict Einarson. Plutarch. Consolatio ad uxorem. LCL. Moralia VII. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. —. Plutarch. Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum. LCL. Moralia XIV. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Lane, Eugene N. Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Dei Menis. EPRO 19.1–4. Leiden: Brill, 1971–78. Lesher, James H. Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary. Phoenix Sup 30. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Lombardo, Stanley. Sappho. Poems and Fragments. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002. MacMullen, Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983 [1981]. Malay, Hasan. “New Confession-Inscriptions in the Manisa and Bergama Museums.” EA 12 (1988): 147–52. Meiggs, Russel, and David M. Lewis. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Revised Edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988 [1969]. Mitchell, Stephen. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. —. “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians.” Pages 81–148 in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Edited by P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Olson, S. Douglas. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts. Text, Translation and Commentary. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Osborne, Michael J., and Sean G. Byrne. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names II: Attica. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Page, Denys L. Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.

16. Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion

503

Petrovic, Ivana. Von den Toren des Hades zu den Hallen des Olymp. Artemiskult bei Theokrit und Kallimachos. Mnemosyne Supplementa 281. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2007. Pettazzoni, Raffaele. Essays on the History of Religions. Studies in the History of Religions 1. Leiden: Brill, 1954. Petzl, Georg. Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. Epigraphica Anatolica 22. Bonn: Habelt, 1994. Platt, Verity. Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pulleyn, Simon. Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Race, William H. Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Rackham, Harris. Aristotle. Politics. Aristotle XXI. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932. —. Cicero. De natura deorum. Academica. Cicero XIX. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994 [1933]. Redfield, James M. Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector. Expanded Edition. Durham: Duke University Press, 1994. Richardson, Nicholas J. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. Ricl, Marijana. “CIG 4142 – A Forgotten Confession-Inscription from North-West Phrygia.” EA 29 (1997): 35–43. Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. The Poetics of Imitation: Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Rosner, Brian S. “‘Known by God’: The Meaning and Value of a Neglected Biblical Concept.” TynBul 59 (2008): 206–30. Sandin, Pär. Aeschylus’ Supplices. Introduction and Commentary on vv. 1–523. Göteborg: Göteborg University, 2003. Schnabel, Eckhard J. “Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions.” NovT 45 (2003): 160–88. Scott, Kenneth. “The Deification of Demetrius Poliorcetes.” AJP 49 (1928): 217–39. Simon, Erika. Die Götter der Griechen. 4th Edition. München: Hirmen, 1998 [1985]. Snell, Bruno. “Der Glaube an die olympischen Götter [1942].” Pages 30–44 in Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009 [1946]. Stephens, Susan A. Callimachus. The Hymns. With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Versnel, Hendrik S. Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 173. Leiden: Brill, 2011. —. “Sin.” OCD (0012), 1369–71. Waldner, Katharina. “Dimensions of Individuality in Ancient Mystery Cults: Religious Practice and Philosophical Discourse.” Pages 215–42 in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by J. Rüpke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Weil, Henri. “Un péan delphique à Dionysos.” BCH 19, 21 (1897): 343–418, 510–13. West, Martin L. Aeschyli Supplices. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1992. Zingerle, Josef. “Heiliges Recht.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts. Beiblatt 23/24 (1926/1929): 8–72, 107–24. Zoltan, Franyö, and Bruno Snell. Frühgriechische Lyriker III: Sappho, Alkaios, Anakreon. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology: The Missionary Reality of the Early Church and the Theology of the First Theologians What we today call “theology”, the early Christians regarded as proclamation of God’s saving acts that leads Jews and Gentiles to faith in Jesus the Messiah and Savior, that strengthens the faith of the followers of Jesus and that reinforces relevance of the word of God in their everyday lives.1 The leading men and women of the early church were missionaries and evangelists: Peter in Jerusalem, in Samaria, in the cities of the coastal plain, in northern Anatolia and in Rome; Stephen and Philip in Jerusalem, in Samaria and in the cities of the coastal plain; Barnabas in Antioch and on Cyprus; Paul in Nabatea, in Syria, in Cilicia, in Galatia, in Asia, in Macedonia, in Achaia, in Illyria, in Rome and in Spain; Priscilla in Corinth, in Ephesus and in Rome; Timothy in Macedonia, in Achaia and in Ephesus; Phoebe in Corinth and in Rome; Apollos in Achaia, in Ephesus and on Crete; Thomas probably in India, Matthew probably in Pontus, perhaps in Ethiopia, possibly in Syria; John Mark in Antioch, on Cyprus and in Rome; Luke in Antioch and in Macedonia; John in Jerusalem, in Samaria and in Ephesus. More names could be mentioned. You probably noticed that this list of names included all authors of the books of the New Testaments, with the exception of James, Jude and the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews. When I raise the question of the character of the theology of the New Testament, I do not imply that the New Testament texts were written with the purpose of leading Jews and Gentiles to faith in Jesus, the saving Messiah and Kyrios. The New Testament texts are not missionary literature. Nor do I imply that the authors of the New Testament, who wrote their texts for the instruction and edification of the followers of Jesus in local congregations, intended to summarize their own missiological convictions. The New Testament texts are not missiological literature. However, in view of the fundamental and pervasive missionary reality of the life of the early church, with the leaders of the new movement themselves on the move as missionaries and evangelists, it is ─────────────── 1 An earlier version of this essay was presented in German at the Annual Conference of the Arbeitskreis für evangelikale Theologie (September 14–17, 2003, Bad Blankenburg, Germany), and, in a revised form, in English, at the Conference of the Society of New Testament Studies (August 2–6, 2005, Halle, Germany).

506

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

a plausible assumption that the New Testament books reflect the reality of the missionary activity of the early church. This means that it should be possible to integrate the New Testament texts into the historical context of the early Christian mission. The gospels and the letters that constitute the canon of the New Testament literature were not written by academics, professionals of the spoken and written word, delineating arguments, counter-arguments, theories and hypotheses. They were not written by local believers, presenting their convictions, opinions and sentiments. They were not written by pastors, or bishops, putting pen to paper in an effort to edify, encourage and instruct believers. Nearly all the New Testament texts were written by theologians who had missionary experience, who had led people to faith in Jesus Christ, who had planted new churches, who had served as teachers and leaders of local congregations, who, very probably without exception, had traveled and visited other congregations and who wrote their texts with numerous Christians and many congregations in mind.2 Neither the authors of the canonical gospels or Paul, the author of the majority of the New Testament letters, relied on the power of rhetoric when they composed their texts, as they did not rely on rhetorical competence when they preached the gospel as missionaries but on the power of the word of God as revealed in the Scriptures and in the person and proclamation of Jesus. Despite all their form-analytical differences, the texts of the New Testament were always theological works as well, written for local congregations who knew of the reality of missionary work not only from hearsay or from reports but who had been involved locally and regionally in missionary outreach. The authors of the New Testament, having had missionary experience, wrote texts that were meant to consolidate the faith of the believers in God’s eschatological redemptive revelation in Jesus Messiah, explaining the Christian faith in the context of the expansion of faith in the Messiah and Savior from Jerusalem to all the nations. When I use the term “mission” (or “missions”) I refer to “the activity of a community of faith that distinguishes itself from its environment both in terms of religious belief (theology) and in terms of social behavior (ethics), that is convinced of the truth claims of its faith, and that actively works to win other people for the contents of faith and the way of life of whose truth and necessity the members of that community are convinced. This definition of ‘mission’ involves a threefold reality: (1) people communicate to people of different faiths a new interpretation of reality, i.e., a different, new view of God, of mankind and of salvation; (2) people communicate a new way of life that replaces, at least partially, the former way of life; and (3) people integrate those whom they win over to their faith and their way of life into their com─────────────── 2 Cf. Richard J. Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

507

munity. This definition may imply geographical movement. As far as the ancient world is concerned, this definition always implies the oral communication of convictions”.3 In the following remarks I will survey the structure of important descriptions of the theology of the New Testament and of the theology of the Apostle Paul, before making some suggestions for a description of the theology of the New Testament as missionary theology.

1. Descriptions of the Theology of the New Testament In the following remarks I will survey the most important descriptions of the theology of the New Testament regarding the question of how their authors consider, or ignore, the missionary reality of the early Christian theologians and their congregations. 1. Bernhard Weiß defines the task of biblical theology in the first sentences of his Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments, published in 1868, as follows: Die biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments ist die wissenschaftliche Darstellung der im Neuen Testamente enthaltenen religiösen Vorstellungen und Lehren. a) Dieselbe setzt voraus, daß durch die Neutestamentliche Einleitung und durch die Dogmatik die spezifische geschichtliche Bedeutung und der normative Charakter der im Neuen Testamente vereinigten Schriften erwiesen ist. b) Sie hat die individuell und geschichtlich bedingte Mannigfaltigkeit der Neutestamentlichen Lehrformen darzustellen, deren Einheit darauf beruht, daß sie aus dem durch die Gottesoffenbarung in Christo gewirkten religiösen Leben herstammen (The biblical theology of the New Testament is the scientific representation of the religious ideas and doctrines which are contained in the New Testament. (b) It assumes that the specific historical significance and the normative character of the writings which are united in the New Testament have been proved by New Testament introduction and by dogmatics. (c) It has to represent the individually and historically conditioned manifoldness of the New Testament forms of teaching, forms whose unity lies in the historical saving facts of the revelation of God which has appeared in Christ).4

Weiß’ explanation of these sentences on the subsequent pages demonstrates that the reference to the historical significance of the New Testament books and to the historically conditioned diversity of the New Testament teaching relates to the historical contingency of the authors of the New Testament writings rather than to the historical reality of the life, thought and work of the first Christians which was an essentially missionary reality. ─────────────── 3 Eckhard J. Schnabel, Urchristliche Mission (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2002), 11. 4 Bernhard Weiß, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 7th Edition (Stuttgart/Berlin: Cotta, 1903 [1868]), 1 (= Biblical Theology of the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1893, 1882], I, 1).

508

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

The structure of Weiß’ theology of the New Testament displays the same pattern that most contemporary New Testament theologies follow. In Part One Weiß treats the teaching of Jesus according to the earliest tradition (“die Lehre Jesu nach der ältesten Überlieferung”), the early apostolic teaching in the prePauline period (“der urapostolische Lehrtropus in der vorpaulinischen Zeit”), the teaching of Paul (“Paulinismus”), the early apostolic teaching in the postPauline period (“der urapostolische Lehrtropus in der nachpaulinischen Zeit”), and Johannine theology (“die johanneische Theologie”). Reading the headings of the individual sections of these five parts, we would hardly suspect that Weiß describes the writings of Christians and of churches who risked their lives in the course of their missionary work. The first section of Part Two discusses the speeches in the Book of Acts, but then goes on to discuss the proclamation of the Messiah and of the messianic period (“die Verkündigung des Messias und der messianischen Zeit”) in the first chapter and the early church and the question of the Gentiles (“die Urgemeinde und die Heidenfrage”) in the second chapter, which treats in three paragraphs the church and the apostles, the final conversion of Israel, and the status of the Gentile Christians in the church. Weiß treats the conversion of Cornelius in the paragraph on the status of the Gentile Christians in the early church, 5 but the formulation of the heading (“Die Stellung der Heidenchristen in der Gemeinde”) and the concentration on the Apostles’ Council shows that Weiß is more interested in internal developments rather than in the missionary expansion of the church. The heading of Part Three (“Der Paulinismus”) indicates a rather theoretical interest in theological and dogmatic questions, a suspicion that is quickly confirmed by the first sentence of the introduction into this part, where Weiß writes: Sowohl infolge seiner natürlichen spekulativen Anlage, als seiner rabbinisch-dialektischen Schulbildung besaß Paulus die Fähigkeit und Neigung, eine schärfer bestimmte Lehrform auszuprägen und sie nach den verschiedensten Seiten auszugestalten (In consequence of his natural speculative genius, as well as of his rabbinico-dialectic training, Paul possessed the ability and the inclination to strike out a more sharply defined form of teaching, and to work it out into an almost systematic completeness).6

The terms “mission”, “evangelism” or “proclamation” are not listed in the subject index. However, when we read Weiß’ work carefully, we notice that he includes, on occasion, helpful insights into the relevance of New Testament writings in the context of apostolic missionary activity. For example, Weiß notes with regard to First Peter, which he interprets as a document of the prePauline period, that the parenesis of the epistle receives its “colouring” from the circumstances of the young churches in an essentially pagan context: ─────────────── 5 Weiß, Lehrbuch, 147; on the Apostles’ Council, ibid. 148–50 (Theology, I, 197–203). 6 Weiß, Lehrbuch, 201 (Theology, I, 274).

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

509

Schon haben dieselben die von Jesu geweissagte Feindschaft der Welt zu kosten bekommen: heidnische Verleumdung und jüdische Lästerung um des Namens Christi willen. Es kam jetzt darauf an, durch die Entfaltung des christlichen Tugendlebens gerade unter dem Leidensstande die schleichende Verleumdung zu widerlegen; zu zeigen, daß die Schmach, welche die Gemeinde trug, wirklich nur die Schmach Christi sei. Aber die Ermahnung gründet sich überall auf die Heilstatsachen des Christentums, deren reiche Bezeugung den Brief zu einer höchst schätzenswerten Urkunde der petrinischen Verkündigung macht. Da nämlich jene Heilstatsachen den Lesern durch Nichtapostel verkündigt waren (1,12), und doch in der Gewißheit derselben das stärkste Motiv der christlichen Paränese ruht, so verbindet der Brief mit dem paränetischen Zweck den anderen, durch apostolisches Zeugnis den Lesern die Wahrheit der ihnen zu teil gewordenen Verkündigung zu bestätigen (5,12). (They have already experienced the hostility of the world which was foretold by Jesus, viz. Gentile calumniation and Jewish slander on account of the name of Christ. It was now important to refute this slinking calumniation by the unfolding of the Christian life of virtue in that very condition of suffering, to show that the reproach which the Church bore was really only the reproach of Christ. But the exhortation is based throughout upon the saving facts of Christianity. Naturally, these had already been proclaimed to the readers, but by those who were not apostles (i. 12); and because the strongest motive of Christian exhortation is found in the certainty of these facts, the Epistle unites with its hortatory aim the other aim of establishing its readers, by means of its apostolic testimony, in the truth of the proclamation which had reached them (v. 12).7

Weiß hints at the relevance of missionary activity and reality in the first section of his discussion of Paul’s theology, with the heading “die älteste heidenapostolische Verkündigung Pauli” (“The earliest preaching of Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles”) surveying on sixteen pages Paul’s proclamation to Gentiles.8 The next section, is again structured in terms of systematic-theological criteria: Weiß discusses “universal sinfulness”, “heathendom and Judaism”, “prophecy and fulfilment”, christology, soteriology, ethics, the doctrine of predestination, ecclesiology, and eschatology.9 2. Albert Immer, Professor in Bern, writes in the preface of his Theologie des Neuen Testaments, published in 1877, that a New Testament theology demands “a strictly historical treatment”.10 The attempt to pursue an empirically “exact” historical investigation remains restricted to the history of religious ideas and of traditions. Part One discusses the “religion of Jesus”, part two the Jewish-Christian church and the first apostles, part three what Immer calls “Paulinism”, part four the post-Pauline Jewish-Christian church, part five the movement that sought to mediate between Paul’s theology and Jewish Christianity, and part six the movement that stood above this contrast, i.e., the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John. Immer’s “exegetical-dogmatic presentation of the teaching of Paul according to his four main letters” discusses, first, “the Jewish aspects in Paul’s ─────────────── 7 Weiß, Lehrbuch, 122 (Theology, I, 163). 8 Weiß, Lehrbuch, 214–29 (Theology, I, 292–315). 9 Weiß, Lehrbuch, 230–403 (Theology, I, 315–489, II, 1–74). 10 Albert Immer, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Bern: Dalp, 1877), VII.

510

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

teaching”, second “the specifically Christian aspects of Paul’s teaching”.11 Immer refers to Paul as apostle to the Gentiles in the context of his discussion of Paul’s ecclesiology, specifically the “foundation of the church”, but he does not advance beyond general remarks. Immer’s description remains focused on systematic as well as religion and tradition-historical considerations. 3. Johann Christian Konrad von Hofman emphasizes in his Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, published in 1886, that biblical theology is a historical discipline which explores “the origins and the continuous outworking of the teaching whose documentary monument is the holy Scriptures”.12 As we will see at the end of our survey, von Hofmann was the only author of a New Testament theology who strove to relate the demand for a historical description to the history of the early church without merely attempting to reconstruct the history of early Christian ideas. The heading of the main section of the book (“Der Lehrinhalt der neutestamentlichen Schrift” [The teaching of the New Testament Scriptures]) suggests at first sight a systematic treatment. This impression is misleading, however. Von Hofmann discusses, in five chapters, 1. the preliminary proclamation of the realization of salvation, i.e., the promises given to Zachariah, Mary, Joseph and the shepherds; 2. the witness of John the Baptist; 3. the witness of Jesus during his earthly life; 4. the instruction of the disciples by the risen Jesus; 5. the teaching of Jesus’ witnesses. This last section, the largest of the book (192 pages), discusses in three sections the teaching of the apostles i. among the Jewish people, ii. among the Jewish church of Jesus, and iii. “in the area of the non-Israelite world”.13 This last section first discusses “the apostolic preaching with the purpose of converting to faith in Jesus”,14 before treating “the apostolic teaching within Gentile Christianity”. This last section (140 pages), which constitutes nearly half of the book, treats in nine chapters the New Testament letters. The general outline of von Hofmann’s New Testament theology takes the missionary activity of the early church seriously as the fundamental reality that shaped the thinking and the writing of the apostles, a focus that determines the first half of his book. The second half is a theological introduction to the literature of the New Testament, written from a historical perspective. 4. Willibald Beyschlag asserts in his Neutestamentliche Theologie, published in 1891, that his hermeneutics stands between “lifeless theological scholasticism” on the one hand and “the destructive criticism” of F. C. Baur ─────────────── 11 Immer, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 247–57, 258–357; for the following comment cf. ibid. 319–20. 12 Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Nach Manuskripten und Vorlesungen bearbeitet von W. Volck (Nördlingen: Beck, 1886), 1. 13 Von Hofmann, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 137–53, 135–81, 181–328. 14 Von Hofmann, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 184–86.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

511

on the other hand.15 Beyschlag learns from Schleiermacher that “criticism is an art that requires us to achieve an intellectual reproduction of the text under consideration and to evaluate it only on the basis of such a vivid reproduction”. From his teacher Friedrich Bleek, Beyschlag learns that the art of biblical interpretation cannot be exercised without “the virtue of prudence and humility, of respect for historical traditions, of differentiation between probable results and spurious inventions”. This program of “reproducing” the text of the early Christian theologians may suggest that we could expect attention to the fact that the authors of the New Testament writings and the leading churches that gave rise to the New Testament literature were involved in active missionary work. This expectation is not met, however. Beyschlag adopts the standard outline based on historical lines of development. He discusses Jesus’ teaching according to the Synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John, the early apostolic convictions (the Jerusalem church according to the Book of Acts, the Epistle of James and First Peter), Pauline theology, the advanced early apostolic teaching (the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Johannine literature), and, finally, “general Christian and post-apostolic teaching” (Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Jude, Second Peter, Pastoral Epistles). Beyschlag’s presentation follows a systematic-dogmatic structure within this “historical” outline. The first book describes Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God, christology, doctrine of God, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology. Beyschlag’s description of Paul’s theology discusses the following topics: flesh and spirit, Adam and Christ, God and the world, salvation, life in the Spirit, the church, the consummation. Beyschlag does not ignore the early Christian mission completely. In his chapter on “the church” in his discussion of Jesus’ teaching, he discusses in the seventh paragraph the “world-historical task” of Jesus’ followers. He emphasizes that Jesus defined the disciples’ scope of missionary work in terms of both Israel and the world of the Gentiles. 16 However, when Beyschlag describes the “early apostolic convictions” in Book Three he ignores the missionary work of the apostles almost completely. In chapter one, he discusses the historicity of the Book of Acts, the disciples’ viewpoint during Jesus’ lifetime, the effect of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and the giving of the Spirit. In chapter two, he discusses the content of the early apostolic proclamation, particularly christology, eschatology, and soteriology, without reference to the missionary context of the early Christian proclamation. Chapter three discusses the life of the early church, without paying any attention to the commissioning of missionaries; chapter four discusses Stephen, “the question of ─────────────── 15 Willibald Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie oder geschichtliche Darstellung der Lehren Jesu und des Urchristentums nach den neutestamentlichen Quellen (Halle: Strien, 1896 [1891]), IX–X, the following quotations ibid. X. 16 Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, 185.

512

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

the conversion of the Gentiles and the Apostles’ Council”.17 Beyschlag’s discussion of the theology of Paul’s letters, under the heading “der paulinische Lehrbegriff”, does not suggest that he would pay attention to Paul’s missionary work. His description of Paul’s teaching about salvation treats “the proclamation of the gospel”,18 but the focus is on a psychological description of Paul’s experience of the Spirit. 5. Ferdinand Christian Baur, in his Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie, describes the theology of the New Testament as “a purely historical discipline” which has become free from its dependence upon dogmatic theology.19 What is historical in Baur’s book is the outline which follows the development of early Christian history, discussing, first, the teaching of Jesus and secondly the teaching of the apostles. The latter section is divided into three periods: the teaching of the Apostle Paul and of the Apocalypse, the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the smaller Pauline Epistles, and the teaching of the Pastoral Epistles and of the Johannine literature. Evangelistic activities and missionary proclamation and expansion is never discussed. 6. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann asserts in his Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, first published in 1897, that the New Testament is not a doctrinal codex (“Lehrcodex”) whose individual assertions only need to be collected, evaluated and sorted by a description of the theology of the New Testament. Rather, Holtzmann argues, the New Testament is the result of a religious evolution that took place “under changing general and diverse individual conditions”.20 Holtzmann asserts that any description of New Testament theology, in order to be fruitful, must be written from a historical perspective, particularly a dogmatic-historical perspective as well as from a general religion-historical perspective. The outline of Holtzmann’s Lehrbuch follows the postulated historical development of early Christian history. The six chapters discuss Second Temple Judaism, the proclamation of Jesus, the theological problems of early Christianity, Pauline theology, deutero-Pauline theology, and Johannine theology. The missionary reality of the first Christians and their congregations is largely eclipsed. Holtzmann speaks of “messengers and itinerant preachers” (“Sendboten und Wanderprediger”) when he discusses the apostolic “instructional story” (“Lehrerzählung”) that aimed at “instruction with regard to the historical foundations of Christianity” and at “orientation with regard to the worldview, the interpretation and the application of the narrative material for faith and morals”.21 ─────────────── 17 Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, 310–45. 18 Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 171–73. 19 Ferdinand Christian Baur, Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie, ed. F. F. Baur (Gotha: Perthes, 1864), I, 25. 20 Heinrich J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Freiburg/Leipzig: Mohr, 1897), I, 23; for the following remark see ibid. 23–24.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

513

Holtzmann never discusses the international and cross-cultural activities of the early Christian leaders. He regards the Great Commission in Mt 28 as belonging to “the texts which canonize the dogmatic, constitutional and liturgical conditions of Jewish-Christian circles” and to church orders which are traced back, redactionally, to Jesus. Holtzmann fails, however, to describe the historical realities and the theological emphases of the early Christian mission, a term that is not listed in his subject index. When he discusses Paul’s theology, he refers to the “Gentile apostleship” of Paul in the context of a description of his conversion, focusing on Paul’s “universalism” while ignoring Paul’s missionary preaching.22 Since Holtzmann posits Luke-Acts “on the threshold of Catholicism”,23 it is not surprising that he characterizes the purpose and the content of the Book of Acts as “picture or early Christian conditions” while ignoring the historical movement and the missiological reality of the early Christian proclamation in the cities and provinces of the Roman Empire. The present of the author of the Book of Acts is, for Holtzmann, “the immediate product of a divine gift, not the result of the foundational activity of Jesus and of the apostles conveyed through diverse mediation and variations”. In view of such postulates it is impossible to do justice to the mission of the early church and her missionaries. 7. George Barker Stevens, professor of systematic theology at Yale University, published his The Theology of the New Testament in 1899. The first sentence of the introduction defines the goal of his presentation in terms of setting forth, “in systematic form, the doctrinal contents of the New Testament according to its natural divisions”.24 Stevens carries out this program in seven parts and 50 chapters. When I criticize Stevens’ work for ignoring the missionary reality of the early church, I am being generous. In his presentation of the teaching of Jesus, he limits his comments on the “duties of the Twelve” to the comment that their tasks do not receive a sharp profile and that the saying about the fishers of people in Mark 1:17 and the sending of the Twelve in Mark 6:7–13 demonstrate “that they had a certain official relation to him and that it was his intention to make them his chief agents in the establishment of his Church”.25 8. Adolf Schlatter asserts in the preface of the first volume of his New Testament theology, entitled Geschichte des Christus, published in 1909, daß die Gedanken des Neuen Testaments dadurch ihre Eigenart bekamen, daß sie die Glieder der Geschichte waren, die die neutestamentlichen Männer erlebten und hervor─────────────── 21 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch, I, 399; for the following comment see ibid. I, 378–79. 22 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch, II, 60–62. 23 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch, I, 463; for the following quotations see ibid. 455. 24 George Barker Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1906 [1899]), vii. 25 Stevens, Theology, 136.

514

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts brachten. Denn sie haben ihre Gedanken in eine bewußte und vollständige Verbindung mit ihrem Wollen und Handeln gebracht, ihnen in ihren Erlebnissen ihren Stoff und Grund gegeben und sie als Mittel zur Ausführung ihres Berufs benützt. Das machte aus dem, was wir ihre Lehren heißen, Bestandteile ihrer Taten und damit ihrer Geschichte (… that the ideas of the New Testament received their uniqueness from being components of the history experienced and produced by the men of the New Testament. For they brought their thoughts into a conscious and complete connection with their will and action. Through what they experienced they gave their thoughts content and basis. They used their experience as the means to fulfill their calling).26

Schlatter asserts that as regards Jesus and the apostles, it is impossible, “eine ‘Lehre’ von seinem Handeln abzulösen, da bei ihm das Wort und das Werk, die Gewißheit und der Wille eine fest verbundene Einheit gewesen sind” (to separate a ‘message’ from his actions, since, in his case, the word and the work, the assurance and the will, form a closely connected unity”). He asserts that it is the main task of New Testament theology to make this connection visible. These considerations represent a twofold methodological advance over the previous New Testament theologies. 1. The criterion of “history” is not only applied to the general development from Jesus to the Jerusalem apostles and to Paul, but to the individual witnesses and authors of the New Testament writings. 2. The activities of the early Christians is taken more seriously, as Schlatter emphasizes the indissoluble unity of teaching and action. When we evaluate both volumes of Schlatter’s New Testament theology – the second volume was published with the title Die Theologie der Apostel in 191027 – we notice four important characteristics. (1) Historical events are consistently integrated into the account of the theology of the New Testament. In the first volume, we find sections with the following headings: Nazareth and Bethlehem; Jesus’ life in Bethlehem; the success of John the Baptist; the separation from the Baptist; the calling of the first disciples; the move to Capernaum; the commissioning of the twelve messengers; Jesus’ separation from Jerusalem.28 (2) The missionary task and activity of Jesus and of the apostles is emphasized repeatedly. In the first volume, Schlatter devotes eight pages to the calling of the first disciples, twenty pages to the appointment of the twelve messengers, eight pages to the disciples’ involvement in Jesus’ ministry; in the last section on the Easter story he discusses the Great Commission of the risen ─────────────── 26 Adolf Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1923 [1909]), 5 (= The History of the Christ: The Foundation of New Testament Theology, trans. A. J. Köstenberger [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997], 21). The following quotation ibid. 27 Adolf Schlatter, Die Theologie der Apostel (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1922 [1910]) (= The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology, trans. A. J. Köstenberger [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999]). 28 Schlatter, Geschichte des Christus, 26–29, 29–33, 73–76, 115–20, 121–28, 132–34, 312–32, 362–64.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

515

Christ.29 In the second volume, two of the eight sections of Part One on “the disciples’ vantage point at the beginning of their work” are devoted to missionary work, entitled “the office of Jesus’ messengers” and “the disciples’ commission to Israel;” the first section of Part Three which discusses Paul is entitled “the apostolic office in Paul”.30 (3) The unity of teaching and action is nearly completely dissolved, in the second volume, in terms of a presentation of the teaching of the apostles. Even though Part One is entitled “the disciples’ vantage point at the beginning of their work”,31 but the following discussion is devoted to “the convictions upheld by Jesus’ followers”, without describing the movement of the early Christian missionary activity that resulted from the “vantage point”. Schlatter discusses Paul’s theology under the heading “the calling of the nations through Paul”,32 without devoting even one chapter to his missionary work or his missionary proclamation. The chapters in which Schlatter treats Paul have the following headings: “Paul’s task;” “Christ’s gift;” “God’s presence in Christ;” “the church;” “conditions affecting Pauline teaching”. The chapter about “the church” discusses “faith”, “love”, and “the community of believers”. The chapter on the “conditions affecting Pauline teaching” discuss “Jesus and Paul”, “the relationship between Paul’s convictions and his conversion”, “internal struggles in Christianity”, and “stages in the formation of Pauline teaching”. The following two main parts are devoted to “the share of apostolic associates in doctrinal formation”, treating the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the Book of Acts, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Second Peter, and to “the knowledge possessed by the early church”. In both of these parts, neither the historical nor the theological dimension of the early Christian mission plays any role. The last section of the last main part on “the knowledge possessed by the early church”, entitled “the task to be accomplished by the church”, discusses in four chapters “the church’s leadership”, “the sacraments of the church”, “the church’s unity”, and “differences within the church”. In the first section on the leadership of the church, Schlatter first discusses “Jesus’ messengers”,33 but he concentrates mostly on “the apostles’ right to govern the church”, while he answers the question concerning the “method or technique” of missionary work with reservation and strangely quietistically in terms of the “calm wait─────────────── 29 Schlatter, Geschichte des Christus, 121–28, 312–32, 332–40, 534–44 (History of the Christ, 103–8, 234–48, 248–253, 387–89). 30 Schlatter, Theologie der Apostel, 28–29, 29–35, 239–54 (Theology of the Apostles, 39– 40, 40–44, 187–197). 31 Schlatter, Theologie der Apostel, 11–43; for the following comment see ibid. 44–238 (Theology of the Apostles, 27–50, and 51–185). 32 Schlatter, Theologie der Apostel, 239–432 (Theology of the Apostles, 187–321). 33 Schlatter, Theologie der Apostel, 501–6 (Theology of the Apostles, 372–76); the following quotations ibid. 502, 505 (Theology of the Apostles, 373, 375).

516

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

ing by which Jesus himself committed his own revelation and exaltation to God”, arguing that the apostles “speak when they are given the opportunity. The obligation to confess the Lord at that time in open testimony is fully accepted and carried out at the risk of one’s life. But the opportunity is not forced”. The missionary initiatives and activities that Luke describes in the Book of Acts portray a very different picture. (4) The general structure of Schlatter’s New Testament theology largely follows the traditional pattern: the description of Jesus’ life and teaching is followed by a survey of the Jerusalem church, by a description of the convictions of the early apostles (Peter, Matthew, James, Jude, John), a description of the theology of Paul and of the authors of the later New Testament writings (Mark, Luke, Hebrews, pseudo-Peter), before summarizing the insights of the early church in the last section. 9. Heinrich Weinel published his Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments in 1913, with the subtitle “the religion of Jesus and of early Christianity”. In Part One he discusses Jesus’ teaching as “moral religion of redemption”, and in Part Two “early Christianity”, with a description of “the origins”, Paul, and “the Christianity of the emerging church”. In connection with his discussion of Christian origins, he asserts that the converts’ appreciation of the new community produced the eagerness “to draw others into this circle of holiness and of certainty of eternal life as well”.34 Weinel states that it is possible that the missionary activity of the early church can be traced back to the dispersion of the Jerusalem Christians as a result of persecution. He is convinced, however, that the mission of the early church is founded in the “essence of religion”. This conviction has no consequences for his description of the theology of the New Testament, however. 10. Julius Kaftan, whose Neutestamentliche Theologie was published in 1927, asserts that “the theology of the New Testament has the task of making the New Testament understood from the historical development that forms its basis and is expressed in its writings and from the motifs that are operative in this development”, emphasizing that such a description has to be a purely historical description.35 Kaftan’s outline and presentation corresponds to the traditional patterns. When he discusses, in the last chapter, “historical relationships”, he focuses on the relationship between Jesus and Paul, between the Gentiles and the Jews, between the universalism of John and the priority of the people of Israel in Paul, and on the role of gnosticism. The missionary realities of the early church is ignored. ─────────────── 34 Heinrich Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Die Religion Jesu und des Urchristentums, Grundriss der theologischen Wissenschaften 3.2 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1921 [1913]), 252. 35 Julius Kaftan, Neutestamentliche Theologie. Im Abriß dargestellt (Berlin: Warneck, 1927), 8 (my translation).

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

517

11. Theodor Zahn, the successor of J. C. K. von Hofmann in Erlangen, published in 1928 his Grundriß der neutestamentlichen Theologie, one of his smaller publications. Zahn emphasizes that the task of New Testament theology is not to present merely the doctrinal content of the different authors and to compile the theology of the New Testament from their theological concepts.36 He asserts that the development of religious knowledge in New Testament times is linked with “historical facts, such as the existence of Jesus, his death, his resurrection, the giving of the Spirit of God, the entrance of the Gentiles into the church”. Zahn continues: New Testament theology is only what it must be if we appreciate these facts in terms of their significance that is epoch-making, generates doctrine and transcends even the greatest individuality, i.e., a historical description of the development of the Christian religion in its primitive period, as documented in the New Testament.37

Zahn discusses, in three parts, the proclamation of John the Baptist, the teaching of Jesus, and the teaching of the apostles. In Part Three, under the heading “faith in the apostolic period”, he describes the identity of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jesus’ eternal divinity, Jesus’ real and sinless humanity, the salvific significance of Jesus’ death, the Spirit and the work of the Spirit, the word of God as law and gospel, baptism, regeneration. Zahn links these topics with the historical conditions of the apostolic period, but his treatment remains essentially systematic. In his chapter on “the apostolic preaching and teaching in Israel” he describes, on just about two pages, the missionary proclamation of the early church.38 Zahn’s description of Paul’s theology in chapter three is controlled by the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans and thus by internal Christian disputes and concerns. 12. Friedrich Büchsel’s Theologie des Neuen Testaments, published in 1935, has the subtitle The History of the Word of God in the New Testament. He describes the task of New Testament theology in terms of seeing and understanding the twofold history of the Word of God as God’s revelation and as human word.39 Again, despite this emphasis on history, the historical reality of the life, thought and action of the early church is largely ignored. What is “historical” in Büchsel’s presentation is the sequence of the two main parts, which discuss “the proclamation and teaching of Jesus” and “the proclamation and teaching of the apostles”, with Part Two focusing mostly on Paul. Büchsel fails to discuss the calling of the Twelve, the missionary theology and work of the Jerusalem church and its representatives, and the missionary activity of ─────────────── 36 Theodor Zahn, Grundriß der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Leipzig: Deichert, 1932 [1928]), 1; the following quotation ibid. 2. 37 Zahn, Grundriß der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 2 (my translation). 38 Zahn, Grundriß der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 86–88. 39 Friedrich Büchsel, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Geschichte des Wortes Gottes im Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1935), 3–4.

518

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Paul. The first sentence of his discussion of Paul shows, at least, that he has not completely forgotten the reality of Paul’s ministry, when he writes: “In terms of work accomplished and success achieved, Paul surpasses all other early Christian missionaries”.40 However, this assertion plays no role whatsoever for his description of Paul’s christology, anthropology, soteriology and ecclesiology, not even for the section entitled “the task in the world”. 13. Rudolf Bultmann’s Theologie des Neuen Testaments – the German edition was published in three parts between 1948 and 1953 – represents the sum of his life’s work, as Otto Merk commented in the preface to the ninth German edition published in 1984. Merk asserts that this study remains a standard work of New Testament research, indeed of overall theological research, in this century. Its conception allowed the author to place the message of the New Testament witnesses, with academic meticulousness, in the context of the responsibility of faith and thought that has been made possible by the kerygma and that human existence has to prove to be able to nurture life by linking Christianity and humanness.41

The first sentence of Bultmann’s work is famous: “The message of Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself”.42 Bultmann continues, for New Testament theology consists in the unfolding of those ideas by means of which Christian faith makes sure of its own object, basis, and consequences. But Christian faith did not exist until there was a Christian kerygma; i.e., a kerygma proclaiming Jesus Christ – specifically Jesus Christ the Crucified and Risen One – to be God’s eschatological act of salvation.43

If we accept Bultmann’s premise that the historical Jesus did not understand his ministry and his death as a salvific act and that he was neither the Messiah nor the preexistent Son of Man, this position is consistent. But even Bultmann cannot do entirely without the historical Jesus: he surveys on about twentyfive pages Jesus’ eschatological proclamation, his interpretation of the claims of God and his view of God, as the historical conditions of the early Christian kerygma. However, it needs to be noted that the goal of New Testament theology, consisting “in the unfolding of those ideas by means of which Christian faith makes sure of its own object, basis, and consequences”, consistently remains in Bultmann’s sights. Part One, entitled “presuppositions and motifs of New Testament theology”, describes in three chapters the message of Jesus, ─────────────── 40 Büchsel, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 95; the following remark 147–49. 41 Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 9th Edition, ed. Otto Merk, UTB 630 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), VIII; Merk’s is a two volume paperback edition. The English translation appeared in two volumes 1965: Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (London: SCM, 1965). 42 Bultmann, Theologie, 1 (Theology, I, 3). 43 Bultmann, Theologie, 1–2 (Theology, I, 3).

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

519

the kerygma of the earliest church and the kerygma of the Hellenistic church aside form Paul. It is not surprising, in this context, that Bultmann’s Theologie des Neuen Testaments is one of the descriptions – if not the first – of New Testament theology in which the term “missionary activity” or “mission” is mentioned in the subject index. In paragraph six entitled “the earliest church as the eschatological congregation”, Bultmann relates the proof from prophecy in the early Christian proclamation to devotional, missionary and apologetic motifs, describing the early Christian faith in the imminent end as a conviction which dominated the missionary work of the early church.44 In paragraph eight on the “beginnings toward development of ecclesiastical forms”, Bultmann, maintains that the church in Jerusalem initially did not embrace the mission to the Gentiles as task, and that a movement within the church rejected the Gentile mission completely, as attested in the saying in Matt 10:5–6 (“Go nowhere among the Gentiles”) that was placed on Jesus’ lips. He claims that Gentiles were accepted into the church only in exceptional cases and with great reluctance, as demonstrated by the legendary stories about the Roman centurion in Capernaum (Mark 8:5–10 par) and about the woman in Syrophoenicia (Mark 7:24–30). In paragraph nine, Bultmann discusses on twenty-five pages “the preaching of God and his judgment, of Jesus Christ, the Judge and Savior, and the demand for faith”, describing the missionary realities of the early Christian proclamation. The first sentence formulates, historically correct and missiologically germane, that “Christian missionary preaching in the Gentile world could not be simply the christological kerygma; rather, it had to begin with the proclamation of the one God”.45 In paragraph fourteen on the Spirit, Bultmann refers to missionary work as the first area outside of the congregational assemblies that receives the effects of the pneuma. In view of Bultmann’s interest in form-historical questions, his concern for the missionary dimension of the early Christian proclamation is not really surprising. However, the fact that he discusses the “kerygma” of the Hellenistic Jewish Christians in Part One, under the heading “presuppositions and motifs of New Testament theology”, indicates that the missionary reality is regarded as less significant for the main content of the theology of the New Testament. This supposition is confirmed in Parts Two and Three in which Bultmann discusses the theology of Paul and of John. Here, the missionary initiative and activity of the apostle Paul plays virtually no role. In paragraph sixteen on “the historical position of Paul”, Bultmann refers to Paul as missionary only in the context of his description of Paul as a Hellenistic Jew who was introduced into the Hellenistic church after his conversion where he met missionaries ─────────────── 44 Bultmann, Theologie, 44 (Theology, I, 42); for the following remarks see ibid. 58–59, 68–94, 164 (Theology, I, 55–56, 65–92, 161–62). 45 Bultmann, Theologie, 69 (Theology, I, 65).

520

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

such as Barnabas.46 Bultmann’s preliminary remark on Paul’s anthropology, that Paul did not delineate an academic, theoretical system but that he always sees human beings in their relationship to God, would provide an opportunity to describe the missionary situations in which Paul speaks about human beings and the human condition. We look for such an analysis in vain, however. Bultmann implies, perhaps, that he provides the theoretical foundation and framework that Paul failed to describe. Under the heading “man prior to the revelation of faith”, Bultmann describes “the anthropological concepts” of soma, psychē, pneuma, zoē, mind, conscience, and heart, and the nexus of flesh, sin and the world. Under the heading “man under faith”, he describes the righteousness of God, grace, faith, and freedom. In Part Four on “the development toward the ancient church”, the missionary reality of the early church is no longer a subject. Bultmann discusses “the rise of church order and its earliest development”, “the development of doctrine”, “the core of the development”, and “the problem of Christian living”. 14. Hans Conzelmann’s Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, published in 1967, is a step backwards compared with Bultmann’s work. In Part One, devoted to the “kerygma” of the early church and of the Hellenistic church, Conzelmann discusses in paragraph four “historical problems”, among them the Gentile mission that resulted from the expulsion of the Hellenists from Jerusalem.47 However, he neither discusses the missionary proclamation nor the missionary initiatives of the early church, neither in his description of the early church nor in his description of Paul’s theology. 15. Werner Georg Kümmel published his Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments in 1969. He refers several times to the missionary reality of the early church, but he does so only in asides – in a comment on the Easter faith of the church, in a comment on the ecclesiological views of the church and the signs of an apostle according to Paul, in brief comments on the effects and origins of Paul’s thought, in a comment on the relationship between Paul and Jesus, in a comment on the historical location of Johannine christology, and in the summary of Paul’s theology in the last section.48 Kümmel asserts that “Paul was a theologian, but as a missionary”, but this insight plays no role in his description of Paul’s theology. He asserts that “the Synoptic Gospels are not historical narrative but missionary and kerygmatic writings” (“Missions- und ─────────────── 46 Bultmann, Theologie, 189; the following remark 193 (Theology, I, 188, 191). 47 Hans Conzelmann, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 5th Edition, edited by A. Lindemann, UTB 1446 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 48 (= An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament [London: SCM, 1969]). 48 Werner Georg Kümmel, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, NTD Ergänzungsreihe 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1969), 93, 119, 122–23, 219, 229, 290; for the following quotations see ibid. 123, 229 (= The Theology of the New Testament According to its Major Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973]).

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

521

Verkündigungsschriften”). But his discussion of the theology of Matthew, Mark and Luke does not demonstrate in what respects this insight is relevant. 16. Peter Stuhlmacher, who published his Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments in 1992/1999, describes the task of New Testament theology as “ordered description of the main content of the message and the faith of the New Testament books”.49 The subject indexes of the two volumes reveal that Stuhlmacher refers more frequently to the missionary work of the early church than his predecessors. He emphasizes, at the end of his description of Jesus’ proclamation, that Jesus’ consciousness of being the Messiah sent by God to die as a sacrifice for sins was the cause and the foundation of salvific emphasis of the early Christian missionary gospel.50 In Part One, devoted to “the proclamation of the early church”, Stuhlmacher discusses the conditions that gave rise to the first communities of Jesus’ followers, investigating the question what motivated the mission of these churches and what their representatives believed.51 In the first sentence of his description of Paul, Stuhlmacher characterizes Paul’s theology as “missionary theology”.52 He summarizes the characteristic features of Paul’s ministry a few pages later by asserting that “the theology of Paul that these letters document constitutes, of course, not a systematic presentation but a missionary theology with a universal horizon put together, often rather quickly, in the context of practical needs”. Ten pages later he argues that “the background theme of Paul’s life is the proper relationship between the Torah and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Paul’s theology is to be understood as missionary theology”. However, the general structure of Stuhlmacher’s New Testament theology corresponds, again, to the traditional, systematic patterns. In his discussion of Paul, he begins by surveying “the sources, the chronology and the characteristics of Paul’s ministry and work” and “the origins and the starting-point of Paul’s theology”, before treating the law, anthropology, christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and ethics. 17. There is no time to describe in detail the descriptions of the theology of the New Testament written by Karl-Heinz Schelkle (1968–1976),53 Eduard Lohse (1974),54 George Eldon Ladd (1974),55 Leonard Goppelt (1975/1976),56 ─────────────── 49 Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus. Band 2: Von der Paulusschule zur Johannesoffenbarung. Der Kanon und seine Auslegung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992/1999), I, 2. An English translation by Daniel P. Bailey will appear in the fall of 2018, published by Eerdmans. 50 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, I, 143. 51 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, I, 197–221. 52 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, I, 221; the following quotations ibid. 232, 243. 53 Karl Hermann Schelkle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968– 76) (= Theology of the New Testament [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1971–78]). 54 Eduard Lohse, Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 5th Edition, Theologische Wissenschaft (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998).

522

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Donald Guthrie (1981),57 Leon Morris (1986),58 Hans Hübner (1990–1995),59 Joachim Gnilka (1994),60 George Caird (1994),61 Georg Strecker (1996),62 Ferdinand Hahn (2002),63 and Ulrich Wilckens (2002–2009).64 In Goppelt’s Theology of the New Testament, the term “mission” is mentioned in the subject index more frequently than in most descriptions of the theology of the New Testament. But the basic missionary reality of the early church and her leading theologians does not govern his presentation as such. Hans Hübner correctly argues that “Paul’s theological involvement aimed at the specific missionary situation of the early church”.65 He goes on to assert that Paul’s letters are not missionary writings and that not one of Paul’s letters presents his missionary preaching. Hübner’s presentation owes more to Heidegger and Bultmann than to the missionary reality of the early church. Joachim Gnilka cogently argues that for Paul, apostleship, gospel and church belonged an inseparable unity.66 His discussion of Paul’s anthropology, soteriology, and ecclesiology remains general and theoretical, however. Georg Strecker discusses Paul’s ecclesiology in three parts: “the church as community”, “the church and the world”, and “Israel and the church”. In the section on “the church and the world” he discusses two subjects: “the indicative and the imperative in the ecclesiological context”, and “faith and the orders of the world”. He completely ignores mission and evangelism, proclamation and church growth which were all major concerns of the apostle Paul. ─────────────── 55 George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). 56 Leonhard Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Erster Teil: Jesu Wirken in seiner theologischen Bedeutung. Zweiter Teil: Vielfalt und Einheit des apostolischen Christuszeugnisses, ed. J. Roloff (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975/1976) (= Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976/1982). 57 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology: A Thematic Study (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1981). 58 Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986). 59 Hans Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Prolegomena. Paulus. Band 2: Die Theologie des Paulus und ihre neutestamentliche Wirkungsgeschichte. Band 3: Hebräerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung. Epilegomena (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990/1993/1995). 60 Joachim Gnilka, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Freiburg: Herder, 1994). 61 George B. Caird, New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995 [1994]). 62 Georg Strecker, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. F. W. Horn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996). 63 Ferdinand Hahn, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1. Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments: Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums. Band 2. Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Thematische Darstellung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 64 Ulrich Wilckens, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band I. Geschichte der urchristlichen Theologie. Band II. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments als Grundlage kirchliche Lehre, 6 vols. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002–2009). 65 Hübner, Theologie, II, 38; for the following remark see ibid. 26. 66 Gnilka, Theologie, 37.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

523

2. Descriptions of the Theology of Paul The general failure to acknowledge the missionary reality of the life and the teaching of the early church in descriptions of the theology of the New Testament is also reflected in descriptions of Paul’s theology. 1. Günther Bornkamm’s book on Paul, first published in 1969, is a combination of a biography and a description of Paul’s theology.67 In the biographical section, Paul’s missionary work is prominent, while it is mentioned only briefly in Part Two on “message and theology”, where the usual systematic subjects dominate. The same can be said concerning the descriptions of Paul by Joachim Gnilka (1996),68 and C. K. Barrett (1994).69 2. The biographies of Paul by Eduard Lohse (1996)70 and Jerome MurphyO’Connor (1996) naturally focus on the apostle’s missionary work.71 3. The basic reality of missionary initiatives and missionary proclamation in the life and ministry of the apostle Paul is also largely ignored in the books on Pauline theology written by Hans-Joachim Schoeps (1959), 72 Karl Kertelge (1991), 73 Alan Segal (1990)74 and James Dunn (1998).75 Dunn’s Theology of Paul the Apostle is the most comprehensive description of Paul’s theology which informs competently about Paul’s thinking and teaching, written on the basis of the structure of the Epistle to the Romans, largely ignoring the missionary reality of Paul’s life. The addition of the epithet the Apostle in the title could have been omitted. [Dunn’s 2009 study Beginning in Jerusalem is an extensive description of the missionary work, the pastoral ministry, and the literary activity of the early church, including Paul.]76

─────────────── 67 Günther Bornkamm, Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969) (= Paul [New York: Harper, 1971]). 68 Joachim Gnilka, Paulus von Tarsus. Zeuge und Apostel (Freiburg: Herder, 1996). 69 C. K. Barrett, Paul: An Introduction to His Thought (Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1994). 70 Eduard Lohse, Paulus. Eine Biographie (München: Beck, 1996). 71 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). 72 Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Paulus. Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte, Nachdruck (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972) (= Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, trans. H. Knight [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961]). 73 Karl Kertelge, Grundthemen paulinischer Theologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1991). 74 Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). 75 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 76 James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); for Paul see ibid., 322–77, 497–1057.

524

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

4. Herman Ridderbos’ Outline of Paul’s theology, originally published in Dutch in 1966,77 interacts more with the hermeneutical reality of Bultmann’s theology than with the historical reality of Paul’s theology which was a missionary reality, which he nearly completely ignores. 5. Georg Eichholz’s outline of Paul’s theology, published in 1972, focuses on Paul’s missionary activity more consistently. He begins with the following sentences: I want to begin with a chapter on Paul’s view of his apostolic task … We will investigate the emphases that Paul linked with his ministry as proclaimer of the good news. In this ministry he encountered people as addressees of the gospel, in this ministry he confronted people with the gospel. It was in the context of this encounter and in the context of this confrontation that human beings received their profile. We thus intend to portray Paul’s anthropology from the perspective of people’s encounter with the gospel.78

After “preliminary remarks on a theology of Paul” in the first chapter, Eichholz discusses in chapter two Paul’s self-understanding as an apostle, focusing on his task, his calling, his international preaching ministry, the singular emphasis of his apostolic office, his conversion, and the content of his proclamation. In chapter three he discusses “the gospel as the apocalypse of mankind”, the “canon of missionary activity”, and “the word of the cross as God’s decision for mankind”, before treating in subsequent chapters Paul’s anthropology, christology, soteriology, and ethics. 4. J. Christiaan Beker’s Paul the Apostle, published in 1980,79 interprets Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Romans in the missionary context of Paul’s theology. He argues, first, that Paul’s hermeneutics must be interpreted in terms of the complex interplay of coherence and contingency, and, second, that the coherent theme of Paul’s theology is the apocalyptic subject of the dawn of the triumph of God whose victory has been inaugurated in the coming of Jesus, to be consummated in the imminent redemption of creation. In the first chapter, entitled “Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles”, Beker rejects the contrast of experience and theology as wrong alternatives, since experience and reflection are linked in Paul’s call to be an apostle.80 In the preface to the first paperback edition, Beker admits that he has not paid enough attention to the dimension of contingency which is linked with the missionary work of Paul as apostle, and he accepts R. P. Martin’s critique that his enquiry into Paul’s apologetic remains purely academic.81 He accepts the criticism that he ─────────────── 77 Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of his Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) (= Paulus. Ein Entwurf seiner Theologie [Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1970]). 78 Georg Eichholz, Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983 [1972]), 14. 79 J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987 [1980]). 80 Beker, Paul, 8. 81 Beker, Paul, Edition 1984, xx. See the review of R. P. Martin, JBL 101 (1982) 464.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

525

overlooked the fact that Paul’s mission in Anatolia represents the basic historical parameters for the apostle’s theological reflection, and he acknowledges that Paul’s references to his personal experience, which is missionary experience, belong to the most compelling elements of his self-defense. Beker emphasizes that despite all historical contingency and concreteness, Paul’s theology had a constant theological center to which all the convictions of the apostle can be related. It is plausible, from a methodological point of view, to begin with the contingency and to describe the coherence of Paul’s theology on the historical background of the individual letters of Paul. From a theological point of view it is more plausible to reverse the sequence: the historically necessary application and contextualization of his message, the contingency, was, for Paul, not the prae: Paul’s arguments were always fundamentally theological arguments. This is the reason why he writes in 1 Cor 9:21–23: To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

5. Jürgen Becker, in his book Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, published in 1989,82 combines a biography of Paul, a theological analysis of Paul’s letters (at least of those that Becker accepts as genuine), and, on eighty-four pages, a summary of an outline of Pauline theology. 83 Becker’s comments on the starting-point and structure of Pauline thought demonstrate that he has not only understood the connection between missionary activity and theological reflection in Paul but that he acknowledges this connection as a foundational hermeneutical fact. Becker asserts that one must not use Paul’s letters too quickly as quarry for proof-texts for specific theological-systematic themes. He emphasizes at the same time, however, that in the midst of all the diversity of Paul’s statements, there are basic trajectories and decisions that are maintained as they are derived from a unified system of thought. Becker answers the question concerning the origins of Paul’s theological assertions as follows: Paulus redet aus der Erfahrung seiner Berufung und vor allem aus der Erfahrung, wie sie durch das Wirken des Evangeliums auf dem weltweiten Misisonsfeld von den Gemeinden und ihm gemacht wird (Paul speaks from the experience of his calling and, primarily, from the experience that the impact of the gospel on the worldwide mission field provides for the churches and for himself).84 ─────────────── 82 Jürgen Becker, Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) (= Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, trans. O. C. Dean (Louisville: Westminster, 1993). 83 Becker, Paulus, 395–478 (Paul, 373–450). 84 Becker, Paulus, 395 (Paul, 373).

526

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Becker emphasizes that Paul is a theologian who thinks and lives on the basis of the experience of the gospel, and that he thus describes the determination of people by the gospel both as divine election and as people reacting in faith, love and hope. Becker illustrates this correlation of missionary experience and theological description briefly with several basic themes of Paul’s letters. When he describes the basic contours of Paul’s theology, however, the missionary context of Paul’s life remains mostly of theoretical-academic interest, one reason being that Becker had described Paul’s missionary work on the first two-hundred pages of his book and surely wanted to avoid repetitions. This means, however, that Becker does not achieve an integrative descripton of Paul’s missionary experience and his theological thought. 6. Thomas Schreiner’s study Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, published in 2001, 85 is the only comprehensive (yet succinct) description of Paul’s theology that consciously attempts to integrate missionary reality and theological reflection. Reading the sixteen chapters of the book leaves an ambiguous impression concerning the success of this intention. The first chapter, entitled “the centrality of God in Christ in Paul’s theology”, discusses the question of the center of Paul’s theology in a conversation with the suggestions of various New Testament scholars, while a conversation with the Jewish and early Christian traditions that Paul adopted or with the theological and rhetorical requirements of his missionary work may prove to be more fruitful. In chapter two, entitled “proclaiming a magnificent God: the Pauline mission”, Schreiner describes Paul’s missionary self-understanding as a result of his conversion and calling to be an apostle to the Gentiles. He continues with a description of the foundation of Paul’s mission, which Schreiner explains as the fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham in the sending of Jesus the Messiah, resulting in the provision of salvation for the Gentiles. In chapter four, Schreiner investigates Paul’s suffering as a missionary which the apostle interpreted theologically. The integration of Paul’s missionary work with his theology is not much in evidence in the next two chapters which discuss the transgression of the law and the power of sin, i.e., Paul’s anthropology. Schreiner’s description continues his conversation with systematic-theological questions, with contemporary research and with relevant Pauline texts, while ignoring the situation of the people, Jews and Gentiles, which Paul encountered as a missionary. The same can be said for chapters seven to nine on Paul’s christology and soteriology. It would have been possible, for example, in the context of the discussion of Jesus as second Adam and as divine Kyrios, to posit questions suggested by reader-response analysis with regard to the missionary context of the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ before Jews, proselytes, God-fearers, and polytheists. The same is true for ─────────────── 85 Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

527

chapters ten to twelve, which are devoted to Paul’s ethics. The discussion of the “continuing struggle with sin” provides basic considerations of Rom 7–8, without making this struggle specific sociologically for the different groups of people who constituted the members of the churches that Paul had founded.86 The general missionary reality of Paul’s ministry remains equally unconsidered in the last chapters about Paul’s ecclesiology and eschatology. 6. It would be desirable at this point to enter into a conversation with research on the method and the goals of the discipline of New Testament theology, e.g., with the contributions of William Wrede,87 Heikki Räisänen88 or Peter Balla.89 Such a dialogue would not significantly change the picture that has emerged. Methodological discussions generally deal with the relationship between theology and history, the relationship between tradition-historical reconstruction and descriptive presentation, the relation between the canonical authority of the New Testament as Scripture and the development of early Christian convictions, or the relation between unity and diversity of early Christian theology. The relevance of the missionary reality of the early Christian experience is generally disregarded. How may we explain the exclusion of the missionary reality in the descriptions of New Testament theology? One reason may be the fact that missiology, at least in Europe, has never been regarded as a central discipline of divinity schools or seminaries, relegated to the fringes of theological studies somewhere beyond Practical Theology. Another reason may be the fact that most professors of theology, with the exception of missiologists, did not have any personal experience of missionary or evangelistic work. Considering the fact that there are hardly any useful descriptions of Paul’s missionary work, it is hardly surprising that the missionary reality of Paul’s life is largely ignored in descriptions of his theology.

─────────────── 86 Schreiner, Paul, 265–69. 87 William Wrede, Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten neutestamentlichen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1897), re-issued 1986; reprinted in Georg Strecker, ed., Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Wege der Forschung 367 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975), 81–154; English translation: William Wrede, “The Tasks and Methods of ‘New Testament Theology’”, in The Nature of New Testament Theology: The Contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter, ed. R. Morgan, SBT 2/25 (London: SCM Press, 1973), 68–116. 88 Heikki Räisänen, Beyond New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1990). 89 Peter Balla, Challenges to New Testament Theology. An Attempt to Justify the Enterprise (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997).

528

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

3. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology The survey of previous studies of the theology of the New Testament and of the theology Paul provides some pointers for the task of understanding the theology of the New Testament as missionary theology. (1) We learn from A. Schlatter that for Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles theology and action, teaching and experience formed an indissoluble unity. The fact that the actions of Jesus and his earliest followers was fundamentally missionary action, must be taken seriously both for the outline and the presentation of the theology of the New Testament. (2) J. C. K. von Hofmann teaches us that the theology of the New Testament can be presented as expression of the proclamation of the apostles who emphasized different subject-matters when they preached in the synagogues, when they proclaimed the gospel in the market-places of the cities of the Greco-Roman world, and when they taught about Jesus in the houses of the new believers. (3) T. Zahn demonstrated that when we understand the description of the theology of the New Testament as a historical task, we have to acknowledge the events of the history of the early Christians in its epoch-making and doctrine-creating significance. (4) We learn from R. Bultmann that the early Christian proclamation was a central element of the early Christian reality to which we owe fundamentally and specifically the writings of the New Testament and thus the theology of the New Testament. (5) P. Stuhlmacher shows that the missionary reality of the earliest churches in which the texts of the New Testament were written, the result of the apostles’ motivation for their missionary work, embodies basic questions which helps us understand the basic convictions of the early Christian theologians. (6) G. Eichholz teaches us that the encounter of people, Jews and Gentiles, respectively, with the gospel of Jesus Christ is a fundamental missionary category which describes an essential component of the early Christian experience and reflection. (7) We learn from J. C. Beker that the concurrence of contingency and coherence needs to be taken into account when we analyze the theology of the authors of the New Testament texts – a synchronism which corresponds to the nexus of revelatio and applicatio. And we learn that the missionary experience of God’s action in Jesus Christ must be brought to bear on the theological reflection about the life of the church in faith, love, and hope. (8) T. Schreiner demonstrates that it is the missionary reality of the earliest Christians and their churches that have an impact on the outline of a description of their theology.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

529

(9) P. Stuhlmacher asserts, in connection with a catalogue of questions that have to be answered when we describe the biblical theology of the New Testament, the following desideratum for further research: “It would be good if the question regarding the missionary conception could be pursued which connects the main traditions of the New Testament”.90 The following sketch is an attempt to outline the theology of the New Testament which takes the missionary reality of the earliest churches and their theologians seriously as the foundational and essential element. (1) Introduction. A description of the theology of the New Testament should begin with a brief survey of historical events in Judea and the GrecoRoman world. Luke provides the one precise date for the beginning of the messianic movement of Jesus’ followers, referring to the emperor Tiberius, the prefect Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas in Galilee, Herod Philip in Iturea and Trachonitis, Lysanias in Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas as High Priests in Jerusalem, and John, son of Zacharias, called John the Baptist (Luke 3:1–2; cf. 7:20). When Paul refers to the “fullness of time” in which God revealed the mystery of his will which he set forth in Jesus Messiah (Eph 1:9–10), he refers implicitly to the historical parameters of the early Christian movement. (2) Main sections. It seems appropriate to describe the theology of the New Testament in three main parts: the teaching of Jesus, the theological convictions of the early church, and the theology of the apostles. In order to avoid the problem that the only historical feature is the sequence of these three section, it would be of paramount importance, following A. Schlatter, to describe in all three main parts both the teaching and the actions of Jesus and the apostles. Thus, the three main parts of a New Testament theology would describe the life and proclamation of Jesus, the life and proclamation of the Jerusalem church, and the life and proclamation of the apostles. Since the theology of the New Testament involves historical events and literary texts,91 the three main parts of a description of New Testament theology has to pay attention to these three poles: historical events and developments, the literary character of the New Testament texts, the theology of the authors of the New Testament texts. The missionary reality of the early Christian movement seriously prompts a threefold orientation of the description of the theological conviction of Jesus and the apostles: the missionary proclamation to Jews, the missionary proclamation to polytheists (Gentiles), and the teaching directed at followers of Jesus. (3) First main part: the life and proclamation of Jesus. According to Luke’s report of Peter’s preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2:15–36), the first explication of ─────────────── 90 Stuhlmacher, Theologie, II, 348–49. 91 Cf. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God I (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

530

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

early Christian theology immediately led to missionary proclamation (Acts 2:38–39). It seems appropriate, therefore, to begin the description of the life and proclamation of Jesus with reflections on the significance of Jesus for the early Christian missionaries, focused on the central content of the speeches in the Book of Acts and the Gospels. The second section would naturally include a sketch of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, with a discussion of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God, of Jesus’ miracles, of Jesus’ identity, of Jesus’ calling and commissioning of the Twelve, and of Jesus’ death and resurrection. A third section would describe Jesus’ proclamation with regard to its significance for Jews, with a focus on the Son of Man title, Jesus’ message of the arrival of the kingdom of God, Jesus’ identity as Messiah, God’s offer of salvation to his people, the significance of Jesus’ death for the Jewish people, Jesus’ resurrection, and the new messianic people of Jesus’ followers. The fourth section would focus on the significance of Jesus’ life and ministry for Greeks and Romans, with a focus on the presence of God in the person and work of Jesus, the identity of Jesus as Son of God and Kyrios, and Jesus’ return. A fifth section would describe the significance of Jesus’ life and proclamation for followers of Jesus, with a focus on the eschatological revelation of God and the will of God for his messianic people, including a discussion of the relevance of the Law and the Temple. (4) Second main part: the life and proclamation of the Jerusalem church. This part would naturally begin with a description of the missionary and pastoral responsibility of the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Peter, Stephen, Philip, Barnabas) who were both church leaders and evangelists and missionaries. The relevant material can be presented in the context of historical developments: the Twelve and Jesus, the Twelve in Jerusalem, the community of Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem, the mission of the Twelve, in particular the mission of Peter, the ministry and theology of Stephen, the ministry of Philip, the ministry of Barnabas, the churches in Damascus and in Antioch, and the mission and theology of James and Jude. The following two sections describe the missionary theology in the proclamation to Jews and to Samaritans and Gentiles, expressed in Peter’s speeches in Acts 1–10, in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7), in Philip’s ministry in Samaria and to the Ethiopian official (Acts 8), and in the work of Jerusalem believers in Antioch (Acts 11). The next section would summarize the early apostolic teaching of the leading Jerusalem Christians: the theological convictions of the early Christians (creedal summaries), the focus on Jesus Messiah, the fulfilment of God’s promises, the arrival of the Holy Spirit, the messianic community, the Temple, and the Law. A final section describes the literary activity of the Jewish Christian leaders of the Jerusalem church: the letters of James and Jude, perhaps the epistle (homily) to the Hebrews, and perhaps the Gospel of Matthew.

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

531

(5) Third main part: the life and proclamation of the apostles. The missionary and pastoral responsibility of the apostles would again be an important subject: before Paul wrote his letters, he preached the gospel as a missionary and taught new believers in newly established churches, whose concerns, challenges, and difficulties he treats in his letters. Obvious topics would be Peter in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, in Antioch, in northern Asia Minor, and in Rome; James in Jerusalem; Paul in Jerusalem, Nabatea, Syria, Cilicia, Asia Minor, Macedonia, Achaia, and Rome; Mark in Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Rome, Matthew in Jerusalem and in the eastern Mediterranean; Luke in Antioch, Macedonia, Caesarea, and Rome; John in Jerusalem and Ephesus. Since the literary output of the apostles was much more extensive as the texts discussed in the second main part, the second section of the third main part would discuss Paul’s letters, Peter’s letters, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Luke’s two volumes (Gospel of Luke, Acts), and the Johannine literature (Gospel of John, the three letters of John, Revelation). Since a New Testament theology cannot provide an interpretation of all New Testament texts, the focus here would be on the central theological convictions and the contingent application of the gospel in historically specific situations where theological and ethical answers were required. Since we have much more information about the proclamation of the apostle Paul than about any other apostle, it would make sense to treat the theology of Paul in two main sections: first the missionary proclamation of Paul before Jews and Gentiles – God’s revelation in Jesus Messiah, his proclamation in the synagogues (Jesus the Messiah), his proclamation before Gentile audiences (Jesus, the Kyrios), the scandal of the cross, Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead, the condition of human beings and the power of sin, the historical and actual significance of the Mosaic Law, God’s gift of salvation, the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ return. The methodological premiss of this section is the assumption that, e.g., when Paul writes about the nature and the present situation of human beings in his letters, he formulates convictions which guided his missionary proclamation. The next section would describe the theological explication of the gospel by Paul as an “ecclesial theologian” – God’s revelation in Jesus Messiah; the world, human beings, and sin; the death and resurrection of Jesus; the experience of salvation; the new life of believers in Jesus; the presence of the Holy Spirit; the community of believers; the hope of Jesus’ return and of sharing God’s glory. The final three sections would describe the theological explication of the gospel by Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The fides quaerens intellectum of the apostles of the early church was, always, fides quaerens conversionem hominorum and thus can and should be understood and described as theologica missiologica ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

532

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Bibliography Balla, Peter. Challenges to New Testament Theology. An Attempt to Justify the Enterprise. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Barrett, C. K. Paul: An Introduction to His Thought. Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1994. Bauckham, Richard J., ed. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie. Edited by F. F. Baur. Gotha: Perthes, 1864. Becker, Jürgen. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Louisville: Westminster, 1993. —. Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987 [1980]. Beyschlag, Willibald. Neutestamentliche Theologie oder geschichtliche Darstellung der Lehren Jesu und des Urchristentums nach den neutestamentlichen Quellen. Halle: Strien, 1896 [1891/1892]. Bornkamm, Günther. Paulus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969. —. Paul. London/New York: Harper, 1971. Büchsel, F. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Geschichte des Wortes Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1935. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 9th Edition. Edited by Otto Merk. UTB 630. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984 [1948–1953.]. —. Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1965. Caird, George B. New Testament Theology. Edited by L. D. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995 [1994]. Conzelmann, Hans. Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 5th Edition. Edited by A. Lindemann. UTB 1446. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. —. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1969 [1967]. Dunn, James D. G. Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making II. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. —. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Eichholz, Georg. Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983 [1972]. Gnilka, Joachim. Paulus von Tarsus. Zeuge und Apostel. HThK Supplement-Band 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1996. —. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. HThK Supplement-Band 5. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Goppelt, Leonhard. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Erster Teil: Jesu Wirken in seiner theologischen Bedeutung. Zweiter Teil: Vielfalt und Einheit des apostolischen Christuszeugnisses. Edited by J. Roloff. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975/1976. —. Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976/1982. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology: A Thematic Study. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1981. Hahn, Ferdinand. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1. Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments: Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums. Band 2. Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Thematische Darstellung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Hofmann, Johann Christian Konrad von. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Nach Manuskripten und Vorlesungen bearbeitet von W. Volck. Nördlingen: Beck, 1886. Holtzmann, Heinrich J. Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie. Freiburg/Leipzig: Mohr, 1897. Hübner, Hans. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Prolegomena. Paulus. Band 2: Die Theologie des Paulus und ihre neutestamentliche Wirkungsgeschichte. Band 3:

17. The Theology of the New Testament as Missionary Theology

533

Hebräerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung. Epilegomena. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990/1993/1995. Immer, Albert. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Bern: Dalp, 1877. Kaftan, Julius. Neutestamentliche Theologie. Im Abriß dargestellt. Berlin: Warneck, 1927. Kertelge, Karl. Grundthemen paulinischer Theologie. Freiburg: Herder, 1991. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments. NTD Ergänzungsreihe 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1969. —. The Theology of the New Testament According to Its Major Witnesses: Jesus – Paul – John. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973. Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised Edition. Edited by D. A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 [1974]. Lohse, Eduard. Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Theologie. 5th Edition. Theologische Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998. —. Paulus. Eine Biographie. München: Beck, 1996. Morris, Leon. New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Räisänen, Heikki. Beyond New Testament Theology. London: SCM, 1990. Ridderbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of his Theology. Translated by J. R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. —. Paulus. Ein Entwurf seiner Theologie. Translated by E. W. Pollmann. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1970. Schelkle, Karl Hermann. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968–76. —. Theology of the New Testament. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1971–78. Schlatter, Adolf. Die Geschichte des Christus. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1909 [1923]. —. The History of the Christ: The Foundation of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. —. Die Theologie der Apostel. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1922 [1910]. —. The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Urchristliche Mission. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 2002. Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Translated by H. Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. —. Paulus. Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte. Nachdruck. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972. Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Stevens, George Barker. The Theology of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1906 [1899]. Strecker, Georg. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Bearbeitet, ergänzt und herausgegeben von Friedrich-Wilhelm Horn. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996. Strecker, Georg, ed., Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Wege der Forschung 367. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus. Band 2: Von der Paulusschule zur Johannesoffenbarung. Der Kanon und seine Auslegung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992/1999. Weinel, Heinrich. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Die Religion Jesu und des Urchristentums. Third Edition. Grundriss der theologischen Wissenschaften 3.2. Tübingen: Mohr, 1921 [1913].

534

The Early Church – Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts

Weiß, Bernhard. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1893 [1882]. —. Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 7th Edition. Stuttgart/Berlin: Cotta, 1903 [1868]. Wilckens, Ulrich. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band I. Geschichte der urchristlichen Theologie. Band II. Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments als Grundlage kirchliche Lehre. 6 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002–2009). Wrede, William. “The Tasks and Methods of ‘New Testament Theology’”. Pages 68–116 in The Nature of New Testament Theology: The Contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter. Edited by R. Morgan. SBT 2/25. London: SCM Press, 1973. —. Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten neutestamentlichen Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1986 [1897]. —. “Über Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten neutestamentlichen Theologie.” Pages 81– 154 in Das Problem der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Georg, Strecker. Wege der Forschung 367. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God I (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Zahn, Theodor. Grundriß der neutestamentlichen Theologie. Leipzig: Deichert, 1932 [1928].

First Publication and Permissions All essays are reprinted with the permission of the original publishers. 1. “Jesus and the Beginnings of the Mission to the Gentiles.” Pages 37–58 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. FS I. H. Marshall. Edited by J. B. Green and M. Turner. Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Eerdmans and Paternoster, 1994. Used by permission of Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. 2. “The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More Than a Teacher.” Pages 203– 57 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by B. Chilton and C. A. Evans. NTTS 28.1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Used by permission of Koninklijke Brill NV. 3. “Introducing Foreign Deities: The Documentary Evidence.” Pages 482–520 in The Language and Literature of the New Testament. FS S. E. Porter. Edited by L. K. Dow, C. A. Evans and A. W. Pitts. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Used by permission of Koninklijke Brill NV. 4. “Repentance in Paul’s Letters.” Novum Testamentum 56 (2015): 159–186. Used by permission of Koninklijke Brill NV. 5. “Evangelism and the Mission of the Church.” Pages 683–707 in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N. T. Wright. Edited by C. Heilig, J. T. Hewett, and M.. Bird. WUNT 2.413. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Used by permission of Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. 6. “Lives that Speak: η‘ λογικη` λατρει'α in Romans 12.1.” Pages 283–99 in The Earliest Perceptions of Jesus in Context. FS J. Nolland. Edited by A. W. White, D. Wenham, and C. A. Evans. LNTS 566. Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2018. Used by permission of T&T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 7. “How Paul Developed His Ethics.” Pages 267–97 in Understanding Paul’s Ethics. Twentieth-Century Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner. Exeter and Grand Rapids: Paternoster and Eerdmans, 1995. Originally published as “Wie hat Paulus seine Ethik entwickelt? Motivationen, Normen und Kriterien paulinischer Ethik.” European Journal of Theology 1 (1992) 63–81. Used by permission of Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

536

First Publication and Permissions

8. “The Meaning of βαπτι'ζειν in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 24 (2011): 3–40 (published April 2013). Used by permission of the editor of Filologia Neotestamentaria, published by Ediciones el Almendro de Córdoba, SL, Spain. 9. “The Language of Baptism: The Meaning of βαπτι'ζω in the New Testament.” Pages 217– 46 in Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century. FS D. A. Carson. Edited by A. J. Köstenberger and R. W. Yarbrough. Wheaton: Crossway, 201 Used by permission of Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org. 10. “Jewish Opposition to Christians in Asia Minor in the First Century.” Bulletin of Biblical Research 18 (2008) 233–270. Used by permission of the editor of the Bulletin of Biblical Research, published by Eisenbrauns, now by Pennsylvania State University Press. 11. “Early Christian Mission and Christian Identity in the Context of the Ethnic, Social, and Political Affiliations in Revelation.” Pages 369–38 in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission. FS I. H. Marshall. Edited by J. C. Laansma, R. Van Neste and G. R. Osborne. Milton Keynes / Eugene, OR: Paternoster / Cascade, 2016. Used by permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers. www.wipfandstock.com. 12. “Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation: Persecution, Perseverance, and Purity in the Shadow of the Last Judgment.” Pages 201–31 in Interreligious Relations: Biblical Perspectives. Proceedings from the Second Norwegian Summer Academy of Biblical Studies, Ansgar University College, Kristiansand, Norway, August 2015. Edited by H. Hagelia and M. Zehnder. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Used by permission of T&T Clark, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 13. “John and the Future of the Nations.” Bulletin of Biblical Research 12 (2002): 243–271. Used by permission of the editor of the Bulletin of Biblical Research, published by Eisenbrauns, now by Pennsylvania State University Press. 14. “Singing and Instrumental Music in the Early Church.” Pages 309–41 in Sprache lieben – Gottes Wort verstehen. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese. FS H. von Siebenthal. Edited by W. Hilbrands. Giessen: Brunnen, 2011. Used by permission of Brunnen Verlag, Giessen. 15. “Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions.” Novum Testamentum 45 (2003): 160–188. Used by permission of Koninklijke Brill NV. 16. “Knowing the Divine and Divine Knowledge in Greco-Roman Religion.” Tyndale Bulletin 68 (2017): 287–312. Used by permission of the editor of Tyndale Bulletin and Warden of Tyndale House.

First Publications and Permissions

537

17. “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments als Missionstheologie: Die missionarische Realität der Kirche des ersten Jahrhunderts und die Theologie der ersten Theologen”, Jahrbuch für evangelikale Theologie 20 (2006) 139–163. Used by permission of SCM R. Brockhaus Verlag, Witten.

Index of Ancient Sources I. Old Testament Genesis 1–2 3 3:1–24 3:8 3:15 4:21 4–11 10:20 10:31 11:8 12:3 18:18 19:4 22:18 24:22 28:14 31:27 31:27 36:40 37:34 41:40 41:40 Exodus 1:22 4:22 5–11 12:22 15:1 15:1–18 15:14–16 15:17

385 385 369 386 363 424 385 333 333 385 10, 335, 337, 385 10 343 10 343 335 424 425 335 390 344 344 344 399 56 241 415 403, 424 403, 404 46

15:20 15:21 19:5–6 19:13 19:16 19:19 20:3–5 22:15 28:33–34 34:6–7 34:29–35 39:25–26

425 415, 424 333 425 425 425 396 363 425 472 129 425

Leviticus 4:6 14:6–7 4:17 6:22 19:18 23:24 26:11–12

241 241 241 472 197, 203 425 407

Numbers 10:2 10:8 10:9 10:10 19:17–20 19:18 21:17–18 21:17 14:18–19 22:22

425 425 425 425 247 241 424 415 472 369

540

Index of Ancient Sources

22:32 35:30

369 390

Deuteronomy 6:4–15 17:6 19:15 21:22–23 23:18 27–28 27:27 28:53–57 30:15 30:19 31:19 31:21 31:22 32

396 390 390 369 363 134 162 134 33 33 415 415 415 403

Joshua 3:15 6:13 6:20 7:19

241 425 425 395

Judges 1:13 5:3 11:34

415 416 425

1 Samuel 6:5 10:5 17:43 18:6 29:4

395 424, 425 363 425 369

2 Samuel 6:5 19:22–23 21:10 22:50

415, 424, 425 369 390 416

1 Kings 4:32 5:18 10:12 11:14 11:23 11:24

415 369 424 369 369 369

13:1–10 18:18 19:18 21:20–26 22:8 22:17

56 56 396 56 56 56

2 Kings 5 5:10 5:14 8:13 11:14 16:15 19:30–31 23:1

242 241 241 363 425 343 399 416

4 Kings 5:14

260

1 Chronicles 6:16 6:31–48 13:8 15:16 15:16–22 15:16–24 15:20 15:22 15:24 15:27 15:28 16:4–6 16:5 16:9 16:41–42 23:3–5 25:1–7 28:12

415 423 424, 425 415, 425 425 423 424 415, 424 425 425 424, 425 423 425 416 425 425 425 425

2 Chronicles 5:12 5:12–13 5:13 7:6 9:11 23:13 29:25 30:21

424, 425 425 425 416, 425 424 425 425 425

541

Index of Ancient Sources Ezra 3:10 3:11 4:4 10:2 10:11

425 421 343 343 343

Nehemiah 3:37 9:10 9:17 10:31 12:24 12:27–29 12:45

472 344 472 343 425 425 425

Esther 4:17

416

Job 1:6–9 1:6–12 1:6–8:12 1:12 2:1–4 2:1–6 2:1–7 2:6–7 4:8 13:4 21:12 26:11–12 30:9,31 30:31

369 369 369 369 369 369 369 369 403 68 416, 424 35 424 416

Psalms 4 4:1 6 6:1 7:1 7:17 7:18 8:3 9:2 9:3 9:17 12:6 13:6 18:49

425 415 425 416 415 416 416 38 416 416 415 415 416 416

18 18:49 22 22:3 22:15–16 22:16 22:22 24 25:7 27:6 29:1–2 32:1 32:5 33:2 33 38:14–16 39:10 40:3 42:4 47:5 48 51 51:6[4] 53 54 55 56:9 57 60 61 61:8 63:5 65:13 65:8 66:4 66:6 67 68:4 68:22–23 70:22 71 71:22–23 75:8 76 79:8 81:2 81 81:2 82 85:3

418 416, 418 66, 421 66 66 66 416, 421 426 472 416 395 472 472 416, 424 425 66 66 416 424 425 426 127 127 425 425 425 424 425 425 425 416 270 416 35 416 35 425 416 242 424 425 416 403 425 472 424, 425 425, 426 416 426 472

542

Index of Ancient Sources

86:9–10 86:15 91:4 92 92:1 93 94 96:2 96:7–8 97:5 98 98:1–2 98:5 103:8 103:12–13 105:3 106:37 107:3 107:9 107:29–30 108 109:6 115–118 129:8 135:3 137 137:2 145:8 146:7 147:1 150:3 150:3–5 150:4 150:5

403 472 424 425, 426 416 426 426 400 395 424 425 403 416 472 472 270 362 424 35 35 425 369 428 270 416 425 425 472 424 416 424, 425 416, 424 425 425

Proverbs 3:7 8:22 11:13 15:23 20:19 22:8 23:9 26:5 26:11 26:12 28:26 30:32

202 44 68 68 68 403 68 202 363 202 202 68

Kohelet 3:7

68

Isaiah 2:2–4 2:2–3 2:3–4 3:24 5:1 5:12 5:21 6:13 12:1–2 12:4–6 12:4 12:5 13:1–14:23 14:1–2 16:11 17:4–5 21:1–10 21:4 22:12 22:15–25 23 23:15–18 23:16 24:8 27:1 30:15 30:29 30:32 33:24 38:17 42:10 42:12 43:25 45:6 45:14 45:22 47 49:6 49:23 51:17 53 53:4 53:6 53:7

404 7 404 390 415 424, 425 202 396 403 403 416 416 361 404 424 403 361 250, 260 390 371 361 361 424 424 363 124 425 424, 425 472 472 416 395 472 7 404 7 361 7, 157, 158, 335 7 403 65 65 65 63, 64, 65, 66

543

Index of Ancient Sources 53:10 53:12 54:3 54:13 56:6–8 56:7 56:10 59:19 60:1–3 60:3–4 60:14 66:18 66:18–20 66:19 66:19–21

65 65 7 203 7 13, 21 363 7 404 7 372 339 157 404 404

Jeremiah 2:2–3 3:8 4:8 6:26 7:11 7:11–15 7:12–15 10:6–7 12:13 13:16 15:19 16:19 20:13 25:12–38 25:15d 26:4–6 26:9 31:8 31:33–34 31:34 31:36 32:30 34:1–7 37:3–10 37:17 41:1–3 42:2 49:12–13 50–51 51 51:33

399 399 390 390 21 21 46 403 403 395 124 404 415 361 403 46 46 425 202 203, 472 424, 425 393 56 56 56 253 425 403 360 362 400, 403

Ezekiel 2–3 2:10 4:7 6:2 7:27 11:4 13:2 13:17 18:32 20:32 21:2 23:33 25:2 26–28 28:21 29:2 29:3 32:2 34:2 35:2 37:27 38:2 39:1 47:12 48:8 48:10 48:20

394 394 393 393 344 393 393 393 124 335 393 403 393 361 393 393 371 371 393 393 407 393 393 408 99 399 399

Daniel 3:4 3:7 3:31 3:4 3:5 3:5–15 3:7 3:10 3:15 3:24 3:51 3:57 4:30 4:34 5:19 5:21–23 6:25 7

333 333 333 339 424 424 339, 424 424 424 416 416 416 395 395 333 395 333 399

544 7:2–8 7:9–12 7:13–14 7:13 7:22 7:14 7:25 9:27 12:7,11

Index of Ancient Sources 358 402 399, 402 402 402 333 391 391 391

Hosea 3:2–3 8:7 14:3

141 403 472

Joel 2:13 2:28 3:13

472 280 401, 403

Amos 5:3 5:23

396 415

Jonah 2:4 3:5–8

472 390

Micah 4:1–2

4:12–13 5:10–15 7:17 7:18:19

401 7 7 472

Nahum 1:4

35

Habakkuk 2:16 3:1,19

403 415

Zephaniah 2:10–11

7

Zechariah 2:11 3:1–2 3:1–5 5:1–5 (LXX) 5:1–3 (LXX) 8:20–23 8:21 14:9 14:11

7 369 369 402 401 7, 404 404 404 409

Malachi 1:11

7

7

II. New Testament Matthew 1:1 1:2–25 1:2–17 1:21 2:1–12 2:2 2:13–15 3:1 3:5–6 3:6 3:7 3:9 3:11

10 10 10 12 12 10 10 227, 264, 270 264 264, 267, 270, 474 264, 270 10 264, 270, 280

3:12 3:13 3:14 3:16 4:1 4:10 4:15 4:18–22 4:19 4:23–25 4:23 4:24–25 4:25 5:13–16

401 264, 270 264, 270 62, 264, 267, 270 369 369 369 10, 16 10 11 342 16 16, 323 11

545

Index of Ancient Sources 5:13–14 5:13 5:14 5:16 5:39–42 5:39–40 5:43–44 6:2 6:5 7:6 8:1–9:34 8:5–13 8:5ff 8:5–6 8:7–13 8:31 8:34 8:9 8:11–12 8:11 8:19 8:28–34 9:3 9:23 9:35 10:5–6 10:13–14 10:18 10:19–20 10:19 11:1 11:3 11:4–6 11:11 11:12 11:17 11:21 12:10 12:18 12:26 12:28 12:38 13:30 13:31–32 13:38 13:39–42 14:2 14:8 14:21 14:30

22 11 11 395 208 209 201, 208, 209 417 427 363 11 11, 16, 24 17 37 37 37 37 17 12, 17 10, 13, 17 31 11, 18 38 416 346 519 337 22, 348, 393, 394 62 62 270 37 37 264 264, 270 416, 418 390 38, 39 62 369 62 31 401 23 22 401 264, 270 264, 270 323 262

15:12 15:13–14 15:21–28 15:23–25 15:23 15:24 15:27 15:28 15:32–39 15:38 16:1–4 16:1 16:14 16:23 17:10 17:11–12 17:13 18:1 18:2–5 18:6–7 18:16 18:23–35 19:3 19:5 19:4–9 19:16 19:18–19 19:18 19:20 19:21 19:28 21:12–17 21:14–17 21:15–16 21:16 21:23–25 21:23 21:45–46 21:18–22 21:20 21:21–22 21:25 21:33–46 21:43 22:1–14 22:9–10 22:15–17 22:15 22:16 22:18–21

36 37 12, 19 37 37 37, 38 19 19 20 323 39 38, 39 264, 270 369 36 37 264, 270 36 37 211 390 473 38 38 39 31 37 37 37 37 335 21 38 39 38, 39 39 38, 39 39 21 36 37 264, 270 23 23 22 22 38, 39 38 31 39

546 22:18 22:23–28 22:23 22:24 22:29–32 22:32 22:34–36 22:35–36 22:35 22:36 22:42–45 22:46 22:67–68 22:69 22:70 23:2 23:3 24:2 24:4–14 24:12 24:14 24:15–21 24:18 24:27–51 24:30 24:31 24:47 26:5 26:6–27:66 26:6–13 26:13 26:22 26:23–25 26:25 26:30 26:39 26:42 26:49 26:62 26:63 26:63 26:64 26:67–68 26:68 27:11 27:12 27:14 27:11–12 27:12–13 27:12–14

Index of Ancient Sources 39 38 39 31 39 10 39 38 39 31 39 39 50 50 50 50 50 21 12 418 12, 23 21 393 402 335 417 13 343 12 12 12, 24 37 37 31 416, 417 70 70 31 31, 48, 55, 64, 70 31, 55, 64, 70 48 48, 55, 71 31, 47 55, 72 49, 55, 73 49, 55, 64 49, 55, 64, 74 71 71, 49 31, 72

27:22–23 27:24 27:39 27:46 27:64 28:1–20 28:18–20 28:19–20 28:19

365 49 66 66 342 12 10, 24 10, 269 13, 269, 349

Mark 1:4–5 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:13 1:16–20 1:24 1:25 1:31–32 1:34 1:44 1:45 2:1–12 2:2 2:7 2:8–12 2:13–17 2:16 2:17 2:23–28 2:24 2:25–26 3:1–6 3:2 3:4 3:6 3:7–8 3:9–10 3:12 3:20 3:23 3:26 4:1–2 4:10 4:11–12 4:15

264 121, 264, 265 264, 267, 474 390 264, 280 264, 267 62, 267 369 16 33 33, 35 20 35 263 20 34 20 33 33 34 33 25, 33 34 33 33 33, 34 33 34 34 20 35 35 20 369 369 20 32 32 369

547

Index of Ancient Sources 4:38 4:39 5:1–20 5:6–13 5:7 5:9–13 5:15 5:17 5:20 5:48 5:56 6:6 6:14 6:24 6:25 6:30–44 6:32–44 6:34 6:44 6:56 7:1–23 7:3–4 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7–9 7:7–8 7:10 7:11–14 7:15 7:17 7:18–23 7:24–30 7:24 7:27 7:31 8:1–10 8:5–10 8:9 8:23 8:27 8:28 8:30 8:31–38 8:31 8:33 8:35 9:5 9:9 9:11

31 35 18 35 33 33 18 33 19 429 346 346 264 264 264 20 20 20 323 346 13 262, 263, 265 227, 228, 263 33 33, 343 33 16 33 33 211 32 32 13, 19, 519 20 363 20 20 519 323 346 346 264 36 36 70 369 25 31 36 32

9:12–13 9:17 9:25 9:28 9:29 9:31 9:34 9:38 10:2 10:3–12 10:7–8 10:10 10:11–12 10:17 10:19 10:20 10:21 10:32–34 10:35 10:38 10:39 10:45 10:48 10:51 11:15–17 11:17 11:18 11:21 11:27–33 11:28 11:30 12:1–9 12:14 12:18 12:19 12:24–27 12:31 12:32 12:34 13:1 13:3–4 13:5–37 13:9 13:10 13:11 13:26 14:1 14:9 14:10 14:19

32 31 35 32 32 70 36 31 33 33 33 32 32 31, 32 32 31 32 70 31 281, 282 281 70 36 31 21 21 21 31 33 33 264 47 31 33 31 33 203 31 34 31 32 33 393, 394 13, 23 62 402 71 24 71 32

548 14:20–21 14:26 14:36 14:39 14:45 14:53–59 14:58 14:59 14:60 14:61

Index of Ancient Sources

14:62 14:63–64 14:65 15:1–22 15:2 15:3 15:4–5 15:4 15:5 15:11–15 15:12–14 15:12 15:29 15:34 16:16

33 416, 417 70 70 31 46 444 55, 70 31, 46, 55, 62, 64, 70, 73 31, 46, 47, 55, 64, 70, 71, 73 47, 48, 55 47 31, 55, 47, 72 47 55 31, 48 62, 73 31, 48, 55, 64, 72 55, 64, 72 321 365 48 66 66 269

Luke 1:1 1:5 2:22 2:31 2:32 3:1–2 3:3 3:4–6 3:7 3:12 3:16 3:17 3:21 3:22 4:1 4:2 4:14 4:16–29 4:18–19 4:25–27 4:32–33 4:31

13 264 263 343 13 529 264 13 264 264 264, 280 401 264 62 62 369 62 427 62 21, 22 41 22

4:34 4:38 4:39 5:7 5:14 5:21 5:22–26 5:30–32 5:32 6:26–28 6:27–28 6:29–30 7:1–10 7:3 7:5 7:6–10 7:10 7:16 7:20 7:21–23 7:29 7:30 7:32 7:33 7:36 7:40 8:1 8:9 8:10–15 8:12 8:26–39 8:38 8:39 8:49 8:52 9:6 9:18 9:19 10:1–2 10:13 10:18 10:25 10:26–37 10:38 11:18 11:20 11:21 11:22–24 11:37–38 11:37

42 39 40 262 263 40 40 41 121 208 201 209 16 40 16, 17 40 16 395 264, 529 40 264, 343 264 416, 418 264 39, 40 31 346 39 40 369 18 31 18, 19 31 429 346 13 264 390 390 369 31, 40 41 346 369 473 473 473 263 39, 40

549

Index of Ancient Sources 11:38 11:45 11:53–54 12:1 12:11–12 12:13 12:41 12:42–48 12:50 13:16 13:28–29 12:30 13:22 13:31–33 14:15–24 14:23 15:11–32 15:25 16:24 17:1–2 17:12 17:18 17:20–21 17:20 17:37 18:18 18:19–22 18:43 19:39 19:45–46 19:46 19:47 20:2 20:3–8 20:4 20:21 20:22 20:23–25 20:27 20:28 20:34–38 20:39 20:42 21:7 21:8–11 21:12–15 21:12 21:27 21:32 21:37

227, 228, 263 31 41, 41 323 62 31 40 40 281 369 17 347 346 343 22 23 473 417 261 211 346 395 41 40 40 31, 40 40 395 31 21 13 21 40 41 264 31 40 41 40 31 41 31 416 31, 39 40 62 393 402 40 40

21:38 22:2 22:3 22:30 22:31 22:37 22:42 22:54 22:63–71 22:63–64 22:66 22:67–69 22:67 22:70 23:3 23:4 23:6–12 23:9 23:9 23:9–10 23:13 23:20–23 24:5 24:17 24:37 24:18–20 24:44 24:47

40 344 369 335 369 65 70 49 49 47 49 49, 50 49, 55 48, 55, 56 55 50 51 31, 55, 64, 65, 68, 73 51, 73 65 344 365 394 24 394 24 416 24

John 1:25 1:26 1:28 1:31 1:32–33 1:33 1:38 1:49 2:6 3:2 3:9 3:10 3:22 3:23 3:25–26 4:1 4:2 4:9 4:31 4:35–38

264 264 264 264 62 264, 280 31 31 263 31 42 42 267 264 267 268 268 43 31, 42 399, 403

550 4:40 4:47 6:25 6:26 6:28 6:30–31 6:32–35 6:45 7:15 7:16 7:37–39 8:19 8:21–58 8:22 8:23–24 8:23 8:25 8:26 8:31–32 8:33 8:34–36 8:37–44 8:44 8:45–51 8:57–59 9:2 9:3 9:16 9:22 9:24 9:28 9:29 9:34 9:39 9:40 10:1–18 10:16 10:24 10:25–30 10:31 10:33 10:40 11:8 12:27 12:34 12:35–36 13:6 13:7 13:8 13:24

Index of Ancient Sources 42 42 31, 43 43 43 43 43 203 43 43 62 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 369 44 44 31, 42 42 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 23 23 44 45 45 45 264 31 70 45 45 42 42 42 42

13:25 13:26 13:27 13:34 13:36 13:37 13:38 14:5 14:6–7 14:15–26 14:16 15:26–27 16:16–19 16:20–23 16:26 17:9 17:11 18:12–24 18:19 18:20–21 18:23 18:28–19:16 18:31 18:33 18:34–37 18:34 18:35 18:36–37 18:36 18:37 18:38 19:6–7 19:9–10 19:9 19:10 19:11 19:14–15 20:16

42 42, 261 369 203 42 42 42 42 42 62 42 62 42 42 42 42 270 51 51 51, 54 51, 55 51 51 51 48 51, 55 52 74 52, 55 52, 55 52 365 69 31, 52, 55, 64, 74 52 52, 55 365 31

Acts 1:5 1:8 1:20 1:22 2:14–36 2:15–36 2:36 2:37–41 2:38–39 2:38

226, 264, 280, 281 13, 157, 349 416 264 271 529 273 271 529 139, 269, 270, 271, 273

551

Index of Ancient Sources 2:41 2:42 2:46 2:47 3:1 3:11 3:17 3:19 3:23 4:1–22 4:5–12 4:8–12 5:3 5:12 5:17–41 5:17 5:27–42 5:29–32 5:36 6:5 6:8 6:9–7:60 6:9 6:11–14 7:2–53 7:17 8 8:1 8:4–5 8:5–25 8:9 8:12–13 8:16 8:22 8:25 8:26–39 8:36–39 8:36 8:38 8:39 9:1–14 9:18 9:19 9:23–24 9:24–25 9:29–30 10 10:1–11:18 10:2 10:4

228, 269, 271 428 444 343 444 444 128 128, 139 343 366 347 61 369 444 366 297 343 61 324 8 342 366 318 368 61, 531 343 530 366 8 8 347 269 136, 269, 270 138 8, 346 8 273 269, 273 269, 274 8, 274 366 269 162 366 9 366 159 8 8 394

10:6 10:10 10:13 10:14 10:17 10:22 10:27 10:28 10:32 10:33 10:37 10:47 10:48 11 11:3 11:7 11:8 11:11 11:12 11:13 11:14 11:16 11:19 11:26 12:1–19 12:1–4 12:18 13:2 13:3 13:6–12 13:13–52 13:14–41 13:14–16 13:16 13:19 13:24 13:27–29 13:28 13:33 13:42–43 13:45 13:46–47 13:47 13:48–50 13:48–49 13:50 14:1 14:2 14:3 14:5

8 8 8 8 8 8, 347 8 8 8 8 264 269 269, 270 530 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 264, 280, 281 8, 366 321 366 324 136 9 9 347 295 427 290 307 347 121, 264 320 320 416 290 290, 295, 297, 326, 368 295 349 307 290 291, 295, 354, 366 291, 307 291 291 291, 292, 348, 354, 366

552 14:6 14:8–20 14:8–9 14:11–12 14:19 14:20–21 14:25 15:1 15:7 15:9 15:14 16:1–2 16:1 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:19 16:25 16:33 16:37–38 17:1–9 17:4 17:5–7 17:5 17:6 17:8 17:12 17:17 17:18 17:19 17:22–31 17:26 17:30 18:1–17 18:8 18:12 18:13 18:14–15 18:25 19:1–20:1 19 19:3 19:4 19:5 19:8 19:9 19:10 19:18 19:24–27 19:24–25

Index of Ancient Sources 292 292 292 341 292, 293, 295 294 294, 295 9 159 271 343 292 292 427 307 269 354 416, 417, 442 269 61 318 307 367 297, 366 354, 367 354 307 343 85 85 116 347, 349 121, 139 343 269 366 367 61 264 293 289 264 121, 128, 264 136, 269, 270 293 293, 294 346 474 294 366

19:24 19:33–34 19:38 20:3 20:6–12 20:15 20:16 20:17–38 20:21 20:28 21:27–28 21:27 21:28 21:31 21:32–33 21:40–22:21 22:16 22:25–30 23:1–6 23:30 24:4 24:5 24:10–21 24:17 24:19 24:25 25:8–11 25:8 25:23–26:29 26:1–29 26:7 26:18 26:19–20 26:20 27:23 28:17

362 294 294 366 294 295 323 295 121, 128 318 295, 326 366 295 295 295 61 269 61 61 128 176 367 61 323 295 394 61 366 347 61 176 128, 162, 369 162 121, 128, 139 176 343

Romans 1:1–6 1:1 1:2–4 1:2–3 1:3–4 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:9 1:14 1:16–17 1:16

164, 165 164 164, 165 164 165, 373 127 157 501 176 337 164, 165, 166, 373 165, 166, 189

Index of Ancient Sources 1:18–3:20 1:18–32 1:18 1:20 1:24 1:25 1:26 1:28 1:29–31 1:29 1:32 2:1–3:20 2:1 2:3–4 2:4 2:5–11 2:5 2:14–15 2:17–24 3:1–8 3:4 3:6 3:9 3:19 3:21–5:21 3:23 3:25 3:29 4:13 4:19 5:2 6 6:1–11 6:1 6:2–11 6:2 6:3–6 6:3–5 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:9 6:10 6:12–13 6:12 6:14 6:16

131 126, 130, 166, 373 373 167 186 167, 176 218 138, 200, 219 199 199 126 127 126 126 121, 122, 123, 127 126 126 205, 218 126 127 127, 185 167 318 167 130, 131, 277 318 189 318, 348 167 186 444 216 277 131, 277 161 131, 277 277 274 269, 270, 274, 275, 276, 277 277 277 186, 277 131 130 131 131 186 130 140

7–8 7:4 7:7–25 7:13–25 7:21–23 7:23 7:24 8:1–4 8:1 8:3–4 8:4–5 8:5 8:9–13 8:10 8:11 8:12–13 8:13 8:14–17 8:15–17 8:19–22 8:23 8:29 8:31–39 8:33 8:37 8:39 9–11 9:4 9:6 9:9 9:25 9:28 11:2 11:11–24 11:27 11:32–36 11:36 12–15 12–13 12:1–2 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:9–21 12:14 12:16

553 527 186 130 127 219 200 186 217 130 130, 131, 216 218 219 218 186 186 131 186 175 130 167 186, 399 161 442 130 130 130 189 176 185 185 343 185 140 163 131 132 167 143, 175, 200 200, 202 175, 189 176, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189 138, 143, 144, 189, 200, 213, 216, 219 200, 201 186 186, 201 209 201 201, 202, 216

554

Index of Ancient Sources

13:1–7 13:5–8 13:8–10 13:8 13:9 13:11 13:13 14:1–15:13 14:5 14:6–7 14:8–9 14:10 14:12 14:13 14:14 14:20 14:21 14:23 15:1 15:5 15:7 15:9 15:11 15:14 15:16 15:18 15:25–28 15:30 16:4 16:20 16:21

218 217 202 197 185, 202 216 199, 205, 218 209, 418 219 212, 216 216 219 185 210 211 218 210 219 209 216 189 416, 418, 419 157 219 444 185 323 216 348 369 292

1 Corinthians 1:2 1:3 1:5 1:10–13 1:10–12 1:10 1:11–12 1:13 1:14–17 1:14–16 1:15 1:17–31 1:17 1:18–4:21 1:18–2:5 1:18–25 1:18

206, 318, 500 206 185 205 206 135, 205, 206 135 135, 206, 269 269 136 269 206 136, 185 140 140, 153 140, 152 185

1:23 1:26–31 1:26–28 2:1–5 2:1 2:2 2:4–5 2:4 2:5 2:6–16 2:6–10 2:13 3:1–21 3:3–4 3:5 3:11–14 3:11 3:16–17 3:16 3:18–23 3:18 3:21–23 3:22 3:23 4:1–21 4:5 4:16–17 4:19 4:20 4:36 5–6 5:1–13 5:2 5:3–13 5:3–5 5:3 5:4–5 5:5 5:6 5:10–11 5:11 5:13 6:1–11 6:1–6 6:1–3 6:1 6:2–3 6:2 6:3 6:4

153 140 346 140, 153 152, 153, 186 155 153 155, 186 156 140 206 185 140 206 206 216 140 123, 444 140 206 218 206 206 206, 207 140 210 217 185 185 185 158 123, 140 139 139 139 139 140 369 140 199 139 139, 217 123, 140 209 208 207, 208 207 140, 208 140 208

555

Index of Ancient Sources 6:5 6:6 6:7–8 6:7 6:8–10 6:9–11 6:9–10 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:12–20 6:15 6:16 6:19–20 6:19 6:20 7:4–5 7:5 7:10 7:19 7:31 7:35 7:36–38 8 8:1 8:6 8:7–12 8:7–8 8:7 8:8 8:9 8:10–11 8:12 9:13 9:14 9:19–23 9:19–20 9:19 9:20 9:21–23 9:21 9:22 9:23 9:24–25 9:24 10:1–2 10:1 10:2 10:13 10:14

207 207 207, 209 208 208 138 199 140, 208 208 130, 209 139, 217 140 140, 444 141, 187 140 216 218 216, 369 217 217 143 218 218 211, 216 210 167, 210, 218 211 219 211 210, 211 210 210 123, 210 140, 210 217 163 159 163 163 525 163 157, 163 164 216 140 279 143 235, 275 210 141

10:15 10:16–17 10:16 10:22 10:23 10:24 10:25–29 10:25–27 10:25–27 10:25 10:26 10:27 10:31 10:32 10:33 11:1 11:10 11:13 11:16 11:17–34 11:17 11:21–22 11:22 11:23–26 11:23–24 11:25 11:27 11:28 11:29–30 11:29 11:30 11:31 11:32 11:33–34 12 12:2 12:3 12:7–10 12:10 12:13 13 13:1 13:5 14:1–40 14:7–8 14:7 14:15 14:24–25 14:26 14:40

141 141 141 141 210, 216 210 211 219 211 212 218 212 210, 216 205, 218, 219, 318 210, 211 217 217 218 216, 318 123 141 141 318 141 217 131 141 141 474 141 141 141 141 428 216 140 368 428 9 130, 269, 278, 280 218, 442 417, 418 218 428 418, 419, 442 416, 417 416, 419, 442 129 416, 420, 427, 442 218

556 15:1 15:2 15:3–8 15:4 15:5–8 15:9 15:29 15:52 15:54 16:1–4 16:8–9 16:15 2 Corinthians 1:1 2:1–4 2:5–8 2:5–6 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:12 3:6 3:14 3:15–16 4:2 4:4 5:9–10 5:10 5:11 5:14–15 5:17 6:6 6:14–7:1 6:15 6:16 7:8–10 7:9–10 7:9 7:10 7:11 8:15 9:9 10:5 11:14 11:24 11:25 11:32–33

Index of Ancient Sources 318 185 164, 165, 166 166 154 366 269 417, 418 185 323 152 140 318 136 139 139 140 217 139 369 152 131 129 129 211 143 216 219 211 216 130, 167 199 123 370 444 122 122, 123, 137 121, 136, 137, 138, 139, 144 121, 136, 137, 138, 139 139 217 217 219 369 319 293 9

11:32 12:7 12:19–13:10 12:20–21 12:21 13:1–2 13:1

156 369 123 138, 199 121, 122, 136, 139 139 139

Galatians 1:4 1:6 1:11 1:13–14 1:13 1:15–17 1:17 1:21 1:23 2:1–10 2:2 2:6–10 2:7–9 2:8 2:12 2:19–21 2:19–20 2:20 3:1–5 3:1 3:8 3:10 3:13 3:15 3:22 3:26–28 3:27 3:28 4:4–6 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:28 4:31 5–6 5:1 5:6 5:10 5:11 5:13–6:10 5:13–26

143 133 142 162, 366 318 161, 162 9, 156 9 9, 366 160 160 160 159 160 9, 348 134 198 196 133 134 165 162 368 142 167 130 269, 270 318 130 142 140 152 142 142 198 198 197 135 142 195, 196 196

557

Index of Ancient Sources 5:13–16 5:13–14 5:13 5:14 5:15 516–26 5:16–17 5:16 5:19–21 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:22–23 5:22 5:25 6:1 6:2 6:7–9 6:7–8 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:12 6:15 6:16 6:18

1:17–30 1:27 1:29–30 1:29 2:1–4 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5–11 2:6–11 2:9 3 3:2 3:3 3:6 3:14 3:17 4:2 4:8–9 4:8 4:9 4:15

214 214, 219 214 214 214 214, 216 214, 215 215 216 442, 444 270 161 176, 363 371 366 216 217 216 219 199, 205 217 140, 185

5:25

167 529 348 199 219 199 199 199 144 415, 416, 420, 421, 427, 442 216

Colossians 1:1 1:7 1:9–10 1:15–20 1:23 2:1 2:18 3:5 3:8 3:11 3:12 3:16 4:3 4:12–13 4:13 4:15

295 295 218 442, 444 167 295 219 199 199 337 199 415, 416, 420, 421, 427, 442 152 295 295 295

Philippians 1:6 1:9–11 1:9–10 1:9 1:10–11 1:10 1:11 1:12–26

135 213 213, 218, 219 212, 213 213 213 213 213

1 Thessalonians 1:1–10 157 1:9–10 128 1:9 152, 211 1:5 140 2:1 140 2:5 140 2:11 140 2:13 217

Ephesians 1:4 1:9–10 3:1 4:2–3 4:17 4:31 4:32 5:3–5 5:10 5:19

216 196 142, 196, 198 196, 197, 198 196 196 218 142, 198 198, 199, 216 138 138 198, 199 199 197 198, 199 217, 298 197 216 403 199 199 199 188 167 217, 371 142

558 2:14–16 2:14 2:18 3:3 3:4 4:1–2 4:1 4:2 4:9 4:11 4:12 4:13–5:11 4:15 4:16 5:1–11 5:2 5:14 5:15 5:21

Index of Ancient Sources 366 318 369 140 140 217 217 140 202 204 218, 219 204 217 417, 418 216 140 218 209, 219 216

2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 204 2:6 140 2:9 369 2:9–10 369 3:6–12 204 3:7 140 3:14 139 4:1 318 1 Timothy 1:20 2:2 3:16

369 219 442

2 Timothy 1:3 2:8 2:25

176 165 121, 122

Titus 1:15

167

1 Peter 2:2 2:9–10 2:12 2:21–24 4:16 5:8–9

185, 189 371 205, 395 442 321 371

2 Peter 2:21–22

363

Hebrews 2:12 2:14 2:17 5:3 6:1 7:5 7:27 9:10 12:17 12:19

416, 421 369 343 343 138 343 343 263 127 417

James 1:18 5:13 5:16

399 416, 421, 442 474

1 John 1:6 1:9

474

Revelation 1:1 1:3 1:4–5 1:4 1:5–6 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:11–12 1:11 1:12 1:13–20 1:13 1:16 1:17 1:20 2:1–3:22 2:1 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8–11 2:9

353 353, 373 353 359 364 373, 377, 391, 393, 409 373, 395 335, 376, 402 359, 373 417 354 295, 337 389 402 399 373 394 389 357, 422, 471 389 375, 377 374 374, 377, 410 294 294, 254, 366, 367, 368, 369

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

374 294, 357, 367, 375, 394 377 295 337 294, 355, 357, 365, 366, 371, 374, 376, 391 374 374 375, 377 374 377 374 138, 377 295 138 375 348, 373, 374 377 295 375, 377, 400 374, 377 294, 371 294, 354, 366, 373 349, 354, 400 375 374, 377 445 295, 363 445 375, 377 374, 377 417 359, 374 395 374 442 387 376, 377 364 376, 377, 387 422, 423, 442 417, 418 442 376, 377, 446 333, 335, 337, 338, 339, 343, 348, 349, 374, 378, 379, 387, 392, 393, 407, 408, 409, 411, 415, 421, 442

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

559 374 395, 446 442 374 377, 390 355, 376, 377 349, 354 378 396 393, 445 365 364 377, 389, 397 422 378 335 335 411 333, 337, 338, 339, 342, 343, 348, 349, 378, 379, 392, 393, 407, 408, 409 374 395 364 377 411 374 377, 390 417, 418 396 377 390 417, 418 417 417 417 417 349, 354, 417, 418 358 417 358 417 417, 418 400 362, 378, 391 138, 395 390 138, 363 377, 398 387

560 10:7 10:8–10 10:11 10:13 11:1–14 11:1–13 11:1–2 11:1 11:2 11:3–13 11:3 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:7–10 11:7–8 11:7 11:8 11:9 11:10 11:11–13 11:11–12 11:13 11:14 11:15–19 11:15 11:17–18 11:17 11:18–19 11:18 11:19 12:1–15:4 12–13 12:1–6 12:1–4 12:3–4 12:3 12:5 12:6 12:7–10 12:9 12:10–12 12:10 12:11 12:12 12:13–16

Index of Ancient Sources 378, 417 394 333, 338, 339, 343, 387, 392, 393 394 379 387, 394, 395, 397 389 389 348, 391, 398 387, 388, 389, 390, 397 334, 390, 391, 398 389, 390 389 390 391 355, 365, 376 358, 378 371, 389, 390, 395 333, 339, 378, 387, 392, 393, 394 349, 354, 390 392, 396 397 391, 392, 394, 395, 400 395 390, 395 395, 396, 417, 442 374, 442 359 396 348, 394 396 398 389, 398 398 357 357 357, 358 348, 371 391, 398 357 357, 398 372, 374 357 377, 411 357, 391 357

378,

391,

390,

396,

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

391, 398 357, 371, 373 357 358 357, 377 358 358 410 358 358 391, 398 358 333, 338, 339, 343, 378, 392, 393 349, 354 355, 365, 376 357, 359 357, 360 354, 358, 360 360 360 349, 358, 360 358 355, 360, 365, 376 360 363 398, 422 422, 423 417, 418, 442 415, 421, 446 398, 399 378, 398 398, 401, 402 333, 338, 339, 343, 378, 392, 393, 410 375, 378, 394, 400 339, 348, 360, 361, 362, 398 398 402 355, 365, 376, 402 398, 400, 401, 402 387, 388, 398, 399, 400, 402, 403 399, 400, 401, 402 401 400, 402 398, 400, 403 401 401, 402 402

Index of Ancient Sources 14:20 15:1–4 15:1 15:2–4 15:2–3 15:2 15:3–4 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:7 15:14 15:15–16:21 16:1 16:5–7 16:9 16:11 16:12 16:13 16:18 16:19 16:21 17:1–19:10 17:1–8 17:1 17:2 17:4 17:5 17:6 17:8 17:9–13 17:9 17:10 17:11 17:12–13 17:12 17:14 17:15 17:16 18:1–8 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:8 18:9–24 18:9 18:10

403 398 403, 405 387, 388, 403, 405, 406, 442 422, 423, 442 405, 417, 418, 442 374, 387, 446 373, 405, 415 378, 394, 395, 403, 404, 405 398 403 348 403 403 374, 405 378, 395, 404 138, 378, 404 358 359, 360 396 339, 362 404 362 360 362 349, 354, 361, 362, 393 361 360, 362 339, 355, 362, 365, 376 349, 354, 359 359 360 393 359 400 393 373, 374 333, 339, 339, 343, 378, 392, 393 362 362 362 339, 348, 361, 362, 393 343, 355, 365, 375, 376 362 362 361, 362, 393 394, 400

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

561 361 361 394 361 361, 400 400 339 415, 417, 418, 423 339, 348 339, 362 374 442 355, 361, 362, 365, 376, 395 394 395 358 364, 376, 379, 411 261 348 373 403 364 364, 393 359, 360, 409 395 364 358 348 395 411 358, 364 379 364, 411 364 364, 409 411 386, 406 406, 408 374, 387, 388 343, 378, 386, 387, 406, 408 386 386 409, 411 362, 363, 388, 407, 411 408 411 335 378, 387, 388 406, 408 386

562 21:24 21:26 21:27 22:1–5 22:1–2 22:1 22:2–3 22:2 22:3

Index of Ancient Sources 348, 386 348 388, 407, 411 386 409 408 378, 387, 388 348, 386, 408, 409, 410 409, 411

22:7 22:10–14 22:11 22:14 22:15 22:16 22:17 22:20 22:21

353, 373, 411 373 363, 365, 375, 379, 411 408, 411 362, 363, 388 393 379, 409, 411 379 411

III. Second Temple Literature, Rabbinic Literature 2 Baruch 8:5 13:4 84:10

199 199 473

1 Enoch 53:3 56:1 63:1 66:1 62:6–13 63:2–12 90:28–29 90:30–33 91:9

402 402 402 402 395 395 46 7 7

2 Enoch 10:4–5

199

3 Enoch 32:2 32:1 33:1

402 402 402

4 Ezra 3:18–22 9:36–37 7:30

127 127 69

15:33 23:30 46:6

370 7 417

1 Maccabees 2:36–38 2:39–41 2:42–47 3:10–26 4:54 15:16–23

376 376 376 376 425 5

3 Maccabees 4:6–8 6:23–28 6:32 6:35 7:2, 11 7:16

429 61 425 425 61 425

4 Maccabees 1:26–27 2:15 5:1–17:6 5:14–38 9:1–9 11:12–9 18:15 18:18

199 199 57 61 61 61 429 429

Joseph and Aseneth 11:18 473 13:11–13 473

Odes of Solomon 31:8–13 62, 69

Jubilees 10:9

Psalms of Salomon 2:15–18 127

396

563

Index of Ancient Sources 17:25–27 17:32

7 203

Sibylline Oracles 3:616 7 3:716–718 7 3:752–753 7 12:60–61 492 26:11–13 361 Sirach 31:30 34:25 34:30

260 245 245

Testament of Abraham 4:11 402 8:9–10 402 Testament of Job 3:3–4 362 Testament of Moses 10:7 7 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs T.Benj. 5:4 64 T.Gad 4:7

369

T.Jud. 16

199

T.Levi 3:6 17:11

180, 182, 184 199

T.Reu. 2:4 3:3–6

370 199

Tobit 14:6–7

7

Vitae Prophetarum 3:6–7 402

Wisdom of Salomon 12:10 125 12:19 125 14:23–31 199

Qumran CD VI, 9 IX, 13

370 473

1QS IV X, 9 X, 11–13 X, 23 XI XI, 11–17

199 429 127 429 199 125

1QH X, 22 XIV, 5 XV, 10 XV, 23

429 370 370 203 370

1QM IV, 9 XII, 10 XV, 9

370 7 370

4QFlor I, 2–7 I, 3 I, 6

403 46 46

4Q393 II, 4–8

472

4Q400–405

430

11QTemple XXIX, 8–10

46

Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae 1.117 263 2.45 164

564 3.102 5.24 7.50 11.65 12.6 12.119–128 12.135 12.148–153 14.112–113 14.172 14.190–195 14.196–198 14.199 14.200–201 14.202–210 14.211–212 14.213–216 14.214–216 14.214 14.215 14.219–222 14.225–227 14.227 14.235 14.256–258 14.241–243 14.242 14.244–246 14.245 14.256–258 14.259–261 14.262–264 14.277 14.235 14.241–243 14.244–246 14.245 14.252–254 15.55 15.218–236 16.27–28 16.27 16.31–57 16.41 16.45 16.60 16.162–165 16.163 16.165

Index of Ancient Sources 249 164 164 164 347 325 347 5 309 58 300 300 300 300 300 300 300, 301 305 300, 310 305 300 305 310 306 307 307 307 307 310 307 307 307 305 207, 301 301 301, 305 305 301 243 59 305, 312, 314 307 312 313 305, 307, 313 305 300, 301, 305, 311 305, 311 305

16.166 16.167–168 16.167 16.169–170 16.171 16.172–173 16.172 18.55–89 18.57–59 18.116 18.229 18.257–260 18.259 19.279 19.280–285 19.285 19.287–291 19.288–290 19.290–291 20.9 20.34–48 20.97–99 20.125–133

300, 301, 305, 312 301, 305, 311 305 301, 305 301, 305, 313 301, 306, 313 306 75 57 264 164 301 317 320 302, 303, 306 302 303, 306 303 303 425 15 324 58

Bellum Judaicum 1.607 164 2.169–171 75 2.385 320 2.420 164 2.487–498 325 2.556 247 3.143 164 3.368 247 3.423 247 4.563 249 4.618 164 4.656 164 5.192 316 5.201 316 5.205 316 5.252 295 6.300–309 58 7.100–103 324 7.110–111 325 7.218 325, 369 7.323 44 7.361–368 325 7.407–421 325 7.433–453 325

565

Index of Ancient Sources Contra Apionem 2.17 427 2.262–268 87 Vita 15

De providentia 2.67 250 De somniis 1.106

186

247

Philo De Abrahamo 32 199

De specialibus legibus 1.78 315 1.235 473 1.277 180, 184 1.290 180 2.184 417 4.18 123

De decalogo 96

347

In Flaccum 11.86–91 15.121

320 427

De vita contemplativa 46 251 80 429 83–85 429

Hypothetica 7.13

427

De vita Mosis 1.84 186

Legatio ad Gaium 8 302 18 164 99 164 231 164 299–310 75 311 312 315 312 370–371 301, 302 Legum allegoriae 1.10 185 1.69 315 3.18 250 3.213 125 De migratione Abrahami 204 250 De opificio mundi 34 164 115 164 119 185 De praemiis et poenis 2 186

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah †Arakin 2:3–6

425, 426

Baba Metsi†a 6:1

429

Bikkurim 1:4–5 3:4

15 425, 428

Ketubbot 2:10

429

Middot 2:5–6 2:5

425 428

Pesahim 5:7 9:3 10:4 10:6–7 10:7

417, 428 428 428 417 428

566

Index of Ancient Sources

Rosh Hashanah 4:7 428

Rosh Hashanah 30b–31a 426

Sota 5:4 9:11 9:14

Shabbat 55a 88a

402 402

Sota 32b 48a

473 429

Yebamot 47a–b

14

428 429 429

Sukkah 3:10–11 5:4 Ta†anit 3:9

428 428 328

Tamid 7:4 Tosefta Ta†anit 1:8

426, 428

Palestinian Talmud Yebamot 8:3 473

473

Targumim Targum Jeremiah 51:55 362

Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 9a 325

IV. New Testament Apocrypha, Apostolic Fathers, Church Fathers Acta Petri 38

355

Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis 13.4 183 Clemens Alexandrinus Protrepticus 1.4 253 4.48 103 Quis dives salvetur 34.3 247 Didache 7:1–3 9:5

274 363

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 2.25 355 3.1.2 355 5.1.5–6 371 Gospel of Peter 4:10 62 Ignatius To the Magnesians Prol. 295 To the Trallians Prol. 295 Irenaeus 3.12.8

274

567

Index of Ancient Sources Fragmenta deperditorum operum 36 183 John Chrysostom Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew 86:1 61 Justin Martyr Apologia 31.5

366

9–11 12:2–3 13:1 17:1

61 366 366 371

Nag Hammadi The Discourse on the Eighty and Ninth VI, 57,18–19 179, 180, 182 Origen Commentarium in evangelium Ioannis 13.24.148 183

Dialogus cum Tryphone 16.4 366 47.4 366 93.4 366 95.4 366 96.2 366 108.3 366 102–103 61 110.5 366 131.2 366 133.6 366 137.2 366

Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos 12.2 183 Contra Celsum Pr. 1–2 61 Fragmenta in Lucam 123.4 183 Selecta in Ezechielem 13.785.44 183

Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas 10:4 371 20:1 371

Tertullian Ad nationes 1.14

294

Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:2 62 3:1 371

V. Greek and Roman Authors Achilles Tatius Leucippe et Clitophon 3.1.3 243 Aelian De natura animalium 11.17 459, 468 Varia historia 7.9 249

Aeschylos Prometheus vinctus 11 497 862–863 239 Supplices 86–103

480

Aesop 75 223

239 246

568

Index of Ancient Sources

Agatharchides Frag. 20b 347

Magna moralia 1208b30 488

Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica 1.179–184 240

Metaphysica 1080a10

184

Poetica 81 1449a

237 154

Politica 93a15 1336a 1252b23–26 1324b10 1341a21–26 1341a21 1341b 1340a

184 244 485, 486 348 419 440 432 432

Protrepticus 19.1

434

Rhetorica 1355a13

184

Topica 1.156a.3–6 162b27

132 184

Apuleius Apologia 47

363

Metamorphoses 3.16 363 Aratus Phaenomena 949–953

240

Aristides, P. Aelius Orationes 26.11–13 361 42.4 482 Aristides Quintilianus De musica 2.4 431 Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae 216–219 248 Pax 390–399

496

Plutus 530

248

Pseudo-Aristotle Problemata 19.1 434 19.15 445 11.22 434 11.46 434

Aristotle Analytica posteriora 101b39–102a40 166

Arrianus, Flavius Epicteti dissertationes 2.9.20 232

Athēnain politeia 41.3 338

Callimachus Hymn to Artemis 186 492

De coloribus 794a16–19

248

Ethica nicomachea 1108b9 184

Hymn to Demeter 18–19 493 24–30 493 134–138 495

569

Index of Ancient Sources Hymn to Zeus 80–85 495

13:19 13:21

Cassius Dio Historiae Romanae 52.36 87 60.6.6 322 66.7 325

Demetrius De elocutione 42 184

Chariton De Chaerea et Callirhoe 6.5.5 164 17.7.1 164 Chrysippus 3.95

87 87

Dio Chrysostom Orationes 12.60–61 492 36.15 498

184

Cicero De finibus 1.7.22

185

Pro Flacco 28.67 67–68

6 309, 310

De legibus 2.16.40

86

De natura deorum 1.1 481 1.51 484 3.70 488 3.86 498, 499 3.87–88 499 3.93 488 Pro oratore 2.58.236

Demosthenes 19 281

179, 182, 184 179, 182, 184

154

De partitione oratoria 13.47 133 Tusculanae Disputationes 3.43 441 4.14.33 185 Corpus Hermeticum 1:31 179, 182, 184 13:18–19 179, 182, 184

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica 1.67.5 123 1.73 250 2.52.4 242 16.80.3 246 26.23.1 348 33–34 Frag. 1 347 Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum 2.40 86 3.19 68 3.58 184 5.85 184 7.88 178, 179 7.119 179 9.115 68 9.124–125 364 Douris of Samos Apud Athenaios 13.253F 487 Dionysius Halicarnassus Antiquiates romanae 4.14 335 De compositione verborum 11 184 11.119 185 14.86 185 14.108 185

570

Index of Ancient Sources

Epictetus Dissertationes 1.16.20–21 178 2.9.2–3 179 Euripides Alcestis 935

487

Andromache 98

487

Bacchae 108 127 576–603 772

108 440 494 494

Hippolytus 121–124 591

246 487

Ion 211

495

Iphigenia aulidensis 1136–1137 487 1142 73

De venae sectione 11.214 243 Heraclitus Allegoriae 69.16

242

Herodotus Historiae 1.105 2.3 5.69 5.131

94 485 335 335

Hesiod Fragmenta 322

85, 86

Theogonia 49.534–548

486

Hippocrates De affectionibus interioribus (Epidemiae) 7.13–14 240 20.9 482 De diaeta 3.79.11–12

240

Medea 1347

487

De morbis popularibus 5.63.3–7 240

Phoenissae 1577–1578

247

Hipponax Fragmenta 26

239

Homer Ilias 2.84 2.308 2.350 2.362 2.412 2.459 2.469 2.515 3.32 8.266–366

347 357 486 335 486 347 347 486 347 485

Galen De alimentorum facultatibus 1.24 244 2.50 244 De differentia pulsuum 8.585 340 8.586 340 De sanitate tuenda 6.51 244 De sectis ingredientibus 1 185

571

Index of Ancient Sources 8.273 11.360 12.330 13.495 16.667 17.552 20.131

485 363 348 347 488 347 484

Odyssea 4.415 5.4 9.392 17.248

486 486 239 363

Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica 64 432 Isidorus Etymologiae 3.22.14 Juvenal 6.77 6.160 6.535–541 14.96–106

417 440 6 459, 468 6

Lactantius Divinarum institutionum 6.25.3 179 Livy Ab urbe condita 39.8.8 433 Pseudo-Longinus De sublimi 9.2 67 18.1–2 132 23.2 132 26.1 132 27.1 132 39.2 440 Lucian Alexander 8 23

467 455

Marcus Aurelius 3.4 252 5.16 252 Marcus Vetruvius De architectura 5.5.1.7–8 418 Martial 5.56.9 6.39.19 11.75.3

440 440 440

Menander Epitrepontes 1069–1075

240

Fragmenta 544

468

Moschus 9.440.28–29

242

Ovid Fasti 4.305–327 6.249–252

468 491

Metamorphoses 11.129–143 468 Ex Ponto 1.1.51–58

453, 458, 468

Pausanias Graecae descriptio 1.5.1 362 4.19.5 164 Philostratos Vita Apollonii 1.28.37 4.38.3 5.21.2–3 8.27.2

164 359 440 164

Vitae sophistarum 1.22.1 184

572 1.508.14 2.13 2.572.12 Pindar Pythionikai 2.76–80 3.108–109

Index of Ancient Sources 164 340 164

249 487

Plato Apologia 21b 24c 24d 33c

86 86 60 86

Gorgias 521e

60, 61

Leges 665e 669e–670a 910b-c

434 437 87

Protagoras 325f Respublica 327a–328a 398c–400c 424c 429d-e Symposium 176a-b 215e

Plutarch Alcibiades 2.5

185

Artaxerxes 22

242, 243

Caesar 49

243

Cleomenes 54

103

Consolatio ad uxorem 11 491 Marcius Coriolanus 38 184 De defectu oraculorum 14, 21 490 51 491 Galba 21.2

251

432 De genio Socratis 24 251 101 432 432 248

De Iside et Osiride 20 490 De liberis educandis 13 251

253 425

Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 2.27 482 8.157 417 9.24 441 Pliny the Younger Epistulae 10.96.7 444 10.96.8–10 474 10.96.8–9 367

Numa 17

433

Pompeius 41.2

164

Questionum convivialum 6 253 7 440 Romulus 20

335

573

Index of Ancient Sources Septem sapientium convivium 2 359 Sertorius 11.4

164

Non posse suaviter vivi 21 489 De superstitione 2 489 3 489 6 489 7 468 Theseus 24.6

243

Timoleon 6.4

124

De virtute morali 12 123, 124 In virtute sentiat profectus 11 468 Moralia 9B 82A 147B 165B 166B 167E-F 168A 168C 168D 184A 266B 347D 359A 404E 417C 438D 593F 612A 686B

251 468 359 489 489 489 468 489 468 164 164 164 490 490 490 491 251 491 253

713A 1101E 1102B

440 489 489

Polybius Historiai 1.31.2 1.51.6–7 3.72.4 5.34 5.47.2

348 246 240 103 241

Porphyry De abstinentia 2.18 2.45 4.15 4.22

86 180, 182 468 86

Quintilian Institutio oratoria 1.12.3 435 2.13.12–13 67 5.11.5 133 7.3.6 153 Seneca Epistulae morales 76.4 440 84.9 434 Fragmenta 123

179

Servius Aeneid 8.187

86

Sophocles Ajax 534

487

Antigone 1140–1141

494

Elektra 1157

487

574 Strabo Geographica 1.2.16 1.2.34 1.2.39 2.1.31 2.3.4 2.3.7 3.1.8 4.4.3 5.1.9 5.2.4 5.4.12 6.3.6 7.6.1 8.12.2 10.4.6 11.14.8 12.1.2 12.3.4 12.3.25 12.4.6 12.8.3 13.1.53 13.1.65 13.3.2 14.1.3 14.1.37 14.2.3 14.2.6 14.2.8 14.2.10 14.2.28 14.4.3 14.5.26 15.1.30 16.2.34 16.2.42 16.4.10 17.1.11 Suetonius Augustus 32.1 Claudius 25.4 Domitian 12.2

Index of Ancient Sources

242 341 341 341 341 341 157 342 341 341 342 342 342 341 341 342 342 342 342 342 342 343 340 336 338, 343 366 340 335 340 335 341 344 341 249 335 242 242 440

Nero 16.2

367

Tacitus Annales 1.10.4 15.44

362 355, 367

Historiae 5.5.2 5.8

7 6

Theon Progymnasmata 97.11–13 184 98.21 184 99.4 184 101.24 184 101.30 184 102.8 184 Timaeus Locrus 99e 184 Varro Saturae Menippeae 561 440 Vergil Aeneid 2.207 8.187

357 86

Xenophanes Fragmenta 14 15 23 34

485 485 486 480

Xenophon Anabasis 2.2.9

239

Cyropaedia 2.2.5

239

Memorabilia 1.1.1 1.1.2–4 1.3.1

60, 86 86 86

320 322 325

575

Index of Ancient Sources

VI. Inscriptions, Papyri Inscriptions BGU VI 1211 VI 1247

102 293

CIG 3088 4001 4142

432 291 458, 461

CIIP I.1 2 I.1 3 I.1 98

295 315 317

CIJ II 738 II 766 II 1256

309 307 317

ETAM 19 55

453

I. Alexandria Troas 123 433 I. Delos IV 1519

109, 110, 115

I. Didyma 50 182 140 183 264 480 492

435 438 310 438 438 96 344, 345, 346

I. Eleusis 28

88

I. Ephesus I 17–19 I 24B Ia 10 II 599 III 616

435 347 435 359 435

III 645 III 742 III 790 III 892 III 908 III 921 III 973 IV 1002–04 IV 1029 IV 1030 IV 1033 IV 1035 IV 1039 IV 1041 IV 1042 IV 1106 IV 1137 IV 1145 IV 1149 IV 1061 V 1600–4 V 1850 VI 2446 VII 3081–88 VII 3247 VII 3801 VII 3813 VII 4336

435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 437 440 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 437 435

I. Ilion 33

344

I. Kition 159

92

I. Laodikeia 81A 95

434 348

I. Milet II 792, 793 III 1023 III 1038 III 1052 III 1140 III 1357 VI.3 1224 VI.3 1225

440 336 336 348 438 249 96 97

576 I. Pergamon I 246 II 374 II 485

Index of Ancient Sources IGR III 302 IV 1327

293 309

I. Philadelphia 1539 363

IJudO II 10 II 168

315 307, 308

I. Pisidia 32

436

JIGRE 153

317

I. Priene 113

436

I. Rhamnous II 179

109, 114

I. Sardes VII 1

344, 346

I. Smyrna I 208 I 500 II 594 II 595 II 659 II 697

435 435 435 435 438 435

MAMA IV 202 IV 229 IV 260 IV 265–312 IV 267 IV 270–293 IV 279 IV 280 IV 281 IV 282 IV 283 IV 284 IV 285 IV 286 IV 287 VI 153 VI 264

321 458 309 468 456 451 459, 460, 462, 464 456 454, 460 460 460 458, 460 458 460 461 309 307

OGIS I 90 I 225 II 536 II 598 II 599

348 344 293 295 317

SEG II 184 IV 647–652 IV 648 IV 649 VI 248–260 XXIV 276 XXIV 1158 XXV 376 XXVII 1737 XXVIII 913 XXVIII 914 XXVIII 1568

184 451 461 460 451, 468 495 104 495 459 466 464, 466 456

337 435 436

IG I.2 10 335 I.3 32 91 I.3 78 88 I.3 136 99 I.3 383A 99 I.3 386–387 91 I5 88 II.1 337 92 II.2 237 95 II.2 337 92, 95 II.2 444 348 II.2 1255 100 II.2 1283 98, 99, 100, 101 II.2 1337 94 III.1 171 499 IV.2 I 121–122 481 IX.2 341 184 IX.4 1299 104, 115 IGCB I 15

369

577

Index of Ancient Sources XXIX 1174 XXX 384 XXXII 1001 XXXIII 1012 XXXIII 1013 XXXIV 1210 XXXIV 1211 XXXIV 1212 XXXIV 1213 XXXIV 1218 XXXIV 1219 XXXIII 1277 XXXIV 1210 XXXV 1157 XXXV 1205 XXXV 1269 XXXV 1174 XXXV 1187 XXXIX 1278 XXXIX 1279 XL 98 LX 65

453 495 461 454, 455, 471 454, 455, 462 460 459 455, 459 459 459 459 315 315, 460 315 453 460 453 453 462 463 95 91

SIG III 590

348

Syll 83 280 663

88 92 104

TAM V.1 159 V.1 160 V.1 167a V.1 172 V.1 179a V.1 179b V.1 180 V.1 213 V.1 231 V.1 238 V.1 250 V.1 251 V.1 254 V.1 255 V.1 257 V.1 261 V.1 264

459, 463, 464 465 465 465 460, 466 460, 464, 466 459 457 459 460 460 456, 459 454 454, 463 459 459 460

V.1 317 V.1 318 V.1 329 V.1 429 V.1 440 V.1 443 V.1 453 V.1 459 V.1 460 V.1 461 V.1 464 V.1 501 V.1 510 V.1 525 V.1 537 V.1 541 V.1 592 V.1 593

457, 458, 459, 463, 364 459 459 459 459, 471 471 459 460 453, 460, 463 463 455, 464 470 459 463, 471 463 453 460 460

Papyri CPJ II 153 II 160 II 192 II 207 II 321 II 421

300, 303, 306 325 325 325 325 325

C.Ord.Ptol. 29

102

P. Cairo Zenon IV 59630 244, 245 P. Fayyum I 12

293

P. Köln 206 260

348 348

P. London V 1731 VI 1912 VII 2193

369 303, 304 293

P. Michigan II 121 XI 622

245 245

578

Index of Ancient Sources

P. Oslo 1413

444

P. Oxy VII 1020 XV 1786 XLII 3008 XLII 3010

348 443, 444 491 468

P. Paris 47

250

P. Petrie 3 13 14 15

348 347 347 347

P. Strasbourg 93 344

P. Rylands II 150

293

P. Tebtunis 701

347

PSI 577

347

SB III 6705 III 7179 III 7266 XII 11018

245 347, 347 102 293

Select Papyri II 208

102

UPZ I 70 I 110

250 344, 347

Index of Modern Authors Achtemeier, Paul J. 177, 186, 190 Adam, Jens 171 Adler, Yonatan 272, 284 Adrados, Francisco R. 229, 255 Aertsen, Jan A. 170f Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw 442, 446 Allen, Leslie C. 424, 446 Allison, Dale C. 10f., 17–19, 23–26, 37, 62, 77, 209, 211, 220, 270, 284, 394, 412 Alvar, Jaime 109f., 116 Ameling, Walter 307–310, 315f., 321, 327, 340, 350 Amundson, Leiv 443, 447 Apergis, Gerassimos G. 344f., 350 Apresjan, Yuri D. 235, 255 Arnaoutoglou, I. N. 91, 99–101, 116 Arndt, William F. 190, 226, 230, 255, 260, 284 Artz-Grabner, Peter 250, 255 Ascough, Richard S. 87, 92, 94f., 98–101, 104, 110, 116, 118 Atkins, Sue 235f., 255 Attridge, Harold W. 426, 449 Auer, Anton 194, 220 Aune, David E. 132, 146, 294, 324, 327, 333f., 343, 350, 356f., 361f., 366f., 371f., 380, 387, 390, 392–394, 396, 398, 400, 402f., 406, 409–411, 422, 445, 446 Avemarie, Friedrich, 155, 172, 269, 270, 284 Babbitt, Frank Cole 251, 468, 489f., 501 Bachmann, Philipp 137, 146 Bagnall, Roger S. 102, 116

Balla, Peter 527, 532 Balme, M. 240 Balz, Horst 134, 176, 214 Bammel, Ernst 298, 327 Barclay, John M. G. 307, 310, 313, 327 Barker, Andrew 430f., 438, 445f., 513, 533 Barnbrook, Geoff 235, 255 Barnett, Paul W. 129, 137, 140, 146 Barrett, C. K. 42–44, 76, 85, 116, 177, 181, 189f., 267, 271, 284, 291–294, 296, 327, 523, 532 Barth, Karl 189f. Bartsch, H. W. 178 Baslez, Marie-Françoise 95, 110, 116 Bauckham, Richard J. 298, 327, 333, 338f., 343, 349f., 355, 357f., 360f., 364f., 370, 376, 378, 380, 385, 387–393, 397–400, 402f., 406–408, 411, 506, 532 Bauer, Karl-Adolf 186, 190 Bauer, Walter 190, 226, 230, 255, 260, 284, 436, 446 Baum-Bodenbender, Rosel 74, 76 Baumgartner, Walter 241, 256, 448 Baur, Ferdinand Christian 510, 512, 532 Bayer, Hans F. 417, 446 Beale, Gregory K. 65, 80, 333f., 350, 353, 356, 361, 367, 371, 376, 380, 388–394, 396, 398–405, 407–411, 422, 445f. Beard, Mary 499, 501 Beasley-Murray, George R. 22f., 25, 228, 242, 255, 278, 284, 334, 350, 353, 380, 389, 392, 398, 400f., 411 Becker, Jürgen 134, 146, 209, 212, 220, 525, 526, 532 Beckheuer, Burkhard 323, 327 Behm, Johannes 145f.

580

Index of Modern Authors

Bélis, Annie 430f., 446 Belleville, Linda L. 129, 146 Benardete, Seth 253, 257 Bengel, Johann Albrecht 72, 76 Berger, Klaus 126, 146 Bertram, Georg 128, 146, 214, 292, 347 Best, Ernest 25, 203, 220, 421, 446 Betz, Hans Dieter 134, 142, 146, 159, 172, 180f., 190, 196, 197, 200, 220 Betz, Otto 47, 72, 76, 325, 327 Bieberstein, Klaus 315, 327 Bieder, W. 228 Bietenhard, Hans 270 Bilde, Per 290, 327 Billerbeck, Paul 69, 76 Binder, Donald D. 308, 327 Bird, Michael F. 165, 172 Black, Matthew 28, 177, 190, 222, 316, 331 Blakely, Jeffrey A. 273, 285 Bleek, Friedrich 511 Bleicken, Jochen 359, 380 Blevins, James L. 34, 77 Blinzler, Josef 70, 77 Bloedhorn, Hanswulf 315, 327 Blomberg, Craig L. 22, 23, 25 Blount, Brian K. 377, 380 Bock, Darrell L. 40f., 50, 65, 68, 77, 282, 284, 325, 327 Bockmühl, Klaus 194, 220 Böckle, Franz 194, 220 Börker, Christoph 433, 446 Bohn, Richard 355, 380 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 142, 146 Bonnet, Corinne 112f., 116 Booth, Roger P. 262, 284 Borgeaud, Philippe 115f. Borgen, Peder 203, 220, 301, 317, 327, 370, 380 Boring, M. Eugene 282, 284 Bornkamm, Günther 523, 532 Borse, Udo 196, 220 Bosch, David J. 3f., 23, 25, 168f., 172 Botermann, Helga 301, 304, 321f., 327 Bousset, Wilhelm 356, 365, 380 Bradley, J. J. 320 Brain, Peter 243, 255 Bratcher, Robert G. 393, 412 Braun, Joachim 423f., 446 Brawley, Robert L. 22, 25

Bredin, Mark R. J. 368, 380 Bremer, Jan M. 234, 256, 479–482, 493f., 496, 499, 502 Brent, Allen 356, 380 Breytenbach, Cilliers 290, 327 Briant, Pierre 345, 347, 350 Bricault, Laurent 92, 116 Brickhouse, Thomas C. 86, 116 Brodersen, Kai 88, 92, 116 Brown, Raymond E. 42–52, 61, 63f., 66, 69– 74, 77, 474, 476 Brownson, C. L. 239 Brox, Norbert 186, 190 Bruce, F. F. 9, 26, 177, 190, 196, 197, 200– 204, 220, 292, 327 Brucker, Ralph 442, 446 Brunt, John C. 209, 220 Buchanan, George Wesley 403, 407, 412 Buchegger, Jürg 175, 190 Büchsel, Friedrich 463 Buckler, William H. 344, 346, 350f., 476 Bultmann, Rudolf 186, 190, 194, 203f., 214, 220, 499, 518–520, 522, 524, 528, 532 Burkert, Walter 482, 484f., 487f., 490, 496, 498, 501 Burnet, Régis 102, 116 Burnett, Andrew M. 308, 327 Burrell, Barbara 435, 446 Burrows, Edward W. 266, 284 Buschmann, Gerd 62, 77 Butler, H. E. 133, 434, 446 Byrne, Brendan 177, 190 Byrne, Sean G. 488, 502 Byrskog, Samuel 31, 77 Caird, George B. 237, 255, 387, 392, 401, 403, 412, 522, 532 Calboli Montefusco, L. 153, 172 Calder, William Moir 293, 327, 451, 476 Calhoun, Robert M. 164–166, 172 Cameron, Alan 452, 458, 460, 462, 464, 476 Camp, John M. 91, 116 Carey, G. 366 Carpenter, Tom H. 500f. Carroll, John T. 63, 67 Carson, D. A. 4, 10, 17–20, 24, 26, 37, 44, 49, 52, 63, 73, 77, 129, 146, 162, 173, 227, 255, 259, 268, 284, 361 Cary, E. 87 Catchpole, David R. 48, 77

Index of Modern Authors Cavanaugh, Maureen B. 91, 116 Chadwick, Henry 459, 468, 476 Chadwick, John 236, 238, 255 Chaniotis, Angelos 461, 476 Chapman, David W. 154, 172, 354, 380 Charles, Robert Henry 356, 380, 392f., 403, 408, 412 Charlesworth, James H. 62, 180, 190, 272, 286, 429, 446, 473, 476 Cheung, Alex T. M. 141, 146 Choi, Jae Duk 121, 146 Ciampa, Roy E. 129, 139, 141, 146 Cineira, David Alvarez 322, 327 Clinton, Kevin 88, 91f., 116 Cohen, Getzel M. 5, 26 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 8, 14f., 18, 26, 265, 284 Cohoon, James W. 498, 501 Collange, Jean-François 194, 213–215, 220 Collier, J. 253 Collins, Adela Yarbro 355f., 358f., 370, 374, 380 Collins, John J. 307, 327 Collins, Raymond R. 278f., 284 Colson, F. H. 180, 302, 312, 315, 429 Combrink, H. J. Bernard 10, 26 Comotti, Giovanni 430, 447 Conant, Thomas Jefferson 239, 255 Cook, John Granger 154, 172 Copenhaver, Brian P. 179, 190 Corley, Bruce 45, 77 Corsaro, Mauro 345, 350 Corsten, Thomas 348, 350 Cotterell, Peter 237, 256 Craigie, Peter C. 66, 77 Cranfield, C. E. B. 47, 77, 144–146, 165, 172, 175, 177f., 181, 183, 189f., 201, 211, 220, 275, 284 Cremer, Marie-Louise 463, 476 Crossan, John Dominic 32, 61f., 66, 77, 156, 172 Crossley, James G. 121, 146 Croy, N. C. 366 Dalman, Gustaf 20, 26 Daly-Denton, Margaret 444, 447 Danker, Frederic W. 68, 77, 190, 226, 230, 235, 255, 260, 284 Darr, John A. 56f., 77 Daube, David 205, 220

581

Dauer, Anton 51, 77 Davies, William D. 10f., 17–19, 23f., 26, 37, 62, 77, 209, 220, 270, 284, 316, 324, 328, 332, 394, 412 Davila, J. R. 444, 447 Davis, Basil S. 134, 146 Debord, Pierre 97, 116, 345, 350 Deissmann, Adolf 355, 380 Delling, Gerhard 213 Derenne, Eudore 87, 95, 117 Derow, Peter 102, 116 Deutsch, Celia 407, 412 Diakonoff, Irina 452f., 455, 459–463, 466, 468f., 476 Dibelius, Martin 193, 220 Dickson, John P. 164, 172 Diebold-Scheuermann, Carola 74, 77 Dillon, Matthew 88, 117 Dinkler, Erich 209, 220 Dirkse, P. A. 180 Dirven, Lucinda 490, 501 Dittenberger, Wilhelm 88, 117 Dochhorn, Jan 372, 380 Doglio, Claudio 376, 380 Dormeyer, Detlev 31, 61, 77 Dover, Kenneth J. 132, 146 Drew-Bear, Thomas 471 Dryden, J. 243, 251 Dueck, Daniela 342, 350 Dülmen, Andrea van 197, 200 Dumbrell, William J. 11, 26 Dunn, James D. G. 35, 77, 131, 134, 142f., 146, 155, 162, 172, 175, 177, 181, 190, 199f., 202, 211, 220, 237, 256, 264, 267, 273, 276–279, 284, 297–299, 327, 419, 447, 523, 532 Duvall, J. Scott 356, 381 Eastman, Susan 134, 146 Eck, Werner 310, 330 Eckstein, Hans-Joachim 211f., 220, 382 Edelstein, Emma J. L. 481f., 501 Edelstein, Ludwig 481f., 501 Edgar, C. C. 102, 117 Edmonds, J. M. 242 Edwards, James R. 177, 190 Edwards, Ormond 316, 328 Eger, Otto 455f., 476 Egger, Peter 75, 77

582

Index of Modern Authors

Eggs, Ekkehardt 233, 256 Ehrhardt, Norbert 96f., 117, 249, 256, 336, 351, 438, 447 Eichholz, Georg 524, 528, 532 Einarson, Benedict 251, 489, 491, 502 Eitrem, Samson 443, 447 Elbogen, Ismar 428, 447 Elliott, James K. 427, 447 Elliott, John H. 186, 190 Elliott, Matthew A. 144, 146 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels 160f., 172 Engelmann, H. 104, 109f., 117, 435, 447 Evans, Christopher 178, 185, 190 Evans, Craig A. 35, 58, 78, 263, 282, 284, 286, 298, 328, 376, 417, 447 Fabbro, Elena 494, 501 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 124f., 147 Fallon, Francis T. 145f. Fanizza, Lucia 367, 381 Fascher, Erich 207–209, 220 Fee, Gordon D. 205, 207–209, 220, 278, 279, 284 Fekkes, Jan 361, 381 Feldman, Louis H. 15, 26, 246, 256, 263, 284, 302–304, 308, 322, 325, 328 Feldmeier, Reinhard 186, 190 Ferguson, Everett 225, 236, 238, 241, 244, 246, 256, 266–270, 273f., 281f., 284, 436, 443, 449 Ferguson, William Scott 100, 117 Finley, Moses I. 297, 331 Finn, Thomas M. 15, 26 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 19, 23, 26, 69, 78, 128, 146, 165, 172, 177, 182, 190, 263, 275, 278, 279, 284, 292, 294, 328 Fleischhauer, Günter 430, 432, 445, 447 Fletscher, W. 179 Foakes-Jackson, Frederik J. 273, 285, 291, 293, 328 Foerster, W. 369 Fohrer, Georg 124, 146, Foley, Helen P. 483, 501 Follet, Simone 115, 117 Fontenrose, Joseph E. 348, 350 Fornara, Charles W. 88, 117 Forster, E. S. 132 Fotopoulos, John 141, 146 Foucart, Paul F. 92, 94f., 109, 117 Fox, Kenneth A. 374, 381

Fränkel, Max 337, 350 France, R. T. 5, 10–12, 18, 26, 49, 65, 78, 262, 264f., 281, 284 Frankemölle, Hubert 3f., 14, 26, 343 Frey, Jörg 369, 375, 379, 381 Friesen, Steven J. 354, 356f., 359f., 371f., 381 Frisch, Peter 468f., 476, 497, 501 Furley, William D. 104, 108f., 117, 234, 256, 479, 480f., 483, 492–494, 496, 498f., 501 Furnish, Victor P. 138f., 146, 193f., 221 Fyfe, W. H. 237 Gabba, Emilio 324, 328 Gäckle, Volker 182, 186, 190 Gager, John G. 6, 26 Garbarino, C. 366 García Martinez, Florentino 473, 476 Garland, David E. 141, 147, 163, 172, 278, 279, 284 Garland, Lynda 117 Garland, Robert 86, 88, 100, 108 Garnsey, Peter 73, 78 Gaselee, S. 243 Gast, W. 153, 172 Gaston, Lloyd 298, 328 Gathercole, Simon J. 127, 147 Gauthier, Philippe 100, 117 Georgi, Dieter 139, 147, 387, 406, 412 Gerhardsson, Birger 11, 26, 194, 221 Giblin, Charles H. 392, 412 Gibson, Shimon 272, 285 Giesen, Heinz 214f., 358, 381, 389–392, 395, 397f., 401–404, 406–408, 412 Gilbert, Gary 14, 26 Gill, David W. J. 155, 172 Gillespie, Thomas W. 278, 285 Ginrich, F. W. 190, 226, 230, 255, 260, 284 Glare, Peter G. W. 228 Gnilka, Joachim 10f., 18, 20, 26, 34–36, 38, 48f., 63f., 66, 78, 214, 522f., 532 Godet, Frédéric 277, 285 Goetzmann, Jürgen 122, 128, 147 Goldstein, Horst 213 Gooch, Paul W. 32, 60f., 78 Gooch, Peter David 141, 147 Goodman, Martin 6, 14, 26, 28, 222, 316, 331, 370, 381, 521f., 532 Goppelt, Leonhard 186, 190 Gouw, Patrick 438, 447 Grabner-Haider, Anton 175, 191, 193, 221

Index of Modern Authors Gräßer, Erich 3, 26 Graupner, M. 124f., 147 Gray, Rebecca 324, 328 Green, Joel B. 50, 52, 63, 65, 67, 76–78, 473, 476 Green, Robert M. 244, 256 Gruen, Erich S. 300, 303, 317, 328 Greenspoon, L. J. 241 Grenfell, Bernard P. 431, 447 Grundmann, Walter 18, 26, 200, 207, 213 Guelich, Robert A. 20, 26, 34, 78, 262, 265, 285 Guen-Pollet, Brigitte 98, 117 Günther, Wolfgang 96f., 117, 249, 256, 336, 351, 438, 447 Gundry, Robert H. 33–36, 38, 46–48, 64, 66, 69–71, 78, 262, 281, 285, 394, 407, 412 Gusmani, Roberti 340, 350 Guthrie, Donald, 522, 532 Guthrie, William K. C. 451, 476 Haacker, Klaus 48, 73, 78, 127, 147, 165, 172, 275, 285 Habicht, Christian 100, 113, 117 Hackenberg, Wolfgang 212 Hägerland, Tobias 121, 147 Haenchen, Ernst 9, 26, 43, 63, 78, 292, 328 Hafemann, Scott 129, 147 Hagel, Stefan 430f., 447 Hagenow, Stephan 122f., 130, 137, 143, 147 Hagner, Donald A. 37–39, 48f., 63, 66, 69, 71, 78, 533 Hahn, Ferdinand 3f., 12, 23, 26, 51, 78, 197, 221, 522, 532 Hainz, Josef 160, 172 Halfmann, Helmut 308, 328 Hamilton, V. P. 65 Hansen, Mogens H. 337, 351 Harder, M. Annette 492, 495, 502 Harland, Philip A. 104, 110, 116, 308, 328 Harnack, Adolf von 4, 26 Harrington, Wilfrid J. 389, 392, 403, 406 Harris, Murray J. 129f., 137–140, 147 Harris, William, 418, 447 Hartman, Lars 270, 285 Hasenstab, Rudolf 193, 194, 221 Hatton, Howard A. 393, 412 Hauck, Friedrich 199 Haugg, Donatus 391f., 412

583

Hausmaninger, Herbert 367, 381 Hawthorne, Gerald F. 122, 147, 212–215, 221, 289, 329, 448 Hays, Richard B. 129, 147, 163, 172 Heemstra, Marius 369, 381 Heiligenthal, Roman 165, 174, 374, 381 Heitsch, Ernst 485, 502 Helmbold, W. C. 124 Hemer, Colin J. 290, 294, 324, 328, 366, 381 Henderson, Jeffrey 497, 502 Hengel, Martin 3f., 7, 9, 13, 26f., 35, 78, 154, 172, 300, 308, 321f., 328, 420, 426, 442, 447 Hennecke, Edgar 62, 78 Henrichs, Albert 103, 117, 434, 447, 495, 502 Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen 65, 78 Herrmann, Peter 96f., 117, 249, 256, 336, 351, 438, 447, 451, 454f., 463, 470f., 476 Herz, Peter 309, 328 Heseltine, M. 468 Hett, W. S. 240, 248 Hettema, Theo L. 370, 381 Hicks, R. D. 179 Hill, David 10, 49, 78 Hiller von Gaertringen, Friedrich 88, 117 Hirschberg, Peter 368, 381 Hoehner, Harold W. 421, 447 Hoffleit, H. B. 253 Hofius, Otfried 155, 171f., 368 Holladay, William L. 124, 147 Hollander, Harm W. 184, 191 Holtz, Traugott 128, 147, 202–205, 207–209, 221, 398 Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius 512f., 532 Holzhausen, Jens 179, 184, 191 Honnefelder, Ludger 194, 221 Hooker, Morna D. 64, 78 Hopkinson, Neil 493, 502 Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm 35, 80, 274, 285, 368, 381, 522, 533 Horsley, G. H. R. 204, 208, 221, 237, 256, 293, 309, 314, 328, 347f., 351, 433, 436, 447 Horton, Fred L. 273, 285 Houlden, J. Leslie 194, 221 Hubbard, Benjamin J. 24, 27 Hübner, Hans 35, 78, 197, 201, 221, 420f., 447, 522, 532 Hunt, Arthur S. 102, 117, 431, 447 Hurtado, Larry W. 155, 173, 444, 447 Hutter, Ulrich 214

584

Index of Modern Authors

Isaac, Benjamin 315f., 328 Jackson, J. 355, 362 Jameson, Michael H. 495, 502 Janouchová, Petra 99, 117 Janowski, Bernd 64f., 78 Jauhiainen, Marko 377, 381 Jáuregui, Miguel Herrero de 103, 117 Jefford, Clayton N. 324, 328 Jeremias, Joachim 4, 7, 23, 27, 65 Jervell, Jacob 291, 296, 328 Jewett, Robert 177, 182, 191, 275, 285 Johnson, Luke Timothy 294, 328, 366 Jones, Arnold H. M. 313, 328 Jones, Christopher P. 359 Jones, H. L. 242, 249, 337f., 341, 343 Jones, Henry Stuart 191, 228, 256 Jones, N. F. 95, 100, 117, 336f., 351 Jones, S. 315, 330 Jones, W. H. S. 240 Jong, I. J. F. de 492, 502 Jong, Irene de 485, 502 Jonge, Marinus de 184, 191 Joubert, Stephan 323, 328 Jüngel, Eberhard 197, 221 Juster, Jean 301, 303, 321, 328 Käsemann, Ernst 144, 147, 175, 178, 181, 183, 186f., 189, 191, 201, 213, 221 Kaftan, Julius 516, 533 Kamlah, Ehrhard 199, 221 Kammler, Hans-Christian 155, 173 Karrer, Martin 31, 78, 334, 351, 353, 381 Kaser, Max 73, 78, 367, 381 Kasher, Aryeh 303, 329, 427, 448 Kasting, Heinrich 4, 7, 23, 27 Kato, Zenji 12, 19–21, 27 Katz, Steven T. 289, 299, 324, 329 Kearsley, Rosalinde A. 340, 351 Keener, Craig S. 268, 285 Kellermann, Ulrich 183, 191 Kennel, Gunter 442, 448 Kerkeslager, Allen 324f., 329 Kertelge, Karl 213 Kidd, D. 240 Kiddle, Martin 407, 410, 412 Kilmer, Anne D. 424, 448 Kilpatrick, George D. 23, 27 Kim, Seyoon 162, 173

Kim-Rauchholz, Mihamm 121, 139 Kingsbury, Jack Dean 39, 78 Kirchner, Johannes 92, 98, 117 Kirk, Geoffrey S. 480, 502 Kittel, Gerhard 178 Klaffenbach, Günther 98, 117 Klein, Günter 188, 191 Klein, J. 153 Klein, William W. 418, 448 Kirk, Geoffrey S. 480, 502 Klauck, Hans-Josef 375, 382, 451f., 476 Klein, Günter 188, 191 Klein, J. 153, 173 Klein, William W. 418, 448 Kleinknecht, Karl Theodor 66, 78 Klinzing, Georg 177, 191 Kloppenborg, John S. 87, 92, 94f., 98–101, 104, 110, 116, 118 Knibbe, Dieter 435, 437, 448 Knox, Bernard M. W. 482f., 502 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 129, 147, 318f., 329, 365, 383 Koehler, Ludwig 241, 256, 448 Köstenberger, Andreas J. 268, 285, 514 Koester, Craig R. 353, 355–357, 363f., 366– 371, 376–378, 380, 382f. Koester, Helmut 338, 352 Konopasek, Jaroslav 132, 147 Konstan, D. 242 Kooij, Arie van der 370, 381 Kooten, George H. van 177, 191 Korff, Wilhelm 194, 221 Kosmala, Hans 64, 79 Kovacs, D. 246 Kraabel, A. T. 15, 27 Kraft, H. 356, 368, 376, 382, 387, 406, 412 Kraus, M. 153, 173 Kraybill, J. Nelson 358, 369, 382 Krencker, Daniel M. 305, 329 Krieger, Klaus-Stefan 320, 329 Kritzer, Ruth Elisabeth 250, 255 Kruse, Colin G. 177, 191, 289, 329 Kselman, John S. 472, 476 Kühn, Ernst 102, 118 Kümmel, Werner G. 3, 27, 520, 533 Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang 154, 173 Kunkel, Wolfgang 73, 79 Kunze, Max 356, 382 Kuss, Otto 276, 285

Index of Modern Authors Lacy, Phillip H. de 251, 489, 491, 502 Lake, Kirsopp 273, 285, 291, 293, 328 Lamb, Walter R. M. 254, 256 Lambrecht, Jan 138, 147, 402, 413 Lancellotti, Maria Grazia 115, 118 Landels, John G. 430, 436, 448 Lane, Eugene N. 497, 502 Lang, Friedrich 205, 208, 221 Lang, Friedrich Gustav 20, 27 Lang, George H. 388, 412 Lange, A. 178, 192 Lange, Joachim 24, 27 Lange, Nicolas R. M. de 6, 27 Launey, Marcel 110, 119 Lausberg, Heinrich 153, 173 Lawrence, Jonathan D. 272, 285 Le Cornu, Hilary 275, 286 Lee, John A. L. 229, 232, 235, 237, 257 Lefka, Aikaterini 87, 118 Legrand, Lucien 159, 160, 173 Leiwo, Martti 95, 118 Lemmer, H. Richard 133, 147 Lenger, Marie-Thérèse 102, 118 Lesher, James H. 485, 486, 502 Levi, Mario-Attilio 346, 351 Levick, Barbara 321, 329 Levine, Lee I. 295, 308, 315, 329, 426, 427, 448 Levinskaya, Irina 307, 329 Lewis, David M. 88, 91, 118, 495, 502 Lewis, G. S. 444, 447 Lewis, Naphtali 313, 329 Légasse, Simon 128, 147, 165, 173 Liddel, Peter 95, 118 Liddell, Henry George 228 Lietzmann, Hans 178, 191, 276, 285 Lieu, Judith M. 297f., 329 Lifshitz, Baruch 249, 257 Lightfoot, Robert H. 61, 79 Linder Ammon 299, 304, 314, 325, 329 Linnemann, Eta 63, 79 Lintott, Andrew W. 367, 382 Lips, Hermann von 68, 79 Llewelyn, Stephen R. 203, 208, 221, 293, 309, 314, 328, 347, 348, 351, 433, 447 Lohfink, Gerhard 11, 27 Lohmeyer, Ernst 34, 63, 79, 214, 355, 382, 405, 412 Lohse, Eduard 178, 191, 194, 221, 370, 382, 389, 392, 412, 521, 523, 533

585

Lombardo, Stanley 496, 502 Long, G. 252 Longenecker, Richard N. 134, 142f., 147, 162, 173, 177, 191 Longman, Tremper 282, 286 Louw, Johannes P. 231f., 237, 256f. Louw, Theo A. W. van der 344, 348, 351 Luca, Gioia De 356, 384 Lücke, Friedrich 353, 382 Luter, A. Boyd 122, 147 Luz, Ulrich 10f., 27, 38, 79, 208, 221 Lüdemann, Gerd 159, 173 Macdonald, C. 310 MacLennan, R. S. 15, 27 MacMullen, Ramsay 470, 476, 486, 491f., 502 Magda, Ksenija 156, 173 Magness, Jodi 272, 285 Maier, Gerhard 10, 20, 27 Maier, Johann 21, 27 Maillot, Alphonse 277, 285 Malay, Hasan 452–454, 457, 459–461, 463– 466, 476, 477, 497, 502 Malherbe, Abraham J. 128, 147 Malitz, Jürgen 300, 329 Marchant, E. C. 86 Marcus, Joel 262f., 266, 281, 285, 417, 448 Marcus, Ralph 247, 253, 300, 307, 311–313 Marguerat, Daniel 67, 79 Marshall, I. Howard 3, 5, 8f., 13, 19, 22, 27, 39–41, 50, 63, 77–79, 171, 173, 202, 204f., 221, 263, 274, 280–282, 285, 296f., 329f., 333, 351 Marshall, John W. 368, 382 Martens, E. A. 65, 241 Martin, D. B. 426, 449 Martin, Ralph P. 139, 145, 147, 289, 329, 442, 448, 524 Martyn, J. Louis 134f., 142, 148, 159, 174 Marxsen, Willi 23, 27 Mason, Steve 246f., 256, 290, 329, 370, 381 Matera, Frank J. 177, 191 Mathiesen, Thomas J. 430f., 433, 436, 445 Matusova, Ekaterina 103, 118 Maurer, C. 335 Mayo, Philip L. 368, 382 Mazzaferri, Frederick D. 387, 412 McCartney, Dan G. 185f., 191 McDonough, Sean M. 361, 379, 380 McKinnon, James W. 426–428, 448

586

Index of Modern Authors

McKnight, Scot 6, 27, 77f. Mealy, J. Webb 387, 405, 407, 412 Meiggs, Russel 88, 91, 118, 495, 502 Meinertz, Max 4, 27 Mellor, Ronald 360, 382 Mendels, Doron 295, 329 Méndez Dosuna, Julián 341, 351 Merk, Otto 186, 190, 194, 204f., 220f., 518, 532 Merkelbach, Reinhold 86, 109, 118, 433, 435, 446–448, 468, 476 Merklein, H. 121f., 124, 128, 136, 148 Merz, Annette 35, 80 Meyer, Reinhold 303f., 308, 322, 325, 328 Michaelis, Wilhelm 214 Michel, Otto 126f., 148, 175, 178, 181, 183, 186, 191 Mikalson, Jon D. 85, 94, 118 Milgrom, Jacob 472, 473, 476 Miller, A. F. 239 Miller, Kevin M. 451, 471, 476 Miller, W. 239 Mitchell, Stephen 291–293, 305, 308–310, 319, 321, 329, 340, 351, 436, 447, 456– 460, 464, 467, 469, 470f., 474, 476f. Moessner, David P. 121f., 148 Mohr, Till Arend 35, 61–63, 79 Mommsen, Theodor 367, 382 Montevecci, Orsolina 344, 347, 351 Moo, Douglas J. 63f., 79, 177, 191, 275 Mora, Fabio 95, 118 Moreau, A. Scott 168, 173 Morgan, M. Gwyn 359, 382 Morgan, R. 527, 534 Morris, I. 345, 352 Morris, Leon 177, 191, 275, 285, 522, 533 Moss, Candida R. 366, 382 Mounce, Robert H. 334, 351, 390, 400 Mowinckel, Sigmund 428, 448 Moyer, Ian S. 104, 108, 110, 118 Müller, Helmut 97, 118 Müller, H. P. 318, 329 Müller, Karl 87, 118 Müller, Karlheinz 214, 353, 382 Müller, Ulrich B. 356, 382, 390, 392, 396, 401, 404f., 407, 408, 412 Müller-Luckner, E. 310, 330 Muraoka, Takamitsu 260, 285 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 157, 173, 297, 330, 418, 448, 523, 533

Murray, A. T. 239 Murray, John 177, 191 Murray, M. 368, 382 Mußner, Franz 142, 148, 196f., 199, 221 Musurillo, Herbert 57, 79 Nave, Guy D. 121, 148 Newman, Barclay M. 226f., 256 Newman, C. C. 444, 447 Newport, Kenneth 393, 412 Nicolaou, Kyriacos 94, 118 Nida, Eugene A. 226, 231f., 237, 256f., 265 Niederwimmer, Kurt 198 Nielsen, K. 369 Nijf, Onno van 101, 112, 116, 118 Nilsson, Martin P. 99, 118 Noethlichs, Karl Leo 302, 330 Nolland, John 22, 27, 41, 50, 63, 73f., 79, 263 Nollé, Johannes 433, 448, 463, 476 North, John 499 Noth, T. 243, 501 Noy, David 315, 330 Nützel, J. M. 18 O’Brien, Peter T. 162, 173, 212–215, 221, 420f., 448 O’Neill, Eugene 248 O’Neill, John C. 32, 79 Oberlinner, Lorenz 213 Oepke, Albrecht 228, 238 Oertel, Friedrich 313, 330 Ohm, Thomas 169, 173 Okoye, J. I. 68, 79 Okure, Teresa 12, 28 Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie 135, 148 Oldfather, W. A. 178, 242, 246, 250 Olson, S. Douglas 493, 502 Omerzu, Heike 367, 382 Ortkemper, Franz-Josef 177, 191 Orrieux, Claude 347, 351 Osborne, Grant R. 178, 191, 333f., 339, 351, 378, 383, 388, 392, 400, 406, 412, 422 Osborne, Michael J. 99, 118, 488, 502 Osborne, Robin 92, 119 Ouweneel, Willem J. 388, 389, 412 Padberg, Lutz E. von 170, 173 Page, Denys L. 404, 502 Panayotou, Anna 341, 351 Papathomas, Amphilochios 250, 255

Index of Modern Authors Papazoglou, Fanoula 345f., 351 Parker, Robert 95, 118, 469 Paton, W. R. 241, 246 Paulsen, Henning 215 Pečirka, Jan 95, 100, 118 Penna, Romano 165, 173, 175, 191 Perelman, Chaim 135, 148 Perkins, Pheme 31, 79 Perkins, L. J. 241 Perrin, B. 124 Pervo, Richard I. 85, 118 Pesch, Rudolf 4, 8, 13, 20f., 23, 26, 28, 33–36, 38, 46–48, 63, 66, 79, 281, 285, 294, 296, 330, 368, 382, 417, 448 Peterson, David 297, 330 Peterson, Erik 321, 330 Peterson, Eugene H. 261, 274, 281, 285 Petrakos, Vasileios 114, 118 Petrovic, Ivana 492f., 495, 496, 503 Pettazzoni, R. 458, 467–469, 477, 497, 503 Petzl, Georg 363, 382, 438, 448, 451–466, 470f., 476f., 482, 497, 503 Pickard, W. A. 132 Pickavé, Martin 170f. Pietersmaa, Albert 241f., 256 Piper, Ronald A. 68, 79 Planeaux, Christopher 99, 119 Platt, Verity 484, 503 Plummer, Alfred 138, 148, 163, 173 Pöhlmann, Egert 431, 443, 448 Pohl, Adolf 405, 412 Poland, Franz 95, 119 Popkes, Wiard 200 Porter, Stanley E. 67, 79, 177, 192, 237, 256, 264, 266, 274, 276, 284–286, 354 Pouilloux, Jean 114, 119 Powell, Mark Allan 12, 28 Powell, Owen 244, 257 Price, Simon R. F. 157, 173, 359, 360, 382, 499, 501 Prott, Johannes von 88, 98, 119 Ptassek, P. 154 Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam 290, 300–303, 305–307, 311–314, 320, 322, 323, 325 Pulleyn, Simon 498, 503 Quanbeck, Warren A. 122, 148 Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai 301, 330 Race, William H. 249, 257, 487, 503

587

Rackham, Harris 244, 481, 486, 503 Rad, Gerhard von 386, 412 Radin, Max 95, 119 Radl, Walter 73, 79 Radner, E. 366 Radt, Wolfgang 356, 383 Räisänen, Heikki 35, 79, 197, 221, 374, 383, 527, 533 Rajak, Tessa 301, 308, 330 Ramsay, William M. 321, 330, 356, 383, 460 Rapske, Brian M. 297, 330 Raven, John E. 480, 502 Redfield, James M. 482, 503 Reed, Jonathan L. 156, 172 Regev, Eyal 272, 284, 286 Rehm, Albert 438, 449 Reichert, Angelika 184–186, 188f., 192 Reid, Daniel G. 122, 147, 289, 329, 448 Reinbold, Wolfgang 45, 63, 66, 79, 159, 173 Rendtorff, Trutz 193, 221 Reynolds, Joyce 309, 330 Rhodes, Peter J. 92, 95, 119 Richardson, Nicholas J. 483f., 503 Richardson, Peter 194, 221, 298, 320, 328 Riches, John 7, 28 Ricl, Marijana 433, 441, 449, 451, 458, 461, 467, 469, 475, 477, 497, 503 Riemer, Ulrike 358, 383 Riesner, Rainer 31, 79, 290, 321, 322, 330 Riethmüller, Albrecht 419, 430, 449f. Rissi, Mathias 356, 378, 383, 386–388, 392, 395, 403, 407, 412 Rivière, Yann 367, 383 Robbins, Vernon K. 31, 80 Robert, Louis 466, 470f., 477 Robertson, Archibald 163, 173 Robinson, David M. 344, 346 Robinson, Edward 228 Robinson, James M. 68, 80, 180, 192 Robinson, Olivia F. 367, 383 Rodriguez Ruiz, Miguel 12, 28 Rogers, Clement F. 255, 257 Rohde, Joachim 196f., 199, 221 Roloff, Jürgen 296, 330, 392f., 397, 403, 413, 522, 532 Roose, Hanna 121, 148 Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. 493, 503 Rosner, Brian S. 129, 139, 141, 146, 149, 499– 501, 503 Roussel, Pierre 104, 110, 119

588

Index of Modern Authors

Rouselle, Aline 299, 330 Ruck-Schröder, Adelheid 270, 286 Ruppert, Lothar 66, 80 Russell, Donald A. 132, 148, 242 Rütti, Ludwig 168, 173 Ryken, Leland 282, 286 Sabou, Sorin 276f., 286 Sänger, Dieter 289, 331 Safrai, Shmuel 6, 28, 315, 330 Sand, Alexander 75, 80, 199, 214, 399 Sanday, William 177, 192 Sanders, E. P. 3f., 7, 28, 295, 298, 330, 427, 449 Sanders, Jack T. 194, 221, 442, 449 Sandin, Pär 480, 503 Sandmel, Samuel 298, 330 Sartre, Maurice 313, 331 Satake, Akira 334, 351, 353, 367, 383, 390, 413 Schade, Hans-Heinrich 202, 222 Schäfke, Rudolf 431, 449 Schaik, Antonius P. 402, 413 Schenk, Wolfgang 61, 80, 208 Scherrer, Stephen J. 338, 351, 360, 383 Scherrer, Peter 338, 351 Schlatter, Adolf 4, 11, 17, 19, 27, 28, 42, 80, 145, 148, 181f., 189, 192, 207f., 211, 222, 420, 449, 513–515, 527– 529 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 60, 79, 511 Schlier, Heinrich 135, 148, 159, 174, 182, 192, 196, 199, 222 Schmeller, Thomas 126, 129f., 148 Schmidt, Karl Ludwig 61, 80, 347 Schmitz, Otto 215, 356 Schmithals, Walter 177f., 192 Schmitt, Hatto H. 88, 92, 116 Schnabel, Eckhard J. 128, 136, 141, 148, 152, 155, 157, 159, 163, 169, 170, 172, 174, 195, 197, 215, 222, 259, 269, 278, 286, 289, 290–293, 304, 307, 326, 331, 354, 365f., 378, 380, 383, 419f., 449, 498, 503, 507, 533 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 12, 23, 26, 28, 42, 51, 80, 193, 194f., 222, 474, 477 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm 62, 78 Schneider, Gerhard 321, 331 Schnelle, Udo 178f., 187, 192, 289, 331 Schoeps, Hans-Joachim 179, 222, 523, 533 Schofield, Malcolm 480, 502

Schowalter, Daniel N. 356, 383 Schrage, Wolfgang 136, 148, 163, 174f., 192– 195, 201, 203, 205f., 209f., 212, 222, 278f., 286, 420, 449 Schrammen, Jakob 356, 383 Schreiber, Johannes 32, 61, 63, 69, 70f., 73 Schreiner, Thomas R. 135, 143, 148, 159, 174, 177, 189, 192, 275, 286, 526–528, 533 Schubart, Wilhelm 102, 118f. Schürer, E. 5, 28, 207, 222, 316, 321, 331 Schürmann, Heinz 65, 80 Schuler, Chrisof 345f., 351, 465, 477 Schuler, Christof 345f., 351, 465, 477 Schulz, Siegfried 194, 222 Schwabe, Moshe 249, 257 Schwartz, Daniel R. 324, 331 Schwemer, Anna Maria 321f., 328 Schwenk, Cynthia J. 92, 94, 119 Scott, Ian W. 126, 148 Scott, James M. 103, 119 Scott, Kenneth 487, 503 Scott, Robert, 191, 228, 256 Seaton, R. C. 240 Seccombe, David P. 65, 80 Segal, Alan F. 289, 331, 523, 533 Seidel, Hans 423f., 449 Seiss, Joseph A. 388, 413 Selb, Walter 367, 381 Sellin, Gerhard 205f., 222 Sellner, Hans Jörg 139, 148 Setzer, Claudia J. 389, 331 Sevenster, J. N. 6, 28 Sherwin-White, Adrian Nicolas 69, 73, 80 Shulam, Joseph 275, 286 Siard, Hélène 110, 119 Siegert, Folker 178, 180, 182f., 192, 307, 318, 329, 331 Silva, M. 250 Simms, Ronda R. 95, 99, 119 Simon, Erika 492, 503 Skarsaune, Oskar 295, 297, 331 Slingerland, H. Dixon 298, 331 Slater, William 436, 449 Smallwood, E. Mary 301–303, 309, 312, 331 Smarczyk, Bernhard 88, 91, 119, 335 Smith, John A. 424–429, 444, 449 Smith, Nicholas D. 86, 116 Smyth, H. W. 239 Snell, Bruno 484, 493, 503 Soards, Marion L. 32, 59, 63, 65, 80

Index of Modern Authors Söding, Thomas 165, 174 Sokolowski, Franciszek 88, 92, 98, 119 Solin, Heikki 6f., 28 Solmsen, Friedrich 18, 28 Sordi, Marta 321, 331 Spek, Robartus J. van der 345, 352 Spengler, H.-D. 153 Speyer, Wolfgang 454, 477 Spicq, Ceslas 123, 144, 148, 343f., 347 Spitta, Friedrich 4, 28 Stählin, Gustav 213f. Stamm, Johann Jakob 241, 256, 448 Stauffer, Ethelbert 203 Ste Croix, Geoffrey E. M. 297, 331, 345 Stegemann, Ekkehard W. 298, 331 Stegemann, Wolfang 298, 331 Steinleitner, Franz S. 451, 456, 460, 464, 466, 468, 477 Stendahl, Krister 161, 174 Stephan, Eckhard 319, 331 Stephens, Susan A. 495, 503 Stern, Menachem 6, 28 Sterrett, J. R. Sitlington 293, 331 Stettler, Hanna 177, 189, 192 Stock, Klemens 12, 28 Stoevesandt, Helene 4, 28 Stoops, Robert F. 289, 331 Stowers, Stanley K. 126, 148 Strahtmann, Hermann 176, 214, 343 Strauss, Mark L. 65, 80, Strecker, Georg 11, 23, 28, 35, 80, 178f., 192, 194, 214, 222, 387, 412, 522, 527, 533f. Strelan, Richard E. 359, 383 Strobach, Anika 340, 352 Strobel, August 45, 66, 75, 80, 325, 331, 353, 383 Strubbe, Johan H. M. 452, 456, 477 Stuhlmacher, Peter 35, 64f., 76, 78, 80, 126f., 130, 148, 171, 174, 200–202, 211, 222, 276, 286, 521, 528f., 533 Suggs, M. Jack 68, 80 Sundkler, Bengt 3f., 25, 28 Taeger, Jens-Wilhelm 365, 383 Tajra, Harry W. 355, 383 Talbert, Charles H. 177, 192, 293, 331, 389, 403, 413 Talbert, Richard J. A. 293, 331

589

Talgam, Rina 425, 449 Tambyah, T. Isaac 203, 222 Tannehill, Robert C. 298, 331 Tannenbaum, Robert 309, 330 Taylor, B. A. 229, 256 Taylor, Joan E. 364, 268, 286 Taylor, Justin 297, 321, 331 Taylor, T. 180 Taylor, Vincent 34, 61, 80 Tcherikover, Victor A. 300, 304, 332 Texier, Jean Georges 345, 352 Thackeray, St. J. 87, 243, 246–248, 251, 316 Thayer, Joseph Henry 231 Theißen, Gerd 35, 80 Thiselton, Anthony C. 140, 142, 148, 163, 174, 278f., 286, 420, 449 Thoma, Clemens 6, 27 Thomas, Elodie Matricon 114f., 119 Thomas, Johannes 193 Thomas, Robert L. 388f., 413 Thomas, Rodney L. 360, 383 Thome, Gabriele 471, 477 Thompson, J. A. 65 Thompson, James W. 12, 28 Thompson, Leonard L. 355, 384 Thompson, Lloyd A. 370, 384 Thompson, Michael B. 201, 222 Thrall, Margaret E. 129, 137–139, 149 Thür, Hilke 338, 352 Todd, Marcus N. 95, 119 Tolmie, D. Francois 133f., 149 Totti, Maria 104, 119 Townsend, G. F. 239, 246 Trask, Robert L. 236, 257 Trebilco, Paul R. 5, 15, 28, 307f., 319, 323, 332, 359, 375, 384 Tuckett, Christopher 34f., 77, 80 Turner, Eric G. 102, 119 Turner, Max M. B. 237, 256, 269, 280–282 Unnik, Willem C. van 205, 222 Vahrenhorst, Martin 183, 189, 192 Vandersleyen, Claude 347, 352 VanGemeren, Willem A. 257 Varinlioglu, Ender 453, 455, 457, 476f. Veit, Walter F. 153, 174 Vermaseren, Maarten Jozef 114, 120

590

Index of Modern Authors

Vermes, Geza 5, 28, 47, 81, 207, 222, 316 Versnel, Hendrik S. 85–87, 94f., 104, 110, 113, 115, 120, 452, 468f., 471f., 477, 479, 481f., 486, 487, 497, 503 Vidman, Ladislav 104, 120 Vielhauer, Philipp 265, 286 Vollenweider, Samuel 163, 174 Vorholt, Robert 171, 174 Voss, Florian 155, 174 Wahlde, Urban C. von 272, 286 Waldner, Katharina 490, 503 Walter, Nikolaus 347, 374, 384 Walvoord, John F. 388, 413 Wander, Bernd 307, 309, 332 Waner, Mira 425, 449 Warmington, E. H. 468 Watson, A. 357 Watson, Duane F. 132, 149 Weatherly, Jon A. 325, 332 Webb, Robert L. 265–267, 286 Wegner, Uwe 16, 24, 28 Weil, Henri 493, 503 Weiser, Alfons 329, 332 Weiß, Bernhard 507–509, 534 Weiß, Johannes 69, 81 Weiss, Zeev 425, 449 Welles, C. Bradford 344, 352 Wellesz, Egon 427, 443, 449 Wendland, Heinz-Dietrich 194, 222 Wengst, Klaus 442, 449 Wenham, David 18, 23f., 28 Wenschkewitz, Hans 177f., 192 West, Martin L. 86, 118, 424, 430f., 434, 436f., 439–441, 443f., 448f., 480, 503 Wheeler, A. L. 458, 477 Whiston, W. 252 Whitaker, G. H. 250f., 256 White, John L. 156, 174 Wibbing, Siegfried 199, 222 Wick, Peter 183, 192 Wilckens, Ulrich 42f., 81, 128, 149, 175, 178, 181f., 187, 189, 192, 197–202, 209, 211, 222, 276, 286, 522, 534 Wilhoit, James C. 282, 286 Wille, Günther 430, 432f., 442, 450 Williams, Margaret 316f., 332

Williams, P. J. 155, 172 Willis, Wendell Lee 209, 222 Wilson, M. W. 356, 383 Wilson, N. G. 249 Wilson, P. 436, 446 Wilson, Stephen G. 12, 23, 29, 328, 384 Windisch, Hans 121, 136f., 139, 139 Winkler, M. 154, 174 Winnington-Ingram, Reginald P. 443, 447 Winter, Bruce W. 141, 149, 152, 155, 172 Winter, Franz 250, 255 Wischmeyer, Oda 126, 149 Witetschek, Stephan 356, 384 Witherington, Ben 35, 81, 178, 192, 290f., 296, 324, 332, 334, 352, 356, 384 Witulski, Thomas 353, 384 Wörrle, Michael 97, 120 Wolff, Christian 163, 174, 420, 450 Wolff, Hans Walter 64, 81, 124, 149 Wrede, William 34, 63, 69, 81, 527, 534 Wright, Benjamin G. 241, 245, 256, 272, 286 Wright, N. T. 35f., 76, 81, 151, 156, 158– 168, 170f., 174, 177f., 192, 529, 534 Wuellner, Wilhelm 132, 135, 140, 149 Wuest, Kenneth S. 274, 276, 278, 281, 287 Yon, Marguerite 92, 120 Young, Robert 227, 257 Ysebaert, Josef 236, 238, 241, 257, 283, 287 Zager, Werner 76, 81 Zahn, Theodor 10, 42, 43, 49, 81, 159, 160, 174, 334, 352f., 356, 384, 398, 413, 517, 528, 534 Zaminer, Friedrich 419, 430–432, 434, 436f., 440f., 449f. Zeller, Dieter 136, 141, 149 Zerwick, Maximilian 71, 81 Zgusta, Ladislav 235, 257 Ziebarth, Erich G. L. 95, 120 Ziegenaus, Oskar 356, 384 Ziehen, Ludwig 88, 98, 119 Zingerle, Josef 456, 459, 460, 464, 467, 477, 497, 503 Zmijewski, Josef 291, 292, 294, 296, 332 Zoltan, Franyö 493, 503 Zuntz, Günther 103, 104, 120

Index of Subjects Abonuteichos 340 Abraham 10, 17, 44, 167, 261, 337, 385, 500, 526 absenteeism 460, 487 abstinence 129, 212 absurdity 38 abuse 47, 49, 53, 55, 64, 66, 72, 293, 489 accommodation 144, 163, 164, 365, 374 acculturation 484 Achaia 157, 329, 366f., 505, 531 Achilles 243, 485 actors 418, 432f. Adam 130f., 155, 217, 277, 385, 511, 526 Adrados 229, 255 Adramyttium 157, 310 adultery 363, 460, 485 Aeolian, Aeolic 431, 341, 351 Aeschylus 239, 434, 480, 497, 503 Aesop 239, 246 Aetolian 487 Agamemnon 485 agapē 196f., 212f. Agatharchides 347 Agathemeros 438 agriculture 170, 493 Agrippa I 303, 322, 324 Agrippa II 162 Ahab 56 Aizanoi 440 Akmonia 307f., 319 Alabanda 310 alabarch 316f. Alexandria 62, 102–104, 300–304, 306, 314, 316f., 320, 440 Alexandria Troas 157, 294, 433 alienation 5 allegiance 128, 227, 354, 499 allegorization 23

allusion 13, 21, 34f., 64, 66, 202, 216, 333, 363, 393f., 396, 399–402 ambassadors 303f. ambition 214 anachronism 232, 354 Anaitis, Meter Anaitis 457, 462–464 Ananias 58f. anapaests 444 Anastasis 115 Anaxagoras 87 Anazarbus 157 ancestors 85f., 279 Androclus 338f. angels 207, 395, 398, 401f., 405 anger 138, 142, 198, 239, 463, 472, 497 animals 65, 179, 182, 196, 335, 348, 359, 454, 493 animosity 293 Annas, High Priest 51–56, 529 Antalcidas 243 anthropology 162, 191, 511, 518, 520–522, 524, 526 anthropomorphism 180, 191, 484f. Antioch (Maeander) 321 Antioch (Syria) 8, 11, 114f., 169, 314, 320– 322, 324, 427, 430, 505, 530f. Antioch (Pisidia/Phrygia) 157, 290, 292f., 295, 296, 297, 310, 319f., 322, 325f., 366, 368 Antiochos II 345 Antiochos IV Epiphanes 376 Antipas, tetrarch 51, 53–55, 57, 68, 73, 529 Antipas, Christian in Pergamon 294, 355, 357, 366, 391 antipathy 145 Antipatros 437 antiphonal, antiphony 421, 424, 429, 444 antisemitism 298, 327 Anytus 60

592

Index of Subjects

Apamea 309f., 470 aparche 91 Aphrodisias 15, 309, 330 Aphrodite 93f., 441, 485, 487, 492f., 496, 501f. apocalypse 25, 353, 355f., 358f., 368, 371f., 380–382, 384, 413, 512, 524 apocalyptic 23, 353, 389, 393, 418, 524 Apollo 101, 107, 109, 111, 336, 346, 348, 358, 430f., 433, 436–438, 445, 488, 490, 494 Apollo Lairbenos 451, 458, 462, 471, 474 Apollo Tarsios 463f. Apollodoros 93, 341 Apollonia 321 Apollonios 104, 107–110, 250, 455, 457, 466 Apollos 135f., 205 apostles 8, 160, 206f., 217, 232, 271, 281, 337, 397, 422, 509–517, 528, 529, 531 apostasy 134, 289, 331, 533 Apostles’ Council 159, 508, 512 apostleship 298, 513, 522 Apphia 461 Appian 60 applicatio 528 application 155, 166, 202, 217, 236, 512, 525, 531 Apuleius 363, 468 Arabia 9, 156f., 173 Arabians 341 Aramaic 241, 256, 264, 270f., 280, 339, 340, 448 Aratus 240 arbitrators 209 archangels 180 archisynagogos 308 architect 90, 96f., 418 archive, archives 114, 245, 250, 305 archon, archontes 91–94, 99, 111f., 114f., 117, 308 Areopagus 85, 92, 116 Ares 119, 242, 352, 485, 501 aretalogy 104, 117f. Argos 438 argumentatio 153, 174 Aristeas 103, 118f. Aristides 361, 431, 448, 450, 482 Aristobulus 102, 251 aristocracy 33, 38–40, 291, 483

Aristodikides 344 Aristophanes 172, 248, 253, 496, 502 Aristotle 132, 153f., 184, 233, 236f., 240, 338, 348, 418f., 431f., 434, 440, 445, 485, 488 Aristoxenus 431, 446 Armenians 341 Arrianus 232 arrogance 68, 71, 409 arson 355 Artaxerxes 242 Artemidoros 456, 462f., 497 Artemis 97, 249, 346, 359, 383, 436, 462, 492, 493, 502 Arval, Arvales 432 Asclepios, Asklepius 190, 356, 481f., 494, 499, 501 asebeia 86, 110 Aseneth 473 Asklepiades 436 assemblies 143, 176, 289, 355, 379, 419, 421, 428, 431, 442, 444–446, 519 assembly 58f., 93f., 97–99, 109, 111–113, 123, 129, 141, 208, 312, 322, 331, 363, 370, 395, 420f., 441 assimilation 7, 191, 198 assize 310 associations 22, 95, 101, 116–118, 275, 320, 328, 348f., 379, 429 Assos 157 assurance 51, 53, 125, 472, 514 Astarte 94 astronomy 432 asylum 311 Atargatis 486 atheist 87, 161 Athenagoras 183 Athene 346 Athenians 85–87, 90f., 95, 99, 112, 115, 243, 299, 348, 487 Athens 85, 88, 90–94, 98–101, 112–115, 335f., 338, 348, 390, 432, 438, 481, 486, 494f. atonement 173, 197, 217, 457, 459, 467, 471, 475 Attalia 295 Attalis 337 Attalos 337, 455 Attic 101, 117f., 341, 351 Attica 91, 115, 118f., 502 Attis 104, 118 auctoritas 154, 172

Index of Subjects audiences 142, 151–153, 155, 163, 232, 531f. Augustus 87, 292, 300–306, 310–313, 317, 320, 356, 359, 364, 435, 438 aulete 445 aulos, auloi 416, 418f., 424f., 432–434, 439f., 442, 445 auspices 103 authorities 31, 43, 51, 59, 72, 74, 109, 170, 207, 209, 294, 297, 302f., 307, 314, 321f., 324, 357, 364, 368, 369, 371–474 authority 12, 17, 24, 32f., 38–41, 43f., 48, 52, 71, 77, 104, 108, 137, 187, 195, 201–203, 206f., 212, 216–219, 299, 325, 356, 374, 380, 390f., 395, 397, 401, 404, 459, 462–464, 466, 527 awe 123, 452, 475 Babylon 339, 349, 356, 360–362, 375, 383, 393, 398, 400, 412, 423 Babylonia 468 Bacchae 120 Bacchus 440f. banquet 20, 22f., 253, 439 baptism 15, 121f., 136, 171, 206, 225–228, 230, 234, 237, 250, 255f., 259f., 263– 266, 268f., 271, 273–286, 517, 536 Baptist, see John (Baptist) barbarians 239, 244, 335, 337, 342 Barnabas 9, 160, 290–292, 295–297, 314, 319f., 326, 505, 520, 530 Bartimaeus 36 bathing 245, 254, 266, 285 Belial 370 Bendis 99, 100f., 117, 119 benedictions 125, 426 benefaction 319 benefactor, benefactors 112, 319, 328, 330 benevolence 203, 464 Beroea 157, 295 Bethany 12, 24 Bethesda 272, 285 Bethlehem 514 bilingual 340 biography 523, 525 birth 23, 42, 165, 185, 244, 358, 371, 398, 399, 404 Bithynia 157 Bithynians 342

593

blasphemy 38, 45–47, 49f., 53, 162, 327, 368 blood 49, 179, 239, 241f., 248, 252, 261, 335, 357, 359, 362, 377, 405, 422 boastfulness 215 Boule 90–93, 96, 112, 119 bronze 107, 237, 248, 262, 300, 317, 361, 362, 418, 433f., 436, 441, 447, 456, 493 brother 201, 204, 208, 210, 212, 219, 243, 250, 297, 317, 457, 464 Caesar 156f., 243, 299–301, 303, 310–313, 317, 320, 323, 326f., 329 Caesarea 13, 20, 159, 290, 367, 531 Caiaphas 46, 48, 50, 52, 55, 77, 529 Cain 385 Caligula 301f., 320 Capernaum 16f., 22, 33, 38, 40, 42, 514, 519 Cappadocia 157, 342 Cappadocian 340 Carian 340 Carians 337, 341 catalogues 119, 199, 475 catechesis 169 Celsus 61 Celts 244, 340 centurion 8, 11, 16–18, 40, 285, 519 ceremonial 226, 231–233, 235, 263, 268, 283 ceremony 14f., 26, 87, 231, 263, 282, 284, 432f., 435, 441, 452, 489, 491 chariot 273, 361, 496 charioteer 355 children 7, 19, 38, 60, 123, 125, 170, 244, 271, 300, 307, 363, 389, 429, 430, 455, 457, 464, 470, 472, 483, 489, 492 – children of Abraham 44 – children of Eve 357 – children of God 130, 175, 219, 407, 500 – foster children 459 chorus, choruses 429, 432, 434, 436, 439f., 445, 450, 495 christianoi 318, 321 christology 78, 80f., 193, 509, 511, 518, 520f., 524, 526 Chrysippus 184 Cicero 6, 86, 132f., 153f., 185, 309f., 441, 479, 481, 484, 488, 490, 498f., 503 Cilicia 9, 157, 344f., 505, 531 circumcision 9, 14–16, 133f., 217, 289, 296, 325f.

594

Index of Subjects

citizenship 163, 304, 336f., 351, 357 Claudius 245, 249, 302–304, 306, 322, 327, 435, 437 cleansing 230, 235, 242, 263, 265–271, 281, 283 Cleanthes 479 Cleisthenes 335 Clement 255, 257 cohortatio 253 collegium, collegia 312, 320f. colonies 26, 303, 329 colonisation 335, 338, 492 colonists 470 Colossae 157, 295 comedy 154, 434, 438 comic, comical 154, 433, 439 comicus 154 commandments 37, 188, 202, 296, 373, 402 confession 50, 67, 142, 372, 426, 451f., 454, 459, 464–466, 469–475, 482, 497 – confession of faith 269, 271 – confession of sin 127, 457, 458, 467f. confession inscriptions 451, 453, 455–458, 462, 465–472, 475, 479, 482, 497 confidence 8, 135f., 347, 444 confirmatio 72 confirmation 14, 22, 24, 55, 75, 289, 301f., 305f., 314, 464, 472 conflict 25, 56, 67, 214, 302, 304, 318f., 370, 398, 399 confrontation 39, 56, 165, 169, 398, 484 congregation 139, 143, 189, 338, 371, 418–420, 422, 424, 443–445, 519 congregations 151, 158, 321, 328, 346, 349f., 354, 368, 375, 379, 415–423, 427f., 442, 444f., 505, 506f., 512 consensus 218, 234, 270, 353, 392, 499 consolation 375 consultation 101, 160 consultum 300, 488 consummation 17, 23, 395–397, 406, 408, 410, 511 contempt 69–73, 208, 363 contemptum 488 conversion 6–8, 14–20, 26, 122, 128–130, 134, 137–139, 155, 159–163, 172–174, 187, 211, 259, 273, 277, 284, 290, 323, 378, 385–387, 391f., 394f., 397, 400f., 403, 404, 406, 408–410, 508, 512f., 515, 519, 524, 526

converts 9, 14f., 24, 26, 136, 139, 155, 269, 272, 291, 293f., 297, 320, 365, 430, 516 conviviali 501 conviviality 430, 437 Corinth 136, 139, 152, 155, 163, 205, 207, 295, 343, 346, 366, 418, 420, 433, 505 Cornelius 8, 17, 305, 508 countryside 104, 264, 268, 474 courage 154, 251, 334, 406 courtroom 390, 402 courts 14, 69, 92, 207f., 284, 286, 327 covenant 21, 25, 38, 76, 129, 131, 203, 210, 213, 241, 325, 385, 387f., 391, 395, 406, 407, 474, 500 cowards 363, 431 coworkers 215 creation 10, 20, 43, 122, 164, 170f., 196, 198, 206, 211, 217f., 265, 277, 357, 385f., 388, 399, 406–408, 410, 411, 524 Cretans 341 Crete 172, 341, 505 crimen 77, 367 cross 7, 36, 45f., 48–51, 54f., 62, 67, 69f., 72, 76, 77f., 131f., 134, 136, 140, 145, 153f., 166, 167, 172f., 187f., 206, 217, 237, 240, 247, 252, 256, 277, 284–286, 374, 392, 412, 513, 524, 531; see also crucifixion crowds 11, 16, 20, 36, 41, 43, 58, 290, 295, 296, 337, 339, 343 crucifixion 36, 52, 154, 172, 206, 271, 277, 321, 354, 373, 380, 389 cults 85f., 88, 94f., 104, 110, 115f., 178, 180– 182, 356f., 359, 364, 367, 381, 441, 467, 468f., 470, 500f., 503 culture 116, 244, 284, 330, 347–349, 352, 377, 379f., 423, 425, 430, 432, 438, 442, 444f., 447, 449, 468, 503 customs 99, 300, 302, 304, 306, 311–314, 316f., 326, 341, 368, 374 cymbal 417f., 423–426, 433, 441 Cynic 57, 67 Cyprians 94 Cyprus 8, 94, 160, 505, 531 Cyrenaica 329 Cyrene 301, 305 Cyrenians 318 daimon/demons 87, 487f., 490f. Damascus 11, 20, 159, 161–163, 169, 173, 312, 328, 430, 530

Index of Subjects dance, dances 425, 429–431, 434, 437, 441, 445, 489, 493 dancers 432, 434 David 10, 56, 164, 220, 354, 356, 367, 376, 418, 422f., 429, 500 – son of David 36, 38 debts, debtors 131, 232, 237f., 249, 254, 260, 459 deception 188, 363, 377 decision, decisions 92, 95–97, 115, 144, 195, 208–211, 215, 219, 233, 290, 299, 310, 312f., 322, 326, 404, 481, 524 decree 90–97, 99–104, 112f., 115, 300, 306f., 311, 336f., 348, 495 defamation 459 defense 22, 35, 53f., 57, 60–63, 67, 69f., 73, 75, 294f., 525 deities 85f., 88, 92, 95, 109, 115, 128, 161, 176, 179, 433, 470, 489, 491, 535 Dekapolis 27 delator 367, 382 deliverance 18, 137, 403, 421, 425 Delos 104, 107–110, 113, 115, 300f., 305 Delphi 60, 90, 101, 438, 488, 490, 495 Demeter 91, 115, 338, 479, 483f., 487, 493–495, 501–503 Demetrius 184, 503 demigods 490, 491 Democritus 238, 260 demoniacs 11, 18f. demon, demons 33, 35, 37, 247, 362, 390 Demosthenes 87 Derbe 157, 292, 294f., 320 desires 142, 188, 198, 496 despair 247, 344 dialogue 34, 37, 45, 74, 126f., 132f., 298, 352, 366, 492, 527 diaspora 5, 181, 271, 273, 289, 297, 299, 300, 302, 304, 309, 314–320, 324–330, 426f., 447 Didyma 97, 344–348, 350, 435, 438, 449 dignity 19, 75, 76, 208, 358, 490, 496 Diocletian 331 Dionysus 104, 119, 425, 433, 437, 438, 440f. dirge, dirges 58f., 415, 425 discipleship 16, 19, 63, 142, 146, 167 discipline 141, 143, 510, 512, 527 discrimination 196, 205, 212, 366, 375 dithyramb 434, 445

595

divinity 43, 180, 358, 360, 458, 467f., 484, 517, 527 divorce 32f., 38, 345 docetism 62 Domitian 370, 384 Dorian 431 Dorians 335, 341 Doric 341, 351, 492 dragon 357–360, 363f., 371f., 422 dream, dreams 107, 109, 250, 451, 454, 462, 464f., 481, 465, 492, 500 drowning 237, 243, 246, 262, 276f., 454 drum, drums 417, 423, 429, 433, 440f. drunkenness 142, 198, 237, 251 dye, dyes 225, 229, 236–238, 246, 248f., 252, 254, 260f., 276, 282 dyer 245, 248f. earthquake 392, 396 ecclesiology 509–511, 518, 521f., 527 ecstatic 433 edict, edicts 103, 119f., 302–306, 310f., 320 edification 210, 216, 505 Edom 404 Edomite 335 education 135, 418, 430, 432, 437, 444, 458 effeminate 432 egotism 198, 214f. Egypt 10, 104, 107–109, 123, 250, 304, 314, 324, 341, 347f., 371, 389, 390, 427, 429, 443, 445 Egyptians 94f., 243, 344, 403 ekklesia 159, 370, 500 elders 16, 55, 72, 262, 344, 422, 427, 462 Eleazar 44, 57 election 526 elegiac 430 Eleusinians 91 Eleusinion 90 Eleusis 88, 90f., 116, 483f., 493 eleutheria 174, 198 Elijah 21, 37, 56, 392, 396 Elisha 21, 241, 252 elite, elites 292, 319, 339, 354, 365, 367 eloquence 184 embassy 112f., 301f., 320 emperor, emperors 40, 48, 50, 52, 157, 245, 301f., 304f., 309, 311f., 314, 322f., 336, 339, 354, 356, 359f., 364, 367, 382, 435, 444, 529

596

Index of Subjects

empire 50, 52, 78, 170, 172, 299, 303, 306, 319, 325, 329–331, 334, 350, 355, 357– 361, 365, 370, 384, 432f., 501f., 513 enemies 36, 66, 166, 201, 242, 301, 310, 312, 324, 338, 377, 391–393, 395, 397f., 402, 404, 499 enharmonic 431 enktēsis 99 Enoch 7, 46, 395 envy 108, 142, 195, 198, 200, 296, 312, 326 Epheseia 437 Ephesus 157, 289, 293–295, 301, 305–307, 310–313, 323, 326, 336, 338–340, 346, 348, 354, 356, 359, 366, 375, 435, 438, 440, 470, 474, 505, 531 epichoric 469 epics 479 Epictetus 57, 178, 179 Epicurean 85, 170, 484 Epidauros 468, 481 epideictic 135 epiphany 451, 461, 484, 495f., 501, 503 epiphthegma 493 eschatology 16, 162, 170, 204, 509, 527 Esther 392 ethics 116, 158, 169, 174, 191, 193–196, 198–200, 203f., 206, 208, 213, 215– 219, 221f., 506, 509, 521, 524, 527, 535 Ethiopia 505 Ethiopian, Ethiopians 8, 273, 285, 485, 530 ethnos 16, 99, 101, 337 eunuch 239, 273, 285 Euodia 215 Euphrates 341 Euripides 73, 108, 246, 247, 440, 482, 487, 494, 495, 502 evangelists 12f., 24, 338, 350, 379, 397, 505, 530 Eve 311, 357, 385 evil 18, 32–34, 37, 40, 108, 125, 127, 134, 143, 146, 166, 198, 219, 249, 293f., 348, 357, 358, 361, 364, 376f., 398, 400f., 410, 433, 442, 488f. evildoer 137, 411, 452, 475 exaltation 130, 172, 269, 327, 475, 498, 516 excommunication 139

execution 46, 55, 59, 75, 323f., 365–367, 468 exorcism 32, 35 expectations 18, 23, 58, 153, 176, 204, 337, 372, 485, 511 expenses 95–96, 112, 457 expiation 451, 471, 477 exploitation 361, 475 export 310 expulsion 291, 366, 520 eye, eyes 15, 40, 67, 134, 146, 153, 162, 248, 374, 386, 453, 465, 480f., 486, 490, 497 eyewitness 154 Ezekiel 124, 361, 371, 393f. Ezra 69, 127, 343, 421 fabric 238, 248, 254, 260 factionalism 138 factions 87, 135, 142, 324 Fadus 324 faith, faith in Jesus 8, 17–19, 36f., 43, 128, 132–139, 142, 145, 153, 156, 160–162, 167, 169, 171, 182, 187, 194, 196–198, 200f., 204, 210, 214, 217, 219, 234, 247, 250, 255, 269, 272, 278, 283, 296, 325, 337, 339, 346, 349, 350, 355, 357, 363, 365, 371, 373, 375–377, 379, 389, 391f., 394–396, 402, 407, 409–411, 421, 442f., 446, 468, 470, 474, 479, 489, 491, 505, 510, 512, 515–519, 520–522, 526, 528 – community of faith 140, 163, 169, 234, 506 – confession of faith 271, 452, 471 – faith and repentance 122, 397 – faith in the gospel 135 – faith of the Jews 15, 16 – monotheistic faith 5 – obedience of faith 218 faithful, faithfulness 135, 146, 151, 174, 187, 234, 357, 365, 373–375, 377f., 387, 391f., 396f., 407f., 410f., 472, 535 fame 404 farmers 347 farms 346 fate 104, 107, 301, 357, 358, 363, 387, 396, 405, 407, 491 fathers 15, 17f., 26, 87, 262, 282f., 303, 311, 464, 472, 475 fear 66, 108, 124, 138, 153, 247, 250, 297, 320, 323, 365, 373, 375, 378, 394, 396, 403–406, 410, 467, 489

Index of Subjects feasts 22, 43f., 58, 307, 315, 428f., 431, 434, 473 feelings 123, 140, 145, 214, 252, 490, 498 fellowship 6, 8, 18, 20, 25, 33, 34, 140f., 160, 200, 204, 210, 214, 216, 397, 409, 410f., 415 festivals 70, 91, 99, 115, 243, 271, 307, 315, 417, 428, 430, 432f., 436, 444, 449, 484, 489, 500 fiction 336 firstborn 155, 399 firstfruits 315, 325, 398f., 400 fiscus 325, 369, 370, 381 fish, fishing 240, 244, 459, 461 fishers 10, 513 flattery 41, 359, 496 flogging 366, 468 flute, flutes 416, 424, 429, 433, 435, 436, 439f. flutists 417 food 8f., 41, 57, 146f., 180, 210, 212, 240, 250, 289, 307, 326, 428, 434, 484 foreigners 108f., 115, 163, 348f., 379 forgive 33, 38, 40, 467, 472–474 forgiveness 40, 43, 121, 125, 142, 154, 162, 166, 264, 269f., 318, 377, 408, 458, 465f., 471–476, 498 formula, formulae 65, 95, 118, 184, 186, 201, 219, 334, 336, 348, 393, 457 fornication 142, 198, 361, 390, 411 frankincense 361 freedmen 115, 163, 346 freedom 44, 163, 187, 194, 198, 210, 219– 221, 300, 306, 314, 317, 345, 357, 433, 494, 520 friends 36, 45, 59, 68, 71, 142, 253, 300, 303, 487 friendship 303, 498 fruit, fruits 90f., 248, 305, 312, 399, 495 fruit of repentance 137 fruit of the Spirit 142f., 197, 199 fulfillment 3, 4, 44, 49, 65f., 72, 75, 80, 158, 165, 198, 203, 267, 280, 337, 388, 408f., 454, 509, 526, 530 funeral, funerals 429f., 433 future 4, 7, 9, 13, 22, 25, 39, 59, 90f., 112, 126, 137f., 168, 170, 198–200, 205– 207, 216, 251, 304, 358, 363, 378, 383, 385f., 392, 395, 397, 405, 410, 412, 500, 536

597

Gadara 20 Gades 240 Gaius Antonius Septimius Publius 438 Galatia 133, 134, 146, 157, 160, 172, 220, 323, 324, 340, 366, 476, 505 Galatians 7, 26, 134f., 146–149, 172–174, 195, 220, 340, 517, 524 Galba 251, 305, 359 Galen 185, 243, 244, 255–257, 340 Galilee 10f., 16, 20, 22, 159, 247, 323, 343, 346, 349, 365, 426, 449, 529f. Gallio 367 games 304, 308, 338, 348, 430, 433, 435, 437f., 440–442 Gentiles 3–24, 127f., 152, 157, 159f., 162, 188, 211, 289f., 295f., 306, 309, 312, 318– 320, 325, 348f., 354, 363, 367f., 373, 376, 379, 387, 391, 393, 418, 505, 508, 511, 516, 519, 524, 526, 528, 531f., 535 Gerasa 33 Gerasene 11, 18f., 40 Germanicus 303 Germans 244 Gethsemane 67, 77, 500 gifts 57, 178, 200, 207, 219, 242, 250, 309, 419f., 428, 435, 483, 496 gladiator 433f. glass 405, 490 glorification 213, 219, 395, 405 glossolalia 233, 418f. gnosis 232, 330 gnosticism 232, 516 goddess, goddessses 90f., 115f., 119, 360, 382, 457, 460, 462–464, 482f., 492, 493, 495f. Godfearers 63, 307, 316, 319, 323 godlessness 188 godlike 179 goodness 108, 112, 144, 489, 498 goodwill 111–113, 252, 308, 483 gospel 5, 13, 22, 24, 129, 134–136, 140, 153, 158, 160f., 163f., 167, 169, 171–176, 183, 189, 195f., 201, 206, 210f., 220, 256f., 270, 284–286, 334, 351, 363, 375f., 390, 392, 397, 410, 412, 474f., 511, 517, 521f., 524, 525f., 530–532 – and the kingdom of God 23, 25 – a different gospel 133 – definition of 165f. – proclamation of 7f., 12, 151f., 155, 157, 159, 170, 186–188, 202, 214, 291, 293, 330,

598

Index of Subjects

338, 342, 346f., 349f., 377–379, 387, 421, 501, 506, 509, 512, 528 gossip 138, 310 governors 22, 152, 312, 356, 393f. grace 20, 108, 125, 130f., 133, 142, 144f., 161, 169, 182, 189, 201, 206, 234, 274, 277, 386, 409, 411, 496, 520 grain 90f., 94, 336, 398, 399–401 granary 459 greed, greedy 195, 363 greeting 300, 306, 311, 313 grief 136–139, 144, 247, 360, 440, 483 guests 23, 417, 441 guidance 8 guilds 112, 348f., 432f. guilt 50, 52, 71–73, 127, 271, 355, 454, 471, 475, 477 gymnasiarchoi 304 gymnasion 435 habits 139, 469 Hades 462, 464, 484, 503 Hadrian 353, 356, 384, 435, 438 Haplokomas 461 hardships 22, 329, 366, 410 harlot 360–362 harmonia 445 harmoniai 431 harmonics 431, 432 harmony 101, 179, 200–202, 205, 206, 429, 431 harpists 417, 422, 434, 439 harps 417, 422, 424, 425, 436 harvest 199, 347, 390, 398–403, 495 hatred 355 haughtiness 201 healing 11, 13, 17f., 20, 33–40, 245, 386, 408–410, 465, 468, 481, 494, 497 health 244, 253, 300 hearsay 506 heart 76, 108, 125–127, 137, 142, 145, 161, 166f., 176, 179, 189, 239, 250f., 271, 274, 420f., 436, 483, 485, 496, 520 heaven 23, 41, 43, 47f., 53, 128, 152, 158, 162, 168, 170, 220, 240, 357, 378, 386, 392, 394f., 404–407, 496 Hebron 274 Hecataeus 396 Hector 503 hedonistic 158

Hellenists 520 helpnessness 21 henotheism 120 Hephaestus 242, 485 Heracles 240 Heraclitus 242, 487 heretics 363 heritage 299, 349, 379 Hermes 120, 292, 327, 437, 496 Hermetica 179, 184, 190f. Herod I (the Great) 58f., 243, 249, 251, 272, 312, 316, 328; see also Antipas, Agrippa I – Herod II, king of Chalcis 303 Herodians 34, 39 Herodotus 335, 344, 485, 490 heroes 86, 117, 364, 416 Hesiod 85, 479, 486 Hestia 99, 100 hetaira 86 hexameter 108, 429, 445 Hierapolis 157, 295, 340, 451, 470f. hierarchy 36, 309 hierophant 90f. hieropoioi 90f. Hippocrates 240, 482 Hippolytus 246 Hipponax 239 Hippos 20 historicity 21, 34, 45, 50f., 286, 511 historiography 67, 290 Hittite, Hitties 468f. holiness 129, 134, 165, 176, 217, 219, 374, 405, 429, 516 homage 497 homeland 112 Homer 239, 335, 347f., 357, 363, 479, 482, 484–486, 488 homily 129, 427, 530 honor 112f., 229, 256, 292, 313, 338, 374, 415, 429, 437f., 444, 483, 486f., 492 hope 7, 10, 37f., 40, 125f., 134, 140, 142, 199, 216, 251, 286, 359, 365, 378, 385, 386– 388, 467, 475, 489, 526, 528, 531 horns 90, 357–359, 441 horse, horses 357, 361, 485 hortatory 142, 509 Hosanna 38, 493 Hosea 146 Hosios 464 hospitality 203

Index of Subjects hostility 21, 39, 54, 201, 291, 297–299, 314, 364, 372, 407, 409f., 509 house 8, 21, 39, 109, 252, 287, 301, 338, 404, 417, 425f., 449, 459, 461, 464, 483, 496, 536 households 345 humiliation 451, 467, 472, 497, 503, 536 humility 58, 62, 214, 379, 390, 479, 500, 511 husband, husbands 141, 239, 291, 461 hymns 104, 108, 178, 256, 403, 406, 415– 417, 420f., 425, 427, 429, 430, 435f., 442, 444, 448, 479f., 483f., 486f., 492f., 495, 499, 501, 503 hymnodists 494 hymnodoi 435 hymnody 443f., 449 hypocrisy 41 Hypsistos 477, 502 Hyrcanus 300, 311 hyssop 241, 246 iambics 429 Iamblichus 432 Iconium 157, 291–295, 320, 326, 330, 366 iconography 437, 439, 499 idiophones 436, 441 idleness 204 idolaters 362, 411 idolatry 7, 141f., 198, 363f., 389, 398, 408 idols 128, 146, 209, 211, 362, 377, 390 Ignatius 295, 332, 359, 384 ignorance 38, 128, 253, 454, 462, 481f. Iliad 482, 485, 503 Ilion 344, 346 illness, illnesses 141, 451, 456, 458, 462, 465, 475, 488 Illyria 157, 505 immersion 139, 227–229, 234, 236, 238, 245, 254f., 259f., 262–268, 270–279, 281, 283 immigrant 98f. immorality 7, 129, 138, 195, 362f. imperialism 168, 357, 372 imprecations 456 imprisonment 62, 367 impulse, impulses 58, 194 impurity 138, 142, 198, 245, 263 incense 180, 361, 426 incest 140

599

India 505 Indian 249, 341 indictment 60, 86, 126, 371 infant, infants 10, 226, 228, 234, 244 infantry 241 inheritance 198f., 216, 459, 486 iniquity 125, 472 initiation 14f., 103, 226, 230f., 234, 266, 269, 273, 275, 277, 468, 474, 489f. injunctions 201, 204, 208, 217, 299, 484 inscriptions 6, 94, 116–120, 157, 257, 293, 295, 316, 330, 332, 340f., 344, 346, 348, 350f., 431, 433, 435–437, 440f., 447, 449, 451, 453–458, 461f., 464–472, 475–477, 479, 482, 497, 502f., 536 instruments, musical 416f., 422–425, 428, 430–433, 436, 437, 440–442, 445 – percussion instruments 433, 436, 441 – string instruments 416f., 425f., 436 – wind instruments 418, 433, 436, 439 insult 53, 252, 293, 486 intentions 34, 38, 123, 125, 171 intercalation 91 intercession 130 intercourse 138, 246, 460f. intermarriage 6, 15, 343 interrogation 51f., 62, 66, 68, 71, 357 intoxication 237f., 253, 260 invocations 494 Ionia 307, 309, 312, 338, 340, 343, 366 Ionian 312, 314, 338, 431f., 492 Ionians 335 Ionic 335, 341, 351 Iranian 340 Irenaeus 183f., 274 irony 196, 371, 483 irrational 177, 181f. irrationality 189 Isaac 17, 500 Isaiah 124, 349, 361, 403, 427 Iscariot, see Judas Ishmael 253 Isiaca 118, 120 Isis 18, 28, 94f., 107, 109, 116, 118–120, 458, 459, 468 Isocrates 85, 153 Israelite, Israelites 230, 279, 314, 375, 407, 426, 500, 510 Italia 309 Iturea 529

600

Index of Subjects

Iulia Severa 307–309, 319 Iullus Antonius 306 ivory 361, 437, 439 ivy 103 Izates 15, 26 James, son of Zebedee 10, 324 James the Just, brother of Jesus 297, 531 James, author of epistle, 421, 505, 511, 516, 530 jealousy 138, 141f., 198, 290, 296f., 326 Jeremiah 21, 56, 124, 360, 472 Jericho 243 Jeroboam 56 Jerome 173, 330, 418, 448, 523, 533 Jerusalem – church 7 – apostles 8, 160 – and diaspora communities 315f., 325 – immersion pools 273 – missionary work 8, 13 – New Jerusalem 203, 348, 373, 378, 386f., 406 – opposition to Gentile believers 9 – pilgrims 271 – priestly aristocracy 33, 39 – in Revelation 371 – Romans 57, 324, 369 Jesus of Nazareth – death; see cross, crucifixion – disciples 36, 283 – and Jerusalem 76 – the Lamb 256, 334, 338, 342, 360, 365, 373, 375, 376–379, 387–389, 392f., 395, 397f., 403, 406–411, 422f. – Messiah 13, 34, 36f., 44f., 47–50, 53–56, 61, 69f., 75f., 133f., 151, 153, 162, 165, 273, 277, 318, 371, 376f., 422, 508, 517, 521, 530 – miracles 530 – resurrection 75, 127, 154, 166, 201, 216, 517, 530 – Son of Man 36, 45, 47–50, 61, 67, 72, 76, 338, 399, 401f., 518, 530 – Son of God 48, 50, 53, 55f., 76, 155, 164f., 196, 517, 530 – Kyrios (Lord) 158, 165, 194, 206, 210, 215, 505, 526, 530f. – trial 31–76

Jewish Christians 3, 8, 170, 319, 323, 354, 362, 366, 373, 417 – in Jerusalem 9 – missionary activity 322 Jezebel 56, 374 John, son of Zebedee 8, 10 John the Baptist 37, 40f., 121, 226f., 230f., 234, 260, 264–266, 268, 273, 390, 510, 514, 517, 529 Jonah 138, 247, 390, 394f., 472 Jordan 11, 241, 252, 264f., 267f. Joseph, husband of Mary 510 Joshua 241 joy 8, 42, 107, 440, 483, 489 Judaea 8, 58, 297, 325, 330f., 355 Judah 364, 376f., 422 Judas Iscariot 31, 37, 47, 261 judges 75, 127, 140, 207f., 212, 312, 336, 347, 441 Judith 245, 260, 297, 329 Jupiter 325, 369, 499 jury 60, 92, 310 justice 60, 207f., 252, 292, 313, 347, 378, 470, 477, 513 justification 13, 22, 95, 165, 172f., 175, 196f., 209, 375f. Justin 61, 66, 246, 252, 294, 298, 329, 331, 366, 371 Justinian 328 Juvenal 6, 432, 440, 459, 468 kenodoxia 215 kerygma 518–520 kettledrum 103 Kidron 272 killings 366, 376 kindness 112, 126–128, 303f. kingship 48f., 52f., 55 kinship 347, 348f., 379, 492 kithara 416, 418f., 422–424, 430, 432–434, 436–439, 442, 445 kitharodes 417, 422, 434, 437, 442, 445 Kitians 93–95 koinon 112, 305 Kore 91, 487 Lactantius 179 Lamb, see Jesus lame 38, 292, 481

Index of Subjects lament 487 lamentation 394 laments 433 lampstands 389 languages 233f., 334, 339–342, 349, 379, 387, 390–394, 407, 418f., 469 Laodicea 157, 295, 301, 307, 309f., 340, 445 laoi 345, 347, 350f. Lasterkataloge 222 Latin 28, 61, 190, 228, 235, 292, 300, 339– 342, 350, 439, 471, 476 laughter 485, 487 law – Athenian laws 87, 101, 299 – Jewish (ancestral) laws 299–301, 303, 306, 312–314, 323, 326, 427; see Torah – food laws 9, 289, 326 – laws of the city 99, 100, 493, – Mosaic Law 26, 57, 80, 116, 125, 130, 133–135, 146, 162, 172, 174, 219, 221f., 262, 268, 301, 311, 367, 383, 427, 530f. – purity laws 460 – Roman law 299, 323 – Sabbath laws, see Sabbath lawless, lawlessness 65, 208, 250 lawsuits 92, 140, 208f. Lazarus 148, 261 leadership 39f., 47, 50f., 56, 74, 323–326, 343, 365, 372, 515 lease 94 leasehold 345 leitourgoi 114 Leto 358, 463, 482 Leucippe 243 Leukophryene 493 Levites 422–424, 426, 444 lexicographers 232, 235f. lexicography 225, 229, 231f., 235–237, 255–257 liar, liars 127, 362, 363, 411 libations 426, 429 liberty 198, 302 licentiousness 138, 142, 198 lifestyle 33, 158, 204, 210, 361, 375 Limyra 157 lion, lions 244, 358, 376f., 422, 485 liturgy, liturgical 15, 130, 147, 158, 190, 256, 284, 313, 328, 412, 423, 426, 428, 442, 469, 472, 513, 533

601

liturgies 313 Livy 433 loan 227f., 232–235, 260, 267f. Locrian 431 Locrus 184 love 17, 41, 112, 129, 130, 144, 182, 187, 194, 195–198, 200, 202–204, 210, 212–215, 218–220, 363, 373, 377, 418, 429, 472, 483, 485, 492f., 496, 500, 515, 526, 528 loyalty 16, 24, 113, 135, 140, 303, 336, 361, 369, 467, 474, 475, 499 Lucius Antonius 306, 313 Lucretius 364 Lud 156, 404 Luther 194 Lycaonia 292, 340 Lycaonian 310, 341 Lycaonians 354 Lycia 340 Lycians 348 Lycurgus 94, 164 Lydia 5, 340, 451, 458, 469f., 476 Lydian 340, 342, 431f., 445, 451, 453, 468f., 471, 475, 479, 503, 536 Lydians 337 lying 41, 439, 459 Lykophron 94 Lykourgos 94 lynch 292, 366 lyre, lyres 416–418, 422–426, 430, 431, 433, 436, 437, 445, 448, 493 Lysander 437, 446 Lysanias 529 Lystra 157, 292f., 295, 320, 326 Macedonia 118, 157, 203, 366, 505, 531 Macedonians 100, 348 Macrobius 445 madness 108, 302 Maecenas 85, 87 Maeonia 471, 482, 497 magic 363, 469, 477 magicians 134 magistrates 58f., 88, 152, 291f., 299f., 305– 307, 311–314, 321, 336f., 369, 371, 397 Magnesia 295, 336, 493 Magnesian 493 Maiandros 328 maiestas 367 Maimonides 70

602

Index of Subjects

Maionia 451, 466 Maionian 475 Malalas 320 mandatum 210, 305 manna 43, 220 marble 91, 97, 361 Marcus Aurelius 252 Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa 305, 311, 312f. Mariamme 59, 60, 243 market 107, 109, 209, 227, 262, 307, 528 marketplace 262 marriage 170, 218, 308 Martial 440 martyrdom 230, 298f., 355, 362, 366, 376, 380, 382f., 391, 398 martyrs 61f., 75, 79, 366, 376f., 397, 404 Mary 510 masturbation 460 meal, meals 39–41, 108f., 141, 240, 262, 306, 310, 417, 428, 429 meat 99, 209–211, 222, 239, 250, 426, 460, 465 mediation 9, 513 mediator, mediators 206, 217, 500 medical, medicine 247, 482 melody, melodies 417, 419, 429, 431, 444, 448 Melqart 112f., 116 membranophones 436 memory 127, 338, 434, 442, 446 Memphis 107f., 250 Men (mood god) 452–454, 457, 474, 497 – Men Artemidorou 453, 456f., 461–463, 497 – Men Axiottenos 454, 456, 461, 462f., 465 – Men Labanas 462, 463 – Men Petraeites 462, 464 Menachem 28 Menander 104, 240, 468, 489 Menandros 465 Menexenos 79 mentalities 475 mentality 468, 498 merchant, merchants 94f., 112f., 336, 361 mercy 19, 21, 58, 64, 76, 215, 261, 385, 418, 457, 464, 472, 498, 500 Meshech 156 Mesopotamia 5, 424 Messiah, see Jesus

Miletus 15, 60, 157, 249, 295, 301, 305, 307, 310, 336, 340, 348, 437f., 440 military 123, 244, 287, 302, 312, 358, 360, 368, 376, 430 milk 185f. millennium 469 miqveh, miqvaot 263, 271f. miracle, miracles 17, 20, 33, 35, 40, 44, 56f., 110, 135, 340, 360, 468, 475, 481f., 530 misbehavior 87, 468, 497 miscarriage 135 misdeed 452, 454, 462, 469 missiology 25, 151, 172, 527 mission, missionary work – and the gospel 164–167 – Jesus and the Gentile mission 3–25 – Jewish opposition 289–326 – of the church 151–171 – of Paul 151–160 – of Peter 159, 160 – in Revelation 333–350 – and New Testament theology 505–507, 528– 531 missionaries 22–24, 62, 136, 140, 156, 162, 168–171, 290, 292–299, 314, 318, 320, 322–324, 326, 334, 338f., 346f., 350, 379, 397, 475, 500, 505f., 511, 513, 518f., 530 Mithraeum 501 Mithras 116 Mithridates 309 Mitylene 157 Mixolydian 431, 432 mockery 6, 49, 55, 66, 460 Molossian 342 money 91, 96, 247, 305, 310, 312–315, 317, 438, 459 monotheism 5, 486 Mopsus 344 morality 194f., 199, 374 Moschus 242 Moses 39, 56, 129f., 182, 235, 246, 273, 279, 392, 403f., 406, 422, 424, 427, 429, 500 murder 92, 240, 253, 362, 390 murderers 362, 411 music 167, 415–450, 536; see also instruments musicians 417, 423f., 426, 431–433, 437 Mylasa 157, 336 myrrh 361 Mysia 340, 451

Index of Subjects Mysians 337, 342 mysteries 87, 90, 103, 115, 120, 460, 484, 487, 490 mystery 75, 103, 153, 206, 250, 467–469, 501, 503, 529 mysticism 179, 182 myth, myths 103, 116, 118, 358, 366, 380, 382, 482f., 490, 496 Naaman 241 Nabatea 156f., 505, 531 Nag Hammadi 179, 182, 192 Naphtali 329 Narcissus 483 narrator 39, 56, 72, 74, 502 Nazareth 21f., 59, 321, 427, 473, 514 Neapolis 438 Nebuchadnezzar 395f. neighbor, neighbors 109, 169, 196f., 203f., 248, 296, 324, 363, 386 Nemea 438 Nemesis 462, 483 Nero 355, 358f., 367 Nicanor 317 Nicodemus 42, 44 Nicolaitans 374f., 381, 383 Nicomedia 157 Nikephoros 355, 380 Nikias 114 Nikokrates 93f. Noah 385 nomos 197, 445, 448; see also law norms 144, 193, 195, 196, 201, 205, 211– 213, 216, 218f. nous 182, 200, 205, 212f., 219, 277 nouthetein 219 oath, oaths 48, 239, 311, 363, 459, 485 obedience 37, 101, 125, 133, 187, 198, 218f., 289, 464 obligation 114, 131, 204, 216, 313, 397, 410, 516 Odysseus 479 Oenoanda 157 offense 46f., 50f., 59, 205, 207, 210f., 296, 451, 462 offerings 90, 179, 305f., 310, 313, 315, 325, 431, 500; see sacrifice officials 91, 100, 161, 272, 289, 307, 314, 347, 360

603

Olympiad 438 Olympian 257, 483f., 494, 503 omnipotence 462, 481, 499f. omnipresence 26, 482, 494, 500 oracle, oracles 21, 56, 60f., 86, 96f., 99–101, 243, 340, 348, 350, 360f., 499f. orators 132, 153 orchestra 424 orchestration 492 ornamentation 308 orphans 92, 459 Orpheus 437 Orphism 117 ossuary 317 outsiders 23, 25, 31, 205, 211, 214, 321 Ovid 453, 458, 468, 477, 491 paean 435, 445 Pamphylia 321, 344 Pamphylian 340 Pamphylians 344 Panathenaia 437 Pannonia 441 panpipe 440 pantomime 445 pantomimi 432 Paphlagonia 340, 342 Paphlagonian 342 Papias 457 parable, parables 22f., 25, 28, 32, 39, 40f., 368, 382, 473 paradise 387, 409f. paraenesis 193, 466 paraklesis 193, 195, 198, 200, 202, 205, 208, 215f., 219 parody, parodies 357, 359f. Paros 300, 305 parousia 23, 42, 157f., 198, 204, 215f., 397, 400 passions 131, 154, 180, 245, 250, 254, 482 Passover 417, 428, 444 Patara 157 patience 62, 126, 128 patriarchs 10, 62, 184, 191, 422 patron 111–113, 163, 437, 492–494 patronage 103 Paul – in Athens 85, 115f. – and Christian living 175–189 – evangelism 151–171

604

Index of Subjects

– ethics 193–219 – and Jewish opposition 289–326 – metaphorical use of baptizein 274–279 – missionary work; see mission – and repentance 121–145 Pausanias 164, 253, 362 peace 62, 71, 195, 206, 214, 302, 307, 320, 359f., 362, 364, 487, 495, 502 pearls 361 peasant, peasants 58f., 344–346, 433 penalty 54, 60, 87, 108, 139f., 294, 355, 357, 396, 409, 458, 466 Pentecost 228, 271, 529 percussion 433, 436 Pergamon 157, 295, 300, 337, 355f., 366, 371, 375f., 391, 435f., 438 Perge 157, 294f. perjury 459 Perpetua 371 persecution 6, 129, 134, 162, 188, 205, 289, 291, 298, 319, 324, 329f., 353f., 358, 366f., 370, 374f., 382f., 388f., 397, 407, 516, 536 Persia 243 persuasion 153, 293, 492 Peter 39, 42 – called by Jesus 9 – confession of Jesus as Messiah 13 – and the Gentile mission 8f. – missionary work 159f., 343 – and repentance 271 – and Samaritans 8, 346 petition, petitions 39, 94, 113f. Petronius 468 Phaiakes 485 Phalereus 184 Pharaoh 56, 123, 344, 371, 405 Pharisees 33f., 36–44, 228, 262, 343, 533 Philemon 420f., 447 Philippi 13, 20, 212, 295, 417 Philistines 395 Philodamos 493 Philomelium 310 Philopator 103, 119f. philosophers 61, 85, 87, 132, 142, 182, 185, 432, 489, 491, 502 Philostratus 60, 164, 184, 340, 440 Phoebe 505 Phoenicia 8, 116, 344 Phoenician 94, 335, 340

Phoenicians 240 phratria 336, 337 Phrygia 5, 321, 340, 451, 458, 469f., 470, 503 Phrygian 115, 341f., 431, 451, 453, 468f., 471, 475, 503, 536 Phrygians 337, 354, 486 phylai 337f., 349, 379 phylarchs 337 physician, physicians 185, 245, 488, 498; see also medical Pilate (Pontius), prefect 32, 45, 47–59, 63f., 69, 71–75, 324, 344, 354f., 529 Pindar 249, 257, 487, 503 pipe 416, 423f., 433, 439, 440f. piper, pipers 79, 430, 434 Piraeus 95, 98–101, 117 pirates 487 Pisidia 436, 447 Pisidian 157, 290, 293, 295, 310, 319, 322, 325f., 340, 366, 368, 427 plague, plagues 304, 375, 390, 395, 403–405, 410 Plancii 330 Plato 60, 86, 87, 101, 104, 132, 184, 248, 253, 256f., 425, 432, 434, 437 Platonists 170 pleasure 124, 179, 252f., 300, 441, 484, 493, 499 Pliny 367, 417, 441, 444, 447, 474, 482 Plutarch 103f., 123f., 164, 184f., 242f., 251, 253, 335, 352, 359, 432f., 440, 468, 479, 488–491, 501f. poet, poets 154, 237, 429, 433, 435f., 438, 484, 486, 492 Poimandres 179 polemic, polemics 6, 168, 178, 181, 331, 365, 370, 380, 475 Polias 355, 380 Pollux 440f. Polybius 103, 240f., 246, 347, 348 Polycarp 298, 329, 366 polytheists 156, 348f., 479, 526, 529 polytonality 432 Pompey 331 Pontus 157, 340, 505 Pontius; see Pilate pool, pools 234, 241, 271–273, 278, 285, 315, 483 Porphyry 86, 180, 182, 468, 486 Poseidon 112f., 240, 242, 485, 487

Index of Subjects praescriptio 73 praetor 310f. praetorium 461 pragmatics 126, 236 praise 107, 112, 132, 153, 178, 213, 215, 395, 403, 415–417, 419–422, 424, 427, 452, 455, 466 prayer 21, 107, 123, 127, 159, 161, 179, 213, 252, 301, 426f., 444, 461, 466, 487, 489, 491, 493f., 498, 500 preaching 8f., 13, 19, 21, 23, 121f., 127, 136, 142, 145, 151f., 155, 157, 159, 163, 169, 289, 291, 293, 297, 318, 365, 390, 421, 509f., 513, 517, 519, 522, 524, 529 pride 44, 445 Priene 336, 343, 436 priestess 87, 99, 308, 490 priests 21, 38, 41, 45–50, 53, 55f., 70, 72, 96, 103, 115, 157f., 241, 343f., 348, 360, 373f., 377, 426, 456, 465, 467, 474f., 497, 500, 529 Priscilla 505 prison 152, 357, 368f., 417, 442 probatio 153 processions 115, 429f., 432f., 435, 441f., 497, 500 proclamation 14, 16, 19, 34, 90, 109, 112, 115, 121, 134, 139f., 153, 155, 162, 164f., 169, 173, 186, 188, 202, 214f., 217, 273, 343, 376f., 390f., 395, 402, 404, 409f., 501, 505f., 508–531 Proclus 445 proconsul 305, 309–311, 313 procurator 58, 324, 355 profanation 425 Prometheus 239, 496f. promises 10, 18, 62, 151, 164, 188, 203, 241, 267, 280, 360, 385, 388–390, 418, 446, 510, 530 prooemium 165 proofs 71, 154 prophecy 3, 13, 22, 23, 37, 62, 65, 269, 285, 327, 339, 348–350, 353, 357, 361, 380, 389, 391–394, 409, 411f., 421, 509, 519 prophets 21, 40, 56, 61, 124, 126, 129f., 135, 137, 141, 164, 171, 252, 265, 357, 360, 362, 364, 390, 394, 405, 426–428, 472f.

605

propitiation 452, 454, 456, 463, 472, 483 proquaestor 306 prosecution 101, 110 proselyte, proselytes 5f., 8, 15–17, 63, 161, 265–266, 268, 314, 319f., 323, 526 prosperity 302, 307, 445, 494f. prostitutes 23, 361, 363 prostitution 138, 141 Protagoras 87 provincials 52, 331 Prytaneion 99f. prytany 90–94, 336 psalmist, psalmists 66, 429 Ptolemaios IV Philopator 103 purification 104, 226, 230–234, 245, 254, 260, 262f., 265, 267f., 271, 273, 283–286, 469 purity 13, 180, 213, 217, 262, 284, 296, 326, 353, 373, 375, 460, 475, 536 Pythagorean 182, 206, 431 Pythagoreans 182, 431 Pythia, Pythian games 249, 490, 437, 491 Python 358 quaestio 72, 481 quarrels 135f., 139f., 142 Quintilian 6, 67, 133, 153, 430, 434, 435, 446 Qumran 265f., 370, 403, 429, 445, 473 quotation 13, 21, 38, 57, 65, 131, 163, 171, 181, 184, 201, 244, 261, 302, 339, 388, 392, 491, 511, 514f., 517, 520f. rage 395, 397 ransom 76, 452 rebirth 226, 234 rebuke 35f., 51, 70, 123 redemption 376, 386, 400–404, 407, 408, 524 regeneration 209, 517 release 9, 52, 69, 457, 484, 496 relegatio 366 repentance 15, 121–145, 162, 271, 273, 362, 375, 377–379, 390, 391, 395, 398, 400, 404, 406, 458, 535 resurrection 4, 9, 12, 23, 25, 33, 36, 38, 40–42, 75, 127, 130, 132, 154f., 165–167, 172f., 175, 187, 198, 201, 215–217, 269, 274, 276f., 318, 365, 377, 391f., 397, 408, 410, 412, 422, 446, 472, 500, 511, 517, 530f. revenge 379, 485 revenue 96, 250, 305, 314, 337 reward 135, 216, 250, 396

606

Index of Subjects

rhetoric 67, 77, 79, 133, 135, 146, 148f., 152–154, 167, 173, 233, 298, 299, 367, 371f., 380f., 434, 492, 506 Rhodes 92, 119, 157, 316, 335, 438 Rhodians 335 rhythm, rythms 431f., 440, 442, 445, 493 ridicule 41, 168, 485 ridiculum 154 righteousness 75, 131, 167, 172, 174, 176, 189, 192, 197f., 213, 219, 252, 377, 488, 520 riot, riots 289, 294, 297, 331, 367 rites 87, 88, 99f., 102f., 109, 147, 260, 262f., 265, 267, 283, 310, 429, 432f., 443, 468, 483, 490 ritual 13f., 161, 181, 217, 226–235, 242, 245, 254, 260, 262f., 265–268, 273, 278, 282–286, 432f., 456, 475, 482, 484, 489, 490, 501 rulers 22, 57, 291, 338, 359, 363f., 377, 462f., 475, 496 rumor, rumors 294, 355 Sabaean 469 Sabazios/Sabazius 87, 104, 441, 460 sabbath 33f., 38f., 246, 290, 306f., 311, 426–430 sacrament 159, 226, 230f., 234, 269, 515 sacrifice, sacrifices 80, 85, 90f., 96f., 99, 101, 107, 112, 152, 158, 175–177, 179– 186–189, 196, 202, 305, 310, 337, 362, 368, 377, 395, 411, 426, 430, 433, 442, 452, 457, 489f., 497, 521 Sadducees 33, 38–41 Sagalassus 157 salvation 3, 12, 14, 17, 24, 62, 116, 124f., 127f., 136f., 145, 154, 162, 165f., 169, 176, 187, 189, 193, 195, 197, 203, 213, 216f., 247, 289, 296, 318, 339, 349f., 359, 360, 373f., 376, 379, 386, 388, 390, 397, 399, 402, 406f., 418, 421, 445, 474, 506, 510, 518, 526, 530f. Samaria 8, 11, 42, 365, 505, 530f. Samaritan 43, 58, 346f. Samaritans 3, 8, 25, 43, 58, 530 Samos 157, 487 Samothrake 346 Samson 443, 447 Samuel 56, 77, 174, 330

Sanhedrin 32, 38–41, 45–50, 52f., 55f., 58f., 66, 70–75, 324 Sappho 439, 496, 502f. Sarapis 104, 107–110, 117–119, 250 Sardis 157, 301, 305f., 310, 313, 340, 350f., 470f., 477 Satan 143, 162, 294, 348, 355–358, 365, 368– 374, 377, 380–382, 391, 411 Saturnalia 445 Saturninus 499 Saul 56, 331, 533 savior 85, 115, 128f., 133, 139, 154f., 168, 227, 234, 269, 273, 279, 320, 325, 354, 366, 368, 372f., 443, 446, 494, 505f., 519 saviours 107 scapegoat 472 scourging 52, 58, 62 scribes 21, 33f., 38–41, 343, 432 Scythian 337 sedition 252, 367 selfishness 138, 198, 215 Selge 157, 340 Selinus 341 Seneca 6, 179, 432, 434, 440, 486 Sepphoris 425f., 449 Serapion 437 serfs 344–346 Sergii Paulii 319 serpent 242, 357, 369, 398 servants 23, 344, 377f., 387, 394, 400, 411, 465 Servenii 308 Servius 335 Sextus Caesius 310 shame 123, 125, 140, 154, 247 Shechem 343 sheep 20, 23, 45, 179, 272, 361, 457, 459, 461 shepherd 20, 23, 246, 440, 510 shipowners 112f., 361 Sidon 16, 20, 27, 300 signa 154 Silandos 462, 466 Silanus 311 Silas 417 Sillyum 321 Siloam 272 silver 238, 260, 262, 316, 361f., 426, 481, 491 silversmith 366 Sinai 25

Index of Subjects sinful, sinfulness 108, 126f., 130–132, 139, 166, 188f., 198, 217f., 276, 393, 509 singer 434f. singers 424, 431f., 434f. singing 178, 415–449, 469, 471, 536 sinners 23, 25, 33f., 40, 69, 121, 127, 132, 138f., 166, 175–277, 339, 373, 376, 388, 407, 458, 473, 500 Sinope 57 Sirach 245, 260 slander 138, 249, 293f., 310, 509 slavery 44, 170, 195 slaves 15, 44, 115, 163, 239, 278, 345, 346, 361, 363f., 432 sleep 108, 253, 481 Smyrna 157, 294, 326, 336, 338–340, 357, 366–372, 435, 438, 448, 477 Socrates 60f., 86f., 154, 341 Sodom 371, 389f. soldiers 16f., 45, 123, 225, 460 solo 419f., 424, 434, 437, 440, 445 soloist, soloists 419, 423, 434, 436f., 440 Solomon 44, 125, 423, 444 Solon 299 Solymian 340 songs 256, 415f., 418, 420–425, 427, 429f., 432, 439, 442, 446, 448, 494, 502 Sophists 174 Sophocles 487, 494 Sophrone 240 sorcerers 87, 362, 390, 411 sorcery 142, 198, 362f. sorrow 123, 125, 137, 139, 248, 281 soteriology 147, 162, 509, 511, 518, 521, 522, 524, 526 soundboard 436 soundbox 436, 439 Sparta 438 Spartans 242 staters 96f. stele, stelae 91, 95f., 99, 336, 345f., 451– 458, 461–471, 475, 498 Stephen 29, 221, 297, 319, 324, 328f., 351, 360, 365, 368, 383f., 433, 436, 447, 456, 467, 469, 476, 502, 505, 511, 530 Stoics 57, 67, 85, 160, 172, 178, 180–184, 213, 487f. stoning 45, 292f., 460 Stratonike 114 submission 18, 43, 64, 65, 71, 97, 207, 420

607

Suetonius 320, 322, 325, 367 suffering 63–66, 69, 71, 75, 129, 214, 28f.1, 334, 375, 387, 389, 397, 410, 421, 454, 509, 526 suicide 43, 359 superstitio 355 superstition 86, 178, 181, 310, 355, 367, 489 symbol 20, 226, 233f., 358, 360f., 386, 403, 452 symbolism 333, 357, 428 sympathizers 5, 15, 36, 296, 314, 319f., 323 symphoniai 431 symphony 424 synagogues 31, 152, 159, 181, 289, 294, 307, 312, 314, 318, 320, 322, 325, 327f., 365f., 370f., 373, 381, 423, 426–428, 445, 448, 528, 531 synecdoche 165 Synnada 310 synodoi 112 synoidiai 431 Syntonolydian 432 Syntyche 215, 461 Syria 9, 11, 58, 123, 157, 169, 304, 305, 314, 320–322, 344, 468, 505, 531 Syrians 341, 486 Syrophoenicia 519 Syrophoenician 13, 19 Tacitus 6, 7, 355, 362, 367, 432 tambourines 423f., 441 Tarshish 156, 404 Tarsic 299 taxation, taxes 38, 40f., 50, 250, 313, 347, 433 technites 433, 437 Telemachos 479 Telesphoros 499 Temenothyrae 470f. temptation 24, 143f., 188, 210, 409, 411 Tertullian 294 textiles 225, 237, 261 thanksgiving 420f., 429, 489 Theaetetus 184 theater 67, 294, 336, 366, 418, 423, 433, 440– 443 theft 310, 363, 459 Theodotion 395 Theon 184, 304 Theophilos 93f. Therapeutae 429, 445

608

Index of Subjects

Theseus 243 Thessalonians 147, 202, 204, 220f. Thessalonica 128, 202, 204, 295, 318 Thessaly 493 Theudas 324, 328 thiasitai, thiasoi 86f., 112f. thief 461, 469 Thomas, disciple of Jesus 42, 505 Thrace 99, 117f. Thracian 99, 100f., 119, 342, 437 Thracians 98–101, 485 Thyatira 157, 295, 340, 437 Tiberius 302f., 316f., 355, 437, 529 Timothy 292, 328, 505 Titus 172, 324, 360, 440 tomb, tombs 364f., 474 tonality 431, 442, 445 Torah 41, 125, 154, 163f., 195, 197f., 202f., 211, 213, 217, 289, 426–428, 521; see also Law torture 57, 62, 75, 357 traders 5, 113, 361 tragedy 434, 438 Trajan 327, 356, 383, 444 Tralles 295, 301, 307, 438 transgressions 143, 289, 451, 459, 461f., 466, 472, 474, 526 treasurers 112f., 311 treasury 99, 250, 311 tribes 334–341, 348f., 376, 379, 387, 390f., 394, 407, 480, 488 tribunal 71, 211f. tribunus 295 tribute 300, 315 Troas 157, 294, 433, 441, 449 Trophimus 295 trumpet 378, 390, 395–397, 417–419, 425, 433–435, 441 trumpeters 417, 423, 433, 441 trumpets 377, 390, 403, 424, 426, 441 truth 14, 38, 44, 52, 71, 74, 131, 134, 153, 155f., 166, 169, 181, 183, 195, 210, 304, 376–378, 397, 399, 480, 490, 506, 509 Trypho 298, 366 Tubal 156, 404 tuna 239, 461 Tyche 456 tympanon 433 Tyre 16, 20, 60, 361f. Tyrian, Tyrians 112f.

unbelief 21, 39, 391, 464 unclean 33, 35, 57, 210f., 363 uncleanness 245, 266 unity 13, 50, 135f., 206f., 210, 212, 214f., 269, 418, 507, 514f., 522, 527f. universalism 22, 333, 385, 387, 407, 513, 516 unrest 314, 320f. Valerius Flaccus 309 values 67, 138, 144, 152, 175, 188f., 199, 298, 410 Velleius 484 Ventitius 58 Vesta 491 Vetruvius 418 vinegar 243f. vineyard 23 violence 65, 209, 248, 275, 292, 363, 372, 376, 480 Vipsanius 305, 311 Virgil 86, 357 virginity 461 virtue, virtues 67, 112, 158, 179f., 199, 289, 436, 484, 498, 499, 511 vision 4, 13, 22, 162, 172, 334, 337, 339, 342, 354, 358, 364, 375, 381, 385–389, 394f., 397f., 402, 406–408, 410, 422f., 481 warning 22, 33, 54, 135, 141, 195, 200, 251, 295, 306, 375, 464, 479, 500 wars 40, 250, 431 washings 228, 230f., 265f., 268f. weakness 21, 56, 125, 153 wealth 37, 169, 365, 374, 445, 494f. weapons 206, 459 wedding 22, 429, 430, 434, 444 widows 21, 203, 360 wine 228, 232, 234, 237f., 240, 251, 253f., 260, 361, 426, 429, 456, 461 winepress 399 witnesses 46f., 51, 53, 55, 70f., 74, 139, 154, 334, 337, 343, 351, 362, 379, 388–391, 396f., 399, 484, 510, 514, 518, 533 worship 10, 18, 85, 92, 101, 107, 112f., 129, 159, 175–178, 180–183, 186–190, 213, 252, 309, 319, 337, 348f., 358–362, 367, 375, 378f., 382, 391, 396–398, 403–408, 420–423, 426–428, 442–446, 448, 462, 471, 474, 481, 486, 489, 491, 493, 500

Index of Subjects wrath 126, 128, 130, 137, 157, 166, 188, 364, 365, 395, 403, 405, 406, 455 Xenophanes 479, 480, 485, 486, 502 Xenophon 60, 85, 86, 114, 239 zeal 157, 180, 296, 308, 326, 464 Zealots 44

609

Zeus 100f., 118, 179, 292, 355f., 383, 454– 457, 462f., 465f., 474, 479f., 486, 488, 493–497, 499 Zion 4, 7, 398f., 404, 422 zithers 436, 439