Paul and Death: A Question of Psychological Coping (Routledge Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Biblical Criticism) 9781138239616, 9781315295411, 1138239615

Citation preview

Paul and Death

The concept of death, particularly violent death, is prevalent throughout the writings of Paul the apostle. His letters in the New Testament address this topic from a variety of perspectives, some of which can appear to be almost contradictory. However, this need not be problematic. Paul and Death uses the method of psychological exegesis to show that the different attitudes toward death in Paul’s letters make for a much more coherent discourse if they are seen as an aid to individual and collective psychological coping. Taking the differences between each of Paul’s letters as its starting point, this study suggests that a variety of coping strategies in relation to death may be beneficial depending on the situation, the person, and the stage of the coping process. Drawing on psychologically oriented hermeneutic theory, and theories about psychological coping in particular, the author argues that each case of psychological coping must be understood in its historical situation and as strategies emanating from a specific person’s subjective appraisal. Combining theology and biblical studies with modern psychology, this book will be of particular interest to academics and students who are studying the relationship between religion and notions of death. Linda Joelsson successfully defended her thesis in New Testament Exegesis at Åbo Akademi University in April 2015, with a specialization in Paul and psychological perspectives. She holds a position as senior pastor at Mikaelikyrkan in Stockholm, and she teaches in New Testament theology, pedagogy, and cross-disciplinary studies in religion and health at Ersta-Sköndal University, Stockholm. She is the chair of the Psychological Hermeneutics for Biblical Themes and Texts section in the Society of Biblical Literature’s International Meetings and has contributed frequently to national and international scholarly meetings and in various educational settings. Joelsson has previously worked in psychiatric health care, with support for refugees in Värmdö and in Botkyrka.

Routledge Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Biblical Criticism

1 Paul and Death A question of psychological coping Linda Joelsson 2 Gender-Play in the Hebrew Bible The ways the bible challenges its gender norms Amy Kalmanofsky

Paul and Death A question of psychological coping Linda Joelsson

First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Linda Joelsson The right of Linda Joelsson to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Joelsson, Linda, author. Title: Paul and death : a question of psychological coping / Linda Joelsson. Description: New York : Routledge, 2016. | Series: Routledge interdisciplinary perspectives on biblical criticism | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016031518 | ISBN 9781138239616 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315295411 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Epistles of Paul—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Death—Biblical teaching. | Mental health—Biblical teaching. Classification: LCC BS2655.D34 J64 2016 | DDC 227/.06—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016031518 ISBN: 978-1-138-23961-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-29541-1 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

For Jenny, Ingela, and Peson

Contents

Acknowledgmentsviii 1 Paul and death: A question of psychological coping

1

2 Coping with death in Paul’s early letters

55

3 The Corinthian correspondence

97

4 Romans

133

5 The prison letters

159

6 Conclusions and prospects for further research

192

Index208

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to my former supervisor, Kari Syreeni, who, with great learning, humor, and wit, encouraged me to enter the field of psychological hermeneutics, and to Thomas Kazen, my former assistant supervisor. Beate Schirrmacher, friend and scholar, has had an admirable accuracy of aim in comments and perspectives in a field alien to her own, and Bas van Os offered a great opposition at the end of the road. I would also like to thank Karin B. Neutel and Matthew R. Anderson for excellent food for thought along the way. And of course, my most heartfelt thanks to my family: Filip Joelsson, Vidar, Henning, and Sylvia. I would also like to thank the Åbo Foundation for substantial grants throughout the years, and Stockholm School of Theology, Stockholm’s kristliga ynglingaförening, Helge Ax:son Johnsson’s Stiftelse, and Gösta Branders’s Forskningsfond for financial means for books and travels. Linda Joelsson Torsby May 2016

1 Paul and death A question of psychological coping

Introduction The present investigation looks into the attitudes toward death in Paul’s authentic letters and puts them in relation to modern theories of psychological coping. Drawing on psychologically oriented hermeneutic theory, and theories about psychological coping in particular, I will make an attempt to read each letter as relating to the historical situation and as emanating from a specific person’s subjective appraisal. Paul’s letters frequently refer to persecution and violent death, and to aid in psychological coping is often integral to their purposes, which makes the perspective of psychological coping akin to the genre of these letters. In the course of a tentatively assumed chronological order of 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon, I will show how Paul moves from the perception of Jesus dying for the faithful to the understanding of himself dying with Jesus. His coping strategies concerning death are gradually transformed from conservative and deferring coping styles, to a more self-directing coping style, to collaborative and transformative coping styles, and finally to a new sense of collaborative and deferring coping style in prison. The last case of deferring coping carries the traits of generosity and flexibility even in the face of death, which is in contrast to his previous letters. Through his correspondence, we can also see Paul’s attitude toward death transformed from denial to reaction, to processing, to acceptance, and his strategies also shift in accordance with these understandings. Denial is accompanied by diversion, threat by aggression, processing by rumination, and acceptance by joy. I would say that the study shows the hermeneutic benefits of reading Paul’s letters as the rhetorically framed expressions of a person in a particular historical situation. The letters open small windows through which we can glimpse the coping process of a person of antiquity. In adopting the method of psychological exegesis, the study shows that the variety of attitudes toward death in Paul’s letters makes sense from the perspective of psychological coping. The psychological aspect of these letters seems to be an underexamined richness that can extend into areas of

2  Paul and death contemporary individual and group identity, and from there to public policy and ethics. Trying to get a coherent grip on Paul’s attitudes toward death without a process perspective can be a puzzling experience. In Jaime Clark-Soles’s words, “If death is the enemy, we wonder how he can say, ‘Dying is gain’ (Philippians 1:21). And what exactly is going on in 2 Corinthians 5?”1 where Paul depicts the present existence as that of being in a tent, longing for a future habitation in a more solid heavenly building. The present study will explore the variety of Paul’s attitudes toward death from the vantage point of psychological coping, and we will focus on Paul as a person who was deeply involved with the situations that he encountered. He probably struggled sometimes to come to terms with different aspects of reality, and his psychological coping was aided by his theological thinking. Rather than viewing him primarily as a philosopher or systematic theologian, his letters are interpreted with the underlying assumption that Paul was only human. Then the shifting attitudes of the letters become less surprising. When the letters are seen as small windows into history, as the expressions of a person who encountered different situations with specific goals in mind, the existence of coherent view in terms of conformity does not have to be assumed in regard to Paul’s attitude toward death. The hypothesis of the present investigation is that there may be traces of a coping process – or coping processes – that become visible in Paul’s discourses about death. Therefore, each of Paul’s so-called uncontested letters will be examined, that is, the material consists in 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1–2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon – these letters are generally deemed to be written or dictated by this same author in something like the form we have them in. The passages where Paul discusses the actual deaths – or risk of death – of contemporary persons offer a natural starting point. These passages, however, will be seen both as parts of larger rhetorical units, namely the letter, and as embedded in a rhetorical situation, that is, Paul’s cultural, political, and personal situation, as well as his idea of the situation of the addressees. Psychological coping is inherently contextual, and therefore the letters will be analyzed as relating to specific situations and circumstances. Paul’s letters are themselves primary evidence not only of how he appraised the situations he encountered, but also of how he dealt with these situations – although in a rhetorically framed fashion – the letters themselves sometimes a part of his coping strategies. In this context, Jesus’ death will be counted as one of the deaths of contemporary persons, even though this is a death with extraordinary significance to Paul and other Christ-believers, and yes, to the whole world in Paul’s perspective. Paul’s attitudes toward his own impending death are sometimes a vital subject matter in his later letters. The metaphorical use of death as an expression of transition and thorough change will also be discussed in relation to the concepts of psychological coping. The concept of psychological coping has the capacity to take into account the person, the situation, and the encounter between the two. This means

Paul and death 3 that the theory itself does not impose certain values on the material, as assumed in the person or the situation, nor that a particular cultural or political vantage point is required to make the model intelligible. As will be further elaborated below, the theory of psychological coping attributes great significance to the subjective appraisals of the person. Unless someone appraises the situation as stressful,2 no coping strategies will be developed. In other words, a person or a group can be exposed to lethal danger, but unless someone acknowledge it as such, no coping processes will begin. Furthermore, persons may have different experiences, and the resources and burdens for coping vary from person to person.3 The fact that situations vary leads us to acknowledge that not all deaths are the same. Some deaths are benevolent, while others are horrific. There is, for example, a world of difference between the death of a person who dies of old age while surrounded by her loved ones and the premature death by execution of a convict in a mocking crowd. In Paul’s letters, we find the rhetorically framed expressions of his appraisals of the situations that he encountered, of which some of them involve the death, or risk of death, of his contemporaries, and himself. Coping strategies in a broader sense are integral to all of Paul’s letters and in fact often constitute their reason for existence. He has specific goals and concerns, and he deems that the situation entails certain risks to these values, practices, or persons about whom he cares. The letters are therefore often designed to enhance and protect significant values that are at stake. The issue of Paul’s attitudes toward the deaths of his contemporaries can be broken down into a number of questions: How is this death appraised in the letters? Is death, for example, evaluated by Paul as a threat, challenge, loss, or even a gain and a beneficial prospect in the actualized passage? How does the shameful death of Jesus – and Paul’s belief in his resurrection – influence the understanding of death evident in Paul’s letters? Do they contribute to his attempts to cope with whatever current situation is depicted by him in the letters? Does his fellowship with other Christ-believers contribute? What strategies does Paul suggest to his addressees, and what strategies does he adopt by means of the letters, or as indicated by the letters, to deal with this death? And finally, can we discern any progression in Paul’s thinking about death if the appraisals that occur in the letters are tentatively structured in chronological order and related to each other as part of a process? The theory of psychological coping is concerned with appraisals of specific situations, with coping strategies that are developed in relation to these situations, and with resources and burdens of coping in relation to personal goals.4 Paul’s letters are primary evidence for how he dealt with this important issue, and the death of contemporary persons provides a good entry to the subject of psychological coping in Paul. However, the first loss that appears to have come out of his choice to affiliate himself with the group of Christ-believers seems to be a loss of social position and honor within

4  Paul and death his group. It seems that he came to be in an unclear position in his new ingroup, and with a severe loss of personal safety attached to it eventually.

Method: Psychological exegesis In 1999 Wayne G. Rollins provided the field with a helpful overview of psychological biblical criticism through his survey of studies done up to that time, his attempt to define the field, and his suggestions of pathways for further investigation. As Rollins puts it, the fundamental premise of the field is: From a biblical-critical perspective, the Bible is to be seen as part and product, not only of a historical, literary, and socio-anthropological process, but also of a psychological process. In this process, conscious and unconscious factors are at work in the biblical authors and their communities, in the texts they have produced, in readers and interpreters of these texts and in their communities, and in the individual, communal, and cultural effects of those interpretations.5 Rollins describes how psychological studies and biblical studies went handin-hand until the early 20th century, when psychology was adopted as a tool for criticism of religion, religious persons, and religious institutions. The fields then parted in mutual suspicion. However, by the end of the 1960s a change of attitude had emerged within biblical scholarship.6 An influential marker in this second wave of psychological biblical criticism was Gerd Theissen’s Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology. Theissen focuses on certain aspects of the psychological content of the biblical texts, that is, what the texts may have to say about psychological aspects and dimensions.7 The study contributed greatly to opening the field and to reviving psychological biblical criticism. While Theissen’s work focused on what Paul’s letters may have to say about psychology, it was followed by another study that shared the interest of the present investigation, namely Terrance Callan’s Psychological Perspectives on the Life of Paul: An Application of the Methodology of Gerd Theissen. However, the section of this study that considers Paul’s attitude to death is brief. It concludes that Paul’s “basic attitude” toward death was negative,8 a conclusion challenged by the present study. Callan’s main conclusion in regard to death is modified by the comment that some light can be shed on Paul’s occasionally positive attitude toward death by means of the Freudian concept of “death instinct,”9 a concept that is dismissed by most psychologists because it adds little if anything to the quest of understanding mental health.10 In conclusion, when it comes to Paul and death, Callan’s study is lacking in its chosen method and argument, and the choice of psychological perspectives is less than well founded. Among studies of the psychological context of Paul’s letters, many show interest in Paul’s sudden integration into the Christ-believing movement.11

Paul and death 5 Richard Rubenstein and Robin Scroggs both adopt a Freudian perspective and focus on Paul’s conversion as an instance of transference, in this case from scrupulous observance of the law, driven by fear of death at the hands of a judging God, to belief in Christ.12 Itzhak Benyamini adopts a somewhat similar approach, using the psychoanalytical perspectives of Jaques Lacan to analyze Paul’s attitude to “ritual in general and to the ritual of baptism and of the Lord’s supper in particular, as well as his concept of Law and Love.”13 Also in this study the concepts of the father and sons are prominent themes. Alan F. Segal adopts a historical approach, but he also uses “modern studies of conversion” to understand Paul’s subsequent attitudes and practices.14 A number of scholars have also taken interest in socio-psychological aspects of Paul’s letters. Using family theory, Kamilla Blessing argues that Paul presents Cephas as the negative example.15 Dieter Mitternacht argues that the real problem in Galatia was that the Christ-believers refused to accept Paul as their role model.16 In a similar vein, Anthony Bash analyzes Paul’s rhetoric in 2 Corinthians 10–13 with the assistance of the psychological concept of defense mechanisms (particularly displacement, denial, and splitting). Bash argues that while dictating the latter part of 2 Corinthians, Paul was incapable of accepting, on a personal and psychological level, that the Corinthians had already dismissed him as their apostle.17 As this brief exposition shows, the pivotal psychological impact of Paul’s own vision of the risen Christ has been discussed in some depth, as have the relational character of his letters as being part of ongoing and complex relationships, particularly in the case of Galatians and 2 Corinthians. Until now there has been no study of Paul’s authentic letters from the vantage point of his appraisals of death in the perspective of psychological coping, but Kari Syreeni adopts a similar approach when he investigates the resurrection narratives in the gospels from the perspective of grief work.18 A number of studies also pay attention to the theme of suffering in Paul’s letters from a psychological perspective. Timothy B. Savage maintains that Paul’s experiences of suffering is a neglected area of research, and claims that they had a fundamental and lasting impact on him.19 Anthony E. Harvey argues that “there was an event in the life of St Paul which fundamentally affected his understanding of the meaning of suffering, of his relationship with Christ, and of the help he could give others when they found themselves in situations of comparable hardship.”20 Kar Yong Lim argues that Paul sees his own suffering as a reflection of his embodying the ongoing story of Jesus.21 Laurence L. Welborn suggests that Paul implements a kind of emotional therapy in 2 Corinthians that shows traits of conformity with contemporary attitudes toward emotions (cf. particularly Stoic thought of banished pain) as well as “a novel christoform therapy” where pain can lead to salvation.22 Savage, Harvey, Lim, and Welborn, however, all delimit their investigations to 2 Corinthians. In his psychobiography of Jesus, Bas van Os remarks that Jesus’ experience of the death of John the Baptist offered him a reason to reassess the

6  Paul and death prospect and purpose of his own life. Van Os also comments that Paul similarly seems to have interpreted his life in the perspective of Jesus’ suffering and death.23 James A. Beck acknowledges the theological significance that Paul drew from his own experience of suffering as vital to the understanding of his personality.24 Anna Samuelsson Wikell similarly investigates suffering as a means for identity formation in Philippians.25 Stephen C. Barton suggests, in relation to Paul’s injunction to cease mourning in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, that Paul understands the Christ-believer’s identity to be revealed in a particular mode of grieving in the face of bereavement.26 In sum, the point that Paul’s life included suffering, and that these experiences had an impact on him, is emphasized by several scholars. Psychological biblical criticism may take as its focus “the authors of the texts, the texts themselves, or the readers of the texts.”27 The present study focuses on the psychological context of the letters of Paul, and to be more precise, on Paul himself. When Wayne G. Rollins suggests an exegetical agenda for psychological hermeneutics, he identifies seven exegetical topics ripe for further investigation: the psychology of symbols and archetypal images, unconscious factors at work in the history of biblical motifs and cultic practices, psychodynamic factors in biblical narrative, the psychology of biblical personalities, the variety of biblical religious experience or the phenomenology of biblical religion in psychological perspective, the psychology of biblical ethics, and biblical psychology.28 The present study focuses on the psychology of biblical personalities,29 and also on the variety of biblical religious experience, in its broadest sense.30 Death and bereavement appear to be two of the most basic human experiences. It is often inevitable to make psychological interpretations when reading texts with concerns such as Paul’s. The question is thus how to make more valid psychological interpretations.31 Sandra M. Schneiders proposes the following requirements for an “adequate interpretation.” First, it “accounts for the text as it stands” without “gratuitous rearrangements and emendation.” Second, the interpretation is “consistent with itself, that is, free from internal contradiction” and “valid for the text as a whole and the whole of the text.”32 Third, the interpretation is “equally as or more successful than its competitors at explaining anomalies in the text.” Fourth, it is “compatible with what is known from other sources, both biblical and extrabiblical.”33 And, fifth, a valid interpretation uses “responsibly all the methods that are appropriate within the framework of interpretation chosen,” although, as Schneiders comments, “[n]o interpretation can involve the use of all available methods. It is perfectly legitimate to propose a historical or a feminist or a psychological interpretation of a text.”34 In relation specifically to psychological biblical criticism, D. Andrew Kille suggests three similar “criteria for adequacy” in determining a more valid interpretation of a text. First, a more valid interpretation will deal with the text “as a whole.”35 Second, it will deal with the text “as an individual,”36 that is, “respecting the uniqueness of the text in terms of authorship,

Paul and death 7 genre, and literary and linguistic habits and structures.”37 And third, it will “account for the greatest number of factors found in the text, and it will demonstrate greater convergence between the aspects considered.”38 In the present investigation, each passage about the death of contemporary persons in Paul’s letters will be analyzed as part of a larger rhetorical unit – that is, the letter in which the descriptions are found.39 In contrast with earlier studies, the present study will not attempt to offer a “reconciled” account of Paul’s attitudes toward death; rather, the different appraisals in regard to death will be the starting point. The historical and contextual character of the letters will be acknowledged in terms of attention to their rhetorical and historical situations. Kille’s convergence criteria can thus be applied on several levels in the present study. First, it can be applied internally, as convergence between different passages about death in a particular letter. Naturally, the perspective of the present investigation does not allow us to expect any person, or any text to be perfectly coherent. As Jeffrey T. Reed puts it, “[t]otally incohesive texts are extreme exceptions in human communication. More typically, a discourse is cohesive of an ‘unusual’ kind (i.e. it contains noticeable peculiarities that do not follow the patterns of other discourse) or cohesive of the ‘usual’ kind (i.e. it follows shared rules of language use).”40 In regard to this issue, it may be relevant to mention that when a person decides to implement a new set of practices and new ways of thinking, this often leads to more inconsistencies – not less – for a period. Second, convergence can be applied as convergence between the strategies suggested in relation to death, and strategies suggested in relation to other aspects of the present situation of the letters. We should not expect that a person adopts the same set of strategies in relation to all different aspects of reality. On the other hand, one commonly adopts the same strategy in relation to more than one aspect of a particular situation. Therefore, it is of some interest if the same kind of strategies are suggested and implemented in several passages of a particular letter. An expected case of incoherence occurs when the appraisals relate to completely different kinds of death, and/or when these deaths stand in different types of relation to the significant values held by the author. Again, the rhetorical situation is essential to understanding the appraisals and strategies proposed in relation to death. The criteria of convergence can also be applied externally on two levels – as a relation between one letter and the others by the same author, and as a relation between these letters and other historical artifacts. In the present investigation, a preliminary hypothesis of a relative chronological sequence will offer a tentative way to relate Paul’s letters to each other, indicating a potential larger picture in regard to Paul’s attitudes to death. In psychology, life is commonly seen as a process. In this perspective, perfect coherence is not expected in material produced during something like a ten-year period. Abrupt and/or gradual change is therefore nothing that disturbs the criteria of convergence in such a material. The primary hypothesis is that the

8  Paul and death changes are signs of a coping process, or processes. However, the letters are to be seen as windows into history,41 through which certain things can be seen while others remain out of sight. There may be significant pieces that we cannot see, which would make the picture coherent or intelligible in a new way. Furthermore, we cannot assume that life generally is a pursuit from point A to B, and that the same process is related in every letter. We must assume that several situations emerged of which some are not related in his letters. We can also assume that Paul also may have reappraised some of his goals of significance and altered his course along the way. Thus, convergence, in the perspective of psychological coping, opens for the possibility of change. In the present study, the quite comprehensive material of Paul’s letters will be appreciated as a resource to the investigation of such possible processes of change. Second, the criteria of convergence can be applied externally as a relation between the letters and other biblical or extrabiblical sources. Does, for example, the suggested interpretation of the political and cultural situation resemble the picture offered by other historical sources? It remains beyond the scope of the investigation to explore the issue in depth; however, the question of historical accuracy cannot be ignored. The historical situation – including political, cultural, and practical aspects – is part of the reality of which the letters also constitute a part. Before we make an interpretation of the language, we may recognize that the language itself is an interpretation,42 and therefore the particular use of language is of great importance for understanding the message.43 Paul wrote in Greek, a world language of his time with many dialects. What was Paul’s idiolect? How did he use the words? The Hebrew scriptures were his Bible, a point of reference to which he returned. He was probably influenced by the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Since some of these texts also have a long tradition in Western society, we must be careful not to read into them situations and traditions of interpretation that are posterior to him.44 Hence, other biblical and extrabiblical sources supply important means in the search of Paul’s situation, thinking, practices, and language. In relation to Schneiders’s “global criteria,” whether the interpretation “makes the text speak,”45 it is of course my aspiration that Paul’s attitudes toward death will be more fully understood as they are analyzed in relation to theories of psychological coping. In the present investigation, biblical studies and psychology are “both sciences in their own right [that] stand legitimately on their own foundations.”46 In this vein, they are complementary, not exclusive, to the end of mutual illumination. In the words of J. Harold Ellens, “out of the dialogue between psychology and the Bible comes the realization that there are no saints in the process: religion can be therapeutic but also pathogenic; psychology can enlighten or distort.”47 The intersection between the two fields has the possibility to aid both disciplines to distance themselves from some of their totalizing or overreaching tendencies. A problem with some of the studies in the field of dogmatic and exegetical

Paul and death 9 theology is that they deprive the biblical discourses of their history-specific and dynamic character. A resource that the biblical material may bring to psychology is to broaden the range of experiences that are taken into consideration, and to relate to some of the perspectives and practices – resources and burdens for coping – that are possible in a religious person. As a matter of fact, Paul’s community-building, which is an important aim in many of his letters, can be an important resource in psychological coping, as some of his creative thinking in terms of worldviews and beliefs. Psychologists sometimes have a tendency to ignore religious experiences, practices, and beliefs. On the other hand, I believe that theology as a discipline has a lot to gain in focusing in on relations – relations between persons and the relations between the person, the situation, and the beliefs or cognitive content.

The perspective of psychological coping The psychological perspective of the present investigation is focused on the issue and practices of psychological coping. This perspective represents a “psychologically oriented hermeneutic theory,” rather than a specific school or tradition.48 The psychological theories of coping perceive coping as a goal-oriented process.49 The goal is to cope with a situation that involves threat, challenge, or harm/loss to a person. The process starts with the subjective appraisal that there is something to be coped with. Emotions may be indications of the appraisal that is being made. Anger, for instance, suggests that the situation is being appraised as a threat that may be overcome by determination and effort, while sadness implies that the situation is appraised as involving an irretrievable harm or loss, and so on.50 Different strategies may be adopted to deal with the stressful encounter, and these can also be elaborated on the themes of conservation and transformation of means and ends.51 Another way to depict the coping process is by means of concepts such as shock/denial, reaction, processing, and reorientation.52 We may also distinguish between deferring, self-directing, and collaborative coping styles.53 The perspective of “redeeming memories” offers another perspective to the contributory potential of the coping process.54 The process of psychological coping has been investigated from different perspectives, and with different cultural presuppositions. In the present study, psychological theory as developed by Kenneth I. Pargament, Richard Lazarus, Susan Folkman, and Flora A. Keshgegian plays an important role. These scholars all emphasize the importance of the basic circumstance, namely that there is a person who makes a subjective appraisal of a particular situation. Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman introduced this important perspective to the field of psychology. They emphasize that unless a specific situation is appraised as stressful or threatening by someone, no coping strategies will be developed. As indicated above, the reactions to the climate change could serve as an example to this point; unless the changes are appraised as constituting a

10  Paul and death threat, or harm, or loss, no coping strategies will be developed and implemented. There must be a person (or a group of persons) appraising of the situation as taxing, or exceeding the person’s resources and endangering his or her well-being. Otherwise no coping strategies will be developed, even though people may indeed be in danger, or already suffering loss.55 The psychological perspective applied here thus has the capacity of taking into account the person (with different capacities and resources), the environment (a specific situation), and the appraisal (the individual’s assessment of the encounter of the two). Kenneth I. Pargament defines coping as “a search for significance in times of stress.”56 He builds on Lazarus and Folkman’s definition of psychological stress as “a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being.”57 Pargament brings the theory of Lazarus and Folkman one step further by putting it in relation to religion.58 He notes that the appraisal by the person is not just an appraisal of the situation. Rather, it is made in relation to what that person understands to be of significant value. As Pargament puts it, humans are striving beings.59 We have ideas of what we want to achieve and of what constitutes a good life. That is, we have ideas of destinations of significance.60 Pargament’s definition of religion is “a search for significance in ways related to the sacred.”61 As both psychological coping and religion are searches for significance, these may overlap from time to time, as is the case in Paul’s letters. In relation to coping as the search for significance in times of stress, Pargament recognizes four basic coping strategies on the themes of conservation and transformation of means and ends: Preservation. Faced with life stress, our first route of action is almost automatic; we try to hold on to our world and the things we care about. To deny the reality of the threat, to call on others for emotional support, and to persist in one’s approach to living are some of the ways people try to preserve the means and ends of significance in hard times. [To preserve both means and ends, but try harder, is the coping strategy of preservation.] Reconstruction. When the usual pathway to significance is blocked by an obstacle and old solutions do not work, we may back up and try to find another way around it. [. . .] New resources may be sought, old burdens lightened, or habitual ways of thinking and feeling changed. In any event, the goal remains the same, but a new path is taken to reach it [. . .] Re-valuation. When it becomes too difficult to attain significance, ends may need to be transformed and means conserved. Re-valuation often occurs in times of transition, when old values are lost and the individual faces the double task of sustaining him- or herself while struggling to find new sources of value [. . .] Re-valuation is generally

Paul and death 11 a timelimited coping mechanism, for the attempt to find new goals is often followed by a change in the path to reach them [. . .] Re-creation. When severe enough, the stresses of life can splinter both the pathways and the destinations of significance. [Neither previous ways nor previous views are attainable, but they have to be rebuilt, which is likely to take both time and effort.]62 Lazarus and Folkman speak of a primary and a secondary appraisal in order to distinguish between the evaluation of what is at stake in the encounter (the primary appraisal) and the evaluation of the options and resources for coping with the stressful encounter (the secondary appraisal).63 The terminology is a bit unfortunate since it may give the impression that there is a chronological sequence between the two, which is not the case.64 Both types of appraisals can be done simultaneously. Pargament also speaks of a tertiary appraisal, which is the evaluation of what option appears to be the most compelling. What strategy can be expected to bring the greatest gain and the least loss of significance through the use of the fewest resources and the accumulation of the least burden? We weigh not only the possible gain that we may achieve but also the route we must travel to get there.65 Pargament’s theory is mainly concerned with coping with a threat to or loss of one’s system of significant values, but there is no obstacle in using his theoretical framework in relation to other types of coping as well. Furthermore, the concepts of significance are more or less always embodied in certain relations and practices, and therefore the loss of significant persons, or habits, tends to entail that the bereaved person must also cope with the situation as a threat to significant values. In his theoretical framework, Pargament focuses primarily on the phase of processing, as the implementation of different strategies to the end of adaption or reorientation, but in his case studies he frequently refers to denial and impeded reaction as initial phases of the coping process. Pargament’s conservative coping strategy, as depicted above, may also be related to denial, while in other cases a conservative coping strategy may suffice to deal with the stressful encounter. Reconstruction, re-valuation, and re-creation represent three different forms of processing and adapting to the situation. Coping and emotions According to Lazarus, each emotion gives an indication of how the person has appraised a situation and points to the strategies that she is likely to adopt in trying to cope with it. As Lazarus puts it, “each emotion contains a specific scenario or story about an ongoing relationship with the environment.”66 He acknowledges three main types of psychological stress. A situation may be appraised as a threat, a challenge, or a harm/loss.67 A threat is a harm or loss that has not yet occurred, but is possible or likely in the near future. Whereas challenge “consists of the sensibility that, although

12  Paul and death difficulties stand in the way of gain, they can be overcome with verve, persistence, and self-confidence.”68 Harm/loss is damage or loss that has already taken place. To offer some further examples of Lazarus’s interpretations of different emotions, we might look at sadness: an emotion whose core relational theme is experiencing an irrevocable loss [. . .] Depression is often theorized to be the result of a sense of hopelessness about restoring a worthwhile life following a major loss. While being emotional, it is not a single emotion but a complex state, a mixture of several emotions, namely anxiety, anger, guilt and shame. These are the emotions of struggle against one’s fate because one has not yet given up on changing it. The person is sometimes despairing, which is what depression usually means.69 Furthermore, “anger is about being demeaned or slighted, guilt is about a moral lapse, shame is the discrepancy between what the person wants to be and the way that person is identified socially, that is, a failure to live up to an ego ideal.”70 Fright is, according to Lazarus, “sudden and usually shortlived; the danger either passes, or we are injured or killed.” In contrast, anxiety is quite a different emotion: “The core relational theme of anxiety is facing an uncertain, existential threat.”71 While hope, on the other hand, “is about a threat or a promise whose outcome is uncertain but could possibly be realized. Happiness is about attaining a goal one has been seeking or making significant progress in that direction. Compassion is about having empathy for someone else’s plight.”72 It appears that the emotions are shorthand for expressing, or indeed experiencing, an appraisal. If someone responds in many encounters with the same emotion, say, anger, anxiety, sadness, or happiness, we may construe this as a stable feature of this person’s emotional life. We have discovered a personality trait and have learned something structurally important about how this person relates to the world.73 Notably, one coping strategy can be harmful and signify pathology in a certain circumstance while being beneficial in others.74 As Lazarus notes, “[e]ach coping strategy can be evaluated only in relation to the [. . .] type of person, the type of threat, the stage of the stressful encounter, and the outcome of the coping process – that is, for example, subjective well-being, social functioning, or somatic health. [. . .] The coping process is inherently contextual.”75 Lazarus and Folkman have become famous for their work on subjective appraisal and emotions, and their emphasis on the contextual character of the coping process is highly relevant to the perspective of the present study. Coping as a process A vast number of studies have noted that the coping process seems to follow the same general pattern of stages or phases, even when the circumstances

Paul and death 13 to cope with are very different. In 1944 Erich Lindemann coined the phrase grief work, which is still used today to describe the process that bereaved persons go through.76 Lindemann observed that the survivors and the bereaved families and friends tended to react in similar ways, after a great fire in Boston in which many died.77 Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, another early psychologist in the field, also focuses on coping in relation to death and dying.78 She suggests five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance.79 John Bowlby studied the reactions in children deprived of their parents during hospitalization. He distinguishes four phases: numbing, yearning and searching, disorganization/depression, and reorganization/recovery.80 In describing the grief process in widows, Colin Murray Parkes uses the terms alarm, searching, mitigation, anger and guilt, and gaining a new identity.81 Even though the terminology varies, the content shows remarkable similarities. Yorick Spiegel gives an account of the coping process from a Freudian perspective, and he speaks of “a succession of the four stages of shock, control, regression, and adaptation.”82 In relation to the stage of shock, Spiegel comments that “the first reaction to the news of death is mostly disbelief.”83 What is then referred to as the “controlled” stage may appear as a different account in relation to the ones mentioned above, but “controlled” is to be put in relation to what others have called a “reaction” or a protest against the situation, which is then appraised as a threat or harm/loss.84 Controlling is, according to Spiegel, undertaken both by the reacting person and by surrounding persons and culturally coded habits. In this sense, the mourning periods of antiquity were a way to control grief – to contain it within certain prescribed behavior. Third, the phase of “regression” consists of the rebuilding of a new approach to deal with the situation. Spiegel points out that even though regression implies that the person’s functioning is less sophisticated than prior to the stressful encounter, regression “creates at the same time a starting point from which to build up new relationships.”85 In other words, in order to rebuild a new sense of self (i.e., new pathways and new goals of significance), one must generally “tear down” or “fall apart.” The person must start from an earlier stage of maturation than the one he/ she had achieved before the coping process started. In Spiegel’s Freudian terminology, this return to an earlier mode of functioning is called regression.86 As Kenneth I. Pargament notes, people do not rebuild their concepts of significance and pathways to achieve these goals unless they perceive it to be necessary. Such a process requires a lot of time and effort. Hence, to become a “new creation” generally begins with a setback.87 To summarize, “regression” can be related to the phase that others have termed “processing.” Adaptation naturally implies that the person starts to function within the new situation. The stressful situation is processed and accepted and is not stressful anymore, which also can be called “reorganization” or “recovery.” Moreover, some of the individual differences in coping process may be due to political, cultural, and social circumstances. In Parkes’s study, the coping

14  Paul and death process of widows moves from “mitigation” to “anger and guilt.”88 Thus, there appears to be an extra difficulty that has to be dealt with in the process of recovery particularly in the case of widows. An easy explanation to this is that the widows tended to feel guilt for recovering from their bereavement, and therefore successful coping itself temporarily became a burden to be coped with. Furthermore, Kübler-Ross includes the coping phase of “bargaining.”89 Her model thus presupposes the existence of someone with influence to bargaining with (i.e., God, or an idealized person). When her model was adapted for use in the educational system of Sweden – a deeply secular environment – the phase of bargaining was soon omitted.90 In conclusion, the designation of coping phases reflects obstacles and resources for coping that are evident in the particular person, or group.91 Furthermore, some varieties in terminology may be due to accustomed vocabulary in relation to a specific group. For instance, yearning may be a term more easily used for children, but the actual feeling that is experienced by an adult may be quite similar. In other words, the psychological coping process varies from one person to another. The similarities are also striking, as many studies have shown. The examples above show that there are major similarities in the reactions in different people who have suffered loss or encountered other stress in a wide range of different situations. Some basic traits are likely to occur, and these traits have also been found both in a synchronic and in a diachronic perspective.92 The logic to the basic pattern may make it less of a surprise. The phases depicted above can be distinguished as succeeding tasks. Depending on personal experience, personality, and the stability/instability of the psychosocial and political-economic situation, we are more or less likely to appraise a situation as a threat, challenge, or harm/loss. The first task is to “take in” the situation, which may involve the struggle to overcome shock and denial. When this is done, we react to it, a process that may entail anger, sadness, anxiety, etc. The reaction implies that we appraise the situation and measure its impact on our lives, as well as our resources and burdens in dealing with it. The next task is to try to respond to the situation in some way, which may entail different coping strategies. While the coping strategies are tested and evaluated, the stressful situation is being processed. The result is adaption to the situation (which features acceptance and the reorganization of one’s living). The situation may be more or less the same by the end of the process as in the beginning, or it can be significantly altered by the influence of some external power, or by the coping person herself. The best encapsulation of the coping phases is perhaps Johan Cullberg’s depiction of the coping process as including the phases shock, reaction, processing, and reorientation.93 Naturally, the phases must always overlap each other, and if new obstacles occur, the process may have to restart from an earlier or more rudimentary stage. The psychological theory developed by Lindemann, Kübler-Ross, Parkes, and others is primarily concerned with coping with death, as in the loss

Paul and death 15 of dear ones and with one’s own death, but it is not delimited thereby. As Spiegel puts it, citing Freud, “[m]ourning is regularly the reaction to the loss of a loved person or to the loss of some abstraction which has taken the place of one, such as fatherland, liberty, an ideal, and so on.”94 Grief work, for instance, should be seen as a special section within the psychology of coping, namely coping with loss.95 Flora A. Keshgegian, a psychologically interested theologian, offers a perspective on how memories of an experienced disastrous situation may become resources for ongoing life. Keshgegian calls this process and possibility “redeeming memories.”96 It is to be noted that Keshgegian uses theological concepts in their psychological aspect, and psychological concepts in their theological or existential aspect, which makes her work highly relevant to the present study. It can be noted that Keshgegian ignores the fictive boundary between psychology and theology. She provides us with the missing link between the Freudian, psychological-biological perspective, on one hand, and the psychological-existential perspective of Pargament, and others, on the other. Keshgegian’s perspective resembles Paul’s attempts in some of his letters to explain how suffering itself can be a resource and not a burden, and her interest in redemption, not only survival or adaption, is also reminiscent of some of the ideas of Paul. Keshgegian identifies three distinctive types of memory necessary to make traumatic experiences transformative and redemptive. These are the remembrance of suffering and loss; remembrance of resistance and agency; and remembrance of the connection with life, the wholeness of life, and the unharmed life, which is not defined by the suffering.97 As Keshgegian notes, the first task – to remember suffering – is not always easy. With the examples of sexual abuse of children and the early 20th-century attacks on Armenians in Turkey, Keshgegian shows that strong forces may be actively working against remembrance, both from the inside and from the outside. To remember suffering may open up questions of guilt and may reconnect to the pain that one wants to escape, although the remembrance may offer explanation of the ongoing pain in our lives. Remembering can be painful and is therefore often avoided, but if we do remember, it opens up the possibility of treatment and healing. Mourning means allowing oneself to experience the harm and the hurt, to accept the irretrievable nature of the losses, and to grieve.98 According to Keshgegian, however, it is not enough to bid a person or community to remember suffering. In order to develop redeeming memories, the community or person must also remember resistance and agency.99 Remembrance of suffering is necessary and important, but what nurtures resistance to the degradation and oppression is recalling that the victimization was not total. Taking such steps is to ask of the victimized that they remember their own acts of resistance, agency, and struggle in the midst of the victimization itself.100 But the remembrance of the suffering and the resistance is not enough, according to Keshgegian. Unless the undamaged life is remembered,

16  Paul and death every future step will be determined by the sufferings. The wholeness and abundance of life, that is, the unharmed life, must be remembered, and with it the yearning for and practice of the fullness of life.101 If we put the theory of Keshgegian in relation to the psychodynamic approach described above (that of Spiegel, Kübler-Ross, and others), we may note that Keshgegian’s three memory practices can be described as the successful progress from one phase to another. The remembrance of suffering can be depicted as the transit from the stage of shock and denial to reaction. The remembrance of agency can be depicted as the transit from reaction to processing, which is the creative aspect of adaptation and dealing with the stressful situation. This phase conveys the insight that there is something more to do about the situation than mere protest. The third practice in Keshgegian’s theory, which is remembrance of the undamaged, good life, can be described as the transit from processing to acceptance, and possibly also to reconnection with the positive aspects of life before and maybe even during the stressful encounter. Death as personal transformation By the close of Paul’s sequence of letters, he increasingly deals with his own death – which from a psychological perspective appears to be the most natural. He is by then an old man by the measures of his time,102 and he had also encountered numerous lethal dangers according to his own account. From the perspective of psychological coping, it is thus expected that a person who faces the threat of death first will deny the reality of that threat, or, if undeniable, experience it as “unreal.” Second, she or he will react to the threat emotionally. In this second phase, the person him- or herself and the surrounding society attempt to control the reaction in various ways so that it will not harm the person or his or her surroundings. A possible third stage of coping, if the reality of the threat persists and the person has sufficient emotional and social resources, is that she or he will employ strategies to manage the stressful encounter. The situation is being processed, and different solutions to the problem are tried and tested. Finally, the person will reorganize her life and accept the situation in spite of the reality of death. This final stage includes full acceptance that life includes the prospect of death, and of dying, but this does not pose a threat against significant values anymore. When an accepting attitude is attained, the person has coped with the situation. Naturally, there are no clear-cut lines between the phases. Depending on what happens to the person, and how she or he perceives the continuation of the situation, the process of coping will move back and forth and also combine elements from the different stages. But as a loss of fatherland or previously held significant values can also be counted as “deaths” from a psychological perspective, we may note how Paul refers to several experiences of “death” in his letters. One of these “deaths” Paul had to cope with seems to be his own conversion, and

Paul and death 17 the losses it entailed. His personal change of perspectives and affiliations appears to have led to the loss of his social position, his welfare, and even his personal security. He speaks of a transformation of his previous values and practices, and his calling to a new function is explicated in his letters as being appointed to build up, not to tear down, which also may be an indication of his later perception of his earlier calling. His transformation is even depicted as a death in his letters. Thus, also the study of William R. Miller and Janet C’de Baca, who have studied the “death” of personal transformation, will be mentioned here. As psychologists, they studied personal transformations in relation to extraordinary experiences, and they developed their own terminology since, in their perspective, the field of psychology was lacking. They term a thorough, benevolent, enduring, and surprising personal transformation a quantum change. However, they also speak of a “process of consolidation,”103 which bears resemblance with a coping process. Although their interviewees spoke of a dramatic triggering event, and perceived their change as instant, many of them also emphasized that their experience was the beginning of an ongoing process.104 The process of transformation went on. Some described it as an ongoing process even decades later. It was often understood as a kind of maturing process as they integrated their new perspective. However, although they had a clear and immediate sense of being permanently changed, some did in fact continue without changing their behavior for a period, or continued with an ambivalent attitude toward practical change.105 Alan F. Segal similarly emphasizes that even though the conversion experience can take a few moments, it generally takes time to draw conclusions and implement these.106 Segal emphasizes that there can be many continuities between a convert’s life before conversion, and after it: “Rather, the convert changes a few key concepts, revaluing everything else accordingly.”107 However, as Pargament indicates, psychological coping takes many forms. The greater the discrepancy between the current life of the convert and the new outlook following his or her extraordinary experience, the more demanding coping strategies are required if the experience is to influence or even determine everyday living.108 Whatever the reason for coping, the more conservative coping strategies seem more compelling in the beginning of the coping process. To change both pathways and destination – that is, a coping strategy that on a conceptual level resembles a death – is very demanding and is therefore generally avoided as long as possible.109

Modern theories and ancient letters A relevant question is whether psychological hermeneutics in biblical studies aggravate the risk of imposing alien elements to the material. We may ask if modern or late modern conceptualizations of psychological coping apply to ancient letters such as Paul’s. First, the risk of imposing alien concepts in interpretation is always present when trying to comprehend a discourse – be

18  Paul and death it a contemporary or an ancient one – especially when the discourse is read in translation. The solution is not to ignore those aspects of the texts that present difficulties, but to undertake the hermeneutic task even more carefully. In the case of Paul’s letters, it would be an uncalled for impoverishment of theological inquiry to ignore the psychological aspects, since psychological aspects often are to be found at the heart of their subjectmatters (e.g., when Paul wishes to encourage his audiences who are facing difficulties and dangers, when he describes his resources for keeping a bold attitude, and so forth). Psychological coping and coping strategies are in fact particularly relevant to the material. And, as J. Harold Ellens puts it, “[p]sychology is another lens through which it is possible to see any text and understand dimensions of it the way it reflects the living human document behind it which could not be understood if one did not employ this lens.”110 Paraphrasing Stephen C. Barton’s acknowledgment of the capacity of social-scientific criticism, I believe that psychological biblical criticism has the “capacity to revitalize historical criticism of the New Testament by enlarging the agenda of interpretation, allowing a different set of questions to be put to the text, and providing methods and models to answer these new questions in a controlled and accountable way.”111 Modern psychology provides the investigation with theories to be applied, tried, and tested. Psychological coping as such appears to be about as old as humanity. People may cope with different things and in different ways, but the relevance of the perspective of psychological coping remains. Besides, the psychological perspective of the present study does not presuppose any specific cultural norms or practices, beyond the basic presupposition that people when facing life challenges try to cope psychologically.

Fragments of a biography of Paul Before we turn to Paul’s letters and his appraisals of death, I will make an attempt to situate these letters historically, first more specifically in Paul’s personal life, and then more broadly in their Judean and Greco-Roman cultural context. There are numerous good monographs written on the topic of the chronology of Paul’s life, and I recommend the reader to consult one of those if more nuance is requested. Here I will only briefly give my reasons for my choice of tentative chronological structure in regard to Paul’s life and his letters as a basis for the focal point of the study, namely the question of possible traces of coping processes in these letters. Why Pauline chronology matters In analyzing psychological coping, we need to consider the person, the situation, and the encounter between the two. We therefore have reason to look also into the person of Paul as a significant part of the historical circumstances of his letters.112 For being a person in antiquity, we know quite

Paul and death 19 a bit about Paul with a reasonable degree of certainty. Here we will survey the circumstances of his personal life, as mentioned in his letters, and then focus on the tentative dating of his letters to establish a relative chronological sequence that later will function as a preliminary hypothesis to the study. The perspective of psychological coping assumes that people change. Identity does not have to be spelled out as “being the same” but can also be understood as “being oneself.”113 Thus, apart from some internal incoherency in the same letter, we may also expect to find certain incoherencies between different letters. Interestingly, Paul himself speaks appreciatively about the “renewal of minds” (Rom 12:2), and of how he has changed his ways of perception, especially in relation to the dishonorable death of Jesus (2 Cor 5:16). He is also committed to transformed behavior in the lives of the Christ-believing communities (e.g., 1 Cor 10:13–11:34; cf. Gal 1:13–24). In Philippians, he repeatedly describes the course of life and faith as a process (Phil 2:5–11, 25–30; 3:4–16, 20–21). One way to understand Paul’s different evaluations of death is suggested by C. K. Barrett. Barrett contends that the key to understanding Paul’s apparently different appraisals lies primarily in the fact that Paul responded to different situations and circumstances. In other words, with regard to the subject of death just as for so much else, Paul was a thinker whose work shows him responding to specific situations while perhaps trying to draw on more universal or unchanging truths. “Paul reacted to the circumstances as they arose, and if the same circumstances returned at the end of his life he would react to them in much the same way as in the beginning.”114 Of course, situations do change. However, Barrett’s suggestion lacks supporting evidence and critical argument. Similar situations did seem to reoccur at different points of Paul’s life, but he did not respond in the same manner (see e.g., in regard to “other” preachers: Gal 1:6–9; Phil 1:15–18). However, when the letters are dealt with as the traces of a human being’s thought and practice, the perspective articulated by James D. G. Dunn appears more probable: [A] theology of Paul which gives an account of his faith just after the Damascus road christophany will not be quite the same as the theology of Paul between the Jerusalem consultation and the incident at Antioch, which will not be quite the same theology of Paul before and after he heard the news from Galatia, which will not be quite the same as the theology of Paul during his exchanges with the church at Corinth, and so on.115 From a more informed psychological perspective, we cannot expect to find completely coherent accounts in such occasional and situation-specific documents as Paul’s letters. They remain coherent to a certain extent, and also incoherent to a certain extent.116 Being human includes the possibility to change perceptions and behavior due to time and experience.

20  Paul and death Paul’s life as told of in his letters Paul was, according to his own testimony, “circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, concerning the law, a Pharisee, concerning zeal, persecuting the church, concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Phil 3:5–6). In Galatians, Paul also claims that his early career was driven by zeal for the tradition of his fathers, and that he advanced beyond many of his contemporaries (Gal 1:14). The zeal for the Lord, or his law, is associated with many persons of Paul’s ancient past.117 In the words of Philo of Alexandria, who was more or less contemporary with Paul, there were “thousands of vigilantes full of zeal for the laws, strictest guardians of the ancestral traditions, merciless to those who try to abolish them.”118 This comment speaks of their popularity among Jews also in the diaspora,119 and of the possible connection between zeal, the law, and ruthlessness. According to Paul, his zeal led him to persecute the early Christ movement, and even to attempt to destroy it (Gal 1:13). There are good reasons to believe that his actions of zeal involved a certain measure of violence,120 whether carried out by Paul himself or by others among his in-group. When Paul claims that he had advanced beyond many of his contemporaries, this is also a trait of the agonistic culture in which he took part, and speaks for his sensitivity to social status.121 As Paul depicts it himself, he was on top of his generation prior to his grand change (Gal 1:14; cf. Phil 3:4–7). The ability to reach and keep such social position must have required a considerable skill and interest in defending and advancing his family honor, an aspect of Judean and GrecoRoman culture that will be discussed further below. However, something happened to make Paul change his conceptions and priorities and also to lose some of his social status and eventually – if we are to trust his own account – his wealth and his physical safety (cf. 1 Cor 4:11–12; 2 Cor 11:23–27).122 With Paul Barnett I maintain that since Paul’s radically new vocation is accompanied with a complete relational and moral turnabout, it is justified to talk about it as a conversion, as well as a calling (cf. Gal 1:15–16a).123 Paul himself attests in 1 Corinthians that the Lord Jesus was revealed before him, although perhaps unduly late (1 Cor 15:8). Also in Galatians he describes his vision of the risen Jesus, his christophany, as an extraordinary experience – not unique but extraordinary, similar to the calling of a prophet (see Gal 1:12, 15–16; cf. 2 Cor 12:2–4). We will stop for a moment to try to discern exactly how Paul appears to have changed after his vision of the risen Christ, as told of in and indicated by his letters. We do not know much about his life before that event, apart from what is mentioned above, which is still something. Paul in his letters shows a deep interest in interpersonal relations. He quite frequently refers to himself as a mother of the Christ-believers, which is clearly not in line with contemporary notions of achieving and maintaining honor among men (see e.g., 1 Thess 2:7; Gal 4:19; 1 Cor 3:1–3; cf. 1 Cor 4:14–15).124 The recurrent

Paul and death 21 family language and expressions of endearment in his later letters speak for the significance Paul attributed to relations in his later years.125 In regard to materialistic resources and social respect, Paul tells in Philippians how he lost everything, but he attests that social position, wealth, and even personal autonomy have lost their significance to him (Phil 3:3–21; 4:10–14; cf. 1:19–27), although the potential loss of social position in his new in-group appears to be a struggle to him in some of his letters (see e.g., Galatians; 2 Cor 10–13). Paul seems to have been very focused on achievement in his early life (see Gal 1:14), and this characteristic appears to be a persistent feature in some of his mid-period letters (see e.g., 1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 10:1–11), but less in his prison letters (Phil and Phlm). Psychologists who study personal transformation in persons who had extraordinary experiences of a similar type to that of Paul note that certain characteristics recur and even form a discernible pattern.126 William R. Miller and Janet C’de Baca suggest four criteria for such experiences (which all resemble the depiction in Paul’s letters of his christophany). The experience is to be vivid in the sense of an “identifiable, distinctive memorable experience during which the transformation occurred, or at least began.” There should be no obvious connection to an external event, but it should come as a surprise. A third striking element is the profoundly benevolent quality of the experience: “To be sure, the immediate experience can be quite unsettling [. . .], but there also tends to be an overwhelming sense of loving kindness behind it. Finally, quantum changes are enduring.”127 Thus, a quantum change is defined as a vivid, surprising, benevolent, and enduring personal transformation. Miller and C’de Baca note that males tend to become “less macho, less materialistic, with major drops in the valuation of being respected, and of achievement” after such transformative experiences.128 Women give increased importance to growth, self-esteem, spirituality, happiness, and generosity after their transformative experiences.129 Miller and C’de Baca also note that the implementation of this new perspective and behavior is generally perceived as a process that takes time.130 People could talk about both being immediately profoundly changed and about a prolonged process of successive transformation.131 In Galatians, Paul gives a brief account of the continuation of his life after his calling. In this account he states that he did not go to Jerusalem immediately. He went to Arabia first, and then returned to Damascus (Gal 1:16b–17). Only after three years did he go to Jerusalem to see Cephas, and remained with him for about two weeks. Then Paul went to the region of Syria and Cilicia, and after fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem again (Gal 1:18–19, 21; 2:1). Interestingly, Paul seems to assume that there were other stories about him going around. He even feels compelled to swear that he is telling the truth about his personal history.132 The rhetorical significance of his first going to Arabia seems to be that Paul did not sit at the other apostles’ feet. He received his own calling in his own encounter with the risen Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:8). Furthermore, in Galatians we find an

22  Paul and death account of how Paul encountered Cephas, also in Antioch, and Paul tells the Galatians of how he “withstood [Cephas] to his face, because he was to be blamed” (see 2:11 in context).133 Apparently, Paul was not uncontroversial in the early establishment of the fellowship of Christ-believers, and the other Christ-believers were perhaps not always easy on him either (cf. Rom 15:31b). The course of Paul’s travels has been a longstanding debate.134 The accountability of Acts has also been vividly discussed, and naturally, the account of Paul himself must be given priority.135 The course of his travels will not considered in depth. Only a few references to his traveling will be mentioned here. As referred to above, the account of Galatians mentions travels into the regions of Syria and Cilicia (where Antioch and Tarsus are located). In 1 Thessalonians, it is mentioned that Paul and his fellow workers have been spitefully treated in Philippi, which implies Paul’s being there before his writing 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess 2:2; see also 2 Cor 7:5). Apart from Philippi, there are also indications of controversies elsewhere. Two passages refer to some kind of incident, or incidents, in Ephesus/Asia (see 1 Cor 15:32; Rom 1:8). Some sort of condition forced Paul and his fellow workers to travel into the region of Galatia, as referred to in Galatians 4:13, presumably from Asia. In 1 Corinthians, Paul conveys that his plan is to stay in Ephesus until springtime (1 Cor 16:8). He thereafter intends to visit Macedonia on his way to Corinth (1 Cor 16:5). In 2 Corinthians, he refers to his visits to Troas and Macedonia (1:12–13; cf. 8:1), but feels obliged to explain the reasons for his delayed visit to Corinth (2 Cor 1:23– 13). We get the additional information that he intended to go to Judea after his visit to Corinth (2 Cor 1:15–16). Also in Romans, Paul refers to his ministry in Macedonia and in Achaia, and all the way up to the region of Illyricum, and he is heading for Jerusalem with the collection (Rom 15:19–29; the collection is also mentioned in 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9). He intends to go from Jerusalem to Rome, and from there to Spain (Rom 15:25–32). In this context, Paul mentions his hope to be saved from those in Judea “who do not believe” (Rom 15:31). Also Philippians and Philemon contain references to travel plans (to Philippi, and to the location of Philemon respectively), but I would attribute less significance and accountability to plans made from prison, since no action could be taken for the time being (cf. Phil 1:12–18; Phlm 9; 13). Notably, these plans are formulated in a way that adds persuasive force to the letters in regard to the reception of Onesimus and Epaphroditus respectively (cf. 1 Cor 4:17–21). As it seems, Paul never did go to Spain, and maybe he went to Rome in chains.136 Tradition holds that he was executed in Rome by means of decapitation.137 We have little evidence about Paul’s death. Decapitation fits the assumption that Paul was among the privileged.138 The great fire in Rome under Nero in 64 CE was followed by the persecution of the Christ-believers, and some scholars hold that Paul was possibly among the victims.139 But he also could have died earlier or later.140

Paul and death 23

The letters of Paul We now turn to the extant letters of Paul. As indicated above, the study material will be limited to the letters that are generally perceived as authentic Pauline letters by the scholarly community, that is, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1–2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon.141 It is not possible to cover all the details of the very expansive debate of authenticity and provenance, but I will briefly give my reasons for the relative chronological sequence, suggested below, that will guide their treatment in the following study. Several of Paul’s letters have also been hypothesized to be composites of different letters, or letter fragments, or to contain interpolations of Pauline or un-Pauline material. The aim of this section is to establish the texts before the actual analysis of their psychological aspects begins, although not all passages whose authenticity has been discussed will be related here – only those of direct relevance for the analysis of Paul’s attitudes toward death. 1 Thessalonians is generally assumed to be the eldest among the extant letters of Paul. The suggestion that it was sent from Corinth in 50 CE is not controversial.142 First Thessalonians is widely accepted as an authentic letter by Paul,143 but one passage has been discussed vividly: [A particular group of] Judeans killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the nations that they may be saved, so now as always to fill up the measurements of their sins, but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (2:15, 16b).144 The phrase in its entirety has been suggested to be an interpolation, inserted by the next generation during the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE.145 The temporal argument is not very strong, though, since a number of events prior to 50 CE could just as easily have been interpreted as the outpouring of God’s wrath (e.g., the banishment of Jews from Rome by Claudius in 49 CE,146 or when thousands of Jews were killed in the suppressed insurrection in 49 CE,147 or the great famine around 47 CE).148 Another course of argument against its authenticity is that the passage is deemed to be irreconcilable with, for example, Romans 9:1–5 and 11:25–26, considering the attitudes that are expressed toward the Jews.149 But first, in 1 Thessalonians 2:15–16 Paul targets a particular group of Judeans, not the whole nation.150 And second, as Abraham Malherbe correctly points out, in 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 Paul speaks about his immediate situation, in which he is being hindered from preaching to the nations (cf. 2:18b). There is therefore no need to harmonize this passage with his account of salvation history in his letter to the Romans.151 And third, from a psychological perspective, changes in perceptions over time are not only possible but even to

24  Paul and death be expected. Incoherency in relation to utterances made several years later is therefore not a convincing proof of inauthenticity. Furthermore, the passage is well integrated in the letter as a whole: there are no easily identified disjoints, neither on the thematic nor the syntactic level.152 To summarize, the evidence against its authenticity is quite weak.153 The passage will be discerned as part of the study object in the present investigation, and 1 Thessalonians in its entirety will be reckoned as the earliest extant letter by Paul. Galatians is univocally regarded as an authentic Pauline letter, even though it has its special tone.154 Galatians is among the letters that are difficult to date. There is not much to go on in the letter. Also the location of the addressees is unclear to its late modern interpreters. Does Paul address Christ-believers in the northern part of Galatia, that is, the part of the province of Galatia occupied by Celtic tribes, or can the addressees be located in any part of the Roman province Galatia? What does Paul mean by the designations “Galatia” (Γαλατίας; 1:2) and “Galatians” (Γαλάται; 3:1)? If also the southern part of the province of Galatia is a possible location of the addressees, this would imply that an earlier dating of the letter is possible.155 The earliest suggested date is 49–50 CE,156 but a majority of scholars reach the conclusion that the letter is written somewhat later, from the early to the mid-fifties.157 Several scholars have tried to discern the chronology of Paul’s life by trying to establish fixed points from Paul’s own account of in Galatians 1:11–2:21 and from the names and events that are occasionally mentioned elsewhere in his letters.158 However, the dating of Galatians itself has not been aided by this discussion, and no consensus about an overall chronology has been reached. With no firm evidence – either for an early dating, or for a late dating of Galatians – I tentatively place the letter somewhere in the middle of the time range that has been suggested, that is, after 1 Thessalonians, but before the Corinthian correspondence.159 First Corinthians is unanimously regarded as a genuine Pauline letter, and it was likely written from Ephesus in springtime (see 1 Cor 16:8), probably in 54 CE.160 The integrity of 1 Corinthians has been under dispute, and some scholars suggest that the extant version is a composite of different letters, or as fragments of different Pauline letters.161 Other scholars reach the conclusion that the letter is probably written on roughly the same occasion, to the same congregation and by the same author, in something close to the form we have it in.162 As Paul is clearly responding both to verbal reports (1:11) and to a previous letter from the Corinthians (7:1), the letter naturally contains different sections. A new section begins in 10:1: “I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters . . .” (10:1). Similarly, chapter 15 begins emphatically: “Moreover, brothers and sisters, I declare to you . . .” (15:1). These turns could be understood as joints between different letters or letter fragments,163 but they could also be read simply as the beginnings of new sections in the same letter. The advocates for a composite letter do not agree over where the joints are to be found, and there are no manuscripts that support any of the hypothetical letter divisions that have been suggested.164

Paul and death 25 A feature that may speak in favor of the composite hypothesis is that Timothy appears to have been sent to Corinth – perhaps as the carrier of the letter – in 1 Corinthians 4:17, while in 16:10–11 he is still expected to arrive. It is however possible that someone other than Timothy was the carrier, and that Paul therefore was uncertain about who would reach Corinth first: Timothy or the carrier. Moreover, Anders Eriksson and Margaret Mitchell have, in different ways, made strong cases for the integrity of the letter on rhetorical grounds.165 Therefore, 1 Corinthians will be treated as one letter in the present investigation.166 It has been suggested that 2 Corinthians was sent quite soon after 1 Corinthians, from Macedonia,167 in approximately 55–56 CE.168 As Hans Conzelmann puts it, “[t]he whole surviving correspondence of Paul with the Corinthian community lies temporally close together, and Romans also belongs in proximity to it.”169 Second Corinthians is generally regarded as a genuine Pauline letter,170 but its integrity as one letter is heavily debated.171 The letter is extremely long, considering that it evolves mainly around the same subject matter. The last four chapters clearly constitute a separate part.172 However, the differences between the two major parts of the letter can be understood from a psychological perspective as emanating from different or wavering appraisals of the same situation.173 Is Paul to write the letter with the aim of re-connectedness and restored fellowship? Or is he to save his face and regain his position with whatever means available? The emphasis lies on the first prospect in the first part of the letter, and on the second prospect in the latter part (but traces of both goals are to be found in both parts). Different appraisals and different goals entail different strategies, but there are no clear indications in the letter that the situation itself has changed. The abrupt turns could be indications of Paul’s indecisiveness concerning which approach to adopt in relation to the Christ-believers of Corinth. The alteration of “tone” or emotional touch seems to fall inside the range of inconsistency that is reasonable to expect in any human artifact.174 The second part (chapters 10–13) is probably Paul’s personal greeting, his peroratio, written by his own hand (cf. Gal 6:11–18).175 This would explain the introductory phrase “I, Paul . . .” and the singular sender for this section. In that case, it is Paul’s last attempt to explain the situation to the Corinthians, and to make them see it the way he sees it, before the letter is sent. All things considered, I will treat 2 Corinthians as one letter consisting of two sections in the present study.176 Turning to Romans, there is a major scholarly agreement that Paul wrote this letter quite late in his productive period. It appears from the letter that it was sent from Greece (15:19–29; 16:1),177 when Paul was heading for Jerusalem to deliver the collection for “the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (Rom 15:25).178 Sometime in 55–58 CE has been suggested as a possible date of provenance,179 and this quite vague dating will do for the purpose of this study. It allows us to place it after 2 Corinthians, or perhaps in proximity to it. The last section contains greetings to various persons,

26  Paul and death among which “Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and fellow prisoners” are mentioned (16:7). Some scholars hold it improbable that Paul could have known so many as the greetings of Rom 16:3–16 implies, given that he had not already been to the city.180 On the other hand, Paul was a traveler, and he knew a lot of Christ-believers, Jews and others, of whom some may have returned to Rome after the death of Claudius.181 Besides, while it may be precarious to greet people by name in a congregation after working there for a substantial length of time – with the risk of involuntary omission – it is less precarious to greet people whom one happens to know from earlier contacts in other places.182 A purpose of the letter is to present Paul as a well-integrated apostle in the Christ-faithful cross-national community (cf. 1:1–7). Thus, although it is possible that the section of greetings was added to the manuscript later, it is equally possible – and perhaps more probable – that the greetings belong to the original composition and were omitted later.183 Also the authenticity of the practical implementations of the letter (chapters 12–15) has been disputed.184 However, the rhetorical composition seems to support its conclusion. While the first part of the letter consists of a carefully developed argument, these latter chapters contain suggestions of how the inclusive and peaceful stance of the preceding argument may be carried out in practice. In other words, the concluding chapters fit into the larger scope of the letter.185 Besides, there are no indications from the other extant letters that Paul would be uninterested in interpersonal or inter-group relations (see esp. 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians). In conclusion, the evidence against reading Romans as a unified discourse is not compelling. The letter will be treated as a rhetorical unit in the present investigation.186 Philippians is regarded as a Pauline letter, but Paul’s whereabouts are under dispute. Was Paul writing from Ephesus, Caesarea, or Rome? A provenance in Rome implies that Philippians could be the latest surviving document by Paul, while the other locations allow for an earlier date.187 An Ephesian provenance, for example, entails that Philippians could have been written in the mid-fifties (i.e., the same period as the Corinthian correspondence).188 The most important clue to the dating is Paul’s imprisonment, but this does not reveal much either, since he likely was imprisoned several times (see 1 Cor 4:3; 2 Cor 6:4–5; 11:23). Early traditions suggest that Philippians was written from Rome. The Marcionite prologue includes the statement that “[t]he Philippians are Macedonians. These, having received the word of truth, remained steadfast in the faith. The apostle commends them, writing to them from prison in Rome.”189 The main argument against a Roman provenance is its geographical distance from Philippi, but according to Moisés Silva and others, the distance between Rome and Philippi does not make a Roman provenance impossible.190 While there is no clear textual evidence that Paul ever was imprisoned in Ephesus, Caesarea is located at about the same distance from Philippi as Rome.191 Scholars who advocate an Ephesian provenance argue that the term praetorium (“palace guard”), that is

Paul and death 27 found in the letter, could be used for the emperor’s guard in Ephesus as well (cf. Phil 1:13). Similarly, the greeting from “those who are of Caesar’s household” is held to be, possibly, a description of those in imperial service elsewhere than Rome (cf. 4.22).192 Still, the most natural reading of these terms (praetorium and oikia of Caesar) is as referring to people located in Rome.193 Also detracting from the Ephesian and Caesarean hypotheses is the fact that the letter itself suggests a significant lapse of time since “the beginning of the gospel” in Philippi and since Paul received help from the Philippians previously (cf. 4:15–16, 18).194 To summarize, the evidence in favor of a Caesarean or Ephesian provenance is not very compelling, and the evidence against a Roman provenance is not very strong. Therefore, Philippians will be treated as a late letter, written from Rome, in the present investigation. Was Paul really imprisoned? Charles B. Cousar contends that Paul’s impending death is not actually a part of the picture when Paul is dictating Philippians. According to Cousar, the passage is rather an example of the rhetorical trope known as “feigned perplexity.”195 Following Clayton Croy, Cousar suggests that Paul in 1:19–26 employs the technique of a rhetorical pretense of uncertainty, while posing a question as a way to strengthening or dramatizing an argument.196 According to Cousar, Paul is not in mortal jeopardy, due to alleged crimes (nor is he contemplating suicide): in his own mind he knows that he will remain and will continue in the service of the Philippians (cf. 1:19–20). However, the rhetorical trope of a feigned perplexity is highly problematic in a discourse of friendship. The genre of a family letter, or a letter of friendship, permits a certain degree of openness concerning one’s affairs. To share important aspects of one’s situation is the very essence of a letter of friendship.197 The circumstances depicted in the letter will naturally be followed by concern about the continuation. If one part of the conversation deliberatively fabricates a personal situation – for whatever good purpose – the bonds of friendship will be undermined eventually. In the original situation of the letter, the carrier of the letter would naturally be asked about the whereabouts of Paul and about the prospects of the trial. Moreover, the rhetorical technique that Cousar suggests for Philippians is not only feigned perplexity but feigned rhetorical situation. On the other hand, a piece of evidence in favor of the suggestion that Paul indeed was imprisoned while dictating Philippians is that he explicitly acknowledges his desire for someone to care for his needs (2:19–30; 4:10–14, 18). If Epaphroditus were to help Paul in the ministries of the gospel, the emphasis on Paul’s needs would seem to be superfluous. But if Paul was in custody, such help would be required.198 Provided that Paul was a Roman citizen,199 the legal procedure also seems to stand in favor of a Roman provenance. If Paul feared judicial condemnation and death in prison at Ephesus or Caesarea, why would he not exercise his rights as a Roman citizen and appeal to Caesar?200 A satisfactory answer would be that he had already appealed to Caesar, and been brought

28  Paul and death to Rome.201 Furthermore, the collection to the saints in Jerusalem, which is an extremely important theme in Galatians, 1–2 Corinthians, and Romans, is completely missing in Philippians. In 2 Corinthians 8–9, Paul even brags about the generous contribution of the Philippians. A possible explanation for its omission as a theme in Philippians could therefore be that it already had been delivered to Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:25, 30–31).202 To allow a reasonable time span for exchange of news between Philippi and Paul, a date around 60–62 CE seems plausible.203 Since imprisonment itself was not regarded a punishment, Paul’s deprivation of liberty probably implied that he was awaiting trial.204 Nevertheless, imprisonment could be a prolonged process in the Greco-Roman world. A person could be imprisoned for years without knowing of what he was accused.205 The integrity of Philippians has also been questioned. Gerald F. Hawthorne/ Ralph P. Martin claimed – perhaps prematurely – in 2004 that the majority of scholars remained unconvinced of the partition hypotheses.206 A few years later John Reumann contended that a majority of the scholars appraise the letter to be a composite (at least in German scholarship).207 Reumann’s own hypothesis implies three original Pauline letters, juxtaposed by the Christ movement of Philippi for the sake of preservation and to facilitate transmission of the letter(s) to Christ-believers elsewhere.208 Two junctions have been discussed in particular as possible beginnings of sections of Pauline material interpolated into another Pauline letter. The first junction is somewhere at the beginning of chapter 3, and the second is between 4:9 and 4:10.209 It is often assumed that the section that begins by 3:2 consists of an emotional outburst,210 but then, how is such an emotional outburst to be defined and identified? And how do we know that such emotional outbursts are alien to Paul? Galatians 1:8–9 seems rather to be an emotional outburst, and this passage remains unquestioned. Besides, it is difficult to decide where the joint between the hypothetical letter fragments is located, or where the section of un-Pauline material begins; 3:1, 3:1b, and 3:2 have been suggested.211 The second junction which has aroused scholarly suspicion is the note of thanks from Paul to the Philippians (4:10–20). It has been appraised as located unduly late in the letter composition.212 However, there is no severe obstacle to reading the letter as a unified piece of rhetoric, with the note of gratefulness as it stands.213 Perhaps the sensitive character of saying thanks is the explanation for this aspect of the letter composition.214 Paul’s uneasiness concerning receiving financial support is clearly demonstrated elsewhere (see 1 Thess 2:5–12; 1 Cor 9:15–18; 2 Cor 11:7–10; 12:14). Notably, even in the peroratio Paul’s gratefulness is expressed in circumlocutions.215 Moreover, the previous and subsequent sections have many traits and themes in common, and the lexical and thematic parallels point to their unity.216 It is to be noted that “stylistic arguments almost always become circular (Paul would not have done this but a redactor would have).”217 Clearly, a text may be perfectly coherent and still be a composite, or immensely incoherent and still be original.218 The hypothetical reason for making a composite must

Paul and death 29 therefore be scrutinized first. Why would the letters have been deemed to be better preserved by means of a juxtaposition? As Sandra M. Schneiders comments, it is generally better to offer a suggestion for the interpretation of the text as it stands, than to offer ways to change it.219 In conclusion, we have too sparse evidence for a multiple-letter theory in regard to Philippians. The letter will therefore be treated as a unified piece of rhetoric in the present study. In regard to Philemon, the destination of the letter – and the location of Philemon – is thought to be Colossae.220 Three places in particular have been suggested for the location of Paul: Ephesus (in 52–55 CE), Caesarea (in 58–60 CE), and Rome (in 60–62 CE).221 As in the case of Philippians, a Roman provenance is indicated by quite early sources,222 and the major argument against a Roman provenance is the distance between Colossae and Rome.223 One may, however, wonder how present-day scholars would be in a better position to estimate the possible and impossible distances, than those early commentators of the fourth century (and perhaps earlier). It is a long distance between Rome and Colossae,224 but the Roman empire was also known for its good communication between its capital and its provinces. There is no rhetorical achievement for the early commentators to forge a Roman provenance, as far as I can see, and we have therefore little reason to distrust their data. The letter itself gives very few indications of the date and the location of the writer, but Paul is depicted both as “in chains” for Christ Jesus (Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; 1) and as elderly (πρεσβύτης; 9).225 This makes a later date preferable to an earlier. Therefore, Philemon will be treated as one of Paul’s last extant letters, probably from 60–62 CE226 (i.e., close in time to the writing of Philippians). The emphasis on Paul’s need for assistance in his letters to the Philippians and to Philemon is probably explained by the circumstance that he was imprisoned while dictating them.227

Death in the Judean and Greco-Roman world The theory of psychological coping emphasizes that the historical context is essential for the understanding a person’s appraisal (of the situation) and his or her coping strategies.228 Therefore, before we continue we will look at some of the cultural and historical features that are relevant for our forthcoming analysis of Paul’s attitudes to death, focusing on the idea of honor, the commemoration or absence of commemoration of the dead, and the practice of mourning periods. A few examples from the genre of consolation letters will also be given. Honor and shame In regard to premature death, the attitudes toward honor and shame were of vital importance in the nations in the Mediterranean basin at the time of

30  Paul and death Paul. The strivings for honor, and the challenge-riposte game, led to bloodshed and premature death both in the larger national context, and in the smaller neighborhood or family context. As the historian Keith Hopkins emphasizes, Rome was a warrior state.229 The Roman empire conquered the whole of the Mediterranean basin during the last two centuries BCE, and according to some estimations one fifth or one sixth of the world’s then population had then been incorporated, with their territories, within the Roman state.230 The taxes to support this war were primarily paid by the conquered nations,231 and the men serving in the army were replaced at home by slaves from the conquered nations.232 The discipline in the Roman army was known for its ruthlessness. If an army unit was judged disobedient or cowardly in battle, one soldier in ten was selected by lot and cudgeled to death by his former comrades.233 As Hopkins puts it, “decimation was not only a terrifying myth, told to enforce compliance in fresh recruits. Decimation actually occurred, and often enough not to be particularly remarked on.”234 The cruelty did not stop at decimation: “Roman soldiers killed each other for their common good. Small wonder then that they executed military deserters without mercy; or that prisoners were sometimes forced to fight in gladiatorial contests, or were thrown to wild beasts for public entertainment.”235 Naturally, the victories of Rome were bought at a price, paid by hundreds of thousands of men killed in war, and by men, women, and children slain or taken captive as slaves, and by the soldiers’ families who were left at home to manage as they could.236 The fuel to keep this engine going was the quest for honor. Imperial power, like all social power, can be constructed as an interactive combination of four types of power: military power, the monopoly or control of force and violence; economic power, the monopoly or control of labor and production: political power, the monopoly or control of organization and institution; and ideological power, the monopoly or control of meaning and interpretation.237 The Roman empire sought to establish and maintain control in all these areas. As Justin K. Hardin points out, the imperial cult – not Christianity – was the “fastest growing religion of the first century.”238 The Roman central government was recurrently hostile to voluntary associations since it feared that they might become centers of political dissension.239 As honor and military glory were central elements in Roman culture, they persisted as central elements also when the Roman peace, pax Romana, was established under the emperors in the first two centuries CE.240 Keith Hopkins’s words, public executions and gladiatorial contests were “the rituals which helped maintain an atmosphere of violence, even in peace.”241 Notions of honor and shame played an important role also more generally in the nations around the Mediterranean. When the family honor was challenged, it had to be defended, often by means of a counter-challenge – a riposte – which generally implied verbal or physical violence in order to avoid subordination.242 An insult should be repaid with a similar insult, harm with harm, and loss with loss.243 If a person or

Paul and death 31 a group failed to respond to a challenge accordingly, some of his or the group’s honor would befall the challenger, and the honor of both would be renegotiated.244 In other words, evil was expected to be repaid with evil. It was often perceived as decent to value honor more than life.245 However, two customs served to delimit the losses and harm that people caused each other. First, the challenge-riposte game should take place between people who were about equal. It was seen as humiliating to challenge someone who was inferior, and similarly to accept a challenge made by someone who was inferior.246 Second, one who had earlier received beneficia, that is a favor, was expected to show fides (πίστις) – that is gratitude and loyalty – to the giver. Thus, the custom that it was dishonorable to challenge someone inferior, together with the notion of fides, or πίστις, kept the society from falling apart in everybody’s struggling to gain honor from everybody else.247 Nevertheless, the relative social position was a matter of constant interpretation and re-interpretation,248 which could be a complicating factor in a cross-national community such as the Christ-believing fellowship. For instance, if Paul had received a challenge from a group among the Corinthian Christ-believers, or from some rival apostle who tried to establish his position within the group, Paul would first have to estimate the challenger’s relative status in relation to himself. Was it a challenge to be replied to, or was he himself superior? And if he was to respond, then how was he to respond to the challenge? When and what was the proper way to respond to a challenge in the Lord? Importantly for the focus of the present study, the safety of the individual was constructed by means of his or her incorporation in a group with honor. As Halvor Moxnes puts it, a person was “never regarded as an isolated individual, but always as a part of a group, responsible for the honor of the group and also protected by it.”249 The laws and regulations never aimed at universal application, but the fundamental organization of societal relationships was that of the patron-client. The beneficia was always to be perceived as a special favor and was expected to incite gratefulness.250 Every group or city stood in specific relations with other groups, including the empire, with the duty of loyalty and gratefulness following for the so-called receiving party.251 The specialness of the relationship was the fundamental aspect binding society together. 252 Manners of death and mourning When it comes to dying, it seems that the manner of death and the associated rituals loomed much larger in the minds of people than the termination of life itself. To pay respect to the dead was attributed great significance. The popularity of burial clubs reflects the general Roman concern for the proper care of the dead as well as the anxiety that death was both unpredictable and expensive.253 Also death was related to notions of honor. “How people died and how they were buried, commemorated, mourned,

32  Paul and death and remembered, were all central aspects of life in Rome and its empire; they demanded scrutiny, comment and ultimately judgment.”254 Even in Plutarch’s Moralia: On Education of Children, there is a note on how to die well.255 It is also important to keep in mind that mortality rates were high throughout the empire. Death was a feature of daily life that was regarded as unavoidable.256 As for capital punishment, it too reflected that the manner of dying was more important than the time of death or even death itself. The most gruesome punishments were reserved for criminals who also were not citizens. The categorization of the social strata of society in honestiores and humiliores was of vital importance for the estimation of the crime and the punishment that were to be inflicted. “The difference became more and more important during the imperial period, when punishments themselves became more and more severe.”257 “[T]hose who came to be termed honestiores either were quickly executed – usually by decapitation – or were allowed to flee into exile.”258 Particularly gruesome modes of punishment, such as crucifixion, was normally only inflicted on slaves.259 Importantly, imprisonment itself was generally not regarded as a punishment, but the imprisoned person likely awaited trial and either punishment or release.260 Furthermore, feeling pain was not the only point of the gruesomeness. There was also the deterring factor of being cut off from society in the manner of death. It appears that many were deeply bothered at risk that “[t] here would be no loved ones to catch the final breath, to wash the body and to dispose of it properly.”261 The puticuli, the Roman places of collective and anonymous corpse disposal, were dreaded, as also the valley of Gehenna – nearby Jerusalem – where the Judeans disposed of dead animals, city garbage, and the bodies of criminals.262 One of the particularly gruesome manners of death was punishment by crucifixion, a Roman mode of execution. Crucifixion implied that the criminal or imposter was fixated to a cross or pole, which was raised outside the city. The body, and later also the corpse, was then exposed to the elements and beasts until nature had taken its course with the remains.263 The disposal of the body as garbage was part of the spectacle.264 The punishment was clearly designed for the dehumanization of the victim. This was achieved by means of unclothing, abusing, immobilizing, and isolating the victim. As denuded, wounded, and publicly displayed, the victim was deprived not only of the possibility of having honor, but also of the possibility of having shame (shame being the only option left for a human bereft the capacity to have honor).265 As J. Paul Sampley notes, shame was used as a “social sanction to discourage certain behavior [. . .] Crucifixion was the ultimate Roman sanction; nothing was more shameful.”266 When the condemned person’s corpse was denied burial, this also meant that mourning periods were prohibited.267 Mourning of the dead was another important aspect of death in antiquity. People of the Mediterranean antiquity often invested great effort and significant means to secure a decent burial for themselves and prolonged

Paul and death 33 commemoration. If you did not leave anyone behind to mourn you, your life had been without consequence. Both Jewish and Roman contexts include long traditions of clearly defined mourning periods. In the words of Valerie M. Hope: King Numa (c.715–673 BC), Rome’s legendary second king and reformer, stated that children aged less than one year were not to be mourned for, and older children up to the age of 10 were to be mourned for no more months than the number of years lived. Numa also said that no mourning was to exceed ten months, and this was also the minimum time set for widowhood; if a woman took a new husband before this time was up, she would have to sacrifice a cow and a calf. Designated periods for mourning were still advocated during the later second and early third century C.E. and were summarized (with some modifications of Numa’s rulings) by Paulus, a writer on legal matters. Paulus noted that parents and children aged over 6 could be mourned for a year, children under 6 for only one month, a husband for ten months and close blood relatives for eight months.268 The biblical accounts indicate similar legislation of mourning periods. Although we find no complete prescription of mourning periods and mourning practices, these are referred to in the stories about the patriarchs (see Gen. 23; 37:34–35; 50:10–14; Deut. 34:8). As Abraham P. Bloch comments, “[a]ncient customs were well established by that time [of the editing of the Pentateuch] and apparently there was no need for restating them.”269 In the words of Saul Olyan, “[t]he mourner for the dead is obligated to mourn part of a day, one day, seven days, or thirty days, depending on the text” in the biblical account.270 These periods may sound short in comparison with the Roman legislation, but they involved a larger amount of restriction, that is, the privilege to abstain from one’s chores. As Yorick Spiegel comments, “[p] resumably relatives and friends brought bread and drinks for the mourner, since cooking was probably not permitted in the house of mourning so that no deadly substance could penetrate the food.”271 From a psychological perspective, the mourning periods constituted an incitement to get the mourning process started. Olyan comments that “some [Jewish] mourning practices are apparently intended to cause discomfort and even pain in the mourner (e.g. wearing sackcloth, fasting, depilation, sitting or lying on the ground, walking barefoot, and laceration).”272 Thus, the biblical account of mourning practices includes setting aside personal grooming and entering a ritualistically unkempt state,273 by means of which the bereaved person was identified as mourning by him-/herself and others. When the prescribed mourning period was up, and behavior returned to normal, the person was thus incited to go on living as normal and to re-integrate into ordinary life.274 In the account of Jewish scriptures, the bereaved are allowed to display emotional pain – somewhat at odds with

34  Paul and death the upper class Roman ideals as they appear in consolation letters by and for the Roman elite.275 Lawrence Stone comments that Roman mortuary rites also helped to provide for the basic physical needs of the mourners.276 For a short period, the bereaved was completely freed from chores in order to gather strength and to re-orient, and was then incited to take up the chores again when the prescribed period was up. However, the mourning periods had an aspect of affordability: there were no mourning periods for slaves and servants. Not all could afford to refrain from work, or had friends who would come with food for the mourner. The practice of mourning periods presumes that the local community has the social and financial resources available to allow someone to withdraw from participation and contribution temporally. Mourning periods presuppose that the community is prepared to make up for the vacancy of the bereaved for a period – at least to a certain extent. No economic system can allow a large number of members to withdraw for too lengthy periods, and given the mortality rates of the societies of antiquity, the mourning periods would easily have succeeded each other endlessly – especially if the children were allowed to be mourned for – unless restrictions were provided.277 The limitation of mourning periods thus also had an economical motivation, also for the sake of surviving dependents. The admonishing nature of much of the consolation letters of the time is in therefore quite understandable. They commonly drew upon similar arguments, namely that life is short, that the dead are better off than the living, that time lessens sorrow, and that grief accomplishes little.278 This kind of comfort and admonition offers little hope but tries to put the loss, and the grief, into a broader picture. Consolation letters The tradition of consolation letters was well established in the time of Paul. The consolation letters are examples of upper class culture, since their existence presumes the ability to write and read, as well as the resources for writing and transmission (which are also prerequisites for the letters of Paul). The following examples highlight the relevance of the concept of psychological coping in the cultural context of Paul and his contemporaries. Even though the appraisal of the death varies depending on the person, the situation, and the encounter between the two, death as a physical reality remains throughout the ages, and occurs in every individual life. The consolation letters, which attest to someone’s understanding of someone else’s plight, may bear witness of both the similarities and differences between individual experience, and the individual’s appraisals. While Paul’s letters generally have a broader purpose than consolation, consolation is recurrently an integral part of them.279 When we turn to the letters of the genre of consolation, we find for example the letters of Cicero, written to his friends following bereavement. His

Paul and death 35 letter to Titius does not tell whom Titius has lost, but the content is described by Valerie M. Hope in the following: The letter was not intended to remember or praise the dead, but to focus on advising the living. Cicero uses the following arguments: men are born to die; the dead are not suffering and so should not be pitied; to grieve excessively is unworthy of a sensible and responsible man; and as grief passes, “we should not wait for time to provide the medicine that our intelligence has already supply of.”280 However, Hope aptly describes the continuation of Cicero’s life, as indicated by his letters: The following year Cicero’s adult daughter, Tullia, died. Cicero was devastated, and struggled to maintain the decorum and sense of duty required of a man in his position. He received several letters offering him consolation. Of the letter sent by Brutus, Cicero said: “There was much good sense in it, but nothing that could help me.”281 One Roman author who took the concept of admonishing consolation even further is Seneca the Younger (4 BCE–64 CE). Writing to a man on the occasion of the death of a son, he labels grief as “pointless, thankless and madness.”282 Not all consolation letters took this direction, though. A letter of condolence from the second century CE addresses a couple who also had lost a son. The author is a friend of theirs who had suffered a similar bereavement herself. She says: “I sorrowed and wept over your dear departed one as I wept over Didymas [. . .] but really, there is nothing one can do in the face of such things. So, please comfort each other.”283 The last letter acknowledges the loss, but unfortunately we have no information about how the recipients reacted. The male elite tended to dismiss grief as womanly,284 although Cicero’s letters display a transformed approach after his own bereavement. The notion that the deceased are privileged occurs in some ancient sources, both in consolation letters and in epitaphs. Some epitaphs were so commonly used that they were abbreviated (e.g., non fui, fui, non sum, non curo [shortened nf f ns nc], meaning “I was not, I was, I am no more, I do not care”).285 In other words, the deceased was beyond help but also beyond despair. Another popular epitaph was the following wish: “May the earth lie lightly upon you” (sit tibi terra levis, shortened sttl).286 Although rituals and periods for mourning were well established in the societies of antiquity, there were also attempts to set them aside. The mourning periods could be suspended in the Roman context as an allowance for special celebrations. For example, in 17 BCE “women’s mourning was suspended for the celebration of the once-a-generation Secular Games.”287 Similarly, in 37 CE “the emperor Caligula, desperate for everyone to join in some theater celebrations, ‘postponed all law suits and suspended

36  Paul and death mourning,’ which allowed women who had lost their husbands to marry before set time, unless they were pregnant.”288 As we shall see in coming chapters, such cultural features may have inspired the early Christ-believing community to alternative interpretations of taxing situations.

Notes 1 Clark-Soles 2006, 87. 2 That is, as involving threat, challenge, loss or harm to the person, or to significant values or practices of the person; Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 21; see further below. 3 See Lazarus 1999, 111; Uggla 1999, 170–71; Pargament 1997, 117–18. 4 Pargament 1997, 99–104. Psychological theory can be used as an aid to achieve a critical distance, when trying to interpret the public or private expressions of oneself or another human being, while also leaving a door open for the possibility that the theories may need to be analyzed and developed themselves. 5 Rollins 1999, 92. 6 See Rollins 1999, 61–74. 7 Theissen 1987. Theissen’s work has been criticized for employing “psychological concepts pragmatically, eclectically and piecemeal” (and I would agree with this criticism); Miell 1990, 571–72. 8 Callan 1990, 101, 113. Callan does not apply a process perspective, selects passages in Paul haphazardly, and the situational aspects of Paul’s appraisals are not taken into account; Callan 1990, 101–22. 9 Callan 1990, 114. 10 Kastenbaum 2006, 180–82. 11 For a survey, see Peace 1999, 43–50. 12 Scroggs 2002; Rubenstein 1972. Both use Freudian perspectives; Scroggs uses the later Freud as interpreted by Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcus. 13 Benyamini 2012, xiii. 14 Segal 1990. 15 Blessing 2004, 165–91. 16 Mitternacht 2004, 193–212. 17 Bash 2004, 149–63. 18 Syreeni 2004, 63–86. 19 Savage 1996. 20 Harvey 1996. 21 Lim 2009. Lim’s approach is narrative, and sparse attention is given to psychological aspects. 22 Welborn 2011, 547–72. 23 van Os 2011, 173. 24 Beck 2002, 103–4. Beck’s study is devoted to Paul’s life and extensive work, related to personality theory. 25 Wikell 2005. 26 Barton 2011, 571–91. 27 Exum & Clines 1993, 18. Rollins makes a similar distinction between the psychological context of the text, that is, psychological aspects relating to the author/audience, and the psychological content of the text, that is, what the text may convey concerning psychological issues; Rollins 1999, 93–94. 28 Rollins 1999, 115–16. 29 The field of psychology of biblical personalities has developed along two lines: analysis of literary depictions of biblical personalities (e.g., Adam, Eve, Abraham,

Paul and death 37 Jacob, Job, and Judas), and analysis, based on hints in texts written by biblical persons themselves; see Rollins 1999, 127. 30 See Rollins 1999, 127–30. 31 See Kille 2001, 18. 32 Schneiders 1991, 165–66. 33 Schneiders 1991, 166. 34 Schneiders 1991, 166. As Schneiders comments, “[s]omeone who proposes to do a feminist interpretation, for example, must know feminist theory and methodology and operate responsibly within that context. Conversely, a feminist interpretation cannot be invalidated on the grounds that it is not, for example, primarily historical. It must not misuse historical methods or be incompatible with what can be established by such methods, but it cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it approaches the text differently.” Schneiders 1991, 166. 35 Kille 1997, 70–74. 36 Kille 1997, 70–74. 37 Rollins 1999, 94. 38 Kille 1997, 70–74. 39 The integrity of the letters will be discussed below. 40 Reed 1997, 408. 41 Cf. Schneiders 1991, 113. 42 Ricoeur 1993, 61. 43 Cf. Reed 1997, 51–53. 44 Crossley 2013, 109–29. 45 See Schneiders 1991, 166. 46 Ellens 2004, 282. 47 Ellens 2004, 277–87. 48 Cf. Rollins 1999, 172; Syreeni 2004, 63. 49 One of the aims of psychology is to understand and describe the processes of the psyche and to lift experiences – sometimes painful ones – from the subconscious level to consciousness. This understanding, it is hoped, can provide a starting point for an individual to move toward a somewhat better life; see Uggla 1999, 282–84. The concept of “better” can be framed in different ways: as happier, easier, more productive or fruitful, more mutually organized relationships, or something else; cf. Pargament 1997, 90–127. 50 Lazarus 1999, 237–43. 51 Pargament 1997, 2007. 52 Cullberg 1993; see also Kübler-Ross 2001; Parkes 1998; Bowlby 1998, among others. 53 A deferring coping style is when a person assumes that the situation cannot be solved or handled without the intervention of a third party (which could be God, medical experts, or someone else). A self-directing approach is when a person relies on herself, rather than someone else. A collaborative approach includes that the person cooperates with other active partners in coping; Pargament 1997, 180–83. Pargament develops these terms mainly in relation to the coping person and his or her attitude toward God, but I will use the terms in a more open sense, as in collaboration with God or someone else, for example fellow believers. 54 Keshgegian 2000. 55 Cf. Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 21. 56 Pargament 1997, 32. 57 Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 21. 58 Pargament 1997; followed by a more practically oriented study in 2007. Although the concept of religion is marginalized in most Western societies, this

38  Paul and death does not mean that the function, or object of religion is marginalized. The word “religion” derives from the Latin religare which means “to bind” and, traditionally, religion constitutes the body of ideas and practices which bind society together; see Parkes et al. 2003, 10. 59 Pargament 2007, 53. 60 Pargament 1997, 91–92. 61 Pargament 1997, 32. 62 Pargament 1997, 111–17. 63 Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 31. 64 See Pargament 2007, 224. 65 Pargament 1997, 114. 66 Lazarus 1999, 34. 67 Lazarus 1999, 33. 68 Lazarus 1999, 33. 69 Lazarus 1999, 242–43. 70 Lazarus 1999, 237–39. 71 Lazarus 1999, 235. 72 Lazarus 1999, 34–35. 73 Lazarus 1999, 34–35. 74 Pargament 2007, 135; Pargament 1997, 114–17. 75 Lazarus 1999, 111. 76 See Lindemann 1944, 141–48. In the present investigation, grief work is considered a special case of psychological coping, namely coping in relation to harm/loss. 77 Cullberg 1993, 33–41; Lindemann 1944, 141–48. 78 Kübler-Ross 2001. 79 Kübler-Ross 2001, 34–121. 80 Originally the model had only three phases, with the first two phases counted as protest; Bowlby 1998, 85–96. 81 Parkes 1998, 31–106. 82 Spiegel 1978, 61; emphasis removed. 83 Spiegel 1978, 63. 84 Spiegel 1978, 66–70. 85 Spiegel 1978, 78. 86 Spiegel 1978, 70–80. 87 Pargament 1997, 112–17. 88 Parkes 1998, 80–88. 89 Kübler-Ross 2001, 34–121. 90 See e.g. Cullberg 1993, 33–41. 91 Pargament 1997, 99–104. 92 Parkes, Laungani & Young 2003; Hopkins 1985, 221–22. 93 Cullberg 1993, 36. 94 Freud 1959, 153. 95 See Spiegel 1978, 59–98. 96 Keshgegian 2000. 97 Keshgegian 2000, 121. 98 Keshgegian 2000, 121. 99 Keshgegian 2000, 151. 100 Keshgegian 2000, 152. 101 Keshgegian 2000, 122. 102 See e.g. Hope 2009, 42. 103 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 140. 104 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 140–43; see also 12–20, 130–32. 105 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 140–43.

Paul and death 39 06 Segal 1990, 13. 1 107 Segal 1990, 75. See also Mikael Sörhuus’s discussion of spiritual knowledge in Jonathan Edwards as embodied appraisals, which are cognitively calibrated and action-enabling in an adult’s emotional life; Sörhuus 2016, 108 See e.g Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 141; Carson et al. 2009, 283. 109 Pargament 1997, 111. 110 Ellens 1997, 207; see also Rollins 1999, 78. 111 Stephen C. Barton recognizes this capacity in social-scientific criticism; Barton 1997, 297. 112 As Ben Witherington commendably comments, “Paul was not a modern person, but neither was he a normal ancient person.” Witherington 1998b, 205. 113 See Ricoeur 1992, 115–25; Uggla 1999, 442–45. 114 Barrett 1994, 55. 115 Dunn 2006, 25. 116 See Jeffrey T. Reed’s discussion about reasonable expectations on coherency; Reed 1997, 408. 117 See Phineas (cf. Num 25:6–13); Ps 106:30–1; Sir 45:23; 1 Macc 2:26–54; 4 Macc 18:12), Saul (cf. 1 Sam 28:9), Elijah (1 Kgs 18:40; 19:14), and Jehu (2 Kgs 10:16); Haacker 2003, 23. 118 Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.253. 119 Haacker 2003, 23. 120 Tolmie 2011, 69–70; Witherington 1998b, 174. The indications in his letters will be discussed further below. 121 Halvor Moxnes puts it perhaps a bit too unilaterally, but the point is unmistakable: “In Mediterranean societies interaction between people is always characterized by competition with others for recognition. Everyone must be constantly alert to defend individual or family honor.” Moxnes 2005, 20; see also Witherington 1998b, 47. 122 Timothy B. Savage repines that so much scholarly attention has been devoted to understand Paul’s conversion, while so little to effort has been devoted to understanding how Paul’s sufferings may have influenced his life and theology; see Savage 1996. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul speaks of being constantly subjected to persecution; Gal 5:11. 123 Barnett 2008, 75; cf. Stendahl 1977, 18–35. For similar views as Barnett’s, see Hurtado 2003, 95; Segal 1990, 5–7. However, to call Paul’s turnabout simultaneously a calling and a conversion does not include that Paul shifted religion, but only that he changes his ways of being religious; see, for instance, Eisenbaum 2009. 124 Gaventa 2007, 41–50. 125 See especially Philippians, but also the other letters. 126 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 5. 127 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 4–5, emphases original, see also 12–18. 128 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 132. 129 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 131. 130 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 12–20, 130–32, 141. 131 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 141–43. This seems to resemble the account of Paul, and the advice that he gives to his addressees; see e.g. Rom 12:2; cf. 2 Cor 5:16, which also will be elaborated further below. 132 A possible interpretation of the occurrence of an oath is that Paul intends to cover up that he is indeed lying, but I hold this option less probable in this instance. As we may understand from the context in the letter, some other preachers have arrived to Galatia. Perhaps they gave their account of what had happened and also of what Paul had done; cf. Gal 1:8–9.

40  Paul and death 133 According to James D. G. Dunn, the ministry of Paul as an apostle could be divided into two phases in terms of his relations to the “pillars” of Jerusalem; the first one lasting up till the first conference in Jerusalem, as Galatians 2:1–10 bear witness of, and the second starting with the encounter with Cephas in Antioch, see Gal 2:11–21; Dunn 1988, xlii. 134 See e.g. Jewett 1979, or Riesner 1998, for a survey. 135 See e.g. Lüdemann 1984, 21–23; Riesner 1998, 7–28. However, the accounts of Paul in his letters are also always historically anchored and rhetorically framed as well. 136 Barnett 2008, 198. 137 See Margaret M. Mitchell, who focus on the account of John Chrysostom; Mitchell 2002, 367–74. 138 See Martin, 1995, xi–xvi; Witherington 1998b, 52–90. Decapitation was seen as the more benevolent form of execution – quick, clean and painless – and was the form of execution that was saved for the privileged strata of society; Peters 1995, 20. 139 Kahl 2010, xxiii; Jewett 2007, 47. 140 In Jewett’s earlier work, he finds that Paul was probably executed in March 62 CE; Jewett 1979, 102. 141 I do not see why 2 Thessalonians is not be included in the list, but at this point I prefer to keep with mainstream scholarly suggestions. 142 Malherbe 2004, 92; Riesner 1998, 414; Simpson 1993, 932; Jewett 1986, 60; Bruce 1982a, xxxiv–v. 143 See Sanders 2003, 60; Bultmann 2007, 190. 144 The phrase is most regrettable, since it has been used with anti-Semitic motives; see, e.g., Frank D. Gillard, who emphasizes that the content of verses 2:15–16 should be interpreted as a continuation of verse 2:14, to clarify which group of Judeans that are targeted by the close of verse 2:14; Gillard 1989, 481–502. The reading with ιδιους, “their own [prophets]” is less well attested, and the generally accepted rule to discriminate among versions is that a shorter text is preferable to a longer one; cf. Jewett 2007, 13. According to Tertullian, ιδιους was also an insertion made by Marcion, who had clear anti-Semitic motives; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.15.1. 145 Pearson 1971, 82–84. Many scholars oppose this suggestion; see e.g. Hurtado 2003, 157; Jewett 1986, 3. 146 Suetonius, Life Of Claudius 25; see Malherbe 2004, 178; Witherington 1998a, 540. 147 Josephus, Antiquities 20.102, 112–17; War 2.225–27; see Malherbe 2004, 178; Witherington 1998a, 540. 148 See Acts 11:28; Josephus, Antiquities 20.51, 101; see Malherbe 2004, 178; Witherington 1998a, 540. 149 Cf. Malherbe 2004, 178. 150 Bridges 2008, 55; Gillard 1989, 481–502. 151 Malherbe 2004, 178–79; Zeller 1979, 260. 152 The theme of imitation and affliction is announced in 1:6–9a, and taken up again in 2:13–16, while further elaborated in 2:18, 3:1–4, and so on. As for the syntax, verse 2:13 brings up the subject of thankfulness for the attentiveness of the Thessalonian Christ-believers. Verse 2:14 serves as an explanation of 2:13 (introduced by γὰρ). The transition from 2:14 to 15 is completely without obstacles. The contrast between the Judeans of 2:16b and the authors of the letter (partly Jewish) is emphasized with a contrastive particle (δέ) in the beginning of 2:17. All these features make sense, and they do not promote the interpretation that either the verses 2:13–16, or subdivisions, are of non-Pauline origin. See also Donfried 1984, 242–53.

Paul and death 41 153 It seems enough to, with Norman Beck, dislike the passage; Beck 1985, 46; cf. Jewett 1986, 41. 154 It is cited, with attribution to Paul, by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria; see Dunn 1993, 1. 155 See Witherington 2004, 3–6. 156 Bruce and Longenecker suggests a dating around 49 CE; Bruce 1982b, 55; Longenecker 1990, lxxxviii. Riesner holds 48 CE as a possible date, beside 50 CE; Riesner 1998, 322. 157 Martinus C. de Boer suggests that Paul wrote Galatians in 51 CE; de Boer 2011, 11. Frank J. Matera and Dieter Lührmann suggest that Galatians is written in the mid-fifties before Romans, but probably after 1 Corinthians; Matera 2007, 24–26; Lührmann 1992, 3. Witherington suggests a dating between 49 and 53–54 CE; Witherington 2004, 12. Thiselton and Murphy-O’Connor suggests a dating of Galatians to 53 CE; Thiselton 2000, 31; Murphy-O’Connor 1996, 184. Martyn also suggests that Galatians antedates the Corinthian correspondence; Martyn 1997, 20. 158 E.g., Paul’s escape from Damascus and king Aretas (2 Cor 11:32–33), his appearance before Festus and before Agrippa and Bernice (see Acts 25:1– 26:32), Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7), Gallio (Acts 18:12), and events such as Claudius edict, which refers to the Jews being driven out from Rome (Acts 18:2); see, e.g., Jewett 1979, 36–38, for a discussion. 159 The similarities in tone and style between Galatians and 2 Corinthians 10–13, as the similarities between the theme of Galatians and Romans, have been noted as evidence that Galatians is close in time to these letters; Lightfoot 1957, 49; cf. Dunn 1993, 8. 160 Thiselton 2000, 31; Murphy-O’Connor 1997, 184; Witherington 1995, 73; Dunn 1995, 15. 161 Jewett 1978, 398–444; Schmitals 1973, 263–288, among others. 162 Thiselton 2000, 37; Murphy-O’Connor 1997, 253; Mitchell 1991, 186–192; Fee 1987, 15–16, and others. 163 E.g. Thiselton 2000, 37; Murphy-O’Connor 1997, 253; Mitchell 1991, 186– 192; Fee 1987, 15–16; Jewett 1978, 398–444; Schmitals 1973, 263–288. 164 There are nearly complete manuscripts of the canonical version extant from about 200 CE [only 9:3, 14:15, and 15:16 are missing]; Thiselton 2000, 36. 165 Eriksson 1998; Mitchell 1991. 166 With Mitchell 1991, 186–192; Thiselton 2000, 37; Murphy-O’Connor 1997, 253; Fee 1987, 15–16. 167 Martin, R. 1986, xxxv. 168 See Thrall 2004, 76–77; Witherington 1998b, 324; Martin, R. 1986, xxxv. 169 Conzelmann 1975, 5. 170 Harris 2005, 2. One part of the letter is deemed possibly to be an interpolation of un-Pauline material, namely 2 Cor 6:14–7:1; see further discussion below. 171 Thrall 2004, 3–45; Hafemann 1993, 176; Martin, R. 1986, xlvi. For further exposition, see Thrall 2004, 47–49. For an “apology” for its unity on rhetorical grounds, see Long 2004. 172 See Harris 2005, 2; Thrall 2004, 3–49; Hafemann 1993, 176; Martin, R. 1986, xlvi, for further discussion. Chapters 8–9 contain two distinct appeals for the collection to Jerusalem, which could be interpreted as two different Pauline letter fragments, if opening greetings and closing farewells are lost or removed; Harvey 1996, 80. Chapter 10–13 attack the same questions as the first part but from a slightly different angle; see Bash 2004, 160; Joelsson 2009, 160. 173 Joelsson 2009, 145–162. Anthony E. Harvey calls it a “startling change of tactics and style” between the two major sections of the letter; Harvey 1996, 94.

42  Paul and death 174 Since no human is completely coherent, a document of such a length and character should not be expected to be completely coherent; see Reed 1997, 408. 175 Thrall 2004, 10. 176 Joelsson 2009. 177 Kruse 2012, 14. 178 Barrett 2001, 3. 179 Somewhere between 55 and 58 CE is suggested by Hultgren 2011, 3; also Esler 2003, 101. Jewett suggests winter 56–57 or early spring 57 CE, Jewett 2007, 18; also Riesner 1998, 322. Barrett suggests 55 CE; Barrett 2001, 5. For a survey, see Hultgren 2011, 3. 180 See Fitzmyer 1993, 57, for more detail. 181 See Kruse 2012, 2; Hultgren 2011, 3–4, 7–11, 23. 182 Jewett 2007, 8–9. 183 Hultgren 2011, 8; Jewett 2007, 8–9; Barrett 2001, 13; Cranfield 1975, 11. 184 Jewett 2007, 4–18, Barrett 2001, 10–13. 185 The opinion that these chapters do not belong to the original composition may owe more to a desire among some scholars to see Romans as an ahistorical, theoretical treatise, than as a carefully developed argument; see Horsley 2000, 12; Stendahl 1977, 11–12. 186 With Jewett 2007, 4–18, Barrett 2001, 10–13; Cranfield 1975, 11, and others. Robert Jewett gathers that the list of greetings in chapter 16 is likely to be original, while the sections of 16:17–16:20 and 16:25–27 are probably interpolations, which have been inserted at a later stage of transmission; Jewett 2007, 17–18, 985–1012. Charles E. B. Cranfield suggests that 1:1–16:23 is closest to the original form; Cranfield 1975, 11. 187 Many scholars suggests a Roman provenance; Fowl 2005, 9; Silva 2005, 7; Bockmuehl 1998, 25–32; Fee 1995, 1; O’Brien 1991, 26. John Reumann, however, argues in favor of Ephesus; Reumann 2008, 3. Other scholars argue in favor of Caesarea; see Hawthorne/Martin 2004, l. 188 See Reumann 2008, 3. 189 Marcion, Prologue to the Epistle to the Philippians; see O’Brien 1991, 19; Witherington 2011, 9; Reumann 2008, 13; Thurston & Ryan 2005, 29; Silva 2005, 5. 190 Silva 2005, 5–6; Witherington 1994, 25; O’Brien 1991, 21–26. 191 Kreitzer 2008, 3. Acts mentions imprisonment in Caesarea and Rome; Acts 23:33–26:32; 28:11–31. 192 Reumann 2008, 171–72, 740. 193 Fee 1995, 34–37; Witherington 1994, 26; O’Brien 1991, 20. 194 Witherington 1994, 24. 195 Cousar 2001, 141. See Greek: aporia and diaporesis; Latin: dubitatio or addubitatio. 196 Cousar 2001, 141; Croy 2003, 517–31 [earlier read as a paper at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1996]. 197 See Witherington 2011, 18–21. As Loveday Alexander puts it, the purpose of a “family letter” is the exchange of greetings and news; Alexander 1989, 93–95. 198 Peters 1995, 18–19.; see also Tovas 2006, 107–08. 199 See Witherington 1998b, 52–53. 200 See Adams 2008, 309–26. 201 Witherington 1994, 26; O’Brien 1991, 22–24. 202 Thurston & Ryan 2005, 29; Witherington 1994, 24. 203 Fee 1995, 1, 34–36; Witherington 1994, 26; 1998b, 325; O’Brien 1991, 26. If the Christ-believers of Philippi had sent Epaphroditus to care for Paul’s needs, this also implies that they had known about the life-conditions of Paul for some time; cf. Philippians 2:25, 30; 4:10–14.

Paul and death 43 204 “The only instance of imprisonment in the twelve tablets [of Rome] occurs in laws concerning debt. Debtors who could not or would not pay were to be held in private confinement by their creditors for six days and were to have their debts publicly announced on three successive market days, on the last of which they might be executed or sold into slavery outside the city.” Peters 1995, 14; see also 17. 205 Peters 1995, 16–21; Tovas 2006, 107. Plutarch, in discussing the importance of temperate speech, mentions that he has hundreds of stories of how an intemperate word has been something to regret for a long time. For example, a certain Sotades had to rot in prison for many years for his untimely talking; Plutarch, Moralia 11.A–C. 206 Hawthorne/Martin 2004, xxx–xxxiv; see O’Brien 1991, 10–18, for an exposition of the debate. 207 Reumann 2008, 9; see also Dewey et al. 2010, 165–96. 208 Reumann 2008, 3. 209 See O’Brien 1991, 11–12. 210 See Reed 1997, 131–37, 150; Osiek 2000, 16–17. 211 Reed 1997, 136; Garland 1985, 154–55. 212 See Holloway 2004, 52, or Reed 1997, 125–52, for a survey. 213 Reed 1997, 141–42. The section seems to be part of the conclusion, or peroratio, where Paul closes the letter with his own hand, as Harry Gamble suggests, which would explain its more personal tone; Gamble 1977, 145–46. 214 In the cultural mileu of antiquity, a gift was an expression of communality, but if not reciprocated equally, a token of submission; Garnsey & Saller 1987, 97; Reed 1997, 280. 215 See Holloway 2004, 52. 216 Lexical parallels appearing throughout the disputed sections include: χαίρω (1:18; 2:2, 17, 18; 3:1; 4:1, 10), κέρδος (1:21; 3:7), καρπός (1:22; 4:17), περισσεύω (1:26; 4:12, 18), πολιτευ – (1:27; 3:20), ἀπωλεία (1:28; 3:19), σωτηρία (1:28; 3:20), κοινωνία (2:1; 3:10; 4:14, 15), φρονέω (2:2, 5; 3:15, 19; 4:10), σκοπέω (2:4; 3:17), ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (2:5; 3:13, 14), μορφή (2:6, 7; 3:10, 20), ἡγέομαι (2:6; 3:7), ὑπάρχω (2:6; 3:20), σχήμα (2:7; 3:21), εὑρίσκω (2:7; 3:9), θάνατος (2:8; 3:10), σταυρός (2:8; 3:10), ταπεινόω (2:3; 3:21; 4:21), ἐπουράνιοι (2:10; 3:10), ἐπιγείον (2:10; 3:19), δόξα (2:11; 3:19, 20), κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (2:11; 3:8, 20), θυσία (2:17; 4:18), συναθλέω (1:27; 4:3), στήκω (1:27; 4:1), ἐπιποθ – (1:8; 2:26; 4:1). Thematic parallels include: call to unity (1:27–28; 2:2; 3:16), adversaries (1:28; 2:1–4; 3:2), exhortation to imitate (1:30; 2:11; 3:17), humility (2:1– 11; 3:1–11), emptying (2:5–11; 3:10), glorification (2:10–11; 3:11), progress in Christian life (2:12–18; 3:12–13), race motif (2:16; 3:12–16); Reed 1997, 140–41. As Loveday Alexander puts it, “the formalia of hellenistic letters give us no warrant for the dismembering of Philippians.” Alexander 1989, 98–99. The external evidence for a composite letter in Philippians consists of Polycarp’s mentioning of letters (pl.) from Paul to the Philippians; Polycarp, Phil. 3:2. However, this note may say nothing about the present letter. For discussion, see Reed 1997, 142–45; Bockmuehl 1998, 22; O’Brien 1991, 18. Clearly, no manuscripts support any of the partition hypotheses in regard to Philippians; Bockmuehl 1998, 24–25; Witherington 1994, 27; O’Brien 1991, 12. 217 Reed 1997, 412. 218 Reed 1997, 412–13. 219 Schneiders 1991, 165–66. 220 Kreitzer 2008, 3. 221 See Kreitzer 2008, 2–3, for an overview. 222 Jerome and John Chrysostom, and even the earlier so called anti-Marconite prologue to Philemon (if it is deemed as historically reliable); Kreitzer 2008, 3;

44  Paul and death see p. 4, note 5, for further references. The Prologue reads: “Philemoni familiares litteras facit pro Onesimo servo eius; scribit autem ei a Roma de carcere.” See Kreitzer 2008, 2. 223 Kreitzer 2008, 3. 224 See Kreitzer 2008, 2–3, for an overview. Even the location of the addressee is obscure, although Colossae has generally been presumed; Kreitzer 2008, 3. 225 See Schnelle 2005, 57. The meaning of πρεσβύτης has been discussed, see Kreitzer 2008, 23–24; Hooker 2003, 1448; see chapter on Philemon below. James R. Beck renders the term as “old man” without further ado. According to Beck, the word would indicate that Paul was at least fifty years of age when he wrote to Philemon; Beck 2002, 45; see also Schnelle 2005, 57. 226 With Schnelle 2005, 57. 227 While Paul refrains from economical support elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor 9:15), his need is explicitly acknowledged in his prison letters (Phil 2:25–30; Phlm 13). See Witherington for a similar comment concerning Philippians; Witherington 1998b, 325. 228 Lazarus 1999, 111; Pargament 1997, 294–95. 229 Hopkins 1985, 1. 230 Hopkins 1985, 1. 231 When Philippi was given legal status as if in Italy, its benefits included the exemption from certain taxes for its citizens and the right to civil lawsuits; Witherington 2011, 5; O’Brien 1991, 4. 232 Hopkins 2006, 14. 233 Hopkins 1985, 1; see Polybius 6.38. 234 Hopkins 1985, 1; see e.g. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 41.35; 48.42. 235 Hopkins 1985, 1–2. 236 Mass military service contributed to the impoverishment of many free Roman small-holders. Over time, thousands of Roman peasants lost their land; Hopkins 2006, 4. 237 Crossan 2008, 60. 238 Hardin 2008, 23. 239 Hopkins 1985, 212. For example, Trajan refused a provincial governor’s request to form a fire-brigade of 150 men in a provincial town on the grounds that whatever the original purpose, they would soon turn it into a political pressure group; Pliny, Letters 10:33–34. 240 Hopkins 1985, 2. The description by Seneca of his impressions from a visit to the arena in Rome serves as an illustration to this point. He arrived in the middle of the day, during the entertainment staged in the interval between the wild-beast show in the morning and the gladiatorial show of the afternoon. He expected to find some relief “from the sight of human blood.” Instead, he found himself watching the mass execution of criminals; Seneca, Letters 7.2ff. 241 Hopkins 1985, 1–2. 242 Moxnes 2005, 20–21; Malina 2001, 27–37; Witherington 1998b, 47. 243 In contemporary literature the exceptions to this rule are noted, while the normal practices are nothing to be remarked upon; see, e.g., Plutarch, Moralia, 10.C. 244 Moxnes 2005, 20–21; Witherington 1998b, 47; Malina 2001, 27–37. (Honor was unattainable for women, children, and servants.) 245 Witherington 1998b, 18. 246 Moxnes 2005, 20–21. 247 Horsley 2011, 34; 1997, 91–95. Cf. Seneca’s note on gratefulness: “Homocides, tyrants, traitors there will always be; but worse than all these is the crime of ingratitude.” On Benefits 1.10.4. Cicero expresses the same view: “To fail to repay [a favor] is not permitted to a good man.” On Duties, 1.48.

Paul and death 45 48 Moxnes 2005, 19–40. 2 249 Moxnes 2005, 28; emphasis added. 250 Horsley 2011, 34; 1997, 91–95. 251 I prefer to talk about the “so-called receiving part” since the labor of the clientele generally was exploited heavily. 252 Horsley 1997, 95; Lendon 1997, 19–24. 253 The burial clubs also served as social clubs, with regular feasts and business meetings. Providing a large jar of good wine was part of the entry fee; see Hopkins 1985, 213–14. 254 Hope 2009, 2. 255 “ ‘Do not put your back on reaching the boundaries;’ that is, when people are about to die and see the boundary of their life close at hand, they should bear all this with serenity and not be fainthearted.” Plutarch, Moralia 12.F. 256 Hope 2009, 2, 43. 257 Peters 1995, 16. 258 Peters 1995, 20. 259 Samuelsson 2013, 16–17; Elliott 1997, 168; Hengel 1977, 76. 260 Peters 1995, 14; see also 17–19. 261 Hope 2009, 60. 262 Davies 1999, 21. 263 Kyle 1998, 169. Mark, presumably the oldest of the canonical gospels, mentions that Joseph of Arimathea “taking courage, went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus,” as it seems a very brave step to take; Mark 15:43b; cf. Luke 23:50–53; Matt 27:57–60; Mark 15:42–46; Joh 19:38. 264 Hope 2009, 2; Kyle 1998, 169, 160; Hopkins 1985, 213. 265 As nailed to the cross, the victim was totally deprived of the possibility of being an agent. He could not protect, nor cover himself, nor communicate with others. While the story of Jesus is carefully told as an exception to this rule, the raising up of the cross made public exposure inescapable and mutual communication unattainable; on shame and men/women, see Conway 2008, 21–22; Moxnes 2005, 31–33. 266 Sampley 2003, 11–12. 267 Hope 2009, 180. 268 Hope 2009, 123. Legislation for mourning: Plutarch, Lives: Numa 12; Paulus, Opinions 1.21.2–5 in Hope 2009, 123. Note that Numa was alleged to have lived in the seventh century BCE, but his biographer, Plutarch, was writing in the second century CE. 269 Bloch 1980, 48. 270 Olyan 2004, 27; Bloch 1980, 48–49; see Jer 16:6; 41:5; Josh 7:6; Esther 4:3; 2 Sam 14:2; Gen 37:34; Ezek 24:1. 271 Bloch 1980, 48–51; Spiegel 1978, 320. The custom that friends came and encouraged the mourner to eat something is indicated in 2 Sam 3:35. See also the lamentation of the desolated mourner, whom no one would bring the bread for the mourner, or offer the cup of consolation; Jer 16:7. However, there are also indications of a tension between local and domestic practices and the official cult; see Hos 9:4; Deut 26:14; see Spiegel 1978, 320–21. Some mourning practices that are included in mourning behavior in some accounts, such as shaving the head and make cuttings in the flesh, are forbidden elsewhere; see Jer 41:4–5; 16:4–7; cf. Deut 14:1–2; Bloch 1980, 48. 272 Olyan 2004, 32. 273 This was done by “reversing normal, quotidian grooming behaviors, such as anointing, washing, laundering clothes, or binding the hair.” Olyan 2004, 32; cf. Bloch 1980, 48–51.

46  Paul and death 274 Olyan 2004, 32. Saul M. Olyan comments “[t]hat the seven-day period of corpse impurity coincides with the seven-day mourning period is hardly surprising.” Olyan 2004, 36. 275 Olyan 2004, 32; cf. Cicero, Letters to his Friends, 5.14, 16, 18. See Conway for an account of the cardinal virtues of self-control, wisdom, justice, and courage in the Romans setting; Conway 2008, 23. Notably, writing was the medium of the elite. Only a minority would have access to someone who could read. Even the epitaphs, though accessible to a broader group, were intelligible only to those able to decipher their message; see Hope 2009, 169. 276 Hopkins 1985, 222; Stone 1979, 57. 277 See Hope 2009, 42. According to calculations, the mortality rate of children during their first year was about 28 percent; Hopkins 1985, 224. 278 Hope 2009, 133. See e.g. Cicero, Letters to his Friends 4.16; 5.14. 279 It appears for example that the Christ-believers of Thessaloniki may have requested a consolation letter from Paul; see 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18. Philippians revolves mainly around the theme of consolation in the face of Paul’s own impending death, or his uncertain prospects; see esp. Philippians 1:12–26; 2:17–30. 280 Hope 2009, 133. See “Letter from Servius Sulpicius Rufus”: Cicero, Letters to his Friends 4.16. 281 Hope 2009, 133. See “Letter from Lucius Lucceius.” Cicero, Letters to his Friends 5.14. We have two consolation letters received by Cicero, and these “employ some of the standard arguments: all men are born to die, grieving is of little benefit, and time does heal. The letters also have a brisk, almost admonishing tone: Cicero must pull himself together.” Hope 2009, 133. 282 Hope 2009, 134. See Seneca the Younger, Letters 99. 283 P. Oxy. 115. 284 Hope 2009, 126; Conway 2008, 24–25. 285 CIL. 5.2283; cf. 1813; Hope 2009, 115; Hopkins 1985, 203. 286 Hope 2009, 101. 287 CIL 6, 32323, lines 110–14 (ILS 5050); see Hope 2009, 124. 288 Hope 2009, 124; see Cassio Dio, Roman History 59.7.5.

Bibliography A. Primary sources and translations Cassius Dio (1914–27). Roman History. E. Cary, trans. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1943). Letters to His Friends. W. G. Williams, trans. vol. 1. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1991). On Duties. M. T. Griffin & E. M. Atkins, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conzelmann, Hans (1975). 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Earlier published in 1969. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Hardin, K. Justin (2008). Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Josephus (1926–65) The Jewish War; Jewish Antiquities. H. St. J. Thackerary et al., trans. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Paulus, Opinions 1.21.2–5 Philo (1937). On the Special Laws. F. H. Colson, trans. vol. 7. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Paul and death 47 Plutarch (1949–76). Moralia. H. Cherniss and H. N. Fowler, trans. 14 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Plutarch (1982). Lives: Theseus and Romulus, Lycurgus and Numa, Solon and Publicola. B. Perrin, trans. vol. 1. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Seneca the Younger (2006). Letters. R. M. Cummere, trans. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Seneca the Younger (2011). On Benefits. M. Griffin & B. Inwood, trans. Chigaco/ London: University of Chicago Press. Suetonius (2001). “Claudius.” Kejsarbiografier. I. Lagerström, trans. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrands Klassikerserie, 228–261. Tertullian (1986). Against Marcion. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Dr. Holmes, trans. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 269–474.

B. Secondary literature Adams, Sean A. (2008). “Roman Citizenship and Understanding Acts 22:22–29.” Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. S. E. Porter, ed. Leiden: Brill, 309–326. Alexander, Loveday (1989). “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37, 87–101. Barnett, Paul (2008). Paul: Missionary of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barrett, Charles K. (1994). Paul: An Introduction to His Thought. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. Barrett, Charles K. (2001). The Epistle to the Romans. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Earlier edition published in 1957. Peabody: Hendrickson. Barton, Stephen C. (1997). “Social-scientific Criticism.” A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament. S. E. Porter, ed. Leiden: Brill. Barton, Stephen C. (2011). “Eschatology and the Emotions in Early Christianity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130: 3, 571–591. Bash, Anthony (2004). “A Psychodynamic Approach to 2 Corinthians 10–13.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 149–163. Beck, James R. (2002). The Psychology of Paul: A Fresh Look at His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Beck, Norman A. (1985). Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic in the New Testament. London/Toronto: Associated University Press. Benyamini, Itzhak (2012). Narcissist Universalism: A Psychoanalytic Reading of Paul’s Epistles. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Blessing, Kamilla (2004). “Differentiation in the Family of Faith. The prodigal Son and Galatians 1–2.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 165–191. Bloch, Abraham P. (1980). The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies. New York: Ktav Publ. Bockmuehl, Marcus (1998). The Epistle to the Philippians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A & C Black. de Boer, Martinus C. (2011). Galatians: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Bowlby, John (1998). Attachment and Loss: Loss: Sadness and Depression. vol. 3. London: Pimlico.

48  Paul and death Bridges, Linda McKinnish (2008). 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing. Bruce, Frederick F. (1982a). 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 45. Waco: Word Books. Bruce, Frederick F. (1982b). The Epistle to the Galatians; A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Bultmann, Rudolf (2007). Theology of the New Testament. Earlier published in 1951. Waco: Baylor University Press. Callan, Terrance (1990). Psychological Perspectives on the Life of Paul: An Application of the Methodology of Gerd Theissen. Lewistown/Queenstown/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen. Carson, David K., Herdley Paolini, Dale Ziglear & John Fox (2009). “The Unconverted Subconscious in Psychotherapy: Biblical Foundations, Psychological Explorations and Clinical Applications.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 37: 4, 267–293. Clark-Soles, Jaime (2006). Death and the Afterlife in the New Testament. New York/London: T&T Clark Conway, Colleen M. (2008). Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cousar, Charles B. (2001). Reading Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon: Smyth /Helwys. Cranfield, Charles E. B. (1975). A Critical end Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary. Vol. 1 & 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Crossan, John Dominic (2008). “Roman Imperial Theology.” In the Shadow of the Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance. R. A. Horsley, ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 59–74. Crossley, James G. (2013). ”A ‘Very Jewish’ Jesus: Perpetuating the Myth of Superiority.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 11: 109–129. Croy, N. Clayton (2003). “ ‘To Die is Gain’ (Philippians 1:19–26): Does Paul Contemplate Suicide?” Journal of Biblical Literature 122: 3, 517–531. Cullberg, Johan (1993). Dynamisk psykiatri. Earlier published in 1984. Värnamo: Natur och Kultur. Davies, Jon (1999). Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London: Routledge. Dewey, Arthur J., Roy W. Hoover, Lane C. McGaughy, Daryl D. Schmidt (2010). The Authentic Letters of Paul: A New Reading of Paul’s Rhetoric and Meaning. Salem: Polebridge. Donfried, Karl P. (1984). “I Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a Test Case.” Interpretation 38, 242–53. Dunn, James, D. G. (1988). Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38a. Waco: Word Books. Dunn, James D. G. (1993). Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunn, James, D. G. (1995). 1 Corinthians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Dunn, James D. G. (2006). The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Earlier published in 1998. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Paul and death 49 Eisenbaum, Pamela (2009). Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperCollins. Ellens, J. Harold (1997). “The Bible and Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Pilgrimage.” Pastoral Psychology 45: 3, 193–208. Ellens, J. Harold (2004). “The Bible and Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Pilgrimage.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 1. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 277–87. Elliott, Neil (1997). “The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 167–183. Eriksson, Anders (1998). Traditions and Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians. Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament, 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Esler, Philip F. (2003). Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress. Exum, J. Cheryl & David J. A. Clines (1993). The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. J. C. Exum & D. J. A. Clines, eds. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Fee, Gordon D. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians: New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fee, Gordon D. (1995). Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. (1993). Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday. Fowl, Stephen E. (2005). Philippians: The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Freud, Sigmund (1959). “Mourning and Melancholia.” Sigmund Freud: Collected Papers, vol. 4. Earlier published in 1917, trans. under supervision of J. Riviere. New York: Basic Books, 152–170. Gamble, Harry (1977). The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. Studies and Documents, 42. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Garland, D. E. (1985). “The Composition and Unity of Philippians. Some Neglected Literary Factors.” Novum Testamentum 27, 141–173. Garnsey, Peter & Richard Saller (1987). The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts (2007). Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press. Gillard, Frank D. (1989). “The Problem with the Anti-Semitic Comma Between 1 Thess 2:14 and 15.” New Testament Studies 35, 481–502. Haacker, Klaus (2003). “Paul’s Life.” The Cambridge Companion to St Paul. J. D. G. Dunn, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–33. Hafemann, Scott J. (1993). “Letter to the Corinthians.” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. G. F. Hawthorne & R. P. Martin, eds. Illinois: Varsity Press. Harris, Murray J. (2005). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commenatry on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. Harvey, Anthony E. (1996). Renewal through Suffering: A Study in 2 Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Hawthorne, Gerald F. & Ralph P. Martin (2004). Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 43. Earlier published in 1971, rev. and expanded by R. P. Martin. Nashville: Nelson Publishers.

50  Paul and death Hengel, Martin (1977). Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. J. Bowden, trans. London: SCM Press. Holloway, Paul A. (2004). Consolation in Philippi: Philosophical Resources and Rhetorical Strategy. Earlier published in 2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hooker, Morna D. (2003). “Philemon.” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. J. D. G. Dunn & J. W. Rogerson, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1447–50. Hope, Valerie M. (2009). Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London/New York: Continuum. Hopkins, Keith (1985). Death and Renewal: Sociological studies in Roman History, vol. 2. Earlier published in 1983. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopkins, Keith (2006). Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History, vol. 1. Earlier published in 1978. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horsley, Richard A. (1997). “Patronage, Priesthoods, and Power: Introduction.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 88–95. Horsley, Richard A. (2000). “Introduction: Krister Stendahl’s Challenge to Pauline Studies.” Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1–16. Horsley, Richard A. (2008). “Jesus and the Empire.” In the Shadow of the Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance. R. A. Horsley, ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 75–96. Horsley, Richard A. (2011). Jesus and the Powers: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hultgren, Arland J. (2011). Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hurtado, Larry W. (2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Jewett, Robert (1978). “The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School” Journal of the American Academy of Religion Supplement 46, 398–444. Jewett, Robert (1979). A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Jewett, Robert (1986). The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Philadelphia: Fortress. Jewett, Robert (2007). Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Joelsson, Linda (2009). “Hjälpa er till glädje: Psykologiska perspektiv på skam i Paulus andra brev till Korinth.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 74. Uppsala: Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet, 145–162. Kahl, Brigitte (2010). Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kastenbaum, Robert (2006). The Psychology of Death. 3rd ed., earlier published in 2000. New York: Springer Publishing. Keshgegian, Flora A. (2000). Redeeming Memories: A Theology of Healing and Transformation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Kille, D. Andrew (1997). Psychological Biblical Criticism: Genesis 3 as a Test Case. Ph. D. diss., Graduate Theological Union. Kille, D. Andrew (2001). Psychological Biblical Criticism. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Kreitzer, Larry J. (2008). Philemon. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

Paul and death 51 Kruse, Colin G. (2012). Paul’s Letter to the Romans: The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth (2001). On Death and Dying. Earlier published in 1970. London: Routledge. Kyle, Donald G. (1998). Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge. Lazarus, Richard (1999). Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York: Springer. Lazarus, Richard & Susan Folkman (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. Lendon, J. E. (1997). Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lightfoot, Joseph B. (1957). The Epistle of St Paul to the Galatians. Earlier published in 1865. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Lim, Yong Kar (2009). The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us: A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Suffering s in 2 Corinthians. London: T & T Clark. Lindemann, Erich (1944). “Symptomatology and Management of Acute Grief.” American Journal of Psychiatry 101, 141–8. Long, Fredrick (2004). Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Longenecker, Richard N. (1990). Galatians: Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books. Lüdemann, Gerd (1984). Paul – Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. F. S. Jones, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Lührmann, Dieter (1992). Galatians: A Continental Commentary. O. C. Dean, trans. Earlier published in 1978. Minneapolis: Fortress. Malherbe, Abraham J. (2004). The Letters to the Thessalonians. The Anchor Bible, vol. 32B. Earlier published in 2000. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Earlier published in 1981, revised and expanded edition. Atlanta: John Knox. Martin, Dale (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Martin, Ralph P. (1986). 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 40. Waco, Texas: Word. Martyn, Louis J. (1997). Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. Matera, Frank J. (2007). Galatians. Sacra Pagina. D. J. Harrington, ed., earlier published in 1992. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Miell, David K. (1990). “Psychological Interpretation.” A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden, eds. London: SCM Press, 571–572. Miller, William R. & Janet C’de Baca (2001). Quantum Change: When Epiphanies and Sudden Insights Transform Ordinary Lives. New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, Margaret M. (1991). Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mitchell, Margaret M. (2002). The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation. Earlier published in 2000. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

52  Paul and death Mitternacht, Dieter (2004). “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Social-Psychological Perspective.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 193–212. Moxnes, Halvor (2005). “Honor and Shame.” The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendricksons, 19–40. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome (1996). Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome (1997). 1 Corinthians: People’s Bible Commentary. Oxford: Bible Reading Fellowship. O’Brien, Peter T. (1991). The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Olyan, Saul M. (2004). Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Os, Bas (2011). Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian Origins. London: T & T Clark. Osiek, Carolyn (2000). Philippians Philemon. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Pargament, Kenneth I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Pargament, Kenneth I. (2007). Spiritually Integrated Psychotherapy: Understanding and Addressing the Sacred. New York: Guilford Press. Parkes, Colin Murray (1998). Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life. 3rd rev. ed., earlier published in 1972. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Parkes, Colin Murray, Pittu Laungani & Bill Young (2003). “Culture and Religion.” Death and Bereavement Across Cultures. C. M. Parkes, P. Laungani & B. Young, eds. Earlier published in 1993. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Peace, Richard V. (1999). Conversion in the New Testament: Paul and the Twelve. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pearson, Birger A. (1971). “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutro-Pauline Interpolation.” Harvard Theological Review 64, 79–94. Peters, Edward M. (1995). “Prison Before the Prison: The Antique and Medieval Worlds.” The Oxford History of Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society. N. Morris & D. J. Rothman, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–43. Reed, Jeffrey T. (1997). A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 136, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Reumann, John (2008). Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible, Vol 33B. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Ricoeur, Paul (1992). Oneself as Another. K. Blamey, trans., earlier published in 1990. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ricoeur, Paul (1993). Från Text till Handling. M. Fatton & B. Kristensson, trans., earlier published in 1984. Stockholm: Brutus Östling Bokförlag. Riesner, Rainer (1998). Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. D. Stott, trans., earlier published in 1994. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Rollins, Wayne G. (1999). Soul and Psyche: The Bible in Psychological Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress. Rubenstein, Richard L. (1972). My Brother Paul. New York: Harper & Row.

Paul and death 53 Sampley, J. Paul (2003). “Introduction.” Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. J. P. Sampley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1–16. Samuelsson, Gunnar (2013). Crucifixion in Antiquity. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sanders, Ed Parish (2003). “Paulus.” Den nye Paulus og hans betydning. T. EngbergPedersen, ed. Köpenhamn: Gyldendal, 60–82. Savage, Timothy B. (1996). Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitals, Walter (1973). “Die Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 64, 263–88. Schneiders, Sandra M. (1991). The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Schnelle, Udo (2005). Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Earlier published in 2003. M. E. Boring, trans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Scroggs, Robin (2002). Paul for a New Day. Earlier published in 1977. Philadelphia: Wipf & Stock. Segal, Alan F. (1990). Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press. Silva, Moisés (2005). Philippians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2nd ed, first published in 1992. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing. Simpson Jr., J.W. (1993). “Letter to the Thessalonians.” Dictionary of Paul and his letters. G. F. Hawthorne & R. P. Martin, eds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 932–939. Sörhuus, Mikael (2016). “Spiritual Knowledge as Embodied Appraisals: A Reading of Jonathan Edwards from en Emotion Theory Point of View.” Issues in Science and Theology: Do Emotions Shape the World? D. Evers, M. Fuller, A. Runehove and K.-W. Saeter, eds. Switzerland: Springer, 223–234. Spiegel, Yorick (1978). The Grief Process: Analysis and Counseling. Earlier published in 1973. E. Duke, trans. Nashville: Abingdon. Stendahl, Krister (1977). Paulus bland judar och hedningar. Earlier published in 1976, B. J. Stendahl, trans. Falköping: Gummessons. Stone, Lawrence (1979). Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800. London: Penguin. Syreeni, Kari (2004). “Coping with the Death of Jesus: The Gospels and the Theory of Grief Work.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 63–86. Theissen, Gerd (1987). Psychological Aspects of Pauline Theology. Earlier published in 1983. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Thiselton, Anthony (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thrall, Margaret E. (2004). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. First published in 1994. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Thurston, Bonnie B. & Judity M. Ryan (2005). Philippians and Philemon: Sacra Pagina Series. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Tolmie, D. Francois (2011). “Violence in the Letter to the Galatians?” Violence in the New Testament. P. G. R. de Villiers & J. W. van Henten, eds. Leiden: Brill, 69–82. Tovas, Sofia Torallas (2006). “Violence in the Process of Arrest and Imprisonment in Late Antique Egypt.” Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices. H. A. Drake, ed. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 103–112.

54  Paul and death Uggla, Bengt Kristensson (1999). Kommunikation på bristningsgränsen: En studie i Paul Ricoeurs projekt. Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposium. Welborn, Laurence L. (2011). “Paul and Pain: Paul’s Emotional Therapy in 2 Corinthians 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 in the Context of Ancient Psychagogic Literature.” New Testament Studies 57, 547–570. Wikell, Anna Samuelsson (2005). Creating Identity in a Situation of Suffering: An Analysis of Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in a Social-Cognitive Perspective. Unpublished License Dissertation, Uppsala University, Theological Faculty. Witherington, Ben (1994). Friendship and Finances in Philippi: The Letter of Paul to the Philippians. The New Testament in Context. Valley Forge: Trinity Press. Witherington, Ben (1995). Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Witherington, Ben (1998a). The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Witherington, Ben (1998b). The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press. Witherington, Ben (2004). Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. First published in 1998. London: T & T Clark International. Witherington, Ben (2011). Paul’s Letters to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Zeller, Dieter (1979). “Christus, Skandal und Hoffnung. Die Juden in den Briefen von Paulus.” Gottesverächter und Menschenfrinde? Juden zwischen Jesus und früchristlicher Kirche. H. Goldstein, ed. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 279–302.

2 Coping with death in Paul’s early letters

Starting with 1 Thessalonians and Galatians, we will follow the relative sequence as suggested above through 1–2 Corinthians, Romans, and closing with Philippians and Philemon. We focus on one letter at the time, dealing with each letter as an “individual,” that is, as having its specific errand and its own rhetorical and historical situation. The perspective of psychological coping offers a way to discern the letters as expressions of subjective appraisals in specific situations, and therefore, each letter will be introduced with a brief discussion of the letter’s historical and rhetorical situation. Then the passages about the death of contemporary persons will identified before the proper analysis of Paul’s attitude toward death begins.

1 Thessalonians: Keep with the goals The oldest among Paul’s letters, 1 Thessalonians deals with death in its most blatant manner; some of the Thessalonian Christ-believers have died, and the remaining part of the group wants to know how to think about it (4:13– 18). Paul maintains that the bereaved should not mourn as those who have no hope and the loss itself is merely acknowledged. However, the deaths of the Thessalonians are explicitly related to the deaths of Jesus and the prophets, and Paul also targets a particular group of Jews with accusations1 (2:13–16; cf. 5:10). In this context, Paul depicts his own situation and that of his fellow workers in similar terms as that of the afflicted Christ-believers of Thessaloniki. Paul and his fellow workers have also been suffering persecution (2:2; 3:3–4, 7; cf. 1:6; 2:14; 3:3). They close their letter to the Thessalonians with a prayer that the remaining part of the Thessalonian assembly be preserved whole in spirit, soul, and body until the coming of the Lord (5:23). Historical and rhetorical situation The prosperity of Thessaloniki as a city depended on the goodwill and patronage of the emperor. It did not have the status of being a Roman colony, that is, its citizens were not granted the same privileges as the citizens

56  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters of Rome, but it was for the time being a “free” city. It was allowed to be almost self-governing, and was granted various tax concessions unlike the rest of the province.2 However, in recent history they had experienced how easily the tide may turn. During the reign of Tiberius, they filed grievances to the emperor about the tax burden,3 but their complaint was turned against them. Tiberius recalled their governor and made Macedonia an imperial province in 15 CE.4 In 44 CE, Claudius reversed the decision of Tiberius and made Macedonia a senatorial province once again.5 The city’s authorities could therefore clearly not “allow major disturbances created by minorities, especially those involving a superstitio which had created disturbances elsewhere in the empire (see Acts 17.6a).”6 The same Claudius who restored the region of Macedonia as a senatorial province had also written to Jews in Alexandria in 41 CE, telling them to stop fomenting trouble, and he called them a plague throughout the empire.7 First Thessalonians is probably the oldest document we have from the early Jesus-movement.8 Abraham Malherbe, Robert Jewett, and others suggest that 1 Thessalonians was written from Corinth in 50 CE.9 It has been described as an epideictic discourse,10 which “celebrates that which is present, and attempts to inculcate an attitude of awe, respect, dismay, alarm and even wonder in the listener in regard to these realities.”11 The letter is quite short compared with other letters by Paul. The sender of 1 Thessalonians is presented as a collegium of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, with no further descriptions or epithets (1:1). Does this imply that we hear a cooperative piece of communication, or is one voice coming through more than the others? Since Paul is mentioned first, and we have several extant letters by Paul – but none by the others – it seems reasonable to deduce that he is the main author who was dictating the letter, perhaps with the assistance of the others.12 It is, however, also reasonable to presume that Paul was dictating with a collective sender in mind, albeit a single voice comes through in some passages (e.g., in 1 Thess 3:5, where Paul admits that he himself could not endure the situation).13 For the sake of simplicity, I will occasionally talk about the sender as “Paul” in the following account, while keeping the presence of a collective sender in mind. The immediate concern of Paul and his fellow workers in 1 Thessalonians is the commitment of the Christ-believers of Thessaloniki, that they might be “shaken by the afflictions” (σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν; 3:1–3). When he “could not endure any more,” Paul sent Timothy while he himself stayed in Athens (3:5, 1–3). The report Timothy returned with is abbreviated as “good news,” although including that some of the Thessalonians had died (3:6–13; cf. 4:13–18). The genre of the passage that deals with these deaths is not commemoration but consolation/admonition – not even the names of those who have died are mentioned (4:13–18). In 1 Thessalonians, Paul and his fellow workers do not primarily fear that some of the Thessalonians could have been hurt, or killed, but that their labor could be in vain (3:6–8, cf. 1:5). In other words, the fear of apostasy is expressed throughout the

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 57 letter, but never the fear of demise (3:1–5). Paul gives priority to the survival and integrity of the group, prior to the survival of its individual members.14 The situation of the Thessalonians is described elsewhere as involving persecution (2:13–17; 1:6), yet the Thessalonians are encouraged to continue and do even more (4:1–5:24). In the letter, Paul speaks of the addressees having “turned away from the idols” (1:9), which, if the letter correctly reflects the actual circumstances, implies that the addressees had turned their back on some affiliations to which they previously claimed loyalty, could it be the emperor or local deities. If this was the case, this changed attitudes could probably be interpreted as an insult by some of their previous in-groups. The acts and deeds of the more prominent citizens were probably more scrutinized than others, but persons with lesser social status were also more vulnerable to the attitudes of surrounding society. Such acts of “turning away” would probably not have gone without consequences, if noticed, regardless of social position. The customary rules of the challenge-riposte game assumed that any offense or harm should be repaid with a similar offense or harm.15 Moreover, acts of loyalty with an outsider such as Paul would likely have been suspicious to many.16 For this reason, having contact with an “apostle to the nations” – or for that matter being an apostle to the nations – was most likely at times a perilous endeavor (cf. 1 Thess 1:1–2:2). Claiming loyalty with such an apostle would easily have been interpreted as a challenge to already existing family ties and bonds of fides. The letter bears witness to Paul’s strained relations also to some Judeans of influence in Jerusalem. His choice of affiliation with the Christ-believers was likely interpreted as an offense by some of his kin too (2:15–16). Hence, the news of the faithfulness of the Thessalonians is depicted as a comfort to Paul and his fellow workers in their present situation, which is characterized by affliction and distress as well (ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει ἡμῶν; 3:7). Death in 1 Thessalonians The death of contemporary persons is an inevitable issue of 1 Thessalonians. Jesus has died (2:15; 5:10), some of the Christ-believers in Judea have died (2:15), and some of the Christ-believers in Thessaloniki have died (4:13–18). The present situation of Paul and his fellow workers is depicted in terms of conflict and persecution (2:2; 3:7). As Ernest Best puts it, in 1 Thessalonians “persecution is normal.”17 The persecution against the Christ-believers of Thessaloniki is at least conceptually related to the persecution against Jesus and the “prophets” in the eyes of Paul (1:6; 2:13–16; 3:3–4, cf. 5:10). The post-mortal fate of the deceased members of the Thessalonian group is also discussed extensively (4:13–18). The list of deceased friends, starting with Jesus and the prophets, concluding with the persecution against Paul and his fellow workers, appears to be a chronological list, with the early Christbelievers (perhaps such as Stephen) counted as prophets.18

58  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters While there is not much of detail in the letter, we may ask of what the persecution consisted. Kirsopp Lake, with Gordon Fee, suggest that ἐκδιωξάντων can be translated “drove us out” (see 2:15).19 Seen as a part of the greater corpus of Paul’s letters, the afflictions mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 2:15 could be the same events that are later referred to in 2 Corinthians 11:23b– 26, where Paul enumerates, among other things, “five times I received from the Judeans the forty lashes minus one” (11:24), as well as the experience of being “in danger from my own people” (11:26).20 “Danger from my own people” could refer to what happened to Paul in the Diaspora, but forty lashes minus one – a typical Judean punishment – could hardly have been executed elsewhere than in Judea against a Roman citizen “while such things could easily have happened in Judea, where in these kinds of ‘religious’ matters Romans tended to turn a blind eye.”21 In the words of Paul, the Thessalonian fellowship of Christ-believers “suffered the same things” (τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε) as the Judean Christ-believers had suffered from their countrymen (2:14). The Thessalonians “became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea,” precisely because they “received the word in much affliction” (1 Thess 1:6–8), and they also became imitators of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, who before coming to Thessaloniki suffered and were spitefully treated at Philippi (2:2).22 From the account of 1 Thessalonians, these types of “imitation” clearly involved risking and sometimes suffering a premature death (2:15; cf. 4:13– 18).23 In 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, the post-mortal fate of the deceased in Thessaloniki is understood to be of uttermost concern for the Thessalonian Christ-believers. The euphemism that some of them are “sleeping” (τῶν κοιμωμένων) might incorrectly give the impression that they have passed away peacefully. This is not necessarily the case, since the same expression is used in the account of Stephen’s death in Acts 7:60, when he was stoned to death. Hence, the dead in Thessaloniki may be victims of persecution.24

Avoiding death In regard to Paul’s attitudes toward death, 1 Thessalonians is a remarkable piece of correspondence. Paul encourages the Thessalonians not to think of that some of their fellow Christ-believers had died, and this, as it seems, in an acute phase of mourning and perhaps also confusion. The loss is not framed as a loss, but as a minor impediment, or indeed, not even an impediment but as a step toward greater glory. Those who have died are in fact privileged, according to Paul: they will rise first (4:16). Paul and his fellow authors proclaim in 1 Thessalonians that “God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we live or die (εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν) we should live together with him” (5:9–10). As Stephen C. Barton puts it, “the multiple crisis of loss and bereavement, of personal and social anomie, are overcome by an intensification of all the things that hold a Christian people together.”25

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 59 Paul admonishes the Christ-believers that they are not allowed to fall sleep, but have to watch and stay sober (5:6). Notably, he uses the same phrase as he could have used if he wanted to exhort them not to die (μὴ καθεύδωμεν). The coping style is deferring: God will solve all the problems both in the short and in the long run (cf. 5:9, 23). But the Thessalonian Christ-believers may have asked in the face of bereavement: What are the promises of God? Paul says explicitly – also in the present letter – that the Christ-believers will be saved from “the wrath to come” (cf. 1:10; 5:9). This could easily have been interpreted as a promise of salvation from political oppression, unless experience taught otherwise. No indication in the text clarifies that the wrath that the Thessalonian Christ-believers will be saved from (1:10; 5:9) is of another kind than the wrath that “has come upon the Judeans/Jews at last” (2:16).26 Expressions of aggression In 1 Thessalonians, a conservative approach is combined with occasional aggressiveness. Notably, the anger Paul expresses toward the group of Judeans who hinder them in preaching could, for good reasons, have been directed toward himself had he not changed his loyalties. Instead of dealing with the shame and guilt of former behavior, Paul seems to project those emotions onto others and thus expresses aggressiveness toward them. They are the ones to be ashamed of for not being what they should be, but perhaps claimed to be (such as “a light to those who are in darkness,” cf. Rom 2:19–20a). They are the ones to be accused for the act of directing aggression toward Jesus and his friends (cf. 1 Thess 2:14–16). Paul’s expressions convey that he cannot relate to his past experience in a moderate way. He appears unable to integrate certain aspects of himself and his personal history, and to instead project these onto others. Moreover, the Judeans who are accused might very well have been known to Paul personally, and may even have been prominent in his own previous in-group, as he also had been advocating oppression and persecution against the Christ-believers himself (cf. Gal 1:13–16; 1 Cor 15:8–9; Phil 3:4–6). In all probability, those Judeans – whose actions are refuted in 1 Thessalonians – simply continued to do what Paul previously did. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul meticulously expresses that the word of humans is not to be trusted (2:2–6; 5:3), while, on the other hand, personal experience counts for something (1:5–2:1). From this message we may gather that Paul himself had listened to a certain group of teachers and taken their advice – perhaps also in matters that involved persecution – which he later found to be erroneous. Krister Stendahl maintains that Paul did not have the “introspective conscious of the West,”27 but Paul’s new vocation nevertheless incited him to change both behavior and perspectives.28 His shrill voice, when he claims that these particular Judeans “do not please God” and are “against all humanity,”29 indicates a strong urge to distance himself from

60  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters persons possibly included in his previous in-group. However, an explicit conditional clause makes the claim historically anchored. Paul targets a particular group of Judeans who hinder the Christ-believers to speak, not the nation as such.30 From a coping perspective, it would be quite problematic if Paul had suggested that the Judeans as an entire ethnic group were responsible for the execution of Jesus without discrimination. The focus on an exclusive group within the nation is more sound and sensible. The discourse nevertheless holds traits of aggressiveness and most likely, disappointment. The passage of 2:13–16 carries the traits of demonization of others,31 and, as Yorick Spiegel puts it, “[b]esides protest and complaint, the search for the guilty constitutes an aggressive defense mechanism.”32 As noted by Spiegel, there also seems to be a tendency “among adults, at least in the regressive stage of grief or in other crisis situations, to direct these reproaches against a concrete person rather than against abstract social conditions or an incomprehensible divine order.”33 In this passage, Paul forcefully places the guilt on a third party, namely those who hinder himself and others to preach the gospel (cf. Gal 1:15–16; 1 Cor 15:8, etc.). As indicated above, the aggressiveness in these verses may also emanate from disappointment, and from projected guilt.34 When a person tries to cope with a trauma, or a stressful encounter, experiencing some sense of guilt for the current situation is a complicating circumstance. Another such complicating circumstance is when the event is not closed but continues to evolve in one way or another. The rhetorical situation, as depicted in 1 Thessalonians, is notably that of ongoing persecution and conflict (see 2:14–16; 3:4). Aggression often evokes aggression in others. If prominent persons of Paul’s former in-group related to the deviants of their time with persecution (cf. 2:14–16), this persecution could result in despair, aggressiveness, and if means were available, counter-persecution.35 Paul fears that the Christ-believers of Thessaloniki were exposed to similar persecution and that they had given in to despair (3:3; cf. 3:5). However, the consoling address in 1 Thessalonians about the coming of the Lord has a certain ring of triumph and aggressiveness to it (cf. 4:16–17). Parousia was a term employed for the triumphant entry of a king visiting a city (cf. 4:15).36 Some would go out to meet the king, or some other official, expecting rewards, and some would hide inside the city, expecting punishment. The archangel, who is mentioned in this context, was also associated with judgment and measurement (cf. 4:16).37 The trumpet was associated with war and with ceremonial announcements,38 and not, for instance, with mourning (as compared with flutes).39 The images are clearly chosen to persuade, not leaving any lingering hesitation. Fear would naturally be a possible response to the present persecution, but the aggressiveness in these metaphors indicates that Paul appraises the situation as something that could be – and should be – dealt with: a threat that was possible to overcome.40 They need “the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation,” and

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 61 these are also provided for them (5:8b). Fellowship is also a resource, as the news of the steadfastness of the Thessalonians is said to encourage Paul and his fellow workers in their own afflictions (3:7–8). The guilt of survival? The current circumstances are depicted as posing a threat against the steadfastness of the Thessalonian congregation, and these threats are coming both from the inside (shaken by afflictions/σαίνεσθαι; 3:3) and from the outside (afflictions endured/ἐπάθετε; 2:14).41 The fact that Paul was not there to support them when persecution accelerated is another prominent theme of the letter (2:17–3:13). Paul claims to suffer afflictions elsewhere (see 3:7). He emphasizes that he worried (3:1–5), he was hindered by Satan (2:18), he and his fellow workers endure afflictions elsewhere (2:2; 3:7), and he had by no means forgotten about them (2:19–20; 1:2; 5:26–27). However, he was not there to support them when things went from bad to worse. Even while they were present in Thessaloniki, they saved no effort to not become a burden to them (2:9). They were prepared to give their own lives for the Thessalonians, because they “had become dear” to them (2:8), which, however, they did not. They were not there to support the Thessalonians when the persecution escalated (1:6; 2:14; 3:3), nor when some of the Thessalonians died (4:13–18). Paul’s emphasis on his commitment could be interpreted as an indication of what has been called the “guilt of survival”42 (i.e., a sense of guilt toward the deceased, and/or the bereaved). Possibly, Paul and his coworkers did not imagine that things could go as badly as they did in Thessaloniki, and they were not there to sustain the Thessalonians. The news of the deaths may have come as a shock also to them. Alongside with senses of guilt and a continuing strain, a third complicating circumstance may be when the situation one tries to cope is unpredictable. In 1 Thessalonians, even unpredictability is predicted (5:1–4). Paul claims that he said from the start that they would suffer tribulation (ὅτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι; 3:4). This prediction may serve as a means to reduce guilt – ­ conveying the impression that since the Thessalonians knew in advance, there is no justification in complaint – and it can also serve as a means to reduce stress, while giving the impression of maintained control.43 Even when everything seems to go the wrong way, a prediction may suppress feelings of chaos and thereby relieve psychological pressure (cf. 4:14–18). A central characteristic of apocalyptic discourse is that God is in control even if every impression seems to contradict this belief.44 When Paul emphasizes that they knew in advance that they would be afflicted (3:4), the declaration of shared awareness may thus be an attempt to share the guilt of survival. It is however possible that, in spite of their prediction, not even Paul and his fellow workers were prepared to handle the deaths among the Christ-believers in Thessaloniki while composing the letter.

62  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters Fear for apostasy The acknowledgment of the bereavement is minimized in 1 Thessalonians, and the steadfastness of the gospel is emphasized (4:13–5:11, 24). The Thessalonians must not perceive that their world of belief is falling when ill fortune befalls them (4:13–18). In terms of Pargament’s theory of coping strategies, the strategy suggested throughout the letter is conservation of both means and ends, which is the first strategy in Pargament’s matrix.45 To do more of the same and keep the same goals is generally the first response to bereavement or to threat of bereavement. The emotion of sorrow is nowhere communicated in 1 Thessalonians, but aggressiveness (2:14–16) combined with strategies to evoke alertness and a sense of resourcefulness (1:3–2:12, 5:1–11, 23f). The explicit intention of the passage about their dead friends is to provide the Christ-believers of Thessaloniki with the means to comfort and admonish each other (παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους; 4:13–18). The meaning of παρακαλέω includes both the dimensions of comfort and admonition. F. F. Bruce suggests that the sense of comfort is uppermost in this context,46 but clearly in line with antique consolation tradition, Paul also puts strong emphasis on admonition.47 He offers a reason – hope – to pull themselves together (to not mourn; ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε; 4:13). His comfort/admonition conforms with the comfort provided by an upper-class tradition of consolation letters, which tends to suggest that grief is pointless, and as some of the letters in this genre also emphasize, consolation can be found in one’s duties (cf. 1 Thess 1:3, 6–8; 5:4–22).48 While consolation from official duties is a kind of distraction, since attention is directed away from the bereavement to other things that may occupy the mind, the hope in resurrection serves as a means to divert the attention from the bereavement and direct it toward the coming of the Lord from the heavens “with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God” (4:16). Hope consists in the knowledge that the postmortem fate of the dead is in safe hands. The Lord will descend, and the dead in Christ will rise even before those who are still alive. In this sense, Paul adopts a deferring coping style in crucial matters.49 The living shall be caught up together with the deceased in the clouds to be with Jesus in the air (4:16–17). Notably, the position of the deceased is even depicted as privileged: they will rise first (4:17).50 The authors of 1 Thessalonians also offer the addressees a broad range of duties (5:11–22, 25–27; cf. 2:1–12). Impeded mourning In 1 Thessalonians, the loss of the Christ-believers is not acknowledged, and their mourning also appears to be prohibited (see 4:13–18). While the strategies employed to express mourning were quite specific (e.g., wear sackcloth, avoid clothing in purple or white colors, fast, sit or lie on the ground, walk barefoot, or cut or tear one’s hair and garments), the neglect of such

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 63 practices was often perceived as a severe offense toward the deceased.51 From a psychological perspective, the adoption of certain behavior to express grief can be seen as a means of getting the mourning process started. As Abraham P. Bloch puts it, “[t]radition acts to contain rather than suppress normal grief so that it does not overwhelm or destroy the mourner.”52 Mourning periods and mourning practices were regulated quite carefully, and then, we may ask, what did Paul intend by the phrase “do not mourn (μή λυπῆσθε) as those who have no hope” (4:13)? Were mourning periods and practices actually to be suspended? How many had died, and how many were left to sustain the bereaved? Did the Thessalonian Christ-believers have access to the social and financial resources to allow the bereaved to withdraw from normal activity for a period? They had likely no assistance to expect from their previous in-groups, if persecution was carried out by their own countrymen (see 2:14). Furthermore, if persecution was undertaken by their former in-group, as the letter implies (cf. 2:14; 3:3–4), and some of the deceased were victims to legally sanctioned persecution, this also entails that customary mourning may have been prohibited by the local authorities.53 It is possible that Paul’s injunction to suspend mourning can be understood both as a concession to sparse resources, and as a justification for their involuntary neglect in honoring of the dead. If Paul attempts to inspire to another interpretation of their lack of mourning, namely their hope, this would testify of agency and resistance. As an allowance to extraordinary circumstances, as in the case of other custom-breaking events such as the imperial celebrations, mourning periods could indeed be suspended in the Roman context.54 Paul’s injunction in 1 Thessalonians seems to follow the same pattern. The Thessalonians should not mourn because they have access to hope; their bereavement is only temporary, and their honor and fellowship will be restored (4:13–18). Thus, Paul’s injunction to suspend mourning is in this perspective, related to Jesus’ return, no ignominy. It is to be associated with the resurrection of the dead and a triumphal gathering in the air (4:16–17). Still, from a psychological perspective the customary mourning – with mourning periods – can be understood as an aid to starting the mourning process, as offering a “container” for grief. Whether related to economical, political, or existential aspects of their situation, the injunction in 1 Thessalonians seems to imply that the mourning periods are not allowed to begin, neither in the official way, nor in a psychological sense. The Thessalonians are to keep going and by no means to stop and thereby venture the disintegration and the reintegration that is the essence of a mourning period, with its possible implementation of a reorientation.55 The afflictions of the Christ-believers in Thessaloniki are acknowledged by Paul as posing a potential threat to the steadfastness of the congregation (3:1:5, 4:13–18, cf. 5:16–18), and a thoroughgoing theme of the letter is how to preserve and enhance their commitment. The other side of the coin is that the practices of commemoration and mourning are neglected, or refused. Even the omission

64  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters of the names of the deceased serves one of the purposes of the letter, namely to extenuate the losses and encourage conservation. Paul does not want the Thessalonian Christ-believers to stop (in alarm/reaction), count their losses (processing), and reconsider their chosen path (recovering/reorientation).56 Paul and his fellow workers want the Thessalonians to continue as before, and to extenuate the severeness of their losses, and the persecution clearly serves this purpose (cf. 2:13). The acknowledgment of their losses, in explicitly mentioning the lost lives, may incite a coping process that eventually could lead them away from their commitment to Christ. Hope in preservation In 1 Thessalonians, the Christ-believers are to comfort each other with the knowledge that the deceased are not disadvantaged at the coming of the Lord (4:13–18), and Paul also offers other strategies for the survivors to cope with their bereavement without counting their losses. One of the most important of these resources is the hope that everything will be turned right again. Their hope is emphasized again and again (1:10; 2:19–20; 3:11–13; 4:13; 5:9–11, 23–24). Also the fellowship of the Christ-believers is described as an important resource also to Paul himself. The pressure on Paul and his fellow workers is relieved by the news about the faith and love of the Thessalonians (3:5).57 “Therefore, brothers and sisters, in all our affliction and distress we are comforted concerning you by your faith. For now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord” (3:7–8; see also 2:19–20). The letter is closed by a prayer that expresses hope in the fellowship of God and in God’s support: “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:23). Paul seems to carefully include all aspects of being a human: spirit, soul, and body.58 The whole human being, and all of them, are hopefully to be preserved until the coming of the Lord. This, however, seems to be a wish against odds. There is no indication in the letter that the conflict and persecution are decreasing (2:14). Nevertheless, God is someone to be grateful to whatever happens and whatever circumstances that occur. God is someone who loves, elects (1:4; 5:9), and is faithful (πιστός; 5:24). Therefore, there is no need to worry. The practical implications could be abbreviated as something like “even though it might seem troublesome, everything will be just fine; just stay constantly alert” (5:6–11). The coping strategies of the letter include community-oriented strategies, such as instructions for the local fellowship (4:1–5:22), but also intellectual strategies such as retrospection, prospection, and as mentioned above, prediction (1:2–2:16, cf. 3:4). The important message that could be drawn from this outline is that the Thessalonians are not abandoned;59 they are actually on the winning side.60 In the long run they cannot lose, although nothing seems to go their way at the moment. The appraisal of Paul and his co-senders is that it is possible to survive this

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 65 persecution with integrity as a group, albeit perhaps not as individuals (cf. 2:19–20). It is also held as possible that one can receive “a word from God” which has the power to incite transformation (2:13).61 Faithfulness is an important means to keep the course of the new stance, which is also emphasized throughout the letter (1:3; 3:1–8; 5:16–25). Simplistic thinking The letter of Thessalonians contains some simplistic thinking that becomes evident especially when Paul speaks of death and people dying. The Judeans who hinder the Christ-believers to preach are depicted as thoroughly bad and deserving punishment (cf. 2:14–16), while the Christ-believers, on the other hand, are on the right side of hope (e.g. 1:2–4). The initial mind-set after a major change of perceptions most commonly includes some sort of simplistic thinking, since it takes a great deal of effort to reconsider one’s position and perceptions and to adjust one’s behavior accordingly.62 Simplistic thinking may thus serve as an aid in the demanding process of transformation, helping the changer to keep the new course and to some extent relieve the mind from the perceptions of a complex world. After a major change, it is not at all uncommon that the former position is perceived as thoroughly bad, and the new one as equally thoroughly good. However, this letter appears to be dictated nearly two decades after Paul had his major change of perspectives, his experience of an encounter with the risen Jesus in a vision. Is it really relevant to speak of an initial period? I would like to make two comments on this. First, the features of simplistic thinking tend to recur in stressful situations. A recent stressful experience may have caused Paul to react with regression. Second, old experiences may be encapsulated, and remain unprocessed, if the person has had insufficient resources to cope. Both options seem possible. If we focus on his experience of change and loss of physical security in relation to his quantum change, Paul would in a sense have had plenty of time to process his loss, but other situations may have turned up later. According to his depiction in Galatians, he went for three years to Arabia immediately after his christophany (Gal 1:17–18). Judea was probably not safe for him, which is a quite likely reason for his choice of route. If new stressful encounters arouse, this may have triggered old memories – and also old appraisals/strategies – especially if the current situation bore resemblance with the earlier ones (cf. 2:14). We do not know if we are talking about one coping process, or coping processes. If the situation with persecution and threats toward physical safety evolved, rather than extenuated, there may have been little or scarce time to reflect on and process these circumstances. If there were insufficient resources available for the hard work of psychological coping, the coping process must wait. The option that Paul adopts a more immature stance to support the Thessalonians in their situation of coping is less probable. It is generally through guiding – not regression – that people are supported. Admonition/

66  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters consolation with the capacity to relate to the loss can offer the bereaved the company of a possible role model who “proves” that it is possible to cope with losses,63 and I imagine that Paul offers the best support he can muster. In 1 Thessalonians, on the other hand, all negative or complicated emotions are silenced or projected unto other persons or other times. We may use the consolation letters of Cicero as an example for comparison. He comments on the admonishing nature of the consolation letters which he received after his loss of a daughter, that “there was much good sense in it, but nothing that could help me.”64 Before his own experience of severe loss, he had written numerous admonishing consolation letters himself, so he was well acquainted with the genre. On the other hand, a letter that empathetically refers to the loss, before trying to offer consolation, has in this respect better prospects in eventually moving the addressee beyond mere pain.65 According to Keshgegian, remembering suffering is the first task to make a disastrous memory redeeming,66 but redemption may be to aim too high when survival is at stake. If the pain is too great to be contained by the person or the fellowship, the emotion is better encapsulated and suppressed for the sake of survival in terms of continual functioning.67 The presence of anxiety, fear, and sorrow is recurrently indicated in 1 Thessalonians, but none of these emotions are expressed directly. If fear or anxiety is an underlying emotion to the letter, this also provides another reason why mourning is postponed. For good reasons the coping process following bereavement has been called grief work.68 Mourning requires that the bereaved person has the resources enough to acknowledge, react to, and process the loss. A continuing threat to physical safety generally makes such resources hard to attain. It is by no means impossible, but it will likely take more time to cope with a situation that involves continuous persecution. When a lot of resources go to keeping the present-day threats at bay, there may be literally no time to weep. Of course, we may wonder if Paul really was enduring afflictions, as he indicates in the letter (2:15; 3:7), or if this is a way to cover up the fact that he brought the Thessalonians into destruction but left safely himself (cf. 3:1–5)? Paul’s comment that he and his fellow workers also had experienced suffering and humiliation before they came to Thessaloniki appears to be trustworthy (2:2), as are the traits in other letters indicating that he was exposed to persecution soon again (see e.g. 2 Cor 11:23–27). However, if Paul was writing from Corinth, as Malherbe and Jewett suggest,69 he and his fellow workers may have been more anonymous and less targeted at that point in their endeavor.70 Finally, survival may be the number one concern, but survival can be construed in different ways. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul emphasizes again and again that survival is to keep the group of believers to remain faithful.71 The risk of disintegration is at hand (see 3:1–3). If the reasons to mourn are too severe and too complicated to handle, they may be kept away from the conscious self by means of different defense mechanisms.72 In 1 Thessalonians emotions of joy and thankfulness are recurrently expressed (1:2, 6; 2:13,

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 67 19–20; 3:6–10), but the expressions of grief or anxiety are told of in retrospect (2:2, 14–16; 3:1–5, 7) or suppressed (4:13). The call to rejoice always, and in everything be thankful to God, may certainly be challenging in the face of bereavement (4:13–18; cf. 5:16, 18). In 1 Thessalonians, Paul and his fellow workers avoid the issue of bereavement, even though it is clearly present, and they also avoid the expression of grief and sadness. A deferring coping style Aggressiveness is an emotion that relates both to the experience of being demeaned73 and the appraisal of a situation as a threat that is possible to overcome,74 and such expressions recur in the letter. As Richard Lazarus puts it, anxiety relates to “dangers to our ego identity, that is, who we are, where we are going, and the ultimate loss of our ego identity in death, which is why anxiety is referred to as the existential emotion par excellence.”75 Paul mentions that he could no longer endure the uncertainty of the whereabouts of the Christ-believers in Thessaloniki, and he therefore sent Timothy (3:1– 5). If an underlying existential threat is present when Paul dictates the letter, then this feature is decisively kept away from the surface of the discourse. As indicated above, it is possible that Paul’s presently endured afflictions elsewhere is more of a rhetorical feature to make less-disturbing his failing support to the Thessalonian Christ-believers. However, it is also possible that he was indeed experiencing persecution elsewhere and that his main strategy to keep fear, sadness, and anxiety from the surface was simply to increase the effort. As indicated, the initial strategy is generally to maintain the same goals and the same pathways as before, but with greater commitment. The emphasized message of 1 Thessalonians is that there is no need to worry; everything is going to be fine (4:18). The Thessalonian Christ-believers are merely to keep going and stand constantly alert (5:1–11). Since Jesus Christ has died for them, they shall also live together with him whether they live or die, Paul promises (5:10). Jesus has died for the sake of those who were loyal to him, in Paul’s depiction, and perhaps Paul’s expression conveys that Jesus had died instead of the Christ-believers as well. Impending death is a possible fate in 1 Thessalonians – as some of their friends had proven – but the authors understand themselves to be among those who “are alive and remain” until the day of the Lord (4:15). The letter is designed to make the congregation stay and remain a faithful community. If related to Keshgegian’s account of redeeming memories, we may note that the loss and the pain is not remembered in these passages.76 Paul goes straight to remember agency and resistance, and particularly God’s agency. It must be noted, however, that Keshgegian’s account focuses on the remembrance of painful events from the past, not on how to handle ongoing circumstances. 1 Thessalonians contains several references to ongoing persecution (1:6; 2:14–16; 3:1–4; 4:12–18). In some situations the most adequate strategy is to “shut off” the emotions for the sake of survival also

68  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters from the vantage point of psychological coping. To make this point clear, we may use the example of a burning house. The immediate situation is not the place nor time to stop and consider what this will mean for the rest of one’s life, nor to react emotionally to the situation, but the precipitating question is how to get out. In 1 Thessalonians, similarly, Paul’s main issue is to make the Thessalonian Christ-believers to “stay in” – also while some of them have died. Paul and his fellow workers want them to keep their commitment and hope in Jesus (see 1:3). They do not want them to hesitate or consider the costs of that commitment (3:1–4). In this context, Paul diminishes their losses, rather than emphasizing them (4:13–18), even though this strategy entails that also commemoration is minimized. As the situation appears in 1 Thessalonians, time is short, albeit no one knows how short (5:1–11). The deferring coping style is best understood in relation to the circumstances of pressure from surrounding society, and internal fears. Sadness and anxiety are decisively kept from the surface of the discourse, although these emotions most likely are part of the situation in the lives of both Paul and his addressees. Since all resources appear to be needed to keep the present threats at bay, the creative element of coping is kept at a minimum. The coping strategy is mainly to keep one’s mind on other business, such as the hope in the Lord’s coming (4:13–18), the victorious beginning of the gospel in Thessaloniki (1:5–10), previous successful fights (2:1–14), and the correct divine judgment over those who try to hinder the message to spread (2:14–16). Paul offers suggestions for internal healthy relations (4:1–12; 5:12–22), including the injunction that no one should render evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good, for themselves and for all (5:15). This may be understood in relation to their lack of resources – they do not have the means to fight back – but it may also be a position chosen in relation to spiritual revelations.

Galatians: Diverging goals and means While the tone 1 Thessalonians is occasionally agitated, the rhetorical style of Galatians continues in the same vein. The audience and the issues are different, but the emotional figure of aggression recurs and is emphasized. Paul begins the letter with cursing a fictive or factual opponent, and he asks the Galatians if he has become their enemy by telling the truth. In this letter, Paul adopts one set of behavior himself, and suggests another set to his addressees. He describes the fruits of the Spirit as “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal 5:22–23), an approach suggested to the addressees which occasionally appears far from the agitated tone of the letter itself. The cross of Jesus is a prominent figure in Paul’s speech, and also the symbol of violent persecution. Many deaths and lethal threats are mentioned in Galatians, and most of them are explicitly related to the violent and degrading execution of Jesus (1:3–4; 2:21; 3:13; see 5:11; 4:13–14;

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 69 6:12–13). Paul tells how he “persecuted the church of God beyond measure and destroyed it” (1:13). He also claims to be exposed to persecution himself to this very day (5:11; cf. 4:13–14). Third, in Paul’s depiction, some preachers who “desire to have a good reputation”77 avoid preaching Jesus as crucified because they themselves want to escape persecution (6:12–13). Thus, in the heart of the message of Galatians is the question of how to relate to the challenge-riposte game, with its implications of physical and verbal violence. As indicated above, Paul adopts one set of means to reach significant goals himself, and suggests another set to his addressees. Death is used as a metaphor to understand and dare the transformation that is incited by the entrance to, and the life within, the communal body of Christ Jesus. Paul even claims to have died through the law and been crucified with Christ (2:19–20; cf. 5:24). Historical and rhetorical situation In Galatians, Paul seems to line up with the imperial critics of the Gauls, when he accuses them of “foolishness” and “witchcraft” (cf. Gal 3:1). As Brigitte Kahl comments, the attitude among the Romans toward the Galatians was generally characterized by condescending prejudice and fear.78 Paul is agitated by some supposed or actual cases of disloyalty toward him and his gospel among the Galatian Christ-believers, or at least he chooses an aggressive rhetoric (see esp. 1:8–9; 3:1). It is difficult to identify the nature of the opposition, since we do not hear the voices of his opponents,79 but Paul believes that the gospel that is currently preached in Galatia is at odds with the gospel that he himself previously preached among them. His depiction of this other gospel is merely that it is “other” (1:6). However, this other gospel appears to include the incitement to circumcision of all male Christbelievers, and perhaps also the injunction to keep separate table-fellowships (Gal 2:11–14; 5:11–12; 6:12–15).80 The call for the male Christ-believers to become circumcised – to become Jews – threatens plurality, which Paul actively opposes.81 Let the Jews remain Jews and the Gauls remain Gauls, albeit Christ-believing Jews and Gauls. In Galatians, Paul offers a quite extensive – albeit of course rhetorically selective – account of his personal life, which may be an indication that it was his person more than his theology that was targeted by his opponents in Galatia (cf. 1:10–2:21).82 He claims to be “an apostle, not from people nor through people, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead” (1:1). In this context, he inculcates the point that he did not sit by the feet of the apostles of Jerusalem (1:16b–20), and he is therefore not subordinated to them. When he exclaims that “[n]ow concerning the things I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie” (1:20), the oath itself is an indication that there were other stories about him going around. He tells not only about the agreement which he reached with “those of reputation” among the Christ-believers in Jerusalem (2:1–10), but also of

70  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters how he later challenged Cephas in Antioch when Cephas did not want to eat with people from other nations (2:11–21). In Galatians, Paul defends his position mostly by means of attack. Withdrawal is unthinkable, and even to be temporally absent from Galatia appears to be a burden to Paul (cf. 4:15–20). As Dorothee Sölle describes the fear of replacement, “[a]nyone who replaces me treats me as dead” (cf. 1:6–9).83 We find no word about the messenger who gave Paul the news of the situation in Galatia, nor about the carrier who brought Paul’s letter back to Galatia. It is possible that the persons who provided Paul with information did not came to ask Paul for help, but rather conveyed a challenge toward him.84 The letter body is opened by a double anathema (1:8–9), which implies that the letter could be understood as an answer to a challenge, a riposte.85 The curse in question is a very serious matter. The recipients of the letter had two choices: either they could do as they were told, and isolate Paul’s opponents, or they could reject Paul’s authority. Doing nothing would be as active a choice as anything since a double curse could not be overlooked once it had been uttered; it had very practical implementations.86 Paul challenges the Christ-believers of Galatia (1:6–9; 3:1), although he mitigates the attack somewhat, calling them “brothers and sisters” again later on (3:15; 4:12, 28; 5:13; 6:1). Paul also emphasizes that, in their first encounter, the Galatians did not wrong him (με ἠδικήσατε; 4:12b). The aorist tense may be significant as it seems to refer to a distant event,87 or a closed event:88 at that time, they did not wrong him. Since then things have changed (4:15). By the close of the letter, Paul requests that the Galatians should not trouble him anymore (6:17a), which adds to the evidence that Galatians constitute a riposte,89 and conveys Paul’s wish to withdraw from the challengeriposte game himself, which he also wishes the Galatians to do (5:13–26).90 Justin K. Hardin makes his case that it was the imperial cult calendar to which the Christ-believers of Galatia were incited to adhere (cf. 4:8–11).91 For the sake of the present study, it is of lesser importance who undertook the persecution in Galatia. The important issue is whether the Christ-believers of Galatia and Paul found themselves in the situation of serious threats against their physical safety. Therefore, we must linger for a moment on the question of how the physical safety of the individual was constructed during this period. The laws and regulations of the Roman empire never aimed at universal application. Instead each group and each individual had to rely on the relations to other groups and individuals.92 The idea of universal human rights was not invented, but the fundamental organization of societal relationships was that of patron-client, and the beneficia was to be perceived as a special favor, and thus expected to incite gratefulness.93 The duty of the receiving part was to display loyalty and gratefulness, which was crucial to the society according to Seneca.94 The specialness of the relationships was the fundamental aspect binding society together.95 In this perspective, to declare loyalty (πίστις; Gal 5:5–6) to an executed villain naturally implied disloyalty to the Roman empire, which

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 71 had established this particular penalty of execution as correct and just; only the Romans executed by means of crucifixion.96 Thus, to preach loyalty with someone who has been crucified was not merely a claim of religious or existential character: it had vast political connotations (as also the Roman empire had clear religious connotations).97 As Hardin puts it, the Roman imperial cult – not Christianity – was the fastest-growing religion of the first century.98 And as Paul asks in Galatians, “if I still preach circumcision [instead of the crucified Christ], why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense (τὸ σκάνδαλον) of the cross has ceased” (5:11). According to Paul’s interpretation, the other preachers in Galatia fail to preach Christ crucified because they wish to avoid persecution (6:12–13). Clearly the Roman authorities used crucifixion as a tool with which they could decisively exclude and discredit those who were deemed to be unruly.99 Therefore, the loyalty with someone who had been crucified was not appreciated by the Roman-loyal authorities. To claim loyalty (πίστις) to someone who had been executed was to ask for trouble.100 The societies of antiquity were nets of relationships, which all had to be handled with due care and consideration.101 The physical safety of the individual depended completely upon it. The declining capacity of the local rulers to keep the groups of their area in order could therefore be a threat to the safety of their city.102 An inscription found in Paphlagonia at Gangra dating to 3 BCE (i.e., three years after being joined to the Galatian province) records an oath of loyalty to Augustus and his family.103 Another inscription, found in Neapolis, informs that the oath was sworn individually by the Phazimonites, that they were to support Caesar and his entire family “all of my life both in word, and deed, and in thought [. . .] and to report whatever I might perceive or hear being spoken, plotted or done against them.”104 In other words, failing loyalty was not merely a problem to the deviant individual, but a potential threat to the city’s relations to other, more powerful, groups and nations. The disintegrated person was perceived as potentially dangerous, and therefore also in danger.105 If the Christ-believers of Galatia were being disintegrated from their former in-group(s), as the account of Galatians seems to indicate (see 4:8–10), they were presumably also perceived as unpredictable and potentially dangerous elements by the surrounding society, a threat to the established order. New groups were generally perceived with extreme suspicion,106 and it is a common phenomenon that what is perceived as potentially threatening tends to evoke aggression.107 If the incorporation into the fellowship of Christ-believers in Galatia required or entailed that the adherents were disintegrated from their former in-groups, they would most likely be perceived as a threat, and for that reason, they would also be in a situation of exposure and danger. Particularly in the discourses that explicitly relate to his social disintegration, Paul refers to crucifixion (2:18–20, 6:14–15). Paul however strongly opposes that circumcision be a solution to the problem, indicating that it is merely a vain attempt to be “perfected by the

72  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters flesh” (3:3) (i.e., to find fulfillment by means of incorporation into another, and in this case ancient, group [cf. 6:12–15]). To undergo circumcision as an adult, given the state of medical knowledge, was a surgically dangerous operation,108 but from the letter to the Galatians it appears to be politically expedient to the addressees in this particular situation (5:11; 6:12). To be incorporated in the Jewish group is framed as a way to escape persecution. In the rhetorical situation of Galatians, Paul has nothing to gain by depicting himself as a persecutor (unless he was still proud of his achievements). It is therefore possible that the Galatians had heard of his former persecution from others: “You have heard of my former conduct . . .” (1:13). In that case, it is quite likely that others had used his story to his disadvantage (cf. 1:8–9), and that Paul for this reason perceived himself to be forced to recapitulate his own story (cf. 1:20).109 If he had not yet informed the Galatians about his past as a persecutor of the “church of God,” this would naturally have made him vulnerable to critique by the other Christ-believers from Judea. His rhetorical strategy to place the evaluation of his personal transformation in the mouths of his audience is clever: “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy. And they glorified God in me” (Gal 1:23b–24).110 Death in Galatians Galatians as a letter is focused on persecution: the persecution against Jesus, which led to his death (1:3–4; 2:21; 3:13), the persecution performed by Paul before his christophany (1:13–24), the ongoing persecution against Paul (5:11; cf. 4:29), and the persecution that the Galatian Christ-believers wish to avoid (6:12). Further, the personal transformation of Paul is depicted as a death – a crucifixion – with Christ, with its connotations of shattered honor (see 2:19–20).111 The risk and experience of losing one’s social reputation is in other words also an issue of the letter (see 1:6–2:21; 6:14). The factuality of Jesus’ death is hardly an issue, and we may note that he was condemned to a Roman form of execution. We do not know if he was targeted by the Roman authorities specifically, or if his execution merely speaks of the pressure that Roman authorities exercised toward the local authorities to make them be on guard for any tendency to insurrection, or if the Jewish authorities indeed wanted to do away with Jesus for other reasons (as the canonical gospels attest).112 The persecution that Paul claims to have directed toward the Christbelievers prior to his christophany is never as outspoken as in this letter (cf. 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6). Already in the beginning of Galatians, Paul tells how he persecuted the “church of God beyond measure (καθ' ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον) and destroyed it (ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν)” (1:13).113 He may not have completed the destruction, as history reveals, but he was working on it zealously. The wording “persecution beyond measure” (καθ' ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον) denotes violent persecution, not merely an intellectual and verbal dispute.114

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 73 According to Francois D. Tolmie, also πορθέω “indicates a higher level of violence, since it was generally used to refer to attacking someone or something with the intent of destroying it – an action that included physical violence.”115 As Hans Dieter Betz comments, “[t]he term [πορθέω] is common as a description of political oppression.”116 While the rhetorical situation constituted no obvious reason to exaggerate the severeness of his actions, it therefore seems likely that the “destruction” of Paul involved a measurement of violence. In other words, the persecution which he undertook prior to his christophany could have posed a substantial threat toward Jesus’ followers at that time (cf. 1:13–14, 23). Since Paul and Jesus were more or less contemporary, Paul’s zeal could in principle have been directed against Jesus as well, or others like him, before it was directed against Jesus’ followers. Even if Paul was not involved personally, it is probable and even likely that other members of his former in-group directed their aggression, or allowed the aggression of others to be directed against Jesus. In Galatians, Paul makes the comment that “You know that it was because of physical infirmity (δι' ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς) I preached the gospel to you at first” (4:13). We may thus ask about the reasons for Paul’s former condition, when he came to Galatia for the first time (4:13–14), and about the lingering marks on his body (τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου; 6:17). Were these marks of persecution? Since what Paul had suffered from before and during his first visit to Galatia is not made explicit, the interpretations have been many and diverse.117 Paul recalls what his addresses in Galatia already knew, and thus there was no need to elaborate the details in the letter itself. William M. Ramsay notes that Paul was a traveler, who had endured beatings by lictors on several occasions in the provinces.118 Such beatings most certainly left marks on one’s body, and they are attested elsewhere in Paul’s letters (2 Cor 11:23b–26). Bodily marks, whether from disease or from beating, are often perceived as a source of shame and are rather hidden than exposed. The first exception to this rule is if the injuries are received in some adventurous task, such as catching a bear, or while completing something no one else could manage. The other major exception from the rule is when the bodily marks supply a source of identification with a prominent figure, which is the case in the letter of Galatians. Paul claims to bear on his body the marks of Jesus. Did Paul intend to denote the habit of branding slaves?119 Or did he think of the tattoo marks by which devotees of various cults were identified as worshipers of a certain divinity?120 Klassen compares with an incident in Josephus, War 1.197, where Antipater strips off his clothes and exhibits his many scars (τραύματα) as witness to his loyalty with Caesar.121 I believe with D. Francois Tolmie and F. F. Bruce that most probable suggestion is that Paul refers to marks he has received during his apostolic ministry.122 However, physical injuries and social conflict may coincide. Paul refers elsewhere to physically injuring and socially stigmatizing punishments that he had received during this endeavor (see, e.g., 2 Cor 11:23–25), and the

74  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters cross of Jesus is mentioned in the same passage. This hypothesis also makes relevant the first exception to the rule of shame of bodily marks, if Paul received those marks, not only from humiliating beating or sickness, but from the adventurous task of being an apostle of Christ (cf. 1:15–2:21). The concept of the body (σῶμα), similar to the concept of σάρξ, denotes the collective body, in which Paul shares his position with Jesus.123 Perhaps the marks are Jesus’ also in the sense that they stem from the same kind of attitudes and behavior that resulted in the death or Jesus. Paul depicts himself as co-crucified with Jesus (2:19, 6:14), which signifies bodily marks, but also a dubious social position or outright condemnation. Paul claims to hold this position in honor, which of course is very much in contrast with the anticipated contemporary association with a cross: “May it not happen that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (6:14). To summarize, it is most likely that Paul has been spitefully treated and also physically abused before he came to Galatia the first time (cf. 4:13), that similar threats recur even now (cf. 5:11), and that past experiences of punishments have left lingering marks on his physical body, but foremost in regard to his reputation (cf. 6:11–17). Furthermore, Paul’s ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκὸς might also refer to social disorders and conflicts in keeping with the antique notion that macrocosm and microcosm coincide.124 The notion of the society as a “body” was not a haphazard metaphor; it was an integral part of how most people perceived the universe.125 When different parts of the body were fighting each other, it was seen as the characteristic sign of weakness/disease (ἀσθένεια) in that body.126 The interpretation of the “weakness in the body” as referring to persecution, or marks of persecution, also takes the complex meaning of σάρξ seriously. Σάρξ is not primarily the individual person, but the person as integrated in fellowship or kinship (cf. Rom 4:1; 9:3; 9:5; 9:8; 11:14),127 which is exemplified by Paul in Galatians 6:12 when he speaks of some other preachers who want to make “a good showing in the flesh.” Clearly, these preachers intend to increase their reputation among their in-group, and of their own group vis-à-vis other groups. The interpretation of ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκὸς as social insecurity appear to be quite natural to the ancient usage of the terms and the ancient worldview. Both social and physical aspects may therefore have contributed to the poor appearance that Paul displayed in the presence of the Galatians when they first met (cf. 4:13–14). Finally, we find an account of the persecution in Galatia, which, in Paul’s depiction, some other preachers wish to avoid (6:12–16), and which some of the Galatian Christ-believers picture they can avoid by means of incorporation into the Jewish group (see 3:1–4:11). According to Paul, Cephas changed his commitment to the open table-fellowship in Antioch when “certain men from James” came (2:12), and, as Paul understands it, Cephas did it out of “fear” or respect of those who were “of the circumcision” (i.e., Jews) (φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς; 2:12). In a subsequent passage Paul asks: “if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution?”

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 75 (5:11), which probably implies that he previously preached circumcision himself, and that his withdrawal entailed that this kind of persecution was turned against himself. By the close of the letter, Paul then claims that those who preach circumcision do not care that much about the law themselves, but they want to escape persecution (6:12). In this context, the loyalty with the crucified Jesus appears to make persecution unavoidable (see 5:11; 6:12).

Challenged by death Galatians reveals a preoccupation with persecution and death, both at a symbolic and a literal level. The former persecution, undertaken by Paul himself, the present persecution that targets both the Galatians and Paul, and the mode of death of Jesus all make persecution a troubling but prominent theme of the letter. In Galatians, Jesus’ death is described as fruitful beyond imagination: Jesus “gave himself for our sins” to bring about salvation “from the present evil age” (1:4). In regard to himself, Paul claims that “[Jesus] loved me and gave himself for me” (2:20). By means of Jesus’ redemption, all nations will share in Abraham’s blessing and receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (3:14). The voluntary act of “giving” is assumed, as the profitable effects of such giving – although most of his contemporaries must have perceived that Jesus’ life was taken rather than given. As Colleen M. Conway shows, the picture of Jesus, by the idea of voluntarily giving his life for others, becomes more in step with contemporary notions of masculinity.128 Understanding Jesus’ terrifying death as an act of giving implies that Jesus had played an active role, taken the initiative, and maintained freedom and volition. When Jesus’ death in Galatians is depicted as the most precious gift – which should not have been given in vain – this clearly implies strong expectations on the practical lives of the Christ-believers in terms of gratefulness and loyalty.129 In Galatians, Jesus is depicted as the one who was living in line with the will of God the father (1:4), and also his death is reframed as honorable. The “age” is depicted as evil (1:4), and Paul insists that the “gospel” was revealed to him by God; no human taught him this (1:10–12). In this context he also tells how he was heading in a completely different direction when the risen Christ was revealed to him (1:13–15). Colliding intentions and practices The hortatory section of the letter attests that a patient and meek attitude is the way of the Spirit (5:22–23). The so-called “fruit of the Spirit” is the practices that are the very opposites of the requirements of the challengeriposte game,130 namely “love, joy, peace, longsuffering/patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (5:22–23a). Other people’s opinions are therefore also attributed less importance (2:17). The outer appearance is contrasted with truth (4:16), with Spirit (3:2), with freedom

76  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters (3:23–4:11, 4:21–5:6, 5:13–26), with righteousness by grace (1:15, 2:21, 6:18), and with faith and loyalty (3:6–9, 3:22–28, 5:5–6). To summarize, “[y]ou shall love your neighbor as yourself” (5:14). Paul emphasizes that he himself and the addressees should not become conceited, provoking and envying one another (5:25–26). Each should seek reasons for honor only in oneself, and not in [the recognition of] others (6:3–5), while reasons for shame should be carried collectively (6:1–2). If these injunctions are followed, the quest for honor, with its challenge-riposte game, is made both irrelevant and improper. However, the practices that are pictured as the “fruit of the Spirit” are only partially or intermittently adopted by Paul in the letter. The letter begins with a double anathema against those who presumably preach another gospel than the one Paul preached (1:8–9), and he occasionally adopts a condescending attitude in relation to the Galatians themselves (3:1). In other words, he acts both harshly and vengefully himself. The letter includes strategies with the potential to prevent violent deaths due to the challenge-riposte, but these strategies are only partially implemented. There is a clear discrepancy between the means Paul adopts and the goals he wants to achieve. First, the truth of the gospel is in this letter depicted as the inclusiveness of the gospel (2:11–12; 3:1–29; 4:1–5:6), but it is protected by means of exclusion (1:8–9). Similarly, Paul seems to offend and discredit nearly everyone he mentions in the letter. He speaks of how he challenged Cephas in the presence of “them all,” because Cephas had “judged himself” (2:11– 21), adding that also Barnabas was carried away with their “hypocrisy” (2:13).131 Earlier in the letter, Paul makes it a matter of interpretation whether James, the brother of the Lord, is an apostle or not (see 1:19). Paul also refers to the apostles of Jerusalem as those who “seemed to be something,” or had the good reputation of being something (τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι), adding that “whatever they were, it makes no difference to me,” indicating that they were perhaps not very noble (2:6). When Paul records how the “pillars” of Jerusalem gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, he also makes it clear that they soon enough broke that deal (2:2–16). In other words, the “pillars” are not very reliable in Paul’s depiction. He clearly thinks that the addressees should join him in the challenge, or estrangement against these hypocrites (1:6–2:21; cf. 3:1–6:10). As indicated, he also challenges the Galatian Christ-believers by addressing them as “foolish” and “bewitched” (3:1). To summarize, Paul’s tendency to challenge, or discredit others reoccurs in the letter. He claims that the Galatians “bite and devour one another” (5:15), but in the case of this letter it is justified to ask whom is biting and devouring whom. Some of the “works of the flesh” that Paul mentions could perhaps describe his own actions (“hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions” [5:20]). Paul appears to be using some of the means that he used before the crucified Christ was revealed to him, namely to persecute deviants or rivals, while trying to keep at the top himself (cf. 1:13–14).

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 77 To pursue new goals, by means of old pathways is in Pargament’s depiction the coping strategy of re-valuation.132 In regard to boasting in ethnicity, Paul does speak of being a “new creation” (6:15), but in regard to boasting more generally, and the challenge-riposte game more specifically, the implementation seems to be a work in progress. The goal is transformed, but the pathways to get there are in part the same. However, a transformation of the pathways to significance seems also to be under construction, since he suggests a transformed pathway to his addressees – although he occasionally does not walk that road himself (cf. 5:22–26). In Paul’s account of the story of Hagar and Sarah, the notion of separate groups remains intact. Notably, the only persecution undertaken in the text is directed against Hagar and her child: “Cast out the bond-woman and her son” (4:30a; cf. 4:28–29).133 But Paul does not appear to notice the contradiction, when he summarizes that “he who was born according to the flesh [i.e., Hagar’s son] then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit [i.e., Sarah’s son], even so it is now” (Gal 4:21–30). In other words, the action described is Hagar and her son being persecuted, but the identity ascribed is that of the son being a persecutor. Group affiliation is clearly more important in evaluation than what actions that are actually carried out. Thus, members of the “right” group are inherently correct, and members of the “wrong” group are equally obviously incorrect (cf. Paul depiction of the proponents of circumcision; 6:12–13). Hagar is depicted as giving birth to children for bondage (4:24), when only a few paragraphs earlier, the new loyalty with Jesus entails that everyone – including women and slaves – can become “sons of God” (3:26–29). To summarize, in some instances Paul finds it acceptable to condemn, offend, or challenge for the sake of the higher good (see 1:8–9; 3:1; 2:11). In others he reckons that they should “not grow weary while doing good, for in due season [they] shall reap if [they] do not lose heart” (6:9). And he continues: “[t]herefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (6:10). If the path of the Spirit – as Paul depicts it in Galatians – was followed, premature death due to the challenge-riposte game would be prevented. But Paul nevertheless uses extremely aggressive rhetoric to deal with the situation in Galatia, especially in the beginning of the letter (1:6–9). In doing so, and also continuously in the letter, he manages to slander and discredit about everyone he mentions or addresses. A discrepancy between prescribed and adopted behavior is thus a feature of the letter. Identification with Jesus In Galatians, Paul claims that he has died (ἀπέθανον, aorist tense) to the law, that he might live to God (2:19a). He has been crucified with Jesus (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι), and the consequences of this death still remain (perfect tense; see 2:19b).134 The depiction of him being co-crucified directs

78  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters the attention to the irrevocable nature of his transformation. In a ritual or metaphorical sense, he has died, and there is no turning back (see 2:20). The reference to crucifixion also has clear connotations to public shame.135 Paul did not pass away peacefully, being transferred to some sort of a higher level, but he was – metaphorically speaking – executed in the midst of shouts, stench, and pain. In other words, it appears to be a most disgraceful experience to be transferred to the group of Christ-believers in some cases. Paul claims, however, that although it may be possible to rebuild that which he has destroyed, it would be out of the question that he would do so (2:18). “I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain” (2:21). His personal transformation is explicitly related to Jesus’ death, and the literal death of Jesus provides Paul’s metaphor with energy. Moreover, baptism as dying with Christ is one thing, and baptism as being crucified with Christ something else. Execution by means of crucifixion was an atrocious and prolonged process, and Paul’s depiction of himself as being dead by crucifixion – and perhaps still hanging there – is horrendous. Even as a metaphor, it must have been breathtaking. Paul’s depiction of himself as being co-crucified (συνεσταύρωμαι) is thus an indication of an extremely strong identification with the crucified Jesus. Taken that the essence of the process of crucifixion was that no one should be able to identify oneself emotionally with the person on the cross – the person was conceptually transformed into a “thing” – the expression is remarkable. The exposure, shame, and suffering associated with the cross is probably hard to grasp for most 21st-century interpreters. It was probably hard to grasp for most of Jesus’ contemporaries as well. Crucifixion was the execution for uneducated slaves,136 alien to the civilized rhetorician. It was likely beyond imagination to most of the persons of the upper strata of the society that they could ever become subjected to such a cruel punishment, because realistically, they would not be. If the capacity to identify with a crucified person was a skill that was developed among the early Christbelievers regardless of social status, this was likely something out of the ordinary. Paul does not state explicitly what kind of experiences made him depict his situation as determined by the consequences of a public execution. The text implies that it was the experience of his conversion and the following circumstances. Even though the revelation of the “son of God” is perceived as something truly benevolent – a grace – the events that followed seem to have been quite complicated, as the account of Galatians indicates (cf. 1:13–2:14). Both his former and his new in-group saw him with suspicion, and sometimes even with hostility (cf. 4:29; 5:11; 6:12–14, 17).137 By the close of Galatians, Paul claims that the world has been crucified to him, as he has been to the world (6:14). The mutual exclusion and condemnation depicted in this verse indicates that Paul was cursed by his former in-group after joining the group of Christ-believers, and that he also cursed them.

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 79 From being “advanced beyond many of my contemporaries” (see 1:14), he become a “nobody” in the eyes of his former friends, and vice versa.138 According to the challenge-riposte game, the greater the honor aspired to, the greater the shame in failure.139 Paul did not fulfill the first task he had appointed for himself, or which others had appointed for him (that is, to terminate the fellowship of the Christ-believers; see 1:13). But he found another calling even more original than his calling to extinguish the Christbelievers (1:15–24; cf. 1:13–14). Paul nevertheless claims that before he shifted focus, he was unsurpassed in his reputation among men. A great deal of shame must therefore have been either internalized or repelled by Paul in that situation. Paul contends that to the extent that he is still alive, he lives in loyalty with the son of God, who loved him and gave himself for him (2:20). Since Paul seems to have had a prominent position in his first ingroup, it is quite imaginable that he found it both frustrating and annoying that these men who called themselves “pillars” put themselves up against him (cf. 1:10–2:21; esp. 2:9–14). And was he now to lose his position in his second in-group as well? Being challenged, and perhaps despised, Paul occasionally answers with aggression in Galatians. An interesting feature of the letter is that Paul emphasizes that he did not receive the gospel as an authoritative teaching but as an experience of an encounter with the resurrected Jesus (1:13–24). In keeping with this emphasis, Paul does not mainly urge the Galatians to keep with what he himself has taught them, but he emphatically urges them to keep with what they have experienced (3:2–5, 4:8–15). And as a matter of fact, although he describes their intention to get circumcised as complete madness, he addresses the Christ-believers of Galatia as more or less equals. When he says “I became like you” (4:12), it seems to denote that he adjusted his social position to relate to them as equals, even if this was not the case in regard to the previous social standing of neither of them.140 Although he addresses them condescendingly once or twice in the letter (3:1; 1:6), he describes, explains, and offers arguments for the position he advocates, and he also requests that the same attitudes of respect and concern should be adopted when they handle issues among themselves (see 6:1–10). Thus, the embryo of a transformed behavior – in this case refraining from the challenge-riposte game – is also present in Galatians. The challenge of transformation From a psychological perspective, a challenge can be overcome by means of “verve, persistence, and self-confidence.”141 Miller and C’de Baca describe how struggles to implement a new set of practices are common in the lives of people who have changed their lives profoundly in relation to an extraordinary experience.142 Paul’s description of his encounter with the resurrected Jesus makes clear that he perceives it as extraordinary and as similar to the calling of a prophet (see 1:15a; cf. 1 Cor 15:8; 2 Cor 12:2–4).143 His

80  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters descriptions of his personal transformation as simultaneously being a punctual “death” and an ongoing process also bear similarities with the accounts collected by Miller and C’de Baca.144 A person can perceive everything differently from one moment to another – in a split second – but to work out the implications of that insight, and to integrate that new pattern of behavior accordingly, is often a strenuous task.145 As Pargament emphasizes, to change perceptions and/or habits generally takes time and effort, and is therefore avoided as long as possible.146 Miller and C’de Baca comment that “[personal transformers] often understood it as a kind of maturing process as they integrated their new perspective [. . .] Although they had a clear and immediate sense of being permanently changed, some continued for a time in their old ways.”147 Further, Paul’s depiction of a spiritual stance (5:22–23) contrasted to the “works of the flesh” (5:19–21) clearly resembles the changes in values and practices that the reports collected by Miller and C’de Baca discuss.148 Paul claims to have become less macho (cf. 4:19), less materialistic (cf. 2:10), less concerned with being respected (cf. 2:17), and less concerned with achievement (cf. 6:14),149 although the implementation of these characteristics appears to be a work in progress in Galatians. In the study of Miller and C’de Baca, the priorities of men and women become more similar to each other after a quantum change, which resembles Paul’s depiction of a new unity in plurality in Galatians. All are children of God through faith in Jesus, according to Paul, and all have put on Christ – Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, males and females (3:25–29). It is notable that clothes were indications of social status in GrecoRoman culture, and the metaphor of a new garment therefore denotes social functioning. Clothes “served as insignia of their respective social roles.”150 In this instance, Paul attributes this inner strength to the experience of baptism (3:27), and in his personal case, the experiences of his christophany and his baptism seem to be intertwined (1:12, 15–14; 2:19–21).151 Regression As Yorick Spiegel notes, people tend to relapse into old habits when facing stressful situations, as might be the case in a challenge to one’s social position.152 Paul clearly has a tendency toward black-and-white thinking in Galatians (cf. 4:21–5:26). He divides the world into the good people and the bad people, the guilty and the innocent. The bad people appears to be thoroughly bad (1:8–9), wanting only to pervert the gospel (1:7).153 According to Paul, they do not even care about the law themselves: they only want to boast (6:13). The structural complexities are not considered, but Paul focuses his efforts in targeting and attacking specific individuals. As Yorick Spiegel comments on psychological coping: A general phenomenon of regression in grief is the simplification of complex coherences. One aspect of this simplification is personalization.

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 81 Instead of thinking in terms of the interconnectedness of all things, the world is imagined only as the interaction of individual persons [. . .] Released aggressions are also highly personalized.154 In Galatians, Paul targets specific individuals as the root of the problem, and by means of their exclusion the rest will prosper (cf. 1:6–9; 4:28–30; 5:19–21).155 The reappraisal of Jesus The way Paul speaks about crucifixion must have been provoking to many in his first audience. The identification of Jesus as a crucified person has farreaching consequences on a social, conceptual, and psychological level. An innocent man, presumably a hero of freedom and peace, was subjected to the most degrading kind of punishment.156 The first conclusion to be drawn may be that no one is safe – in the shorter view. Even the one who is claimed to be κύριος and resurrected by God (6:18; 1:1–3) first hanged on a tree (1:4; 3:13). This makes the fate of Jesus possible, and perhaps even sufferable for everyone, because it does not imply the disfavor of God. Nobody is perfectly safe in the sense that they stand above the struggles and sufferings of human life; not even those whom God loves (cf. 2:20). Paul refers outspokenly to the crucifixion of Jesus in discourses relating to his own exclusion or disfavor among humans (5:11, 24; 6:14). Notably, Jesus was punished although he did not deserve it. “He gave himself for our sins” (1:4). When misfortune befalls Paul, it might therefore be a share of what happened to Jesus. All of the addressees have assumed sonship (4:6–7, 26), but this, nota bene, is no safe-guard against violence or degrading death. The identification of Jesus as a crucified Christ involves a leap in the rehumanization of the crucified person. The thing on the cross is not a thing but a person (related to others), a member of the group (related to us), and he is even the Christ (related to God). It is unclear whether the heavily debated unitarian formula of 3:28 is a message of equality,157 but doubtlessly the notion of a crucified Christ is an example of a hierarchical order being turned upside down.158 The punished criminal or traitor is the very opposite of the ruler in regard of social status and legal capacity (see comment to 1 Cor 4:8–10). And would it be possible to maintain a social hierarchy if the distinctions are removed?159 Since all have assumed sonship (3:26), “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). The Galatians get the message that they are all heirs (3:29), albeit the context makes clear that even an heir can be crucified. In this sense, premature death draws closer, even though it is not the final word (cf. 1:3–5). While the notion of resurrection challenges the Roman empire, Paul in Galatians offers the same kind of destabilization in the context of Judaism. If Jesus, as the Christ, has become a curse as one “hanged on a tree” (3:13),

82  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters the very meaning of “curse” (κατάρα and cognates) is undermined. Paul is using a lot of energy to destabilize the law (or to make the perception of the law more complex) and to affirm that the application of the law is complicated (2:15–21; 3:1–29; 5:2–23; 6:11–16). If Christ Jesus indeed has become a curse for them – Paul explicitly mentions that this is a reference to scripture – then the reintegration of Jesus, as resurrected, annuls the final exclusion (cf. 3:13). The curse of the law is thus disestablished. In the terminology of the psychological perspective of this investigation, even expatriation and death are harm and losses that can be overcome (cf. 1:1–5). The crucifixion, as a tool in the hands of the Roman empire, and the curse, with divine legitimation in Jewish perception, draw the attention to exclusions that are expected to be permanent: beyond regret and repair. Both are annulled in Galatians (3:1–14). Loyalty to the one crucified thus involves a break with the political and religious order, and the loyalty to a cursed person signals the same.160 Resurrection may be interpreted as an indication that there is no order any more, that the order is perverted, or that the order is redemptive. Paul emphatically claims the latter (3:11–14). Several important conclusions can be drawn from Paul’s account of his christophany. First, and most obviously, the final exclusion – death – can be reversed, but the flip side of the coin is the consequences of Jesus’ persecutors’ actions can be withdrawn. People had killed Jesus, but his resurrection reveals that the consequences of these actions can be revoked. A fresh start is given in its most literal sense (cf. 2:21). For someone with much on his conscience, this may be a liberation of ample measure.161 Third, we may read between lines that the Jesus Paul met in his vision did not carry out the revenge that would have been proper according to the customary rules of the challenge-riposte game. Jesus clearly abstained from his riposte. Paul’s former behavior could no doubt be construed as a challenge toward Jesus, since he was persecuting those who were loyal to Jesus (1:23), but the Jesus of the vision did not repay “evil with evil” to regain his honor. Again, the concepts of peace and grace are most relevant (cf. 1:3; 6:18).162 Paul appreciates his experience of christophany beyond measure, although he portrays his life as a Christ-believer as if being crucified (2:19–21; 6:14). The challenge-riposte game Even though Paul does not discuss one single death – the exception being Jesus – we get ample information of his ambiguous attitudes toward the challenge-riposte game, with its implications of violence. This will become of interest as we continue the investigation. Paul contends that each one of the addressees should seek their reasons for honor only in themselves, and not in others (6:4). This suggestion cuts at the very root of the challenge-riposte game, since its concept of honor was based on the recognition of others.163 Paul releases the Galatians from the duty to respond to every challenge in order to protect and maintain the honor of one, when he

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 83 emphasizes that the law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (5:14). But is he released himself? Is he obliged to respond to a challenge by means of a riposte, or is he in the full right to withdraw? According to Paul in Galatians, Jesus died for the inclusiveness of the Gospel (2:20–21; cf. 3:24–29), and Paul also claims that he himself is prepared to die – or indeed has already died – to live for God (2:19). But when it comes to the practical implications, particularly in relation to his honor, the picture of the letter is quite ambiguous. The encounter with the crucified and resurrected Jesus is depicted as the turning point of Paul’s life (1:15–17), but the integration of its implications in his ordinary life seems to be the task he is currently working on. He has not integrated the peaceful stance that he advocates (1:8–9; 3.1; cf. 5:22–6:10), he does not appear to be prepared to die from his honor in the eyes of men (cf. 6:14), and he does not let go of his competitive attitude – or he has regained the same attitude again (cf. 1:14). Perhaps somewhat ironically, he tries to use the means of challenge and exclusion to defend the goal of loving patience and inclusion. In his own description of his previous life, he had both ascribed honor (i.e., inherited at birth) and acquired honor (i.e., conferred by means of victorious battle and virtuous deeds; 1:13–14), and now when he is challenged he cannot let go. He answers by means of challenges and curses. By the close of the letter he requests that no one should trouble him further, because he bears in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus (6:17). In Galatians, Paul delimits his compassion to in-group persons. Group affiliation appears to be a decisive factor in judging behavior (cf. Gal 4:28– 30), and wrongdoing may lead to condemnation (1:8–9). However, the rehumanization of Jesus after his crucifixion implies that a condemned person can be re-established in the land of the living, and indeed be given a prominent place (see 3:6–14). A curse can be reversed, the judgment of humans may be in error, and the fate of the victim is an unreliable barometer of God’s favor (see 5:11–26). As shown above, Paul depicts himself and the Galatian Christ-believers as being in situations of social and physical insecurity. Paul’s uses of the story of Hagar and Sarah with the intent of showing that persecution is nothing new (see 4:21–31). He encourages the Galatians to make no concessions, but to preserve the truth of the gospel. Acts of submission and acts out of fear are to be avoided (2:4, 12; 3:13–14; 4:1–5:10). While an open affirmation of belief in Jesus as a crucified Messiah may put the Christ-followers in the position of challenging the Roman-loyal rulers, and by extension the Roman empire, any attempt to please men instead of God is still out of the question (1:10; 3:1–4:11).

Notes 1 Philip F. Esler comments that the distinction is problematic that someone who is ethnically Judean and located in Judea is called a Judean, while Judeans

84  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters elsewhere are called Jews. The distinction is imposed to the material and differs from the usage of similar terms as Egyptian and Capadonian, which can be used in both an ethnic and geographical sense simultaneously; Esler 2003, 71. I agree with Esler’s comment: “Although the Ἰουδαῖοι were a people who became widely scattered around the Mediterranean, that in no way diminished the extent to which their identity was linked to their Judean homeland and its temple where they worshiped their God in aniconic magnificence.” Esler 2003, 64, see also 68. Dual or nested ethnicity is also possible; one can be Judean while living in Capadocia and being a Capadocian; Esler 2003, 71–73. I will keep with the practice adopted by the scholarly community at large, for the sake of readability. In this particular instance in 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16, however, the term Ἰουδαῖοι may refer to people who are both ethnically Judean and live in Judea. 2 Anthony, and thereafter Octavian, granted the city the status of a “free city.” Witherington 2006, 3–4. 3 Witherington 2006, 6. 4 See Tacitus, Annals 1.76. 5 Witherington 2006, 6. 6 Witherington 2006, 9. Even though Acts sometimes may be less trustworthy for gathering historical information, there might still be a grain of truth in the story about a riot in Thessaloniki, where a person named Jason was targeted; cf. Acts 17:5–9. See also Harrill 2012, 10; Garnsey & Saller 1987, 20–42. 7 See Witherington 2006, 9; Witherington 1998a, 539–44. 8 Simpson 1993, 932. 9 Malherbe 2004, 92; Jewett 1986, 60; Bruce 1982a, xxxiv–v. As J. W. Simpson puts it, 1 Thessalonians could be called an “early development of Pauline theology.” Simpson 1993, 932. 10 Witherington 2006, 20–22. 11 Witherington 2006, 20–22. See also Jewett 1986, 71–72. Cicero says that the narration in epideictic discourse “should possess great vivacity, resulting from fluctuations of fortune, contrast of characters, severity, gentleness, hope, fear, suspicion, desire [. . .] pity, sudden change of fortune, unexpected disaster, sudden pleasure, a happy ending to the story.” Cicero, On invention 1.27. No doubt, a strong expression like 2:15 serves to alert listeners to the message: those who hear it will be inclined to remember it. “Even a casual reading of 1 Thess 1:4–3:10 shows that Paul has produced a narratio which embodies many of these traits and emotions.” Witherington 2006, 26. both Jesus, Paul, and also the “pillars” of Jerusalem were Jews, the dismissive attitude toward Jews obviously is to be perceived as an intra-Jewish polemic and not a racist utterance; cf. Malherbe 2004, 179. 12 See also Witherington 2006, 10. 13 John Paul Heil makes a similar comment for the collective sender of Philippians; cf. Heil 2010, 4. 14 For an account of a collectively oriented society, see Witherington 1998b, 204; Malina & Neyrey 1996, 156; Martin 1995, 25. 15 Moxnes 2005, 20–21; Malina 2001, 27–37; Witherington 1998b, 47. 16 Any encounter with a person outside the family sphere was readily interpreted as a challenge to the family honor; Moxnes 2005, 28. 17 Best 1972, 135. 18 See Lake 2010, 87; Fee 2009, 98; against Bruce 1982a, 47. The suggestion that τοὺς προφήτας refers to the ancient prophets of the past assumes a curious twist in chronological order, which would also work against the rhetorical project, namely to show the uninterrupted chain of persecution up to the days of the Thessalonians themselves being persecuted. Furthermore, to record some of the Christ-believers as prophets by no means appear as alien to Paul. Krister Stendahl comments that Paul depicts also himself as a prophet (see 1 Cor 15:8–10;

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 85 Gal 1:6, 15; cf. 1 Thess 4:7–8); Stendahl 1977, 18–35. We may note Tertullian’s comment that ἰδίους, “their own,” was an insertion made by Marcion, whose unveiled purpose was the denigration of the Judeans as a nation; see Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.15.1. To summarize, the original version probably conveyed the meaning that “[a particular group of Judeans] killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out” (1 Thess 2:15a). 19 Lake 2010, 87; Fee 2009, 98–99. 20 Fee 2009, 98. 21 Fee 2009, 98. 22 Donfried & Marshall 1993, 22. The term ἀγών is used in Phil 1:30 in a similar context. In Philippians, Paul notes that he more than once received help from them for his “necessities” (τὴν χρείαν μοι) when he was in Thessaloniki (Phil 4:16). Is this to say that he was helped in relation to persecution, or simply in supporting his living? 23 Donfried & Marshall 1993, 22. 24 Witherington 2006, 139; Donfried 2002, 41–42; 1997, 217; Donfried & Marshall 1993, 22; Bruce 1990, 372. 25 Barton 2011, 591. 26 Notably, the “wrath” mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 2:16 is generally interpreted by scholars as referring to the political situation; see e.g., Malherbe 2004, 178; Witherington 1998a, 540. 27 Stendahl 1977, 18–35, 140–158. 28 Barnett 2008, 72–75; Hurtado 2003, 95; Segal 1990, 5–7. 29 Cf. Spiegel 1978, 74. 30 In other words, it is not a “racist” utterance; Bridges 2008, 55; Gillard 1989, 481–502. 31 See Pargament 2007, 145–48. 32 Spiegel 1978, 243. 33 Spiegel 1978, 245. “It is easier to blame the unfortunate driver involved in the accident than the insufficient facilities for traffic safety; easier to attack the doctor in charge than the deficient hospital equipment; and less difficult to get excited about the minister than about the injustice of God. Interviews during the bombing attacks on England in World War II revealed that the English people were filled with reproaches against their own authorities much more than against the Germans.” Spiegel 1978, 245–46. Notably, in Romans there is an extensive elaboration on the theme of evilness and greed in the world, while in 1 Thessalonians it is simply “those Judeans” that are the enemy of all humanity (1 Thess 2:13–16). 34 Cf. Pargament 2007, 285; O’Connell & Hooker 2013, 181. 35 Cf. the challenge-riposte game, which assumed that evil may be repaid with evil; Rohrbaugh 2010, 113–15; Moxnes 2005, 19–40; Neyrey 1998, 50. 36 Parousia, apantesis, and kyrios are three heavy loaded political terms. Parousia is related to “the ‘visit’ of the king or some other official. [. . .] Apantesis refers to the citizens meeting a dignitary who is about to visit the city. These two terms are used in this way by Josephus (Ant. XI. 327ff.) and also similarly referred to by such Greek writers as Chrysostom. The term kyrios, especially when used in the same context as the two preceding terms, also has a definite political sense. People in the eastern Mediterranean applied the term kyrios to the Roman emperors from Augustus on [. . .] All of this, coupled with the use of euaggelion and its possible association with the eastern ruler cult suggests that Paul and his associates could easily be understood as violating ‘the decrees of Caesar’ in the most blatant manner.” Witherington 2006, 139; Donfried 1997, 217. 37 Cf. Rev 8:2; Ezek 40–45. 38 Foxvog and Kilmer comment that the trumpet’s ability to inspire awe and fear helps to explain its role in the fall of Jericho and at the giving of the Law at

86  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters Mount Sinai. It also was used in the Hebrew ritual to announce the New Year and Atonement Day; Foxvog & Kilmer 2007, 439. 39 Bailey 2001, 78. Rabbi Judah, 140–165 C.E., said: “Even the poorest in Israel should hire not less than two flutes and one wailing woman.” Mishnah, Ketubot 4.4. 40 See Lazarus 1999, 34. 41 The threat from outside is divided into sub-forces, as fellow–countrymen (2:14c), Judeans/Jews (2:14b, 15), Satan (2:18). The threats from the inside can be abbreviated as exploitation (4:6), mourning (4:13), sleepiness (5:6), and retaliation (5:15). The threat appears to be severe, but can be conquered by means of imitation of good examples (1:2–2:14a), determination (4:1–8), a quiet life (4:9–12), knowledge (4:13–18), watchfulness (5:1–11), and recognition of those who are working hard, and by comfort/admonition to the fainthearted (5:12–28). 42 “The greater the discrepancy between one’s own fate and the fate of the loved person one failed to help, the greater the emphatic distress and the more poignant one’s guilt [about surviving].” Strang 2007, 33, the author’s translation; Friedman 1985, 532. 43 Cf. Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 85–87; Spiegel 1978, 66–70. 44 Verhey 2002, 398–400; cf. Keller 2005, 4; Hongisto 2010, 58. See also Martin 1995, xvii, 57, 68. 45 Pargament 1997, 111. 46 Bruce 1982a, 103. Against Ellingworth & Nida, who contend that the transit from moral appeal to comfort might not be so clear-cut as the first impression may suggest; Ellingworth & Nida 1976, 91. 47 See Hope 2009, 125, 134–35; Malherbe 2004, 264. 48 Polybius must find comfort in service to the emperor and his literary pursuits; Seneca the Younger, Consolation to Polybius 7.6.5. See also “Letter from Servius Sulpicius Rufus”: Cicero, Letters to his Friends 4.16; “Letter from Lucius Lucceius”: Cicero, Letters to his Friends 5.14. For a further account of the story, see Hope 2009, 133–34. 49 On a deferring coping style, see Pargament 1997, 180–83. 50 The notion that the deceased are privileged occurs in other ancient sources, both in consolation letters and in epitaphs; see e.g. Cicero, Letter to his Friends 5.16; Hope 2009, 115, 133; Hopkins 1985, 203. 51 Hope 2009, 42, 124; Olyan 2004, 32; Bloch 1980, 48–49. Some scholars even suggest that “to the physically abused Jews of the Maccabean period and to the early Christians, ‘resurrection was a substitute for the burial owed to the pious.’ ” Rothkrug 1988, 215–29; Bynum 1995, 48; Davies 1999, 185. 52 Bloch 1980, 52. 53 Just as posthumous honor could be bestowed upon a person, posthumous condemnation included that portraits and inscriptions were erased or removed, and that mourning was prohibited; Hope 2009, 179–80. 54 Cf. Hope 2009, 124; see CIL 6, 32323, lines 110–14 (ILS 5050); Cassio Dio, History 59.7.5. 55 Cf. Cullberg 1975. 56 Cf. Cullberg 1975. 57 Cf. Pargament 1997, 210–12. 58 James R. Beck suggests that the carefully formulated wish by the close of the letter refers back to the issue that some of the Christ-believers already had died; Beck 2002, 111. 59 Cf. Pargament 1997, 210–12. 60 Cf. Pargament 2007, 285. 61 As Ben Witherington puts it; “[d]oubts about [Paul] likely arouse partly because in antiquity there was little belief in the possibility of radical change in human

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 87 personality.” Witherington 1998b, 131. James R. Beck emphasizes Paul’s concern for change throughout his ministry; see Beck 2002, 157. 62 Pargament 2007, 288–89; Pargament 1997, 111. 63 Cf. Keshgegian 2000, 121. 64 See “Letter from Servius Sulpicius Rufus.” Cicero, Letter to his Friends 4.16; “Letter from Lucius Lucceius”: Cicero, Letter to his Friends 5.14. Cf. his own wry comment on the bereft in his earlier letters that the mourner should not wait for time to provide what philosophy already has in store; “Letter to Titus” in Cicero, Letter to His Friends 5.16.6. 65 See P. Oxy. 115; cf. Keshgegian 2000, 121. 66 Keshgegian 2000, 121. 67 This appraisal is seldom made consciously, but is an immediate estimation of a complex setting of internal and external resources; see Pargament 1997, 98; Lazarus & Folkman 1984. 68 Syreeni 2004, 64–69; Kübler-Ross 2001; Spiegel 1978. 69 See Malherbe 2004 92; Jewett 1986, 60. 70 Cf. Kar Yong Lim’s question why Paul in 2 Corinthians “so strongly emphasizes his apostolic suffering in his correspondence to a Christ-believing community that does not seem to have much evidence of suffering as a result of their faith in Christ.” Lim 2009, 1. 71 See Pargament’s emphasis on the fact that the individual makes an appraisal of a situation in relation to what he or she holds to be significant values; Pargament 1997, 91–95. 72 Cullberg 1993, 82–84. 73 Lazarus 1999, 96; cf. Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 265. 74 Lazarus 1999, 33. 75 Lazarus 1999, 235. 76 Cf. Keshgegian’s first memory practice; Keshgegian 2000, 121. 77 The expression εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί, “to make a good appearance in the flesh,” is concerned with the desire to have a good reputation; see Newman 1993, 76. Cf. Robert Jewett’s comment that the expression “the passions of the flesh” in Romans 7:7 is concerned with the desire for honor; Jewett 2007, 436, 444; cf. Dunn 1988, 363; 1998, 62–70. 78 “[O]n the mental map of the first century C.E., Galatia was a well-defined territory: it was enemy territory, burnt to earth and fertile ground where civilization– and the worldwide Roman Empire–could thrive on the ashes of barbarism.” Kahl 2010, 75. 79 As Anders Eriksson comments, we cannot assume that Paul gives a fair account of the position of his opponents; Eriksson 1998, 67–70. 80 Dunn suggests that these “troublemakers” are to be understood as apostles or missionaries coming to Galatia from outside, perhaps from Jerusalem, but with a claim of authorization by prominent Christian leaders; Dunn 1993, 10. Winter, on the other hand, suggests that they are from the local Jewish congregation, wanting the local inhabitants to “show a good face” to the civic authorities with affiliations with Rome; Winter 1994, 123–44. Paul’s gospel is depicted as the spiritual gospel, while the other is merely human, or worldly, or immature at the best; see Gal 3:3, 11, 25; 4:1–7. Notably, Galatians is a letter to the Galatian Christ-believers, and thus, we do not hear what he would have said to the Jewish Christ-believers at this point. 81 Campbell, W. 2008, 91. 82 See Witherington 1998b, 18. 83 Sölle 1967, 21. See also Yorick Spiegel’s discussion on representation and replacement; Spiegel 1978, 339–42. 84 Cf. Fee 2007, 14.

88  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 85 For an account of the cultural customs related to striving for honor, see Rohrbaugh 2010, 113–15; Moxnes 2005, 19–40; Neyrey 1998, 50. 86 Morland 1995, 15; cf. Wilson 2007, 25; Tolmie 2005, 42. 87 See Campbell, C. 2015, 115. 88 See Fee 2007, 164. 89 In the words of Francois D. Tolmie, “if one accepts Barclay’s ‘mirror reading,’ one may safely speculate that Paul’s opponents might have been guilty of violent rhetoric themselves.” Tolmie 2011, 76. 90 Paul encourages them to serve and love one another, while they rather “bite and devour one another” to the point of consummation (Gal 5:13–15). The passage is closed by the admonition “Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.” The traits of humiliations should be carried collectively, while reasons for pride be carried privately, and secretly (Gal 5:26; 6:1–10). See also Tolmie 2011, 77. 91 Hardin 2008, 14, 43–44. 92 Moxnes 2005, 28; see also Lendon 1997, 23–24. 93 Horsley, 2011, 33; Garnsey & Saller 1997, 96. See also Cicero, On Duties 1.48. 94 Seneca, On Benefits 1.10.4. 95 See Seneca, On Benefits 1.4.2; Horsley 2011, 32–34; Garnsey & Saller 1997, 98. As Seneca also notes, the good emperor would not need any body guard, because he was protected by his benefactions (i.e., by the loyalty and gratefulness that others owed him). Seneca, On Mercy 1.13.5; see Horsley 2011, 34. “Ungratefulness” could be punished severely; Hardin 2008, 42–44. 96 Borg & Crossan 2009, 131. 97 See Crossan 2008, 59–60; see also Green 2001, 92. 98 Hardin 2008, 23. 99 Horsley 1997, 10. 100 Barclay 2011, 367–70; Horsley 2011, 1–10, 203–4. 101 Malina 2001, 27. 102 Both Cassius Dio and Tacitus tell that Tiberius deprived the city of Cyzicus of its freedom partly because the inhabitants failed to finish a temple to Tiberius’ deified father; Cassius Dio, History 57.24.6; Tacitus, Annales 4.36; see Hardin 2008; 42–43. 103 Unfortunately, the stone is damaged, and the oath itself is not preserved; Hardin 2008, 45; see ILS 8781 = IGRR.137 = OGIS 532. 104 ILS 8781 = IGRR.137 = OGIS 532, lines 11–12, 18–21; see Hardin 2008, 45. Notably, Augustus is listed among the deities by which the people swore loyalty: “by Zeus, the Sun, all the Gods and Goddesses, and Augustus himself.” ILS 8781 = IGRR.137 = OGIS 532, lines 9–10. This should probably be related to Paul’s dismissive attitude toward reverence of “those who by nature are not gods” (Gal 4:9); see Hardin 2008, 45. Coins minted in Thessaloniki also have the deified Julius Caesar on one side, and Augustus as “divi filius” on the other; IG X.2.1 31; see Witherington 2006, 5; Riesner 1998, 339. Another oath, this one from Cyprus to Tiberius, pertains that the inhabitants are to swear to hearken, to obey, to be loyal (εὐνοήσειν), and to worship (σεβάσεσθαι) Tiberius and his entire household (lines 11–15); for the text and discussion, see Hardin 2008, 46. 105 Witherington 1998b, 18. 106 Garnsey & Saller 1997, 102; Hopkins 1985, 211–17; cf. Pliny, Letters 10:33–34. 107 Lazarus 1999, 217. 108 Segal 1990, 104–5. 109 Converts were generally not highly esteemed in his cultural milieu; see Witherington 1998b, 18, 205. 110 Cf. Plutarch’s depiction of strategies for acceptable self–praise; Plutarch, “On Praising Oneself Inoffensively,” Moralia 543A–F; see Watson 2003, 80.

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 89 11 See e.g. Green 2001, 91. 1 112 Cf. Green 2001, 87–96. 113 Bauer’s translation uses the imperfect de conatu: “I tried to destroy.” BAGD 2000, 853. “The term [πορθέω] is common as a description of political oppression.” Betz 1979, 67. See 4 Macc 4:23; 11:4; Philo, Against Flaccus 54; Josephus, War 4.405; Antiquities 10.135. 114 Tellbe 2001, 29; Witherington 1998b, 174. 115 Tolmie 2011, 69–70. 116 Betz 1979, 67. See 4 Macc 4:23; 11:4; Philo, Against Flaccus 54; Josephus, War 4.405; Antiquities 10.135. 117 Gordon D. Fee takes the account of the Galatians’ former willingness to sacrifice their eyes to Paul to indicate that his ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκὸς was infecting his eyes; Fee 2007, 164–66. The term εκπτύω has the connotation of “to spit out,” and therefore some associate the notion of “spitting out” evilness with demonic possession; Martyn 1997, 421; Dunn 1993, 234; Bruce 1982b, 209. Others associate with epilepsy; Wrede 1907, 22–23; Klausner 1944, 325–30. James D. G. Dunn suggests a connection with the notion of the “evil eye,” and the practice to spit three times to ward off the evil eye; Dunn 1993, 234. Another quite speculative hypothesis is that of William M. Ramsay, who, along with another hypothesis, supposes that Paul may have contracted malaria in the lowlands, and therefore made his way up to the high country to recuperate; Ramsay 2001, 94–7. Louis J. Martyn finds it useless to speculate about the nature of Paul’s sickness, though he supposes that it was some kind of illness; Martyn 1997, 420. 118 Ramsay 2001, 97–98. 119 Bruce 1982b, 275. 120 Cf. Bruce 1982b, 276. This habit is forbidden in Leviticus 19:28 but is possibly referred to in Is. 44:5. 121 Klassen 1969–70, 378. 122 Tolmie 2011, 72; Bruce 1982b, 279. 123 As Ben Witherington puts it, “[f]or Paul, persons are not primarily individuals but beings in relationship, with identity and responsibilities defined by relationships.” Witherington 1998b, 204. 124 “Paul envisions Christian relationships as spiritually and social intertwined, such as the part affects the whole, the microcosm’s behavior affects the macrocosm.” Witherington 1998b, 204; Engberg-Pedersen 2010, 139. Malina and Neyrey similarly note that “abnormality” did not mainly refer to the psychological state of an individual, but to the case of faulty relations; Malina & Neyrey 1996, 156. 125 Martin 1995, 38–47, 68. See Lakoff & Johnson 2003, on the cognitive function of metaphors. 126 Martin 1995, 38–47, 68; Mitchell 1991. 127 The term σάρξ denotes collective aspects of human existence in particular, namely the person as incorporated in a society and belonging to a group of factual or fictitious relatives; Ernst Käsemann calls this a “structure of solidarity,” and James D. G. Dunn speaks of a “corporate and national identity.” Dunn 2006, 70; 1998, 65; Käsemann 1971, 22. 128 See Conway 2008, 71–73, 96; cf. 21–23. However, “the concept of the noble, manly death and the emasculating crucifixion are not ideas that are easily held together in the gendered ideology of the first century.” Conway 2008, 73. 129 On the customs surrounding gift giving, see Jewett 2007, 130–32; Witherington 1998b, 47–49; Martin 1995, 81–84; Herman 1987, 60–61. 130 Tolmie 2011, 77. 131 See Neyrey for an account of the verb “stand against” [ἀνθίστημι] as defending one’s honor; Neyrey 1998, 204. 132 Pargament 1997, 110–14.

90  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 33 Kelhoffer 2009, 128. 1 134 Dunn 1993, 341. 135 Green 2001, 91. 136 See Samuelsson 2013, 16–17; Elliott 1997, 168; Hengel 1977, 76. 137 Witherington 1998b, 18, 205. 138 It was believed that an accursed person would die a premature death at the hands of God; Orr & Walther 1976, 188; Tolmie 2005, 42. A curse also had the most practical implementations of exclusion from the group; Morland 1995, 15; cf. Wilson 2007, 25; Tolmie 2005, 42. 139 Moxnes 2005, 20–21. 140 Note that a proper challenge could take place only among people who were more or less equal; see Moxnes 2005, 20; Malina 2001, 35. 141 Lazarus 1999, 33. In the case of Galatians it is perhaps more appropriate to talk about “God-confidence” than self-confidence. 142 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 140–43. 143 Stendahl 1977, 18–35; cf. Barnett 2008, 72. 144 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 12–20, 130–32. 145 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 141–43. 146 Pargament 1997, 110–17. 147 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 141. David K. Carson et al. similarly comment, with reference to Rom 5:1, 1 Cor 6:11, Gal 6:2–16, and 1 Thess 5:23 that “[w]hile justification happens in an instant and we are made right with God, we also understand that sanctification is a lifelong pursuit.” Carson et al. 2009, 283. 148 People after a “quantum change” placed more emphasis on “forgiveness, generosity, God’s will, growth, honesty, humility, loving, and personal peace.” Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 131–32. 149 See the correspondence with Miller and C’de Baca’s result on the values of males after a quantum change; Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 132. 150 Berger 2003, 42–43. 151 In the context where Paul discusses the “fruit of the Spirit,” he does not mention their baptism, but speaks of their belonging to Christ (Gal 5:24). 152 Spiegel 1978, 66–79. Yorick Spiegel focuses on grief work, which is a special section within the psychology of coping, namely coping in relation to a loss, but his theoretical framework is applicable to other types of coping as well; see Spiegel 1978, 59–98. 153 Paul has no hope in influencing the opponents themselves, and perhaps no interest in this either; see Galatians 1:8–9; Tolmie 2011, 76; Bash 2004, 146–63. 154 Spiegel 1978, 74; emphasis removed. 155 Paul’s expression that he could wish that they “cut themselves off” probably refers to self-exclusion from the group; it has nothing to do with genital mutilation (Gal 5:12). 156 Schnelle 2005, 430. 157 Neutel 2010; Conway 2008, 79–80; Martin 1995, 231. 158 Schnelle 2005, 433. As Beverly Roberts Gaventa notes, Paul makes quite extensive use of the metaphor of the apostle’s role of being like a caring mother for those whose faith he wants to support; 1 Thess 2:7; Gal 1:15; 1 Cor 3:1–2; see Gaventa 2007, 4. 159 As Klaus Berger emphasizes, the clothes defined the social relationships, and Paul assumes that all have “put on” Christ; Gal 3:27; Berger 2003, 40–43. 160 See Morland 1995, 15; cf. Wilson 2007, 25; Tolmie 2005, 42. 161 When Paul in Philippians holds that he was “blameless concerning the righteousness which is the law,” the expression is clearly sarcastic; the kind of “blamelessness” that he now counts as garbage (Phil 3:6). 162 Moxnes 2005, 19–40. See also Witherington 1998b, 47. 163 Moxnes 2005, 20–21; Malina 2001, 30–32.

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 91

Bibliography A. Primary sources and translations Cassius Dio (1914–27). Roman History. E. Cary, trans. 9 vols. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1943). Letters to His Friends. W. G. Williams, trans. vol. 1. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1949). On Invention. H. Hubbell, trans. vol. 1. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1991). On Duties. M. T. Griffin & E. M. Atkins, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Josephus (1926–65) The Jewish War; Jewish Antiquities. H. St. J. Thackerary et al., trans. 10 vols. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Judah, Rabbi (1988). Ketubot. The Mishnah: A New Translation. J. Neusner, trans. New Haven: Yale University Press. Philo (1954). Against Flaccus. F. H. Colson, trans. vol. 9. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 295–403. Plutarch (1949–76). Moralia. H. Cherniss and H. N. Fowler, trans. 14 vols. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Seneca the Younger (1958). Consolation to Polybius. J. W. Basore, trans. vol. 2. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 356–415. Seneca the Younger (1958). On Mercy. J. W. Basore, trans. vol. 1. LCL, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 356–449. Seneca the Younger (2011). On Benefits. M. Griffin & B. Inwood, trans. Chigaco/ London: University of Chicago Press. Tacitus, Cornelius (2005). The Annals of Imperial Rome. A. J. Church & W. J. Brodribb, trans. Stilwell: Digireads.com Publishing. Tertullian (1986). Against Marcion. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Holmes, trans. vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 269–474.

B. Reference works and sourcebooks Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich & William Danker, eds. (2000). A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed., earlier published in 1979, 1957. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

C. Secondary literature Bailey, Kenneth I. (2001). “Burial Customs.” The Oxford Guide to Ideas and Issues of the Bible. B. M. Metzger & M. D. Coogan, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 77–78. Barclay, John M. G. (2011). Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Barnett, Paul (2008). Paul: Missionary of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barton, Stephen C. (2011). “Eschatology and the Emotions in Early Christianity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130: 3, 571–591. Bash, Anthony (2004). “A Psychodynamic Approach to 2 Corinthians 10–13.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 149–163.

92  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters Beck, James R. (2002). The Psychology of Paul: A Fresh Look at His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Berger, Klaus (2003). Identity and Experience in the New Testament. C. Muenchow, trans. Earlier published in 1991. Minneapolis: Fortress. Best, Ernest (1972). The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. London: A. & C. Black. Betz, Hans Dieter (1979). Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Bloch, Abraham P. (1980). The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies. New York: Ktav Publ. Borg, Marcus J. & John Dominic Crossan (2009). The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon. New York: Harper Collins. Bridges, Linda McKinnish (2008). 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing. Bruce, Frederick F. (1982a). 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary, vol 45. Waco: Word Books. Bruce, Frederick F. (1982b). The Epistle to the Galatians; A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Bruce, Frederick F. (1990). The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Earlier edition published 1951. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bynum, Caroline Walker (1995). The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 CE. New York: Columbia University Press. Campbell, Constantine R. (2015). Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Campbell, William S. (2008). Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T & T Clark. Carson, David K., Herdley Paolini, Dale Ziglear & John Fox (2009). “The Unconverted Subconscious in Psychotherapy: Biblical Foundations, Psychological Explorations and Clinical Applications.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 37: 4, 267–293. Conway, Colleen M. (2008). Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossan, John Dominic (2008). “Roman Imperial Theology.” In the Shadow of the Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance. R. A. Horsley, ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 59–74. Cullberg, Johan (1975). Kris och utveckling. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur. Cullberg, Johan (1993). Dynamisk psykiatri. Earlier published in 1984. Värnamo: Natur och Kultur. Davies, Jon (1999). Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London: Routledge. Donfried, Karl P. (1997). “The Imperial Cult of Thessaloniki and Political Conflict in Thessaloniki.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 215–223. Donfried, Karl P. (2002). Paul, Thessaloniki and Early Christianity. London: T&T Clark. Donfried, Karl P. & I. Howard Marshall (1993). The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 93 Dunn, James, D. G. (1988). Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38a. Waco: Word Books. Dunn, James D. G. (1993). Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dunn, James D. G. (2006). The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Earlier published in 1998. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ellingworth, Paul & Eugene A. Nida (1976). A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Thessalonians. UBS Handbook Series. New York/Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. Elliott, Neil (1997). “The Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 167–183. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (2010). Cosmology & Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eriksson, Anders (1998). Traditions and Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians. Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament, 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Esler, Philip F. (2003). Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress. Fee, Gordon D. (2007). Galatians. Bladford Forum: Deo Publishing. Fee, Gordon D. (2009). The First and the Second Letters to the Thessalonians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Foxvog, D. A. & A. D. Kilmer (2007). “Music.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. G. M. Bromiley, ed., earlier edition published in 1915. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 437–49. Friedman, Michael (1985). “Toward a Reconceptualization of Guilt.” Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 21: 4, 501–547. Garnsey, Peter & Richard Saller (1987). The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts (2007). Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press. Gillard, Frank D. (1989). “The Problem with the Anti-Semitic Comma Between 1 Thess 2:14 and 15.” New Testament Studies 35, 481–502. Green, Joel B. (2001). “Crucifixion.” The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. M. Bockmuehl, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 87–101. Hardin, K. Justin (2008). Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Harrill, J. Albert (2012). Paul the Apostle: His Life and Legacy in their Roman Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heil, John Paul (2010). Philippians: Let Us Rejoice in Being Conformed to Christ. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Hengel, Martin (1977). Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. J. Bowden, trans. London: SCM Press. Herman, Gabriel (1987). Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hongisto, Leif (2010). Experiencing the Apocalypse at the Limit of Alterity. Ph.D. diss., Åbo Akademi University. Hope, Valerie M. (2009). Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London/New York: Continuum.

94  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters Hopkins, Keith (1985). Death and Renewal: Sociological studies in Roman History, vol. 2. Earlier published in 1983. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horsley, Richard A. (1997). “The Gospel of Imperial Salvation: Introduction.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 10–24. Horsley, Richard A. (2011). Jesus and the Powers: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hurtado, Larry W. (2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Jewett, Robert (1986). The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Philadelphia: Fortress. Jewett, Robert (2007). Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kahl, Brigitte (2010). Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis: Fortress. Käsemann, Ernst (1971). Perspectives on Paul. Earlier published in 1969. M. Kohl, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress. Kelhoffer, James A. (2009). “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and 2 Corinthians 11.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 74. Uppsala: Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet, 127–143. Keller, Catherine (2005). God and Power: Counter-Apocalyptic Journeys. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Keshgegian, Flora A. (2000). Redeeming Memories: A Theology of Healing and Transformation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Klassen, William (1969–70). “Galatians 6:17.” The Expository Times 81. Klausner, Joseph ([1943] 1944). From Jesus to Paul. London: Allen and Uwin. Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth (2001). On Death and Dying. Earlier published in 1970. London: Routledge. Lake, Kirsopp (2010). The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul: Their Motive and Origin. Earlier published in 1914. London: Rivingtons. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Earlier published in 1980. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lazarus, Richard (1999). Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York: Springer. Lazarus, Richard & Susan Folkman (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. Lendon, J. E. (1997). Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lim, Yong Kar (2009). The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us: A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Suffering s in 2 Corinthians. London: T & T Clark. Malherbe, Abraham J. (2004). The Letters to the Thessalonians. The Anchor Bible, vol. 32B. Earlier published in 2000. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Earlier published in 1981, revised and expanded edition. Atlanta: John Knox. Malina, Bruce J. & Jerome H. Neyrey (1996). Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Martin, Dale (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

Coping with death in Paul’s early letters 95 Martyn, Louis J. (1997). Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. Miller, William R. & Janet C’de Baca (2001). Quantum Change: When Epiphanies and Sudden Insights Transform Ordinary Lives. New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, Margaret M. (1991). Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Morland, Kjell Arne (1995). The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel. ESEC 5, Atlanta: Georiga. Moxnes, Halvor (2005). “Honor and Shame.” The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendricksons, 19–40. Neutel, Karin B. (2010). “ ‘Neither Jew nor Greek:’ Abraham as a Universal Ancestor.” Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham. M. Goodman, G. H. Kooten & J. T. A. G. M. Ruiten, eds. Leiden: Brill, 291–306. Newman, Barclay M. Jr. (1993). A Concise Greek–English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Neyrey, Jerome H. (1998). Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville: Westminster John Know Press. O’Connell, Walter E. & Elizabeth Hooker (2013). “Anxiety Disorders II.” Psycho­ pathology and Psychotherapy: From DSm–IV Diagnosis to Treatment. L. Sperry & J. Carlson, eds. Earlier published in 1996. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis, 179–218. Olyan, Saul M. (2004). Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Orr, William F. & James Arthur Walther (1976). 1 Corinthians. Introduction with a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Co. Pargament, Kenneth I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Pargament, Kenneth I. (2007). Spiritually Integrated Psychotherapy: Understanding and Addressing the Sacred. New York: Guilford Press. Ramsay, William M. (2001). St. Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen. Earlier version published in 1925. London: Agnus Hudson. Riesner, Rainer (1998). Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. D. Stott, trans., earlier published in 1994. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. (2010). “Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World.” Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. D. Neuefeld & R. E. DeMaris, eds. Abingdon: Routledge, 109–125. Rothkrug, Lionel (1988). “German Holiness and Western Sanctity in Medieval and Modern History.” Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques 15: 1, 215–229. Samuelsson, Gunnar (2013). Crucifixion in Antiquity. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schnelle, Udo (2005). Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Earlier published in 2003. M. E. Boring, trans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Segal, Alan F. (1990). Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press.

96  Coping with death in Paul’s early letters Simpson Jr., J.W. (1993). “Letter to the Thessalonians.” Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. G. F. Hawthorne & R. P. Martin, eds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 932–939. Sölle, Dorothee (1967). Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology After the “Death of God.” D. Lewis, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress. Spiegel, Yorick (1978). The Grief Process: Analysis and Counseling. Earlier published in 1973. E. Duke, trans. Nashville: Abingdon. Stendahl, Krister (1977). Paulus bland judar och hedningar. Earlier published in 1976, B. J. Stendahl, trans. Falköping: Gummessons. Strang, Peter (2007). Livsglädjen och det djupa allvaret: Om existentiell kris och välbefinnande. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur. Syreeni, Kari (2004). “Coping with the Death of Jesus: The Gospels and the Theory of Grief Work.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 63–86. Tellbe, Mikael (2001). Paul Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews, and Civic Authoritied in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Tolmie, D. Francois (2005). Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centered Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Tolmie, D. Francois (2011). “Violence in the Letter to the Galatians?” Violence in the New Testament. P. G. R. de Villiers & J. W. van Henten, eds. Leiden: Brill, 69–82. Verhey, Allen (2002). Remembering Jesus: Christian Community, Scripture, and the Moral Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Watson, Duane F. (2003). “Paul and Boasting.” Paul in the Greco-Roman World. J. P. Sampley, ed. Harrisburg/London/New York: Trinity Press International, 77–100. Wilson, Todd (2007). The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Winter, Bruce W. (1994). Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster. Witherington, Ben (1998a). The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Witherington, Ben (1998b). The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press. Witherington, Ben (2006). 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wrede, William (1907). Paul. Earlier published in 1904. London: Philip Gene.

3 The Corinthian correspondence

As in Galatians, also in 1–2 Corinthians the cross of Jesus has a prominent place. But there are also differences. In the Corinthian correspondence, the shame of the cross is elaborated as “the wisdom of God” and “the power of God” (1 Cor 1–2). While Galatians merely touches upon the actual deaths of contemporary persons, we find extensive discussions concerning the implications of such deaths in 1–2 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians: Increase the effort First Corinthians displays a strong reaction against death: it is the last enemy that will be destroyed (15:26). A significant portion of the letter is also devoted to negotiating how the death of Jesus is to be interpreted. In 1 Corinthians, we find what appears to be a case of cognitive dissonance.1 Two divergent interpretations of premature death are offered: premature death can either be interpreted as a sign of God’s rejection (cf. 10:1–10), or it is not a sign of God’s rejection (1:17–4:16; 15:1–58). The utterly shameful death of crucifixion is also framed as the wisdom of God (1:17–4:16). In the beginning, as well as in the close of the letter, the crucified Christ is counted as the solid base for a relationship with God (1:17, 23; 2:2; cf. 15:1–58). In the last section of the letter body, Paul seems to be at pains to demonstrate that not only did Jesus rise from the dead, but also Jesus’ followers will rise from the dead (see 15:12–13). This plea for communal resurrection appears to emanate from the fact that some of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection have died (15:6b). Needless to say, violent death is at the center of the discussion, and Jesus’ resurrection is essential as a sign of God’s approval of his person and deed. In 1 Corinthians, Paul’s effort to cope with contemporary people’s deaths seems to gather pace. He admonishes his addressees to “stand steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (15:58). In other words: continue and increase the effort! Historical and rhetorical situation The references to the crucifixion of Jesus naturally serve as a reminder of the risks of giving a message at odds with the dominant culture. Many

98  The Corinthian correspondence incidents underscore the vanity of opposing the Roman empire in the first century: many tried, and many failed.2 The city of Corinth was in this period a Roman colony, located in the region of Achaia, about 70 kilometers (44 miles) from Athens. It had been destroyed in 146 BCE, and its inhabitants sold as slaves,3 but in 44 ΒCE Julius Caesar re-founded the city as a Roman colony based on three main segments of the Roman population: freedmen, military veterans, and urban traders and laborers.4 These colonists gained the right to own property and to initiate civil law suits.5 The socioeconomic system was dependent on trading.6 The city is reckoned to have been inhabited by 17,000 people, and the surrounding cultivable land would scarcely have supported such a large population. The benefactor system is deemed to have played an important role,7 but several Roman historians mention the famines during the reign of Claudius (41–54 CE).8 Anthony Thiselton underscores that the contrast between those who were well provided for and the ‘have nots’ was exacerbated not only by socioeconomic differences of background, birth, patronage, and occupation but also by the specific circumstances of famine (or at least of severe food shortages) around the date of the epistle.9 Two prominent issues are indicated at an early point of the letter, namely unity and spirituality.10 The Corinthians are depicted as enriched in everything in Christ but are urged to stay firm, not splitting up in fractions (1:4– 13). Paul addresses his audience in a very specific but inclusive manner: [to] “the church of Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1:2). A practical issue, which also encapsulates the letter, is Paul’s dealing with another apostle named Apollos. Apollos occurs in the beginning of the letter, as a seemingly haphazard example of possible fractions: “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ” (1:12b). When Paul wishes to admonish the Corinthians for being immature, the name of Apollos reoccurs, and we may understand that Apollos came after Paul to Corinth (3:4–6).11 As Paul puts it, true power is from God, and “therefore let no one boast in men” (3:21–23). He urges the Corinthians not to judge beforehand (4:6), and he encourages the Corinthians to imitate himself (4:16), but he seems to fear substitution.12 The question of the evaluation of the person who is suffering – and of Paul in particular – is an important issue of the letter (4:1–16). His message to the Corinthians is that even though he is being spitefully treated, this does not diminish his role as an apostle. The massive bulk of communication indicates that Paul has great expectations on the capacity and interest of his audience, and also, perhaps, a strong drive to sort things out.

The Corinthian correspondence 99 Death in 1 Corinthians Several passages deal with the death of contemporary persons in 1 Corinthians, and Jesus’ death is depicted as essential for the new understanding of life and behavior. Thus, Jesus’ death is discussed extensively (1:4–4:21). Moreover, Paul depicts himself as having been “in weakness and fear and in much trembling” during a previous visit in Corinth (2:3). The exact circumstances of Paul’s weakness/sickness (ἀσθένεια) in this context is difficult to discern. Since his audience already knew the circumstances, the rhetorical situation provided no reason to expand on the issue, and perhaps, those were also circumstances that were potentially disgraceful and therefore likely to be avoided in speech. However, the term ἀσθένεια can refer to both personal disorder or disease, and to social disorder and conflict.13 Paul tells the Corinthians that he perceives it “as if God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death; for we have been made a spectacle before the world, both to angels and to men” (4:9), which is an example of figurative speech,14 but Paul nevertheless depicts their humbled position. As he continues: To the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and we are poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless. And we labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat. We have been made as the filth of the world, the off-scouring of all things until now. (4:11–13) Paul emphasizes that he does not write those things to shame the Corinthians but to warn them (4:14), and he urges them to let him be their role model (4:15–16). The references to shame, warning, and being a role model indicate that Paul’s honor is at stake – which is not to say that he and his fellow workers did not suffer persecution. Their spiteful treatment was most likely Paul’s reason to try to re-establish their position vis-à-vis the Corinthians. The metaphors of spiteful treatment recur by the close of the letter (see 15:32). Notably, Paul seems to prefer metaphorical expressions when he speaks about his suffering and endangerment in 1 Corinthians. Chapter 11 relates to the death of contemporary persons in a direct sense. Paul attacks the unworthy way in which the Lord’s supper is celebrated in Corinth, since “many are weak and sick” (ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι), and “not so few have died” (καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί) among the Corinthian Christbelievers because of these problems (11:17–34). There is no reason to doubt that Paul speaks of the actual death of contemporary persons in this context. The Corinthian gatherings are, according to Paul, “not for the better but for the worse” (11:17), since they split up in fractions, and some eat their own lavish meals while others sit hungry (11:21). No praise is given

100  The Corinthian correspondence for this behavior; their meals even cease to be the Lord’s supper (11:20, 22). In this context, Paul emphasizes that the Lord’s supper is a commemoration of Jesus’ death, and to shame those who have nothing contradicts its very meaning and purpose (11:22–32). The identity of those who have died is a neglected issue in modern scholarship. It has been assumed that it was some of the wealthier members who had died in Corinth, as a punishment from God.15 What we have in the letter is a causal link between the unworthy behavior, and the fact that a number of persons have died. I would suggest that this link could be understood in a more direct way. Some did not wait and share, and some became weak and sick, and died from their infirmity. Notably, the “unworthy behavior” that Paul attacks is the unwillingness among the wealthy to wait and share (11:21–22, 33–34). The easiest explanation is that those who became weak, sick, and died, did so because of malnutrition and starvation – in other words, they were some of the “have nots” (cf. 11:30).16 Given this basic interpretation, the rest of the exhortation also turns out to be coherent and easily applicable to the situation. The problem in Corinth is clearly related to the unequal distribution of food supplies (11:21).17 As Charles H. Talbert notes: there was a Roman custom to serve different types of food to different categories of guests [. . .] Given such a custom, it would have been normal behavior for the wealthier members not to have any qualms about eating their bountiful provisions and letting the poorer do the best they could [. . .] It would have been the natural procedure for the host’s social equals to gather early in the dining room and for the lesser lights to find their places in the atrium.18 Ma. Marilou Ibita has helpfully noted that “the hungry” (ὃς . . . πεινᾷ) who are mentioned in 11:21 most likely are identical with “those who are hungry” (τις πεινᾷ) in 11:34.19 The interpretation of Ibita implies that the concluding injunction in the third person suggests that if anyone is hungry (τις πεινᾷ) he or she should eat in the house (ἐν οἴκῳ ἐσθιέτω) where the Lord’s supper is celebrated (11:34). This suggestion would solve both the problem with starvation and with fractionalism.20 Ibita’s suggestion is both economic and in accordance with the overall intention of the text, namely that the Corinthian Christ-believers should cease to split up into fractions (cf. 11:18–19, 33–34; 1:10).21 The failure to “discern the body” (διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα; 11:29) most likely refers to the failure to recognize the “have nots” as members of the collective body (11:22).22 It seems like Paul had the capacity to identify with the lower strata of the society, to which he did not originally belong, which is a characteristic of interest for the present study as the investigation goes on. Finally, chapter 15 consists in its entirety of a plea for the resurrection of the dead. The chapter begins with a list of the witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, of whom some have now died (15:5–8). Anders Eriksson suggests

The Corinthian correspondence 101 that these deaths probably are the reason for Paul to include this topic in the letter.23 The circumstance that Paul had persecuted the “church of God” is also mentioned as an explanation of his being somewhat late to witness the risen Christ (15:8).

Reacting against death In 1 Corinthians Paul expresses a strong reaction against death. Death is proclaimed as the last enemy that will be destroyed (15:25–27). With its plea for belief in communal resurrection, death is clearly depicted as a challenge. It is a threat of harm or loss that is possible to overcome.24 Jesus’ death is even interpreted as a victory; it is the wisdom of God and the glory of God (1:24), although this feature is credited as a mystery (2:4–16). A challenge often requires some kind of effort, and the letter also contains certain traits of aggressiveness. First of all, the Corinthian Christ-believers are accused of being less spiritual than is expected of them (3:1–4:16).25 He asks: “shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?” (4:21). The Corinthians are accused of taking sides with someone who is acting immorally (5:1–13), and they are also to be ashamed because they cannot judge between brothers (6:1–11). The insufficient honor given to Paul in the present situation appears to be a great disturbance to him (see 4:1–16; 9:1–27; esp. 9:15b).26 However, the traits of aggression imply that difficulty stands in the way of gain, but it can be overcome with verve and determination.27 Psychologists who discern different phases in the coping process generally associate the second phase with reaction.28 Yorick Spiegel terms the phase “control” and thus indicates that the reaction is controlled by the person himor herself, by other persons, and by cultural norms.29 In 1 Corinthians, Paul tries to control the situation. In his own depiction, there are no alternatives to his chosen path, to his way of thinking and acting. For instance, if Christ had not risen everything is in vain, empty, futile (15:2, 14, 17, 58). Other perceptions or pathways are simply inconceivable. As Pargament puts it, when facing life stress, the first route of action is almost automatic; we try to preserve both destinations of significance (i.e., ends) and the pathways to reach significance (i.e., means).30 Also in the face of death, Paul encourages the addressees to “be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in work of the Lord” (15:58b). Colliding appraisals The letter shows traits of a transformed appraisal of death in relation to Jesus, to Paul himself, and his fellow Christ-believers (see 1:17–2:16; 4:1–16; 8:11–13; 11:17–34), but another appraisal of death reoccurs in the letter, namely death as the correct punishment of sins (3:17; 10:1–11; cf. 5:1–13). There is a stark discrepancy between how different deaths are appraised in different contexts in the letter. While the grizzly death of Jesus is depicted as a “wisdom” and a “glory,” conventional wisdom teaching is used elsewhere

102  The Corinthian correspondence as a rhetorical means to show that the impious will die dishonorably, painfully, and prematurely.31 It appears that Paul is struggling to reconcile two colliding interpretations of premature death. When divergent understandings of the sacred collide with each other, or with the way people understand themselves, Pargament speaks of “clashes within.”32 The tension between expectation and experience remains throughout the letter. Death is sometimes depicted as a punishment by God (3:17; 10:1–10), but obviously premature death can strike even the innocent, as in the case of Jesus (1:17–2:26), some of the “have-nots” in the Corinthian assembly (11:17–34), and some of the witnesses to the risen Christ (15:6). The contradiction between these two interpretative patterns is, in 1 Corinthians, deferred by Paul to the intervention of God by means of resurrection (15:1–58). The expectation that the impious will die at the hands of God is naturally an impediment to the interpretation that Jesus was a pious man. Therefore the notion of resurrection is essential, and necessary to make ends meet intellectually in this letter.33 In Paul’s depiction in 1 Corinthians, his personal situation becomes unbearable without the belief in resurrection (15:1–58, esp. 29–32). The tension is solved, or at least alleviated by means of trust in God’s grace and God’s intervention (15:10, 24–27, 34–57). When Paul mentions that he was weak, fearful, and in “much trembling” at his last visit to Corinth, he also states that he “was determined not to know anything among [them] except from Jesus Christ and him crucified” (2:2). He does not depict himself as accursed by God (or accusing God), but other things he knew previously were nothing to hold on to in that situation. The premature death of Jesus – who was innocent – appears to have become a comfort or advice for Paul in his times of trouble. Paul claims to have a clean conscience (4:4); it is only in terms of appearance that he and his fellow apostles are in the position of “men condemned to death” (4:9). When he writes 1 Corinthians he does not assume that he will die the death of an impious man (see 15:51). But notably, the troublesome death of Jesus was only the death of an impious man in terms of appearance (1:18–2:16). The truth is, according to Paul, that the crucifixion of Jesus was the glory and wisdom of God (1:18–25). As Paul puts it, “he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one” (2:15).34 To summarize, resurrection becomes extremely important, both emotionally and conceptually, to make ends meet in the argument of 1 Corinthians.35 Fereshteh Ahmadi notes that a common means for coping among persons who struggle to maintain the perception of a just world in situations that violate such assumptions is to refer to external authorities, such as scripture.36 Scholars have long noted that 1 Corinthians contains many references, explicitly and implicitly, to tradition and to scripture. Chapter 15 alone contains about thirteen references – 15:3, 4, 27, 45, 54, 55 explicitly, and 15:8, 21, 25, 32, 38, 47, 49, 52, implicitly.37 The number is striking. Also, in the section about the “foolishness of the cross,” the argument is based largely on scripture.38

The Corinthian correspondence 103 Honor in spite of persecution We may also note that when Paul describes their struggling as apostles, he emphasizes that they remain active: “Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat” (4:12b–13a). As Colleen M. Conway puts it, “the concept of the noble, manly death and the emasculating crucifixion are not ideas that are easily held together in the gendered ideology of the first century.”39 In regard to notions of masculinity in the cultural milieu of Paul, it was not enough to be born a man, but one also had to play the part of a man, namely to remain active, superior, and selfcontrolled.40 According to Paul, God has chosen “the things which are not, to abolish the things that are” (1:28). And further “God knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile” (3:20; also 1:27–29). This is clearly an attempt to renegotiate notions of honor and manliness.41 To say the least, Paul appears to be very concerned about his personal honor in 1 Corinthians. He claims that he would rather die than let anyone deprive him of his ground for boasting (9:15). Naturally, this is not meant to be taken literally, but shows something of the value that Paul placed on his honor.42 Strikingly, when Paul depicts himself and the other apostles “as men condemned to death” in 4:9b, he is more focused on the aspect that others see them in an awkward position, than on the fact that they might see death. Clearly the lack of social status appears to be more problematic to Paul than the fact that they may be killed, or these features are indeed interconnected in his perception. Persons without honor were also without protection, unless clients to someone with greater means.43 The disgraceful position of Paul and his fellow workers, and issues related to social status, are given a predominant position in the letter. In Paul’s depiction, they are made a spectacle to the world, to both angels and men (4:9b). In the concluding paragraph of 1 Corinthians, Paul exhorts the Christ-believers to watch, stand fast in faith, to be courageous/manly (ἀνδρίζεσθε), and to be strong (κραταιοῦσθε; 16:13). But although Paul ascribes a great significance to his personal honor in 1 Corinthians, his grounds for boasting appear to be carefully selected. He boasts in not having received financial support (9:1–18; cf. Gal 1:14),44 and he carefully points out that it was the power of God, the wisdom of God, and the Spirit of God that were the sufficient reasons for his change of course (1:18–2:16).45 He is not a dishonorable changer, but rather, his vision of the risen Christ made him reconsider his previous ways and goals (cf. 15:8–10).46 The accountability of an untimely born Paul uses the metaphor of an unreasonable fetus to describe his way to become a witness of the resurrected one unduly late (ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι; 15:8).47 In Hosea, Israel is depicted as “an unreasonable fetus/child” (LXX: οὗτος ὁ υἱός σου οὐ φρόνιμος) who does not understand when it is time to

104  The Corinthian correspondence be born (Hosea 13:13).48 This metaphor fits neatly to the passage of 1 Corinthians 15:8, where Paul depicts himself as the very last witness to see the resurrected one, a fetus who did not “come out” even when it was time. It may be noted that the “abnormal birth” of Paul clearly constituted a period of pain and struggle for the ‘mother’ while Paul “persecuted the church of God” (15:9). In the rhetorical situation Paul had nothing to gain in depicting himself as a persecutor, but it was perhaps rather the accounts of others that forced him to relate the issue. The rhetorical circumstances of the letter gave reasons to extenuate rather than exaggerate the severeness of his previous persecution. The metaphor of being an unreasonable fetus may appear as a mitigating way to depict his actions when Paul persecuted the Christ-believers, but put in relation to the context of Hosea 13:13 such presuppositions disappear. The unreasonable fetus is described as beyond help and hope in Hosea; there is absolutely nothing victorious on the part of Israel in the original context. “I will destroy you, Israel; who can help you?” (Hos 13:9). Israel is like an unreasonable fetus, and God expected better. Then luck turns in Hosea 14:4, as in 1 Corinthians 15:10. “I will heal their faithlessness; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned away from them” (Hos 14:4). And, as Paul puts it, “by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain” (1 Cor 15:10). And suddenly in 1 Corinthians, the unreasonable fetus has labored more than anyone else – yet not he, but the grace of God which was in him (1 Cor 15:10). By the close of chapter 15, there is also quite clearly a reference to Isaiah 25:8, which is a comforting discourse: “Death is swallowed up in victory” (15:54b).49 The text in Isaiah continues “He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces . . .” (Is 25:8).50 The quotation from Isaiah stands in sharp contrast to the continuation of the passage with the reference to Hosea 13:14, which in Paul appears in the same context.51 The passage in Hosea does not at all bear the connotations of a comforting and victorious stance as the reference to Isaiah 28:5 does.52 There is no contradiction, however, between the appraisals of death in these two references: only the position of the addressees is shifted. Death is a nasty threat in both discourses; but victory rather presupposes an enemy (cf. 15:26). The references to Isaiah identify with the victims (1 Cor 15:54b; cf. Isaiah 28:5), and the reference in Hosea with the trespassers (1 Cor 15:55; cf. Hosea 13:14). From what we know about Paul’s personal past, this included both being ruthless and being among the meek. Therefore, this capacity for dual identification is quite interesting. Handling colliding appraisals The notion that the sinners will experience punishment is reflected in Paul’s usage of the Exodus story in 10:1–11, which, however, is a rhetorical use of the phenomenon of death to add persuasive force to the following hortatory

The Corinthian correspondence 105 sections. The focus is not on the death but on how contemporary persons lived their lives (see 10:11). However, this notion of premature death as the correct punishment collides with the experience of the innocent facing death. Death does then not serve as an indication of God’s punishment, but resurrection is the ultimate indication of God’s grace, and also a reward to upright living (cf. 3:14). There has to be a communal resurrection, and everything else is impossible to live with to Paul in 1 Corinthians (cf. 15:13– 19). A faith in Christ without belief in resurrection is not a faith in possible progress but a “void” faith, according to Paul (cf. 15:14). Without resurrection everything is emptiness (see εἰκῇ 15:2; κενὸν/κενὴ 15:14; κενὸς 15:58), it is nothing; it is futile (ματαία 15:17). A threat of emptiness is naturally hard to handle – there is no handle. If Christ did not rise, the Christ-believers are “of all men the most pitiable” (cf. 15:19). The impression that disbelief in the resurrection is very threatening to Paul is supported by the heavy rhetoric surrounding the issue. In his plea for resurrection, the tone is very strident. Paul claims that all the apostles preach the same (15:11a), and this way is also how the Corinthians themselves have learned to believe (15:11b). The resurrection is confirmed with different forms of order. First, the resurrection of Jesus is described by the logic of chronology (15:3–8). Paul passes on what he has received,53 and he makes the claim to be a witness to the resurrected Christ as are the other apostles (even though he was the very last one to see him).54 Dictated as indisputable logic, Paul assumes that there would have been no resurrection for Jesus either, if there is no resurrection for the rest of his collective body (15:13).55 For Paul, the argument against the resurrection also leads to unacceptable conclusions. If resurrection is not attainable for the fellowship, the totality of faith is a fake (15:14), and the apostles have witnessed falsely (15:15). Thus, much is at stake for Paul. He tries to show that the implications of disbelief in resurrection are unacceptable. “If the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (15:16–18, emphasis added).56 To put the content in a psychologically oriented phrasing, the reaction to the perception that a pious person can die prematurely is controlled by the belief in resurrection.57 According to Paul, those who suggest that the belief in resurrection is false are to be ashamed (15:34). To attribute shame to someone is a severe action, especially in the Mediterranean context, but also elsewhere.58 Shame is concerned with the very foundation of our personality– who we are and who we want to be.59 The passage continues in the same vein, calling someone who wishes to ask how the dead are raised – with what body they come – a rattlebrain (ἄφρων; 15:36).The function of the phrase is to shame those who have asked, or wish to ask certain questions.60 The discourse also has the form of a challenge. If someone wishes to oppose this particular content, he/ she would have to deal with Paul. The comfort to Paul is in the knowledge of him who “has put all things under His feet” (15:25, 27) and in similar

106  The Corinthian correspondence references to the scriptures (15:3, 4, 21, 32). In this sense, Paul’s strategy in 1 Corinthians resemble the defense mechanism of intellectualization.61 A wide range of social, psychological, physical, and existential problems in relation to death are in 1 Corinthians given an intellectual answer: they should know that their labor is not in vain in the Lord (15:58). Relating to the situation In his account of different stages in grief work, Yorick Spiegel notes that a common experience in the beginning of a coping process is that the situation is perceived as “unreal.”62 In this type of circumstances, people tend to talk about themselves as feeling “empty, dead, not there,” and a fear of a threatening emptiness is commonly expressed.63 The expression that the situation is “as if” God had placed the apostles last of all may convey the same impression. The apostles are “as men condemned to death” (4:9). Also the expression that “[w]e have been made a spectacle/placed on the arena to the world, both to angels and to men” (4:9b) lingers on the appearance, as if the situation was being seen by a distant observer, rather than from the inside.64 Paul turns to people he knows, his “children” in the faith in Jesus, for support. He needs their “eyes,” their acknowledgment, and their perception of himself as a respected father (4:14–15). A strong tendency in the sections of admonition in the letter is to conserve the same lifestyle but increase the effort (7:1–40). In relation to social position, the main injunction is to remain what you are (see 7:1–40). The same basic pattern is also discernible in other passages of the letter, where a great significance is given to preservation and order. The concluding comment of the section about the gifts of the Spirit is: “let all things be done decently and in order” (14:40). Notably, also resurrection happened and will happen in order (ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι; 15:23). In a significant number of instances, the practical strategies of conservation – orderly behavior, but with increased effort – are suggested. As indicated above, these features resemble Pargament’s depiction of strategies that are commonly adopted in an initial phase of a coping process, that is, preserving both pathways and goals of significance but increasing the effort.65 Paul mainly relies on the universal order concerning the sinners: they will perish (cf. 10:1–10; 3:17). But when it comes to the assessment of one person who already had died prematurely, namely Jesus, Paul devotes time and space to explaining the particularity of this situation. Jesus died the death of a sinner, but it was in fact the wisdom of God, and the power of God, that was revealed through his death (1:17–3:23). Likewise, the spiteful treatment of Paul himself, and of the other apostles, is not a trait of their sinfulness (4:1–21). The Lord’s supper is a celebration of the death of Jesus, until he comes, and therefore no one should despise the lesser members of the “church of God” (11:17–34). Thus, a clash between two different assessments of the prematurely dead is contained by the letter. Death is in

The Corinthian correspondence 107 all cases an enemy, but an enemy that in certain cases will be conquered by means of resurrection (15:1–58). Paul seems to assume that he himself will be alive at the day of the Lord. As he says in the chapter about resurrection: “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed – in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (15:51–52). To summarize, 1 Corinthians expresses a strong reaction against death. The current situation implies threats against Paul’s life, which is depicted as “unreal” or hard to imagine. These threats are mostly described by means of metaphors or scriptural references, and the threat of total “emptiness” is kept at bay by means of a strong belief in resurrection.

2 Corinthians: Transforming goals and means First Corinthians shares many features with 2 Corinthians, but there is one significant difference: in 1 Corinthians, Paul holds the assumption that he himself will be alive until the end of time, while, 2 Corinthians, he assumes that he might be dead by then. The addressees are most likely alive, according to Paul’s estimation, but he himself will probably be dead. Some interests of 1 Corinthians are accentuated in 2 Corinthians, such as how afflictions may be interpreted positively in relation to honor. The letter as a whole is even more boastful and defensive than 1 Corinthians and its scope is more or less limited to Paul’s social position as an apostle. Second Corinthians contains clear indications that Paul’s position has been challenged, particularly in the latter part of the letter (ch 10–13) but also in the first part (e.g., 2:17; 4:13; 5:11–13; 6:3–10). Murray J. Harris even takes the indications of Paul’s apostolicity being questioned as a token of the authenticity of the letter.66 The precipitating question is whether that challenge should be responded to by means of a counter-challenge – a riposte – with the aim of consolidating Paul’s social position (10:1–13:13; see esp. 10:1–11), or ignored, with the aim of strengthening the bonds of mutuality and fellowship instead (1:1–9:15; see esp. 6:11–7:16). Already in the beginning of the letter, Paul makes an attempt to consolidate his position: “[From] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God and Timothy our brother” (2 Cor 1:1). The letter can clearly be divided into two parts, but I will not suggest multiple rhetorical situations but rather focus on the different appraisals and strategies that possibly developed in relation to more or less the same situation.67 Paul claims by means of an oath that he wishes to “spare” the addressees (1:23). Hence, he does not fear them. But the following passage contains a withdrawal of his previous stern admonition (1:23–2:11). A suspicious audience might deduce that Paul’s capacity to compel by force is lacking, and that he therefore wishes to call back the previously ordered punishment which obviously had not yet been effected by the Corinthians

108  The Corinthian correspondence (cf. 2:5–7). However, in 2 Corinthians Paul tries to persuade primarily by means of peaceful, self-exposing communication, which must be credited as a transformed pathway to significance. He has, as he claims, authority from the Lord “for edification, not for destruction” (13:10).68 There is not much more to say in regard to the historical situation, compared to 1 Corinthians. Thus, we go straight to the discourses about death in 2 Corinthians. Death in 2 Corinthians It may be the irony of Paul’s life that he, who had tried to destroy the fellowship of Christ-believers, became the target of similar kinds of aggression himself (cf. 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13).69 According to 2 Corinthians, Paul has been subjected to several official or semi-official punishments by now, and as Jerome H. Neyrey puts it, “[j]uridical warnings were intended to inflict pain, but especially to humiliate and discredit the troublemakers.”70 The afflictions that are mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are severe punishments, such as being flogged, beaten with rods, stoned, with addition of the dangers of traveling, such as being robbed and shipwrecked (1:8–11; 4:7–12; 6:4–10; 11:23–33; 12:10). Paul also mentions that he has once been “in the deep” for a night and a day (11:25). According to himself, he and his fellow workers71 had been saved from a terrible death, or terrible deaths (τηλικούτων θάνατων; 1:10).72 Terrible deaths Not all deaths are the same, and the death(s) that Paul and his coworkers had escaped – and hope to escape again – were terrible. Dying well was an important notion in antiquity. To die well was to die peacefully, in one’s bed, surrounded by loved ones, while “acting with calmness, courage, and dignity.”73 On the other hand, bad deaths were signified by disturbance, cowardliness, and indignity. As Valerie M. Hope comments: The most horrific deaths were inflicted on society’s outcasts, criminals in particular. The punishment was not just the physical pain, but also the removal of all usual norms for death, burial and remembrance. There would be no loved one to catch the final breath, no one to wash the body and to dispose of it properly.74 When Paul claims that he – and presumably Timothy – escaped from terrible deaths, this phrase probably indicates both what such deaths would have felt like for the dying persons, and how it would have been deemed by others in regard to honor (see 1:8–11).75 A terrible death probably involved both pain and dishonor. The most dishonoring deaths were likely the most brutal as well; mob violence, for example, was surely both dishonorable and dreadful.76 The nature of the afflictions of Paul and his coworkers is in

The Corinthian correspondence 109 the beginning of the letter depicted with a tantalizing vagueness. A specific experience in Asia is mentioned: We do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, of our troubles (τῆς θλίψεως) in Asia: that we were burdened (ἐβαρήθημεν) beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. Yes, we had a verdict of death in [or: among] ourselves (τὸ ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου ἐσχήκαμεν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς) that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead. (1:8–9) The term βαρέω has a wide range of meaning. It can be adopted to speak of both illness and external afflictions, such as political conflict and taxation.77 The term θλῖψις is regularly used for persecution.78 As the letter continues, Paul expresses hope in the recurring salvific acts of God, who raises the dead. He and his fellow worker(s) hope that God will deliver them again and again (1:10). Harris emphasizes that the combination of ἐν ἑαυτοῖς with ἐσχήκαμεν does not introduce any aspect of uncertainty about the receipt or the verdict.79 Paul and his fellow workers had received a verdict, and the perfect tense of ἐσχήκαμεν implies that it was received and is still possessed or efficacious.80 God’s rescuing operations are clearly depicted as historical events: it has occurred, and it will (hopefully) reoccur.81 But the exact meaning of the expression of a “verdict of death” (τὸ ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου; 1:9) is unclear. The term ἀπόκριμα is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament. In no contemporary instance does it refer to a judicial state, but it had become a technical term for an official decision in response to the petition of an embassy.82 Some scholars choose an existential or psychological interpretation of the passage, in terms of Paul and his fellow workers believing that God had given a verdict of death.83 But then the lack of consonance with the following verse is puzzling. Why would Paul and his fellow workers receive a verdict of death from God, and then have hope in God’s recurrent salvation (1:10–11)? And if the passage aims at the ultimate salvation in resurrection, then the iterate nature of the salvation would be hard to understand. An interpretation of the passage as referring to historical situations makes more sense. Margaret E. Thrall suggests that, whatever the usual technical sense of ἀπόκριμα, the fact that it is here qualified by τοῦ θανάτου might suggest that the meaning approximates very closely to “death sentence.”84 Unfortunately, there is ample information on other kinds of assemblies in antiquity – apart from the Roman court – that could pronounce a verdict of death without its judicial procedure and legitimacy.85 For examples from the New Testament, see Acts 23:12, where a group gives an oath among themselves that they “would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul,” and Luke 22:2. The expression in 2 Corinthians 1:9 may indicate that Paul and his coworkers had received a verdict of death from an instance which

110  The Corinthian correspondence could not sentence people to death juridically, but still made such intentional decisions. A verdict “in ourselves” (ἐν ἑαυτοῖς; 1:9a) then implies that the verdict was issued from among their own in-group.86 This interpretation presupposes that Paul and his fellow worker(s) had said or done something that could be interpreted as a challenge to their kinsfolk. However, even in 2 Corinthians itself such expressions can be found. Paul speaks of Moses’ radiation as gradually passing away, and he depicts the Israelites’ discernment as “blinded” (3:13–14). The suggestion that Paul and his fellow workers – presumably Timothy – had received a verdict of death by their own kinsfolk therefore seems possible, and even plausible. As we continue with the letter, the passage of 4:1–15 elaborates the situation of afflictions further. Paul and his fellow workers are [. . .] hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed; perplexed but not in despair; persecuted but not forsaken; struck down but not destroyed – always carrying about in the body the dying of Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our mortal flesh. (4:8–11) Paul takes his opportunity to rhetorically frame his experiences in an advantageous way, but this does not entail that there were no actual experiences behind. The perils do not serve as a rhetorical proof in the passage. Paul does not gain credibility from his sufferings, but rather struggles to maintain credibility in spite of suffering. He and his collaborators are treated in humiliating ways, but they respond actively, by resistance.87 Most of the perils mentioned in chapter four are of social or political character. They take place in the collective body, and relate to their collective identity. Jesus is carried in the body (ἐν τῷ σώματι; 4:10a), the Lord becomes visible in their body (ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν; 4:10b),88 and the life of Jesus will be manifested in their mortal “flesh” (ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν; 4:11b).89 The section does “not address the speculative question of what will happen after death, but the practical and (in Paul’s case) highly personal whether he could continue to have confidence in the ‘life’ which was imparted by Jesus, not only in extreme suffering, but actually in death.”90 In this passage, Paul assumes explicitly that he and his fellow workers probably will have died before the day of the Lord’s coming (4:14). The Corinthian Christ-believers will probably live (cf. 4:12), but Paul and his fellow workers will probably not. Although the “clothed” state [life] is preferable to the “unclothed” state [death], being “unclothed” is at least a transient experience in the perspective of Paul (5:4). The fact that Paul thus seriously deals with death and actual dying points toward the conclusion that he is indeed trying to cope with lethal risks. The tent, which may

The Corinthian correspondence 111 be torn down, is an excellent depiction of the vulnerability of men without honor.91 Chapter 6 contains another list of afflictions that Paul and his companions have endured. Also in the context of this list, Paul is preoccupied with the “credentials” of himself, his fellow workers, and their ministry (6:3–4a). Notably, Paul starts with claiming their avoidance of the challenge-riposte game. “We give no offense in anything” (6:3), and depicts their response to blame as endurance “in much patience” (6:4). We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed. But in all things we commend ourselves to God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in fastings; by purity, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet known; as dying, and behold we live; as chastened, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. (6:3–10) The rhetorical purpose of the discourse is again to depict Paul and his fellow ministers as having integrity. The discourse continues to elaborate the theme of external appearance, set in contrast with internal reality – how things actually are (cf. 5:16).92 Previously they were downcast, having no rest in their “flesh” (οὐδεμίαν ἔσχηκεν ἄνεσιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν) and being troubled in everything – outside from conflicts (ἔξωθεν μάχαι) and inside from fear (ἔσωθεν φόβοι; 7:5), but now they feel better since Titus came with good reports from Corinth (7:6–7). The killing letter We have one account in 2 Corinthians of death, or killing, that is more of the evasive kind. Paul claims that he and his fellow workers are in the service of a new covenant “because the letter kills (τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει), but the Spirit gives life” (3:6). This expression lends itself easily to all kinds of philosophical or fundamental interpretations.93 In all likelihood, it is an account of Paul’s personal transformation.94 The rhetorical situation of the letter provides the authors with reason to be clear, but not too self-revealing, in regard to Paul’s personal history and his deeds prior to his christophany. The impersonal mode of expression offers the opportunity to speak about personal experiences without exposing less honorable sides of oneself. In this case, Paul appears to project less honorable aspects of himself onto the

112  The Corinthian correspondence screen of (religious) history. In other words, a deeply personal history is depicted as a more general truth.95 It seems fairly obvious that Paul by “the letter” refers to the law, Torah.96 Paul had read, or heard the scriptures being read, before his encounter with the risen Lord, and after his christophany, he perceived that although he had heard, he did not understand. He had been reading the scriptures with a veil over his face (cf. 3:14b, 16–18), but his vision became the starting point for a new ministry. A veil had been lifted from his face, and he could see in a new way (cf. 3:14, 16).97 This new perception, for Paul, is connected with freedom (3:17), transformation (3:18), and increasing glory (3:18). He contends that even the first covenant had its glory, though connected with a limited time (3:10–11), with judgment (3:9), and with death (3:7). The “letter” (τὸ γράμμα) in the hands of Paul, and men of similar mind, had the effect of destruction (θανάτος) in the perspective of Paul in 2 Corinthians (3:7; cf. Gal 1:1314; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6). Paul invites the recipients to join him in the service of a new covenant that gives life (3:6), is permanent (3:11), liberates (3:17), transforms, and gives glory (3:18). As indicated above, there are several possible reasons for Paul to place his personal past in the mists of religious saga (e.g., shame for previous deeds, fear for retribution, and the risk for declining respect and integration in his new in-group). By means of this impersonal mode of expression, he also avoids describing how he changed his mind,98 while still being the ambassador of transformed minds and ways (see 5:14–17). He thought he was doing something good, but in the rearview mirror he perceives that he was deluded,99 and that the result of his services was not beneficial. The ministry of death had a certain glory (3:9), but the effects were destruction (3:6).100 Naturally, not everyone had had an extremist’s approach to the tradition in Judaism in Paul’s day. Nevertheless, he perceived that he was supported by a social structure: he was working in a covenant (3:6–7) in the ministry of condemnation (3:9). The old paradigm, in Paul’s personal life, was the glory based on force, and violence (cf. Gal 1:13–14). Therefore, the expression that the “letter kills” is likely to be taken, nearly in its literal sense, as an account of the results of Paul’s service prior to his christophany – even though the letters themselves of course did not move. Foolish boasting We now move on to the second part of the letter (chapters 10–13. It differs slightly from the first part; the metaphor of parental care seems to be replaced by the metaphor of battle (see 10:1–6). Paul may finally have decided that the challenge posed by some in Corinth was worthy to be answered.101 The differences between the first and the second part of 2 Corinthians is probably related mainly to changing appraisals of the situation. In 2 Corinthians 11:23–32, we find yet another catalog of hardships. The purpose of the discourse is to exemplify that Paul is not inferior (cf. 11:5).

The Corinthian correspondence 113 Paul is honorable, both by birth (11:22) and by achievement (11:23–27), and the following list elaborates the situation in further detail: Are they ministers of Christ? I speak as a fool; I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons mote frequently, in deaths often. From the Judeans five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the nations, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brothers, in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness – besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? (11:23–29) Notably, Paul places a shipwrecks at the top of his first intense list of afflictions: “a night and a day I have been on the open sea” (ἐν τῷ βυθῷ; 11:24– 25). In the Roman account, deaths at sea were classed as mors acerba (bitter death), or mors immatura (premature death).102 All of the events in this list are potentially lethal, if, for example, one catches an infection after been beaten with rods, and some are even potentially “terrible deaths” (cf. 1:10). To be beaten with rods was a distinctively Roman form of punishment (see 11:25), while the “forty lashes minus one” was a penalty meted out by the synagogue (see 11:24). Stoning was probably the result of mob violence.103 As a seemingly ultimate illustration of exposure or ridicule, Paul narrates how he was let down in a basket through a window in the wall of Damascus in order to escape the governor of king Aretas (11:32–33). This was probably not the worst – but perhaps the first – of Paul’s experiences of lethal danger. The picture stands in sharp contrast with the notion of the “self-sufficient sage” among the Stoics.104 It is indeed no honorable scene; Paul sitting in a basket, dependent, and utterly helpless. Paul introduces the narrative with the statement that he will boast in the things that show his weakness (τὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας μου; 11:30). The subsequent passage gives an account of the visions and revelations given to Paul (12:2–5a) with the concluding comment that, lest he should be exalted above measure, a thorn in the flesh (σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί) was given to him, a messenger of Satan to buffet him (12:7–9), but it does not appear to be a life-threatening condition. The last list of perils in 2 Corinthians is quite short. The continuation of the passage about the thorn in the “flesh” is rendered: [t]herefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities

114  The Corinthian correspondence (ἐν ἀσθενείαις), in reproaches (ἐν ὕβρεσιν), in needs (ἐν ἀνάγκαις), in persecutions (ἐν διωγμοῖς) and distresses (καὶ στενοχωρίαις), for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (12:9b–10) Harris and Thrall believe that ἀσθενεία should be understood as the “general rubric” or “general concept” for the mainly social, and perhaps political, concepts which follow.105 However, if Paul, and sometimes also his fellow workers, had been subjected to the hardships and assaults that are mentioned in 6:4b–10 and in 11:23b–25a, ἀσθενεία can probably also refer to the debility and physical injuries caused by these events.106 In this context Paul also claims that he would “gladly spend (δαπανήσω)107 and be spent (ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι) for [their] souls/lives” (12:15).108 To “be spent” for someone does not necessarily imply to die, but it seems to be a possible consequence. A challenge from Corinth When Paul considers his travel plans – and possible misinterpretations of his delayed visit – he emphasizes by means of an oath that the reason why he did not yet come to Corinth is that he wishes to “spare” them (see 1:15–2:11; esp. 1:23). Would Paul’s eventual return to Corinth in his own estimation pose a threat toward his physical safety? The kind of reactions that Paul imagines that his previous letter caused are: earnest desires, mourning, zeal for Paul (ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ; 7:7), sorrow (7:8), repentance (7:9), sorrow in a godly manner, diligence, clearing of themselves, indignation, fear, vehement desire, zeal, and vindication (7:11). Paul could probably count on some reactions on the part of the so-called “wrong-doer” if he returned to Corinth – especially if the position of the so-called wrongdoer remained intact in spite of Paul’s bold condemnation in his previous letter (1:12–24; cf. 2:1–11; 6:11–7:16). The “wrong-doer” might very well await an opportunity to pay back the injuries suffered by Paul’s accusation and admonition (cf. 2:6). In the second part of the letter, Paul explicates what he fears to meet when he returns to Corinth: “contentions, jealousies, outburst of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbeatings, wisperings, conceits, tumults” (12:20), and in this context he also promises that he will not spare those who have sinned among them when he comes again (13:2). Even if the Corinthian Christ-believers themselves would not be physically violent against Paul, which also is possible, without their protection he would be more vulnerable to others. Paul emphasizes that Christ is not weak among them, although he was crucified in weakness (ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας; 13:4), and similarly, the weakness of himself and his fellow workers is also a temporary state. The discourse has quite a threatening tone, but Paul closes the passage with the assertion, similar to previous assertions, that he has received authority from the Lord “for edification, not for destruction” (13:10).

The Corinthian correspondence 115

Processing death Second Corinthians evolves mainly around the frequent mention of the sufferings and mistreatment inflicted on Paul and his fellow workers. They are being spitefully treated, and Paul has barely escaped alive on several occasions. He no longer counts on survival until the day of the Lord’s coming, although he assumes that the Corinthian Christ-believers may be alive on that day (4:14). He struggles with competing apostles, and even though he maintains that he speaks as a fool, he boasts over his afflictions (see 11:23– 29). The letter contains several lists where he counts all the humiliations he has endured throughout his years as an apostle, and the interpretation of humiliation is discussed thoroughly. The issue of the potential of humiliation being transformed into glory is processed over and over again. In other words, 2 Corinthians is a letter about death but also about reputation. The letter begins with Paul mentioning a troublesome visit to Asia when he and his fellow workers despaired even of life (1:8). The ruminating character of the letter seems to be an indication that the situations involving threats against Paul’s life are being processed, and that new means and perhaps also new goals are being formulated and tested. The frequent repetition of the circumstances of Paul’s sufferings strongly suggests that such experiences – and their interpretation – had a crucial impact on their estimation of his honor.109 According to Paul in 2 Corinthians, physical and social/political adversity – or death – carry no imputation whatsoever of moral failure and delinquency.110 The notion that the impious may die at the hands of God does not occur in 2 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–10). One important aim of the letter is to assure that the afflictions of Paul and his fellow workers are interpreted in a correct way (i.e., not as dishonorable traits). Another aim that is expressed in the beginning of the letter is to assure that Paul and his fellow workers get emotional and existential support in the form of prayer from their Corinthian friends (1:11). As partakers in prayer, the Corinthians would give Paul and Timothy a safe spot if needed (1:11; cf. 13:11–13).111 In the first part of the letter, Paul asks for support (1:11), albeit this feature is disclaimed in the second part of the letter (cf. 12:14–21). The rhetoric of 2 Corinthians evolves around issues of mutuality, respect/honor, and later also obedience (10:1–6). From Paul’s perspective, the interpretation of weakness appears to be essential to the Corinthians’ appreciation of his apostolicity. As Kar Yong Lim asks, “why does Paul so strongly emphasize his apostolic suffering in his correspondence to a Christ-believing community that does not seem to have much evidence of suffering as a result of their faith in Christ?”112 In 4:12 the authors explicitly express that death works in them, but not in the Corinthians. The answer to Lim’s question is probably that suffering plays a fundamental role in Paul’s own life, and that the interpretation of this aspect of his life is could play an important role in his relation to the Corinthians who are not suffering in the same way.113 Thus, the

116  The Corinthian correspondence question of the letter is not why the Corinthians are not suffering, but why Paul and his fellow workers are, and if and how the light of God may shine through their seemingly un-glorious ministry (4:6–7; cf. 4:12b, 14b). The prospect that Jesus’ life – not only his death – shall be visible in their body is emphasized (4:10–11), but currently they are carrying the dead or dying (τὴν νέκρωσιν) of the Lord Jesus in their body (4:10).114 The image of carrying the dead or dying Jesus could be rendered as that of a pall-bearer carrying the actual corpse of Jesus. The physical associations of the term νέκρωσις, which refers not just to the fact of death but to the process of decay and putrefaction, make it difficult to spurn the less congenial sides of the afflictions in the catalogues (hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 4:8–9). Similarly, Paul describes his position as an apostle as that of one being led in a triumphal procession (2:14).115 Throughout 2 Corinthians, social position and relative social status are important issues. This feature also remains when death is discussed, and death is discussed very extensively in 2 Corinthians. Paul wants his position to be recognized by the group – in spite of his weakness – and to refute the accusations that seem to be directed toward him (cf. 1:1; 5:20; 8:20–21; 10:12–14). He wavers between a self-directing and a collaborative coping style;116 that is, sometimes he turns to the Corinthians for support, and sometimes he emphasizes his independence in relation to them, and rather their dependence on him. But in either case, he suggests a reformed perspective which implies that even when he and his fellow workers are spitefully treated (4:8–9), it is for Jesus’ sake (4:11), and to the end that the glory of God in the face of Christ may shine (4:6). The death of Jesus makes him judge differently himself (5:16), and he wants the addressees to see it the way he sees it. But notably, when he feels compelled to retain his social status (i.e., an old goal) he also resorts to an old means (i.e., foolish boasting). Sometimes, and especially in the latter part of the letter, Paul’s tendency to bully, or persuade by force occasionally seems to take the upper hand (e.g. 13:2, 10). In 2 Corinthians, we nevertheless find certain traces of ambivalence concerning the choice between the glory based on force, and the glory based on freedom. Paul returns over and over again to the issue of whether the Corinthians should be persuaded by means of gentleness (cf. 1:23; 2:5–8; 5:20–6:2) or force (10:1–6; 13:2–3, 10).117 In the beginning of the letter, the authors express hope in mutual encouragement and sharing (1:3–7, 11; cf. 7:2–16). In the mid-section the tone sounds more desperate, with its affirmation of an exclusive identity and relationship (6:11–7:1). In the last part of the letter, Paul contends that he is forced to boast (11:17), which he however seems to regret more or less immediately (12:11).118 When the Corinthians are addressed as “brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί; 1:8), this signals family, which implies that the communicative sphere of the letter should be one that is withdrawn from the competition about honor and social position.119 In the beginning of the letter, God is described as a father

The Corinthian correspondence 117 who comforts/admonishes his children (1:3), and Paul and Timothy undertake the same kind of actions.120 But we also find the designation of Paul as an anxious father who fears to lose his position (see 6:11–7:4). In the beginning of the second part of the letter (chapters 10–13), the family terminology is declining. The section is introduced by the metaphor of battle (10:2–6). Paul presents himself as a person of high esteem, both according to descent (11:22) and aspiration (11:23–29; cf. 1:1).121 At this point of the letter, Paul seems to have decided that the challenge of the Corinthians (or someone else) is to be answered after all. The family terminology reoccurs, however, when he tries to explain his defensive rhetoric. In this context, he also expresses regret over the conversational atmosphere in which they now find themselves (12:11–21). Family terminology is finally present in the concluding greetings and the blessing (13:11–14). To summarize, Paul’s wavering between peaceful communication and boasting, between reconciliation and force, emanates from his wavering appraisals of the situation and the prospects of the letter. Is the letter to be written to the end of mutuality and fellowship, or to restore his honor? Different appraisals of his prospects entails different strategies. His hope for support in prayer is expressed in the beginning of the letter (1:11) but is obstructed by his perceived need to save his face (12:11–21). Maybe Paul and his fellow workers perceived that they needed the Corinthians’ eyes, that is, needed them to see things the way they saw it. This might very well be another reason for the extensive and elaborate accounts of previous afflictions in 2 Corinthians (cf. 1:8–11; 2:14–17; 4:6–5:10; 6:4b– 10; 11:23b–29; 12:10). An answer to Kar Yong Lim’s question is therefore that Paul and his fellow workers wanted to assure that their sufferings were not to be interpreted as a dishonorable trait: they wanted to secure their position vis-à-vis the Corinthians. A second answer may be that the senders wanted to receive encouragement and edification themselves from the addressees. The unease and fear that is depicted in being “undressed” and without “habitation” have connotations with exposure and shame (see 5:1– 10). The destruction of the earthly building/household probably refers to the premature death of the individual – who in that case leaves the group – or to the destruction of the group itself (5:1). Notably, the expression speaks of a [shared] building/household on earth that may be destroyed (ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ). Consolation is offered in the prospect of having a “heavenly building.” The ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος – their outer human – refers to their outer appearance as in honor among men, while ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν – their inner – refers to themselves as seen from the “inside,” regardless of declined or reinforced honor in the perception of men. Belief in restoration While in Asia Paul and his fellow workers “despaired even of life” (1:8), and the verdict of death was issued and continually in effect (1:9). Therefore,

118  The Corinthian correspondence Paul and his party are currently in danger from this verdict, especially if approaching the region of Asia, as it seems (cf. Gal 4:13; see also Acts 19:21–20:1, 16–17). However, they have put their confidence in the God who raises the dead and delivers even those who are in the state of dying (τοὺς νεκρούς; 1:9b). Harris maintains that the experience in Asia must have been unique in Paul’s experience; if Paul had encountered similar afflictions before “we would expect him to allude to it” in 1 Corinthians.122 From the perspective of psychological coping, this conclusion is less obvious. Similar things can have happened before without being appraised as lethal threats, and therefore not been coped with as such. Since a coping process takes a lot of effort, people tend to be rather reluctant to appraise situations along these lines.123 The presence of numerous hardship catalogues, on the other hand, speaks for the interpretation that it was the accumulative experience of afflictions that finally made Paul reconsider his prospects. The events that took place in Asia was maybe the turning point in regard to his perception (cf. 1:8). To keep to a newfound way of appraisal (transformed goals, transformed means) generally takes a great deal of effort. In 2 Corinthians, Paul repeatedly claims that they do not give up (οὐκ ἐγκακοῦμεν; 4:1, 16), which is an indication that it is something noteworthy. Their “inner person” (ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν) is being renewed day by day, while their outward man is perishing (ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος διαφθείρεται; 4:16). The “outer man’s” perishing implies that Paul and his fellow workers are losing their reputation, which probably entailed that their physical safety also deteriorated,124 but their “inner person” is renewed and therefore they do not lose heart. They are not silenced by these transient experiences, since this is not the intention of God – only the intention of humans (4:6–15). The reactions to the dying There are two metaphors in 2 Corinthians that may relate to the contingent death of the senders. The first one is that of being as led in a triumphal procession, and the second is that of being like an earthen vessel. Paul forwards the metaphor of the earthenware, which can be chipped and cracked (3:7) – but what if it is actually broken? The perception of the fragility of human life is thus indicated. Paul can also spend and be spent himself (12:15) – but what if he actually runs out? The metaphors used in 2 Corinthians assume the possibility of finitude and mortality. This is also confirmed in the passage of 4:12–15, where Paul no longer expects to live until the day of the Lord (4:14). He expects the Corinthian Christ-believers to still be alive, but he and his fellow workers will probably have died to be raised up with Jesus (4:14; cf. 1 Cor 15:51–52). Paul would still be in the company of Jesus, even if the Corinthian Christ-believers would refrain from his fellowship (cf. 1:2–11; 13:4–13). Thus, when dictating 2 Corinthians, it has occurred to Paul that he may die (4:14), and not merely be changed (cf. 1 Cor 15:51). All the deaths

The Corinthian correspondence 119 that are referred to in the letter are dirty, dishonorable, and painful deaths (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–10), but death appears to be an aspect of life that cannot be avoided in the long run (4:11–14). Paul depicts the situation of himself and his fellow workers as being as the situation of those who are being led in a triumphal procession: “Now thanks be to God who always leads us [as captives] in triumphal procession in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place” (2:14). The triumphal procession was obviously perceived differently depending on which side one was on – victory or defeat.125 The triumphal procession led some to their death: “some of the leading captives (usually royal figures or the tallest and strongest of the conquered warriors) were taken aside into the adjoining prison and executed.”126 Sometimes the captives were pardoned, but this was as only an act to reveal the magnanimity of the triumphator and was nothing to be counted on.127 The fate of the captives was either a quick death via execution or a slow death as a servant or slave (cf. 2:14).128 However, Paul and his fellow workers are in the very good company of Christ (2:14a): they diffuse the fragrance of knowledge of Christ everywhere, which causes some to flinch and some to approach. An important feature of the metaphor is the aspect of publicity and shame.129 Without knowing what experiences led Paul to depict their situation as that of being led as captives in a triumphal procession, they probably included aspects of public shame. Paul surprisingly claims glory for the captives; they are a fragrance of Christ in the sight of God (2:14–15). The association with Jesus is thus essential to understand how this suggestion is possible (cf. 4:4). While in the “triumphal procession,” God diffuses the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ through Paul and his fellow workers in every place (2:14). Harris sees in the phrase an unfailingly deterministic model: “eternal life as the final outcome of present σωτηρία and the experience of eternal perdition as the outcome of the present ἀπώλεια,”130 but I would suggest exactly the contrary. Paul in this peculiar passage breaks up the categories of which position leads to death and to life respectively. He makes it rather a question of the person’s capacity to recognize the fragrance of Christ to show which category one belongs to. Paul and his fellow workers diffuse the fragrance of knowledge of Christ everywhere, that is, both to those led as captives and to those who are leading or watching the triumphal procession (2:14b). The socially construed line between captives and captors does not disclose where one is ultimately heading, but the fragrance can be perceived whatever original position one may find oneself in (2:15–16), and the decisive factor is how one perceives Jesus – as well as Paul and his fellow workers – in their purported shame. Their present destruction (ἀπώλεια) may lead to life. Paul and his fellow workers do not peddle the word of God, but as ambassadors of God, they speak in the sight of God in Christ (2:17). Thus, the crucial question in 2 Corinthians is not their present success (or lack thereof), but whether they and the Christ-believers in Corinth have developed the transformed mind with a capacity to discern that Paul and his

120  The Corinthian correspondence fellow workers diffuse the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ (4:3–5). By the close of the letter Paul suggests that they should “test themselves” (13:5; cf. 4:3–5), and he thinks that they will realize that he himself has passed the test (13:6; cf. 5:16–17).131 The metaphor of the triumphal procession indicates tremendously different reactions to their presence and to the message of the apostles – from the extremely positive to the extremely negative. The different reactions also incite different results. The world is in other words dichotomized by means of the triumphal procession metaphor. Some are led to their destruction, and some to celebrated life, though the decisive factor is not their position at the outset but their capacity to recognize God’s glory in Christ. The fragrance God diffuses through Paul and his fellow workers is the “aroma of death leading to death” for those who are perishing, and the “aroma of life leading to life” among those who are saved (2:15–16). Paul and his fellow workers contend that they “from now on regard no one according to the flesh,” that is, according to how humans judge based on group affiliation (5:16, cf. 5:10).132 Even though Paul had originally judged Jesus in the same way as many of his previous in-group did, he did not continue to evaluate in this way. In other words, Paul felt the fragrance of Jesus as a fragrance of death at first (cf. Phil 3:4–7), but then he reconsidered this perception (2 Cor 5:16). Now he encourages the Corinthians to “be reconciled to God” (5:20) and not to boast in appearance (ἐν προσώπῳ) but in that which is in the heart (ἐν καρδίᾳ; 5:12). This implies a transposition in an honor-centered culture, from being potentially the winner of the challenge-riposte game toward the vulnerable position of seeking reconciliation regardless of public recognition. In a spirit of gentleness or with a rod? In many instances of the letter, however, Paul uses peaceful means, such as self-exposure and re-interpretation (cf. 5:16). The lists of afflictions serve as a prominent part of this peaceful strategy (see 1:8–11; 4:7–12; 6:4–10; 11:23–33; 12:10). The letter also bears traits of re-valuation, where Paul even suggests that the humiliating experiences that he and his fellow workers have been exposed to are by no means indications of their condemnation in the eyes of God. Paul does not condemn anyone, but he warns them as a group to “not be equally yoked together with unbelievers,” that is, the whole Christ-believing community shall keep apart from the rest of the society (6:14–7:1). But he makes no attempt to exclude those who do not follow his instructions in this letter (cf. Gal 1:8–9; 4:30; 1 Cor 5:1–13); he even withdraws the punishment that he previously had imposed on one of the Christ-believers of Corinth (1:23–2:11). The letter therefore contains traces of re-valuation and reconstruction, but both are only partially, or occasionally, implemented.133 In the second part of the letter, Paul repeatedly claims that his authority in the Lord is for edification, not for destruction (10:8; 12:19; 13:10). As

The Corinthian correspondence 121 shown above, in Paul’s depiction his life prior to his encounter with the risen Christ was characterized by being a ministry of condemnation (τῇ διακονίᾳ τῆς κατακρίσεως; 3:9). In other words, his previous league could be designated as an authority for destruction (cf. 3:6). The experience of seeing the world in one way and then suddenly perceiving things completely different – as if a veil was lifted – is likely a depiction of Paul’s personal experience (cf. 3:14–16). He had heard the scriptures being read, but although he heard, he did not understand, as if a veil was hindering his perception (3:14–15). His christophany became the starting point of a new perception: he could see in a new way (3:14, 16–18). Paul claims that those in Christ are a “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις), “old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (5:17). The fourth coping strategy, in Pargament’s depiction, contains the same traits as are suggested by Paul in 5:16–17, namely to adopt new means to reach new goals.134 Paul claims to both see things differently (5:16) and to behave differently (5:18b). He is now in the service of “reconciliation” (i.e., a new goal [5:18–20]).135 He concedes that he has no choice but to adapt to his new situation: “the love of Christ compels us” (5:14).136 The crisis giving birth to his transformation is not a trauma, nor a catastrophe of some kind, but the love of Christ (5:14), and the reconciliation of God (5:19). In this letter, death is appraised as a threat, or a challenge. A threat is harm or loss that can be overcome, and a challenge implies that there might be a certain gain to it.137 The hope in resurrection indicates that the threat or harm of death can be overcome in a victorious way. However, the ruminating character of the letter is an indication of the feature that death and its meaning is being processed. We can find traces of anxiety in the letter, that is, uncertainty about the situation and its implications (2:12–13; cf. 11:29; 12:19–21). The extensive and elaborated catalogues of suffering depict death and dying as a potential threat and also a potential loss – that is, something to fear and to mourn (1:8; 2:14–16; 4:1–5:10; 6:4–10; 7:3; 11:23b–33; 12:10). Paul emphasizes the need of transformed perceptions. Premature death is not an indication of God’s disfavor – such notions do not occur in 2 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–10; 3:17). Paul expresses his assessment of the situation, including the assertion that he may die prematurely himself (4:12–14), and he wants to make sure that this does not affect his position among the Corinthians, which he fears it will (12:11–21). Although Paul claims to think and behave in a new way, social position remains important to him.

Notes 1 Cf. Festinger 1957; Anderson 2004, 308–10. 2 See Josephus’ depiction of the Roman invasion in Jerusalem; Josephus, War, 6.403–408; Novak 2001, 20–22, 31; Hardin 2008, 23. 3 Thiselton 2000, 2–3. 4 Thiselton 2000, 3; Thomas 2005, 301.

122  The Corinthian correspondence 5 Thiselton 2000, 3. 6 Thiselton 2000, 4; Engels 1990, 27–33; Winter 1989, 88–106; 1994, 53–57. As the Greek geographer Strabo puts it, Corinth was “called ‘wealthy’ because its commerce, since it is situated on the Isthmus and is master of two harbors.” Strabo, Geography 8.6.20. 7 Thiselton 2000, 5–6; Theissen 1982, 145–72. Cf. Plutarch, Moralia 805E, F. 8 Suetonius, Life of Claudius 18.2; Tacitus, Annals 12.43; Cassius Dio, Roman History 40.11. Josephus alludes to high prices during this period; Antiquities 3.320–21; see also Acts 11:27–30; Coutsoumpos 2013, 296; Carter 2010, 11–13; Barnett 1997, 4; Clarke 1993, 18–21; Engels 1990, 27–33; Winter 1994, 53–57; 1989, 86–106; 1978, 73–82. 9 Thiselton 2000, 852. 10 See, e.g., the introductory formula “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:3). 11 When Paul concludes the letter, Apollos’ name occurs again: “Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to come to you with the brothers, but he was quite unwilling to come at this time; however, he will come when he has a convenient time.” See 16:1–12; esp. 16:12. Paul discredits Apollos – whether intentionally or not – when he insinuates that Apollos is not very concerned about the fate of the addressees, but more with his own “convenience.” 12 Cf. Spiegel 1978, 339–42; Sölle 1967, 21. On the other hand, Timothy appears as a trusted representative, seemingly without ambition to replace Paul; cf. 1 Cor 4:17. 13 For an account of the “body” as a collective entity, see Witherington 1998, 204; Martin 1995, 38–47, 68; Berger 2003, 63. 14 Cf. when Paul in 1 Cor 15:32 is “using vigorous symbolic language to compare his dreadful experiences in Ephesus to life-and-death struggle with ferocious animals.” Orr & Walther 1976, 338. 15 Barrett 2000, 275; Fee 1987, 566–567; Theissen 1982, 151; Conzelmann 1975, 203, among others. 16 As Donald Engels notes, “[m]ost deaths during times of scarcity were not caused by starvation but by disease, since malnutrition weakens the body’s ability to resist infection.” Engels 1990, 76. See also Thiselton 2000, 852–53. 17 See, e.g., Juvenal’s depiction of unequal food distribution in a Roman dinner; Juvenal, Satire 5; Freudenburg 2001, 265. 18 Talbert 1989, 74–75; see also Pliny the Younger, Letters 2.6; Juvenal, Satire 5; Freudenburg 2001, 265. “In the average well-to-do house of the Roman era, a dining room accommodated about nine people, the atrium thirty to forty. In any large Christian gatherings at Gaius’ house (Rom 16:23), some would have been eating in the dining room, others in the atrium outside.” Talbert 1989, 75. See also Dale Martin’s comment that, “as many ancient writers mention, different guests were often served different portions, with regard to both quantity and quality of food and wine, reflecting their status or proximity to the host (. . .) This practice of status discrimination was so expected that some authors comment when it is absent, expressing surprise that some particular host does not distinguish among his guests at dinner.” Martin 1995, 74; cf. 1 Cor 11:18–19. 19 Ibita 2012; cf. 2005, 249–61. 20 As Margret Mitchell puts it, “1 Corinthians is a unified deliberative letter which throughout urges unity on the divided Corinthian church.” Mitchell 1991, 296. 21 Presently, many scholars accept an interpretation which requires explanations of both the term “hungry” and the term “house.” See, e.g., Barrett 2000, 277; Conzelmann 1975, 203; Fee 1987, 568. 22 For an account of the interpretation of σῶμα, see Malina & Pilch 2006, 111; Martin 1995, 74. “If the body means the people of the church celebrating the

The Corinthian correspondence 123 supper together, judgment comes because they do not discriminate the divine nature of this fellowship and are guilty of splitting it apart and mistreating its humbler members.” Orr & Walther 1976, 274. 23 Eriksson 1998, 254; cf. Conzelmann 1975, 258. 24 See Lazarus 1999, 33. 25 Paul has become as a father to them, and he expects to be treated accordingly. Being a father constituted the essence of the Greco-Roman notion of masculinity, namely procreation and superiority; see Conway 2008, 22–23. 26 Notably, the “evildoer” can be judged on hearsay, while the judgment on Paul himself must wait, preferably, until the end of time; see 5:1–13; cf. 4:4–5. 27 Cf. Lazarus 1999, 33, 243. 28 Cullberg 1993, 36; cf. Parkes 1998, 31–106; Bowlby 1998, 85–96; Kübler-Ross 2001, 34–121. 29 Mourning periods, with their prescribed modes of behavior, is in this respect a container for grief; Spiegel 1978, 66. 30 Pargament 1997, 90–114. 31 Conventional wisdom may be explicated by Proverbs 3:21–24, 34–35, mainly suggesting that the impious will die at the hands of God and the pious will prosper. 32 Pargament 2007, 143. 33 See the concept of cognitive dissonance; Festinger 1957; Anderson 2004, 308–10. 34 Jesus’ death as a revelatory event entails a redefinition of power and divinity; Cousar 1998, 45–46; Purvis 1992, 69–100; Fiddes 1989, 32. 35 Pargament terms this kind of coping when a situation cannot be solved without the support or intervention of a third party a “deferring coping style.” Pargament 1997, 293. 36 Ahmadi mentions such experiences as serious illness, unyielding pain, and sudden death; Ahmadi 2006, 33–34. 37 See Collins 1999, 7. 38 See, e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20. Philippians contains not one single explicit reference to scripture, for comparison. 39 Conway 2008, 73. 40 Conway 2008, 22. 41 Honor was associated with the male gender, and shame with the female; Moxnes 2005, 21–22. 42 Cf. Witherington 1998, 18. 43 See Moxnes 2005, 28. 44 The benefactor system placed every individual in a net of relationships, and those receiving beneficia owed gratefulness to their benefactors unless they could give back equally; Garnsey & Saller 1997, 96–98. 45 The Greco-Roman notion of manliness included that a man should not be influenced by transient experience, but by superhuman reality; see Hope 2009, 126; and Conway 2008, 23 46 Paul could even have been integrated in the particular group that actively took part in the persecution of Jesus which led to his execution; see Peace 1999, 51. 47 Hans Conzelmann asks if the picture of Paul implies that he likens himself with a “premature birth, or abortion” or as a “still-born, or as a monstrosity” but these suggestions unnecessarily impose the concept of death to the metaphor; see Conzelmann 1975, 259. 48 Hans Conzelmann suggests that Paul refers to Numbers 12:12, but the reference is not easily reconciled with the continuation of the passage of 1 Corinthians 15:8–9; cf. Conzelmann 1975, 259. 49 See Conzelmann 1975, 292. 50 Orr & Walther 1976, 351.

124  The Corinthian correspondence 1 Orr & Walther 1976, 351; Conzelmann 1975, 292. 5 52 As Hans Conzelmann remarks, “[t]his verse interrupts the train of thought; it looks like a gloss.” Conzelmann 1975, 293. 53 Eriksson 1998, 74. 54 Martin 1988, 38. It is possible that the chronological sequence also implies a hierarchical sequence; the parallel positions of “last” [ἔσχατον; 15:8] and “the least” [ὁ ἐλάχιστος] and “not worthy” [οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς; 15:9] indicate thus. The women are missing from the list; for a comment, see van Os 2011, 50; Schüssler Fiorenza 1983, 315–34. 55 The first reductio ad absurdum of 15:12 is followed by seven conditional clauses in the same vein; see Eriksson 1998, 257–60. Notably, Paul’s argument rests on the notion of an infallible connection between the individual and the collective; 15:20–23. 56 As indicated above, we do not know what those early witnesses had died from. It could have been old age, illness, persecution, or something else. 57 See Spiegel’s depiction of coping phases; Spiegel 1978, 61. 58 Moxnes 2005, 19–21; Malina 2001, 33–36. 59 Lazarus & Folkman 1984; see also McNish 2004; Lynd 1958, 209. 60 See Eriksson 1998, 268; cf. Thiselton 2000, 1263. 61 See Cullberg 1993, 82. 62 Spiegel 1978, 67. Spiegel terms the phases of grief work as shock, control, regression and adaptation; Spiegel 1978, 61. 63 Spiegel 1978, 66–70. 64 See Spiegel 1978, 67. 65 Pargament 1997, 111–12. 66 “A pious imitator would be unlikely to portray Paul as an apostle in danger of losing his authority in Corinth or an apostle struggling to preserve the Corinthians from apostasy.” Harris 2005, 2. 67 Joelsson 2009, 145–162; cf. Schneiders 1991, 165–66. 68 Cf. Paul’s previous assignment to “destroy” the fellowship of the Christ-believers; Gal 1:13. 69 Hubbard 2010, 164–66; Harris 2005, 826. 70 Neyrey 1999, 166. 71 The tendency among scholars to perceive Paul as a solitary figure differs from the picture Paul gives himself; see 2 Cor 1:1. The whole letter is written in the first plural, except from the passages relating to when Paul is being questioned personally or attacked – then the reply is in the first singular; see 1:23–2:13; chs 10–13. 72 Some important manuscripts render pl. τηλικούτων θάνατων; Harris 2005, 158. 73 Hope 2009, 54. 74 Hope 2009, 60. As Valerie M. Hope comments, “[h]ow people died and how they were buried, commemorated, mourned, and remembered, were all central aspects of life in Rome and its empire; they demanded scrutiny, comment, and ultimately judgment.” Hope 2009, 2. 75 “Some individuals were denied burial altogether. The bodies of criminals and traitors could be dumped in the river Tiber or be left to rot in a gruesome display.” Hope 2009, 179. 76 Hubbard 2010, 143, 164–66. 77 Harvey 1996, 9. Paul uses the term in the sense of being a financial burden on others himself and so “afflicting” them; see 1 Thess 2:9; cf. 2 Thess 3:8. 78 Harvey 1996, 10. 79 Harris 2005, 155. 80 Harris 2005, 156. Similarly in Rom 5:2a ἐσχήκαμεν means “we have obtained,” implying both “we obtained” and “we enjoy possession of,” “we have.” 81 Harris 2005, 159.

The Corinthian correspondence 125 82 Harris 2005, 155; Hemer 1972, 104. 83 For example, Murray J. Harris concludes that “only God could give a response, or announce a verdict, of ‘Death!’ ” Harris 2005, 155; see also Omanson & Ellington 1993, 19. 84 Thrall 2004, 118. 85 Malina 2001, 40–43. The family, the clan, the trade or religious association, all constituted such instances on the communal level of society which could have great power, albeit not juridically; see Eriksen 2009, 9–24; Esler 2003, 176. 86 In several instances, Paul expresses uncertainty about his whereabouts in relation to his kinsmen; 1 Thess 2:14–15; 2 Cor 11:24, 26; Rom 15:3–31. 87 As Colleen M. Conway puts it, “masculinity was understood to be the active, rational, generative principle of the cosmos.” Conway 2008, 22. 88 See Dunn 2006, 61; Martin 1995, 25; Louw & Nida 1989, 127. 89 The term σάρξ has clear collective connotations. See, e.g., Jesus depicted as being the σάρξ of Abraham; Rom 4:1; 9:3, 5, 8; 11:14. 90 Harvey 1996, 69. 91 Cf. Moxnes 2005, 28; Elliott 2000, 28–32. 92 Harris 2005, 479. See also Klaus Berger’s depiction of “reality and sign” and “tokens of reality.” Berger 2003, 11–13. 93 E.g., Harris 2005, 271–74; Thrall 2004, 235–36; Käsemann 1971, 147–49. As Richard A. Horsley puts it in his introduction to Krister Stendahl’s challenge to Pauline studies, “[t]he whole enterprise proceeded according to these [male Western Europeans’] concerns, perspectives, and interests – disguised, of course, as those of “every man” or homo religiosus.” Horsley 2000, 12; cf. Stendahl 1977, 11–12. 94 As Karl Jaspers says, “[k]ommunikation inte bara från förstånd till förstånd, från ande till ande, utan från existens till existens har alla opersonliga innehåll och värderingar endast som ett medium.” Jaspers 1963, 27–28. 95 As the history of interpretation shows, generalization in this case entails the risk of racist interpretations; see Ehrensperger 2004; cf. Sanders 1977. For an insightful response to Sanders’ view, see also Roitto 2013. 96 The ministry of death (ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου) is related to what is “written and engraved on stones,” and to the radiation of the face of Moses; 2 Corinthians 3:7; Thrall 2004, 234–37. 97 Cf. Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 13. 98 A convert was generally seen with suspicion; Harrill 2005, 63; Witherington 1998, 18, 205. The Greco-Roman notion of manliness included that a man should not be influenced by transient experience, but by superhuman reality; see Hope 2009, 126; Conway 2008, 23; cf. 1 Cor 1:18–2:16. As Eric Stewart shows, Paul is concerned in Galatians with explaining his own change of behavior as positive and Cephas’s as negative; see Stewart 2011, 1–8. As we also see in 2 Corinthians, saying “yes yes and no no” is seen as a sign of dishonorable weakness; 2 Cor 1:18. 99 Particularly the experience of being deluded is difficult to speak about, but impersonal terms provide the author with less self-exposing modes of communication. 100 As Paul also claims himself, he was a bit extreme in his commitment; Gal 1:13– 14. As Alan F. Segal comments, “[Paul] was zealous and committed to Torah, both before and after his conversion. As a Christian, he remained a zealot, but the nature of his commitment to Torah changed radically [. . .] Modern studies of conversion show that there can be many continuities between a convert’s life before conversion and after it.” Segal 1990, 6; Witherington 1998, 174. 101 See Joelsson 2009, 145–162. It is possible that the second part (chapters 10–13) is when Paul takes up the pen to write the peroratio with his own hand, and

126  The Corinthian correspondence that the tone therefore becomes more personal and personally afflicted; cf. Gal 6:11–18; see Thrall 2004, 10. 102 See Hope 2009, 61. 103 Hubbard 2010, 164. 104 Hubbard 2010, 101–02. See Arius Didymus, Epitome 11.G; also 2 Corinthians 3:5. John T. Fitzgerald demonstrates how peristasis catalogues could be used, in Hellenistic moralists’s and philosophers’s context, as literary devices to demonstrate the various virtues and to defend the integrity of the suffering sage; Fitzgerald 1988. We must, however, acknowledge that Paul in 11:23–29 demonstrates anything but an ideal sage; Lim 2009, 7. 105 Harris 2005, 867; also Thrall 2004, 829. Newman renders the meaning as “weakness (of any sort); illness.” Newman 1993, 26. The term ὕβρις can be translated “insult, mistreatment; damage (of ships).” Newman 1993, 186. ἀνάγκη; “distress, trouble; necessity, constraint, compulsion.” Newman 1993, 10. διωγμός; “persecution.” Newman 1993, 47. στενοχωρία; “distress, difficulty, trouble, calamity.” Newman 1993, 166. 106 Harris 2005, 867. 107 The literal use of δαπανήσω refers to spending money or concrete resources; Harris 2005, 885. Figuratively, as here, it denotes the exertion of great effort; Harris 2005, 885; Louw & Nida 1989, vol 1, 574–75, 513. καὶ ἐκδαπανηθήσομαι intensifies the idea of expenditure, with ἐκ- used in a “perfective” sense, “spend out, spend wholly,” or “to the limit.” Harris 2005, 885. 108 On translation of ψυχή, see Dunn 2006, 76. Cf. 1 Thess 2:8; 1 Cor 15:45 (quoting Gen 2:7); 2 Cor 1:23; Rom 2:9; 11:3; 13:1; 16:4; Phil 2:30. 109 Cf. Neyrey 1999, 166. 110 Harvey 1996, 70. 111 Since the individual’s safety was mainly provided by means of fellowship or integration into a group of influence, their mutual trust and loyalty were also essential to physical safety; cf. Moxnes 2005, 28. 112 Lim 2009, 1. 113 Lim 2009, 197–99; Savage 1996. 114 The term νέκρωσις is difficult to translate, since it connotes the whole process of dying. As Anthony E. Harvey puts it, “in the ancient world, the process of dying was felt to begin before the actual moment of death and to continue after it: physical changes could be seen (and smelt!) in the body of a dying person which were thought to be continuous with the progress of putrefaction after death. This whole process, or any part of it, could be called νέκρωσις.” Harvey 1996, 58. 115 The term θριαμβεύω τινα means to “lead someone (as captive) in a triumphal procession.” Harris 2005, 245. In recent years, the opinion that Paul’s metaphorical position is among the captives has won ground; Harris 2005, 245–46; Thrall 2004, 195; Hafemann 1990, 31–34; Marshall 1983, 302–17. Scott J. Hafemann infers that those prisoners of war were led to death or to be sold as slaves; Hafemann 1990, 31–34. According to Harris, this is to press the metaphor too hard. Harris sees Paul as the willing, joyful captive, defeated by God on the road to Damascus; Harris 2005, 245–46. 116 Cf. Pargament 1997, 180–83. 117 See Bash 2004, 160. 118 Paul explicitly admits that his boasting is “not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting” (2 Cor 11:17). 119 See Malina 2001, 36. 120 They offer the consolation and admonition that they themselves had received (2 Cor 1:4–7).

The Corinthian correspondence 127 121 Honor is fundamentally the public recognition of one’s social standing, which can be either ascribed (i.e., inherited from the family at birth, or acquired, i.e., conferred on the basis of virtuous deeds) Moxnes 2005, 20. 122 Harris 2005, 165. 123 See Pargament 1997, 108–11; 114–17. 124 Cf. Moxnes 2005, 28. 125 The procedure is rendered by Harris as follows: “At the head of the procession came the magistrates and the senate, followed by trumpeters and some spoils of wars such as vessels of gold or beaks of ships. Then came the flute players, ahead of white oxen destined to be sacrificed in the temples, along with some representative captives from the conquered territory, including such dignitaries as the king, driven in chains in front of the ornate chariot of the general, the triumphator [. . .], who wore the garb of Jupiter (ornatus Iovis) and carried a scepter in his left hand.” Harris 2005, 243–44. 126 Harris 2005, 244. 127 Harris 2005, 246. 128 Harris 2005, 243–44. 129 In Greek literature the term sometimes means “exhibit (in a public procession),” “put on display,” or “divulge.” Harris 2005, 244. There is an instance in Seneca, where θριαμβεύω is used as a metaphor of shame; Seneca the Younger, On Benefits 2.11.1; see also Thrall 2004, 193. 130 Harris 2005, 252. 131 Paul and his fellow workers are known by God, and he hopes that even the conscience of the Corinthians will see the same thing (2 Cor 5:11). See Malina 2001, 79, for an account of the collective concept of conscience. 132 Thrall comments that to not judge according to the flesh implies to “not assess people’s worth by considering their status in society, their advantages (or reverse) of birth, or their natural talents.” Thrall 2004, 413. Harris renders the explanation of κατὰ σάρκα [according the flesh] as “from a worldly perspective.” Harris 2005, 426. Cf. Ben Witherington’s comment that “gender, generation and geography” appeared to many as sufficient evidence to evaluate someone’s character; Witherington 1998, 18. 133 Re-valuation is when goals are transformed but means remains the same; reconstruction is when means are transformed while goals remain the same; Pargament 1997, 110–12. 134 Pargament 1997, 111–113. 135 Cf. Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 12–20. 136 Neither ways nor views are attainable and have to be rebuilt, which takes a great deal of effort; cf. Pargament 1997, 112–13. 137 Lazarus 1999, 33.

Bibliography A. Primary sources and translations Arius Didymus (1999). Epitome of Stoic Ethics. A. J. Pomeroy, ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Cassius Dio (1914–27). Roman History. E. Cary, trans. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Josephus (1926–65). The Jewish War; Jewish Antiquities. H. St. J. Thackerary et al., trans. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Juvenal (2004). Satire. S. M. Braund, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

128  The Corinthian correspondence Plutarch (1949–76). Moralia. H. Cherniss and H. N. Fowler, trans. 14 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Seneca the Younger (2011). On Benefits. M. Griffin & B. Inwood, trans. Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press. Strabo (1927). The Geography of Strabo. H. L. Jones, trans. vol. 4. LCL. London: William Heinemann. Suetonius (1997). Life of Claudius. J. C. Rolfe, trans. vol. 2. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Tacitus, Cornelius (2005). The Annals of Imperial Rome. A. J. Church & W. J. Brodribb, trans. Stilwell: Digireads.com Publishing.

B. Reference works and sourcebooks Louw, Johannes P. & Eugene A. Nida (1989). Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 ed. Earlier published in 1988. R. B. Smith, K. A. Munson, part-time and associate eds. New York: United Bible Societies. Newman, Barclay M. Jr. (1993). A Concise Greek–English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

C. Secondary literature Ahmadi, Fereshteh (2006). Culture, Religion and Spirituality in Coping: The Example of Cancer Patients in Sweden. Uppsala: Studia Sociologica Upsaliensia 53. Anderson, Paul N. (2004). “Jesus and Transformation.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 4. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 305–328. Barnett, Paul (1997). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barrett, Charles K. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Earlier edition published in 1968. Peabody: Hendrickson. Bash, Anthony (2004). “A Psychodynamic Approach to 2 Corinthians 10–13.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 149–163. Bowlby, John (1998). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and Depression. London: Pimlico. Carter, Christopher L. (2010). The Great Sermon Tradition as a Fiscal Framework in 1 Corinthians: Toward a Pauline Theology of Material Possessions. New York: T & T Clark International. Clarke, Andrew D. (1993). Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A SocioHistorical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1–6. Leiden: Brill. Collins, Raymond F. (1999). First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina 7. Collegeville: Glazier/ Liturgical Press. Conway, Colleen M. (2008). Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conzelmann, Hans (1975). 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Earlier published in 1969. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Cousar, Charles B. (1998). “Jesus and the Death of Jesus.” Interpretation 52: 1, 38–52.

The Corinthian correspondence 129 Coutsoumpos, Panayotis (2013). “Paul, the Corinthian Meal, and the Social Context.” Paul and His Social Relations. S. E. Porter & C. D. Land, eds. Leiden: Brill, 285–300. Cullberg, Johan (1993). Dynamisk psykiatri. Earlier published in 1984. Värnamo: Natur och Kultur. Dunn, James D. G. (2006). The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Earlier published in 1998. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ehrensperger, Kathy (2004). That We May be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies. New York/London: T & T Clark. Elliott, Neil (2000). “Paul and the Politics of the Empire: Problems and Prospects.” Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 17–39. Engels, Donald (1990). Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (2009). “What is Cultural Complexity?” Jesus Beyond Nationalism: Constructing the Historical Jesus in a Period of Cultural Complexity. H. Moxnes, W. Blanton & J. G. Crossley, eds. London: Equinox Publ., 9–24. Eriksson, Anders (1998). Traditions and Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians. Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament, 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Esler, Philip F. (2003). Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress. Fee, Gordon D. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians: New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Festinger, Leon (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Fiddes, Paul S. (1989). Past and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of the Atonement. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Fitzgerald, John T. (1988). Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. SBLDS 99; Atlanta: Scholars Press. Freudenburg, Kirk (2001). Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garnsey, Peter & Richard Saller (1997). ”Patronal Power Relations.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, R. H. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 96–103. Hafemann, Scott J. (1990). Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in 2 Corinthians 2:14–3:3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hardin, K. Justin (2008). Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Harrill, J. Albert (2005). “Paul and the Slave Self.” Religion and the Self in Antiquity. D. Brakke, M. L. Satlow, S. Weitzman, eds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 51–69. Harris, Murray J. (2005). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. Harvey, Anthony E. (1996). Renewal Through Suffering: A Study in 2 Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Hemer, C. J. (1972). “A Note on 2 Corinthians 1:9.” Tyndale Bulletin, Cambridge, 103–107.

130  The Corinthian correspondence Hope, Valerie M. (2009). Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London/New York: Continuum. Horsley, Richard A. (2000). “Introduction: Krister Stendahl’s Challenge to Pauline Studies.” Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1–16. Hubbard, Moyer V. (2010). Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction. Peabody: Hendrickson Publications. Ibita, Ma. Marilou (2005). “Dinning with Jesus in the Third Gospel: Celebrating Eucharist in the Third World.” East Asian Pastoral Review 42, 249–261. Ibita, Ma. Marilou (2012). If Anyone Hungers, He/She Must Eat in the House (1 Cor 11:34): A Narrative-Critical, Socio-Historical and Grammatical-Philological Analysis of the Story of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth (1 Cor 11:17–34). Ph.D. diss., Faculty of Theology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Jaspers, Karl (1963). Introduktion till filosofin. Earlier published in 1953. A. Byttner, trans. Stockholm: Bonniers. Joelsson, Linda (2009). “Hjälpa er till glädje: Psykologiska perspektiv på skam i Paulus andra brev till Korinth.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 74. Uppsala: Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet, 145–162. Käsemann, Ernst (1971). Perspectives on Paul. Earlier published in 1969. M. Kohl, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress. Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth (2001). On Death and Dying. Earlier published in 1970. London: Routledge. Lazarus, Richard (1999). Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York: Springer. Lazarus, Richard & Susan Folkman (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. Lim, Yong Kar (2009). The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us: A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Suffering s in 2 Corinthians. London: T & T Clark. Lynd, Helene M. (1958). On Shame and the Search for Identity. London: Routledge. Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Earlier published in 1981, revised and expanded edition. Atlanta: John Knox. Malina, Bruce J. & John J. Pilch (2006). Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress. Marshall, Peter (1983). “A Metaphor of Social Shame: ΘΡΙΑΜΒΕΎΕΙΝ i 2 Cor 2:14.” Novum Testamentum 25: 4, 302–317. Martin, Dale (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Martin, Ralph P. (1988). 1, 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Themes. Dallas/London/ Sidney/Singapore: Word. McNish, Jill L. (2004). “The Bible and the Psychology of Shame.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 239–264. Miller, William R. & Janet C’de Baca (2001). Quantum Change: When Epiphanies and Sudden Insights Transform Ordinary Lives. New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, Margaret M. (1991). Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

The Corinthian correspondence 131 Moxnes, Halvor (2005). “Honor and Shame.” The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendricksons, 19–40. Neyrey, Jerome H. (1999). “ ‘Despising the Shame of the Cross’: Honor and Shame in the Johannine Passion Narrative.” Social-Scientific Approached to New Testament Interpretation. D. H. Horrell, ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 151–176. Novak, Ralph Martin (2001). Christianity and the Roman Empire. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Omanson, Roger L. & Ellington, John (1993). A handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. Stuttgart/New York: United Bible Societies. Orr, William F. & James Arthur Walther (1976). 1 Corinthians. Introduction with a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Co. van Os, Bas (2011). Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian Origins. London: T & T Clark. Pargament, Kenneth I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Pargament, Kenneth I. (2007). Spiritually Integrated Psychotherapy: Understanding and Addressing the Sacred. New York: Guilford Press. Parkes, Colin Murray (1998). Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life. 3rd rev. ed., earlier published in 1972. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Peace, Richard V. (1999). Conversion in the New Testament: Paul and the Twelve. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Purvis, Sally (1992). The Power of the Cross: Foundations for a Christian Feminist Ethic of Community. Nashville: Abingdon. Roitto, Rikard (2013). “Is Covenantal Nomism Only Jewish?” Henoch 35. Brescia: Morcelliana, 119–34. Sanders, Ed Parish (1977). Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress. Savage, Timothy B. (1996). Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneiders, Sandra M. (1991). The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth (1983). In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroads. Segal, Alan F. (1990). Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sölle, Dorothee (1967). Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology after the “Death of God.” D. Lewis, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress. Spiegel, Yorick (1978). The Grief Process: Analysis and Counseling. Earlier published in 1973. E. Duke, trans. Nashville: Abingdon. Stendahl, Krister (1977). Paulus bland judar och hedningar. Earlier published in 1976, B. J. Stendahl, trans. Falköping: Gummessons. Stewart, Eric (2011). “I’m okay, you’re not okay: Constancy of Character and Paul’s Understanding of Change in his Own and Peter’s Behaviour.” Harvard Theological Studies 67: 3, 1–8. Talbert, Charles H. (1989). Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. New York: Crossroad.

132  The Corinthian correspondence Theissen, Gerd (1982). The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Thiselton, Anthony (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thomas, Christine M. (2005). “Placing the Dead: Funerary Practice and Social Stratification in the Early Roman Period at Corinth and Ephesos.” Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary approaches. D. N. Schowalter & S. F. Friesen, eds. Harvard Theological Studies 53. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thrall, Margaret E. (2004). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. First published in 1994. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Winter, Bruce W. (1978). “The Lord's Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction.” Reformed Theological Review 37, 73–82. Winter, Bruce W. (1989). “Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines.” Tyndale Bulletin 40, 86–106. Winter, Bruce W. (1994). Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster. Witherington, Ben (1998). The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove/Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.

4 Romans

While 1 and 2 Corinthians are partly defensive, mournful, and anxious letters, the letter to the Romans appears more confident and hopeful. Paul takes the initiative. He does not have to defend himself or his delayed visit, as in 2 Corinthians. Even though some misgivings are expressed about his personal future, Paul believes that all will end well and that he will come to the Christ-believers in Rome to relax eventually before entering the next stage. In Romans, all humans are described as equally helpless without the assistance of God – but nothing seems to frighten Paul, or cause him to shift course.

Romans: Transformed goals and means In Romans, the deaths of contemporary people serve as a basis for the entire argument. All the nations, including the Jews, have “swift feet to shed blood” (Rom 1:16–3:20; see esp. 1:29; 3:13–17). The agonistic culture is described as a major problem, and Paul spends an enormous effort to explain that no group or individual has any reason to boast over another (1:16–3:20; 9:1–12:21).1 The death of Jesus is also frequently referred to (1:4; 5:6–11; 6:3–10; 8:3, 11; 10:7; 14:15, etc.). Jesus died, not as an ungodly criminal as the mode of his execution implies – but for the ungodly (5:6b). Paul even emphasizes that God proved God’s love toward them by means of Jesus’ death (5:6–8). The practices of the challenge-riposte game are thereby clearly refuted (e.g. 12:16–21). A counter-culture is formed and suggested to the addressees in Romans (12:1–15:13), and also implemented by means of the letter (see esp. 16:1–16, 21–24). However, according to Paul, all humans are equally helpless without the assistance of God (3:21–26). Historical and rhetorical situation As the capital of the Roman empire, Rome played a significant role in this part of the world. Claudius, who reigned in 41–54 CE, continued the process of urban development. But although he extended the rights for the Jews throughout the empire in the year he came to power, that same year he also ordered the Jews “while continuing their traditional mode of life,

134 Romans not to hold meetings.”2 The Roman historian Suetonius notes that “since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”3 This order is believed to have been issued in 49 CE, but when Claudius died it lapsed.4 Claudius was succeeded by Nero (54–68 CE), who was deemed to conduct efficacious reign and law enforcement during his first years in power.5 Paul’s letter to the Romans is believed to have been written quite late in his productive period, about 56–57 CE,6 which is the early period of Nero’s time in power. Thus, some of the Jews who had left the city during the reign of Claudius would have had the opportunity to return.7 The letter was probably written in Corinth, or nearby.8 According to the letter itself, Paul writes as he is heading for Jerusalem to deliver his collection for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (15:25–27). After this journey, he intends to go to Rome, and then, with the assistance of the Christ-believers of Rome, he will go to Spain to share the gospel with the Spaniards as well (15:23–24, 28). By means of the letter, the recipients are to realize that the gospel Paul preaches is in accordance with what the faithful in Rome believe.9 It has been described as a letter about the macro perspectives,10 but this remains true only until the mission to Spain is taken into consideration. Robert Jewett gives careful attention to the question of why Paul would need the Christ-believers of Rome as a base for his mission to Spain. It seems there was no Jewish population in Spain at the time.11 Without a synagogue, Paul would need to establish a social network for his journey, and initial contacts to establish a self-supporting business and for communication of the gospel.12 Additionally, the language barrier for a Greek speaker like Paul in Spain is maintained to be rather high.13 Particularly the rural population of Spain, and the northern portions of the territory, remained separated from the Greco-Roman culture.14 Besides, Latin was the language of the conquerors. The situation of Spain was constituted by persistent local resistance, cultural conflict, and imperial exploitation; to rely solely on Latin might have been neither feasible nor promising.15 Moreover, if Paul’s journey to Jerusalem failed, and his collection and services were not accepted by the saints, Paul had better try to establish good relationships with other groups of Christ-believers in advance.16 Paul expresses some misgivings in the letter about his prospects of delivering the collection and leaving the city of Jerusalem safe and sound, and he requests spiritual support from the addressees: “strive together with me in prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered from those in Judea who do not believe” (15:30–32). If Paul could promote a cooperative stance between the different groups of Christ-believers in Rome, this would serve both the end of enhancing Paul’s version of the gospel, and of enhancing the possibilities for the Roman Christ-believers to invest means for his journey to Spain. This rhetorical context is determined by the social standing of the Jews and the nations,17 and in the introductory part of the letter Paul presents a most delicate rhetorical turn in this respect. He addresses the recipients as brothers and sisters, and then adding that they are all “among the nations” (ἐν πᾶσιν

Romans 135 τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; 1:5–7), which in the ancient world was understood to be a contradiction in terms. To be “among the nations” would rather be at odds with the self-depiction of both Jews and Romans.18 The perspective that the whole letter evolves around is that it is not a source of embarrassment to stand in relationship with people from all kinds of groups (cf. 1:16). Paul thus makes an attempt to establish a universal identity of Christ-believers. The problem that the letter deals with at length is the assumed prevalence of a condescending attitude among the Romans, based on an imperialistic culture, where the “barbarians” were depicted at the bottom of the spectrum of different people (see 1:14–11:36).19 No one has anything to boast about, and the messages that they all must receive one another are permeate the letter. As Philip F. Esler rightly points out, the letter to the Romans deals with the task of making two or more different ethnic groups conjoin in a new Christ-believing identity.20 Paul proclaims the equality between the Jews and the nations (e.g., 3:21–30; 4:12; 5:1–2, 12; 8:1; 10:11–13; 11:32), and affirms the impartiality of God (1:14–17; 2:11; 3:28–30; 9:16; 10:12; 11:31; 14:10; 15:7). The implemented practice derived from this notion is therefore that the violence directed against deviants (such as Jesus) or against out-groups (such as the barbarians) is no longer legitimate. In Romans, Paul poses himself as a positive example – even as a role model – in a manner that most of his contemporaries would rather have avoided if possible, namely to be obliged. Paul claims to stand in relation with both Greek and barbarians, both to wise and unwise, and to be obliged to all (1:14). Most practically, to “be obliged” meant having received a gift, which in the cultures around the Mediterranean basin meant to stand in relation with the giver, and be obliged to return a gift in due time.21 To be indebted was nothing but dishonorable (cf. 1 Cor 9:1–27),22 but Paul introduces himself as a servant, or a slave (δοῦλος) of Christ Jesus (1:1). A slave could have a prominent position, and even wealth, but having honor was beyond reach.23 Thus, in this letter Paul positions himself as a man without honor. Notably, the concept of obligation is also relevant in relation to the collection to Jerusalem.24 By offering a gift, the Christ-believers around the empire acknowledged their indebtedness to those who were Christ-believers before them. The precipitating question in the rhetorical situation of Romans is whether the Christ-believers of Jerusalem were willing to stand in relation with Christ-believers among all kinds of people from all over the world. If they accepted the gift, they would inevitably stand in relation with the gift-givers and be obliged to return it again in some way (cf. 15:27). Paul begins the letter with describing the current problems of an agonistic culture (1:16–3:20). He then focuses on the issues of relative status, emphasizing that no one has anything to boast about (3:21–11:36). In 12:1–15:13, the strategies for implementation are suggested. The list of greetings in the close of the letter becomes a sort of implementation of the exhortation to receive one another, with its inclusion of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew names (some of which are explicitly identified as Jews, presumably indicating that others are from other nations; see 16:3–16).25 The imperative to “greet”

136 Romans (ἀσπάσασθε; repeated fifteen times in chapter 16) implies to honor and to include in fellowship.26 Death in Romans The rhetorical setting of Romans implies that Paul wishes to present himself and his theology, not focusing on past experience, but as to address the situation of the Romans in prospect of his future beneficial cooperation with them (cf. 1:1–15; 15:14–33). A difficulty in the interpretation of Paul’s other letters has been to discern a rhetorical situation which was known to both the addressees and the author(s), but the case is the opposite in regard to Romans. Certain cultural features are assumed to be shared with the addressees, but Paul probably knew less about the precise circumstances of the recipients of this letter compared to those of other letters. This may be the reason why the particularity of the experiences that are referred to in this letter is often omitted. The cultural features are, so to speak, “undressed” from historical data. Paul cannot refer to shared experience in its literal sense; he can only assume that the recipients may share some similar experiences and have similar needs. From these, his argument takes its starting point. Hence, the character of this letter makes it problematic or nearly infeasible to identify what cases of actual death are being referred to. In keeping with the rhetorical situation depicted above, every death is developed into a rhetorical figure in Romans: be it deaths due to an agonistic culture; or the death of Jesus (which may be included in the first category); or deaths that Paul or other members of his first in-group inflicted on deviants in their struggle to honor the traditions of their fathers (which also may be included in the first category). The potential provocation of Paul’s return to Jerusalem should also be related to the agonistic cultural aspects. Violent death is presented in Romans as an important feature of the background to the message of the letter (1:29–31; 3:10–18). The people of the nations are, according to Paul, filled with “all manner of wrongdoing, evil, greed, badness, persons full of envy, murder, strife, treachery, malice, whispers, slanders, haters of God, bullies, egoists, braggarts, inventors of evil designs, disobedient to parents, without understanding, without dutifulness, without affection, without mercy” (1:29–31).27 The list is obviously organized for the sake of effective auditive impact on the audience,28 and by the close of the list not one of the recipients will have missed that the nations are in a hopeless state. Paul then turns to the Jews: they are keen to judge, but they practice the same things (2:1). The list describing the situation of the Jews contains similar elements as the list of the nations, but these are now underlined by means of references to scripture. As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all

Romans 137 turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. (3:10–18) Thus, according to these descriptions, violent death in relation to an agonistic culture is a recurrent feature in the lives of both the Jews and the other nations. These problems are naturally framed in a way to emphasize their severeness, but if no reality lies behind the rhetorical features, their relevance for the following message would also cease. The perception that the pre-Christ-loyal mode of life produced death is also indicated elsewhere in the letter (5:21; 6:16–21; 8:6). Paul even claims that the totality of creation is subjected to futility (8:20–22). The death of Jesus, which is an example of such violent death, serves as a proof to nearly every argument in Romans, and it is thoroughly integrated in the global perspective that is articulated by Paul in this letter (5:6–11; 6:3–10; 8:3, 11; 10:7; 14:15). Jesus’ death is also a proof of God’s righteousness, a means for inclusion into a new humanity (3:21–26; 5:5–21; 8:3; 14:15), and a means for identification in transition (6:1–23; 8:11; 10:4–13). The letter also frequently refers to Paul’s present situation and his sufferings. Paul claims “[we] are joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together” (8:17). And “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (8:18). Thus, the passages speak of Paul’s personal situation as involving sufferings (παθήματα). With support from scripture it is also claimed that “for your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (8:36).29 Paul asks boldly: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” (8:35). Also in Paul’s account of the story of Elijah, Elijah pleads with God saying: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” The focus in this context is not on the situation of the prophets, however, but on the faithfulness of God toward Israel. God responds, according to Paul, that “I have reserved for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (11:4). And Paul continues, “[e]ven so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (11:5). Paul describes the conceptual means of transition from an agonistic culture, but before he turns to the more specific suggestions for implementation, he once more acknowledges his allegiance with the Jews specifically. He claims to be willing to die for the sake of their salvation (9:1–5). He

138 Romans claims that he could wish that he himself were accursed from Christ, if that would help the Jews, his brothers and sisters by inheritance. A curse had the most practical implementations of exclusion from the group, and it was also believed that an accursed person would die a premature death at the hands of God.30 By the close of the letter Paul requests that the Roman Christbelievers pray that he “may be delivered from those in Judea who do not believe, and that my service for Jerusalem may be accepted by the saints” (15:31).31 Arland J. Hultgren maintains that “Paul’s fear of being seized by such persons and being treated severely, perhaps even killed, was well founded.”32 Similarly, Robert Jewett suggests that Paul hoped to be saved from the “mortal danger of assassination by zealots in Judea.”33 His previous in-group most likely held a lingering grudge against him. If Paul himself had been involved in violent persecution of Christ-believers in Judea prior to his calling (Gal 1:13, 22–23), there is no particular reason to believe that no one else could have continued that persecution after he left.34 Moreover, if Paul’s service was not accepted by the Christ-believers of Judea, this would naturally be a deeply disgraceful offense against him,35 but his social position would also deteriorate, with a declining degree of physical safety as a result.36 If neither his former, nor his present in-group honored him, he would be quite defenseless. He could choose not to react along the practices of the challenge-riposte game himself,37 but the majority of the society still functioned along these customary rules. The letter to the Romans offers well-developed strategies to supplant the agonistic culture and its challengeriposte game with a peaceful inclusiveness, and Paul “urges the community to refrain from violence in contending for the gospel,”38 but the question remains how the safety of the individual would be maintained during the transition period between the old and the new paradigm. Finally, in the list of greetings we find two references to shared experiences of risking or escaping violent deaths. Prisca and Aquila are depicted as fellow workers in Christ Jesus “who risked their own necks for my life” (16:4). Andronicus and Junia are also greeted as “countrymen and fellow prisoners” (16:7).39

Analyzing premature death The death of Jesus serves as a proof to nearly every argument in Romans, and it is thoroughly integrated in the perspective that is articulated by Paul (5:6–11; 6:3–10; 8:3, 11; 10:7; 14:15). Jesus’ death becomes a role model even for life. Hence, there is nothing dishonorable with not defending one’s honor, nor with including persons from other nations in fellowship. As a transit from a previous mode of life to a new one, the death of Jesus becomes the image for the turning away from an agonistic culture and into a new sphere of grace and love (5:5–11, 20–21; 6:23, and so forth). Having established beyond doubt that “all have sinned” (3:22b–23), and that no one has anything to boast about (3:27), Paul introduces the Jewish role

Romans 139 model par excellence, Abraham (4:1–22). In this context, Paul designs the story of Abraham and Sarah’s promised child as a conceptual kin and predecessor to the resurrection of Jesus. Abraham and Sarah are both described as in the process of dying (νενεκρωμένον/νέκρωσιν; 4:19).40 Abraham and Sarah had their child, and similarly, Jesus was raised from the dead (ἐκ νεκρῶν; 4:24), implying that God’s ability to create life is nothing new. People in their shame are elevated (barrenness/crucifixion). “As it is written, I have made you a father of many nations [. . .] God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did” (4:17). Thus, the story of the promised child anticipates the story of resurrection. Jesus is put in relation to Abraham, the father of faith. He is conceptually taken in from the shameful cross outside the city walls, to the heart of the people, and into the Jewish construct of ancestry (4:1–5:21). Jesus is also put in relation to Adam, the primordial man, which makes him conceptually direct relevant to all nations (5:12–5:21). In Romans, Jesus’ death is related, not only as a fate, but as a phenomenon. Baptism as death The notion of baptism as a death has important implications in regard to coping strategies. Baptism as a death indicates that baptism entails transformation of both destinations of significance and of pathways to get there (cf. 6:4), but the question is how to get there. The errand of the passage about baptism as death is how it can be possible for the addressees to continue in sin (i.e., to continue with the same practices, when they really have died to sin [6:1–2]). To be dead is normally a point of no return, and Paul encourages the addressees not to let sin reign since they are no longer slaves to sin (6:15–23). In this context, death serves as a metaphor for thorough transformation, and Paul argues that certain aspects of life can indeed be altered through baptism. As James R. Beck puts it, “[t]he apostle Paul was vitally concerned with change.”41 Paul perceived such a renewal as possible. He witnesses the zeal for God of the members of his former in-group, although he perceives that they had a lack of knowledge (10:2), which implies that he probably perceives his own earlier state in similar terms. He lacked in knowledge, but now he knows better. The altered status of those who are “dead” by means of baptism most practically entails that certain things that were prohibited during their life under the law – e.g. to eat with out-group people – may now be allowed (7:4; cf. 14:14).42 And at the same time, certain behavior that was previously allowed (e.g., to discredit people, and to abuse discredited people – is now forbidden [see 12:1–21]).43 The acknowledgment of Jesus’ death and resurrection is in Romans depicted as the starting point of transformation, and its revealing power is affirmed (see 1:3–5; 3:21–31; 4:23–5:21; 8:1–39; 10:8–10). This revelation is not enough, however, but merely the beginning. The new conceptual stance needs to be implemented, which clearly may lead

140 Romans to some frustration depending on how far-reaching changes the revelation demands in the changer. As Joel B. Green notifies, conversion as a process is a neglected theme in biblical studies,44 which may be one of the reasons for the longstanding debate on the identity of the “wretched I” of 7:7–25. When in Romans Paul identifies an involuntariness in the heart of free will, it is best understood as an expression of his struggle to implement his new perspective: “For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, I do” (7:15). Paul describes the experience of struggle in a way which he assumes can be helpful for the addressees in their struggle. The “wretched I” is neatly constructed with an eye to (Paul’s idea of) the current situation of the Roman churches. In any letter, every “I” is in some way rhetorical – it is written for someone else’s eyes and ears – but this is not to say that it is inauthentic. Rather every “I” can be placed somewhere on a continuum between fictive and factual. In the debate about whether this “I” should be seen as pre-conversion or post-conversion experience, some scholars fall into the trap of talking about human experience as detached from historical data – in this case about Romans as detached from its author – speaking about “ ‘normal’ Christian experience,” and asking questions such as “Should we expect Christian existence to be characterized by the sort of severe struggle as described here?”45 However, the perspective of the present study assumes that personal experience and expectations vary, and then the passage in Romans therefore must be read as the rhetorically framed expression of someone’s experience and/ or expectations. This “I” is likely constructed with an eye to the addressees, and what Paul thinks would be helpful to them. In this case, the structure of the letter may shed some light on the identity of the “wretched I.” It can be depicted as follows: First, Paul depicts the pre-conversional state of the Jews and of the nations (1:14–3:20). Then, he describes a turning point: “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets” (3:21). He emphasizes that this Jesus is relevant to both the Jews and the nations (4:1–5:21), and then turns to the issue of the transformation through baptism (6:1–7:6). In 7:14–25, he advances the picture further, adding depth and nuance in depicting the struggle of implementation of the implications of this “death.” Thus, the passage of Romans 7:7–25 is part of a carefully developed argument that discusses the paradox that the baptized be dead to sin – and sin has no further claim on them – but that sin still is present as an integrated part of their lives (8:12–39). It would clearly work against the rhetorical project if Paul had introduced a “pre-conversional I” at this point of the argument. The purpose of 7:7–25 is to make the addressees aware of sin as illegitimate in their present lives, and therefore encourage them to proceed in their transformation in the Spirit. However, the character of the “I” as being constructed with an eye to the audience implies that the experience described does not have to be current to Paul (cf. 8:1–39). Paul might imagine the state of the audience as being in

Romans 141 an earlier phase of Christ-loyal life than that in which he finds himself at the moment. The experience is most likely described with the intent of providing an opportunity for positive identification and to offer encouragement to the addressees. A problem with his attempt to provide an opportunity for identification for the addressees is that not all of the addressees can be assumed to have Paul’s very special background (which is probably true also for his readers in scholarly settings). Some of the addressees may not have the experience of such a far-reaching shift of attitudes as Paul did as an ex-extremist. Not everybody had a period of being a persecutor prior to their affiliating with the group of Christ-believers. Paul admits in passing that not all had sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, but sin reigns even over those (5:14). We may note that the “we” of 7:6 appears interchangeable with the “I” of 7:7–25, and the next chapter furthers the same discussion in relation to “those who are in Christ.” Paul does not discriminate between the individual identity and the collective identity in this passage.46 He claims that pre-Christ-loyal mode of life produced death in a way that makes it sound as a standard experience (5:21; 6:16–21; 8:6), which may not be true to everyone, but makes his description of the struggles in implementing the good aspirations later most understandable (7:13–25). According to Paul, in their (his) pre-conversional state they (he) did not only do what was wrong, but they thought it was good (1:32b; cf. 2:21–25). From a psychological perspective, we may note that in comparison to a minor conceptual change, a far-reaching conceptual change demands greater effort to be implemented. Naturally, not all baptized carried out such extensive re-valuation as Paul did – he had after all been on top in his previous league before he changed his mind completely in crucial matters (cf. Gal 1:13–24). As Ben Witherington puts it, “[z]eal is a key to understanding Paul’s personality both before and after he became a follower of Christ.”47 And more speculative but probably accurate, “Paul was radical enough to be prepared to resort to violence; when he became a Christian he did not cease to be radical, he just became a non-violent one.”48 As Alan F. Segal emphasizes, there can be many continuities between a convert’s life before and after conversion. “Rather, the convert changes a few key concepts, revaluing everything else accordingly.”49 Segal also emphasizes that even though the conversion experience might take a few moments, it generally takes time to draw the conclusions and implement these.50 As William R. Miller and Janet C’de Baca note in their study of people who have undergone a similar thorough change in their life, even though the change was perceived as instant, many of their informants reported, and also emphasized, that their extraordinary experience was just the beginning of an ongoing process. The changers commonly spoke of a process of consolidation.51 Although many told of a clearly discernible triggering event, the process of change went on for quite some time. It was often understood as a kind of maturing process as they integrated their new perspective. It was even common to describe the

142 Romans experience as still ongoing more than a decade later (!), and although the respondents had a clear sense of being permanently changed, some continued for a time in their old ways.52 As in the case of Romans, Paul and the Roman Christ-believers have all died with Christ (7:6–8) and been set free from sin (7:18), but this freedom still needs to be more thoroughly implemented in their lives (7:12–15). A transformative death According to Robert Jewett, “the sinful passions which were aroused by the law” were yearnings for honor (see 7:5).53 This kind of yearning produced death (7:5; cf. 2:17–3:20), and – if Jewett is correct – this was the strife to enhance one’s relative status among other people. While we do not know much about Paul’s life before his christophany, we have quite clear indications of him being zealous and destructive (cf. Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6), and in this sense Jewett’s suggestion seems plausible. To place oneself on top of one’s generation (see Gal 1:13–14) clearly required considerable skill in the challenge-riposte game, and his comment testifies of his sensitivity to this issue. But in Romans, Paul also claims that he died himself due to the work of the law in his previous career. In the retrospective passage of 7:7–13, Paul testifies that “sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived [him], and by it killed [him]” (7:11). In this context, Paul asserts that his freedom and his capability of discernment were lost. He was deceived, even though he had the law (7:11), and he was sold under sin, even though he was an Israelite (7:14; cf. 11:1). In this sense he became uncircumcised, although he was circumcised (see 2:25–26; cf. 1:18–2:16). In what sense was Paul killed? This metaphor needs some clarification. C. K. Barrett suggests that Paul “desired to gratify himself and to achieve independence of the God who placed unwelcome restraint upon him. This was death.”54 Colin G. Kruse suggests a similar interpretation.55 Their interpretations have quite poor textual support, however. While Barrett’s suggestion implies that Paul died because of not sinning, Paul emphatically claims that it was sin that killed him (7:9–11, 13). In Paul’s depiction, there were no “forbidden world” which he longed to enter,56 but Paul contends that it was the sin that was aroused by the law that “killed” him (7:8). On the other hand, if the sinful passions referred to in Romans 7:5 were as Jewett suggests “the yearnings for honor in conforming to the law and in coercing compliance with its norms,” then it is quite easy to understand how this might have borne “fruit to death” (7:5).57 Barrett offers a hypothetical “autobiographical interpretation” of the experience of a bar mitzva boy who assumes responsibility before the law and at that point also urges to break the law.58 Again, the bar mitzva boy interpretation runs even smoother if the boy experienced pride over his inheritance rather than an urge to break the commandments.59 The interpretation that Paul felt pride over his incorporation as a member of the Judean

Romans 143 group has strong support elsewhere. In Galatians, he claims that he was “more exceedingly zealous” for the traditions of his fathers than his contemporaries (Gal 1:14).60 According to Paul in Romans, the problem with the law is that it can be used in improper ways, though not corrupt in itself (cf. 7:12). A piece of evidence in favor of the interpretation of the law as a possible means for boasting is that Paul devotes the three whole succeeding chapters to the issue of the relative status of the Jews and the nations, affirming that no one has any reason to boast over against the others (chapters 9–11). The perception that boasting occasionally led to bloodshed, on the other hand, is part of the foundational description of the situation in which the argument takes its starting point (1:18–3:20). Relating to Paul’s own account of his previous zeal for the traditions of the fathers, it appears that his appreciation of the law led him to destroy the “church of God” (see Gal 1:13–14). Their previous inclination to judge one another (cf. 2:1–11), and also their present inclination to dismiss people whom Jesus has died for, is discussed at length in Romans (esp. 14:1–23). The injunction in the beginning of the letter not to judge one another is anticipating the late injunction to receive one another (15:1–13; 16:1–16). The use of the law as a means to gain superiority over other people is depicted as an improper use in Romans (10:1–13). The injunction to receive one another stands in sharp contrast with the practices of the challenge-riposte game, which was based on a preoccupation with the importance of relative social status.61 The section of admonition is also introduced by Paul’s request that the Roman Christ-believers present “[their] bodies a living sacrifices holy, acceptable to God, which is [their] reasonable service” (12:1). This is then spelled out as follows: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (12:2). Paul proposes to everyone who is among them, through the grace given to him, not to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith (12:3), faith being the peaceful component of an agonistic culture, namely loyalty. Faith was what kept an agonistic society from falling apart in everybody’s war against everybody.62 Paul also conveys that he says what he says because of the grace given to him, not in accordance with inherited or achieved honor.63 Thus, Paul takes a decisive position in relation to the generally held concepts of honor, and he explicitly addresses every one of the recipients. No one stands above or below the message of the letter (12:3a).64 The addressees need to think soberly (i.e., according to good sense, showing self-control).65 Faith is to be their ground for action (12:3). The whole section of admonition continues in the same vein. The society is a body, which was a well-known topos in the Greco-Roman society, and the individual members are to help each other (12:4–8). “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love,

144 Romans in honor giving preference to one another” (12:9–11). The practices of the challenge-riposte game are virtually impossible if these admonitions are followed. “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” (12:14). “Do not set your mind on high things (τὰ ὑψηλὰ),66 but associate with the humble” (τοῖς ταπεινοῖς; 12:16b). “Repay no evil for evil” (12:17a). These injunctions preclude the practice of the challenge-riposte game, which presupposed a culture of climbing and mandated that evil generally should be repaid with evil. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peacefully with all men” (12:18). A counter-culture is thus formed. It is possible, as some scholars maintain, that the injunction of a peaceful stance toward the authorities (13:1–7) may be influenced by the knowledge of the previous expulsion of Jews from Rome,67 but this peaceful stance permeates the letter and is to be found not only when a boastful attitude would entail a possible threat toward one’s own life. In conclusion, the sin that transpired from Paul’s previous use of the law was probably its use as a means to gain a sense of superiority over other people (cf. 1:16–3:20). The death of the law As mentioned above, Paul suggests not only that his previous use of the law led to others’ destruction (cf. 6:21), but also that the he “died” himself when the commandment came, and sin revived (7:9). In what sense, then, did Paul himself die due to the destructive work of the commandment? The suggestion that the “death” by the law depicted in Romans 7:1–25 was some kind of death by restraint is poorly evidenced in the letter itself. However, the “death” might include emotional and/or social aspects of life. First, as is commonly recognized, it is lonely at the top. Paul acknowledges in Galatians that he had advanced beyond many of his contemporaries in his earlier life, when he was exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers (Gal 1:14b). A social loss due to the yearnings for honor is therefore not improbable. The joy of communality must be dismissed as irrelevant in climbing the social ladder in relation to the practices of the challenge-riposte game. The climbing also presupposes a certain amount of frustration. One cannot simply be content, and appreciate what one has, but the challenge-riposte game requires yearning for honor: one must always want more – and in some ways reduce others to pawns – in order to keep focus on and ceaselessly advance one’s relative social status (cf. 7:7). Everything can be lost, and presumably everything can be gained in the challenge-riposte game, but communality and fellowship are not among those things.68 The commandment that is explicitly actualized in Romans 7:7 is Deuteronomy 5:21: “You shall not covet (LXX: οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις) your neighbor’s wife; you shall not covet (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις) your neighbor’s house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any beast of his, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” Hence, the desire depicted in this verse is not one of sexual lust in particular, but is rather the greedy

Romans 145 jealousy of wanting the same – or more – than one’s neighbor has.69 This type of covetousness is in other words a conceptual kin to the yearnings for honor. The concept of relative social status presumes a clear focus on comparison, which easily excludes gratitude and loyalty (cf. πίστις). The problem, as depicted in Deuteronomy 5:21, is not that of wanting something, but of wanting something that belongs to someone else’s sphere of influence. The inevitable loss in relation to this kind of yearning for honor is thus a failing sense of gratitude for what one has in terms of relationships and possessions, and a declining sphere of togetherness and communality. A kind of social death is therefore one possible interpretation of the death Paul depicts as his experience in relation to his earlier preoccupation with the law, even though the law itself is maintained to be good (cf. 7:12). The commandment does not exclude Paul from a vital part of life (cf. Barrett), but it is used for other purposes than intended, namely for boasting and achieving a sense of superiority over others. Notably, the triumph over this use of the law is not achieved by a successful challenge and/or riposte but is offered by “him who loved us” (cf. 8:37–39) (i.e., Christ) (8:34–36). Thus, Paul’s “death” because of his improper use of the commandment could have been a loss of communality. Another type of interpretation of Paul’s “death” in relation to the commandment is that it is a depiction of the loss of the emotional aspect itself. When an emotion such as anger or sorrow is too difficult to handle, it can be shut off from the conscious self. The result is often referred to as a “numbness.”70 Such numbness can be experienced as a “death” (see 7:9–11).71 For different reasons, a wide range of emotions can be too difficult to handle for the conscious self. Shame is a perfect example, but other examples include guilt, anger, anxiety, longing for intimacy, and so on (cf. 7:25; 8:8–11, 14–39).72 According to Paul, the work of the Spirit makes people into “sons of God” (8:14). “For you did not receive the Spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father’ ” (8:15). The continuing argument seems to imply that togetherness and fellowship were lost aspects of life that the “passions aroused by the law” did not support (cf. 6:12; 7:7–8). Therefore, the death in relation to the law could involve both emotional and social aspects. After his conversion, Paul emphasizes the importance of communality and faith (πίστις). As he continues the discussion in chapter 8, to be spiritually minded means life and peace (8:6). But to implement these features in life and practice is depicted as a strenuous task (7:14–25), even when received as a gift by God, and nourished through the support of the Spirit (8:1–39). Transformed collective body The fact that the “wretched I” is constructed in a rhetorical setting entails that the personal experience that is described does not have to be Paul’s current experience. It is probably constructed in relation to his idea of the

146 Romans situation and the needs of his addressees. The argumentative position of the passage implies that a post-conversional experience might be depicted to support the addressees. Without knowing much about the addressees, we know quite a lot with a reasonable degree of certainty about Paul’s life. In Romans, Paul is the apostle of transformed minds, which confirms the picture of his personal transformation that is given elsewhere (e.g., Phil 3:3– 21). In Romans, the transition to a new way of life is depicted as a death. According to Paul, the baptized person is dead (ἀπεθάνομεν) to sin (6:2). So that no one will miss the point, Paul even claims that the baptized have been buried with Christ so that, just as Christ was raised, they should walk in newness of life (6:4).73 He asserts that “our old person” has been crucified with Jesus, in order that the body of sin might be done away with (6:6). Paul offers two metaphors or parallels to show the differences between pre- and post-baptismal life. First, he suggests that the baptized are to see themselves as slaves to righteousness. This implies that they have decisively altered affiliation, that they are restricted in new ways, and perhaps also that honor among humans is unattainable to them (see 6:18–23). The second metaphor is that of a widowed woman. It serves as a proof for the case that a person’s legal status may indeed be altered, with reorganized relationships as a result. It is prohibited for the woman to have another man, unless the first man has died (7:2–3), and in the same way, Paul suggests that the legal status of a person alters significantly by means of baptism (7:1–4). The baptism is depicted as a point of no return, and the continuing argumentation is a discussion on how the baptized person is to continue on the newfound path in spite of shortcomings (7:14–25). The Christ-believers have died with Jesus, on a conceptual or ritual level,74 and therefore they may also walk in the newness of life with him, following his resurrection (6:2–8). Death is thus adopted as a metaphor of thorough transformation in Romans. By identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus, the transformative potential of this metaphor may be at work in the lives of the Christ-believers (6:8–23). But as Paul emphasizes, the death of transformation is not imposed on them as passive objects, but requires their obedient heart (i.e., that they make it their decision to receive the new order and live in it [6:17]). Paul’s urgent exhortation makes this point clear. The Christbelievers must avoid sin, and accept being slaves of righteousness, while, however, the concept of righteousness is itself transformed. The metaphorical and also ritual death implies that certain deeds that were previously forbidden are now allowed. For instance, the baptized may indiscriminately have fellowship with people from different nations (7:4; cf. 14:14; see e.g. 1:14–17; 2:11; 3:28–30; 9:16; 10:12; 11:31; 14:10; 15:7). On the other hand, to “grieve” and “destroy,” are now forbidden (cf. 14:15). To eat particular food, and to ignore the cultic calendar, is now allowed (see 14:1–6). As a matter of fact, a cross-national fellowship is prescribed in Romans (see 1:16–17; 15:7–13).75 The baptized are delivered to “serve in the newness the Spirit” (7:6). Clearly, the death of baptism alters not only the person who is

Romans 147 baptized, but also his or her standing in relation to the surrounding society (cf. 7:1–6). The discussion of a not yet fully integrated gospel persists through the following argument (8:1–39). “For we are saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly await for it with perseverance” (8:24–25). The admonitions in the hortatory section do not at all give reason for belief in the notion that Christ-believers are incapable of sinning. Nothing could affirm the identity of the “wretched I” as a post-conversional identity more clearly than the continuation of the letter itself, which involves admonitions such as, “Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died” (14:15b). In other words, instant change and gradual change seem in a paradoxical way to be two aspects of the present life of the baptized (cf. 6:2–4, 11; 7:4).76 And, as James R. Beck puts it, “[t]he change on which [Paul] focused [. . .] was not restricted to the change that comes from a conversion experience; he was also committed to fostering change in the lives of the believers who needed to mature, to strengthen their weak faith, to improve their interpersonal functioning within the church.”77 Beck continues, “[w]e would be guilty of a gross misreading of the New Testament if we were to conclude that one’s conversion experience was the ultimate end of all change in the Christian life.”78 The level of coherence An interesting feature of Romans is that the significant values, and the pathways to reach them, all appear to be in consonance with each other, precisely in the letter where Paul moans inconsistency.79 It may strike one as odd that Paul comments on the discrepancy between intended and actual behavior precisely in Romans. A way of understanding this feature, as indicated above, is that the passage is constructed with an eye to the assumed needs of his audience. It may also be noted as an indication of achieved “critical distance.” It sometimes takes some distance to be able to depict what is going on, or was going on. When a problem is acute and takes nearly the whole capacity of a person, it is often difficult to formulate the problem and discern the larger picture. On the other hand, when the problem is half-solved, and the pathway to its solutions can be seen more clearly, the definition of the problem also tends to be clearer (cf. 7:13–25). And even to define the problem can be halfway to its solution. Thus, Paul’s depiction of a struggle with the lack of coherence could imply that the process has been going on for some time and that Paul has reached somewhere by now. In one respect the discrepancy between ideal and actual behavior lingers, however. In Romans, Jesus’ death is processed to the point that the actual circumstances of Jesus’ death nearly become invisible. The death of Jesus is explained as a part of God’s cosmic plan, and the cross with its humiliation escapes from sight. Death is depicted as a means of transition and the

148 Romans furtherance of life. But when Paul describes the death of Jesus in Romans, the actions of God are described as being in accordance with the customary rules of the challenge-riposte game. That is, the actions and notions that are refuted on the human level are maintained on the divine. The offenses against God (1:18–3:20) have, it seems, to be paid by means of blood to save God’s honor (3:23–25). This curious feature itself does not appear to need any explanations in Romans. The need is rather to explain how God could have forbearance over sins previously while still being righteous (3:25–26). Paul emphasizes that God did not fail to punish the sinners, but a respite was given until the death of Christ Jesus was set forth as a propitiation by God to prove his righteousness (3:25). According to Romans, the Christ-believers have been justified by Jesus’ blood, and thus they know for sure that they will be saved from God’s wrath (5:9). A similar thought is developed in Romans 8, where Paul says that God sent “his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin [. . .] that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled” (8:3–4). In other words, God did not spare his own son, but “delivered him up for us all” (8:32).80 Jesus has now died, been risen, and sits presently on the right hand of God, and “makes intercessions for us” (8:34). In conclusion, the agonistic culture that is supplanted on the human level by a peaceful inclusiveness is still valid on the extraterrestrial level, according to Paul. God requires blood to make reconciliation possible with his own righteousness unaffected (cf. 3:23–26), and Jesus’ death is related, not as a fate, but as a phenomenon. Jesus’ death as a phenomenon In Romans, the death of Jesus is heavily charged with meaning and purpose. From a psychological perspective, this could be understood as a case of intellectualization.81 Death is explained and, through a process of rationalization, Jesus’ death is transferred from an emotional sphere of life, to an intellectual sphere with little or no lingering emotions left.82 The death of Jesus is not provocative or appalling in Romans, but is given meaning and function within the larger sphere of the universe. The pain is not remembered by means of the text,83 and the tragic event of Jesus’ death is explained by a cosmic plan. The provocative contours of the cross in the existential sense are nearly absent from the letter (cf. 1 Cor 2:2; Gal; cf. Rom 6:6). The shameful death of Jesus is not regarded as a sign of God’s disdain or punishment (5:1–21), and Jesus’ death is even described as a sacrificial death (3:25) for the benefit of the godless and impious (5:6). The ultimate exclusion of crucifixion is thereby transformed to the foundation of the ultimate inclusion (3:23–30; cf. 6:6). By depicting Jesus as a sacrifice that is acceptable to God, Paul achieves two important goals. First, he establishes Jesus’ ritual cleanliness despite his most unclean death. Second, he establishes the notion of Jesus’ death as benevolent for others,84 and in this vein this death is not a cause for sorrow

Romans 149 but for joy.85 Naturally, the resurrection serves as a key to this interpretation (see 1:4). The interpretation of Jesus’ death in Romans stands in stark contrast with the notion of unfortunate death as the righteous judgment of God (cf. 1:32 and context). The life and death of Jesus are axiomatically presumed to be the very opposite of uncleanliness, vile passions, debased minds, and improper conduct that cause the wrath of God (cf. 1:24–32). But nevertheless, Jesus’ death carries all the traits of condemnation and disdain, since he was executed as a traitor, outside the city, literally and figuratively very far from the holy area of the Temple.86 Even though the notion of a noble death for the sake of others was established in the Greco-Roman context, as Colleen M. Conway comments, “the concept of the noble, manly death and the emasculating crucifixion are not ideas that are easily held together in the gendered ideology of the first century.”87 By suggesting that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice acceptable to God, Paul turns the concept of holiness upside down.88 Thus, the fellowship with this “nobody” becomes a fellowship for “everybody” (3:23–24), which also appears to stand in sharp contrast with Paul’s previous zeal for the traditions of his fathers and his persecution of the early church (cf. Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:3–16). Suggesting that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice acceptable to God testifies of agency and resistance to the common interpretation of his life as condemned and despicable. While the death of an executed criminal was not to be commemorated and mourned,89 the death of Jesus was clearly not forgotten.90 The notion of the sacrificial death of Jesus also promotes the perception that experiences of trouble can contribute to honor and to hope, which clearly could have been helpful to Paul also personally (see 5:2–11). In Romans, Paul expressly claims that the inclusiveness of the gospel involves even the dead: “For none of us lives to himself and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die (ἐάν τε ἀποθνῄσκωμεν), we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s” (14:7– 8). Accordingly, to die does not imply falling out of God’s grace. “For to this end Christ died (ἀπέθανεν) and rose again: that he might be Lord of both the dead (νεκρῶν) and the living” (14:9). Therefore, “do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died” (14:15b). “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” (8:35). The exclamation is also supported with scripture: “As it is written: For your sake we are killed all day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter” (8:36). In this perspective, the killing will have an end, and this end will be beneficial to the Christ-believers. In Romans, Paul also states that he would be prepared to be accursed from Christ himself if that would help the Jews, his countrymen according to ancestry (see 9:1–5; cf. Gal 3:13). This seems to be an indication that he is prepared to become a similar sort of sacrifice as Jesus. A feature that supports this interpretation is that he according to Romans intends to go to Jerusalem even though he anticipates certain risks there (see 15:30–31). His boldness in this case indicates both resistance in the face of oppression

150 Romans and a capacity for agency, which is Keshgegian’s second memory practice that is required to make the memory of traumatic experiences helpful and redemptive.91 Paul is uncertain about the outcome of the encounter with the Jerusalem apostles, but he hopes it will end well so that he can travel on to Spain and preach the gospel also for the Spaniards (15:25–32). He affirms to the addressees that, as the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in them, they will also be given life again (8:11). In this sense, he holds fast to what Keshgegian calls the good, unharmed life, and perceives that it will persist and be present once again.92 In the same vein, he hopes that he will come to Rome, after his trip to Jerusalem, “with joy” to “be refreshed” together with them (15:32). But the first memory practice, in Keshgegian’s depiction, is to remember the pain.93 The pain is nowhere expressed or related in Romans, but the death of Jesus is rather explained (which seems to be an indication of the defense mechanism of intellectualization). However, the death of Jesus is by no means forgotten: it is framed as the most important event in world history (3:21–26), and it has far-reaching consequences (6:1–8:39). Additionally, there is also a certain urgency to the transformation and renewal of both conceptualization and practice (see 13:11–15:13). Nevertheless, the pain is nowhere related with reference to Jesus death. On the other hand, by now something like twenty years has passed since Jesus died. While there is a certain benevolence to it when the pain has ceased, the capacity of the letter to contribute to people in pain and injustice decreases when groans of pain are silenced and injustice is explained as part of God’s plan. However, the letter to the Romans recurrently contributes to agency. The letter is a very long exposition of why and how new goals can be pursued by new means. The death of Jesus is, in this sense, by no means a death in vain. A counter-culture Romans deals extensively with the cultural characteristics that put Jesus to death. Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, or the actions of Jesus, or the crowds that he gathered, were at some point seen as a threat or an offense by the authorities. Otherwise, he would not have been executed.94 The challenge he formulated, willingly or unwillingly, was silenced by means of execution. Therefore, the development of a counter-culture and counter-practices is an act of resistance. If the suggestions of Romans are implemented, this would in fact prevent similar deaths in the future (see 12:1–21). The addressees of Romans are therefore given the conceptual tools to apprehend how Jesus disturbed the distribution of honor, without the means – nor perhaps the intention – to claim his honor by force.95 A new stance is implemented in the letter by means of exhortation and examples (12:1–16:24). If the Roman Christbelievers lived as a “living sacrifice” (12:1) and as “slaves to righteousness” (6:18–19), they would have no honor to gain, and none to lose. The fruit would be “holiness and in the end, everlasting life” (6:22). In relation to the

Romans 151 challenge-riposte game, the letter offers an analysis (1:16–11:36), suggests strategies (12:1–15:13), and implements them (1:7–16; cf. 15:14–16:16). The letter is empowering in this sense, and the main empowering agent is according to the letter God (see 1:1–7; 3:21–24, 5:5–11; 8:3, 28–39, etc.). In the perception of Paul, a transformation is truly needed (1:18–3:20). Furthermore, such transformation is possible (8:1–11). Jesus’ revealing death is placed in the center of this process of transformation (see 3:21–26). In regard to coping strategies, Paul adopts a collaborative coping style in Romans.96 He attempts to establish a cooperative stance between himself and the Roman Christ-believers, and he exhorts the Romans to cooperate with each other and asks the God of peace be with them all (15:33). When Romans is related to Kenneth I. Pargament’s matrix of coping strategies on the themes of conservation and transformation, it becomes clear that Paul has reassessed both previous values and previous pathways to attain significance,97 as he also claims. The inheritance and achievements that earlier were his pride are no longer essential to him (see 1:16–3:20; 14:14–15; cf. Gal 1:13–14). To strive for supremacy has lost its significance, but Paul is content with being a member of an inclusive group (cf. 3:23–24; 8:14).98 The gain of inheritance and achievement is limited (cf. 8:3; 9:16) while the grace of God surpasses (5:15–17). Paul recommends his addressees to identify themselves with a Christ whom “the reproaches of those who reproached” fell on (15:3). God is proclaimed, not foremost as the God of hosts, but as the God of patience (τῆς ὑπομονῆς) and comfort/encouragement (τῆς παρακλήσεως; 15:5). Jesus gave his life for the sinners (5:6–8) (i.e., also for people among the nations, e.g., 3:21–30; 4:12; 5:1–2, 12; 8:1; 10:11–13; 11:32). What counts is God’s mercy (9:16).99 Paul emphasizes that he has written his letter to the Romans only because of the grace given to him by God (15:15). Thus, in Romans the problems with an agonistic culture is dealt with at length, and the new stance evolves around faith (πίστις) and grace (χάρις). Whether done by a community or by Paul alone, working out the basic themes and strategies of Romans is likely to have taken both time and effort.100 Even though the death of contemporary persons are not related explicitly, some of the causes of such deaths are discussed thoroughly.

Notes 1 On an agonistic culture, see Moxnes 2005, 21; Witherington 1998, 47. 2 Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.6.6.; Kruse 2012, 1; Segal 1990, 94. 3 Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25.4. A similar event is mentioned in Acts 18:2, which is believed to be a reference to the same occasion; Kruse 2012, 1. 4 Kruse 2012, 1–2; Hultgren 2011, 23; Jewett 2007, 18–20. 5 It was deemed to have deteriorated around 62 CE with summary executions of political opponents; Jewett 2007, 47–48; Griffin 1984, 111. 6 Somewhere between 55 and 58 CE is suggested by Hultgren2011, 3; and also by Esler 2003, 101. The winter 56–57 or in early spring 57 is advocated by Jewett 2007, 18. Barrett suggests 55 CE; 2001, 5. For a survey, see Hultgren 2011, 3. 7 Kruse 2012, 2; Hultgren 2011, 3–4, 7–11, 23.

152 Romans 8 Hultgren 2011, 2; Jewett 2007, 18. 9 Jewett 2007, 89; cf. Jervis 1991, 159. Romans is an epideictic, or demonstrative letter, with the aim to affirm shared values between the sender and the addressees, and to enhance, or establish a cooperative stance among the recipients. As Robert Jewett puts it, an epideictic letter “tries to establish a sense of communion centered around particular values recognized by the audience.” Jewett 2007, 42; Wuellner 1991, 140. 10 Stendahl 1995, 20. 11 See Jewett 2007, 74–75, 88. Jewett maintains that Käsemann and Cranfield rely on outdated information in Schürer and Michel; see Käsemann 1980, 398, Cranfield 1998, 769, Schürer 1973–87, vol 3., 84–85, Michel 1978, 369, Dewey 1994, 324–27. 12 Jewett 2007, 88. 13 See Jeffers, who states that “The lingua franca of the earliest Christianity was Greek. Latin [. . .] did not supplant Greek among the Christian churches of Rome until late in the second century.” Jeffers 1991, 7. According to William H. C. Frend, even the churches of Rome remained Greek speaking until the mid-third century; Frend 1984, 340. 14 As Cicero puts it, Spain lay beyond the edge of the civilized world; Cicero, In Defense of Plancio, 34.84; Letter to Atticus, 12.7. See also Jewett 2007, 76; Rostovtzeff 1957, 211–15. 15 Jewett 2007, 76, 79, 88. 16 Hultgren 2011, 15. 17 Stendahl 1977, 11. 18 From a Jewish perspective, τοῖς ἔθνεσιν designated non-Jews, and in a Roman perspective τοῖς ἔθνεσιν were the conquered nations; Lopez 2008, 26–27, 55; Newman 1993, 52. 19 Jewett 2007, 79; Fitzmeyer 1993, 250–51. 20 Esler 2003, 154. 21 To be obliged could refer to the state of relationship perceived as natural toward parents, patrons, the state, or gods; Jewett 2007, 130–32. Thus, it is noteworthy that Paul claims to be indebted to the unwise and the barbaroi. See Witherington 1998, 47–49; Martin 1995, 81–84; Herman 1987, 60–61. 22 For further discussion of the concept of masculinity, see Conway 2008, 22–25, 36. 23 Wessels 2010, 147–60. 24 Jewett 2007, 936; Joubert 2000, 207. 25 Jewett 2007, 953. 26 Jewett 2007, 951–52. Lendon highlights how an official greeting had direct bearing on honor; to acknowledge someone was to grant honor; Lendon 1997, 48–49 27 Translation by Jewett, 2007, 163. 28 See Jewett 2007, 183–90. 29 In this context, Paul quotes Psalm 44; see Hays 1989, 62. 30 Morland 1995, 15; cf. Wilson 2007, 25; Tolmie 2005, 42. See also Orr & Walther 1976, 188. 31 The choice to accept or decline a gift was an important issue with direct social consequences in the Roman imperial culture; Martin 1995, 81–84; Herman 1987, 60–61. 32 Hultgren 2011, 562. 33 Jewett 2007, 935. 34 Hultgren 2011, 562. 35 Witherington 1998, 49.

Romans 153 36 Jewett 2007, 936–37. See also Moxnes 2005, 19–21. Physical safety was primarily derived from protection by the in-group; Moxnes 2005, 28; Elliott 2003, 28–32. 37 The social pressure was strong to react as the customs of the challenge-riposte game demanded, as Paul attests elsewhere when he claims that his addressees had “forced” him to boast (ὑμεῖς με ἠναγκάσατε); see 2 Cor 12:11. 38 Cousar 1998, 49. 39 As C. K. Barrett comments, there is no reason why this note on previous imprisonment should be taken metaphorically in this context; Barrett 2001, 259. Paul’s repeated imprisonments are also commented on elsewhere; see 2 Cor 11:23b–26. 40 Jewett 2007, 337. 41 Beck 2002, 157. Cf. the introduction to the section of admonition, where Paul exhorts the recipients to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2a). 42 The aorist tense (ἐθανατώθητε) in 7:4 points to a closed event of alteration in the past life of the believers – either in their conversion or their baptism. The passive verbal form places a strong emphasis on divine initiative, thus making a subtle distinction between the metaphorical death and the death of the husband of the example; Jewett 2007, 433. 43 In a subsequent passage Paul also claims that the law of love forbids the addressees to “grieve” (in its active aspect; which implies to make someone else sorry for harm perpetuated) and to “destroy” one another for food issues; see Rom 14:15. 44 Green 2008, 129; see also Beck 2002, 159–60. 45 Moo 1996, 444 and 443 quoted here. See Moo 1996, 441–47 for a survey over this type of interpretation. See Hultgren 2011, 681–88, and Jewett 2007, 441–45, for surveys that include more recent studies. 46 Some scholars perceive the “I” to be a corporate identity, in the sense of Israel’s historical encounter with the law, or Adam’s encounter with God’s commandment in the garden of Eden; see Kruse 2012, 299. 47 Witherington 1998, 52; cf. Segal 1990, 6. 48 Witherington 1998, 174. 49 Segal 1990, 75. 50 Segal 1990, 13. 51 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 140–43; see also 12–20, 130–32. 52 Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 140–43. 53 Jewett 2007, 436. 54 Barrett 2001, 134. 55 Kruse 2012, 301–2. 56 Barrett 2001, 134. 57 The challenge-riposte game prescribed the use of appropriate measures of violence, and Paul speaks of having authority for destruction elsewhere; see, e.g., 2 Cor 13:10. 58 Barrett 2001, 134. 59 A general purpose of initiation rites is to induce pride over one’s inheritance, or new affiliation. See, e.g., Edward Watts’s depiction of how new students in an Athenian school were prepared to be mocked and nearly abused before being welcomed into their new status as members of the students’ fellowship; Watts 2005, 234–51. 60 See also Paul’s count of things that were previously gains to him, namely being circumcised on the eighth day, being of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning righteousness which is in the law, blameless; Phil 3:3–12.

154 Romans 61 Moxnes 2005, 19–40. 62 In regard of the Roman empire, the construct of faith implied that “the Romans demonstrated their fides (πίστις), loyalty in the sense of protection, while the friends of Rome showed their fides, that is, their loyalty to Rome.” Horsley 2011, 34. Cf. Seneca, On Benefits 1.10.4; Cicero, On Duties 1.48. 63 See Moxnes 2005, 20–21. 64 The agonistic culture was a culture of “climbing.” Moxnes 2005, 20–21; cf. Paul’s superseded self–designation in Gal 1:13–14. There seems to be no “elite” or hierarchy toward divinity in Romans; cf. Kahl 2010, 94–95; Hardin 2008, 23, 33–39. 65 Newman 1993, 178. 66 The expression can be translated as high, proud, exalted, uplifted; Newman 1993, 190. 67 Hultgren 2011, 12. 68 Bruce J. Malina describes “a society that looks upon all social interactions outside the family or substitute family (circle of friends) as a contest for honor.” Malina 2001, 36. 69 Jewett 2007, 436, 444; see also Dunn 1988, 363; 2006, 62–70. In the Western interpretive tradition, scholars have too easily assumed that “lusts” is to be interpreted as sexual passions (e.g., ἡ ἁμαρτία . . . ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ in 6:12); see Jewett 2007, 447–49. 70 Cullberg 1993, 82–84; Pargament 2007, 118. 71 Pargament refers to war veterans who fail to be re-integrated into civil life due to post-traumatic stress and unprocessed experiences; Pargament 2007, 118. 72 Lazarus 1999, 33–34, 229–43; McNish 2004, 242. 73 According to Jewett, the association between baptism and death was anything but obvious prior to Paul; Jewett 2007, 398. This is, however, a claim hard to prove. Cf. Mark 10:38–39; Luke 12:50. 74 As Robert Jewett puts it, “[b]urial is the climatic moment in the ritual of dying.” Jewett 2007, 398. 75 William S. Campbell claims, “The Christ community for Paul is a place where ethnic distinctions are recognized whilst not being permitted to become a means of discrimination.” Campbell 2008, 7. 76 Cf. Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 12–20, 130–32, 140–43. 77 Beck 2002, 159. 78 Beck 2002, 159. “The document of the New Testament, including Paul’s letters, show repeatedly that a conversion experience is merely the beginning of change for the Christian. Growth, maturation, development, and increasing conformity to the person of Christ are all operative principles that function in Christian experience.” Beck 2002, 159–60; cf. Dunn 2006, 25. 79 Cf. Pargament 1997, 110–14. 80 As Richard B. Hays notes, Paul makes extensive use of the “Suffering Servant motif” of Isaiah 40–55 in Romans, although he does not always make it explicit that he is quoting the scripture; see Rom 4:24–25; 5:15–19; 10:16; 15:21; Hays 1989, 62–63. 81 See Cullberg 1993, 82. 82 For example, Donald E. Miller and Lorna Touryan Miller speak of “explanation and rationalization” as a mode of response to the experience of genocide; Miller & Miller 1993, 158–60; see also Keshgegian 2000, 65. 83 Cf. Keshgegian 2000, 121, 151–52. 84 Cf. Colleen M. Conway’s account of the vicarious death in the Greco-Roman setting; Conway 2008, 71–73. 85 The tendency among Christian scholars to equate sacrificial cults with atonement for sins is mistaken. Atonement for sins was one part of the Judean

Romans 155 sacrifices, but the main sacrifices were seen as signs of fellowship and common enjoyment in the presence of God; see Jenson 1995, 31. 86 Cf. Cousar 1998, 45; Fiddes 1989, 32. 87 Conway 2008, 73. 88 As Paul Fiddes comments, “[b]y choosing to reveal himself fully in a crucified man [in the perspective of Paul] God contradicts all notions of what it means to be ‘divine.’ ” Fiddes 1989, 32. See also Cousar 1998, 45. 89 Hope 2009, 179; Kyle 1998, 169. 90 Cf. Keshgegian’s second memory practice, to remember resistance against oppression; Keshgegian 2000, 121. 91 Cf. Keshgegian 2000, 121. 92 Cf. Keshgegian’s third memory practice, to remember the good and undamaged life; Keshgegian 2000, 121. 93 Keshgegian 2000, 121. 94 See Segal 1990, 110; Horsley 1987. 95 Cf. Brigitte Kahl’s depiction of how Roman ideology legitimates Roman rule and Roman force; Kahl 2010, 73–74. 96 On a collaborative coping style, see Pargament 1997, 180–83. Pargament uses the terms “self-directing, deferring and collaborative” in regard of a person’s relation to God in coping. I adopt the terms in a broader sense here to possibly include other relationships or even an emphasis on other relationships. 97 Cf. Pargament 1997, 110–13. 98 “For as many as are led by the spirit of God, these are the sons of God” and Paul thus opens for the inclusion even of women, slaves, and people of other nations; Rom 8:14, cf. 4:10–5:11. 99 Cf. Moxnes 2005, 19–40. 100 Cf. Pargament 1997, 111–14.

Bibliography A. Primary sources and translations Cassius Dio (1914–27). Roman History. E. Cary, trans. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1923). In Defense of Plancio. N. H. Watts, trans. LCL. London: Heinemann. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1966). Letters to Atticus. vol. 5. CCTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1991). On Duties. M. T. Griffin & E. M. Atkins, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seneca the Younger (2011). On Benefits. M. Griffin & B. Inwood, trans. Chigaco/ London: University of Chicago Press. Suetonius (1997). Life of Claudius. J. C. Rolfe, trans. vol. 2. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 356.

B. Reference works and sourcebooks Newman, Barclay M. Jr. (1993). A Concise Greek–English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

156 Romans C. Secondary literature Barrett, Charles K. (2001). The Epistle to the Romans. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Earlier edition published in 1957. Peabody: Hendrickson. Beck, James R. (2002). The Psychology of Paul: A Fresh Look at His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Campbell, William S. (2008). Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T & T Clark. Conway, Colleen M. (2008). Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cousar, Charles B. (1998). “Jesus and the Death of Jesus.” Interpretation 52: 1, 38–52. Cranfield, Charles E. B. (1998). On Romans and Other New Testament Essays. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Cullberg, Johan (1993). Dynamisk psykiatri. Earlier published in 1984. Värnamo: Natur och Kultur. Dewey, Arthur J. (1994). “Εἰς τὴν Σπανίαν: The Future and Paul.” Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi. L. Bormann et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Supplement 74. Leiden: Brill, 321–349. Dunn, James D. G. (1988). Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38a. Waco: Word Books. Dunn, James D. G. (2006). The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Earlier published in 1998. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Esler, Philip F. (2003). Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress. Fiddes, Paul S. (1989). Past and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of the Atonement. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. (1993). Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, 33. New York: Doubleday. Frend, William H. C. (1984). The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress. Green, Joel B. (2008). Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Akademic. Griffin, Miriam T. (1984). Nero: The End of a Dynasty. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hardin, K. Justin (2008). Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hays, Richard B. (1989). Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. Herman, Gabriel (1987). Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hope, Valerie M. (2009). Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London/New York: Continuum. Horsley, Richard A. (1987). Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Horsley, Richard A. (2011). Jesus and the Powers: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hultgren, Arland J. (2011). Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Romans 157 Jeffers, James S. (1991). Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress. Jenson, Philip Peter (1995). “The Levitical Sacrificial System.” Sacrifice in the Bible. R. T. Beckwith & M. J. Selman, eds. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 25–40. Jervis, L. Anne (1991). The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 55. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Jewett, Robert (2007). Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Joubert, Stephan (2000). Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. WUNT 124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kahl, Brigitte (2010). Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis: Fortress. Käsemann, Ernst (1980). Commentary on Romans. G. W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Keshgegian, Flora A. (2000). Redeeming Memories: A Theology of Healing and Transformation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Kruse, Colin G. (2012). Paul’s Letter to the Romans: The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kyle, Donald G. (1998). Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge. Lazarus, Richard (1999). Stress and Emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer. Lendon, J. E. (1997). Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lopez, Davina C. (2008). Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission. Minneapolis: Fortress. Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Earlier published in 1981, revised and expanded edition. Atlanta: John Knox. Martin, Dale (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. McNish, Jill L. (2004). “The Bible and the Psychology of Shame.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 239–264. Michel, Otto (1978). Der Brief an die Römer. 14th ed. H. A. W. Meyer, Kritischexegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Miller, Donald E. & Lourna Touryan Miller (1993). Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide. Berkeley: University of California Press. Miller, William R. & Janet C’de Baca (2001). Quantum Change: When Epiphanies and Sudden Insights Transform Ordinary Lives. New York: Guilford Press. Moo, Douglas J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Morland, Kjell Arne (1995). The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel. ESEC 5, Atlanta: Georiga. Moxnes, Halvor (2005). “Honor and Shame” The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendricksons, 19–40. Orr, William F. & James Arthur Walther (1976). 1 Corinthians. Introduction with a Study of the Life of Paul, Notes, and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Co.

158 Romans Pargament, Kenneth I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Pargament, Kenneth I. (2007). Spiritually Integrated Psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the Sacred. New York: Guilford Press. Rostovtzeff, Michail I. (1957). The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Earlier published in 1926. P. M. Fraser, rev. Oxford: Clarendon. Schürer, E. (1973–87). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Rev. G. Vermes et al. 3 vols. in 4. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Segal, Alan F. (1990). Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press. Stendahl, Krister (1977). Paulus bland judar och hedningar. Earlier published in 1976, B. J. Stendahl, trans. Falköping: Gummessons. Stendahl, Krister (1995). Final Account: Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress. Tolmie, D. Francois (2005). Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centered Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Watts, Edward (2005). “The Student Self in Late Antiquity.” Religion and Self in Antiquity. D. Brakke, M. L. Satlow & S. Weitzman, eds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 234–251. Wessels, G. Francois (2010). “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity.” Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. D. F. Tolmie, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 143–168. Wilson, Todd (2007). The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Witherington, Ben (1998). The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press. Wuellner, Wilhelm (1991). “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans.” The Romans Debate. K. P. Donfried, ed., rev. ed., earlier published in 1976. Peabody: Hendrickson, 128–46.

5 The prison letters

While in Romans Paul describes the possibility of transformed goals and means of significance, in Philippians and the letter to Philemon these transformations appear to have been implemented. For instance, Paul speaks with an elevated ease about those who preach out of insincere motives. From whatever motives, Christ is still preached, and in this Paul claims to “rejoice” (Phil 1:18). Even though Paul’s personal situation includes imprisonment and impending trial – with the uncertain prospect of execution or release – this is also described as a win-win situation. In either case, Christ can be glorified (1:20). Paul’s release is described as beneficial to the Philippians, and his execution is described as beneficial to himself (1:19–26). However, it is to be noted that Philippians is written with the aim to encourage the Philippians, that they will not be terrified by the adversaries (1:28). Philemon is written to the end to assist Onesimus in his plight. In either case, in these letters the boastful and vengeful attitude is gone.

Philippians: Rejoice The message of Philippians relates to one actual death, and two, perhaps three, potential deaths. First, Epaphroditus, whom Paul seems to send with the letter back to Philippi, was ill and “close to death” when he was with Paul (2:27). He is probably the carrier of the letter (see 2:29). Second, Epaphroditus had been sent to Paul to help him in his need. According to the account in Philippians, Paul is in prison with an uncertain future (1:12–26; 2:17–18; 4:14). As Paul expresses himself in Philippians, he accepts his fate whatever it might be (1:19–26; 4:10–14). Third, the crucifixion of Jesus is mentioned a couple of times (2:8; 3:10, 18). And fourth, the political situation of the Philippians is referred to briefly. “For you have been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake, having the same conflict which you saw in me and now hear is mine” (1:29–30). Historical and rhetorical situation The letter reveals little about the rhetorical situation except for the imprisonment of Paul (1:7, 13, 14). Timothy is presented as a co-sender with the

160  The prison letters joint epithet “slaves of Christ Jesus” (δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; 1:1). The location of the senders has been an issue of a longstanding debate, but since early traditions include that Philippians was written from Rome,1 this will be the hypothesis of the present study. Philippians will also be treated as a unified letter,2 presumably written in 60–62 CE.3 Claudius had been succeeded by Nero (54–68 CE), and while Nero’s early reign was regarded as an exemplary form of government and law enforcement, the political situation began to deteriorate in 62 CE with summary executions of political opponents.4 Philippians has been called a letter of friendship,5 and most practically, it is devoted to the task of advancing the prospects of an honorable reception of Epaphroditus, whom Paul sends back to Philippi (2:25–30; 4:18).6 As Paul emphasizes, he came “to supply what was lacking” in the Philippians’ service toward Paul (2:30; cf. 4:10–20). Such men should therefore be held in esteem (2:29). The letter contains what scholars have called a thankless thanks,7 but this feature should probably be understood in relation to the practices and notions surrounding gift giving in this particular cultural milieu. Paul seems to balance carefully between properly acknowledging the gift from the Philippians and not positioning himself as subordinated to the givers.8 A feature common to the two letters where Paul mentions that he is imprisoned is that he accepts gifts to provide for his need (τῆς χρείας μου; 2:25b).9 The emphasis on Paul’s needs would also seem superfluous, unless Paul was indeed in custody. Prisoners were provided scarce or little food.10 Since imprisonment was generally not considered a punishment in itself,11 Paul’s imprisonment probably implied that he was awaiting trial. The depiction of an undecided and uncertain future also supports this interpretation (cf. 1:18–26; 2:23–24). Death in Philippians As mentioned above, death is related in three contexts in Philippians: Epaphroditus’s near-death, Jesus’ death, and Paul’s risk of being sentenced to death after trial. We will start with Epaphroditus. The emphasis of the severeness of Epaphroditus’s previous condition serves one of the purposes of the letter, namely to assure his honorable reception in Philippi (2:29). Epaphroditus had been weak, and according to the letter he was distressed because it had come to his knowledge that the Christ-believers of Philippi had heard of his weakness (ἠσθένησεν; 2:26b). Not being able to fulfill an appointed task always entailed the risk of being perceived as less honorable. Nevertheless, Epaphroditus was not the source of relief to Paul as was expected, and to send Epaphroditus back to Philippi had two positive consequences according to Paul, namely that the Philippians may rejoice at seeing him again, and that Paul may be less sorrowful (ἀλυπότερος; 2:28). In the middle of the process of life – as an interpretive pattern – stands the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus is not presented as an obstacle in

The prison letters 161 Philippians, but as a transit to a greater glory, which features a very important notion of the letter. The death of Christ on the cross is depicted as the primary example of how humiliation may precede exaltation (2:1–11). Notably, the death of Jesus does not constitute the end, or failure of progression. Rather, it is merely a transit to thriving and even to glory (2:9–11; 3:20–4:1). Paul deplores that some are, as he calls it, enemies of the cross (3:18). The context indicates that the expression refers to an unwillingness to suffer for the sake of loyalty with Christ (see 3:19–4:1). Paul’s personal death is an issue that occurs several times in Philippians (1:15–17, 18b–26; 2:17; 3:10–11), and we will discuss each of these passages separately before we turn to the issue of coping with death in Philippians. A seemingly peculiar feature of the letter is that Paul claims that some “preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chain” (1:17). From a modern perspective, it may sound completely self-absorbed to suggest that some were preaching with the intent of worsening someone’s plight in prison. However, the trials tended to focus more on the qualities of the person than on the qualities of the acts or offenses.12 As part of an honor-shame-oriented and collectively oriented society, the accused person was always perceived as part of a group. It could be of greater importance to the process of the trial how his or her kinsfolk behaved outside the prison than what the person imprisoned actually had said or done before imprisonment. Since Paul was obviously being capable of staying in communication with the outside world, it is therefore most likely that he was expected to persuade others in the movement to decline from their commitment, or to be less bold, not more (cf. 1:20, 27–28). Trials were also to a large extent based on biases in terms of good connections.13 If an accused person was released, the position of his accusers deteriorated. The harm intended by the accusers could be inflicted on themselves. The expression of 1:16–17 may thus indicate that the actions of those outside the prison had an impact on the attitudes of the authorities toward Paul, as well as on the outcome of his trial. In Philippians 1:19–24, Paul also expresses his wish that Christ be magnified in his body “whether by life or by death” (εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου; 1:20). Gerald F. Hawthorne / Ralph P. Martin contend that this expression constitutes an emphatic, and perhaps stock, expression that means “total” or “all-encompassing.”14 The surrounding context of the letter contradicts this interpretation, however, since in the passage Paul continues to discuss “this to die” (τὸ ἀποθανεῖν; 1:21), commenting that he is “hard pressed between the two” (συνέχομαι δὲ ἐκ τῶν δύο; 1:23a), which implies a dualoptions situation. Thus, εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου is not an expression of an “all-encompassing” totality, but of two distinct options.15 Seen from the perspective of what we know about prisons or custodies in the Roman empire, the outcome of a trial could be extremely unpredictable – particularly so when the alleged crime was not clearly defined.16 The perception that perplexity had to be feigned in relation to trials is unfortunately not

162  The prison letters supported by other historical evidence.17 A person could be imprisoned for years without even knowing of what he was accused.18 Paul uses a deferring formula, saying that he “trusts in the Lord” that he himself shall also come to Philippi shortly (2:24). This may be an indication that some kind of information has filtered down to him in prison, but it may also be an indication that the content is not what he sees with his eyes, but what he nevertheless believes. He remarks with confidence that he will “remain and work for the benefit” of the Philippians (1:25), but this statement has clear rhetorical functions. Paul emphasizes elsewhere that he wants them to obey, not in his presence only, but now much more in his absence (cf. 2:12). He wants to encourage them to be bold (cf. 1:27–30). The rhetorical situation therefore implies that he will extenuate the severeness of his situation rather than overemphasize it. He claims to know that the present situation will turn out for his deliverance whether by life of by death (1:19a, 20b). In this way, he opens the door for the possibility that he will die, while nevertheless encouraging the Christ-believers of Philippi to be bold and to rejoice (2:17–18). Paul perceives that the Philippians will be encouraged in their faith by his coming to them again, and therefore, in his perspective this is most likely what is going to happen (1:25–26). He reasons himself toward this assessment, and the conclusion seems based on an estimation of what is the better part for the Philippians rather than on an evaluation of the pros and cons in his personal situation of imprisonment. The conclusion is based on trust, rather than on inside information and scrutiny.19 To summarize, he starts with two options and suggests that both are beneficial. After deciding that one of them is probably better, he concludes that this is what is going to happen (1:18–26). The “knowledge” of Paul appears to be based on the inner convictions that God will choose the better part for him and his fellow Christ-believers, and no specific information concerning the trial itself. A trial was an extremely unpredictable affair, and if the case was settled, he would be released or punished.20 The primary meaning of σωτηρία is held to be deliverance from impending death,21 although the passage of Philippians 1:18–24 clearly permits that salvation in Paul’s perspective may include the prospect of being killed (cf. 1:19). The uninterrupted logic of the passage states that the glorification of Christ in the body can be manifest by means of Paul’s death and life alike (1:18–21): “[I] hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death” (1:20). Notably, the threat against the glorification of Christ is not death but shame. As the passage continues, “to depart” (τὸ ἀναλῦσαι; 1:23) is contrasted with “to live on” or “to remain” (τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί: 1:22; τὸ δὲ ἐπιμένειν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ: 1:24), but these features are still positioned within the sphere of letting Christ be magnified. The expressions of departure (to be with Christ) and remaining (as a part of the fellowship of the created world) denote dying and living on respectively, and both are depicted as possible circumstances in which God may be magnified in the

The prison letters 163 body, that is, among men. In other words, σωτηρία does not convey the meaning of “deliverance from impending death” in this instance. As Hawthorne/Martin also suggest, Paul uses σωτηρία regularly for the ultimate cosmic saving act of God, which is to be completed at the turn of the ages or the end of the world.22 The obstacle to this deliverance, and what Paul depicts as being “put to shame” (αἰσχυνθήσομαι), is if he fails to contribute to the magnification of Christ in boldness (ἐν πάσῃ παρρησίᾳ). His body (ἐν τῷ σώματί μου; 1:20) could denote his collective or his individual body. There is no means available to discern which of these aspects Paul had in mind, and perhaps that distinction was not so important to him.23 Paul admonishes the Philippians to strive together, side by side, and to not in any way let themselves become terrified (μὴ πτυρόμενοι) by the adversaries (1:28). This is the admonition of martyrs: remain loyal, do not fear, be prepared to suffer, rejoice, and eventually, every tongue will confess (1:27, 28, 29; 2:10–11). As Paul carefully points out later in the letter, Christ’s path to glorification went through death, not around it (2:8). Paul states that his remaining alive would be more beneficial for the Philippians (1:24–25a), but death is more beneficial to him personally (1:23b). In service of the loyalty of the Philippians, and presumably also of other Christ-believers, Paul himself might be “poured out on the offering” (ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ; 2:17). He seems to take up both the role of the offering priest, undertaking the acts of λειτουργία,24 and contingently, the role of being poured on the sacrifice as an offering he himself. The precipitating question in this case is whether Paul used the metaphor of being poured out on the offering as a metaphor of death. The term used by Paul for the act of being poured out is σπένδομαι, and it seems to refer to the ancillary offerings in the Judean context of Jerusalem’s temple.25 However, σπένδομαι is also used in Hellenistic and Roman contexts for making libations (i.e., to make an offering of wine in honor of the good genius before drinking). The term could also be used as “to pour” without any implicit religious sense, and in middle voice, “to pour libations one with another,” as was the custom in making treaties, peace, and truces.26 Walter Bauer refers to a 2nd-century CE papyrus where the putting to death of a prophet of Apollo, who was true to his God, is depicted as a σπονδή.27 Hawthorne/ Martin interpret the metaphor of 2:17 as a libation (wine): “In the ancient world, sacrifices, both pagan and Jewish, were usually accompanied and completed by a libation of wine poured out either on top of the sacrifice or at the foot of the altar to honor the deity (2 Kings 16:13; Jer 7:18; Hos 9:4).”28 The substance, in Philippians 2:17, is being poured out on the offering. The faith of the Philippians appears to be the main offering and service, and Paul himself is the uncertain ancillary offering that may be poured on top of it. From the Judean context, Philip Peter Jenson describes five main types of offerings from the material of Leviticus, and here I focus on those including the act of pouring something. Three of these offerings involve blood being

164  The prison letters thrown on the altar, and a fourth of oil poured on grain. Most scholars prefer to call asham (‫ )םשא‬a reparation offering rather than a guilt offering, since financial compensation is its distinctive feature (Lev 5:14–6:7; 7:1–10).29 The burnt offering (ola; ‫ )הלע‬was the most prominent sacrifice at the Israelite festivals (Lev 1:1–17; 6:8–13; Num 28–29).30 The third one is the peace offering (shelamim; ‫ ;םמלש‬Lev 3:1–17; 7:11–36).31 And finally, the food offering (minha; ‫ )החנמ‬involves oil being poured on grain (Lev 2:6, 15).32 Paul’s emphasis in Philippians 2:17 is cohered by the importance of the sacrifice as an occasion for common enjoyment of a meal before God. It is likely that festivals and family trips to the sanctuary (cf. 1 Sam 1:21) were the only occasions when meat was eaten, and the importance of this opportunity to feast and rejoice in God’s goodness is evident.33 The peace offering is unique in the way in which the parts of the sacrifice are distributed. Since it was not an atoning sacrifice, it could be eaten by the priest as well as by the offerer.34 The peace offering is also the final sacrifice in a series (cf. the translation completion offering).35 “Once the purification offering has dealt with any fault that might hinder celebration and feasting, and God has been honored with burnt offering, a peace offering is an appropriate expression of a harmonious relation with God, the ultimate goal of worship (cf. Ex 24:9–11).”36 Notably, the language used in the precedent part of the passage in Philippians connotes the metaphor of offering as well. Philippians are to work out their salvation with “fear and trembling” (2:12) which are emotions associated with the presence of the Holy One. “[F]ear and trembling are the appropriate disposition precisely because ‘God is the one who is at work within you’ ” (2:13).37 God works in them both to will and to act for his good pleasure (ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας, 2:13; cf ὀσμή εὐδοκίας τῷ κυρίῳ; LXX, Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:12; 3:5, 16, etc.). God’s work in the Philippians is that they may be blameless and harmless (ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι; Phil 2:15). Similarly, the animal selected to be offered should be without blemish (ἄμωμον; LXX, e.g. Lev 3:1, 6).38 There is thus a strong resemblance of features, although the Greek terms that are used in LXX differ. A feature that strengthens the impression that Paul is using the Judean sacrifices as a metaphor is the presence of formulations which correspond with passages in the Jewish scriptures, such as “a crooked and perverse generation” (Phil 2:15a; cf. Deut 32:5b) and “you shine like the stars in the sky” (Phil 2:15b; cf. Is 9:2–7; 42:6–7; 49:6; 58:8–10; Dan 12:3). Therefore, while Philippians 2:17 does not lead us by the hand interpreting the metaphor, it appears most likely that Paul had the priestly sacrifices of the Jerusalem temple in mind, even though some of the Philippians might interpret the metaphor along the lines of Greco-Roman customs of making libations. But how should σπένδεσθαι (“to be poured”) be interpreted? Hawthorn/ Martin contend, against a vast majority of scholars, that σπένδεσθαι in 2:17 does not involve any notion of martyrdom.39 Their conclusion is based on four considerations. (a) It is not likely that Paul could have expressed

The prison letters 165 himself in this way about martyrdom. “Ignatius may have said this, but hardly Paul.”40 Whether as a theological or psychological assessment, their reasons for this conclusion are not elaborated in this context. (b) It is doubtful whether σπένδομαι ever was used to denote killing. (c) Although present tense could be used for future tense, there is no sign that points to the future in this context. (d) Paul has already used the metaphors of running and working to describe the rigors of his current apostolic activities, and to Hawthorne/Martin it seems likely that the third metaphor should be interpreted in keeping with the other two. However, Paul is in their perspective “picturesquely referring to his sufferings as an apostle.”41 Concerning the first reason of Hawthorne/Martin, (a) I cannot detect why this would be an un-Pauline assessment. After all, appraisals depend on the situation, and situations change. Paul may not have expressed similar views elsewhere, but people also change, and no letter can cover everything. Concerning (b), I contend, with Marcus Bockmuehl, that Paul’s possible martyrdom is at least included in his imagery here.42 The present metaphor communicates an aspect of finitude that is not present in the metaphors of running and working. Obviously, if you are poured out, you will finish. The note of Jean-François Collange that σπένδομαι was never used for libations of blood (cf. αἱμάσσω)43 is simply irrelevant. Paul is using σπένδομαι as a metaphor. No scholar contends that Paul’s apostolic work mainly consisted in running, or that the faith of the Philippians was literally placed on an altar (cf. 2:16b–17). The metaphors of running and of working, however, both include aspects of possible regeneration, which is not the case with the metaphor of σπένδομαι. Pouring out, over time, leaves nothing left. Quick running, in this sense, presumably implies quickly coming to an end. Σπένδεσθαι, in its present tense, can, as Hawthorne/Martin also contend (c), be used for future events. The particle εἰ adds uncertainty to what is happening, which is in fact the very essence of being in custody. The present tense also seems relevant as a metaphor of being in custody, awaiting trial, and contingently, martyrdom. Nothing is happening, and still time is running. Is Paul himself being poured out? This remains to be seen. (d) The ingression of the phrase, ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ, indicates some kind of new statement, one perhaps characterized by increased intensity and not simply a continuation of previous statements.44 “The conditional if in this clause seems to suggest something that is not just happening in any case, as in the last thirty years of his life, but which is an imminent possibility.”45 In contrast to their claim that the metaphor of σπένδομαι is in keeping with the metaphors of running and working, Hawthorne/Martin contend that it is a “truly Pauline paradox, rejoicing in suffering.”46 This observation entails that a new aspect is added to the metaphors of running and working after all; working and running are not metaphors that inevitably imply aspects of suffering. Furthermore, the reference of the other metaphors (running and working) are reason for pride, as is expressed in 2:16.47 The metaphors of running and working describe Paul’s normal activity, running being

166  The prison letters the more noble version, denoting athletes,48 and working the more humble.49 None of them are presented as a cause for distress. The notion of being poured out is a new one in Paul’s letters.50 A central part of the message in 2:17 is that the contingent σπένδεσθαι should not be a reason for sorrow but a reason for joy (repeated four times, χαίρω/συγχαίρω, χαίρετε/συγχαίρετέ μοι; 2:17b–18). The metaphors of running and working do not inevitably present reasons for sorrow. Thus the urgent call for joy makes even better sense if there was an obvious reason for sorrow present. Σπένδεσθαι alludes to κενόν (empty/in vain) in the previous verse. If the Philippians cease to work on their salvation with fear and trembling (2:12) and decline to keep to the word of life (2:16a), the work of Paul is futile (κενόν; 2:16b). This is where the real danger lies, according to Paul. Whether or not Paul loses his life while carrying out the service of the Philippians’ faith is presented as a minor issue in this letter. The path of Paul’s life, as well as the paths of the lives of the Christ-believers of Philippi, is heading toward the day of the Lord, and not toward the individual death of Paul himself (cf. 1:27–30; 3:8–21). Paul’s life can be fruitful indeed, but his life is not essential to the gospel (cf. 1:22, 24–25). The metaphor of Paul being poured out as an offering is most likely a metaphor of Paul’s death. The presence of the particle ει, which adds uncertainty to what is happening, strengthens this hypothesis. Whether or not Paul will meet his death as a consequence of this imprisonment is an uncertain and undecided matter, in contrast with the other metaphors (running and working) that only implicate that Paul is committed to serve as an apostle, which he has been for a long time. As mentioned above, already being imprisoned can be taken as having one’s life poured out, but there is no obvious reason to exclude possible death as a part of the metaphor of contingently being poured out on the offerings. We will now turn to a third discourse about death in Philippians. The third discussion about death in Philippians is part of a discussion about Paul’s personal re-estimation of his previous values, which develops into an acclaim of the all-encompassing privilege to live with Christ (3:3–8). It is a life in process (3:12–16). Paul depicts Jesus as a role model, even to the point of wishing to be “conformed to his death” (συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ; 3:10b). Paul claims that he wants to know Christ, the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings (κοινωνίαν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ; 3:10a). The sentence continues with an important condition, though. Paul wants to be conformed to Christ’s death “ . . . if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead” ( . . . εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν; 3:11). In this context we should bear in mind that Paul probably had a vivid experience of an encounter with the resurrected Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:8; 2 Cor 3:14–18; Gal 1:15–16).51 Paul does not simply want to get rid of life, but to get through death to something other. In this sense, the section is binding the two previous sections together, reaffirming the assessment of the two options of his imminent future (1:19–25)

The prison letters 167 and positioning himself into the scheme of Christ’s way through humiliation to recovery and glory (2:1–18). Paul has similarly suffered voluntary humiliation by declining from his position in Judaism, which is something he explicitly claims that he does not regret (3:2–9). He is prepared to conform with Christ, in a death like his, forgetting what lies behind and stretching toward what lies ahead (3:10–14). To conform with the death of Jesus can hardly refer to something else than a violent death suffered for the sake of one’s commitment. Again, Paul indicates that death is an issue on his mind, and he shares his assessment with the Philippians that death is no reason for fear (cf. 1:28). In 3:10–11 death is embraced even as a possible part of the process of getting to know Christ. This passage strengthens the interpretation that the previous passages of 1:18b–26 and 2:17 deal with the issue of the actual death of Paul, as suggested above. Thus, the letter contains a number of features that indicate that an actual imprisonment and trial posed a substantial threat against Paul. To summarize, the conditions of imprisonment in the Roman empire, Paul’s need of assistance, his unpredictable situation, and his vulnerability to actions of persons outside, all make sense if he was imprisoned and awaiting trial while dictating the letter. An unpredictable situation of Paul seems to be reflected also in his claim that whatever happens, it can be for the furtherance of the gospel (1:18–23; cf. 1:12–14). The passage is integrated in a discourse with the intent to encourage the Philippians to the progress and joy of faith (1:19–26), and the rhetorical situation thus provides a reason for Paul to extenuate, rather than exaggerate, the severeness of his personal situation. He wants the Philippians to remain bold in the face of conflict, not in any way terrified of the adversaries, but with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel (1:27–28). When Paul affirms that he is convinced that he will come himself to Philippi shortly, the passage serves the end of assuring Epaphroditus’s good reception when he returns to Philippi (cf. 2:19–30).

Befriending death In Philippians, Paul claims to have coped with all his experiences, including the present situation: “Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (4:11–12). Death is even depicted as a “gain” (1:21). Although probably alien to many of his hearers, his appraisal is surely possible in the perspective of psychological coping. If sufficient resources are available, a person can cope with devastating experiences and very complicated situations. However, it is likely to take time and effort.

168  The prison letters In Philippians, Paul has reassessed many of his previous values and practices.52 He invites the Philippians to join him in imitating Christ (3:17). “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even weeping, live as enemies of the cross of Christ” (3:18). The identities of these negative examples have been understood in different ways,53 but what is indicated in the letter is that Paul understands them to put self-interest first (3:19).54 They seek to escape the provoking contour of the cross,55 or to put their trust in other saviors.56 In contrast to those who decline from the path of conforming to the death of Christ, Paul encourages the Philippians to turn their attention away from glory and prosperity on earth, and to have faith in the aid from another kingdom (3:20). “[Jesus] will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to his glorious body, according to the working by which he is able even to subdue all things to himself” (3:21). Even if Paul had seen the “glorious body” of Jesus in a vision apart from the ordinary (cf. 1 Cor 15:8; Gal 1:15–16),57 it seems to be a long imaginary leap from the desiccated, stinking crucified body to a glorious one. We do not know if Paul had seen the crucified body of Jesus, but if not, he had seen others.58 The crosses used for crucifixion were placed near by the gates, clearly visible to all who must pass.59 The transformation from lowliness to glory, as depicted in Philippians 3:21, is amazing – and perhaps also hard to believe. As an intellectual construct designed to create dreams, the depiction of a crucified body as transformed into a glorious body is truly far-fetched. More possible, perhaps, is such a construct if emanating from a vivid experience of an encounter with a resurrected Christ.60 Exactly the identification with a crucified but resurrected Christ gives an air of logic to the notion of a transformation of “our lowly body” (τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν) into conformation with the glorious body of Christ (3:21). In Philippians, capital punishment – which probably would be appraised as a severe threat by most of us – is by Paul framed as an option that can be beneficial (1:21). In Philippians, a deferring coping style is adopted in crucial matters, and every possible outcome of his personal situation seems to be acceptable to Paul. But he also adopts a collaborative coping style in relation to the Philippians.61 The issue of lethal risks is related in an attempt to aid the Philippians in handling a situation similar to that of Paul (1:30) and it is also a personal issue (1:19–20; 2:17; 3:10–16). The genre of friendship letters permits sharing of one’s circumstances with the aim of mutual fellowship and assistance. Paul allows himself to enjoy the participation of the Philippians as being engaged in his fate (4:10). He accepts their contribution to his welfare (although he deems that it is better for everyone if Epaphroditus returns to Philippi; 2:25–30). In this letter, Paul does not focus on his own position but recurrently chooses a humble position while acknowledging others (1:1; 2:29; 4:2–3, 15–16), and life is spelled out as a process of reconsideration and progress (1:3–11; 2:5–18; 3:2–16).62 Paul claims to disdain all the things of social privilege that he previously valued highly, in order

The prison letters 169 that he may know Christ and the power of his resurrection instead (3:8–11): “Not that I have already attained, or that I am already perfected, but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus also laid hold of me” (3:12). In a seemingly contradictory way, the acknowledgment of possible maturation, that is not yet at hand, is in itself a sign of maturity. The process perspective signals that Paul has reached somewhere in the process by now. Down a new path In relation to Flora A. Keshgegian’s theory of redemptive memories,63 we may note that Philippians contains traits of all the three memory practices that Keshgegian deems to be important to make difficult experiences to be contributory for the furtherance of future life. First, in Philippians Paul acknowledges suffering (see 2:25–28). When Paul speaks about the sorrow of Epaphroditus, he also makes the comment that he himself may be relieved from “having sorrow upon sorrow” (ἵνα μὴ λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην σχῶ; 2:27b). He also wishes to become “less sorrowful” himself (κἀγὼ ἀλυπότερος ὦ; 2:28b). He speaks of it as a grace to be granted to suffer for the sake of Christ, when he acknowledges that the Philippians have the same fight to fight as he himself has had (1:29–30). He encourages them not to be scared (μὴ πτυρόμενοι), because they will be saved as a gift from God (1:28). Thus, the letter is also filled with strategies of resistance.64 Paul shows his ability to make appraisals and re-appraisals. His understanding of death is transformed from a threat to a gain (1:21), or possibly to a challenge, that is, a threat with a possible gain to it (3:10–11).65 Discourses about keeping up the spirit of boldness take some space in the letter (1:20, 25–28). “Be anxious for nothing” goes the exhortation (4:6), and “stick to what is good” (4:8). The generally conservative approach is gone. In relation to Keshgegian’s third memory practice, we may note that in Philippians Paul indeed keeps to the positive sides throughout the letter (1:12ff; 1:15ff; 1:19ff; 1:26ff; 2:1ff; 2:19ff; 2:24ff; 3:1; 4:10). It could be heard as nearly sarcastic, but also appreciated positively, when Paul urges the Philippians that “if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy of being like-minded . . .” (2:1–2a; emphasis added). Thus, if there is good, continue for the better. Similarly, Paul encourages them to meditate on “whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy” (4:8). Doubtlessly, Paul lets the memory and imagination of the undamaged life sustain his thoughts and practices.66 The letter does not provide much detail on the present conflict of the Philippians (cf. 1:27–30), or on the events that surround the present imprisonment of Paul (1:12–13). The sparse detail on persecution is manifested in the use of circumlocutions, such as “the things which happened to me” (τὰ κατ' ἐμὲ; 1:12). Persecution is also indicated in subordinated clauses and tacit

170  The prison letters afflictions, such as depiction of progress in relation to his “chains” (τοὺς δεσμούς μου; 1:13, 14), and as the hope for relief from sorrow (2:27–28), and the mentioning of the Philippians’ concern for Paul’s distress (4:14). Quite often in Philippians, negative emotions are also enveloped in positive expressions (e.g., “that I may also be encouraged/ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ” [2:19b]). Even the negative experience of suffering is transformed into something given, a grace (ἐχαρίσθη) in 1:29. The Philippians are assured of their deliverance, since they have been given the grace, not only to believe/be loyal to Christ but also to suffer (πάσχειν) for his sake (1:28–29).67 The afflictions are, thus, depicted as a privilege. In this context, the letter continues: “You have the same conflict (ἀγῶνα) which you saw in me and now hear is in me” (1:30). Expressions of conflict and affliction are present in the letter, but are always discussed in a mitigating way, or as something passing. Similarly, Euodia and Syntyche are not depicted as parties in conflict, but they are admonished to be of the same mind (4:2), which seems to presuppose strife. Paul’s appraisal of his personal death in Philippians is expressly a “gain” (τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος; 1:21) and later perhaps a challenge (“I [wish to] know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead” [3:10–11, emphasis added]). “Challenge consists of the sensibility that, although difficulties stand in the way of gain, they can be overcome with verve, persistence, and self-confidence.”68 Is there anything in the letter that contradicts the appraisals of death as a gain, or a challenge? For example, the psychological concept of reaction formation implies that a person may avoid a complicated appraisal by taking the polar opposite position.69 Reaction formation is a commonly acknowledged defense mechanism with the aim of keeping a too disastrous situation away from the conscious self. Most obviously, many of us would not appraise death by means of execution as a positive option, as a gain. Can expressions, such as “to me death is gain,” truly reflect Paul’s appraisal of the situation? The rhetorical situation includes an attempt to raise the spirit of the Philippians and to encourage them to continue in boldness. But we have no other source for searching Paul’s appraisals of the situation than the letter itself. In the letter, Paul thanks the Philippians for sharing in his distress (4:14). And he hopes to escape “sorrow upon sorrow” (2:27). Do these instances indicate another, truer picture? There are possible traces of self-deception in the letter. When Paul comments that he does not know what to choose (1:22), the obvious answer is that he cannot choose. The choice is not his to make. The essence of being imprisoned is that one is bereaved of one’s capability to choose where to go and to a large extent, what to do. Paul’s preferences seem simply irrelevant in the present situation. In relation to this feature it must have been a comforting knowledge to the Philippians, and also to himself, that whatever outcome of the trial, it will be all right (cf. 1:23–26). The assessment looks too good to be true perhaps, or at least good enough to catch our suspicion.

The prison letters 171 Can this be Paul’s honest appraisal of the situation? For instance, the letter is full of references to joy (1:4, 18b; 2:2, 17–18; 3:1; 4:1, 4, 10). What is there really to rejoice about? However, we may also turn our note on suspicion upside down and ask if the feature of the precipitating joy throughout the letter could be a sign that Paul had actually coped with his situation when dictating Philippians. He does appear resourceful and confident in the letter, and there are no traces of struggle to manifest himself as an apostle, a learned man, an important man, an honorable man, or anything else. He seems comfortable being a slave of Christ (1:1). Paul does not even seem to be worried that someone else is preaching “another gospel” (cf. Gal 1:8–9), he does not fear replacement, but rejoices even if the gospel is preached out of insincere motives (Phil 1:15–18). Seldom does Paul appear this satisfied and content with whatever circumstance comes into his mind. He has nothing to complain about concerning the conduct of the Philippians, or at least nothing worth mentioning (cf. 1 Cor 5:1–8:13; 10:14:40), although he warns them to beware (Phil 1:27–30). It seems like nothing can discourage him. New coherence In Philippians the strategies suggested and the strategies adopted by means of the letter are, all in all, coherent. Paul suggests joy, and he rejoices. He suggests gentleness (4:5), and he is gentle (1:15–18; 4:2). God is depicted as the God of peace (4:9), and he tells them to not be afraid (1:28). He tries to be bold and hopes that he always will be (1:20–26; cf. 3:20–21). He suggests that they take encouragement from striving together (1:27b), and he also shares with them aspects of his own situation (1:18b–26; 2:17; 3:10–14; 4:10–18a). He tries to aid the Christ-believers of Philippi with encouragement and admonition (cf. 1:1; 2:23–24; 4:3), and he also receives and appreciates aid from both Timothy and the Philippians (2:22; 4:3, 14–18). In Philippians, Paul outspokenly presents himself as one who has reassessed his previous values: “But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ” (3:7). So that no one will miss the point, Paul says basically the same thing once more: “Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ” (3:8). Thus, in a subordinate clause Paul comments that he has lost everything. The subordinated position of that comment indicates that he does not hold it as a severe matter but has coped with the loss of “everything.” As presented in this context, the loss is acknowledged, but Paul has moved on (3:9–16). Sometimes implicit testimonies are more trustworthy than dramatized ones. The implicit testimony is that he had a lot of resources, which he has now lost, but he does not even count them as resources anymore (3:7). In this context, Paul emphasizes his reappraisal rather than his loss.

172  The prison letters What he has lost, and now dismisses, is to some extent to be displayed in the first part of the passage (3:5–6). “Though I also might have confidence in the flesh” (καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί; 3:4a) (i.e., in his position among his kinsmen),70 he vividly claims to prefer to be among those who serve in the Spirit of God, and pride (καυχώμενοι) in Christ Jesus (3:3a). His confidence in the “flesh” implies that he was “circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, concerning the law, a Pharisee, concerning zeal, persecuting the church, concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (3:5–6). “Yet indeed I also count all things as a loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ” (3:8). To be blameless in the eyes of his previous in-group is now held as nothing, or even as a disadvantage (cf. 3:7). The confidence achieved by means of human acknowledgment counts for nothing in comparison with serving God in the Spirit, knowing Christ, and living with him (3:3, 8–9). A process perspective The process perspective, accentuated in the letter by means of the reference to his present prospective of “getting to know Christ” (3:10) and not having “attained” nor being “perfected” (3:12) implies that Paul has the experience of adapting to life changes. Paul’s acclamation that he “knows how to be abased, and how to abound” (Phil 4:11–13) points to the same direction. The way Paul describes it, he appears to be more on the move than ever, though he is in prison. The experience and perspective of process in the past opens for a future in similar terms. It appears that he has the intellectual and emotional capacity to conceptualize a future in similar terms, even with death included. He does not urge the Philippians to remain, but to continue (3:16; cf. 1 Cor 15:2, 58). The point of reference for the conceptualization of life as a process – including death – emanates in Philippians from the story of the pre-life, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Philippians are invited to imitate together with Paul. Note that Paul is not merely suggesting that they may imitate him and his coworkers (cf. 1 Cor 4:16), but that they may imitate Christ together with him (Phil 3:17). The story of Jesus is told as integrated in the affairs of Paul (1:12–25), and in the affairs of the Philippians (1:27– 2:16a). The story of Jesus is also told as a process. “[Jesus] being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself taking the form of a servant [. . .] He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death on the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted him and given him the name which is above every name” (2:8b–11). In this story, death is included, and a process is depicted in which humbleness (ταπείνωσις) is transformed to a greater glory (2:8–11). Death is but a transit.

The prison letters 173 As mentioned above, a process perspective is also proposed in relation to the Philippians. Paul wishes to encourage the Christ-believers of Philippi to continue dynamically in faith. He wishes that they will grow (1:9), shoulder to shoulder in one Spirit,71 striving together (1:27), not in any way terrified by the adversaries (1:28), but in grace having not only faith but also sufferings for Christ’s sake (1:29). The dynamics of life involve all the Christbelievers, and Paul has confidence in them striving together. He rejoices. He implores the Philippians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (2:12), and to hold fast the word of life (2:16), but to be beware the dogs, the evildoers, and the mutilation (3:2). Thus, there may be some opposition, but to fight the fight is to receive the righteousness that stems from loyalty with Christ, and getting to know him and the power of his resurrection further (3:9–10). The communication in Philippians appears to be between intellectual equals. Paul says he prays that their love will abound still more and more in knowledge and discernment, that they may approve the things that are excellent (1:9–11). He does not hesitate to make himself superfluous. The letter reveals no strong urge of being needed. Paul even makes the comment that if some among them think otherwise, God will reveal the truth to them (3:15). The expression may sound a bit petrifying – Paul is still confident of being correct – but the statement also assumes that the Philippians have their own capability of contact with God, being direct objects of God’s intervention themselves. They do not need Paul to show the truth to them. Paul discerns that his presence among them would be beneficial, but not essential (cf. 1:22, 24–25). He seems relaxed, and he claims to be confident that God, who has begun a good work in them, will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus (1:6b; see also 4:19–20). In the same vein, the seeming conflict between Euodia and Syntyche is not solved by discerning who is right and who is wrong, but they both can improve (4:2–3). Cling to what is good The examples in the letter do not emphasize the aspects of humiliation, loss, and death, but the existence of a way through. In the same vein, the admonition does not focus on steadfastness and endurance, but on communality, joy, and progress. Many things that seem to worry Paul in other letters are in Philippians treated with an elevated ease (e.g., uncontrolled preachers; 1:15–18, afflictions; 1:30, conflicting opinions; 3:15, and strife; 4:2). A major difference, in relation to some of the other letters, is that Paul’s apostolicity is not questioned in the rhetorical situation of Philippians. Paul looks back on a long period of fellowship (4:15–18), and he has received a gift as one more token of fellowship (4:10–14). His attitude toward preachers with dubious motives (1:15–18) seems to be a trace of, for Paul, an extraordinary openness and flexibility (cf. Gal 1:8–9). This openness and

174  The prison letters flexibility corresponds to the openness and flexibility expressed in regard to his personal fate (cf. 1:18b–26). In Philippians, there are notably few references to scripture, but the tone is nevertheless confident. The expression “For I know that all this will turn out for my deliverance” (1:19a) resembles an expression found in Job 13:17.72 The notion of the suffering righteous one coincides, and we may surmise a positive identification with Job who awaits his justification from God (cf. 3:20–21).73 As in the case of Job, the sufferings of Paul do not indicate that Paul has sinned. In contrast with Job, however, Paul anticipates that he will have the positive support from his friends and from the Spirit of Jesus Christ (19b). In Philippians, Paul claims to have learned to be content in any state (4:11). Maybe this claim correctly implies that he has coped with both his past and his present situation. Furthermore, for being imprisoned he is quite active. As the letter bears witness to, he uses some of his intellectual and emotional capacity in the intent to aid the Philippians, but he also allows himself to receive (cf. 4:10–16), to consider what he would prefer (1:21–23), and to hope (1:20). He predicts that he will probably be able to send Timothy to Philippi shortly (2:19, 23), and he hopes to be able to come himself as well (2:24). He is also active in his concern for Epaphroditus (2:25–30). His claim of loyalty with Jesus, who will come on the heavens and subdue everything to himself, should also be mentioned as an act of resistance (see 2:9–11).74 The text explicitly says that “every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those on earth, and of those under the earth” (2:10).75 Would that then include the emperor? It probably required some courage – Paul may have called it boldness – to phrase this earnest expectation from the inside of Roman confinement, that every tongue shall confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (2:11). Remembering the pain is the first memory practice that Keshgegian suggests to be necessary to make the memories of disastrous experiences redemptive. As mentioned above, experiences of pain are recurrently mentioned as such in Philippians. The second memory practice is to remember acts of resistance (see above). The third is to remember the undamaged, good life.76 Are such memories by any means present in Philippians? “Finally, sisters and brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy – meditate on these things” (4:8). As if Paul had read Keshgegian – or she him – Paul emphasizes the importance of remembering the good life. The God of peace shall be with them (4:9b). The presence of numerous summons to rejoice conforms with this remembrance practice to its essence. As Richard Lazarus puts it, the core theme of joy is “about attaining a goal one has been seeking or making significant progress in that direction.”77 Paul has the hope of resurrection (1:23; 3:10–11, 21), and he hopes

The prison letters 175 for the day of Christ (1:10; 2:16). These expectations are also, possibly, dreams of the good, undamaged life. Clearly, his personal death is not an obstacle to these goals. But he also has hopes for the present life (i.e., to remain bold [2:20]), and to contribute to the welfare of his fellow Christbelievers (2:22, 25). His exhortation for the sake of unity even becomes circular: “Therefore if there is any consolation of Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (2:1–2, emphasis added). Thus, the admonition of Paul implies that one starts in what is good in life and then multiplies it. Doubtlessly, this is a way of focusing on the good life. The diminishing importance of honor Since social position and shame play important roles in some of the letters, we will briefly consider the topic in relation to Philippians as well. In other letters, it seems to be important to Paul to present himself as self-sufficient, or at least not in need, in order to keep his position (cf. 1 Cor 9:1–27). In Philippians, Paul accepts the gifts of the Philippians to supply for his needs (4:10–18). Paul has no intent to pay back, however, except by means of his possible future services, but God will fulfill their need (4:19). Thus, the topic of need does not appear to be as sensitive to Paul in Philippians as in other letters (cf. 1 Cor 9:15). In Philippians, Paul also expresses that he hopes that he will never be ashamed (ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι; 1:20). Shame is generally an extremely difficult emotion to handle, touching the deeper layers of personality.78 It also has vast social and practical connotations in the Greco-Roman imperial culture.79 In Philippians, Paul relates to possible shame openly and with modesty. His ability to relate to shame, as a possible but not probable outcome of the present situation, speaks of maturity and strength. He has the capacity to deal with emotions that are generally very complicated to handle, and in this context, Paul is even able to relate to the risk of failure in a modest way. Since the prospects are uncertain, a sensitive affirmation of his hope appears more trustworthy than a boldly expressed declaration would have been. A dual-option situation Situations with very different possible outcomes are generally difficult to cope with. When the person does not know which future to adapt to, the coping process may slow down or even stagnate.80 In Philippians 1:18– 26, Paul relates to, and compares, two different futures. Either he will be released and go on working, or he will “depart and be with Christ” (1:20– 23). Hawthorne and Martin claim that this is a sign of confusion, an “alternation [that] underscores the inner turmoil of the apostle as he wrestles with these ultimate issues.”81 However, if Paul is in turmoil, something should be

176  The prison letters disturbing, upsetting, or chaotic, none of which the passage or its context suggest. Expressions of anxiety are missing in 1:18b–26. As a matter of fact, both options are described as something endurable, even positive (cf. 3:10– 11). Therefore, the appraisals of Paul should be interpreted as a nearly confident consideration rather than as a sign of confusion. Most importantly, the passage reveals no traits of acuteness. In the end of the letter, Paul looks back on a seemingly long life of gains and losses (4:12–13). He expresses a most accepting attitude toward his personal conditions, and the letter contains few signs of an ongoing wrestle. On the other hand, the capability to hold two options beside each other, and compare them, is more likely to be a product of thoroughly processing of the situation. It is a trait of maturation. It is not very likely combined with defense mechanisms, such as reaction formation, since these imply that one of the possible outcomes is “unthinkable” (cf. Paul’s depiction of “emptiness” and “vanity” in 1 Cor 15:2, 14, 17–19, 58).82 In Philippians, Paul explicitly claims that he has reached a new understanding, and that his former priorities have changed (3:1–16). In a wide variety of situations, death can be appraised as something positive – for example after a long period of illness, after a hard struggle, or after a long life. The hope in an after-life often contributes to the assessment of death as a “gain” (see 1:21). The essential feature is not necessarily that the person wants to escape life, but that life, in his or her perspective, has reached its fulfillment. Paul in Philippians claims that “to be with Christ is far better” (1:23b). In the beginning of the letter, Paul’s claim that he longs for the Philippians with the affection of Christ Jesus is underlined by means of an oath: “God is my witness” (1:8). The communality and joy of Philippians are unmistakable, and there is no reason to assume that he fabricates his affection. Why, then, this oath? An oath generally implies that the content of the utterance is expected to be doubted by someone. Is there any reason to distrust his care for the Christ-believers of Philippi, or to assume that he did not want to be with them again? A possible interpretation is that Paul would prefer not to travel anymore. Perhaps his confinement also provided a certain amount of immediate safety compared with the situation on the roads and sea. Paul has possibly grown weary of traveling and therefore does not truly want to go to Philippi again. His detached attitude toward the Philippians also speaks to the same end. He believes that God who has begun a good work in them also will complete it until the day of Christ, and so that no one venture giving him any qualms about his detachment, he also claims that it is proper of him to think so (1:6–7).83 In Philippians, Paul does not fear substitution but rather appreciates the local bishops and deacons (1:1). He assumes that they all can manage without him.84 In Philippians, Paul ascertains that he “[has] all and abound” (ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα καὶ περισσεύω). “I am full (πεπλήρωμαι) having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma . . .” (4:18b). Probably a minority of the inmates in a prison would say that they are flourishing. However, an additional sign of Paul’s having come to terms with

The prison letters 177 his situation is his capacity to focus on the situation of Epaphroditus, and others, including the extra vocation to Euodia and Syntyche (4:2–3). Paul discusses both his own situation and the situation of others, and he relates to his situation in a moderate way, and to others with care and consideration (see 1:12–26; cf. 1:27–2:16). As many have commented, Philippians is a “letter of friendship” revolving around the news of both parties. The emphasis on deliberativeness, and on having different options, mitigates the totalizing nature of victimization. In Philippians there is no monolithic evil to which Paul is a helpless victim.85 On the contrary, he has all resources he needs and prospers (cf. 1:27–30; 4: 10–14). The psychological perspective of this investigation assumes that it is possible to cope with complicated and severe situations. It may be painstaking and take time, but it is possible. As Kenneth I. Pargament comments, it is easy to say – hard to do – but still it is possible.86 In Philippians, Paul focuses on the positive aspects of the situation, but he is also capable of relating to the straining and complicated sides. There is therefore no reason to dismiss his words when he claims that he has coped with even the prospect of impending execution (4:11–12; cf. 1:19–26). He claims that to him death is the better part (1:21–23), and this is possibly the way he perceives it. He has the comfort of communality (4:14–16), the support of God who strengthens him (4:12), and the role model of Christ (2:6–11; 3:10–11). Thus, he is not forgotten by the Philippians, nor is he abandoned by God, and he is not alone. His eschatological hope implies that everything will be turned right in the end (3:20–21). He has experienced loss, but he has coped with it (3:7–9). In sum, in Philippians death is appraised as a gain, an opportunity (1:21–23; 3:10–11), and there is nothing to contradict this appraisal in the letter.

Philemon: Being in service Philippians and Philemon share many features. They both focus on the welfare of others, and very complicated circumstances are related with confidence and verve. Philemon is a very short letter, but we come across two or perhaps three cases of potential deaths. First, Onesimus could be going to meet his own death when he returns to Philemon. Supposing that Onesimus was indeed a slave, his life was completely in the hands of his slave owner, and we must not trust Philemon’s well-known “love and faith toward the Lord and toward all the saints” (cf. 5) for reasons that will be discussed below. Second, Paul and Epaphras could be awaiting either their immanent death (9, 13, 23) or their forthcoming release (22). Nevertheless, the letter is written in a spirit of resourcefulness and confidence (19–21). Historical and rhetorical situation The letter gives few indications of the location of the sender, the location of the addressees, or the date of writing. Paul depicts himself as in chains for Christ Jesus (Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; 1) and as being elderly

178  The prison letters (πρεσβύτης; 9).87 It is notable that the two letters of Philemon and Philippians, where Paul depicts himself as imprisoned, are the only letters where Paul speaks about his personal need for help. This trait speaks in favor of the authenticity of his imprisonment. In the present study Philemon will be treated as dictated from imprisonment at Rome about 60–62 CE.88 The letter consists of an appeal for Onesimus, who has in some way wronged Philemon (18). It is probably Onesimus who is carrying the letter to Philemon. The rhetorical situation provides that the harm caused by Onesimus is rather diminished than exaggerated.89 Paul addresses Philemon in a very respectful way, and he also wishes that Philemon sends Onesimus back to him, so that Onesimus may be of service to Paul in his chains (13). He contends that Onesimus does not deserve to die or even to be punished. There is no hint in the letter of remorse on Onesimus’s part, which is remarkable. Paul requests that Onesimus be received by Philemon as if he were indeed Paul (10, 17). Paul emphasizes that he will pay to Philemon whatever Onesimus owes him (19). Since the person and position of Onesimus determines how the letter should be interpreted, we will briefly consider the slave system. The primary source of new slaves was conquest or reconquest.90 According to Josephus, during a successful conquest, the rebels, the aged and the weak among the enemy were killed, but the able-bodied survivors were captured and made into slaves.91 As Orlando Patterson puts it, slaves were biologically alive but socially dead,92 and often physically and violently removed from their native home and environment.93 Although there were some customs that might create a somewhat more favorable impression of the Roman slave system (or at least mitigate our ill opinions), G. Francois Wessels reminds us that all exceptions to the objectification of slaves were completely in the hands of the slave owner, and while giving some comfort, such exceptions usually served to make the system work more smoothly.94 Every favor was up to the goodwill of the owner. To physically damage the body of a slave was perceived as a morally neutral act.95 Even slaves in high positions incurred the same risk to life and limb as other slaves. Their lives were in the hands of their owners, and they depended completely on their masters.96 The everyday presence of slaves and slavery in the Roman empire made it a very sensitive issue to tell a free man what to do.97 The concepts of being “unprofitable” (ἄχρηστον) or “profitable” (εὔχρηστον) were essential to the institution of slavery (cf. 11).98 As a matter of fact, Onesimus, “the useful one,” was a common name among slaves, one that is amply documented not only in the documentary from Egypt, but also among the slaves of Rome.99 The system was designed for the purpose of exploitation and geared to benefit slave owners,100 which was possible only if people who were enslaved were submitted to a process of objectification; thus, there was no need to consider the preferences of a slave.101 Slaves were not regarded in the first place as fellow human beings but as tools to be controlled.102 Therefore, the worth of a run-away slave was low.103

The prison letters 179 Terms and expressions of endearment abound in the letter, echoing Paul’s rhetorical strategies of ethos and pathos. Paul addresses Philemon with great respect (1, 14, 18), though he indicates that Philemon is subordinated to him (8, 10, 21). Paul could tell him what to do, but he would not do so in Christ (8). Onesimus’s need for intercession indicates that his life and wellbeing were in danger. Furthermore, a reasonable question from a master, whose slave had escaped and had an unauthorized and uncontrolled contact with some prominent person from outside the household, was probably: “What has he said about me?” Paul settles this issue at once. Paul claims to have heard about Philemon’s love and faith toward the Lord and all the saints (5).104 This may in part be a true depiction, but if it were the whole truth, there would be no need for the intercession, which is the errand of the letter (8–21). Paul’s depiction of Philemon’s love and faithfulness (5–8) is thus to be understood as part of the apostle’s larger rhetorical project. Being “in chains,” Paul is familiar with the situation of having limited possibilities for taking action. The discourse of Paul as elderly and imprisoned (9) seems to be intended to inspire harm against those who imprison an elderly – and presumably innocent – person such as Paul. The information seems carefully organized to subtly reveal the similarities between Onesimus and himself. Onesimus is a “son,” begotten by Paul in his imprisonment (10). If Onesimus is not received as a beloved brother, it is righteous to feel harm and ask what kind of person Philemon is. This, however, was not regarded as a relevant topic according to the socially accepted code, which presumed that harming a slave was morally irrelevant.105 Paul’s own imprisonment must have been upsetting to many Christ-believers of the time.106 A pious man in their view – and now even a senior – imprisoned for the sake of his loyalty to Christ Jesus.107 As a prisoner, Paul’s situation was unpredictable in the same sense as the situation of Onesimus. They both have unsettled fates in the rhetorical situation of the letter. Paul’s chains may appear to be of a less burdensome kind, when he asks Philemon to arrange a room for him when he comes for a visit (22). However, this impression is likely part of a rhetorical strategy to add pressure on Philemon to act as Paul wishes by indicating that he may come to see with his own eyes what Philemon has done. The rhetorical force of the letter is supported by the appearance that Paul is not a distant apostle, locked away (even though he is), but a powerful and potentially present apostle. The personal situation of Paul and his prospects in custody is not at the forefront of the letter, but his imprisonment implies that he is awaiting trial. The relative social position of Paul and Philemon can be discussed, but it is worth noting that Paul asks Philemon to make himself useful to Paul (20). Onesimus has a weak position. He cannot do much to delimit his exposure, except by (once more) running away, which would only aggravate the circumstance of exposure. Paul is writing as if he had a strong position socially and financially, even though he is in prison, where he is also in a state of exposure despite likely being a Roman citizen. However, Paul has already

180  The prison letters started the manumission of Onesimus by claiming that he has “begotten” Onesimus while in chains (10), and thus made him the son of a free man (now in custody).108 Paul wishes Philemon to receive Onesimus as a beloved brother, which he is “indeed” to Paul (μάλιστα ἐμοί; 16). The greetings to and from other people provide the transaction between Paul/Onesimus and Philemon with witnesses (see 2, 23–24) who are potentially there to make it possible to determine whether Philemon has followed Paul’s request. To underline this perspective of collective attentiveness, Paul, though a prisoner, requests a room to be granted for his personal visit (22). Paul proposes that a fictive state of affairs – Onesimus as a brother – is to be implemented both in the flesh (καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ) and in the Lord (καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ; 16b), that is probably meaning: not merely in principle but both socially and practically, and spiritually. But the decision is Philemon’s to make. Philemon is the one who has power to decide the future of Onesimus.109 Paul pictures himself as in the position of having the right to require favors (13, 19–22).110 He describes himself as aged (9), and, together with Epaphras, in chains (9, 13, 23). To be imprisoned implied to be awaiting trial, and therefore their lives were in danger. Death in Philemon In Paul’s letter to Philemon we come across three cases of potential deaths. First, Onesimus could be going to meet his death. The depiction of Philemon’s well-known “love and faith toward the Lord and toward all the saints” (cf. 5) is part of a rhetorical project and probably not a characterization affirmed by everybody. Furthermore, Paul and Epaphras could be awaiting their death at that very moment (cf. 9, 13, 23) or their forthcoming release (cf. 22).

Resourcefulness in the face of death In Philemon, Paul is able to relate to his own situation in a moderate way and to the situation of others with considerate care. The letter to Philemon signals resourcefulness and capacity. Paul clearly has the capacity to care for the situation of Onesimus and to focus on him. Though imprisoned himself, Paul uses his social power, his rhetorical skills, and his economic power to influence Onesimus’s situation. Seen in the perspective of psychological coping, Paul appears to stand firm in a situation that would be appraised as exceedingly stressful by most people. Not knowing if he is awaiting his release or his impending death, the relaxed air in the letter is worth noting.111 The psychological perspective of the present study assumes that it is possible to cope with tremendously complicated and devastating experiences if proper resources, beneficial circumstances, and enough time are available.112 Paul’s case was presumably not decided yet, but he does not appear to worry much. His relaxed attitude toward death appears to coincide with a relaxed attitude in relation

The prison letters 181 to the question of social position. He cares for Onesimus, and he sends greetings from Epaphras, his fellow prisoner, and from Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, his fellow laborers (23–24). In the exordium, Paul presents himself as a prisoner of Christ Jesus, along with the fellow-sender “our brother Timothy,” and Philemon is addressed as a brother and fellow laborer (1:1).113 Nothing appears to threaten Paul in the current situation. As one might expect in a society as attuned to honor as the ancient GrecoRoman world, Paul’s letter is carefully crafted not to make Philemon lose face.114 The threat against Onesimus’s safety is related to the dignity of Philemon. Paul is not telling the slave owner what to do with his slave, but is carefully and persuasively making him aware of his wishes. Paul carefully avoids the challenge-riposte game in his communication with Philemon. The communicative act Paul is undertaking in relation to Philemon is actually parallel to what he wishes Philemon to do in relation to Onesimus. He wishes them to enter a new relationship based on partnership (κοινωνόν; 17), but Philemon must take the decisive step. Many scholars have observed the high frequency of words of endearment and family ties in Paul’s letter to Philemon.115 He asserts that he has the right to tell Philemon what to do, but he refrains from using that power (8–9), with the explicit aim of allowing for Philemon’s consent and good deed (14). Paul has confidence in Philemon’s obedience (21). In the rhetorical household that Paul creates in the letter, Paul replaces Philemon as paterfamilias.116 Paul uses all his persuasive power to convince Philemon to do what he understands to be the right thing, and in the process he enables Philemon to save face, as if setting Onesimus free and/or granting him a good position were his own idea.117 Paul requests that Philemon refresh his heart (ἀνάπαυσόν μου τὰ σπλάγχνα; 20). The generous and steady authority of Paul is shown throughout this letter. Paul even offers himself as a “body double” for Onesimus, letting Onesimus assume the position of himself. “If then you count me as your partner, receive him as you would me” (17). Clearly, it could have disastrous consequences for Onesimus if the purpose of the letter fails. He is taking the greatest risk by far, even if Paul is trying to increase his chances by means of the letter. When Onesimus returns to Philemon, his personal welfare will probably be at risk. The value of slaves who had run away was low. These were often punished severely in order to starve any dreams of freedom among other slaves. And as indicated by the letter, Onesimus had most likely caused injury to Philemon before leaving (18), which makes his position tenuous (whether a slave or not). It lies in Paul’s interest to underemphasize the harm caused to Philemon by Onesimus, but perhaps not too much in order not to evoke Philemon’s wrath. The injury must be acknowledged, but not emphasized. The letter does not give us much information about the circumstances because, obviously, Onesimus, Philemon, and Paul all knew. In the case of slaves, it sometimes made a difference if the slave intended to leave for a short time, or ran away to never come back, although it was naturally difficult to discern the difference when a slave was caught.

182  The prison letters Sometimes a slave might depart from an angered master to rally support in order to approach him again.118 Paul’s choice of wording in verse 15 seems to imply something of the kind. No course of action could better prove the intention to turn back than if the slave in fact did so (perhaps with a letter), albeit it still appears as something of a daredevil operation. Obviously, there were never any civil rights of slaves. Paul claims that Philemon has the prospect of getting his slave back forever, as a beloved brother, unless Philemon decides to send him back to Paul as a “body double” assuming the role of Philemon in service to Paul (13). When Paul offers himself as a “body double” for Onesimus (cf. 17–19), it is the surprising opposite of the customary approach to treat the slave as an extension of the master’s body. Paul relates to Onesimus’s problems in a way that indicates an emotional and intellectual capacity to put himself in Onesimus’s position. In the rhetorical endeavor of the letter, Paul refers to his own situation only when supporting Onesimus’s case. Paul shows a bold attitude in the letter to Philemon, both in his confrontation of Philemon in a modest but confident way, but foremost in the course of action that he suggests and supports for Onesimus’s part. Onesimus had – in one way or another – run from his past, and Paul suggests that he returns, which requires a courageous attitude. The advice we pass on to others may reflect the attitudes we adopt ourselves. Even though the potential anger of Philemon hardly could reach Paul – even as a body double of Onesimus – the letter to Philemon is an indication of a mind that is not inclined to escape. Onesimus’s life could be at risk from the course of action that is suggested, but the letter shows a capacity and willingness to meet challenges and intervene in difficult situations. Paul supports Onesimus with whatever means he has. Already his capability to relate to Onesimus and to take him to his heart indicates a kind of resourcefulness. Paul is not completely absorbed with his own fate but has the capacity to care for others. Imprisoned, Paul is being deprived of many of his resources, but he presents himself as elderly, having the right to tell others what to do (8–9), and with financial resources available (18–19). He also uses his rhetorical skills and social network to intervene in favor of Onesimus’s safety and future (1–7, 8–21, 22–25). Paul’s willingness to publicly identify himself with Onesimus’s situation must have stood out as something extraordinary in a society with so many strategies to dehumanize slaves and servants. Paul’s move in the opposite direction cannot have passed unnoticed. It lies beyond the scope of this investigation to ask how Paul came to this special conclusion, but the loyalty with the crucified Jesus is framed as the source of a transformation of minds in other letters (e.g., 2 Cor 4:5, 6:14–17). Obviously a loss of honor is appraised as less aggravating in Philemon compared to other letters (cf. 1 Cor 9:15). In many respects the letter to Philemon is a rhetorical masterpiece. It has a sharp and distinct focus, the wording seems carefully crafted, and the composition is balanced. Rhetorical achievement requires more than rhetorical

The prison letters 183 skills, namely the capability to focus on the subject matter and to discern what is important to communicate, of which there also is a psychological aspect. A person who is bogged down with worries is likely incapable of such clear focus on someone else’s behalf. Paul’s letter to Philemon is very focused, and it is striking how Paul stays on the subject of the letter: the needs of Onesimus. The perspective of Philemon is of interest in relation to what would be beneficial for Onesimus. Not once does Paul turn to other issues, complain about his position, or boast about his achievements, and so forth. A conclusion to be drawn from these features of the letter is that Paul has coped with his situation, even though it involves the possible prospect of impending death.

Notes 1 The Marcionite prologue to Philippians comments that the letter was written by Paul from prison in Rome; Marcion, Prologue to the Epistle to the Philippians (Marcion’s writings are lost, though they were widely read and numerous manuscripts must have existed); see Witherington 2011, 9; Reumann 2008, 13; Silva 2005, 5. The main objection against a Roman provenance is that the distance between Philippi and Rome is judged to be too long, but this objection has been refuted by several scholars; see, e.g., Silva 2005, 6; Witherington 1994, 25; O’Brien 1991, 21–26. 2 The integrity of the letter has also been questioned, and Jeffrey A. Reed suggests that the multi-thematic nature of the letter partially explains the fact that the debate over integrity has such a longstanding tradition in scholarly circles; Reed 1997, 418. Reeds offers a strong case for the coherency of the letter on rhetorical grounds, albeit coherency does not prove authenticity; Reed 1997, esp. 408. However, there is not much evidence in the letter to base a hypothesis of multiple provenance on, and detailed dating on the hypothetical parts therefore tends to be mere speculation; cf. Reumann 2008, 7–18. 3 Heil 2010, 4; Barnett 2008, 149; Schnelle 2005, 367–69; Fee 1995, 1, 34–36; Witherington 1998, 325; 1994, 26; O’Brien 1991, 26. 4 Jewett 2007, 47–48; Griffin 1984, 111. Tradition also holds that Paul was executed by means of decapitation, which would imply that he was counted among the privileged strata of society; decapitation was seen as the more benevolent form of execution; Mitchell 2002, 367–74; Peters 1995, 20. See also Kahl 2010, xxiii. 5 Cousar 2001, 127–29; Fee 1995, 2–7; Alexander 1989, 87–101. 6 Alexander 1989, 96. 7 See Reed 1997, 280–82. 8 See Garnsey & Saller 1997, 97; Reed 1997, 280; Witherington 1994, 27. 9 In Philemon Paul also requests to have Onesimus sent back to him, to minster to him in his chains for the gospel (ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου; Phlm 13). 10 The physical conditions of the prisons of Rome were terrible and dangerous, although some sources indicate that prominent prisoners could be removed to a more comfortable confinement after some time; Peters 1995, 18–19. However, while in custody Paul would not have been allowed to practice his trade to support himself; Witherington 1998, 325. 11 Peters 1995, 14; 17–19. 12 “The Roman forensic speaker did not have as his primary aim the transmission of facts”; the only thing the speaker needed to accomplish in his listeners was a “disposition to acquit” the person on trial; Alexander 2002, 29. The social strata of society called honestiores and humiliores were of vital importance for

184  The prison letters the estimation of the crime and the punishment that was to be inflicted. “The difference became more and more important during the imperial period, when punishments themselves became more and more severe.” Peters 1995, 16. 13 Elliott 2000, 27–28; Peters 1995, 15–16; Harries 2006, 93, 101–02. See also Tovas 2006, 107–12, for a similar account of the conditions in Egypt. See also Xenophon’s Memorabilia, where Pericles is challenged by Socrates’s students to admit that “whatever the assembled majority, through using its power over the owners of property, enacts without persuasion is not law but force.” Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.20.40–46. 14 Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 54. Hawthorne/Martin suggests that the modern expressions “for dear life” or “on your life” as being equivalent expressions; Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 54. (Since Gerald F. Hawthorne’s commentary is revised and considerably expanded by Ralph P. Martin, and this second volume leaves the authorship indiscernible, all of my references to the views of Hawthorne & Martin pertain to the congregated work as published, rather than to the viewpoint of either author.) 15 Heil 2010, 62–66. 16 Harries 2006, 93–94, 98. As Sofia Torhallas Tovas also comments on Egyptian imprisonments, “unfair imprisonment was probably, and sadly, very frequent.” Tovas 2006, 107. 17 Cf. Cousar 2001, 141. 18 Peters 1995, Tovas 2006, 107. 19 Against Hawthorne/Martin, who suggest that information about Paul’s future state may have filtered down to him through friends in high places; Hawthorne/ Martin 2004, 49; similarly Reumann 2008, 243. 20 As mentioned above, imprisonment itself was generally not regarded as punishment; Peters 1995, 14; see also 17–19. 21 Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 50; BAGD 2000, 985. 22 Although, Hawthorne/Martin contend that “it is wrong to say [Paul] must always give this meaning to the word.” Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 50. 23 Cf. Horsley 1997b, 248; Martin 1995, 68. 24 Some uncertainty is present, though, about the identity of those making the active service – Paul or the Philippians; see Fee 1995, 254–255. 25 Against John Reumann, who thinks that a Judean background is unlikely, since drink offerings were (a) mostly ancillary offerings, (b) almost never an independent sacrificial act, and (c) Psalm 16:4 refers to illicit drink offerings to other gods; Reumann 2008, 398. In response to these considerations, I maintain that (a) the text does not require that the offering of Paul should be a main offering, but on the contrary, it seems like the Philippians’ faith is the main offering. Paul is more of a contingent offering that is possibly added to it, whereby (b) is also refuted. And (c), though some biblical texts attack certain kinds of drink offering (Ps 16:4; Isa 66:3), several other texts proscribe drink offerings (Lev 23:13, 37; Num 15:5; 28:7,14, 24, 30; 29:6, 10, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38, 39). The problem dealt with in Psalm 16:4 is not the libations themselves but that feature that some “choose another God” (similarly in Isa 66:3). To summarize, there is nothing that stands against the interpretation that Paul had the Judean sacrifices in mind when describing his current situation as a contingent imminent offering. Hence, we can consider the priestly sacrifices in the temple of Jerusalem as a likely cultural background for Paul’s metaphor in Phil 2:17. 26 Liddell & Scott 1989, 739. 27 BAGD 2000, 937; see σπένδω. 28 Hawthorn/Martin 2004, 148. 29 Jenson 1995, 30. 30 Jenson 1995, 28.

The prison letters 185 31 The usual translations are “peace” or “communion” or “fellowship” offering; Jenson 1995, 30. LXX uses the phrase “θυσίαν σωτηρίου τὸ δῶρον.” 32 Jenson 1995, 26. The action of throwing the blood unto the altar, when the reparation offering is made, is undertaken by the priest by means of dipping his finger in the blood, sprinkling it on the veil of the sanctuary seven times, putting the blood on the horns of the altar, and pouring the rest of the blood on the base of the altar; see Lev 4:6–7, 17–18. In the burnt offering, the blood is poured by the priest on and around the altar, which is at the entrance of the tabernacle of witness; see Lev 1:5. In the peace offering, the blood is thrown, or poured, by the priests on the altar and on the offerings; see Lev 3:2, 8, 13; cf. 7:14. When giving a food offering, the oil is poured on the grain; see Lev 2:6, 15. 33 Jenson 1995, 30. 34 Jenson 1995, 30. 35 The sacrifices were not performed in the order listed in Lev 1–5, which is a didactic order oriented to the priest’s point of view; Jenson 1995, 27. 36 Jenson 1995, 31. 37 Bockmuehl 1998, 155, emphasis removed. 38 This concept can also be applied to the sincere and godly believer, e.g., Ps 15:2; 18:23; 37:18; Bockmuehl 1998, 156. 39 Hawthorn/Martin 2004, 148–49. 40 Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 149. 41 Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 149. 42 Bockmuehl 1998, 161. 43 Collange 1973, 113; citing Denis 1957, 567–70. 44 Bockmuehl 1998, 160; O’Brien 1991, 303. Cf. “[t]his verse does not begin a new paragraph [. . .], for it is joined to v 16 by a series of conjunctions – ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ, but even if.” Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 148. 45 Bockmuehl 1998, 161. 46 Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 149. 47 If the Philippians keep to the “word of life,” it permits pride on Paul’s part; εἰς καύχημα ἐμοὶ; Phil 2:16. 48 Running, as a metaphor for apostolic activities, is used elsewhere in the Pauline corpus; cf. 1 Cor 9:24, 26; Gal 2:2; 5:7; Rom 9:16, and in Phil 3:14, as is the metaphor of priestly service; cf. 1 Cor 9:13; Rom 15:15–16. 49 Cf. Bockmuehl 1998, 159. 50 The metaphor of being poured out could resemble Paul’s claim to be willing to spend (δαπανήσω) himself for the life of the Corinthians; 2 Cor 12:15. 51 Segal 1990, 12–14; Hurtado 2003, 64–74. 52 Cf. Pargament 1997, 110–14. 53 Those “whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame [read: genital organ]” can be interpreted both as libertine priorities, or as a dismissive account of the Jewish food laws and circumcision; the later is contended by Witherington 1994, 29. However, their focus is elsewhere instead of on imitating Christ irrespective the risk for humiliation. 54 Cf. the challenge-riposte game, which literally built on the devastation of others; Moxnes 2005, 19–40; Malina 2001. 55 Execution by means of crucifixion almost inevitably meant that the Romans were those who had delivered the judgment; Horsley 1997a, 10. 56 The epithet Savior was attributed to the Emperor, and any other benefactor in the empire had to claim their loyalty toward the Roman emperor; see Horsley 2008, 84; Edwards 2005, 124; Fowl 2005, 174; Krentz 2003, 359; Sampley 2003, 6. 57 Segal 1990, 34–38, 52–54. 58 Cf. Jewett 2007, 137.

186  The prison letters 9 Welborn 2005, 132; Hengel 1977, 54. 5 60 See Miller & C’de Baca 2001, 20; cf. Hurtado 2003, 64–67. 61 On deferring and collaborative coping styles, see Pargament 1997, 180–83. 62 Carson et al. 2009, 278. 63 Keshgegian contends that to make the memories of disastrous experiences contributing to life, three components are required. First, the suffering must be acknowledged. Second, one has to remember aspects of operating freedom; the victimization was not total. Third, one must remember the undamaged life, the good life. Otherwise, every future step will be determined by the disaster; see Keshgegian 2000, 151–52. 64 Cf. Keshgegian 2000, 151–52. 65 Cf. Lazarus 1999, 33. 66 Cf. Keshgegian 2000, 151–52. 67 On the interpretation of πίστις; see Horsley 2011, 33–34. 68 Lazarus 1999, 33. 69 Cullberg 1993, 82. The strength in the original impulse corresponds to the intensity of the reaction formation. 70 Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 183. 71 The verb, στήκετε, is used in Greco-Roman literature to indicate the duty of the solider in battle, or to describe the taking of a position vis-à-vis that of an adversary; Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 70. 72 “Behold, I have prepared my case; I know that I shall be vindicated” (Job 13:18 RSV). 73 Reumann 2008, 232–33, 242; Hawthorne/Martin 2004, 49. 74 Cf. Keshgegian 2000, 152. 75 The epithet “savior” was commonly attributed to the emperor, and to suggest that another “savior” would subdue all things to him may appear competitive; see Edwards 2005, 124–30. 76 See Keshgegian 2000, 151–52. 77 Lazarus 1999, 34. 78 See McNish 2004, 241. 79 See Sampley 2003, 11–12. 80 Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 91–92. 81 Hawthorne & Martin 2004, 54. 82 Cf. Cullberg 1993, 82, referred to above. 83 In an earlier letter, Paul comments that his care for all the communities is a heavy burden on him; cf. 2 Cor 11:28. 84 See Sölle 1967, 21; Spiegel 1978, 339–42, for a discussion on representation and replacement. 85 Cf. Keshgegian 2000, 65. 86 Cf. Pargament 1997, 110. 87 In this cultural milieu, age is to be spelled out as with authority. When Cicero counts reasons for reverence, he mentions age first: “age or wisdom, or office, or any other claim to prestige.” Cicero, On Invention 2.66. The fact that the word πρεσβύτης came to be used as the term for “priest” reveals its connotations to a prominent figure, and the terms “ambassador” and “elderly” also coincide. The term πρεσβεύτες, when found in some versions of Philemon, also renders prominence; see Weima 2010, 48–49; Kreitzer 2008, 22–23; Steyn 1995, 72. Therefore, the term πρεσβύτης is probably not adopted to evoke pity; against Lampe 2010, 65; Witherington 2007, 67. For further discussion on the meaning of πρεσβύτης, see Kreitzer 2008, 23–24; Hooker 2003, 1448. 88 Witherington 1998, 325. 89 See Weima 2010, 50, 54; Kreitzer 2008, 27. 90 Wessels 2010, 148; Horsley 1998, 29.

The prison letters 187 91 See Josephus, War 1.180, 222; 2.68, 75; Ant. 17.289, 295. 92 Patterson 1982, 1–75. 93 Wessels 2010, 148; Patterson 1982, 1–20; Finley 1980, 307. 94 Wessels 2010, 149–50. 95 Wessels 2010, 160. 96 Arzt-Grabner 2010, 117. 97 An order could easily have been interpreted as a challenge; Moxnes 2005, 20–21. G. Francois Wessels suggests that a “blunt order, issued by an apostle in prison, [. . .] might be refused – with disastrous consequences for Paul’s position of authority” (and we might add, with even more disastrous consequences for Onesimus); Wessels 2010, 165. For further comment on the precariousness of giving orders between more-or-less equals in the Roman world, see Lendon 1997, 20. 98 Arzt-Grabner 2010, 122. 99 Arzt-Grabner 2010, 120. 100 Wessels 2010, 158. 101 “It was much more likely that the slave family would be broken up and sold, piece by piece, as it were. This made more sense economically.” Children were often sold, from a very young age, without any accompanying parent; Wessels 2010, 152–54. 102 Bradley 1984, 30, 43. Aristotle uses the expression “a tool that breaths” (εμψυχον οργανον); quoted in Wessels 2010, 160. For further discussion, see Wessels 2010, 145–47, 158–160. 103 When a slave was sold, it could be claimed that he/she was “neither a truant nor a fugitive,” and the slave could be described as πιστου και αδραστου / και οντα εκτος ιερας νοσου / και επαφης; “faithful and not running away / and being without epilepsy / and claim [of others].” Arzt-Grabner 2010, 128–29. 104 The lack of discussion about Philemon’s famed love and faith may reflect the privileged position of most scholars, and/or a general inclination to identify with the prominent part. 105 See Wessels 2010, 160; Harrill 2006, 18, 38; 106 The term “in custody” would perhaps better communicate the meaning of ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς, in chains; cf. Newman 1993, 40. 107 There is some debate whether he is still physically imprisoned at this point or if he is referring back to previous experiences of imprisonment. While he depicts himself as “aged and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ” (πρεσβύτης νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; 9) I conjecture that the text is quite clear at this point. Besides, when Paul asks Philemon to send Onesimus back to “help him in his chains of the gospel” (13), it would appear quite delusive if he was not actually imprisoned. 108 The question if Paul advocated manumission is not settled among scholars. For an overview of different positions, see Wessels 2010, 160–168. J. Albert Harrill, who sees very little critical awareness of slavery in the New Testament, opines that the phrase referring to Onesimus as a “brother in the flesh and in the Lord” (16) may imply that Paul hopes to secure his manumission; Harrill 2006, 14. Jennifer A. Glancy, on the other hand, warns against attempts to idealize early Christianity’s involvement in slavery; Glancy 2002, 3. Peter ArztGrabner regards that Paul insisted that the slave Onesimus be trusted with a responsible position in the group of Christ-believers and/or as a business partner of Philemon; Arzt-Grabner 2010, 139–41. 109 Wessels 2010, 161. 110 In the “favor-based” social economy of the ancient world, Paul presents himself as one who is “owed” rather than “owing.” See Philemon 13, 19–22. 111 A stressful situation with an uncertain outcome is generally difficult to cope with; Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 85–92. Some scholars draw the conclusion

188  The prison letters that Paul cannot be imprisoned at the time of writing the letter, though there is no sign contrary his imprisonment in the letter, except for his unstressful tone, and his hope that he will come to Philemon soon; see Philemon 22. 112 Cf. Pargament 1997, 110–17; Keshgegian 2000, 120–25. See also Spiegel 1978, 86–98. 113 Being a “laborer” is a humble depiction; see Bockmuehl 1998, 159. 114 See Wessels 2010, 165. 115 de Villiers 2010, 181–203; Wessels 2010, 160–61. 116 Tolmie 2010, 19. 117 Wessels 2010, 165. 118 Certain Roman jurists (including Proculus, Vivianus, Paulus, Labeo and Carlius) argued that a slave who left his master in fear of the latter’s anger and went to someone for help and intervention should not be regarded as a servus fugitivius, a runaway slave; see Arzt-Grabner 2010, 124; Lampe 2010, 63–64.

Bibliography A. Primary sources and translations Cicero, Marcus Tullius (1949). On Invention. H. Hubbell, trans. vol. 1. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Josephus (1926–65). The Jewish War; Jewish Antiquities. H. St. J. Thackerary et al., trans. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Xenophon (1994). Memorabilia. A. L. Bonnette, trans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

B. Reference works and sourcebooks Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich & William Danker, eds. (2000). A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed., earlier published in 1979, 1957. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Liddell, Henry George & Robert Scott (1989). An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon. Founded upon the 7th ed. of Liddell and Scott Greek–English Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newman, Barclay M. Jr. (1993). A Concise Greek–English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

C. Secondary literature Alexander, Loveday (1989). “Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37, 87–101. Alexander, Michael C. (2002). The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era. Michigan: The Michigan University Press. Arzt-Grabner, Peter (2010). “How to Deal with Onesimus? Paul’s Solution within the Frame of Ancient Legal and Documentary Sources.” Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. D. F. Tolmie, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 113–142. Barnett, Paul (2008). Paul: Missionary of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Beck, James R. (2002). The Psychology of Paul: A Fresh Look at His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Bockmuehl, Marcus (1998). The Epistle to the Philippians. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A & C Black.

The prison letters 189 Bradley, K. R. (1984). Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control. New York: Oxford University Press. Carson, David K., Herdley Paolini, Dale Ziglear & John Fox (2009). “The Unconverted Subconscious in Psychotherapy: Biblical Foundations, Psychological Explorations and Clinical Applications.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 37: 4, 267–293. Collange, Jean-François (1973). L’Épitre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 10a. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestle. Cousar, Charles B. (2001). Reading Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys. Cullberg, Johan (1993). Dynamisk psykiatri. Earlier published in 1984. Värnamo: Natur och Kultur. Denis, A. M. (1957). “Versé en libation (Phil. II,17) = Versé en son sang? A propos d’une réference de W. Bauer,” RSR 45, 567–570. Edwards, James R. (2005). Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fee, Gordon D. (1995). Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Finley, Moses I. (1980). Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. New York: Chatto & Windus. Fowl, Stephen E. (2005). Philippians: The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Garnsey, Peter & Richard Saller (1997). “Patronal Power Relations.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, R. H. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 96–103. Glancy, Jennifer A. (2002). Slavery in Early Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press. Griffin, Miriam T. (1984). Nero: The End of a Dynasty. New Haven: Yale University Press. Harries, Jill (2006). “Violence, Victims and the Legal Tradition in Late Antiquity.” Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices. H. A. Drake, ed. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 85–102. Harrill, J. Albert (2006). Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hawthorne, Gerald F. & Ralph P. Martin (2004). Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 43. Earlier published in 1971, rev. and expanded by R. P. Martin. Nashville: Nelson Publishers. Heil, John Paul (2010). Philippians: Let Us Rejoice in Being Conformed to Christ. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Hooker, Morna D. (2003). “Philemon.” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, J. D. G. Dunn & J. W. Rogerson, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1447–1450. Horsley, Richard A. (1997a). “The Gospel of Imperial Salvation: Introduction.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 10–24. Horsley, Richard A. (1997b). “1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society.” Paul and the Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. R. A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 242–252. Horsley, Richard A. (1998). “The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity and Their Reluctant Recognition by Modern Scholars.” Semeia 83: 84, 19–66. Horsley, Richard A. (2008). “Jesus and the Empire.” In the Shadow of the Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance. R. A. Horsley, ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 75–96.

190  The prison letters Horsley, Richard A. (2011). Jesus and the Powers: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hurtado, Larry W. (2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Jenson, Philip Peter (1995). “The Levitical Sacrificial System.” Sacrifice in the Bible. R. T. Beckwith & M. J. Selman, eds. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 25–40. Jewett, Robert (2007). Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kahl, Brigitte (2010). Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis: Fortress. Keshgegian, Flora A. (2000). Redeeming Memories: A Theology of Healing and Transformation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Kreitzer, Larry J. (2008). Philemon. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. Krentz, Edgar (2003). “Paul, Games and the Military.” Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. J. Paul Sampley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 344–83. Lampe, Peter (2010). “Affects and Emotions in the Rhetoric of Paul’s Letter to Philemon.” Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. D. F. Tolmie, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 61–77. Lazarus, Richard (1999). Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. New York: Springer. Lazarus, Richard & Susan Folkman (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. Lendon, J. E. (1997). Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Malina, Bruce J. (2001). The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Earlier published in 1981, revised and expanded edition. Atlanta: John Knox. Martin, Dale (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. McNish, Jill L. (2004). “The Bible and the Psychology of Shame.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. vol. 3. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 239–264. Miller, William R. & Janet C’de Baca (2001). Quantum Change: When Epiphanies and Sudden Insights Transform Ordinary Lives. New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, Margaret M. (2002). The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation. Earlier published in 2000. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Moxnes, Halvor (2005). “Honor and Shame.” The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendricksons, 19–40. O’Brien, Peter T. (1991). The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pargament, Kenneth I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Patterson, Orlando (1982). Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Peters, Edward M. (1995). “Prison before the Prison: The Antique and Medieval Worlds.” The Oxford History of Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society. N. Morris & D. J. Rothman, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–43. Reed, Jeffrey T. (1997). A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 136, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

The prison letters 191 Reumann, John (2008). Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible, Vol 33B. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Sampley, J. Paul (2003). “Introduction.” Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. J. P. Sampley, ed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1–16. Schnelle, Udo (2005). Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Earlier published in 2003. M. E. Boring, trans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Segal, Alan F. (1990). Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press. Silva, Moisés (2005). Philippians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2nd ed., first published in 1992. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing. Sölle, Dorothee (1967). Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology after the “Death of God.” D. Lewis, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress. Spiegel, Yorick (1978). The Grief Process: Analysis and Counseling. Earlier published in 1973. E. Duke, trans. Nashville: Abingdon. Steyn, Gert J. (1995). “Some Figures of Style in the Epistle to Philemon: Their Contribution Towards the Persuasive Nature of the Epistle.” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 77, 64–80. Tolmie, D. Francois (2010). “Tendencies in the Research on the Letter to Philemon since 1980.” Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. D. F. Tolmie, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1–27. Tovas, Sofia Torallas (2006). “Violence in the Process of Arrest and Imprisonment in Late Antique Egypt.” Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices. H. A. Drake, ed. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 103–112. Villiers, Pieter G. R. de (2010). “Love in the Letter to Philemon.” Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. D. F. Tolmie, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 181–203. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. (2010). “Paul’s Persuasive Prose: An Epistolary Analysis of the Letter to Philemon.” Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. D. F. Tolmie, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 29–60. Welborn. Laurence L. (2005). Paul, the Fool for Christ: A Study of 1 Cor 1:1–4 in Comic-Philosophic Tradition. London: T & T Clark International. Wessels, G. Francois (2010). “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity.” Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter. D. F. Tolmie, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 143–168. Witherington, Ben (1994). Friendship and Finances in Philippi: The Letter of Paul to the Philippians. The New Testament in Context. Valley Forge: Trinity Press. Witherington, Ben (1998). The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press. Witherington, Ben (2007). The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captive Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Witherington, Ben (2011). Paul’s Letters to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

6 Conclusions and prospects for further research

It is time to summarize the findings, to consider their usefulness for contemporary theology and practice, and to offer some suggestions for further investigation. Sandra M. Schneiders’s “global criteria” ask if an interpretation “makes the text speak” and “exploits the potentiality of the text to illuminate the faith of the community without violating the canons of good exegetical and critical method.”1 The variety of appraisals of death evidenced in Paul’s letters is an aspect of those letters that calls for interpretation. The perspective of psychological coping offers a way to let the texts speak as they stand, without their emendation or rearrangement.2 It offers a plausible explanation for what could have previously been seen as an anomaly of the texts, namely the variation of attitudes toward death to which the letters testify. In addition, the perspective of psychological coping offers a conceptual framework by which the diversity becomes both meaningful and relevant. For instance, Terrance Callan’s attempt to reduce Paul’s appraisals of death to a “basic” perspective suppresses the plurality of expressions and strategies that the letters show, and renders the texts as less rich than they in fact are. By contrast, an important aspect that is emphasized by the perspective of psychological coping is that different strategies may be beneficial in different circumstances. Over the course of his years of travel and communitybuilding, Paul wrote to assist certain persons and groups in their specific circumstances. He also wrote to receive relevant assistance himself. While some twentieth-century monographs on Paul searched for unchanging and everlasting truths, the result was often readings that made normative claims about life and death but paid little attention to Paul’s historical situation and the historical situation of his assumed audience. However, fellowship and encouragement are his main goals in several of his letters. The letters are thoroughly embedded in history. Importantly, the aim of analyzing Paul’s letters from the perspective of coping is not to discern some sort of ‘highest’ level or supreme attitude, but to appreciate the variety of different appraisals, approaches, and strategies that Paul employs with different situations, persons, and periods, and also to understand how these strategies generally build upon each other. In

Conclusions and prospects for further research 193 other words, psychological coping does not imply that the later examples of Paul’s appraisals and strategies are necessarily the better and the rest can be disregarded, but rather, it that each letter may be contributory in its own specific circumstances.

Appraisals of death and processes of coping in Paul’s letters If the letters are seen as small windows into history – catching small glimpses – the differences we have identified between the letters can be seen as traces of an ongoing process, or of ongoing processes. Paul changed his perceptions and behavior, as this study has shown, not only when he first became a Christ-believer, but as it seems, throughout his life. He himself underwent transformation during his period of letter-writing. Furthermore, the appraisals of death in Paul’s letters change in a way that the theory of psychological coping leads us to expect. Traces of the succeeding phases of shock/denial, reaction, processing, and acceptance can be found in Paul’s letters in regard to his attitudes toward death.3 In the earliest letter we possess, 1 Thessalonians, Paul understands and evaluates death as being of little concern to his situation and that of his addressees. Although both his and their lives are described in the letter as being threatened by persecution (1:6; 2:14–16; 3:1–4; 4:12–18), Paul encourages his addressees to ignore these risks. Not only this, but he also suggests that they minimize their reaction to these deaths that have already taken place, as if to minimize the risk of their reconsidering their chosen path and perhaps refraining from the fellowship of the Christ-believers: “Do not mourn as those who have no hope” (4:13–18). Nothing should be allowed to disturb their commitment to the gospel and to “life in Christ.” Paul’s approach to death is thus quite pragmatic and arises from his urgent eschatological viewpoint. He does not want the Christ-believers in Thessaloniki to be alarmed, or to reconsider their commitment. Instead, they are encouraged to go on as before. While there also may be political and economic reasons for the injunction to minimize mourning, its implications for psychological coping are still the same: there is no time to weep. Paul emphasizes the importance, for the Thessalonians, of keeping to their newfound life, edifying each other, keeping peace with one another, and with everybody (5:11–22). In an acute phase of psychological coping with the threat of death, the most adequate strategy is sometimes to “shut off” the emotions and to postpone reaction and psychological processing for the sake of survival.4 All available resources are to be directed toward keeping the present threat at bay (see 3:6–13; 5:12–28). Survival can clearly be envisioned in different ways. In 1 Thessalonians, survival is understood as preserving the integrity of the group but not necessarily the survival of its individual members. Fear of apostasy is expressed throughout the letter but not the fear of individual demise (although indirectly in 5:23). Paul’s occasional aggressiveness in the

194  Conclusions and prospects for further research letter indicates that the situation is understood as a challenge, that is, a threat that can be overcome by means of verve and determination. Such a strategy may even result in a possible gain (cf. 4:16–17). In 1 Thessalonians, Paul envisions himself as being among the living when the “day of the Lord” comes, but the severity of the Thessalonians’ existential situation appears to be under-emphasized.5 The suppressed commemoration of the dead also serves the same end. “To deny the reality of the threat, to call on others for emotional support, to persist in one’s approach to living are some of the ways people try to preserve the means and ends of significance in hard times.”6 In Galatians, Paul refers to five kinds of persecution or destruction. First, Paul describes how his previous commitment in “zeal for the traditions of the fathers” led him to persecution and to destroy the “church of God” (1:13–14, 23).7 Second, the Galatians are depicted as biting and devouring one another nearly to the point of destruction (5:15), a seeming reference to the challenge-riposte game taken to its extreme. There are also a number of indications that Paul is himself being persecuted (4:12–14, 29; 5:11; 6:17). Finally, the cross of Jesus is described both as the source of transformed perceptions about life and death, as well as a point of controversy (2:21; 5:24; 6:12–14). In Galatians, we find a clear discrepancy between Paul’s suggested and adopted behaviors. The discrepancy is an indication of the fact that the implementation of new strategies for psychological coping is likely to be a process that takes time. Meanwhile, inconsistencies may occur. The peaceful stance that Paul suggests for community relations in Galatians is not – or only partly – implemented by him in his own violent argumentation (5:22–23; cf. 1:8–9; 3:1).8 As it appears from the letter, Paul has been challenged by the Galatians or some other apostles (1:6–2:21; 4:12–20; 6:11–17), and he recurrently responds with strategies of boasting and aggressiveness (1:8–9; 3:1–4; 4:21– 5:12). However, when Paul says that he would not boast in anything but the cross of Christ (6:14), this is a clear indication that the shameful death of Jesus has been processed and reappraised by the apostle. Jesus and his followers are no longer deviants that are to be excluded or punished (cf. Gal 1:13–14), but they are the base for the formation of a new inclusive identity (see Gal 3:25–29). Still, the means that Paul adopts in the rhetoric of Galatians collide with the goals they are said to be serving, the fruit of the spirit being “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (5:22–23a).9 The inclusiveness of the gospel, which in Galatians is depicted as the essential truth of the gospel (cf. 2:11–21; 3:6–29), is advocated for by Paul by means of ridicule and exclusion (1:8– 9; 4:29–30). He urges the addressees to cease boasting (5:22–26), but he boasts himself (1:10–24; 2:1–21). He urges them to be patient and gentle (5:22–26), but he exhorts them by means of an offensive and a condescending attitude (3:1). The implementation of the “fruits of the Spirit” appears to be a work in progress in Paul’s personal case, insofar as he does not exemplify them when faced with the threat of replacement.10

Conclusions and prospects for further research 195 In 1 Corinthians, Paul’s aggression is turned against death itself. Death is characterized as the last enemy that will be destroyed (15:24–26). The letter gives a polarized depiction of life and death and expresses a strongly negative reaction against death. Death is sometimes perceived as a punishment for sins and sometimes as a foe to be conquered. The rationalized aggression (that we may call conventional “wisdom teaching”) recurs in the letter with expressions such as “if anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him” (3:17a).11 Still, Jesus’ death is contrastingly described as the wisdom of God, and the power of God (1:24–25). Premature death is thereby recast as a possible path even for the pious: not all who die a premature death deserve it as a punishment from God. Several actual physical deaths are mentioned and responded to in this letter. Some have become weak and sick, and even died – maybe from malnutrition – because of others’ unwillingness to include, wait, and share the meal when the Corinthian Christ-believers gather to celebrate the Lord’s supper (11:17–34). As suggested in the analysis, it was most likely some of the poor members who had become weak before falling sick and then dying because of the faulty way of celebration in the assembly.12 The passage thus indicates Paul’s capacity to identify with those in misfortune. Paul also writes that some of the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus have died (15:6b), and he offers an extensive syllogistic argument for belief in resurrection (15:1–58). But even though Paul assumes that he will be alive until “the day of the Lord,” his personal death seems to have drawn closer in his imagination. He still expects to be alive until the last trumpet himself, though (15:51). There is a clear tension in 1 Corinthians between, on the one hand, the type of conventional wisdom that holds that those who die prematurely probably deserve it (10:1–10; cf. 3:17), and on the other, the death of Jesus and of some of his followers (1:18–25; 11:17–34; 15:6). Resurrection serves as the conceptual and theological means to solve the problem of the premature death of the pious.13 But in some ways the tension is only concealed – not solved – by means of this belief. Paul pointedly claims that if there is no resurrection, his personal life would become unbearable (15:30–32). Without resurrection everything is empty, in vain, futile (1 Cor 15:2, 14, 17–18, 29–34, 58).14 In the face of division, debate, and death, Paul suggests the strategies of conservation and increased effort, which resemble the first coping strategy in Pargament’s depiction, namely to keep the goals and the keep the means with intensified commitment.15 In the beginning of 2 Corinthians, we find the first trace from Paul realizing that he may die himself. The letter begins with Paul’s account of an experience that made him and his fellow workers “despair even of life” (1:8–11). As the letter continues, Paul relates this type of experience over and over again – in what have been called his peristasis catalogues – but to two distinct ends. The first end is establishing communality and support between himself and the addressees (see 1:11; 4:15; cf. 6:10), and the

196  Conclusions and prospects for further research other is securing that the addressees do not interpret the afflictions that Paul and his fellow workers have suffered as a dishonorable trait (see 6:3; 10:7; 11:16; 12:11–13). The extensive lists of affliction and persecution include hard work, whippings, imprisonment, being beaten with rods, stoning, and shipwrecks (see 4:8–12; 6:4–5; 11:23–27; 12:10). An important aspect of the publicity of the punishments was the function of them to discredit the “troublemakers.”16 Nowhere in these lists is premature death depicted as a punishment by God. Moreover, Paul no longer assumes that he will be alive till the end of time himself (4:14). Presuming that not much time had passed since Paul dictated 1 Corinthians, this is very interesting. He begins the letter with claiming that he does not want the addressees to remain ignorant of how he and his fellow workers had suffered in Asia (1:8–9), but we find no indication that the overall situation had shifted fundamentally compared to the situations of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 Thessalonians. Therefore, the shift of appraisal of his personal fate seems to be the result of Paul’s processing of his experiences, perhaps the changing nature of his relationship to the Corinthian believers, and the accumulative experience of affliction. In 2 Corinthians, Paul claims that if anyone is in Christ, he/she has indeed become a new creation (5:17).17 Paul re-valuates not only the death of the pious, but also weakness itself, and he renegotiates the notions of honor. Nevertheless, his goal is still to preserve his honor, which is a conservative trait. In both the Corinthian correspondence and Galatians, Paul appears to have been challenged. In order to rebuild a new sense of self, i.e. new pathways and new goals of significance, one must generally “tear down” or “fall apart,” i.e. the person must start from an earlier stage of maturation than the one he/she had achieved before the coping process began. This implies that the pathway to become a “new creation” generally starts with a set-back.18 In relation to Pargament’s matrix of coping strategies on the theme of conservation and transformation of means and ends, 2 Corinthians shows the traits of the beginning of the strategy of re-creation, that is, that both the means and the ends may be transformed eventually.19 In Romans, however, Paul speaks about his own death without turning away. He perceives that he might face danger if returning to Jerusalem, but he nevertheless plans to go there (15:25–27, 30–31). His intention to go to Jerusalem speaks of agency and resistance. His stated willingness to “be accursed from Christ” if that would help the Israelites, his “countrymen according to the flesh” speaks indeed of a kind of boldness in weakness, and a capability to imagine his own life as a means (9:3–4). In this letter, the strategies that are suggested and adopted are coherent with the goals that are depicted. Boasting is depicted as the primus motors of a destructive way of life. Romans contains the injunction to “not be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good” (12:21), an exhortation that explicitly renounces the challenge-riposte game and illustrates a transformed means toward a transformed end. However, the challenge-riposte game, which is refuted on the human level, appears occasionally as valid on the divine level.

Conclusions and prospects for further research 197 Paul perceives a need to assure that God, who apparently failed to punish sins previously, is still being righteous (3:21–52; cf. 5:8–10). In Philippians, Paul describes the faith-life of the Christ-believers as an ongoing process. He has personally not yet attained the promised resurrection, but he keeps his eyes on his goal. Even death can be construed as something positive in this letter (1:18b–26). Paul’s own death is presented as an unproblematic and quite possible short-term future. Assuming that his imprisonment implied that Paul’s case had not yet been decided by the court, his capacity to cope with such an unpredictable situation is remarkable (see 1:19–26; 2:23–24).20 Again, the rhetorical situation is important. Paul writes the letter to encourage his addressees in their own strife (1:3– 6). This is a reason for us to assume that he attenuates rather than overemphasizes the severity of his own situation. The unfailing joy is striking. But what is more important is that Paul manages to relate to complicated emotions – such as shame and pain – in a modest and considerate way. Suffering is continuously present in the rhetoric of Philippians, but alongside these recognitions of suffering we find expressions of joy and injunctions to the addressees to rejoice. Suffering and afflictions are mostly indicated by implicit references and subordinated clauses (e.g. 1:12, 20). In Philippians, an extraordinary flexibility and openness is also presented. Even those who preach with insincere motives are appreciated by Paul (1:15–18; cf. Gal 1:6–9). Paul indicates that he is in the process of maturation, which is a sign of maturity (cf. Phil 3:12). In Philippians, suffering is related and remembered which Keshgegian emphasizes is essential for making such experiences contributory to ongoing life.21 Both perceptions and behavior are transformed in relation to death (see 1:21) and also in relation to aspirations to honor among men (see 3:3– 9). Even in prison Paul appears to be a resourceful person. He claims to have learned to be content, whatever the circumstances (4:12–13), which also seems to be related to Keshgegian’s second memory practice of remembering resistance and agency.22 Philippians also clearly encourages focusing on the good, undamaged life: “Whatever things that are true, whatever things that are noble, whatever things that are just, whatever things that are pure, whatever things that are lovely, whatever things that are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy – meditate on these things” (4:8).23 Paul’s capacity to care for the fate of Epaphroditus is also a trait of resourcefulness and empathy. The short letter to Philemon shares many traits with Philippians. Every account of Paul’s personal situation is given with the aim of securing the safety of Onesimus and of improving Onesimus’s position and prospects when he returns to Philemon. Paul’s personal honor is of no interest in this letter, except when it can be rhetorically employed on Philemon for the benefit of Onesimus (8–9, 14, 17, 21). Although Paul presents himself as imprisoned, he appears to be a resourceful person in terms of intellectual capacity, rhetoric skills, personal connections, and positive expectations. If

198  Conclusions and prospects for further research Paul currently is facing lethal danger, as his imprisonment implies, this is presented only as it can help sway the mind and actions of Philemon. Both Philippians and Philemon show the traits of a Paul who has coped with his fate. Whether it is execution and public humiliation, or release and restored honor, Paul seems reconciled to his fate. To summarize, the glimpses together give a possible picture of a person who gradually copes with his fate. Starting with denial, or avoidance of the issues relating to death, Paul reacts, processes, and finally accepts his own death.24 In other words, the traces of a coping process embedded in Paul’s letters resemble the phases that have been depicted in psychological studies worldwide. And while the early and mid-period letters are more conservative, the late letters present traces of more transformative coping strategies. Another interesting feature is that the level of coherence between goals and means, and between the strategies that are adopted and the strategies that are suggested, increases gradually. Notably, Paul’s attitudes toward boasting and violence undergo a similar course of change over time as do his attitudes toward death. From being something inflicted upon others, death becomes an enemy, is processed, and finally is befriended (see Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:20–27; 2 Cor 4:1–5:10; Phil 1:19–26; 3:20–21). We may note that Paul’s two most joyful letters – Philippians and Philemon – seem to be written from imprisonment (Phil 1:7, 13, 16; Phlm 9, 23). Even a casual reading thereby refutes Barrett’s hypothesis that Paul’s various attitudes toward death can be understood as merely reflections of the circumstances he encountered.25 A connection between joy and imprisonment is clearly counter-intuitive and presumes some kind of processing. However, in some respects the coping styles of the first and the last letters resemble each other. In his earliest letter, Paul prefers a deferring coping style (see 1 Thess 5:24).26 Philippians and Philemon also show traits of a similar coping style. As in 1 Thessalonians, Paul expresses his trust in Jesus’ coming soon to put everything in order. He trusts that Philemon will do what he desires and that the Philippians will receive Epaphroditus honorably. However, these latter examples also involve traits of a cooperative attitude, and the deferring coping styles of Philippians and Philemon may owe more to practical circumstances – the imprisonment – than to a personal inclination toward a deferring coping style. The coping process outlined above is based on a hypothetical chronological sequence of the letters, but given the variability of the process, even a slightly different chronological ordering would yield roughly similar results. I would say that the perspective of psychological coping adds to the evidence in favor of a late date of Philippians and Philemon, albeit the perspective of psychological coping cannot provide a decisive argument for any chronological sequence. As is often the case in biblical studies, we have to work with accumulative evidence, rather than decisive arguments. I hold it less likely, however, that Philippians and Philemon would be mid-period letters. It is quite a leap, for example, from condemning other preachers

Conclusions and prospects for further research 199 merely for being other, as in Galatians 1:8–9, to even approving the preaching out of insincere motives, as in Philippians 1:15–18. The gradually increasing coherence between means and ends point in the same direction, namely that Philippians and Philemon are late letters. We also see a gradually increasing sensitivity in Paul toward the meek or humble, starting with Jesus and finally including himself (as one who by men is humble). The generosity, consideration, and ability to focus on others are missing in his mid-period letters, where Paul appears more self-absorbed and preoccupied with his reputation. The attitudes aimed at boasting are missing in Philippians and Philemon, where Paul indeed appears quite uninterested in honor among men.

Psychology, rhetoric, and history Throughout the present study, I have emphasized that the psychological approach to Pauline letters is not alien to rhetorical and strictly historical considerations. The perspective of psychological coping stresses the importance of discerning the specific historical situation for understanding the appraisals that are being made, and the strategies that are developed, in relation to this situation. The details of the historical situation are often not explicitly elaborated in Paul’s letters, but often only referred to in brief comments. In many cases, Paul assumes that his addressees share the same information about their respective situations, and the descriptions of the situation often rather emanate more from the senders’ wish to influence the perception of their audience than from a need to inform about the situations as such. This feature makes the rhetorical situation essential to the interpretation of the letters. The letters, as with any communication, always takes place in a rhetorical situation. In his contacts with the newly established assemblies of Christ-believers, Paul tries to enhance the loyalty and belief in the resurrected Christ and in the reconciliation of God. He tries to support the adherents in drawing the conclusions of such beliefs for practical behavior, and in implementing these transformed practices. As we may deduce from the letters, his conclusions were not always obvious to all of the adherents. For being an upperclass person of Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, Paul seems to be more concerned about the poor and those in servanthood than was expected of persons in his social strata. For instance, the passage of admonition about unworthy behavior in relation to the Lord’s supper may be an example of Paul’s gradually developed care for the humbled (see 1 Cor 11:17–34). The passage is probably not concerned with the fate of those who were well provided for, as has been the habitual interpretation, but with the starvation and marginalization of the members who were weak and economically poor. In this context, Jesus is put forward as a role model in sharing generously with everyone and including even the humble in his body. The body of Christ is generally a collective body, in which also the humbled must be

200  Conclusions and prospects for further research discerned as important parts (see 1 Cor 12:12–26). Indeed, one of Paul’s last letters is devoted to enhance the prospects of what seems to be a run-away slave (see Phlm). In Romans, he emphasizes over and over again that the disgrace of standing in relation with other nations has been annulled. It is of great importance to Paul how the identity of being a Christ-believer is to be understood in relation to other group identities, and other identity markers. No one is entitled to boast – not even the Christ-believers (Rom 3:27–31, 11:16–24)! I have tried to discern Paul’s idiolect, and one thing has become clear. Paul seems to always understand the individual as being part of a group, even though he places a great deal of importance on the choices and perspectives of the individual. The Christ-believers are depicted as “in Christ,” and this becomes an extremely important identity, especially when other identities sway. The concepts of σάρξ and σῶμα are anthropological concepts in Paul, and they are collectively oriented concepts. They speak of a person as part of a group or of the group itself. As can be expected, Paul does not give much for human arrangements of in-group belonging. Moreover, certain concepts that have traditionally been loaded with existential or religious meaning appear for Paul to be concerned mainly with interpersonal meaning. For instance, πίστις (Eng. faithfulness) is a socially and politically oriented term. To claim πίστις toward an executed villain such as Jesus was therefore not merely an epistemological or religious stance, but a highly political one as well. However, Paul claims that also God is, or has, πίστις, for instance, toward the Christ-believers of Corinth, implying that God remains loyal to them (1 Cor 1:9). Similarly, crucifixion was a politically charged term (cf. Gal 6:12; Phil 3:18). To claim loyalty to a crucified Christ implied by extension a challenge to Rome. It is bold on the border to recklessness to claim to be waiting for another savior from inside a Roman confinement, since the epithet savior was nearly exclusively attributed to the emperor. The challenge-riposte game was a very important aspect of Paul’s world, and the general importance given to the mode of death and dying in regard to honor or shame have proven relevant in relation to Paul’s appraisals of death and his coping strategies, as they are indicated by his letters. Whereas other scholars have preferred a psychological or existential interpretation, I occasionally suggest a political or social interpretation. For instance, the passage about a “verdict of death” makes more sense if the verdict Paul and his coworkers had been saved from – and hoped to be saved from again – was, as Margaret E. Thrall puts it, close to a death sentence (see 2 Cor 1:8– 11).27 Several discourses in Paul’s letters can easily be interpreted as serious challenges toward his former in-group, and therefore such a verdict would not be unsurmised (see e.g. 1 Thess 2:14–16; Gal 6:12–13; 2 Cor 3:1–18). If, as Halvor Moxnes and others emphasize, any encounter with a person outside the family sphere was readily interpreted as a challenge to the family’s honor, being an itinerant “apostle to the nations” was also most likely an insecure, and sometimes even perilous endeavor. As the letters indicate,

Conclusions and prospects for further research 201 Paul and his fellow workers were met not only with suspicion but also animosity by some of their kin and some of their potential adherents (cf. Rom 15:30–31; 2 Cor 11:23–26, etc.). The rash reality of the challenge-riposte game is acknowledged in the investigation in several instances. Paul was a special person with a special history.28 The knowledge of Paul’s life is in some instances an important resource for understanding his communication. For example, his metaphor of a veil that is lifted in Christ is likely a depiction of his own experience of a revelation (see 2 Cor 3:16; Rom 3:21–22). He changed his life radically after his vision of the risen Christ. Knowing that it generally takes both time and effort to adjust one’s life after such a vision, the identity of the so-called “wretched I” of Romans 6–7 is quite clearly a depiction of the struggle to implement his newfound convictions. As such, it is likely a depiction of Paul’s post-conversional past, rhetorically construed to be helpful to his audience. Paul had possibly a quite coherent attitude and approach to life and death, before his vision of the risen one turned everything upside-down. His new perspective implied that a crucified “deviant” was being placed in the middle of his construct of identity. He had to process his previous thoughts and behavior and also, as a strenuous consequence, had to implement a partly new set of concepts and practices. According to Paul himself, he had to radically transform his perception of the world in general – and of Jesus in particular – as he also transformed his conduct. Therefore, temporary and intermittent inconsistencies are more or less to be expected in such a process. The “wretched I” of Romans 7 is constructed with an eye to his audience, as Paul probably imagined that his audience currently faced the same struggle that he himself had experienced when he became a Christ-believer. As in many other cases, he uses personal experience in his exhortation as a resource to comfort and admonish his addressees. The perspective of psychological coping may help us to become more sensitive to the historical situation, as well as to the language as subjectively anchored, rhetorically construed accounts relating to that situation. The challenge-riposte game was important also in Paul’s interpretation of premature death. In his early letters, Paul relies mainly on a conventional type of wisdom teaching that assumes that the impious will die a premature death by the hand of God, not only as a consequence but as a punishment. The righteousness of God seems threatened if God does not punish sins accordingly (see 1 Thess 2:16). However, also Jesus appears to have died such a dishonorable death. In Paul’s mid-period letters, conventional wisdom is placed alongside the appreciation of Jesus’ death both as a mystery and as a hidden wisdom. In Romans, the practices and attitudes of the challenge-riposte game are clearly discouraged in humans (albeit occasionally presumed in God; see Rom 3:25). While the challenge-riposte game is essential for the historical understanding of Jesus’ death, the activities of Paul and his fellow workers could easily have been appraised as a potential threat to the established order as

202  Conclusions and prospects for further research well, and therefore they present a reason for persecution, punishments, and eventual execution. In Galatians, Jesus’ mode of death is put forward as a reason for the persecution against his followers, which means that not only what the followers did but also what kind of person they claimed loyalty to mattered. The uncertainty of Paul’s personal prospects when imprisoned is highly compatible with what we know from other historical sources about the situation of persons in prison. The outcome of an official trial could be extremely unpredictable, especially when the charge of crime was not clearly defined. Moreover, the honor of the convict was an important aspect in the trial, and the honor of a person like Paul – who had shifted in-group belonging – being a difficult matter of interpretation. It even seems like the behavior of his people outside prison could have an impact on the trial (see Phil 1:15). The execution of Paul himself is mysteriously missing in our early sources. Probably the authors deemed it better to not have an outright offensive document to the Roman authorities in their hands. In-group belonging, and the honor of that group, were immensely important factors in the historical situation of Paul.

Psychology, theology, and beyond When one account or perspective is allowed to dominate, the others suffer. The appreciation of Paul’s letters as expressions of subjective appraisals offers a conceptual aid to avoid making suppressive readings. Many attempts to “reconcile” Pauline accounts into one single perspective are unnecessary and sometimes also counterproductive. Since each letter has its own rhetorical situation and purpose, the changes do not have to constitute disturbing “incoherences” but they more likely find their place in a sound and reasonable variation. To be more specific in relation to the present study, psychological coping always starts with a person or group appraising a situation as stressful, that is, implying a threat, challenge, loss, or harm to the significant values or practices of that group or person. The misguided aspiration to find a universal and ahistorical truth in Paul’s letters runs the risk of making whatever results irrelevant to everybody, instead of letting them be relevant to some persons and groups, such as, for example, persons whose situation in some way resembles the situations that Paul’s letters deal with or emanate from. In many cases the attempt to find a universally true perspective has resulted in suppressive readings, instead of aiding historical persons in historical situations, and the imposed monolithic character of the discourse has become a problem in itself. For instance, with the assumption that Paul’s “basic attitude” toward death was negative,29 we have a piece of knowledge without use or sense, since it is deprived of all dynamic attributes and practical application. One contribution of the perspective of psychological coping to the field of biblical theology is the perspective that different circumstances may require different strategies. This is admittedly nothing new to the pastoral side of

Conclusions and prospects for further research 203 theology, where the question of what passage or book to actualize in a particular situation is always acknowledged as relevant. However, some other branches of theology seem to have worked with a more simplistic notion of coherency, as also quite a few scholars of psychology in the early twentieth century had a tendency to reduce the multitude and complexity of individual human experience into a universal human experience (an “all-explaining paradigm”). Thus, scholars of both theology and psychology had a tendency to reduce a multitude of beneficial perspectives into one coherent “theology” or “psychology.” Their notions of coherency were often imposed on the texts and on the historical human beings, and rendered them less complex and rich than they actually were and are. Further study may offer better understanding of the complex and evolving relationships between persons and their situations as historically situated and mutually influencing each other. The encounter between theology and psychology has the capacity to aid both disciplines to distance themselves from some of their totalizing or overreaching tendencies, and the growing awareness of the interconnectedness between various themes and practices may add depth and nuance to the quite broad lines drawn here. As J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins put it, “out of the dialogue between psychology and the Bible comes the realization that there are no saints in the process: religion can be therapeutic but also pathogenic; psychology can enlighten or distort.”30 Psychology brings the question of health to theology, and theology brings the question of personal significance and possible relations to the sacred to psychology. Since the relation between the person and the situation is essential, the perspective of psychological coping is one important way of helping us regain a sensitivity to the person, or the author, the historical situation, and the encounter between these two. The perspective of psychological coping is based on the premise that we will develop no coping strategies unless we perceive the situation as stressful. In other words, a situation may pose a lethal threat to us, but unless we perceive it as such, we do nothing to try to deal with it. But when we appraise a situation as stressful, we react to it, processes it, and try to respond to it with strategies of conservation and/or transformation. The letters of Paul constitute an excellent example of collective psychological coping, and attempts to aid collective psychological coping. When his letters are allowed to be historically situated and understood to embody, among other emphases, his coping strategies toward the threat of death, Paul’s letters can also be related to other historical situations. It is then possible to discern differences and similarities, as well as possible resources and burdens for psychological coping in other historical situations. Even if the situations that we try to cope with are different from the situations that Paul and his first audiences encountered, some aspects may be similar, and what is more important, some of the resources that are identified by Paul as resources for coping may also be available to us. Our discussion of coping processes in Paul’s ancient letters may open our eyes to similar processes in the twenty-first century.

204  Conclusions and prospects for further research One issue that weighs heavily on my mind is the climate crisis. I believe the concept of psychological coping is a helpful conceptual tool in understanding why nothing, or so little, is being done in relation to this aggravating issue. If the lives we lead – myself being a privileged woman in Scandinavia – ruin the requisites for life on earth for future generations, of course there would be no higher priority than to change our ways immediately. As such, a catastrophe that is man-made has the positive side of being possible to influence; we may reverse our actions and start down a better path. However, a catastrophe that is possible to influence for humans may at first glance seem worse, because change takes effort. Additionally, guilt is generally a difficult emotion to handle and is therefore an impediment to the coping process advancing toward practical change and transformed goals. We hesitate to realize and internalize that we are a part of the problem. Another threat against significant values, which periodically crops up in modern society, is economic turmoil, or economical distress. When we hesitate to deal with the systematic problems in society (which we ourselves are a part of), a poor coping strategy entails blaming those who have weaker positions than ourselves. Suddenly people irrationally blame the deviants – even though these persons or groups often have less political influence in the same society – which is a feature with clear parallels to Paul and the rhetorical situation of his letters (albeit in his case those deviants were the early Christians). In this instance, Paul’s strategy of identifying himself with the risen Christ, and over time also with the crucified Jesus, gives us a constructive opening. The revealing power of the crucified Christ consists, among other emphases, in the perception that he – or it – is like me, or could have been me. The desiccated crucified body is conceptually taken into the holy area and is transformed into a glorious and reconnected body. Clearly, the case shows that grace from God does not inevitably entail honor among men, or even a prosperous life. As someone said, everything will be okay in the end, and if it is not okay, it is not the end.31 On this realization we have a basis to build practical and emotional solidarity with those in misfortune. The notion of the non-human as being the ideal human (descendant of Abraham and of Adam, and ultimately son of God) is the beginning of the hard job of implementing the concept of the crucified Jesus as Christ. Solidarity is the solid base for sustainability, which is increasingly seen as the new goal for our society, both in economical and in environmental terms. Without solidarity, no sustainability. Coping strategies are to be tried and tested, and we will probably fall back into less sophisticated behavior many times – especially in times of stress – but then we try again. Paul’s call for a cross-national solidarity has perhaps never been more urgent. The collective body I am a part of also seems to be in need of the capacity of rapid transformation of both our means to reach significance and as it seems, of our idea of significance for the sake of the survival of life as we know it. In this sense, for instance, the existential and practical challenges that we face today resemble the challenges of Paul in his day.

Conclusions and prospects for further research 205 Another implication of the theories of psychological coping is that great differences indeed exist between the situations people encounter – both in our time, and between our times and earlier periods of history. Every death is not the same, nor is every life the same. The slogan “one size fits all” is seldom in accordance with reality. The historical situation is immensely important for understanding a person’s thinking and his or her ways of coping (which is commonplace in the pastoral context). As readers of scripture, we always select the passages we employ, and the ways we understand them, depending on the situation we encounter and the ends we want to reach. We may note in passing that the passage in Galatians where Paul condemns some other preacher for being other never turns up in the lectionaries of the churches, and I must say that I sympathize with that. The way we draw on certain texts, both in the official liturgical context and in private spirituality, may be improved by the studying of the original setting of the letters. This study should view the texts as part of historical situations, rhetorical projects, and personal processes. The capability to take into account the person, the historical situation, and the encounter between these two is therefore the perfect starting point for a discussion on what biblical texts may be helpful in what situations and to what ends. Biblical studies in this area bear the potential to reach the nuanced results that are true to the complex character of both the texts and people.

Notes 1 Schneiders 1991, 165. 2 Sandra M. Schneiders warns against making gratuitous rearrangement and emendation of the biblical text, instead of trying to explain its anomalies; Schneiders 1991, 165–66. 3 See Cullberg 1993, 33–41; cf. Kübler-Ross 2001, 34–12; Parkes 1998, 31–106; Bowlby 1998, 85–96; Spiegel 1978, 61. 4 Cf. Spiegel 1978, 63–70. 5 Cf. Best 1972, 135. 6 Pargament 1997, 111. 7 Paul notes that he was on top when he destroyed the “church of God,” which implies that he was an excellent partaker in the challenge-riposte game; see Gal 1:13–14. We also find a trace that previously Paul may have been preaching circumcision himself; see Gal 5:11. 8 The fruit of the Spirit is the clear opposites to the attitudes and approaches required by the challenge-riposte game; see Moxnes 2005, 19–40; cf. Gal 5:22–23. 9 See Pargament’s depiction of “clashes within.” Pargament 2007, 143. 10 “Anyone who replaces me treats me as dead.” Sölle 1967, 21. 11 Similarly, Paul contends in regard to the Exodus event that “with most of them God was not well pleased, and their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (10:5). Note that a proper burial was attributed utmost importance during this period in all cultures around the Mediterranean basin; see Hope 2009, 2, 179–81. 12 See 1 Corinthians 11:18, 21, 33. Cf. Martin 1995, 74; Talbert 1989, 74–75. 13 See Davies 1999, 185.

206  Conclusions and prospects for further research 14 See Yorick Spiegel’s depiction of the experience of the world as “unreal,” and “breaking down” as characteristic for one of the phases of coping with bereavement; Spiegel 1978, 66–70. The defense mechanism of reaction formation implies that the opposite emotion than the one that is expressed is “unthinkable” and impossible to relate to, which resembles the expressions of 1 Corinthians when the opposite of the faith that is preached is just “vain,” “empty,” and “futile.” See Cullberg 1993, 82. 15 Pargament 1997, 111–12. 16 Neyrey 1999, 166. 17 Cf. Pargament 1997, 112–114. 18 See Spiegel 1978, 70–80. 19 Cf. Pargament 1997, 111–14. 20 See Lazarus & Folkman 1984, 91–92. 21 See Keshgegian 2000, 121. 22 See Keshgegian 2000, 121. 23 Cf. Keshgegian’s emphasis on remembering the flourishing and whole life; Keshgegian 2000, 124. 24 Cf. Cullberg 1993, 36. 25 See Barrett 1994, 55. 26 For a comment on a deferring coping style, see Pargament 1997, 293. 27 Thrall 2004, 118. 28 See Witherington 1998, 205. 29 Cf. Callan 1990, 101, 113. 30 Ellens & Rollins 2004, 15. 31 Naomi Stanford attributes the quote to John Lennon; Stanford 2013, 209.

Bibliography Barrett, Charles K. (1994). Paul: An Introduction to His Thought. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. Best, Ernest (1972). The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. London: A. & C. Black. Bloch, Abraham P. (1980). The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies. New York: Ktav Publ. Bowlby, John (1998). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and Depression. London: Pimlico. Callan, Terrance (1990). Psychological Perspectives on the Life of Paul: An application of the methodology of Gerd Theissen. Lewistown/Queenstown/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen. Cullberg, Johan (1993). Dynamisk psykiatri. Earlier published in 1984. Värnamo: Natur och Kultur. Davies, Jon (1999). Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London: Routledge. Ellens, J. Harold & Wayne G. Rollins (2004). “Introduction.” Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Vol. 1. J. H. Ellens & W. G. Rollins, eds. Westport: Praeger, 1–16. Hope, Valerie M. (2009). Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London/New York: Continuum. Keshgegian, Flora A. (2000). Redeeming Memories: A Theology of Healing and Transformation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Conclusions and prospects for further research 207 Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth (2001). On Death and Dying. Earlier published in 1970. London: Routledge. Lazarus, Richard & Susan Folkman (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer. Martin, Dale (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Moxnes, Halvor (2005). “Honor and Shame.” The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendricksons, 19–40. Neyrey, Jerome H. (1999). “ ‘Despising the Shame of the Cross:’ Honor and Shame in the Johannine Passion Narrative.” Social-Scientific Approached to New Testament Interpretation. D. H. Horrell, ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 151–176. Pargament, Kenneth I. (1997). The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice. New York: Guilford Press. Pargament, Kenneth I. (2007). Spiritually Integrated Psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the Sacred. New York: Guilford Press. Parkes, Colin Murray (1998). Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life. 3rd rev. ed., earlier published in 1972. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Schneiders, Sandra M. (1991). The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Sölle, Dorothee (1967). Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology after the “Death of God.” D. Lewis, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress. Spiegel, Yorick (1978). The Grief Process: Analysis and Counseling. Earlier published in 1973. E. Duke, trans. Nashville: Abingdon. Stanford, Naomi (2013). Organizational Health: An Integrated Approach to Building Optimum Performance. London: Kogan Page. Talbert, Charles H. (1989). Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. New York: Crossroad. Thrall, Margaret E. (2004). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. First published in 1994. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Witherington, Ben (1998). The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press.

Index

Abraham, the patriarch 36n29, 75, 125n89, 139, 204 Adam, the primordial man 36n29, 139, 141, 153n46, 204 baptism 5, 78, 80, 90n151, 139 – 40, 146, 153n42, 154n73 Barrett, Charles K. 19, 42n179, 42n186, 122n21, 142, 145, 151n6, 153n39, 198 Beck, James R. 6, 36n24, 44n225, 86n58, 87n61, 139, 147, 153n41, 153n44, 154n78 challenge–riposte game 30 – 1, 57, 69, 70, 76 – 7, 79, 82 – 3, 85n35, 107, 111, 120, 133, 138, 142 – 5, 148, 151, 177, 153n37, 153n57, 181, 185n54, 194, 196, 200 – 1; see also honor Cicero, Marcus Tullius 34 – 5, 44n247, 46n275, 46n280 – 1, 66, 84n11, 86n48, 86n50, 87n64, 179n14, 154n62, 186n87 coherency 2, 7 – 8, 19, 28, 39n116, 42n174, 80, 100, 147, 171, 183n2, 196, 198 – 9, 201, 203 Colossae 29, 44n224 condemnation 27, 32, 72, 74, 77 – 8, 83, 99, 102, 106, 112, 114, 120 – 1, 149, 205; see also prison conversion 5, 16 – 17, 20, 39n122 – 3, 78, 125n98, 125n100, 140 – 1, 145 – 6, 147, 153n42, 154n78, 201; see also quantum change Conway, Colleen M. 45n265, 46n275, 75, 89n128, 103, 123n25, 123n45, 125n87, 125n98, 149, 152n21, 154n84

coping phases 11 – 16, 19, 29, 38n76, 58 – 9, 101, 106, 123n35, 124n57, 193, 198, 206n14; acceptance 1, 13, 16, 193, 198; denial 1, 5, 9, 11, 13 – 14, 16, 193, 198; processing 1, 9, 11, 13 – 14, 16, 115, 172, 193, 198; reaction 1, 9 – 10, 13 – 16, 64, 97, 101, 105 – 7, 118, 193, 195; reorientation 9, 11, 14, 63 – 4 coping strategies 1 – 3, 7 – 12, 14, 16 – 18, 29, 62, 64 – 5, 67 – 8, 77, 106 – 7, 118, 121, 139, 151, 192 – 6, 198 – 200, 202 – 4; conservation 1, 9 – 11, 17, 59, 62, 64, 106, 169, 195 – 6, 198, 203; “new creation” 13, 77, 121, 196; preservation 10, 29, 64, 106; reconstruction 10 – 11, 120, 127n133; re–creation 11, 196; re–valuation 10 – 11, 77, 120, 127n133, 141, 196; transformation 1, 9 – 10, 15 – 22, 35, 65, 69, 72, 77 – 80, 101, 108, 111 – 15, 118 – 21, 127n133, 133, 139 – 51, 153n41, 159, 168 – 70, 182, 193 – 204 coping styles 1, 9, 37n53, 59, 62, 67 – 8, 86n49, 116, 123n35, 151, 155n96, 168, 198, 206n26; collaborative 1, 9, 37n53, 116, 151, 155n96, 186n161; deferring 1, 9, 37n53, 59, 62, 67 – 8, 86n49, 102, 123n35, 155n96, 162, 168, 186n161, 198, 206n26; self–directing 1, 9, 37n53, 116, 155n96 Corinth 22 – 3, 25, 31, 56, 66, 98 – 100, 102, 119 – 20, 122n6, 124n66, 134, 200; Corinthian correspondence 1 – 2, 5, 20, 22 – 6, 28, 41n157, 41n159, 55, 58, 87n70, 97 – 128, 133, 195 – 6, 206n14

Index  209 crucifixion 69, 71, 74 – 8, 81 – 3, 97, 102, 114, 146, 168, 182, 200 – 1, 204 defense mechanisms 5, 11, 60, 66, 106, 150, 170, 176, 206n14; demonization 60; intellectualization 106, 148, 150; rationalization 154n82; reaction formation 170, 176, 186n69, 206n14; regression 13, 60, 65, 80, 124n62; simplistic thinking 65, 203 Dunn, James D. G. 19, 40n133, 41n154, 41n159, 87n77, 87n80, 89n117, 89n127, 126n108, 154n69, 154n78 emotion 5, 9 – 12, 16, 25, 28, 33, 39n107, 59, 62, 66 – 8, 78, 84n11, 102, 115, 144 – 5, 148, 164, 170, 172, 174 – 5, 182, 193 – 4, 197, 204, 206n14; aggression 1, 59 – 62, 67 – 9, 71, 73, 77, 79, 81, 101, 108, 193 – 5; anxiety 12, 14, 31, 66 – 8, 121, 145, 176; fear 5, 57, 60, 62, 66 – 70, 74, 83, 84n11, 85n38, 98 – 9, 106 – 7, 111 – 12, 114, 117, 121, 137 – 8, 145, 163 – 4, 166 – 7, 171, 173, 188n118, 193; guilt 12 – 15, 59 – 61, 80, 86n42, 145, 204; hope 12, 22, 34, 55, 60, 62 – 5, 68, 90n153, 108, 109, 116 – 17, 121, 124n45, 133, 136, 138, 147, 149 – 50, 162, 170 – 1, 174 – 5, 187n108, 193, 200; joy/ happiness 1, 12, 21, 37n49, 66, 68, 75, 144, 149, 150, 162 – 5, 167, 169 – 72, 194, 197 – 8; sadness/sorrow 9, 12, 14, 34 – 5, 62, 66 – 8, 111, 114, 145, 148, 156, 162, 165 – 6; shame 3, 12, 29 – 32, 45n265, 59, 73 – 4, 76, 78 – 9, 97, 99 – 100, 105, 112, 117, 119, 123n41, 127n129, 139, 145, 148, 161 – 3, 175, 185n53, 194, 197, 200

90n153, 96, 125n98, 143, 199, 202, 205 Greco-Roman cultural milieu 18, 20, 28 – 36, 46n275, 63, 71 – 2, 80, 100, 109, 113, 122n17 – 18, 123n25, 123n45, 125n98, 164, 175, 181, 186n71, 199; see also challenge-riposte game; Cicero; honor; Plutarch; Roman empire; Seneca, the Younger Hardin, K. Justin 30, 70 – 1, 88n95, 88n102 – 4, 121n2, 154n64 honor 3, 20, 29 – 32, 39n121, 44n244, 63, 72, 74, 76, 79, 82 – 3, 84n16, 86n53, 87n77, 88n85, 89n131, 99, 101, 103, 107 – 8, 111, 115 – 17, 120, 123n41, 127n121, 135 – 6, 138, 142 – 6, 148 – 50, 152n26, 154n68, 157, 160 – 1, 171, 175, 196 – 200, 202, 204; boasting 74, 77, 80, 98, 103, 113, 115 – 17, 120, 126n118, 133 – 8, 143 – 5, 153n37, 159, 194, 196, 198 – 200; honoring the dead 63; see also challenge–riposte game Hope, Valerie M. 33, 35, 45n268, 46n275, 46n277, 46n281, 86n48, 86n50 – 1, 86n53, 108, 123n45, 124n74 – 5, 125n98, 205n11 Hopkins, Keith 30, 44n236, 44n239 – 40, 45n253, 46n277, 86n50 Horsley, Richard A. 42n185, 44n247, 88n93, 88n95, 125n93, 154n62, 155n94, 185n55 Jewett, Robert 40n134, 40n140, 40n144 – 5, 41n153, 41n158, 42n179, 42n186, 56, 66, 87n77, 89n129, 134, 138, 142, 151n5 – 6, 152n9, 152n11, 152n21, 152n27, 153n42, 153n45, 154n69, 154n73 – 4 Josephus 73, 85n36, 121n2, 122n8, 174, 187n91

famine 23, 98, 137, 149; poverty 25, 99 – 100, 111, 134, 199, 204; starvation 100, 122n16, 199 Folkman, Susan 9 – 12, 36n2, 87n67, 187n111

Keshgegian, Flora A. 9, 15 – 16, 66 – 7, 87n76, 150, 155n90, 155n92, 169, 174, 186n63, 197, 206n23 Kübler–Ross, Elisabeth 13 – 14, 16, 38n78 – 9, 87n68, 123n28

Galatia 5, 22, 24, 39n132, 69 – 70, 73 – 4, 77; Galatians, the letter 1 – 2, 5, 19 – 24, 26, 28, 39n122, 40n133, 41n157, 41n159, 55, 65, 68 – 83,

Lazarus, Richard 9 – 12, 36n2, 67, 87n67, 90n141, 174, 187n111 Lord’s supper 5, 99 – 100, 106, 123n22, 195, 199

210 Index loyalty 31, 57, 59, 69, 70 – 1, 73, 75 – 7, 79, 82, 88n95, 88n104, 126n111, 143, 145, 154n62, 161, 163, 170, 173 – 4, 179, 182, 185n56, 199, 200, 202; friendship 33 – 5, 45n271, 57, 62, 67, 79, 115, 154n62, 154n68, 174; love 3, 5, 15, 32, 60, 64, 68, 75 – 6, 79, 81, 83, 86n42, 88n90, 101, 104, 108, 111, 143, 145, 149, 153n43, 169, 173 – 5, 177, 179 – 80, 187n104, 197 Malina, Bruce J. 84n14, 89n124, 90n140, 122n22, 125n85, 127n131, 185n54 Martin, Ralph 28, 42n187, 89n129, 122n18, 122n22, 157, 161, 163 – 5, 175, 152n21, 152n31, 184n14, 184n19, 184n22, 185n44, 186n71 masculinity 75, 103, 123n25, 125n87, 152n22, 156 Miller, William & Janet C’de Baca 17, 21, 39n131, 79 – 80, 90n149, 141 mourning 6, 13, 31 – 6, 45n271, 46n274, 58, 60, 62 – 4, 66, 86n41, 86n53, 114, 193; consolation letters 34 – 6, 46n279, 46n281, 62, 66, 86n48, 86n50; mourning periods 13, 29, 32 – 4, 63, 123n29 Moxnes, Halvor 31, 39n121, 45n265, 84n16, 85n35, 88n85, 90n140, 123n41, 126n111, 127n121, 151n1, 153n36, 154n64, 185n54, 186n97, 200, 205n8 Pargament, Kenneth I. 9 – 11, 13, 15, 17, 36n3 – 4, 37n49, 37n51, 37n53, 37n56, 37n58, 38n59 – 62, 38n64 – 5, 38n74, 38n87, 38n91, 62, 77, 80, 87n67, 87n71, 101 – 2, 106, 121, 123n35, 151, 154n71, 155n96, 177, 186n61, 195 – 6, 205n9, 206n26 persecution 1, 20, 22 – 3, 39, 55, 57 – 61, 63 – 77, 82 – 3, 84n18, 85n22, 99, 101, 103 – 4, 109 – 10, 114, 116, 123n46, 124n56, 126n105, 137 – 8, 141, 144, 149, 153n60, 169, 172, 193 – 4, 196, 202; see also physical safety Philemon 1 – 2, 22 – 3, 29, 43n222, 44n222, 44n225, 55, 159, 177 – 80, 186n87, 187n104, 187n107, 187n108, 197 – 9

Philippi 22, 26, 28 – 9, 42n203, 44n231, 155 – 6, 163 – 4; Philippians 1 – 2, 6, 19, 21 – 3, 26 – 9, 42n203, 43n216, 44n227, 46n279, 55, 84n13, 90n161, 159 – 67, 183n1, 184n24, 185n47, 197 – 9 Philo 20, 89n113, 89n116 physical safety 4, 20, 31, 65 – 6, 70 – 1, 81, 114 – 15, 118, 126n111, 134, 138, 153n36, 176, 181, 197; marks, bodily 73 – 4, 83; see also persecution Plutarch 32, 43n205, 44n243, 45n268, 88n110, 122n7 prison 1, 21 – 2, 26 – 7, 30, 43n205, 44n227, 113, 119, 126n115, 138, 159 – 83, 187n97, 187n107, 188n111, 196 – 8, 202; see also condemnation quantum change 17, 21, 65, 80, 90n148 – 9; see also conversion Reed, Jeffrey T. 7, 39n116, 42n174, 43n212, 43n214, 43n216, 183n2 resurrection 3, 5, 62 – 3, 79, 81 – 3, 86n51, 97, 100 – 7, 109, 121, 139, 146, 149, 166, 168 – 70, 195, 197, 199 rhetoric strategies 5, 28 – 9, 69, 78, 88n89, 105, 115, 117, 199, 201, 204; deliberative letter style 122n20; epideictic letter style 56, 84n11, 152n9 Roman empire 29 – 32, 44n236, 55, 70 – 1, 81 – 3, 85n36, 87n78, 98, 121n2, 133 – 51, 157, 163, 174, 181, 185n55; Roman citizenship 27, 55, 58, 175; Roman colonies 55, 98; Roman provenance 26 – 7, 29, 42n187, 183n1; Roman provinces 24, 69; see also Greco-Roman cultural milieu; Romans, the letter Romans, the letter 1 – 2, 22 – 3, 25 – 6, 28, 41n157, 41n159, 42n185, 55, 85n33, 87n77, 133 – 51, 155n95, 179, 181, 183, 196, 199 – 201; see also Greco-Roman cultural milieu; Roman empire Schneiders, Sandra M. 6, 8, 29, 37n34, 192, 205n2 Segal, Alan F. 5, 17, 125n100, 141

Index  211 Seneca, the Younger 35, 44n240, 44n247, 46n282, 70, 86n48, 88n95, 127n129 slavery 30, 32, 34, 43n204, 73, 77 – 8, 80 – 1, 98, 119, 126n115, 135, 171, 177 – 8, 182, 187n101, 187n103, 187n108, 188n118, 200; metaphorically 139, 146, 153n39, 163, 184 society, collectively oriented 74, 84n14, 89n127, 120, 125n85, 143, 161, 204; collective body 74, 100, 105, 110, 122n13, 127n131, 161, 162 – 3, 199, 204; collective psychological coping 1, 203; collective sender 56, 84n13 Spiegel, Yorick 13, 15 – 16, 33, 38n82, 45n271, 60, 80, 85n33, 87n83, 90n152, 101, 106, 123n29, 124n57, 124n62, 206n14 Stendahl, Krister 39n123, 42n185, 59, 84, 84 – 5n18, 125n93

Thessaloniki 55 – 7, 84n6, 85n22, 88n104, 193; 1 Thessalonians 1 – 2, 6, 22 – 4, 40n152, 46n279, 55 – 68, 83 – 4n1, 84n9, 85n26, 85n33, 196, 198, 200; 2 Thessalonians 40n141 Tolmie, Francois D. 73, 88n89, 88n90, 90n138, 90n153 violence 20, 30, 73, 81 – 2, 108, 112 – 13, 135, 138, 141, 153n57, 198; abuse 15, 74, 86n51, 139, 153n59; insult 30, 57, 126n105; offense 57, 63, 71, 111, 138, 148, 150, 161; verbal violence 69 Witherington, Ben 39n112, 44n227, 44n231, 84n2, 84n11, 84n14, 85n36, 86n61, 88n104, 88n109, 89n123 – 4, 122n13, 125n98, 127n132, 141, 152n21, 153n47, 185n53, 186n187