Paul and the Stoics 9780567661098

Citation preview

Preface

This is a book about Paul far more than the Stoics. It is part of the current fascinating and laborious retrieval of Paul from the dominant Protestant tradition of reading him, a retrieval that began almost exactly a hundred years ago in works by Paul Wernle, William Wrede and Albert Schweitzer and took off again, after the period of Dialectical Theology or Neo-Orthodoxy, in Pauline classics of the last quarter of the 20th century by Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, Gerd Theissen and others. The book is an attempt to solve, from within the new perspective on Paul, issues in the understanding of his thought that have partly remained on the agenda from the traditional reading and partly arisen from the new perspective itself. In order to achieve this, the book aims to situate Paul's thought firmly within the ancient ethical tradition as this was inaugurated by Plato's Socrates, developed by Aristotle and given classic shape in Stoicism. There is no claim that the resulting interpretation is the only valid one. The days are fortunately gone when anybody could make a claim for interpretive hegemony. Instead, the position is that there is a reading here which helps to solve a number of issues and that should be seen as complementing other recent interpretations of Paulnot least those stressing his Jewish profile-rather than as a substitute for them. The book has had a long gestation. I had published a book on Aristotle's ethical theory in 1983. In 1984 I then became attached as a non-teaching research scholar to the Department of Biblical Exegesis, Copenhagen University, while working on a similar book on Stoic ethics which was eventually published in 1990. Concomitantly I began serious work on Paul. This was furthered by a research professorship from 1986 to 1991, awarded by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities-but hampered by my (otherwise very stimulating) involvement as co-director ix

I

An Essay in Interpretation

This book is the result of a long-standing effort to reach a comprehensive and coherent understanding, not only of the relationship between Paul and Stoicism, but also, and indeed mainly, of Paul. It springs from a sense that there is a need now in Pauline scholarship to reopen vigorously the old question of the coherence of Paul's ideas in the letters, but to do it from a different perspective than the traditional, theological one within which it has hitherto been seen. And its central thesis is that the major obstacles to finding coherence in Paul's ideas that scholars have stumbled against throughout much of the 2.oth century can be sufficiently removed once one reads Paul-the whole of Paul, not just this or that fairly restricted motif-in the light of Stoicism and the ancient ethical tradition generally. This agenda owes a vital impetus to the change in Pauline studies that has been taking place over the last 2. 5 years, as exemplified in the work of such widely different scholars as Abraham]. Malherbe, Wayne A. Meeks, Heikki Raisanen, E. P. Sanders, Krister Stendahl and Gerd Theissen.' What binds together their work and distinguishes it both from the traditional theological reading to which they were reacting and also from other contemporary work of the same theological kind is a determination to stay squarely historical-critical in the analysis of Paul and either to circumvent (Malherbe, Meeks, Theissen) or directly to question (Raisanen, Sanders, Stendahl) a more distinctly theological reading. For present purposes the latter may be defined here as that of Dialectical Theology or Neo-Orthodoxy as exemplified by scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Kasemann (notwithstanding the clear differences between the two) and its heirs among contemporary students of Paul. The reaction to that kind of reading among scholars like those mentioned first has been enormously fruitful and healthy. It has reinstalled the best I

2

The Model

This chapter presents the model I claim underlies much of Paul's thought and practice in the letters. The model pertains most directly to Paul's 'anthropology' and 'ethics'. It expresses the basic logical shape of thatas well as of Stoic 'anthropology' and 'ethics'. It is important to realize from the start the heuristic character of the model. It is an abstraction, drawn from the particularities of Paul's thought in three of his letters and from Stoicism in the many forms in which we know it. It is identical with neither. It leaves something out of both bodies of thought, while focusing attention on other things. But it also includes an extensive area of overlap between Stoic and Pauline 'anthropology' and 'ethics'. While the shape of this specific area is most extensively worked out in Stoicism, there are enough indications in Paul to show that there ;s an overlap. The asymmetry in this relationship is in itself quite un surprising. After all, Stoicism was a philosophy and hence a discipline whose raison d'etre (though not its only task) was precisely to develop the concepts needed to define an 'anthropology' and 'ethics'. What matters is that there is in fact material enough in Paul to show that he himself shared that 'anthropology' and 'ethics'. The model has no independent value. In particular, it should not be considered on its own as stating what amounts to a shorthand reduction of either Pauline or Stoic thought. Rather, it functions as a map of reading the two bodies of thought in their own particularity. It should not be understood as directing attention away from the text itself, but rather towards it. Thus its immediate value lies in its ability to bring a sufficient amount of order to the complexities of each body of thought taken in its entirety and on its own. As we saw in the previous chapter, the comparison of Paul with the Stoics has this particular exegetical purpose, not just that of a basic stocktaking of 'similarities' and 'differences'. At 33

3

The Stoics

How was the I--+X--+S-model fleshed out by the Stoics? In discussing this, we shall have two aims. One is to focus on the features which are central to the Stoic ethical system when looked at in its own terms. We want to obtain a sure grasp of Stoic ethics as a whole, not just to look at individual motifs. This is partly because what we are after is 'a comparison of (whole) patterns of thought' (to paraphrase E. P. Sanders), partly because in this way we may fill in a gap in present-day New Testament scholarship. Most scholars have heard of, say, the Stoic wise man (sophos), the 'indifferents' (adiaphora) or Stoic 'freedom' (eleutheria), but few have studied Stoic ethics as a comprehensive philosophical system. Nor is that strange. For although Stoicism has been alive all through history, and also in historical critical scholarship on the New Testament since the beginning of that, it is only within the last 20 to 30 years that scholars of ancient philosophy have engaged in a philosophically sophisticated study of this philosophy.' We must consider the basic features of Stoic ethical thought in its own right and we must study it as a comprehensive philosophical system. This agenda should not put off New Testament scholars. After all, together with Aristotle the Stoics formulated a comprehensive way of thinking about human life that has had enormous influence on European thought-running alongside Christianity-from the Church Fathers through Aquinas to Kant and beyond. 3 The other aim is to focus on features that will turn out to be directly relevant to the study of Paul. In spite of any intrinsic interest they may have, we will not allow ourselves to discuss details of the Stoic system merely for their own sake. Thus the reader should constantly bear in mind that all Stoic themes discussed in this chapter will in principle come up again in the reading of Paul, unlikely as it may seem before the connections have been made. The reason why it is possible to fulfil both J

45

4

Philippians I The Problem and the Beginning of a Solution

The issue of structure and overall meaning In this chapter we shall begin the direct study of Paul by looking at his letter to the Philippians. The task is to show that the I~X~S-model helps to elucidate this Pauline text when it is allowed to bring in a number of ideas that go with it in its specifically Stoic form. The fundamental aim is to elucidate Paul. One can only justify the claim that one should (also) read Paul in the light of Stoicism and the I~X~S-model Stoically understood if the result of such a reading genuinely adds to the understanding of the Pauline text seen, as it were, on its own. The text must 'itself' become better understood when read from a specific perspectivein this case, a Stoic one-for that perspective to be vindicated. (As always, however, there will be other perspectives too that may be applied to the same effect.) I begin from setting aside a number of traditional, mainly historical issues in the reading of the letter. It is not that they are unimportant. But they have been extensively discussed. And even if they were finally solved, that would not in the least end serious work on the letter. On the contrary, I aim here to bring us forward to the further question of the overall meaning of the letter in a more comprehensive sense to be specified. It is here that the Stoic thesis will show its fruitfulness. There are quite a number of unsolved problems in Philippians, some of which may even be unsolvable.' For instance, the wish for a wholly specific answer to the question of Paul's aim or aims in writing the letter is likely to remain unfulfilled. It seems clear that he is sending the letter (if indeed it is a single one, see below) back to Philippi together with Epaphroditus (i) with thanks for a recent gift of money that he had brought from them to Paul while he was in prison (in Ephesus, as I shall take it) and (ii) in order to recommend him to them: see 2:25-30 together 81

5

Philippians II The Solution Developed

Paul's turning towards the Philippians: the logic of paraklesis Joy, suffering, partnership, progression, an eschatological goal, righteousness, identity with Christ and Christ as model: in the previous chapter we considered only some of these recurrent motifs. Discussion of the eschatological goal and righteousness will be reserved for the end of the present one. Before that we shall consider the rest: partnership, progression, identity with Christ and Christ as model. The argument will be that they can all be brought together under the idea of Paul-the 'sage' and 'teacher', the one who knows-'bending down' to the Philippiansto be understood as his 'quasi-pupils', who know less, but are progressing in knowledge-in order to make them 'move up' by their own means to his own level of insight. Furthermore, it will be claimed that this idea defines Paul's own notion of paraklesis-and that Philippians is, first and foremost, a letter of paraklesis. Three points should be noted in the notion of paraklesis as so defined: (i) that it operates within a field of understanding and knowledge of a special kind, (ii) the specific point of speaking of 'bending down' and 'moving up', and (iii) the point of saying that the quasi-pupils should move up 'by their own means'. The three points go very closely together. They are to be understood, as I shall show, within the framework of the I~X and X~I lines as we established these for Paul in the previous chapter. Only now we must add that the change in normative selfidentification not only results from getting to know Christ by acquaintance. It is also a matter of acquiring a new form of propositional knowledge: a piece of normative knowledge that defines the X-pole with which one identifies oneself, one for which Christ, as it were, stands. It is because Paul has acquired that kind of knowledge that he pursues his paraklesis the way he does. 10 5

6

Galatians I The Problem and the Beginning of a Solution

This and the next chapter are intended to show that with regard to Paul's letter to the Galatians too, we shall obtain the best grasp of what the letter is ultimately about by bringing in the I~X~S-model in its Stoic form. The discussion will be focused around a specific section of the letter, 5: I 3-26, and the question of how this so-called 'parenetical' section fits into the letter as a whole. The argument will be that this section constitutes the culmination of Paul's argument and that it brings out a number of altogether crucial features in Paul's picture of the genuinely Christ-believing form of life. As always, our ultimate concern will be to grasp the basic features of this picture, the underlying logical structure of the Christ-believing form of life as presented in Galatians. Like we did in the case of Philippians, we shall begin by considering the formal structure of the letter, in this case from placing 5:13-26 (or 5:13-6:10) within that. Next I shall define three different 'levels' of discourse in the Pauline text in order to give us some tools for handling the concepts of 'theology', 'ethics' and 'parenesis'. With these preliminary issues out of the way, we shall address the central task of the two chapters: to provide a reading of the letter as a whole that aims to bring out the basic pillars supporting the form of life that Paul wished his Galatian addressees to adopt. As might be expected, these pillars consist of a number of beliefs about God and his acts, about Christ and about the relationship of the Christ-believer with God and Christ and with others. We shall see, however, that these beliefs all come together in a coherent picture centred on the question of personal identity and selfidentification, of how the Christ-believing I sees him- or herself. That theme will engage us in the rest of this chapter. In the next chapter we shall then turn directly to 5:13-26 and provide a reading of that section that will display its culminating role and show the social dimension of Christ-believing self-identification. 131

7

Galatians II The Solution Developed

Other-directedness: the spirit and love in 5:I3-26-with a prelude on 5:5- 6 In the previous chapter we saw that a number of apparently quite important passages in Galatians are best elucidated in terms of selfidentification and the I~X- and Ba-relationship of the I~X~S-model in its Stoic form. It is now time to turn to our primary passage, 5:13-2.6. The aim is to show that here too the I~X~S-model in its Stoic form will help us, and now not only to understand better what Paul is at all talking about seen a little from above, but also to analyse his argument better at the direct, textual level. We shall see that the passage is basically about two things: (i) the Bb-relationship at the S-pole of the model (S~S), that is, other-directedness, and (ii) a mental attitude that will issue in expressing one's relatedness to Christ (S~X) and to the others (S~S) in actual practice (at the C-level that we distinguished). Both themes have been introduced by Paul with inimitable terseness in 5:6, when he stated that the only thing that matters in Christ Jesus is faith that is '[ii] active [i) in love'. We shall discuss other-directedness in this section and practice in the next. First, however, it is worth asking how pistis (faith and faithfulness) and the pneuma (spirit) should be placed in relation to one another within the model. For whereas we have hitherto been mainly concerned with pistis, the pneuma takes centre stage in 5:13-2.6. A traditional reading of Paul will say that pistis is a term for the I~X relationship and therefore specifically connected with the 'theological' theme of a person's standing in relation to God, including the issue of justification and righteousness. The pneuma may then be taken to refer rather to the I~S or S~S relationship and thus to be specifically connected with the 'ethical' part of the system. Versions of this position have been dominant in 2.oth157

8

Romans I The Problem

The issue of structure, letter situation and overall meaning The basic structure of Romans is not in itself very difficult to grasp. It need not be repeated here. More difficult-indeed a matter of almost perennial discussion-is the question of how the various parts of the letter contribute to its overall meaning and what that meaning is. One may certainly question the fruitfulness of the search for a 'single meaning'. On the other hand, looking for the overall meaning is not necessarily looking for one thing alone. The overall meaning of the letter may have many sides to it. The question will be whether we shall be able to hold them together as contributing to some logical and pragmatic whole. To a large degree the difficulties hang on the question of establishing the situation behind the letter. Recent scholarship has gradually moved away from the traditional way of reading the letter either as a kind of theological tractate or at least as a generalizing, summary statement of Paul's 'theology' almost completely unrelated to any supposed letter situation.' Instead, scholars rightly insist that the letter must be understood against some fairly specific reconstruction of the letter situation in the same way as this is done for the other Pauline letters) It is true that in Romans Paul does not respond directly to questions from the congregation (like in I Corinthians) or to some new situation in it (like in Galatians). There is also the difference, which Paul himself does not in the least conceal (cf. 15:20), that he is here writing to congregations that he had not himself founded and that were largely unknown to him personally. One might therefore conclude that the side of the letter situation that is most immediately relevant to the letter is the one that has to do with its sender, Paul himself. 4 And indeed, it does look (e.g. in chapter I, see 1:8-15) as if he is writing on his own initiative and for I

179

9

Romans II The Solution

In 1:18-3:20 Paul has identified a failure in directed ness towards God as the fundamental problem that explains why all Jews and gentiles outside the Christ faith are 'under sin'. In 3:21-4:25 he presents the solution, which is of course to be found in faith in the God who has raised the Lord Jesus from the dead (4:24). Formally, 3:21 ff continues (well into chapter 4) the dialogue with a Jew that was begun in 2:17. This Jew is now told the meaning of the Christ event (3:21-26), its consequences for Jewish kauchesis vis-a-vis non-Jews (3:27-31) and how the particular kind of faith engendered by the Christ event has in fact been introduced already in the story of Abraham's faith (chapter 4). The net result is that just as Jews and gentiles outside the Christ faith shared the fate of being under sin (3:9, 22-23), so they also share in God's righteousness and with the same basis in Christ faith (3: 30, 4: II - 12, 16). We should ask about the phenomenology in this. How did Paul understand this kind of faith? And exactly how would this particular type of faith constitute a solution to the problem as set out in 1:183:20? 3:21-4:25 answers the first question, 6:1-8:13 the second. In showing this we shall make no attempt to provide a rigorous and detailed exegesis of these highly complex passages. Rather, we shall attempt to draw out of Paul's rich discourse the basic underlying points they make in relation to the problem he has set up in 1:18-3:20 and discuss to what extent they may be seen to operate within the framework of logical categories I am arguing we should apply to the analysis of Paul. 1

Total directedness towards God: 3:21-4:25 and onwards (5:I-II and 8:I4-39)

Two closely connected points are central in 3:21-4:25. First, God's intervention with the Christ event was totally gratuitous, totally undeserved, 217

10

Romans III The Solution Developed

Summary of chapters on Romans 1-8, and two observations on Romans 9-11 Paul's argument in chapters 1-8 of Romans is complicated both in literary terms and also in the quite extravagant mixture of motifs that he brings in. But the specific line we have attempted to follow is not very complicated. At the risk of being repetitive, I shall summarize our findings so far in order to make the line stand out as clearly as possible. Paul begins (1:18-3:2.0) by describing a pervasive state of being 'under sin', which he ascribes to both gentiles and Jews before Christ. Based on his description in 3 :2.0 ff of the solution to this situation, we saw that the basic feature of the earlier state was a failure to stand in the proper relationship with God, the one of total human directedness towards God captured in the line I~X in the I~X~S-model. That line was broken and human beings had, to varying degrees, turned towards themselves: I~1. This was most clear in the case of gentiles (1:18-32.); but Jews too (2.:17-2.4) mistook their intrinsically correct relationship with God through the law as an occasion for adopting an attitude towards gentiles that reflected the same mistaken directedness towards themselves. The basic problem, then, was a lack of the proper, total directed ness towards God. However, Paul also developed this idea in an 'ethical' direction in two different ways. In the case of gentiles, he focused on the substantive 'ethical' implications of the failing 'religious' relationship: the immoral life that resulted from it. Here the line I~I, 'religiously' understood, turned into the same line, I~I, 'ethically' understood. Paul had a double target here, partly immoral acts related specifically to the body and pardy acts that reflected a whole range of social vices. Both types were explained in terms of giving undue weight to the bodily individual and its intrinsically self-based and self-directed perspective. Instead of being whole-heartedly 257

II

Conclusion

Paul Paul was driven by a vision. Things had been done by God in the past. And things would be done in the future. But then there also was a meantime. Here Paul had a task and his addressees had one. Paul's task was partly the missionary one of spreading the word further-to the gentiles. That is clear from his own account in Gal 1-2, and Romans 15 spells out the urgency of his sense that he now had to move on, through Rome, to the second half of the Mediterranean area and preach the gospel there. Partly, however, Paul's task was directed to building up the congregations he had already founded. That is the purpose of his letters. His addressees too had a task. That was to bring to fruition what had happened to them when they were established as Christ-believers by Paul. Paul's upbuilding purpose with his letters was to help them fulfil that task. For Paul's upbuilding task and for that of his addressees focus was on anthropology, on explicating the character of the involvement of the addressees (and indeed of Paul too) in the two framing events initiated by God. To elucidate this, Paul made use of a comprehensive, but also sharply focused model that had been developed in Stoicism, the I~X~S­ model. In terms of this model he aimed to bring out the precise character of the initial involvement of his addressees, their 'conversion', their coming to Christ faith. That was captured in the movement I~X. But he also aimed to bring out the precise character of the final goal of their involvement. That was captured in the movement I~(X~)S and in his elaboration of the new form of life at the S-pole. One crucially important result of our analysis was that although Paul was certainly able to keep these two themes apart logically and for purposes of presentation, they in fact hang inextricably together. Put 293

Ab brevia tions

AB

Anchor Bible

AGP

Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt

AP

Ancient Philosophy

AIDan

Acta Theologica Danica

BBB

Bonner biblische Beitrage

BETL

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BEvT

Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie

BFCT

Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie

Bib

Biblica

BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

BK

Bibel und Kirche

BSac

Bibliotheca Sacra

BulBR

Bulletin for Biblical Research

BulICS

Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies

BWANT

Beitrage zur Wissenschaft yom Alten und Neuen Testament

BZ

Biblische Zeitschrift

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 379

Bibliography

The bibliography lists works that are quoted in the book. It also contains a number of unquoted works from which I have learnt or against which I have tested my own views. The fact that a given work is not actually quoted does not, of course, imply any adverse opinion on its quality or importance. For all abbreviations see the preceding list. AAGESON, J. W. 1986. 'Scripture and Structure in the Development of the Argument in Romans 9-11'. CBQ 48, 2.65-89. ACHTEMEIER, P. J. 1985. Romans. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: Knox. -

1996. 'The Continuing Quest for Coherence in St. Paul: An Experiment in Thought'. In Lovering, Jr. and Sumney (eds) 1996, 132.-45.

ADAMS, E. 1997. 'Abraham's Faith and Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links between Romans I and 4'. ]SNT 65,47-66. ALETIl, J.-N. 1987. 'L'Argumentation paulinienne en Rm 9'. Bib 68, 41-56. 1988. 'Rm 1,18-3,2.0. Incoherence ou coherence de I'argumentation paulinienne?' Bib 69, 47-62..

-

1996. 'Romains 2.. Sa coherence et sa fonction'. Bib 77,15.3-77.

-

1997. 'Romains 5,12.-2.1. Logique, sens et function'. Bib 78, 3-32..

ALEXANDER,1. 1989. 'Hellenistic Letter-Forms and the Structure of Philippians'. ]SNT37,87-IOI ALTHAUS, P. 1951. "' ... Dass ihr nicht tut, was ihr wollt" (Zur Auslegung von Gal. 5, 17)'· TLZ 76,15-18. AMADI-AzuOGo, C. A. 1996. Paul and the Law in the Arguments of Galatians: A Rhetorical and Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 2.,14-6,2.. BBB 104. Weinheim: Beltz Atheniium. ANDRESEN, C. and G. KLEIN (eds) 1979. Theologio Crucis-Signum Crucis. FS E. Dinkier. Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck).

Index of Modern Authors

Achtemeier, P. J. 350 Alexander, L. 3I 6 Annas, J. 3 10 Arnim, H. von 46 Aune, D. E. 32.1, 353 Austin, J. L. 330

Bornkamm, G. 32.4, 334, 350, 359 Bouwman, G. 32.8 Brandenburger, E. 335-6 Braun, H. 307 Brennan, T. 3 I I Breytenbach, C. 332., 333 Brucker, R. 32.3 Bultmann, R. 1,2.,6-7, la-II, 18-19, 2.8-9,4 1,42.,2.2.4,2.43,2.94,3 06,307, 308 , 3I I , 319, 334, 335, 33 6-7, 33 8, 342.,345-6,360,367,369,375 Burnyeat, M. 309 Burton, E. de W. 32.8, 339, HI Byrne, B. 35 5,359,361-2.,365, 366,368, 37 0 ,37 1,373 Bywater, I. 310

Badenas, R. 372. Barclay,J. M. G. 313, 32.4-5, 32.6-7, 32.9, 336,339,34I,343,344,34~350,

HI, 35 6 , 377 Barnes, J. 309 Barrett, C. K. 32.7, 32.8, 337 Barth, K. 32.0, H6 Bartsch, H.-W. 358 Bassler, J. M. }08, 358, 359, }62. Bateman, H. W. 31 3 Beare, F. W. 32.3 Becker, J. 32.3 Beker, J. C. 351 Belleville, L. L. 350 Berenyi, G. 333 Berry, K. L. 314, 319 Betz, H.-D. 306,32.5,32.6,32.8,32.9,332., 335,337,339, HI, 342., 343-4, 34 6 , 34 8 , H9, 372., 373 Billerbeck, M. 31 2. Bjerkelund, C. J. 32.1, 367 Black, D. A. 313, 3I5, 317, 319, 32.0, 32.2., 32.3 Bloomquist, L. G. 317 Boers, H. 355, 35 8 Bonhoffer, A. 307 Bonnard, P. 32.3, HI Bonneau, N. 331 Bormann,L·3 I 4,3 I 7

Caird, G. B. 313, 32.} Campbell, R. A. H3, 344, H5 Campbell, W. S. 356 Capper, B. J. 314, 317,3 19 Cavallin, A. 317 Chadwick, H. 375 Christensen, J. 309, 3 I I Colish, M. L. 306, 307, 309 Collange, J.-F. 31 5 Conzelmann, H. 334 Cooper, J. M. 3 I I Crafton, J. A. 375 Cranfield, C. E. B. 352., 354, 356, 361, 3 6 7,374 Cranford, M. 33 I Dahl, N. A. 313, 32.0 Davies, W. D. 308 Dawson, D. 3 I I 42.1

Index of References

The index lists whole passages, and only individual verses or minor sections where these are given spec:ial treatment.

New Testament

1:18-31·

Romans Chs I-II Chs 1-8 Chs 1-3 Ch. I I:I-IS I:S 1:6-7 1:8-15 1:11-15 1:12. 1:13 1:15 1:16-1 5: 1 3 1:16-4:2.5 1:16-17 1:16 1:17-18 1:18-8:39 1:18-5:2.1 1:18-4:2.5 1:18-3:2.0

1:18-2.:2.9 1:18-2.:16 1:18-2.:10/11

2.70-1,357.35 8 • 375 2.2.2.,2.57-9,2.70, 357-8 2.7 8""'9 2.45 352. 18 5 352. 179,181, 184 18 3 18 4 18S 352. 18 4,352. 2.95 2.0 5,2.2.2..357 186,3 60 2. 8 5 193-4, 198 2.82. 186-7, 192., 2.04, 2.7 1 ,2.99 186-7, 196, 197, 198,2.05""'9, 2.16, 2. 17.2.18,2.2.0, 2.2.1,2.2.2.,2.2.3, 2.2.4,2.52.,2.53, 2.54,2.57,2.83, 3 61 2. 8 5,3 61 3 6 2. 2.09-12.,2.82.-3

1:2.1-2.2. 1:32. Ch.2. 2.:1-6 2.:1-5 2.:1-3 2.:1 2.:7-10 2.:8 2.:9-10 2.: I III 2.-2.9

2.:11 2.:I1·-2.S 2.:12.-16

2.:14- I S 2.:1S 2.:16 2.:17 H. 2.:17-2.9 2.:17-2.7 2.:17-2.4 2.:2.3-2.4 2.:2.S-2.9 2.:2.6-2.7

42 5

H, 194, 2.00-1, 2.0S, 2.07, 2.09-Il, 2.2.4,2.57,2.5 8,2.S9. 35 8,3 61 2.79 2.11 IS, 2.2.3. 2.2.4. 2.34, 3 61 2.01-2., 2.05 18 5 377 2.11-12. 2.12. 2.12. 186,2.12.,3 60 2.12.-IS, 2.54, 2.82.-3,2.89, 3 6 2. 2.12. 2.99 2.02.-4,2.0S, 2.06,2.07-8, 2.5 8,359.3 60 , 3 61 359 3 6O ,37S 2. 89 18 5,2.17,2.60,354, 3 60 3 61 2.06 198, 2.02., 2.04-5, 2.07,2.2.2.,2.57 2.79 2.0 3-4,2.S8 2.02.,359,3 60

Index of Subjects

The subjects index is highly selective and should be used together with the two other indexes. It presupposes that the book has been read and lists only very specific discussions that the reader may wish to consult once more.

'Ethics' and 'theology', defined 136-8; and 'interchange in Christ' 333; interweaved in Galatians 158; relationship at issue throughout Romans 2.00-5

Acts, (Stoic:) 'appropriate' (kathekonta) 47,71-2.; 'right' (katorthOmata) 47, 71-2.; types of, in Galatians 164, 172. Anthropology, and cosmology/theology 6-7,24-30,44; and moral psychology 38 Attitudes, in Galatians 164-5; in Romans 274-5; see also Virtue and vice; and Internalization

Faith, of Christ 145-6, 334; as model of Paul's own 147-8; of Christ-believers, and spirit, in Galatians 157-9; and 'ethical' behaviour inseparable 176; radical (Romans 4) 220; always directed towards God 335 Flesh (sarx), defined 152-3; concept of, in scholarship 33 5-7 Friendship, in Aristotle 74; in Stoicism 75; in Philippians 126-7; and selfsufficiency 319

Boasting (kauchasthai), in Galatians 154-5; in Romans 222, 358; concept of, in scholarship 337 Body, in Stoicism 54-6, 59; in Paul (Romans) 2.10-12, 262-4; see also Flesh

Galatians, letter situation 326 (in scholarship) Good emotions (eupatheiai) 47, 72.-3

Call, God's of Paul as direct vision 144 Christ event, God's purpose with, in Galatians 141-3; 'for the sake of' sinners 144-5 Chrysippus, role in Stoicism 46; his Utopianism 77-8 Coherence 3, 5, 15-16, 2.97-8, 302., 306; or the opposite 340-1, 347, 368 Community formation 2-3, 12, 37, 42; in Stoicism 69; in Philippians 127-30; in Romans 291-2, 294 Comparison (Paul and Stoics), ch. 2 passim 47, 128, 301-2 Conscience 271-2, 375-6 Context, imponance of 9-11,306 Cynicism 75-8

Happiness 41-2, 47,65; in Aristotle 48-5I; in Stoicism 52-3, 58-60 Historical gap between Paul and us 16-2.2 Ideas 11-12 Identity, perception of 34-5,39, 53-6, 65 (Stoicism); and call, in Philippians 92-6, 129; with Christ, in Philippians 91; in Galatians 146-55; in Romans 226-33, 2.51-3; relationship of identity and behaviour in Galatians 326-8 Indicative and imperative, see Parenesis Individualism 13-14,41-3,50,65,2.27-8, 243-4,294 Internalization (Romans) 2.r:z.-15

End (te/os), see Happiness Ethical tradition, ancient, defined 3-4

433