Searching Paul: Conversations with the Jewish Apostle to the Nations. Collected Essays 3161555015, 9783161555015

Citation preview

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

429

Kathy Ehrensperger

Searching Paul Conversations with the Jewish Apostle to the Nations Collected Essays

Mohr Siebeck

Kathy Ehrensperger, born 1956; 2002 PhD; currently Research Professor of New Testament in Jewish Perspective at the Abraham Geiger Kolleg, University of Potsdam. orcid.org/0000-0001-5958-0116

ISBN 978-3-16-155501-5 / eISBN 978-3-16-155502-2 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-155502-2 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen and bound by Buch­ binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.





Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich ‫זכרונו לברכה‬ and to Ekkehard Stegemann Reliable Friends and Mentors









Preface The following essays were composed over a period of 12 years (2007–2018), originating mainly from invited lectures, and invited conference participations. They reflect my search for understanding Paul within the context of first century Jewish traditions. All of these essays have greatly benefitted from critical conversations with colleagues, who helped me to clarify and deepen some of my thoughts and arguments. As always, Bill has been my most critical reader, he put up with me when these essays originated, helped to formulate what I wanted to say in intelligible English, was patient when they were prepared for first publication, and now for publication in this collection. For his companionship I am most thankful. I am thankful for the lively distraction my growing family offered me; I am blessed with the joy of the arrival of grand-children and am deeply thankful for the continued trust with which my children and their partners let me take part in their lives. I am very proud of all of them. Over the period of the emergence of these essays some significant changes happened in my academic career. I was awarded a British Academy mid-career fellowship (2012–2013) which enabled me to focus entirely on my research on the relevance of cultural translation in Pauline studies. Not long after I was offered the great opportunity to take up a research professorship at the Abraham Geiger College, Universität Potsdam, and work in the impressive context of this higher education institution and the School of Jewish Theology at the Universität Potsdam in Germany. It is a great privilege to work together with Jewish colleagues in this unique context and be part of the re-building of Jewish academic life in Germany and continental Europe. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Dr. Walter Homolka for this opportunity and hope that this volume will contribute one of the many building blocks needed in the overcoming of anti-Judaism in New Testament interpretation and as such will further Jewish-Christian relations. Four of the essays in this volume have not been previously published. In the introductory essay written specifically for this volume, I have outlined the presuppositions and parameters which guide my approach to the New Testament and to the Pauline letters in particular within the context of contemporary scholarship which I hope will indicate and explain some of my interpretive choices and peculiarities. The three other essays are invited conference or project papers which have been revised here for publication: “Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man? Gendered Aspects of Cultural Translation,” which is a revised version of a paper presented at the 10th Nangeroni Meeting on Gender and Second Temple Judaism held in Rome in 2018; “Called to be ἅγιοι but without εὐσέβεια? Peculiarities of Cultural Translation in Paul” is the revised version of a paper presented at the Research Conference “Paul and Diaspora Judaism,” held at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, 2015; and “The Mystery of Paul’s

VIII

Preface

Mysterion in Rom 11:25–36” is the revised version of a contribution commissioned by the Käte Hamburger Kolleg “Dynamics in the History of Religions between Asia and Europe,” Focus Group “Secret,” Ruhr Universität, Bochum. All the other essays are re-published here unaltered. Since they emerged over a period of more than a decade and sometimes deal with related issues, there is occasionally some thematic overlap between parts of them. Slight changes were only made in terms of stylistic adjustments and corrections of obvious typos, a minimal updating of footnotes, and corrections of bibliographical errors. I am grateful for the permissions granted by the original publishers to reprint these essays in this volume (details see p. 441). I would also like to thank the series’ editor Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey for accepting the volume for publication in the series WUNT, and Elena Müller, the program director Theology and Jewish Studies of Mohr Siebeck, for the patience with which she thoughtfully accompanied and guided this project through the process of getting to the print stage. Above all my huge gratitude is owed to my research assistant Dr. Juni Hoppe, who patiently and with great efficiency supported the entire process of publication, by standardizing, adjusting, and formatting the essays, putting together the bibliography and indices. Without her support the process of publication would have been far more troublesome. With living and working now in Berlin and Potsdam it is as if a trajectory of my life reconnects with some beginnings in my home city in Basel, Switzerland. Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich and Ekkehard W. Stegemann were two precious friends and academic colleagues there who contributed significantly to my awareness of the permeation of anti-Judaism in Christianity and New Testament interpretation. This encouraged me to become involved in Jewish-Christian relations and inspired me to embark on an academic career. Beyond that they were reliable friends through turbulent and joyous times. It is to Ekkehard and to the memory of Lutz that I dedicate this volume – in gratitude for their friendship. Berlin, 15th of September 2019

Kathy Ehrensperger







Table of Contents



Preface ........................................................................................ VII

I. Introduction 1. Searching Paul ........................................................................... 3

II. Gender and Traditions 2. Paul and the Authority of Scripture: A Feminist Perception ... 21 3. The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul in Relation to Judaism ............................................................................... 49 4. Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man? Gendered Aspects of Cultural Translation.............................. 73 5. At the Table: Common Ground Between Paul and the Historical Jesus ................................................................. 91 6. The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι and Images of Community in Enoch Traditions ............................................................... 111

III. Among Greeks and Romans 7. Speaking Greek under Rome: Paul, the Power of Language and the Language of Power .................................................. 139 8. Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia: The Challenge of Negotiating the Spirit World (1 Cor 12:1–11) ................. 159

X

Table of Contents

9. Embodying the Ways in Christ: Paul’s Teaching of the Nations ............................................ 181 10. The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul: Peculiarities of Cultural Translation ................................... 195

IV. The Language of Belonging 11. Paul, His People, and Racial Terminology .......................... 213 12. Narratives of Belonging: The Role of Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning...................................................... 229 13. What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich in German New Testament Interpretation Past and Present ................................................................................. 247

V. Romans 14. Reading Romans “in the Face of the Other”: Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle.... 271 15. “Called to be Saints”: The Identity Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans .............................. 297 16. The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36: No Mystery But a Space for Reconciliation ....................... 319 17. The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31): Paul’s Hopes and Fears ....................................................... 339 18. The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond.......................... 353

Table of Contents

XI

VI. Early Reception 19. Striving for Office and the Exercise of Power in the “House of God”: Reading 1 Tim 3:1–16 in Light of 1 Cor 4:1 ...................... 379 20. Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories According to 1 Timothy ..................... 395 Bibliography .............................................................................. 413 Acknowledgements ................................................................... 441 Ancient Sources Index ............................................................... 443 Modern Authors Index .............................................................. 453



I. Introduction













1. Searching Paul 1. Searching Paul

The essays in this volume are trajectories of an exploratory journey with and through the literary traces Paul the Jewish apostle to the nations has left in the letters available to us. In as much as his letters are fragmentary evidence of conversations in the early Christ-movement which spanned over a longer period of time, over geographically distant places, and including people from various contexts and backgrounds, these essays are themselves fragmentary evidence of conversations in the scholarly community, which encompassed more than what has made it into the written form presented here. They are snapshots of my conversations with Paul and his interpreters over a number of years and as such they do not represent a system of interpretation but are rather nods in a multidirectional network of trajectories I explored. There are many traces that have not (yet) been explored, pathways that I am not even aware of, and others I might wish to come back to so I can deepen my understanding. So this collection is a patchwork of explorations in progress – part of an exploratory journey which continues. The topics of the essays are diverse but they came to conglomerate under certain main headings. So they are presented here in a topic related rather than in the chronological order in which they were originally published. This indicates that I came upon some trajectories of Paul from different directions, at different periods, namely “Gender and Traditions,” “Among Greeks and Romans,” “The Language of Belonging,” “Romans,” and “The Early Reception – the Emergence of Pauline Traditions.” All of these essays in different ways represent aspects of parameters which guide my approach to New Testament Studies and Paul in particular. Rather than summarizing the essays here, I will sketch the concerns and parameters which guide my reading of Paul with different aspects being in the foreground in different essays.

Hermeneutical Presuppositions – Contemporary Concerns Hermeneutical Presuppositions

My conversations with Paul are guided and shaped by my presuppositions, that is by my interests, concerns and values. I hear his letters say certain things because of the place from where I listen into his conversations, I see certain aspects because of the perspective from which I read his conversations. There is no point from nowhere. And although it is vital in academic research to take a step back from personal interests and try to do justice to the research “material” by getting as much historical, political, social, cultural, and linguistic information as possible on events, circumstances, and situations of the past, a stance of pure objectivity is not possible. Hermeneutical presuppositions shape

4

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

and color academic understanding and interpretation. I still think Sheyla Benhabib has summarized this in an excellent way: Understanding always means understanding within a framework that makes sense for us, from where we stand today. In this sense, learning the questions of the past involves posing questions to the past in light of our present preoccupations. […] Every interpretation is a conversation, with all the joys and dangers that conversations usually involve: misunderstandings as well as ellipses, innuendos as well as surfeits of meaning.1

I thus consider it vital in the business of interpretation of ancient texts and traditions to reflect on, and as far as possible lay open such presuppositions. They are rooted in, and emerge from contemporary issues rather than those in the past. This distances the approach of the interpreter from the material in question, and similarities and commonalities should not easily be assumed, nor direct conclusions be drawn between past and present. Although I am interested in understanding events and documents of antiquity, namely of Jewish traditions in the Mediterranean of the first century CE, this interest is related to my concern for Christian self-understanding in the pluralistic, interreligious world of today. The texts of the New Testament eventually were recognized as the authoritative texts of Christian traditions and as such their interpretation triggered an enormously influential world-wide reception history. Many aspects of this reception history have been, are, and will be in the focus of scholarly research. My particular concern is the fact that Christian self-understanding has been formulated over centuries in opposition to Jewish traditions and Jewish people and thereby contributed significantly to racist and “völkisch” antisemitism in the 19th and 20th century (this aspect is explicitly addressed in the essays “Paul, his People, and Racial Terminology” and “What’s in a name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich in German New Testament Interpretation: Past and Present”). An implicit question which guides all my New Testament research thus is whether there are ways to Christian self-understanding that do not use Jewish traditions and Jewish people as negative foils. Of course this concern is influenced by the horrors of the Shoah, and of course it is influenced by the concern for Jewish-Christian relations. It would be rather strange if events as those of the Shoah would not affect also academic research! Moreover, there is no way to engage meaningfully in interreligious conversations if the partners in the conversation are not treated with the highest of respect for the value of their own, different tradition. In addition, there are in my view internal reasons which render it necessary to reconsider Christian self-understanding in relation to Jewish traditions.

S. Benhabib, The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996), xxxiv. 1

Biblical Interpretation: An Open Conversation

5

The recognition that there is an intrinsic relation between Christian self-understanding and Jewish traditions has not been triggered by recent events but has been part of Christian tradition from the very beginning. The question is not whether, but how this relation has been and is being conceived by Christians. Christian self-understanding has emerged decisively in negative differentiation from Jewish traditions. In the course of the centuries clarification about who one was, and what the essence of one’s own perception and relation to the divine was, has been defined via opposition to anything Jewish. To be Christian implied an attitude of contempt and rejection to anything Jewish, and to the people who lived according to Jewish tradition, that is, the Jewish people.2 Formulations in the Pauline letters were read as supporting such perceptions. Thus Jewish traditions and Jews were part of Christian self-understanding all along. Christians seemed to be unable to say who they were without denigrating the others who read (almost) the same scriptures, also related to the one God, and continued to do so, although in different ways. The question is: Is this denigration of Jews and Jewish tradition an inherent necessity for Christian self-understanding? Is the differentiation into the two religious traditions of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity necessarily antagonistic and is antagonism against Jews and anything Jewish as such an essential part of Christianity? It is a crucial question for Jewish-Christian relations today, and Christianity has to find ways to address it for her own sake. If a denigrating negative foil is inherently necessary for Christian identity a meaningful interreligious conversation is basically impossible. I consider this a vital question in that, to base one’s self-understanding on the contempt and denigration of others who are and remain different seriously questions the very core of values claimed as Christian. The Pauline letters have been a main source and provided building blocks for Christian self-understanding at different periods of Church history often at decisive junctions, such as the Reformation or after World War I. They are necessarily part of this search for a Christian self-understanding without anti-Judaism. My journey in conversation with Paul is thus not interest- and value-free but guided by this main concern.

Biblical Interpretation: An Open Conversation – with Limitations Biblical Interpretation: An Open Conversation

The Pauline letters eventually became authoritative scripture as part of the Christian canon. But like the other New Testament writings, they were not written as such. They emerged as part of the divergence of Jewish traditions,

2



Ignatius, Magn. 10:1.3.

6

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

with the Pauline letters being written even before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE. As such these letters are historical documents of the late Second Temple period, documents of Jewish history and tradition. My journey is guided by the presupposition that they should be read as such, informed of course by most recent research into the socio-historical, cultural, political, and linguistic conditions of the period and through critical evaluation of the letters in relation to these. Paul refers to himself as someone who is and remains part of Jewish tradition, who is educated in this tradition, who understands his task as part of this tradition, who tries to understand the implications of the Christ-event relying entirely on this tradition, and who considers the traditions of the fathers and the scriptures as the authoritative guidance for his own life and that of the Christ-following groups from the non-Jewish nations. I share this perspective on Paul with others,3 and my own research is indebted to many who have been involved in this endeavor for a much longer time than I have.4 I have learned from others, I build on the research and insights of others, who were before me and are with me on this journey. Biblical Interpretation is a collective endeavor, a conversation of scholars, past and present, that will hopefully inspire scholars in the future. In as much as it is a conversation, that is, a critical interaction between colleagues, there are always new questions emerging, different perspectives opening up which challenge but also illuminate each other. As such I consider the task of interpretation not as something static, aimed at generating answers which stand the test of time forever, but as a journey in search of meaningful answers within particular contexts. As a continuous journey there is always another perspective from which to perceive and interpret, perspectives of which I had not been aware, or blind spots I could not see from where I was standing. This is not an argument for “anything goes,” but as mentioned, any interpretation has to be grounded in solid scholarly research, based on information available and relevant in support of understanding texts from the past, and argued with the scrutiny of critical reasoning as required in any academic discipline in conversation with colleagues.5 This means that where new information demonstrates that earlier interpretations were based on misinformation and wrong assumptions these of course need to be revised. In the field of New Testament

Cf. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First Century Context to the Apostle (ed. M.D. Nanos, M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). 4 Above and before anybody else I am deeply grateful for all the years I have been privileged to share in the journey with Bill, who had embarked on the challenges of this search long before I did. 5 Cf. D. Patte and C. Grenholm, “Overture: Receptions, Critical Interpretations and Scriptural Criticism,” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 1– 54. 3

Biblical Interpretation: An Open Conversation

7

Studies such an insight was triggered by the publication of E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977.6 Although already at the end of the 18th century Reimarus had located Jesus within Judaism, this had nothing to do with an accurate perception of Judaism but rather with an internal critical stance over against Christian doctrinal traditions.7 In the 19th century attention was drawn to the Jewishness of New Testament writings, mainly by Jewish scholars who demonstrated the closeness of the traditions of the New Testament with Jewish traditions, 8 but since Jewish academics were not taken seriously as scholars on equal par with Christian academics, their evidence and arguments were widely ignored.9 Leo Baeck’s book on the gospels as part of Jewish tradition and history (Das Evangelium als Urkunde der jüdischen Glaubensgeschichte, Berlin: Schocken) was published in 1938 (sic!) without triggering any response from Christian scholars. From a Christian perspective, already in 1921 George F. Moore had demonstrated that the “Judaism” of New Testament scholarship presented a highly distorted image of Jewish traditions.10 And Albert Schweitzer had argued that Paul had to be understood from within Jewish apocalyptic traditions.11 Paul’s Jewishness was acknowledged by others in the 19th century but for entirely opposite reasons. He was charged with having transformed and falsified Christianity. Paul LaGarde saw in him the reason the church had adhered to the writings of the Old Testament and thus to a Jewish understanding of history under which in his view the true gospel perished.12 With the publication of W.D. Davies’ Paul and Rabbinic Judaism the trajectory of taking Jewish tradition seriously in New Testament interpretation re-

E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 7 For an overview see W. Stegemann, Jesus und seine Zeit (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 157–80. 8 Thus Abraham Geiger wrote about Jesus “He was a Jew, a Pharisean Jew with Galilean coloring – a man who joined in the hopes of his time and who believed that those hopes were fulfilled in him. He did not utter a new thought, nor did he break down the barriers of nationality.” Judaism and its History. In Two Parts. Transl. by Charles Newburgh (New York: Bloch Publishing, 1911), 131. Published in German in Das Judentum und seine Geschichte von der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels bis zum Ende des zwölften Jahrhunderts. Nebst einem Anhange: Renan und Strauß (Breslau: Schlettersche Buchhandlung, 1865). 9 See the important discussion in W. Homolka, Jewish Jesus Research and its Challenge to Christology Today (Leiden: Brill, 2017), esp. 49–54. 10 G.F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921), 197–254. 11 A. Schweitzer, Die Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911). 12 P. LaGarde, “Über das Verhältnis des deutschen Staates zu Theologie, Kirche und Religion (1873)” in Schriften für das Deutsche Volk (Munich: Lehmann, 1937), 68–70. Cf. also the discussion in H.-J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), 277. 6



8

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

emerged after World War II.13 And Krister Stendahl challenged the dominating strand of Pauline Studies in his lecture on “Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West” in 1963.14 In the case of Stendahl a major controversy between him and Ernst Käsemann evolved, however, without major changes in the image of Judaism in New Testament scholarship following from this.15 Such a change only slowly began to emerge with Sanders’ 1977 publication. Building on colleagues’ research before him, Sanders conclusively demonstrated that the image of Jewish traditions used in traditional Christian New Testament interpretation was a caricature rather than an adequate representation of Jewish traditions of the Second Temple period. Even if some aspects of Sanders’ work may in detail be questioned due to new or more precise information, the assessment that the image of Jewish tradition in New Testament scholarship was a misrepresentation cannot be refuted, and there is no going back to such distortions whatever one’s stance on the so-called partings of the ways may be.

The World of Antiquity and Contemporary Concepts The World of Antiquity

Since we are dealing with traditions of the past, from contexts not our own and not directly accessible to us, the methods and concepts through which access to, and understanding of the past is sought, need to be as critically scrutinized as possible. They are contemporary methods and concepts – not the concepts, possibly not even the terminology of those people of the past we are trying to understand.16 It means trying to understand writings of the past as far as possible within their own frameworks, and critically reflect on the concepts and frameworks we apply and through which we interpret. Since Christianity as a separate entity did not exist in the first century, it is anachronistic to apply the concept of such an entity to the texts in question. This is why I do not use the term Christian for those who are part of groups of people, Jews and non-Jews, who were convinced that with the Christ-event the age to come was in the process of beginning. Since a concept of religion as a realm of life which consisted predominantly in a belief system as separated from other dimensions of life, also did not exist

W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. Some Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1948; 50th anniversary edition, Mifflintown: Sigler, 1998). 14 Now in K. Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 78–96. 15 For a discussion of the debate between Stendahl and Käsemann see W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 23–26. 16 Cf C.A. Barton, D. Boyarin, Imagine No Religion. How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities (New York: Fordham University Press, 2016), 7–8. 13

The World of Antiquity

9

in antiquity, I also try as far as possible to avoid to refer to the traditions which in modern categorizations are referred to as religions, in this terminology.17 These dimensions were intrinsic parts of everyday life of all people at the time. They were permeating all aspects of “how one did things” among particular people, Thracians, Macedonians, Egyptians or Jews, that is, they were part of what in contemporary terminology is referred to as something similar to “culture.”18 As Barton and Boyarin clarify this does not mean that “people did not make gods or build temples, praise and pray and sacrifice, that they did not ask metaphysical questions or try to understand the world in which they lived, conceive of invisible beings (gods, spirits, demons, ghosts), organize forms of worship and festivals, invent cosmologies and mythologies, support beliefs, defend morals and ideals, or imagine other worlds.” But they did not organize these “experiences and practices into a separate realm.”19 The realm of belonging and the way of living were a package which included the relationship of those who belonged to the same group with the divine realm. As Paula Fredriksen pointedly formulated “Divine ethnicity might seem like a strange idea; but in Greco-Roman antiquity, gods often shared the ethnicity of the peoples who worshiped them. In this regard, the Jewish god was no exception.”20 This was so for Jews, including Paul, this was also so for those to whom Paul refers as τὰ ἔθνη. I thereby do not imply that these different cultures were entirely separate and untouched by other traditions and cultures.21 But they were, in their selfperception and in the perception of others, identifiable as Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Phrygian, or Jewish, thus their sense of belonging including the relation to the divine was perceived to be different.

On this see Barton, Boyarin, Imagine no Religion, 15–38; also B. Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 18 Barton, Boyarin, Imagine no Religion, 7. 19 Barton, Boyarin, Imagine no Religion, 4. 20 P. Fredriksen, “How Jewish is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 137.1 (2018), 193–212 (193). 21 It has become widespread to refer to cultural exchange and interaction with the concept of hybridity. I do not consider this concept to be heuristically helpful when trying to analyse identity formation processes in antiquity, as it only states the obvious. Of course there is no such entity as a pure culture untouched by interaction with others. In that sense all cultures are hybrid, hybridity being that which is prevalent in a collective entity as well as individuals. Hence my questioning of the heuristic value of the concept beyond the assertion that this is the normal state of play. Cf. K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures. Theologizing in the Space Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 17–38. 17



10

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

Paul, the Jew Paul the Jew

To see Paul as firmly rooted in Jewish tradition has a number of implications. It is an assertion which by now is quite widely shared in the scholarly realm. It is a move similar to the acknowledgement that Jesus was and remained a Jew. Although the latter insight had already been formulated in the late 18th and early 19th century, most significantly by Jewish scholars,22 it really only became widely accepted in the wake of the so-called third quest for the historical Jesus.23 This insight led to the question in what sense Jesus was a Jew, was he a marginal Jew, a middle-ground Jew, etc. The question of what kind of Jew Jesus was and where he should be located within Judaism indicates that precisely this aspect still presents an unprecedented challenge because of its theological implications. The attempts to specify in what sense or to what degree Jesus was a Jew seem to assume that there is a way in which Jewish traditions of antiquity can be evaluated in terms of quality, intensity, center or periphery according to some objective, quantifiable criteria. A similar phenomenon can now be observed concerning Paul. While in earlier interpretations he was considered to be the first Christian theologian, that is the one who broke away from Jewish tradition, and did overcome its perceived particularity as the founder of universalist Christianity,24 it is now widely acknowledged that he was and remained a Jew. But as with regard to Jesus the question often debated is, what kind of Jew Paul was: an apostate, a marginal, a radical or an anomalous Jew; as if there was a normative Jewish tradition over against which Paul’s Jewishness could be measured. In variation of a phrase by E.P. Sanders it can certainly be asserted that “There is no evidence that Paul was an anti-Jewish Jew.”25 Aside from the acknowledgement that Paul was a Jew, this often does not have any further implications for the interpretation of his letters. However, if Paul was and remained a Jew, he also considered the message he was called to proclaim among the non-Jewish nations to be a Jewish message. The content of the proclamation as well as the implications Paul elaborates in his letters are Jewish. The authoritative reference where interpretive guidance is being sought, are the Jewish scriptures and their interpretation within contemporary

Cf. Homolka, Jewish Jesus Research, esp. 36–63. 23 Cf., e.g., Stegemann, Jesus und seine Zeit, 113–24. 24 F.C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831), 61–206; for an overview see E. Stegemann‚ “Der Jude Paulus und seine antijüdische Auslegung,” in Paulus und die Welt. Aufsätze (ed. C. Tuor, P. Wick; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005), 17–40. 25 E.P. Sanders, “Jesus, Ancient Judaism, and Modern Christianity: The Quest Continues,” in Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust (ed. P. Fredriksen, A. Reinhartz; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 31– 55, 54. 22

Aspects of Cultural Translation

11

Jewish interpretive practice.26 The notions and perceptions Paul conveys to his non-Jewish addressees are Jewish. Inherent to the insight that Paul was a Jew is the presupposition that the content of Paul’s letters is also part of Jewish tradition of the first century. It is not sufficient to assert that Paul was and remained a Jew throughout his life, but his message too is part of Jewish tradition of the time, and needs to be understood from within this tradition in the first place. When looking for analogies and comparisons, those of Jewish traditions should be primarily considered (as in the essay “The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι and Images of Community in Enoch Traditions”), also where the meaning of the Christ-event is concerned. The notion of messiahs and a messianic age as far as the Pauline discourse is concerned are part of Jewish traditions of the time. That they resonate with other traditions and notions is thereby not denied. But the initial point of reference nevertheless remains Jewish.

Aspects of Cultural Translation Aspects of Cultural Translation

The peculiarity of Paul’s activities and writings lies in the fact that he transmits this content to non-Jews, that is to people who are not socialized and do not live within the context of Jewish traditions. They most likely had some familiarity with Jewish traditions and Jewish people in their neighborhood, were possibly sympathizers or godfearers but they were not part of Jewish social life. They had been part of their Greek, Roman, Galatian etc. social contexts and were socialized in respective traditions and practices. Thus Paul’s task involved a cultural translation process.27 He was a Jew, who was also familiar with the traditions and languages prevalent in the Greek and Roman contexts of the Western Diaspora. He was someone who was most likely bilingual in a linguistic as well as in a cultural sense. He was not exceptional in that probably many if not most Jews who lived outside the land of Israel were familiar with the traditions and to some extent also the languages of the areas in which they lived, and as such were bicultural and possibly bilingual. The scene that is envisaged in the Book of Acts (2:1–13), with Jews assembling in Jerusalem for Shavuot from diverse areas of the Roman empire and beyond, depicts a rather realistic image of the diversity among Jews at the time. Paul’s Jewish education (Gal 1:14) and his familiarity with the cultural context of the Greek speaking

Cf. Schorch, who notes with regard to scriptural references “Paul, however, and most obviously, just used a literary technique, which was in complete accordance with the contemporary ideas about scriptural authority in Palestinian Judaism.” S. Schorch, “Which Kind of Authority? The Authority of the Torah during the Hellenistic and the Roman Periods,” in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (ed. I. Kalimi, T. Nicklas, G.G. Xeravits; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2013), 1–15 (14). 27 Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 105–39. 26



12

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

Diaspora rendered him an ideal candidate to serve as a cultural mediator or gobetween for the non-Jews to whom he considered himself called to proclaim the message of the Christ-event (Gal 1:16; Rom 1:5). In order for an intelligible conversation between Paul and those non-Jews in Christ to take place, the language and images used must have made sense to the addressees, they must have translated into the symbolic and social world of non-Jews. I assume that Paul must have had sufficient knowledge to be able to judge fairly well, how to best communicate with people who were socialized in pagan cultural contexts. However, he transmitted a message which was steeped in Jewish tradition. In order to understand what was being communicated one needed not only to speak the same language linguistically but also needed some awareness of the difference in the cultural encyclopedias and codes which evoked in the use of the same words possibly very different associations, memories and experiences. Particular terms and notions of Jewish traditions were part of an entire network of narratives, practices, experiences. This was of course also the case with Jewish traditions expressed in Greek. This discourse, even though conducted in Greek could only be fully understood if one was familiar with this network. Hence words could carry different connotations and resonated sometimes significantly, sometimes only to a slight degree, differently with codes and cultural encyclopedias when compared with their use in the majority society.28 Thus rather than assuming that Greek culture provided the main framework of Paul’s ways of arguing (rhetoric) and of the content he tried to transmit due to him writing in Greek, the language itself does not allow for such a direct conclusion.29 Research into bilingualism and the use of a language as a lingua franca in modern times demonstrate that the cultures using a lingua franca imprint their cultural codes and encyclopedias on the language rather than the other way round.30 A specific use of the language thereby emerges which cannot be subsumed under the use of the initial culture of this particular language.

Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 140–50. 29 On the difficulties involved in the translation from Hebrew into Greek and the awareness of these in antiquity see, e.g., S. Schorch, “The Preeminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006 (ed. G.G. Xeravits, J. Zsengellér; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43–54. 30 A language can sustain more than one culture and “Transferred to a different habitus, the language will mold itself to that habitus rather than the other way round,” J.E. Joseph, Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 167. And based on his research among Aborigines Sharifian has noted that “a language implanted in new localities may be adapted and appropriated by its new speakers to express their own native worldview and culture.” F. Sharifan, Cultural Conceptualizations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications, 2011), 34. 28

Aspects of Cultural Translation

13

Daniel Boyarin has drawn attention to the use of terms by Josephus which clearly demonstrates the accuracy of this pattern also for antiquity.31 Research into the language of the LXX comes to similar conclusions.32 Since Paul is part of Jewish culture and tradition of the first century CE these insights also apply to his writing and use of Greek. This is where analogies should be looked for in the first place. The Jewish traditions in their entirety provide the context from within which Paul’s discourse should be considered. That his words also resonate with cultural codes and encyclopedias of his addressees is of course not excluded but necessarily assumed. However, these are also not a homogenous group, they are of the ἔθνη – a label which refers to diverse peoples under the domination of Rome. There can be Greek educated people among these but this may not be a majority among them. There most likely were Thracians in Philippi, Galatians in Galatia, Aquila was from Pontus – this indicates that the members of the movement were a pluralistic mix, ethnically, in terms of social status, gender, as well as education. The factor that united them all (apart from their choice of joining the Christ-movement) is that they all lived in the realm of the dominating power of the time, Rome. Most of them were members of peoples who had been conquered, subjugated or pacified by this imperial power, which means that they, as much as Paul, were not part of the dominating elite that ruled and administered the privileged and privileging network of imperial power. But it was the all-permeating context which impacted on the lives of those living in this realm. The visual presence of the imperial power in statues, inscriptions and building programs in provincial cities and colonies could hardly be overlooked, the infrastructure and the overarching legal systems were Roman and the dominating narratives were there to legitimize the right of imperial Rome to rule over the wide range of its provinces. Of course some aspects of everyday life continued for the provincial population as before their encounter with Rome, but with tax systems imposed and tributes required there can hardly have been many aspects of everyday life which were not in some ways touched by the presence of the imperial power. In the perspective of the dominating ideology Paul was part of a subjugated people, despite speaking and writing in Greek, part of a “barbaric” people with its respective barbaric tradition.33 Paul, like other Jewish writers of the time

D. Boyarin, Judaism: The Genealogy of a Modern Notion (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2019), 53–59. See also his discussion of cultural translation, in the same volume, 3–9; in this respect he notes that “Only the usage of the other language will teach us what its living speakers consider to be within single categories and divided into separate ones.” 32 J. Joosten, “The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and its Historical Context,” in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage, Reception (ed. E. Bons, J. Joosten; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1–11. 33 Josephus, Bell 1:3. 31



14

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

did not directly refer to Rome34 or the implications of Roman domination, however, it is hardly conceivable that this did not have any impact on the message Paul conveyed. As I mentioned elsewhere, the fact that the Jewish tradition told a story which was fundamentally different as far as the rulership of the world was concerned, rendered this tradition implicitly subversive although not explicitly counter-cultural. But by claiming that the Lord of the world was the God of Israel, rather than Caesar and the respective divine powers, an opposition to those who claimed otherwise was established. Terms and titles used by Paul, in the vein of Jewish tradition, applied to Jesus as the Christ, implicitly challenge the claims of the imperial power (see the essay “Speaking Greek under Rome: Paul, the Power of Language and the Language of Power”). The non-participation in cult activities by non-Jews who were now part of the Christ-movement could well be seen as an act of defiance, certainly as an act of distancing oneself from what was considered vital for the maintenance of social peace (see the essays “Called to be ἅγιοι but without ἐυσέβεια? Peculiarities of Cultural Translation in Paul” and “Between Polis, Oikos and Ekklesia: The Challenge of Negotiating the Spirit World”). Hence taken together with the diversity of his non-Jewish addressees, their socialization in pagan contexts, and the impact of Roman domination, the translation process Paul was involved in was rather complex. Apart from the difficulties of long-distance communication via letters and the fact that we only read part of this communication, there certainly were issues of loss and gain in translation, that is understanding and misunderstanding, different understandings, and all the nuances between these options of understanding in communication processes.

Embodiment, Gender, and Everyday Life Embodiment, Gender, and Everyday Life

This is no different than in any other area of communication, since understanding is not a given but has to be sought again and again. Paul is involved in such processes not only via writing letters, rather the letters complement communication and interaction which took place in face to face encounters through mutual personal visits (1 Cor 1:11; Rom 16:1–2), and via messengers, letter carriers and co-workers (Titus in 2 Cor 8:7). The communication and interaction took place between particular people, that is, the letters participate in these real-life communications between those particular people involved. They are not abstract treatises but address and respond to particular needs and questions

On Josephus’ implicitly critical stance against aspects of Roman domination see J.M.G. Barclay, “The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason, J. Rives; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 315–32. Concerning Philo’s similar stance see K. Berthelot, “Philo’s Perception of the Roman Empire,” JSJ 42 (2011): 166–87. 34

Embodiment, Gender, and Everyday Life

15

arising within these communication and interaction processes. Since people of diverse contexts and social embeddedness are involved, it should not come as a surprise that issues of everyday life, and questions concerning the everyday life as Christ-followers emerged, and required practical answers. The understanding of the conviction of the messianic dimension of the Christ-event did not happen in an abstract vacuum but in everyday life situations in particular places. The implications of the Christ-event required that they be translated not merely at the intellectual level but also and decisively it had to be embodied in everyday life. Learning to be “in Christ” for non-Jews required significant changes in their lives (much more so than for Jews), and Paul acted as a teacher for them in support of this process, including not only words, but as he indicates, he was teaching them in relation to mind, emotions and practical aspects by admonishing them to “keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me” (Phil 4:9). His imitation language serves precisely the purpose to support his addressees from the nations in their learning to embody the message (see the essays “Embodying the Ways in Christ: Paul’s Teaching of the Nations” and “Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν – Pauline Trajectories according to 1 Timothy”). Embodiment happens not in a generic form identical for all human beings but in particularity – in terms of ethnicity, gender and social status.35 Thus my interpretations are guided by attentiveness to the diversity this embodiment inherently presupposes not merely as a transitory stage in the process of learning Christ, but rather as the way in which the Christ message was, and continued to be, transmitted. In addition to the lasting distinction between Israel and the nations that is, between Jews and non-Jews, the dimension of gender is of particular relevance. As texts of a patriarchal context, attention to the gendered implications is vital in order to note implicit and explicit problematic passages. Not in order to “save” Paul for feminism – but to try to do justice to his way of arguing in his context, and set this in relation to what could be expected as possible attitudes and indications to actual practical dimensions of his activities beyond the stereotypical perceptions of gender that are found in his letters (see the essays “Paul and the Authority of Scripture: A Feminist Perception,” “The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul within Judaism,” and “Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man? Gendered Aspects of Cultural Translation”).The focus on the particularity of the communication processes as directed to addressees in their concrete everyday life situations and the embodiment of implications of the Christ-event by those addressees is relevant not only as the social aspect of the transmission of the message, but is inherent to its theological dimension. The aspect of implications of everyday life for non-Jews who joined the Christ-movement has been underestimated in my view by the predominant focus on comparing Paul’s letters with the rather

Carnal Hermeneutics (ed. R. Kearny, B. Treanor; New York: Fordham University Press, 2015). 35



16

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

elitist philosophical discourses of the time. Of course it is valuable to also consider this latter aspect, but the everyday practical dimensions of the loyalty swap for non-Jews joining the Christ-movement deserves far more attention than so far devoted to (see the essays “Called to be saints – the Identity Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans” and “The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:13): Paul’s Hopes and Fears”). The relevance of everyday life has been researched in empirical cultural studies now for a quite a few decades and much can be learned from these also for the field of New Testament studies.36 The message is the message of God who is trusted as the God of Israel and the nations, the God of creation. The message of Christ is claimed to be part of the narrative of this God with his creation and with his people Israel. In the narrative of creation it is asserted that the diversity so created through God’s word was good. Nowhere is there any hint in the narrative of the scriptures that diversity is the problem of creation or of the breach which ruptures God’s good creation, sometimes referred to as sin. If there are problems emerging in God’s creation, they are not attributed to diversity, but to other factors such as how people deal with diversity. In the Pauline letters there also is no indication that the Christ-event was a remedy against diversity. If diversity is not a problem, the overcoming of diversity cannot be the solution for a problem which does not exist – when considered according to the narrative of the scriptures. Paul is convinced that the Christ-event is an event of cosmic dimensions. As noted above, this leads to the necessity to embody the message of this event in order for it to become real, it cannot be a mere issue of seeing the world differently. It has to be embodied by people in their diversity. And Paul relentlessly asserts that this diversity is also theologically crucial. If these are the events inaugurating the beginning of the world to come, then the fact that people from the nations now also recognize the God of Israel as their God is a sure consequence and sign of precisely that, the inauguration of the world to come. It means that it is evident that God is God not of the Jews only but also of the (non-Jewish) nations. Maintaining this difference is of decisive theological relevance. In their difference those called should embody the message of Christ. This relates well to the notion of creation as an interconnected network of embodied life. If it is still God’s creation that is in view in the message of Christ then there surely must be an analogy with the narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. The cosmological dimension of the Christ-event is inherently linked to the notion of creation as God’s good creation which in itself refers to an overflow of diversity, a celebration of diversity (see the essays “Reading Romans in the Face of the Other: Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle” and

See, e.g., A.E. Schmidt, Befragung des Alltags (Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag, 2018); the journal alltag&kultur etc. 36

Continuing the Conversation with Paul

17

“The Mystery of Paul’s Mysterion in Rom 11:25–36”). The particularity of the letters, the addressees, the issues raised and responded to in relation to concrete aspects of everyday lives of the people involved are all vital aspects in my interpretative journey with Paul.

Continuing the Conversation with Paul Continuing the Conversation with Paul

Everyday life approaches37 powerfully remind us, that this is the context of even the greatest thinkers, hence socio-historical research into these dimensions of life in antiquity is of foremost relevance not only to understand the socio-political aspects of Paul’s letters, but also for understanding his theologizing. It is a way of doing theology as a dynamic process, it is doing theology by way of conversation. Embedded in his own narrative of belonging, in the Jewish social and symbolic universe of the first century CE, Paul entrusts the groups he had initiated to use their own wits to work out the implications of being part of the Christ-movement which this has for their lives in the here and now ([…] test everything, hold fast to what is good, 1 Thess 5:21; […] you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another, Rom 15:14). He intervenes only if they have questions (1 Cor 7:1) or if he considers it necessary due to particular circumstances. His letters witness to a question-response form of theologizing, which has some resemblance to later Jewish Responsa traditions.38 It is a form of theologizing which also has similarities with theologizing as developed and practiced in contemporary gender-critical theological approaches (see the essay “Paul and the Authority of Scriptures: A Feminist Perspective”). This form of theologizing invites Paul’s readers still to enter into conversation with him. He may have tried to convey helpful, maybe in his view the best, even right, answers to the questions of the day. These may not always be answers for us today, as the context and the questions may be fundamentally different. Nevertheless, his way of theologizing en route – on the way, may still be a template for theologizing today, in open conversations, with respect for the dignity of difference, concerned with what affects us all in the diversity of our societies: the common good of peace and reconciliation among those who are and remain different, so that life can flourish. In that sense the journey in search of, and also with Paul does not

Cf. J. Magnes, Stone and Dung, Oil, and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); C. Hezser, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); B. Highmore, Ordinary Lives: Studies in the Everyday (London: Routledge, 2011); idem, Everyday Life and Cultural Theory (London: Routledge, 2001). 38 P.J. Haas, Responsa: The Literary History of a Rabbinic Genre (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 37



18

Chapter 1 Searching Paul

end with the explorations presented here, certainly not for me. I hope that they also can serve as invitations to further conversations and explorations.







II. Gender and Traditions



















2. Paul and the Authority of Scripture: A Feminist Perception The Authority of Scripture and the Exercise of Power The Authority of Scripture and the Exercise of Power

The fact that Paul in a significant number of passages in his letters refers explicitly or implicitly to the scriptures is taken as obvious evidence that he perceived scriptures as an authority not only for his own life but also for the life of the Christ-followers he addresses.1 This perception of the scriptures as the unquestioned authority at least in the life of Paul (and most likely the other apostles as well) constitutes the starting point of such excellent and divergent analyses as Christopher D. Stanley’s two monographs, Richard Hays’s monograph and volume of essays, and J. Ross Wagner’s volume on Isaiah in Romans, to name only a few.2 Although these analyses differ in their focus, methodology, and conclusions,3 they in different ways presuppose that the reference to “the authority of scripture” is self-explanatory, and thus none of these approaches critically discusses the notion of “the authority of scripture.” Hays asserts that Paul’s arguing is deeply shaped by and engaged with scripture and that he is concerned not “to assert his own authority over scripture” but to maintain in a “dialectical struggle” the integrity of his proclamation of the gospel in relation to scripture and vice versa.4 However, this does not clarify why and in what sense the integrity of scripture needs to be maintained in Paul’s view nor how the integrity of scripture is linked to its authority. Hays also does not elaborate on the meaning of the “authoritative text” when he asserts that

E.g., Christopher D. Stanley, who states that “from the way Paul refers to the Jewish scriptures in his letters, it seems clear that he not only accepted the sacred text as authoritative for his own life but also expected a similar response from his audiences.” Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 40, see also R.B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 165. 2 Cf. C.D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); idem, Arguing with Scripture; R.B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); idem, Echoes of Scripture; J.R. Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 3 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 11, 20. 4 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 158–59. Hays also notes that Paul regards the voice of Scripture as authoritative in one way or another (14). Concerning Paul, he states that “his faith […] is one whose articulation is inevitably intertextual in character, and Israel’s Scripture is the ‘determinate subtext that plays a constitutive role’ in shaping his literary production” (16). 1

22

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

“Paul is seeking to ground his exposition of the gospel in Israel’s sacred texts.”5 Wagner, too, asserts a dynamic interrelationship between scripture, theology, and mission in the Pauline letters. He views Paul as a hermeneutical theologian who “proclaims and interprets the gospel and Israel’s scriptures,” for whom Isaiah’s words are “a weighty and palpable presence” and for whom a set of writings are “scripture,” that is, holy writ. 6 Although Wagner occasionally mentions the purpose of Paul’s scriptural references, speaking of them as explanatory, keys to understanding, or as witnesses to the gospel and/or to God’s faithfulness,7 he claims that they primarily add the weight of cumulative authority to a Pauline argument, without discussing further the issue of authority and power.8 In a similar way, Stanley seems to take it for granted that Paul refers to scripture “in order to ground an argument or settle a dispute.”9 As long as the authority of scripture is acknowledged, says Stanley, “direct quotations from the holy text would be greeted with respect and (Paul hoped) submission.”10 It comes as no surprise that studies such as these, which imply that “the authority of scripture” is self-explanatory, come to the conclusion that biblical references, quotations, and allusions are a tool in Paul’s argumentative strategy to exercise power over the addressees and render them obedient, that is, submissive to his views. Of course, such studies recognize that the function of Paul’s references to scripture is not restricted to his exercise of power and authority; they can serve other purposes as well, such as illustrating, explain- ing, and motivating.11 But these other functions depend, according to Stanley, on the acceptance of the authority of the Jewish scriptures, when he maintains that

Ibid., 34. 6 J.R. Wagner, Heralds of the Good News. Isaiah and Paul, in Concert, in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–2. 7 Ibid., 46, 356, 358. 8 Ibid., 352. At the end of his study Wagner quotes Michael Fishbane’s characterization of the Pharisees as “purveyors and creators” of haggadic exegesis and views this as an appropriate description also for Paul (357 n.43). I am in agreement with Wagner on this, but I also think that the implications of Fishbane’s characterization need to be further explored, as they promise to provide a challenge to many aspects of reading Paul. See Wagner’s approval of Fishbane’s statement: “[They] appear to live with ‘texts- in-the-mind’ – that is, with texts (or traditions) which provide the imaginative matrix for evaluating the present, for conceiving of the future, for organizing reality (the inchoate, the negative, the possible), and even for providing the shared symbols and language of communication. With aggadic traditio the world of Israelite culture is thus one which talks and thinks, which imagines and reflects, and which builds and rejects, through the traditions.” 357, quoting M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 435. 9 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 40. 10 Ibid., 59. 11 Ibid., 38. 5

The Authority of Scripture and the Exercise of Power

23

“the quotation achieves its rhetorical effect as long as the audience acknowledges the authority of the Jewish scriptures and accepts Paul’s reputation as a reliable interpreter of the holy text.”12 Stanley is of the view that, since the scriptures represent the authority of God, a reference to scripture would resolve any dispute. He therefore sees an element of force in almost all Pauline scriptural references, “since the very act of adducing a quotation is a covert attempt to increase the audience’s receptiveness to the passage in which it appears.”13 Such approaches operate with a paradigm of power and authority that identifies power with “power-over” and power-over with domination. However, as the contemporary debate on the nature of power demonstrates, this is a limited perception of power and authority.14 From the perception of power as powerover, that is, as a means to dominate others and demand their sub- mission, conclusions are drawn concerning the meaning of “the authority of scripture” without further analysis.15 The conclusion that scripture is referred to with the intention of settling an argument without further debate, or with the expectation that submission to the authors’ views is achieved, is coherent with such a perception of power and authority. Without denying that the references to scripture in the Pauline letters are of great significance and have something to do with a perceived “authority of scripture,” I would like to question the assumption that this “fact” in and of itself actually clarifies sufficiently the function and purpose of these scriptural references. It remains to be specified what the “authority of scripture” actually means. Two major questions are involved in such an analysis: (1) What are the scriptures to which such authority is attributed by Paul and the other leaders of the early Christ-movement, the recognition of which they expected from the gentile communities they had founded? 16 (2) What is meant by the terms

Ibid., 60. 13 Ibid., 182. Stanley also mentions that there may also be an element of playfulness inherent in Paul’s scriptural references, but he does not elaborate further on this aspect in relation to authority and power (183). 14 See the discussions in S. Lukes, Power: A Radical View (Oxford: Blackwell, 22005); H. Arendt, On Violence (London: Allen Lane, 1970); T.E. Wartenberg, The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990); K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 16–34. 15 Although Stanley does refer to the issues surrounding the perception of “written oracles,” his discussion still operates with a paradigm of power as “power over” in the vein of a command-obedience structure (Arguing with Scripture, 58–60). 16 For more on the important discussion concerning the implications of the flexible boundaries and textual fluidity of the Jewish scriptures (and the implications of these insights), see D.L. Dungan, Constantine’s Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 1–19; E. Tov, “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Editions of the Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of the Canon,” in The Canon Debate 12



24

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

“power” and “authority” when attributed to the scriptures? Both questions require further interdisciplinary research, but due to constraints of space, I will focus here on the second question, that is, on the nature of power and authority, although I am aware that the first question is linked with it. The specific questions on which I will focus are: What happens if Paul’s references to scripture are analyzed in conversation with paradigms of power that differ from those mentioned above? What difference does this make to our perception of the “authority of scripture” and subsequently to our evaluation of the function of Paul’s scriptural references?

Divergent Perceptions of Power Divergent Perceptions of Power

Contemporary discussions of “power” are invariably shaped or at least influenced by the thought and writings of Max Weber. Debates have evolved in agreement, variation, or differentiation from Weber’s classical definition of power as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.” A similar view appears earlier in the same work when he states, “Power means every chance within a social relationship to assert one’s will even against opposition.”17 Although Weber acknowledges that domination is a specific application of power, he nevertheless perceives the exercise of power-over in the vein of domination to be one of the most important elements of social interaction. This perception of power has been differentiated and challenged from numerous perspectives in the last three decades.18 Other scholars, in clear distinction from Weber, perceive power as a capacity or ability to do something, to have an effect on something, that is, as the “power-to” achieve what an individual or a group set out to do. Hannah Arendt and Communicative Power An early significant challenge to the perception of power as power-over, and thus as inherently dominating or at least dangerous, was formulated by the German political theorist Hannah Arendt in her analysis On Violence (1970). According to Arendt, the logical consequence of a definition of power as power-

(ed. L.M. McDonald, J.A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 234–51; E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 79–98. 17 M. Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (ed. T. Parsons; Glencoe: Free Press, 1950), 152; see also chapter 16. 18 I cannot elaborate on this discussion in detail here, but I will return later to specific aspects of the debate concerning power in the form of power-over. For a more detailed discussion, see Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 16–22.

Divergent Perceptions of Power

25

over, that is, in the vein of a command-obedience model, is a perception that accepts that violence is the ultimate form of power. Violence is merely a particular means by which power can be exercised. This identifies power with domination in its various forms, which in her view has nothing to do with power. She argues that power is “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.” As such, power must be distinguished from other modes of human interaction such as strength, force, authority and violence.19 Arendt notes that “power is indeed of the essence of all government, but violence is not.”20 She even maintains that “power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent.”21 Violence always invokes a command-obedience structure, whereas power is neither command nor rule but collaboration in action, “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.”22 In addition to drawing a clear distinction between power and violence, Arendt, in agreement with Foucault and others, is of the view that power is not something that one can possess, not some kind of stuff that some have – enabling them to store it and then exercise it over others – while others do not. She argues that power exists only in its actualization; it “is always […] a power potential and not an unchangeable, measurable, and reliable entity like force or strength”; it “springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment when they disperse.”23 Thus power derives from reciprocal collective action; that is, it is inherently intertwined with action that takes place within a web of relationships with other actors. Its main purpose is to establish and maintain this relational web or network.24 Arendt’s definition has been criticized as too limited a perception, as it excludes any strategic aspects from an analysis of power.25 Habermas and others have emphasized that the strategic aspect of power (i.e., power-over) cannot be excluded from a definition and critical discussion of power, since otherwise the dimension that is most troublesome, and indeed has attracted the most interest from scholars who study the exercise of power, would not be addressed at all.

H. Arendt, On Violence (London: Allen Lane, 1970), 44–47. 20 Ibid., 51. 21 Ibid., 56. This is only a conceptual distinction; Arendt is well aware that, “in the real world,” power and violence are more often than not inextricably intertwined. 22 Ibid., 44. 23 H. Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 200. 24 See A. Allen, “Power, Subjectivity, and Agency: Between Arendt and Foucault,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (2002), 131–49. 25 See Jürgen Habermas’s distinguished critique of Arendt in “Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power,” Social Research 44 (1977), 3–24. 19



26

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

Feminist Theories of Power Despite this critique, feminist theorists such as Amy Allen have drawn significantly on Hannah Arendt’s ideas in their search for a concept of power that moves beyond a command-obedience, domination-subordination model. This search is motivated by the fact that traditional concepts of power tend to lead to a limited perception of women in patriarchal societies as powerless victims of male domination. In contrast to this, Allen views Arendt’s concept of power as enabling a perception of power that takes into account that people who are in situations of subordination are not merely powerless victims of oppression. Even when this is the primary factor determining their lives, there are many circumstances in which they are nevertheless able to form communities and to act in concert. Such acts of community formation and solidarity, although they do not change the overarching situation of oppression, are forms of “power in action” through which people are active agents within limited dimensions of their lives. The mere fact of forming such groups can be an act of mutual empowerment despite and within a situation of domination.26 Arendt’s analysis thus provides a basis for a perception of power that moves beyond the dichotomy of domination and subordination. Arendt’s analysis of power contributes significantly to a perception of power as empowerment, but Allen nonetheless perceives her ideas as too limited. Allen calls for a perception of power that takes both the communicative and the strategic aspects of power into account. She proposes a concept of power that integrates aspects of Michel Foucault’s work with Arendt’s approach. Allen distinguishes three forms of power: power-over, power-to, and power-with. Power-over implies an asymmetrical relationship between agents that is often, although not necessarily, characterized by domination and subordination. Power-to is consistent with both asymmetrical and symmetrical relationships; it represents strategic power exercised to achieve a certain goal. Power-with implies a symmetrical relationship. These dimensions of power hardly ever occur in “pure” form, and they are not clearly separable from each other. In real life, they are more often than not intertwined.27

On the power of subordinate groups in the context of domination, see J.C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts of Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 108–35. There are similarities between Allen’s development of Arendt’s approach and Scott’s analysis in their focus on the empowering dimension of community for subordinate groups/subcultures, but Scott sees this “hidden transcript of power” more in the vein of a reversal of power structures. In that sense he does not operate with an alternative paradigm of power but with a reversal of the power-over paradigm. See also N. Elliott, “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities,” in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (ed. R.A. Horsley; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 118. 27 Arendt was well aware of this fact. After her definitions of the various categories of power, she states, “It is perhaps superfluous to add that these distinctions, though by no 26

Divergent Perceptions of Power

27

What Is Authority? The differentiation of power into power-over, power-to, and power-with, with its emphasis on relationality, leaves open the question of how authority should be understood in a specific situation, particularly the authority of a set of texts. Although Arendt deals with the question of authority, she addresses contemporary issues relating to the authority of institutions or people rather than texts.28 Nevertheless, her insistence that authority should by no means be confused with domination, force, or violence is worth noting. According to Arendt, “Since authority demands obedience, it is commonly mistaken for some form of power and violence. Yet authority precludes the external means of coercion; where force is used authority itself has failed.”29 Arendt clearly perceives authority as something that includes a hierarchical relationship between those involved. Although her analysis of authority is of limited value for our purposes, her identification of different dimensions within power and authority discourses is worth pursuing further. I will not elaborate on her distinction between authority and power, a distinction that seems to me less conclusive than Arendt supposes. What I consider significant is her insistence that both authority and power need to be distinguished from force and violence. To me, Arendt’s view of authority implies the presence of a hierarchical dimension that she would not designate as power because it does not emerge out of a community acting in concert with each other.30 This exclusion of asymmetry and hierarchy, or power-over, from her discussion of power is anachronistic, as critics of Arendt have demonstrated.31 Nevertheless, her insight that there is a dimension in human interaction that is hierarchical but nor coercive is important. This aspect has been further developed by theorist Thomas Wartenberg, who has contributed a useful working hypothesis for relationships that involve hierarchies, that is, relationships that are patterned according to a power-over paradigm without being adequately accounted for in a command-obedience paradigm of power. He refers to a model of exercising power-over that takes

means arbitrary, hardly ever correspond to watertight compartments in the real world, from which they are drawn” (On Violence, 46). 28 Arendt does not see her analysis as seeking to define “authority in general”; she is concerned rather with “a very specific form which had been valid throughout the Western World over a long period of time.” Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought (London: Faber & Faber, 1961), 92. 29 Ibid., 92–93. 30 For a critical discussion of Arendt’s perception of power as limited to “the human ability to act, that is to act in concert,” see Habermas, “Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power,” and my discussion in Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 22– 26. 31 See Habermas, “Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power”; A. Allen, The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity (Boulder: Westview, 1999), 126–30.



28

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

as its working paradigm an educational setting. The relationship between student and teacher, or parent and child, is clearly asymmetrical, but the exercise of power over the student or child cannot be adequately described according to a domination-subordination pattern. The power that is exercised serves the purpose of supporting or empowering the “weaker” partner in the relationship. The aim of such a hierarchical relationship is transformative in the sense that the hierarchy is understood to be temporally limited. Inherent in the exercise of power-over in such a relationship is the idea that it will render itself obsolete. In order for the exercise of power to be empowering, the use of coercion, force, or violence must be ruled out. If coercion or domination infiltrate the relationship, the aim and purpose of the latter is compromised. Wartenberg calls such power exercised over others “transformative power.”32 I think that this paradigm of transformative power could well contribute to an understanding of authority, and of the authority of scripture in particular, by providing a tool for understanding Paul’s use of power in an asymmetrical yet nondominating way.33 What remains to be clarified through a more detailed analysis than can be provided here is in what sense the emphasis on the relationality of power and authority that has been demonstrated (convincingly, in my view) by Arendt, Habermas, Allen, and others impinges on our understanding of the authority of the scriptures.34

The Authority of Written Texts The Authority of Written Texts

Writing and Texts in the Greco-Roman World In the context of the first century, the fact that Paul refers repeatedly to and interacts with a set of texts that he regards as “scripture” is both unique (from a non-Jewish perspective) and not unique (from a Jewish perspective). When looking from a perspective outside of Judaism, Paul’s practice of referring repeatedly to a particular set of texts, thereby indicating that these texts are of extraordinary significance for both the author and the readers or audience, is a phenomenon that, to say the least, must have seemed strange. The perception

Wartenberg, Forms of Power, 191–200; Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 27–29. 33 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 117–36. See also E. Schüssler Fiorenza, The Power of the Word: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire (Minneapolis: Eerdmans, 2007), 56–68. 34 It is inconceivable from this analysis that there can be some inherent essence, or natural quality, in a set of texts that renders them authoritative. The authority of a set of texts can only emerge in the context of a community that attributes a specific value to a particular set of texts and thereby recognizes them as their scriptures. 32

The Authority of Written Texts

29

that a set of texts (even without the later idea of a canon of texts)35 could express and/or incorporate all that is of decisive value and importance for a particular people is unique within the Mediterranean region of the time.36 It is also unclear whether literacy and thus written texts in general held the same significance and garnered the same high esteem as in contemporary (Western) societies.37 The high esteem given to education by the elites of Greco-Roman and other societies in antiquity should not be taken as evidence per se for a high regard for literacy.38 James Crenshaw, for example, maintains that “in the ancient Near East education preceded literacy.”39 Even in Greco-Roman societies, “Eloquent speech remained the most characteristic feature of Graeco-Roman civilization, even in its most learned manifestations.”40 Thus the question might at least be raised as to whether written texts per se held particular value. In fact, considerable indications point in a different direction. Written texts, and thus the skills of writing and reading, were not in themselves valued as indications of excellent education or of education as such. They were viewed rather as subservient tools and skills that were useful and relevant insofar as they supported educational discourses.41 The use of a book in itself was not regarded as advisable; to the contrary, Rosalind Thomas notes that “you must not navigate out of a book” was a contemporary proverb, signifying that one needed first-hand experience to learn a craft: “(a book) might be grossly inadequate unless backed up by the help of a teacher himself.” Thomas also argues that “a text might be regarded more as an aid to memorization of what had been passed on orally by a teacher, as a reminder of those who know.”42 When it

See the references cited in n. 16 above. 36 See Stanely, Arguing with Scripture, 40. 37 B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1961), 123–26; S. Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 116–30. 38 Contra Joanna Dewey, who maintains that “in a world in which most people were nonliterate, writing was both an instrument of power and a symbol of power.… Nonliterates would honor reading and writing as symbols of culture and status; they would also fear them as instruments of social and political oppression” (“Textuality in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions,” Semeia 65 [1994], 44, 47). 39 J.L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 279. 40 R. Thomas, Literature and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 159. 41 See D.M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 111–73; R.A. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 90–108; Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 120–26. 42 Thomas, Literature and Orality, 161. On the significance of oral performance, see also M.S. Jaffe, “The Oral-Cultural Context of the Talmud Yerushalmi: Greco-Roman Paideia, 35



30

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

comes to the specific values that were assigned to written and spoken words, it is most likely that notions such as Aristotle’s permeated Greco-Roman elite society. In his view, “Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those things of which our experiences are images.”43 In other words, although the spoken and the written words are both outer forms of an ideal spiritual reality and meaning, the spoken word is related directly to this transcendent reality, whereas the written is merely the secondary record of these more immediate (spoken) symbols.44 This perception of written texts as holding secondary significance, or even as something inferior to speech and oral transmission, may in fact have caused problems for Paul. He apparently shared with his fellow Jews the perception of a particular set of texts as having high significance, and he presupposes the same perception within the newly formed, predominantly gentile groups of Christ-followers. Given that the members of the ekklesia whom Paul addresses are predominantly non-Jews, Paul’s expectation that they should respond positively to a reference to something that “stands written” is at least open to question and should not be taken as self-evident. In a context where the value of writing and literacy were at least ambiguous, the special role that a set of texts played for the Jews was noted also by non-Jews, who held rather bizarre ideas about the content of these texts.45 This Jewish perception that a single set of texts is highly significant was at odds with the dominant perception of the significance of texts as such. This in turn raises questions about the common assumption that Paul’s references to this set of texts as “scripture” per se would have added power and authority to his argumentation. If such a practice was in fact alien to the audience, Paul’s scriptural references would not necessarily be received as appeals to some higher authority, nor would they be heard as something that settles a dispute or closes the conversation.

Discipleship and the Concept of Oral Torah,” in Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion (ed. Y. Elman, I. Gershoni; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 31–37. 43 Aristotle, Int. 16a. 3–8, quoted in N. Seidman, Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 81. See also L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 204. 44 See Seidman’s thought-provoking analysis of the literal/spiritual dichotomy in Western linguistics and theories of translation in Faithful Renderings, 73–114; see also D. Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994), 14–15. 45 Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 149–70; P. Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 161–73.

The Authority of Written Texts

31

Written Tradition: Jewish Perspectives There can be no doubt that a set of texts, referred to as “the scripture(s)” by Paul, was of very high significance for all groups within first-century Judaism. Whatever other common denominators they might have had, these varied and divergent groups all related to a particular set of texts as having key importance to them. I am reluctant to use terms such as “authoritative” or “sacred,” as I think that we should try to clarify further what such terms actually mean in relation to a set of texts rather than presuming that the application of such labels clarifies the issue. In the first place, it should be noted that, although all known Jewish groups related to a set of texts, this set is not identical to the later canon of the Christian Old Testament or the Jewish Tanak. The emergence of a set of texts that is regarded as especially significant by a group is a process that involves open boundaries. The boundaries are open concerning not only the inclusion of specific writings but also the versions of the texts themselves. Thus Dungan maintains that “the term scripture refers to a semi-durable, semifluid, slowly evolving conglomeration of sacred texts.”46 Some subset of these texts was most likely shared by all Jews, but others were not. The Qumran findings may serve as an illustration. It is obvious that the question which writings were regarded as “scripture” by the Qumranites cannot be answered conclusively. An awareness of the fluidity concerning what was perceived to be included in this “set of texts,” including the wording of the texts themselves, renders a straight-forward reference to some “authority of scripture” questionable. The term “scripture” refers not to a clearly defined set of texts but to a “cloud of sacred texts,”47 as Dungan calls them. Thus in addition to inquiring in what sense the scriptures are significant, we need to ask about the implications for the notion of “the authority of scriptures” if there is no commonly agreed collection of texts. A reference to “the scriptures” does not tell us clearly what an author actually had in mind. In reality, “one man’s interpreter is another’s scripture,” since “the corpus of what constitutes ‘scripture’ and is therefore the object of interpretation changed over time and varied from one group of readers to the next.”48 In addition to the “fuzzy boundaries” of the collections of writings that were perceived to be “scriptures,” the issue of the fluidity of the actual text of these writings also raises questions concerning the perception of the authority of the scriptures. Textual critics, especially since the emergence of newer findings in Qumran, emphasize that the reconstruction of one single version as “the original version” of any book of what would later be the canonical Hebrew scriptures seems to be impossible. This leads Emanuel Tov to suggest that “it may

Dungan, Constantine’s Bible, 2. 47 Ibid., 3. 48 J.L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 35. 46



32

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

be time to abandon the whole idea of ‘reconstructing the original text.’”49 Indeed, the often-blurred boundaries between text and interpretation raise questions about biblical interpretation in antiquity “at almost the most elemental level.” Moshe Bernstein asks, “When does the writing of a biblical text cease and when does a biblical interpretation begin? When and where do we stop talking about the Bible and begin talking about the re-written Bible?”50 This observation raises significant questions about whether word order or the existence of different versions of a particular text was issues that were debated, and if so, in what sense.51 Given that both the collection of texts regarded as significant and the wording of the texts themselves were fluid to some extent, in what sense can such a “cloud of sacred texts” be involved in the life and discourses of communities who hold them as significant enough to transmit them across generations? To put it another way, what does a reference to “sacred scriptures” (1 Macc 12:9) invoke in the life of a community? In what sense are such scriptures significant? What do they contribute to the power and authority discourse of communities relating to such scriptures? The Jewish Scriptures, Authority, and Power Despite the fuzzy boundaries of the collection and the fluidity of the texts within the collections, there can be no doubt that by the time of the Second Temple there was a shared conviction within Judaism that some set of texts encompassed the most important traditions of the Jewish people. Since these traditions were all related to the divine in some way or another, such a collection was referred to as “the scripture(s),” the Torah of Moses, and so forth, although the attribute “sacred” does not occur as frequently as might be expected. Within the Jewish scriptures, references occur in 1 Macc 12:9 using the term τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια, whereas Paul refers once to γραφαί ἁγίαι (Rom 1:2) and once to ὁ νόμος ἅγιος and ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία (Rom 7:12). In addition, 1 Macc 1:56–57 attributes symbolic meaning to the Torah-scroll itself, and there are Second Temple texts that refer to the scriptures as “sacred,” indicating that

Tov, “The Status of the Masoretic Text,” 248. See Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 92. 50 M.J. Bernstein, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. H. Najman, J.H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 215–38, here 227. 51 See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 83–251; D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 49

The Authority of Written Texts

33

they were perceived as linked to the divine realm in a way similar to sacred spaces or oracles in Greco-Roman tradition.52 Thus while the significance of a collection of texts described as sacred for the different Jewish groups of the first century can be affirmed, it is far from self-evident what this actually meant. The fact that a collection of texts was perceived to carry traditions that were important for the community as a whole (and the “school” or group in particular) does not in itself disclose any information concerning the sense in which these texts were significant. The term “traditions” hints at the content of such a collection. The transmission of traditions that are related to the divine is of course not peculiar to Judaism, but to transmit these traditions in a written form that is light enough to travel is. This peculiarity is noted, for example, in 1 Macc 3:48, where a parallel between the function of the Torah and certain pagan practices is drawn: “They opened the book of the law to inquire into those matters about which the gentiles consulted the images of their gods.” The traditions that were transmitted in written form in Judaism all represent and are related to the divine realm. That writing acquired a significance that went beyond the technical function of serving as a back-up system for memory, is indicated by some of the scriptural narratives themselves. From a historical perspective, it appears that written texts attained a central role in Judaism only after the exile, upon the return of some Jews to Judea. But materials that attribute a special significance to written words of God can be found in earlier traditions.53 Thus Jeremiah is requested to write and rewrite prophecies, and it seems that the preservation of these written texts is the means by which a future effect of the prophecy, the repentance and return of the people to God, is secured (Jer 36).54 Ezekiel is also reported to have had a special connection with a written text that contained the Word of God. In Ezek 2:8–3:3, the prophet is invited to eat and digest a scroll – and only when he has internalized the “word of God” is he able to proclaim the words of God to the people.55 In

See the references to Philo and Josephus in P.W. van der Horst, “Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70 CE?” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue (ed. S. Fine; New York: Routledge, 1999), 18–43 (34–35); S. Schwartz, “Language, Power, and Identity in Ancient Palestine,” Past and Present 148 (1995), 3–47 (24). 53 I find Hindy Najman’s position concerning such preexilic traditions quite conclusive. She maintains that, in order for Ezra’s introduction of a “written” tradition to be accepted as authoritative, there must have been some dimension of continuity with previous traditions in order for these to be intelligible and effective (“The Symbolic Significance of Writing in Ancient Judaism,” in Najman and Newman, The Idea of Biblical Interpretation, 139–73 (140)). Najman also refers to Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 17. 54 See Najman, “Symbolic Significance of Writing,” 161–65. 55 As Najman observes, “Like the first set of divine testimonial tablets in Exodus, this divinely written text will not be directly accessible to the Israelite readers. Instead, Ezekiel 52



34

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

a similar way Moses, the “prophet of the prophets” in Jewish tradition, is given the privilege of rewriting the word of God on tablets after he had shattered the tablets containing the text that God himself had written (Exod 32:16; 34:27). These traditions witness to the significance of written words as testifying to the will and promises of God. However, the written tradition is significant not because it is written but because it transmits the traditions of the ancestors. The fact that it is tradition is more important than the fact that it is written.56 It is significant to note that the written text that is finally transmitted is not written by the hands of God, nor is the transmitted written text identified anywhere as the direct production of God.57 The transmitted written text is attributed to Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and so on, and, although at certain points it is identified as a record of the word of God, it is never called directly “the word of God.” This careful distinction between the divine word and the written record of the divine word has bearings on the perception of the authority and subsequent interpretive traditions of the scriptures, including their role in the Pauline letters. I will discuss this further below, but first attention needs to be given to two other issues that have an impact on the role and authority of scripture – the communal dimension and the interpretive process – both of which are inherently intertwined with the existence of sacred tradition in the form of scripture in Judaism. The context in which a clearly identifiable, central role is attributed to a collection of written texts as “scriptures” emerges with the return of some Jews from exile. The central unifying event for the community that had to reorganize itself in the context of return was, as attested in Neh 8:1–8, “neither revelation mediated by a prophet, nor the coronation of a Davidic king […] Instead the central event was a public reading of the Mosaic Torah by Ezra who was said to be both priest and scribe and who had interpreters at hand to supply explanations.”58 Two aspects are of crucial significance here. First, the text is read to the members of the community, not to a sole ruler-king figure. Concerning this quite remarkable scenario, Kugel notes that “the incident does provide a useful index for the growing role of Scripture in this community […] The Torah if it is to function as a central text for the community must truly be their common property, and properly understood by everyone.”59 Thus the hearing

must internalize the text and then present the material which he has now, quite literally, digested” (ibid., 170). 56 See H. Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 4. Najman refers to the work of F. Rochberg-Halton, who describes the process of authorization in first millennium B.C.E. Mesopotamian writings.“Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts” JCS 36 (1984), 134–36. 57 The narrative of Exodus 32 depicts a scenario in which the text written by the finger of God (32:16) is lost, shattered by Moses in his anger (32:19). 58 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 33. 59 Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 22.

The Authority of Written Texts

35

and responding to the guidance of the Torah, the written tradition that would also be referred to as the scriptures, is the responsibility not of an elite but of the entire people. As a community, not as subordinates to a ruler, they are responsible for their life as people of God. The incident reported here in Nehemiah and Ezra witnesses to the fact that no text or collection of texts can become “scripture” without a community that perceives such a collection as more than a mere record of events in the past. The narrative scene upon the return from exile shows how a text is accepted as “scripture” by a community – the people re-enact the story of their ancestors accepting the Torah at Mount Sinai as the guidance for their way of life.60 The second characteristic that needs to be noted is the fact that the reading of the texts is accompanied by interpretation. This refers to a perception and practice of interpretation that, ever since the attribution of a special role to written tradition as related to the divine realm, is inherently intertwined with this process. Nowhere is there a reference to a set of such texts as “scriptures” without interpretation of these texts, even where the text is clearly referred to as the record of the words of God. To identify the written words as records of words of God does not render interpretation, the search for meaning in these words, obsolete. Simply reading the texts, or referring to them without interpretation, was apparently perceived to be meaningless. The text of the scriptures does not speak for itself! The transmission of written texts as “scriptures” is envisaged from the very beginning as a process that is accompanied by practices of interpretation.61 These two dimensions, the responsibility of the community and the inherent relation between scripture and interpretation, point to

As William A. Graham notes, “A text becomes ‘scripture’ in active, subjective relationship to persons and as part of a cumulative communal tradition. No text, written or oral or both, is sacred or authoritative in isolation from a community.” Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1987), 5. There is a democratic dimension in the narrated interaction between scripture, interpretation, and community here that resonates with aspects of Phyllis Trible’s approach as described by Schüssler Fiorenza, who speaks of “the biblical text or scripture as a pilgrim, who has been a conversation partner of believing communities throughout the centuries and still is today. Such a conversation between scripture and believer is ongoing, mutually corrective, and of reciprocal benefit” (The Power of the Word, 65). Schüssler Fiorenza maintains that a more critical hermeneutic must be applied in order to unveil “the imperial functions of authoritative scriptural claims that demand obedience and acceptance […] A critical biblical reading […] understands biblical authority not as something that requires subordination and obedience, but as a resource for creativity, courage and solidarity” (67). While Schüssler Fiorenza’s focus is on the meaning of the authority of scripture in contemporary discourse, her emphasis has bearings on our perception of the function of scripture in the Pauline letters. 61 Concerning the Torah, Michael E. Stone writes, “The very fact that the divine law was written created the necessity to base in it by a process of exegesis, the whole corpus of 60



36

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

a perception and practice of “religious”62 authority that does not fit a paradigm of power-over exercised in the vein of domination or according to a commandobedience paradigm. The scriptures (of Judaism) fulfilled not just one role but, as Bernstein notes, many roles in all aspects of Jewish life and creativity,63 and none of these roles fit easily into a one-dimensional perception of power and authority. It could be argued that this perception of the roles of scripture is an ideological construct by a (scribal) elite who wanted to claim that Torah/the scripture was accepted in a quasi-democratic process by the entire people and that the situation on the ground differed significantly in the first century from this idealized picture of Nehemiah. Thus Snyder reconstructs a scenario that attributes to “scribes” a rather exclusive access to the scriptures and their interpretation. This in turn creates an extreme power hierarchy between those who know and those who are ignorant, thereby maintaining a structure of domination.64 In a brief section Snyder then depicts Paul in the vein of such supposedly powerful “scribes” who restrict access to the scriptures to an exclusive group. Implicit in Snyder’s model is the belief that Paul created a structure of powerover in his churches according to a command-obedience model, which easily leads to domination.65 There are a number of issues that would need to be discussed here, but for our purpose it is sufficient to note that Snyder’s reconstruction does not take sufficiently into account what recent research demonstrates concerning the significance of orality and memory in the ancient world66 and the presence of synagogues throughout Palestine and the Mediterranean Diaspora in Paul’s day.67

unwritten law which it, needs be, engendered.” “Three Transformations in Judaism: Scripture, History and Redemption,” Numen 32 (1985), 218–35 (220); see also K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 65–91; Kugel, The Bible as It Was, 1–49. 62 The term is anachronistic, as there was no such concept as “religion” in antiquity. I cannot elaborate on this here, but see Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 9–13; P.F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 63 Bernstein, “Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries,” 237. 64 Cf. H.G. Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians (London: Routledge, 2000), 181–89. 65 Ibid., 194–205. 66 See Gerhardson, Memory and Manuscript; Byrskog, Story as History; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Jaffe, “The Oral-Cultural Context”; Memory in the Bible and Antiquity (ed. S.C. Barton, L.T. Stuckenbruck, B.G. Wold; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). 67 L.I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 22000); The Ancient Synagogue: From Its Origins until 200 C.E. (ed. B. Olsson, M. Zetterholm; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2004). See also A.L.A. Hogeterp,

The Authority of Written Texts

37

Both of these strands of research contribute to an informed reconstruction of a scenario involving the diverse roles of scripture and the familiarity of nonelites with the texts of scripture that come close to the image depicted in Nehemiah and Ezra, even if this image is an idealized reconstruction. Although it is far from clear how discourses of interpretation should be understood, it seems inconceivable that there could be a scenario in which access to an interpretive community is restricted to a class of scribes and literate people. The assumption that a conversation over the meaning of a text or tradition can only take place among people who have a formal education is an anachronistic, literatedriven perception. Certainly Josephus and Philo depict a different image of the role of scripture in first-century Judaism.68 Moreover, several New Testament passages (e.g., Acts 18:6; Mark 6:2–3; John 6:25–59) refer to controversial discussions over the understanding of texts read during synagogue gatherings, indicating that interpretation was not the privilege of an exclusive elite but of the community. Even if the act of reading in a synagogue setting was the privilege of men educated for this task, the access to such an education was not as exclusively limited to a tiny elite, as it was in Greco-Roman society in general. In addition, inherent to the narrative of Ezra reading the scriptures to the community, not to a ruler or an elite, is a “democratic” element that undermines any elitist claims to power and authority.69 There is no institutional restriction on access to the scriptures and no institutional control or restriction over its interpretation. The fact that certain groups claimed superiority for their interpretation over the interpretations of others and that such claims involved power struggles shows that there existed neither a concept of “original” meaning nor any kind of institution that could have instigated any interpretive decisions as binding upon all Jews. Except for the commonly accepted duties concerning the temple and its ritual practices, including calendrical issues pertaining to the celebration of Shabbat and the festivals, there is no evidence for anybody or authority exercising control over divergent interpretations.70

who notes that “within first century CE Jewish culture of scriptural interpretation, the synagogue was an important place for the reading and interpretation of Scripture.” Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 244. 68 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 119–26. 69 Stone notes that “the writing down of sacred scripture set in movement processes which combined with political events to undermine high-priestly authority” (“Three Transformations,” 220. 70 Günter Stemberger concludes, as far as the Second Temple period is concerned, that “die Frage nach Entscheidungsfindung und -durchsetzung (bleibt) völlig offen. Religiöse Kontrolle und Vereinheitlichung hielten sich in ganz engen Grenzen.” G. Stemberger, “Mehrheitsbeschlüsse oder Recht auf eigene Meinung? Zur Entscheidungsfindung im Rabbinischen Judentum,” in Literatur im Dialog: Die Faszination von Talmud und Midrasch



38

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

Whether divergent interpretations invariably lead to power struggles or separation among different groups is at least questionable. Concerning the group at Qumran, it has been proposed that interpretive issues concerning the calendar played a partial, although probably not decisive, role in their supposed opposition to the temple hierarchy. A later rabbinic tradition concerning the schools of Hillel and Shammai could be an indication to the contrary. Despite their differences over interpretation of the Torah, the tradition says that they lived in mutual esteem and friendship (b. Yebam. 14a–b).71 This rabbinic evidence for a degree of debate and interaction among different Jewish groups over the interpretation of scripture that did not provoke separation or hostility is mirrored in the gospel narratives that speak of Jesus interacting with the Pharisees (e.g., Luke 5:17–24; 7:36–50; 11:37–54). The conversations are not depicted as hostile in every case, nor even as essentially negative. Most important, they witness to a practice of conversation (sometimes including tablefellowship) that is based on a shared interest: life according to the scriptures. This image of interaction and conversation between Jesus and Pharisees, as depicted by some of the gospel narratives, may not have been as unique as has previously been thought. It is found again in Acts (5:33–39; 22:3; 23:1–10), and it could well mirror a practice that was shared by other Jews also. As Hogeterp notes, the role of the Pharisees as teachers and interpreters of Torah need not have been a one-way didactic interaction between Pharisees and common people. Expositions of scripture in Palestinian synagogues could convey ideas and norms which developed out of debates between the pluriform Jewish movements. […] This is more likely to have been the case than a supposed segregation of closed movements with a homogenous system of beliefs and practices.72

Despite differences in interpretation and the differing conclusions to which they led, the diverse groups within Judaism did recognize a specific collection of texts as their scriptures, that is, as most decisive for shaping and providing guidance for their way of life. Most of the texts used by a particular group were probably shared with other groups. In this sense it could be said they regarded this pluriform collection of texts as authoritative. But this shared perception of the existence of a set of scriptures (whatever their precise contours) by no means settled or closed the at-times controversial conversation over the mean-

(ed. S. Plietzsch; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 19–40, 20. On perceptions of the role of the temple in different groups during the Second Temple period, see Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 27–114. 71 Whether this is an idealized reconstruction or a historical fact, it indicates that at the time of writing this scenario was presented as the ideal for relating to each other in difference and mutual respect. 72 Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 250–51.

The Authority of Written Texts

39

ing of the texts in relation to issues of contemporary life. The almost “unimaginable number of forms” of interpretation found in Second Temple Judaism offer an impressive literary witness to this conversation in all its diversity.73 Thus the acknowledgement of a collection of scriptures as “Word of God” and in that sense as sacred and authoritative actually includes the search for interpretation and meaning. The fact that this collection contained diverse texts in itself indicates that diversity is at the heart of the scriptures. They were perceived as living words of God that produce diversity and ongoing vivid debates over meaning rather than closing such debates. To refer to the scriptures thus constitutes not a claim to divine authority on the part of the conversation partners but rather an indication that they perceive themselves as participating in a discourse that is shaped by a perception of life and the world according to the scriptures, that is, according to a Jewish social and symbolic universe. At the center is the relationship with the one God who has committed himself in his covenant and promises to his people Israel. To refer to the scriptures as a way of participating in a relationship is something entirely different from a socalled “use” of scripture as prooftext or a reference to divine authority on the part of the interpreter. It could better be described as a reference to one’s foremost loyalty and an acknowledgement of being a responseable participant in a life and discourse rooted in the guidance of the God of Israel. The hierarchy in the relationship between God and his people is not adequately described when perceived as including dominating power. I have argued elsewhere that “the power of God is perceived as relationality which rules out any form of force, coercion, or domination. God calls Israel not into a new realm of domination, but into a realm of interdependence.”74 Applying feminist terminology in the vein of Hannah Arendt, the power of God could be described as power-over in the sense of transformation, in that God is committing himself in a relationship, the covenant, which is maintained neither by domination nor by force or coercion but by care for the other (i.e., the people). The aim of the relationship is to empower and thus enable people to unfold their potential as empowering communities through the process of exercising power-with so that they can “act in concert.” The perception of scriptures as the record of the Word of God cannot but mirror such an understanding of power and authority. Since they have something to do with this nondominating relationship between God and his people, to perceive them as authoritative in the sense of force or coercion is in contradiction to their actual contents. To live in the realm of this God means to be in a relationship for which the renunciation of power in the sense of domination is constitutive. The actual practice of the way of life that is in accordance with this relationship is neither engraved in stone nor written on parchment but needs to be rediscovered and enacted

Bernstein, “Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries,” 237. 74 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 164. 73



40

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

again and again in an ongoing conversation within a community that perceives itself to be called by God. Viewed in this light, it would be anachronistic to perceive these scriptures as being inherently authoritative in the vein of domination. The attribute “divine” or “sacred” does not add some kind of essence to these traditions but rather indicates that they refer to a specific relationship of highest value. The character of the relationship and of the dimension of authority and power within it are inseparably intertwined. Inasmuch as power is not something that someone can possess, but only emerges (according to Arendt) when people act together in concert, the power of scriptures unfolds as a community interacts with and responds to its words and traditions. These provide guidance insofar as people commit themselves to seek guidance through them and entrust themselves to them as the testimony to the living God. Without a community, that is, without partners in conversation, the scriptures cannot be part of a discourse of power. Power emerges in the interaction of a community in conversation with each other and with the scriptures. Thus although the scriptures are credited with many divergent roles in the Second Temple period, to attribute to them some force of coercion or dominating power seems unwarranted and inappropriate.75 I am convinced that there is something in Paul’s emphasis that comes close to Arendt’s perception of “power as the ability to act in concert” when he refers to the scriptures as part of a discourse of encouragement and empowerment (Rom 15:4).

Paul, Power, and the Authority of Scripture Paul, Power, and the Authority of Scripture

Paul as a Participant in Jewish Interpretive Discourse There is no doubt that Paul was part of and participated in the social and symbolic universe of first-century Judaism. He participated in the interpretive conversation over the meaning of scriptures before and after his call experience. Taking into account what has been argued above, that the perception of the scriptures as authoritative included interpretation in a diversity of forms, stances, and communities, leads us to see Paul as part of a tradition of interpretation that includes conversation and diversity. Paul’s self-designation as a Pharisee (Phil 3:5) indicates more precisely that he had been educated in Jerusalem and was therefore able to participate in an interpretive discourse that was at least bilingual.76 His identification of himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews”

Stanley draws attention to the potential force that may be exercised by a scriptural quotation in Arguing with Scripture, 181–82. 76 Hogeterp has demonstrated this point convincingly, in my view, since there are no indications of Pharisaic education outside Jerusalem (Paul and God’s Temple, 202–35). See also the work of Jan Dochhorn, who in a detailed linguistic study argues that Rom 16:20a is evidence that Paul participated in a “polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit.” He thus maintains, 75

Paul, Power, and the Authority of Scripture

41

may be a way of referring to this bilingualism, although other meanings cannot be ruled out.77 Clearly this supposed bi- or even trilingualism of Paul is interesting on a linguistic and cultural level and raises all sorts of issues concerning translation, but this is not the aspect that is most significant for the purpose of this essay. The significance of finding traces of bi- or trilingualism in Paul’s Greek scriptural references lies in the evidence that this provides for understanding Paul’s interpretive context. I am convinced by the arguments that locate Paul’s schooling in Jerusalem and therefore view him as a participant in Jewish interpretive discourse. 78 Paul’s interaction with and reference to the scriptures in his conversations with the assemblies of Christ-followers that he addresses in his letters should be analyzed with this in mind. The embeddedness of Paul in first-century Jewish interpretive discourse has implications for our perception of the function of the references to scripture in Pauline discourse. Issues of source and target,79 authors and addressees, speakers and audiences, invariably come into play here.80 I will focus here primarily on the source: how we should perceive the function of the scriptural references and the possible “power-play” that is inherent in the factuality of these references by Paul and his apostolic co-workers in Christ.81 One of the functions of Paul’s references to the scriptures, and of his letters more generally, is neatly summarized by Origen in his note that Paul “taught the church that he had gathered from among the gentiles how to understand the Book of the Law” (Hom. Exod. 5:1). I concur with this perception that one of the roles of Paul can be accurately described as that of a teacher.82 To teach the gentile members of the Christ-movement the implications of the way of life in

“Es spricht also einiges dafür, dass Paulus als kundiger Rezipient eines hebräisch-aramäischen Wissens zu gelten hat” (“Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit: Eine Studie zu den exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm.16.20a,” ZNW 98 [2007], 210). 77 Schwartz discusses the use of Hebrew as an identity sign in the context of the striving for Jewish independence during the two revolts (“Language, Power, and Identity,” 18–31), while also cautioning against an anachronistic perception of general multilingualism in Judea and Galilee during the Second Temple period. 78 Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple, 202–34; Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, 142–60. 79 See U. Eco, Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation (London: Phoenix, 2004), 81– 103. 80 This a dimension of Paul’s use of scripture to which Stanley has drawn attention in a significant way (Arguing with Scripture, 38–61); see his analyses of the audience’s capacity to grasp the meaning of particular scriptural references (75–196). 81 I am aware that a similar evaluation is necessary regarding the addressees’ reception of Paul’s biblical references, particularly the question of the amount of contextual knowledge that they brought to their hearing of the Pauline letters, and that such an evaluation would most likely result in conclusions that differ from the ones achieved through the present focus on Paul’s perception of scripture. 82 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 117–34.



42

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

Christ implied that they had to learn the ways of the Lord/God as outlined in the scriptures. In order to grasp what it means to be/live in Christ, gentile converts had to be socialized into the Jewish scriptural symbolic and social universe.83 Such a process, like any successful educational process, is one of transformation, which of course includes an asymmetrical relationship between teacher and student. But the exercise of power-over in such a relationship has as its purpose to render itself obsolete. In order to be transformative, it can be neither dominating nor coercive; it must be based on trust, providing guidance and encouragement.84 Those who, like Paul, have invited people to join the Christ-movement and thus to begin an educational/socializing process of learning Christ (which implies learning about Christ and the scriptures and thus gaining a growing sense and understanding of being in a relationship with the one God of Israel) cannot but try to live the relationship that they initiated according to the pattern of the scriptures and Christ. In the scriptures, the relationship of God and his people is sometimes depicted in the vein of a parentchild or teacher-student model, a relationship that is based on nothing but trust (faith).85 The perception of the power discourse in Paul’s relationship to his communities as transformative together with the perception of the scriptures as the record of the Word of God whose exercise of power consists in a renunciation of any form of domination has significant implications for our perception of the function of the scriptural references in the Pauline letters. The location of the scriptural discourse as a part of, and a participation in, the first-century Jewish discourse of interpretation is another decisive factor that influences our perception of Paul’s reasoning with scripture and the power and authority discourse inherent in it. The significance of this is often overlooked, as it implies, not only that Paul had at some stage in his life been part of Jewish conversations over the meaning of scripture, but also that he continued to be a participant in these conversations. He was part of an interpretive community that perceived the scriptures as authoritative, whether the members of this community are Christ-followers or not. Moreover, he did not work as an isolated apostolic interpreter of the scriptures but as one of a team.86

S.S. Bartchy, “‘When I’m Weak, I’m Strong’: A Pauline Paradox in Cultural Context,” in Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache-Text (vol. 2 of Kontexte der Schrift: Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag; ed. C. Strecker; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 54–60. 84 See Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 180–83. 85 Cf. H.A. Alexander, “God as Teacher: Jewish Reflections on a Theology of Pedagogy,” Journal of Beliefs and Values 22 (2001), 5–17; R. Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 618–21. 86 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 35–62. 83

Paul, Power, and the Authority of Scripture

43

The Authority of Scripture and the Challenge of Apostleship in 2 Corinthians For the purpose of this essay I will focus on a number of passages in the Pauline letters where Paul’s role and understanding of apostleship is challenged and where he refers to scriptures in the course of his argumentation, as it seems most likely that a power discourse is involved in such passages. I will focus here on 2 Corinthians, but it would be equally interesting to pursue analyses of other passages in light of the above insights. I will limit this sketchy survey to explicit references, although I think that Paul’s scriptural reasoning encompasses far more than direct quotations. Although it is generally agreed that in this letter(s) Paul sees a need to confront challenges to his role and understanding as an apostle head on, the references to the scriptures are not as frequent as one would expect if their function was to support his authority claims over against the Corinthian community. Moreover, the passages where Paul addresses the issue most directly, such as 2 Cor 1:5–11; 3:1–3; 4:7–15; 6:1–10; and 10–13, include only occasional references to the scriptures, whereas elsewhere in the letter the density is higher, matched only by the references in Romans, which does not address challenges to his role and understanding of apostleship.87 This comes as a surprise if one presupposes that Paul, particularly in a situation where he is involved in a controversy about his role, should have tried to establish his power and authority through an appeal to a higher, divine authority. The scattered references in 2 Corinthians seem to indicate that something different is going on. In 2 Cor 1:5–11, there are no references to the scriptures, but Paul here sets the tone for what is to follow. The focus of his understanding of apostleship – not only his own but the role of apostles generally within the movement – has something to do with a factor that is difficult to swallow from the perspective of the Greco-Roman value system: suffering and weakness as characteristics of true leaders, introduced at the beginning of the letter.88 In 3:1–3, when the questions concerning his apostolic credentials become explicit in relation to his lack of a letter of recommendation, Paul does refer to the scriptures. His language in 3:3 (“and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not in ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts”), although not a direct and identifiable quotation, serves as an explanatory or illustrating formulation rather than as a reference to some higher authority in support of his position. His description of the Corinthian assembly of Christ-followers is framed in terms of the social and symbolic universe to which this group is supposed to

Stanley argues that the peculiarity of the scriptural references in 2 Corinthians and Galatians is due to the fact that Paul prior to referring to the scriptures has to reestablish his authority as an apostle of Christ (Arguing with Scripture, 177). 88 See the more detailed discussion Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 104– 6. 87



44

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

relate and from which its identity is formed. The Corinthians are expected to define their identity as Christ-followers according to the scriptures of Israel, that is, in a Jewish way, though without becoming Jews.89 In 2 Cor 4:7–15, Paul describes and acknowledges the great difficulties that formed part of his experience as an apostle. Working within a value system that perceived suffering and weakness as signs of failure, Paul tries to demonstrate that such experiences are inherent to life in Christ under the contextual circumstances of life under Roman rule.90 The verse of scripture cited in 4:13 has been regarded as rather obscure.91 Even without taking the literary context of the psalm referred into account, I consider this to be an example of Paul demonstrating how deeply his life and language are entrenched in the scriptures. He describes experiences of harshness that not only raised questions about his role and understanding of apostleship but also, as he mentioned in the opening paragraph of the letter, led him to the fringes of death, leaving him with nothing but trust in God to cling to. To refer to words from the psalms in relation to such experiences may be to refer to the language of prayer that is most appropriate in situations such as these. The reference to the words of the psalm is in harmony with Paul’s references to his hardships as unavoidable implications of his role as an apostle. This is an example of living with “the text in mind,” which provides the imaginative and interpretive matrix for evaluating present experiences.92 Thus although Paul does address issues concerning the perception of apostleship within the Christ-movement, the scriptural reference here does not serve as a proof imbued with claims to divine authority. Rather than indicating the presence of a discourse of domination, this is an example of Paul sharing the empowerment and consolation that he gets through the words of the scriptures (διὰ ὑπομονῆς καὶ διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεω, Rom 15:4). In 2 Cor 6:1–10, the biblical reference in 5:2 stands in obvious relation to the admonition that the Corinthians should not miss the chance of hearing and responding to the grace of God. This is explained by way of an interpretation of the quotation from Isa 49:8. The interpretation explains the reference by identifying the present time as the time when God has intervened in support of his people. In the ensuing verses, Paul explains once again that his experiences of trouble and hardship should not be interpreted by the Corinthians as evidence against his and the other apostles’ proclamation of the gospel. But the identification of the time in which the assembly of Christ-followers now live

On identity formation and the role of scripture, see W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 54–67. 90 See N. Elliott, “Paul and the Politics of the Empire,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honour of Krister Stendahl (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 17–39. 91 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 98. 92 See the quote from Fishbane cited in n. 8 above. 89

Conclusion

45

is not introduced to add weight to Paul’s claim to power and domination; instead, it functions to explain the eschatological significance of the time in which they now live. The references in the following verses (6:16–18) serve to illustrate and explain the identity of these Christ-followers as the temple of God. Thus rather than being part of a discourse of domination and authority, I would describe them as part of a discourse of education (διδασκαλία). The only more or less explicit reference to the scriptures in the chapters where Paul most passionately outlines and advocates his understanding of apostleship is found in 2 Cor 10:17. If references to the scriptures were a strong weapon in the arsenal93 of Paul’s defense of his understanding of apostleship, it could be expected that we would find a significant number of such references in passages where he deals with precisely what in his view constitutes apostleship. The only quality that he attributes to himself and his colleagues on the basis of the scriptures is that he “boasts” – but “in the Lord.” This reference actually supports what he argues throughout the letter, that a leader in this movement cannot shape his role and self-understanding according to perceptions of leadership, power, and authority that conform to the value system of the dominating Greco-Roman world. The “world” to which Christ-followers ought to look for guidance and orientation is not “this world” (Rom 12:1ff.) but the scriptural world of the Jewish people and Christ. Thus if boasting is required – and Paul makes it crystal clear that he enters this ring of boasting competition most reluctantly – it can only be boasting in God. When we take into account what I have argued above, it becomes clear that Paul’s language here includes a perception of leadership or apostleship that orients itself on a God whose “use” of power consists in his renunciation of domination. Thus to “boast in the Lord” implies that, to be a true apostle in this movement, one must not follow the pattern of this world but abstain from using power in a coercive or dominating way. The reference to scripture does not add authoritative weight to the argument but is an attempt to guide the addressees’ understanding of leadership and power toward an understanding that is rooted in the scriptures.

Conclusion Conclusion

Although this is only a sketchy overview of some passages of 2 Corinthians, it emerges that the power discourse of which the scriptural references are a part can hardly be described as a discourse of domination or a means by which a debate would be closed. These references are indeed part of a power discourse,

93



Cf. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 186.

46

Chapter 2 Paul and the Authority of Scripture

but it cannot be argued from the above analyses that Paul referred to the scriptures to add to his own voice some divine dimension. There is here no claim to divine authority on the part of Paul, nor is there an indication that the references to the scriptures serve the purpose of closing the debate, of being the final word that would allow no further discussion. The issue at stake for Paul is that the Jewish scriptural world provides an alternative to the dominating worldview of Paul’s gentile Christ-followers. This must have been challenging for former gentiles, as it required a very substantial reorientation of their perception of life and the world they lived in.94 The interpretation of the Christ-event in light of these scriptures, and of these scriptures in light of the Christ-event, certainly provoked discussion among Jews, both Christ-followers and non-Christ-followers.95 That the social and symbolic universe of the scriptures constituted the context from within which Christ-followers were supposed to live was a non- negotiable presupposition for Paul as well as for his colleagues in leadership roles. Whether this meant that the scriptures provided a reference point for some kind of absolute authority is questionable, in my view. On the one hand, Paul was convinced that there could be no other symbolic universe if one had chosen to join the Christ-movement, since this meant placing one’s trust in the one God of Israel. But precisely this trust was a trust in a God whose power consisted not in the exercise of domination but in empowerment for life. To relate to this authority implied that one was called to respond as a responseable member of the movement.96 This is the vein in which I see Paul referring to the scriptures: as an encouragement to empower people to life in Christ, as when he maintains that “this was written for our instruction, that by the steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might hope” (Rom 15:4). More research is needed into Paul’s reasoning with the scriptures from the perspective proposed here. But what can be concluded at this stage is that the apostle referred to the scriptures in a variety of ways, such as illustrating and elaborating what he meant and demonstrating the symbolic and social world into which these gentiles were to be socialized. References to scripture also served to teach and guide Paul’s communities into the ways of Christ. But Paul

See Bartchy, “When I’m Weak.” 95 I cannot elaborate on this aspect here, but I think that this mutually interactive aspect of early Christian interpretation needs to be further clarified. The early Christ-followers interpreted the Christ-event in light of the scriptures, following the Jewish interpretive practice that tried to understand a contemporary event in light of tradition. The sequence cannot be reversed, as the Christ-event has no meaning apart from it being interpreted in light of the tradition of the scriptures. Thus to postulate that Paul reads Israel’s scriptures in light of the Christ-event does not clarify the issue sufficiently, since the question of the context for interpreting the Christ-event is not clarified. 96 See Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 155–78. 94

Conclusion

47

did not refer to the scriptures in order to introduce prooftexts or to issue a final word that cannot be challenged. He lived and argued with the scriptures in a way that mirrored the creative and diverse practices of interpretation that were practised in first-century Judaism.97 For Paul, the word of God is alive, not static, and thus a word of God would never close a debate. It would serve rather to empower the debaters and thus to promote a responsible hearing by the community involved.

Levinas’s comment concerning talmudic reasoning is appropriate here: “While the sages of the Talmud seem to be doing battle with each other by means of biblical verses, and to be splitting hairs, they are far from such scholastic exercises. The reference to a biblical verse does not aim at appealing to authority – as some thinkers drawn to rapid conclusions might imagine. Rather, the aim is to refer to a context which allows the level of the discussion to be raised and to make one notice the true import of the data from which the discussion derives its meaning” (E. Levinas, Nine Talmudic Readings [trans. A. Aronowicz; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990], 21). An aspect of this is noted by Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 182–83. 97



















3. The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul in Relation to Judaism Paul and gender are an uneasy pair.1 When Paul’s Judaism is included in the combination it is considered often even more problematic. No doubt, Paul lived in a context of elite male domination at structural level, the level of perception, as well as in social practice. The views about women he explicitly formulates reflect to some extent this general perception, although his actual practice seems to indicate a different stance in that women are among those whom Paul explicitly considers to be playing a decisive and leading role in the work of the gospel. Concerning his role as a leading man in the movement, Paul clearly establishes his claim to authority in asymmetrical relationships; thus, he seems to cohere at a structural level with patterns of elite male leadership as prevalent in Mediterranean societies of the first century CE.2 However, when the practice and perception of Paul’s role (and that of other “workers” in Christ) are perceived in the context of dominating political power and ideological discourse of the Roman empire, a substantially different image emerges. Then the apostle is seen as a “feminized,”3 vulnerable, beaten,4 suffering apostle, a member of a conquered nation who in no way coheres with the image of the elitist ideal of masculinity in Greek and Roman perception.5 The tension between these images of Paul and the Pauline discourse with regard to the question of gender are mainly due to hermeneutical presuppositions in reading his letters, including the presupposed contexts within which they are rooted. Although gender-critical and feminist approaches to Paul present serious attempts to avoid replicating anti-Jewish patterns of interpretation, in-depth considerations of Paul’s Judaism remain the exception.

The field of gender-critical studies has extended in the last decade from a focus on the role of women in feminist and womanist studies and encompasses masculinity and queer studies. I have to confine my contribution here mainly to women in feminist perspective; thus, a limited and contextual perception of the issues involved is presented here. 2 Cf. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, The Power of the Word: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 69–109. 3 D.C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). 4 J. Glancy, “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25),” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 1 (2004), 99–135. 5 Cf., for example, S. Moore and J.C. Anderson, New Testament Masculinities (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), also K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007). 1

50

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

Some earlier feminist approaches perceived Paul to have introduced hierarchical patterns of leadership and patriarchal or kyriarchal practices into a previously egalitarian movement, and in some instances attributed these to his Jewish tradition, but this is a perception that is seldom found explicitly formulated in recent gender-critical studies.6 Nevertheless, although Paul’s Jewishness may be admitted in general, and the risk of reintroducing anti-Judaism into the interpretation may be noted, little further analysis of the implications of such an acknowledgement is presented.7 Notions of different kinds of Judaism, some with positive and some with negative implications for Paul’s attitude to women, are still prevalent, with so-called “Hellenistic” Judaism considered to be the decisive context for Paul. It is maintained that he could have drawn on his Pharisaic tradition but he chose not to do so.8 Paul is depicted as distancing himself from a “wrong,” narrow kind of Judaism, that is, Pharisaism, and located in a good, more open, that is, “Hellenistic” Judaism.9 This perception resonates with New Perspective on Paul approaches, which consider an ethnocentric version of Judaism to be the problem that Paul overcomes in Christ.10 In both cases, an evaluation of a “good” or “bad” Judaism is the basis for acknowledging some positive value to the Jewishness of Paul. The Christ-event is that which liberates either gentiles or women from the constraints of the “bad,” narrow Judaism.

For an overview on recent gender-critical approaches to Paul, see K. Ehrensperger, “Paul and Feminism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies (ed. M.V. Novenson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). 7 Thus Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre and Laura Nasrallah state that “if we fail to see these complex negotiations of identity in the particular context of the Roman empire, then Paulthe-Jew becomes a colonizer of the gentiles (despite them being the dominant culture) and our interpretations replicate the anti-Judaism that has long characterized triumphalist Christianity” (“Beyond the Heroic Paul: Toward a Feminist and Decolonizing Approach to the Letters of Paul,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul Through Postcolonial Eyes [ed. C.S. Stanley; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011], 161–74, here 170). Whilst it is highly significant to consider the sociopolitical and ideological contexts of Paul’s theologizing and distinguish between the social locations of those in dominating power positions and dominated peoples, this does not engage with the Jewishness of Paul and his letters per se. 8 See the discussion by T. Ilan, Silencing the Queen: The Literary History of Shelomzion and Other Jewish Women (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 109. 9 This distinction and characterisation of different kinds of Judaism is adopted uncritically and thus taken at face value. It is based on the assumption that “Hellenism” had liberating implications for Judaism, without questioning the concepts and hermeneutical presuppositions on which these are built. For a detailed critical discussion of the concept of Hellenism, see K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 22–29. 10 E.g., J.D.G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 353. 6

“When You Come Together” – Women in the Ekklesia in Corinth

51

As a result, the relevance of Paul’s Judaism in relation to gender has only been considered by very few recent studies, mainly in general terms,11 and there is a significant gap in gender-critical approaches to Paul in this respect. This is so despite the fact that there are inherent links between these two strands of interpretation, both at structural level with respect to Paul’s way of arguing and theologizing, and in terms of content regarding Paul’s explicit statements and activities in relation to women.12 Although questions concerning gender are not at the forefront in Paul’s letters, there are some texts that address such concerns arising out of particular problems in an ekklesia. Together with the women addressed, commended upon, or greeted in Paul’s letters this indicates some interest in the question of gender in the ekklesiai. Thus the statement that Paul was part of an inherently androcentric and kyriarchal social context requires further detailed assessment in light of relocating Paul in Judaism. Literary, epigraphic, and socio-historical evidence concerning the perception and role of women in first-century Judaism are decisive for understanding the Pauline discourse. Some of Paul’s explicit statements about women (for example, 1 Cor 7:1–16; 11:3–16; and 14:34–35) and his actual stance when it comes to co-workers for the gospel (Rom 16:1– 16) will be considered in the first part of this contribution. The question of gender and Paul’s Judaism, however, is not confined to Paul’s views and interaction with women. There are discourses like the feminization of conquered peoples in Roman imperial propaganda that have rightly been considered in their relevance; moreover, there are analogies between Paul within Judaism approaches and contemporary gender discourses. With regard to the latter, the emphasis on difference and particularity in identity formation are of specific importance and will be the focus of the second part of this contribution, followed by my conclusions.

“When You Come Together” – Women in the Ekklesia in Corinth “When You Come Together” – Women in the Ekklesia in Corinth

The ambivalence of Paul’s statements concerning women have been frequently noted, most explicitly those in 1 Corinthians. Whether one follows Antoinette Clark Wire’s analysis and considers women prophets to be the problem that Paul addresses or not, a passage like 1 Corinthians 11:12–16 demonstrates that Paul was wavering between presupposing the unquestioned participation and active role of women in the gatherings of the ekklesia, but at the same time,

As, e.g., by Lopez in her Apostle to the Conquered, 119–37. 12 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 27–42. 11



52

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

that he adheres in principle to a subordination paradigm that governs the relationship between men and women. The reasons provided for the necessity of women to have their head covered whilst prophesying, and for men not to cover their heads during the same activity, are based on a perceived hierarchical order of creation, with women clearly seen as subordinate to men.13 The issue is complicated by the “rule” stated in 1 Corinthians 14:33–36, through which Paul seems to silence women in the assembly gatherings. It has hardly ever been noted, however, that the fact that Paul discusses issues concerning the active role of women in the assemblies provides clear evidence that women were not only members of this messianic movement, but they were self-evidently part of the assemblies, the actual gatherings of this movement, and they played an active role in these gatherings! The mere fact that Paul considers it necessary to provide guidance to men and to women concerning the “orderly” way for “assembly meetings” to be conducted demonstrates that these were mixed gatherings wherein both men and women were active. In the context of Greek and Roman societies, in which gender segregation was the norm rather than the exception (certainly at the theoretical level), this is rather noteworthy, and the active role of women in such a mixed assembly even more so.14 Paul never challenges the participation of women in the actual gatherings of the ekklesia in any way. What he does address is the conduct of both men and women on these occasions. Concerning this, as well as concerning the course of action when “married to an unbeliever” (1 Cor 7:12–13), the Corinthians have sought Paul’s advice and guidance (1 Cor 7:1). They were concerned about these aspects, which could be an indication that such joint gatherings may not have been something they were familiar with from within their

Cf., Ilan, Silencing the Queen, 4–19. 14 This is not to deny that women could not be in influential positions and that in everyday life things were less clear than in theory. The numerous analogies between ekklesiai tou theou and voluntary associations, cult groups, philosophical schools, and civic assemblies illuminate certain organizational aspects, but I am not aware that the fact that these ekklesiai were mixed groups has been considered in any detail in recent studies. John S. Kloppenborg notes that, “Membership in professional guilds is likely to have been relatively homogenous not only with respect to the trade and the quarter of the city from which members were drawn, but also with respect to gender. Whereas domestic collegia clearly had women members, the evidence for the presence of women in the professional associations is ambiguous. There were of course, some collegia composed solely of women” (Kloppenborg, “Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G. Wilson; London: Routledge, 1996], 16–30, 25). Considering this context, participation of men and women together in these assemblies seems rather exceptional and can best be explained by their analogy to Jewish synagogue communities. 13

“When You Come Together” – Women in the Ekklesia in Corinth

53

mainly non-Jewish contexts.15 They could have had some knowledge from synagogue gatherings, but even though the gentile Christ-followers most likely also participated in these, and the ekklesia tou theou were closely associated with synagogue communities,16 when they gathered as ekklesia tou theou the appropriate conduct in these may have required clarification. The communication between Paul and the Corinthians is thus an example of the cultural translation process obviously required in order for these gentiles to understand what “turning to the true and living God” meant in practice. Paul was familiar with more than one culture and tradition – he was a bicultural/bilingual person, and his primary embeddedness in Judaism was in no ways diminished by his ability to relate meaningfully also to the world of Greeks, Galatians, and possibly Romans.17 Thus in light of Jewish tradition and practice, such mixed gatherings of people who worshipped the God of Israel would be considered normal by him, being common practice in synagogues throughout the empire. The fact that women were part of these gatherings is mentioned frequently, and there is no reason to doubt the respective literary sources. The presence of women (and children), as part of “all Israel,” when the law is being read is attested frequently in biblical texts (Deut 29:10–11; 31:11–12; Josh 8:35; Neh 8:2–3; 10:28; also 1 Esd 9:40–41). That this is communal practice also in the synagogues of the first century is affirmed by Josephus, who in his report about the decree of Halicarnassus explicitly mentions men and women together as those who are granted the right to build a synagogue, assemble, and celebrate Sabbath (Ant. 14:258), and in the decree of the Sardians, their right to assemble according to their ancient legal tradition is affirmed by assigning the Jews a place to hold their assemblies that included women and children (Ant. 14:260). Philo also has women included in the assembly as matter of fact (Dec. 32). The implications of this clear evidence of synagogue assemblies as mixed groups of men and women in the first century are significant. Given that the activities during these assemblies included the reading of the scriptures and

I assume that Paul, as apostle to the nations, is addressing mainly members of the Christ-movement from the nations here, with Jewish members possibly present. 16 Cf. M.D. Nanos, “The Churches within the Synagogues of Rome,” in Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (ed. J.L. Sumney; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 11– 28, and W.S. Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House Churches or Synagogues?” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (ed. J.R. Wagner, F. Wilk; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 171–95. 17 See Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 113–21. 15



54

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

teaching as well as prayer,18 this means that women were taught and participated in prayer alongside men. Neither Philo nor Josephus refer to an exclusion of women when it comes to learning the scriptures.19 Paul’s Pharisaism may shed further light on the inclusion of women not just as members of the movement but as participants in the actual gatherings of the ekklesia. Tal Ilan has presented convincing arguments that women were part of the Pharisaic movement as members in their own right.20 She interprets t. Demai 2:16 as a clear reference to Pharisees. The verse stating that “A daughter of an am-haaretz married to a haver, a woman am-haaretz married to a haver […] should undergo initiation (in order to be trustworthy),”21 demonstrates that women were initiated into the movement as members in their own right. Based on this interpretation, Ilan argues that women were members of the Pharisaic movement, and participated also in their communal meals.22 If we follow her interpretation, this provides further evidence that Paul would have been familiar with, and would have taken it for granted that women were active members and participants in their own right in a subgroup of Judaism, and it should thus not come as a surprise that Paul would have considered the participation of women in the assemblies of the Christ-movement to represent nothing beyond that which was expected and normal. Active participation in synagogue activities is presupposed also by Philo, who mentions male and female choirs in a tradition that depicts Miriam and Moses as choir leaders (Mos. 1:180; 2:256), most likely not merely for historical purposes. In his detailed report on the Therapeutae, the hymn singing of the male and female members in separate choirs figures prominently and leads to the question whether this activity should really have been confined to this

Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2:175; Ant. 16:43; Philo, Legat. 156 and 311–12; Hypoth. 7.:2; Somn. 2:127; Mos. 2:215–16. 19 This is not to say that there was no separated seating during these assemblies, but the example of the Therapeutae cannot serve as illustration of a general practice. However, although the archaeological evidence does not provide any indication to that effect, it cannot be entirely excluded (cf. B. Brooten, Women Leaders in Ancient Synagogues: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues [Chico: Scholars, 1982]; Mattila, S.L., “Where Women Sat in Ancient Synagogues: The Archeological Evidence in Context,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G. Wilson; London: Routledge, 2011), 266–86. I am not excluding here the possibility that specific education of boys and men took place as well, but as far as the general synagogue meetings on the Sabbath are concerned, no gender specific teaching is mentioned in the sources. 20 Ilan, Silencing the Queen‚ 73–110. 21 Haver is understood to indicate a Pharisee, this being the self-designation of the group members preserved by the Tosefta, rather than the derogatory label “Pharisee,” which is only rarely found in rabbinic literature (Ilan, Silencing the Queen, 98–105). 22 Ilan, Silencing the Queen‚ 105–07. 18

“When You Come Together” – Women in the Ekklesia in Corinth

55

particular group or was a more general communal activity.23 Certainly the literary traditions refer to such male and female choirs (Ezra 2:65; Neh 7:67, Ps 148:12), or dancing and singing by women and men respectively (Jth 15:12– 13). In addition, literature of the Second Temple period also envisages women as prophetesses (Judith in Jth 11:17–18; the daughters of Job, T. Job 47–53) and as leading the people in prayer (Jth 15:14–16:17). Esther and Judith are heroines who liberate their people or prevent their extinction, and in PseudoPhilo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, Deborah, Jephtha’s daughter, and Hannah, are portrayed as major characters in Israel’s history. Deborah is a prophetess, also a ruler over Israel and a teacher who enlightens all Israel (33:1). In light of this literary evidence, the active participation of women in the Jewish assemblies can hardly be doubted. The emergence of heroine stories and the emphasis on the significance of biblical female characters such as in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum provide clear indications that the presence of women in the ekklesiai tou theou would likely have been assumed to be normal by Paul, rather than being an innovative or liberating move on the part of the Christmovement.24 The clear evidence of mixed assemblies in synagogue communities, the participation of women in prayer and singing, and the high value attributed to prophets as well as prophetesses all indicate that the practice and guidance of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 reflect his Judaism. He presupposes the joint participation of men and women, he presupposes that they both pray and prophesy, and he is concerned that this is being done in an orderly manner. This observation does not of course exclude the perception that the relationship between men and women involved hierarchical dimensions. Such a perception was shared in variations between the different traditions around the Mediterranean. I cannot discuss this aspect in any detail here, but the perception of the subordination of women was not a particularly Jewish tradition that Paul simply introduced to the Christ-movement. It is also not self-evident that the issues around head-coverings inherently bear the mark of hierarchy, although Paul presents them in that vein. The emphasis could also be understood as a mark of gender difference, and the request for the man not to pray with his

E.g., Hengel maintains that this indicates wider communal practice; cf. M. Hengel, “Proseuche und Synagoge,” Judaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 171–95. 24 Contra W. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 81. There may well have been tendencies to downgrade and restrict the role of women during the first century CE (cf., S.A. Brayford, “The Domestication of Sarah: From Jewish Matriarch to Hellenistic Matron,” Studies in Jewish Civilisation 14 [2003], 1–21). This may be evidence for the presence and significance of women in realms where restriction was argued, rather than for the opposite. 23



56

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

head covered could actually be a mark of differentiation from Roman practice.25 What is significant is that Paul, coherent with Jewish practice, assumes without question that women pray and prophesy in the meetings of the ekklesia tou theou. The Corinthians are even commended by Paul in this respect (11:2), and it seems that his emphasis in 11:3-16 is on a deepened understanding of why women should pray and prophesy with their hair covered whilst men should not, rather than a dispute about whether women should have an active role during their meetings. As noted above, the betrayal of this dynamic within the admonitions of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 stands in tension with the statements in 14:33–35. If this is not an interpolation,26 some explanation may again be found in Paul’s Jewish tradition. If we trust Josephus and Philo in particular, then a distinction seems to have been made between women participating in the assemblies, being active in prayer, singing, and possibly prophesying, and the reading and interpretation of the scriptures. Whilst information concerning the reading of the scriptures is unclear and possibly may be performed by any member of the assembly (which might include women), Philo insists that interpretation and teaching is performed by a man of special knowledge, a leader, teacher, or “ruler” of the community.27 During such expositions the assembly members listen in silence (Mos. 2:215; Spec. Leg. 2:62). It is evident that not everybody is considered to be qualified to explain the scriptures, but only those “who are very learned explain to them what is of great importance and use. Lessons by which the whole of their lives may be improved” (Spec. Leg. 2:62). Silence is also the rule among the Therapeutae when the scriptures are read and explained (Cont. 75), and the assembly is conducted in a clear and orderly manner (Cont. 80). Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14 deals with order during assembly meetings. Paul seems to be concerned that these meetings are conducted appropriately. The mutual up-building in the ekklesia is at the center of his concern, but in order for this to be possible the members have to take turns when speaking (14:30– 31). In some instances, Paul advises that silence is better than speaking, such as when there is nobody present who can interpret what is said “in tongue” (v. 28), or when “a revelation is made to someone sitting nearby,” the first one should be silent (v. 30).

Critical discussions concerning the veil are numerous and there is no consensus in sight about its rationale or function. 26 A number of feminist interpretations consider this most likely to be the case; cf. L. Schottroff, Der Erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013), 280– 85. 27 Thus also in the Essene communities; cf. 1QS 6.8–9; and Philo, Omn. Prop. Lib. 81– 82. 25

“When You Come Together” – Women in the Ekklesia in Corinth

57

The issue of women talking is raised in this context, that is, not in a general vein. I think, given the context, women are not exclusively and generally told to be silent during the assembly meetings, but in relation to a particular aspect.28 It seems that Paul does not refer to just any kind of talking but one that is specifically geared toward learning in relation to the scriptures as indicated by the verb mathein (v. 35), and the reference to “the word of God” (v. 36). Although I do not think that the reading and interpretation of the scriptures was part of the ekklesia meetings as yet,29 and teaching may refer to some oral traditions, Christ-centered or other, it could be that, in tune with some Jewish understanding, teaching was understood to be the domain of leading men, and thus anything related to it should not be raised by women during the assembly. If listening in silence generally was part of the practice of teaching, then the two aspects could have been combined by Paul here. Again, based on this evidence, this should not be seen as a reintroduction of a restrictive practice into a previously more liberating ekklesia, but most likely is part of the existing Jewish ethos of mixed assemblies with both men and women actively participating but in an “orderly manner,” in analogy to synagogue or possibly other assemblies.30 The mixed character of the ekklesiai as well as the joint participation in worshipping, including the guidance about its proper order, are all based on, and developed in analogy to Jewish traditions and practice in which Paul was embedded. Although some aspects of these assemblies and the guidance for proper conduct may have had analogies in the traditions with which those Christ-followers from the nations were familiar, Paul’s perceptions and guidance are very much rooted in Jewish tradition. This is what should be expected since these ekklesiai were called to turn to “the true and living God” through Christ. This is the God who had established his special bond with the people Israel; they are thus the ones who had received guidance for ways to live according to his will and for ways to worship him. Paul may have had significant knowledge and understanding of other traditions (Greek, Roman, Galatian, and so on), but the core of his message and the practice of life following from it was part of the Jewish social and symbolic universe. The uniqueness of what he was trying to do was to “translate” this message and practice so it could be applied to those from the nations without them becoming Jews. Paul’s Judaism, and more specifically his Pharisaism may also have been decisive for his advice concerning the question what Christ-followers should do “when married to an unbeliever” (1 Cor. 7:12–16). Tal Ilan has argued that as a Pharisee, Paul may well have been familiar with similar guidance, which

Cf. R.E. Ciampa and B.S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 720–23. 29 Exposure to such teaching was most likely in synagogue assemblies. See note 16 above. 30 As, e.g., that of the Therapeutae noted in Philo, Contempl., 75–80. 28



58

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

she has identified as referring to Pharisees. 31 In t. Demai 2:17, referred to above, it is also asserted that, “A daughter of a haver married to an am-haretz, the wife of a haver married to an am-haretz […] they remain trustworthy unless they become suspect.” Ilan here sees a parallel to Paul’s advice to those members of the Christ-movement who are married to an unbeliever. The status of the non-member does not affect the status of the member of the movement, Pharisaic or messianic respectively, as long as the member him or herself retains their own life according to the way of life of the Pharisaic or messianic community. Paul’s guidance is thus seen as based on his experience as a Pharisee.32 These examples from 1 Corinthians demonstrate that Paul’s guidance, which specifically addresses issues concerning women in the ekklesiai tou theou, is consistent with and rooted in the Judaism of the Second Temple period. No differentiation between some narrow Jewish tradition and some liberating Jewish tradition, nor between any Jewish tradition and the Christ-movement could be discerned. Paul’s guidance and way of arguing in relation to women is Jewish, although now applied to women from the nations who are in Christ. Paul is concerned with inducting these people from the nations into a way of life in relation to the God of Israel. Most naturally, such guidance would primarily orient itself on the way of life known by the Jewish people through their ancestral traditions, both scriptural and oral. The leadership role of women in the early Christ-movement reveals similarly the Jewish imprint of Paul’s practice rather than some new and thus liberating dimension in the Christ-movement, as Bernadette Brooten’s analysis of epigraphic evidence demonstrates.33 Female leadership was possible in Jewish tradition, as it was in Greek and particularly Roman tradition of the period.34 It is beyond the scope of this contribution to present a detailed analysis of Paul’s perception of female leadership, but the evidence from Brooten’s research demonstrates that such roles cohere with our analysis of Paul’s statements and guidance concerning women in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 as thoroughly Jewish. Paul’s explicit references to women neither indicate his reactionary attitude nor his liberating stance; they cannot be attributed to some narrow or conservative Judaism or a liberating “in Christ” stance respectively.

Cf. note 19 above. 32 Ilan, Silencing the Queen, 107–10. Cf. also C. Johnson Hodge’s article, which focuses on the dimension of holiness in this passage: “Married to an Unbeliever: Households, Hierarchies, and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16,” HTR 103 (2010), 1–25. 33 Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue. 34 See S. Matthew, Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16 (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 54–64. 31

Particularity and Difference in Paul’s Discourse

59

They are merely practical guidance and understanding from within Jewish tradition and practice now applied to non-Jews who join with Israel to worship God as theirs also.

Particularity and Difference in Paul’s Discourse Particularity and Difference in Paul’s Discourse

As noted above, relocating Paul in Judaism in relation to questions of gender is not only relevant when women or issues specifically related to women are mentioned in his letters. Paul’s own Jewish identity, and his insistence of the necessity to retain the particularity of identity in Christ have decisive implications in relation to gender sensitive approaches as well. The Problem of Universalization Universalizing interpretations of Paul, whether they are of the view that Paul has separated from Judaism wholesale, or differentiate as problematic one aspect of Judaism,35 or whether they claim the identity of Israel for Christ-followers, all share the notion that there is something wrong with particular identities, or rather, to be precise, that there is something wrong with Jewish identity, including Paul’s Jewish identity. These approaches, albeit not identical with each other, share at a structural level the conflation/confusion of the universal scope of the message Paul proclaims with assimilation and sameness in terms of identity and practice. Such perceptions are problematic also in light of gender perspectives. The ignoring, silencing, or use of women in a derogatory way as the other (and of men who did not conform to dominating notions of masculinity) in androcentric theologies, over centuries resonates, certainly at a structural level, with the universalizing notions of overcoming difference in some significant strands of Pauline interpretation. Although contemporary interpretation may be some distance away from advocating that in order for women to be saved they would have to become male,36 the general notion that in Christ all differences are overcome negates ethnic diversity as well as gender and other diversities among human beings. If boundaries between “Jew and Greek” are supposed to be eradicated and their ethnic difference, including their respective traditions, are adiaphora the same must apply to gender difference. If the analogy is considered carefully this means that the particular identity of men and of women needs to be overcome in that only the “third dimension” – their humanity – is

J.D.G. Dunn, “Paul’s Conversion: A Light to 20th Century Disputes,” in The New Perspective on Paul (ed. J.D.G. Dunn; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 341–59. 36 As the Gospel of Thomas assumes (Gos. Thom. 114). 35



60

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

actually relevant in Christ. In parallel to the perception that in Christ the difference between Jews and Greeks is overcome since they are all “one” or “new” in Christ, the difference between men and women would need to be seen as overcome in Christ too, since they are all “one new man.”37 However, such a stance is hardly ever argued in New Testament interpretation and Paul does not seem to draw such a conclusion in Galatians 3:28, but clearly argues for the continued relevance of gender difference, as his arguments in, for example, 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrate. Subsequent Christian tradition, however, continued to define the nature and function of women in Christ in the vein of the dominating androcentric discourses. In this perspective women were defined as the “other,” that which the ideal “man” was not. Whoever did not cohere with this ideological perception was less than fully human, whether man or woman.38 The supposed common humanity was the ideal of masculinity of the male dominating elite who declared this ideal to be actually universal.39 In a structurally similar vein, the perception that in Christ ethnic differences are overcome is a perception of those who eventually became the dominating force in the Christ-movement, that is, non- Jews. The true human being is not female, whereas the true Christian is not Jewish. With regard to the latter, however, an exclusivist claim to the heritage of Israel is made. A universalizing interpretation of Paul that advocates the overcoming of difference, and of Jewish difference in particular, as core to his gospel, results in parallel outcomes concerning the issue of “Jews and Greeks” in Christ as well as concerning women and men in Christ. Israel and the Nations – Unity with a Difference Reading the Pauline letters as documents of first-century Judaism and Paul’s theologizing as part of an intra-Jewish discourse40 rather than as the documents

The problem may be more accentuated in English as the term used for this common humanity is actually identical with the one used for the male human beings, thus expressing quite clearly that the template of humanity is male. The German term Mensch for human being appears to express something beyond gender difference; but in both cases the terminology obscures the fact that human beings only exist in concrete form. 38 See, e.g., J. Økland, Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Space and Sanctuary Space (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 15–20. 39 See my discussion of the Roman concept of “humanitas” in Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 89–90 and 97–101. 40 See, e.g., M.D. Nanos, “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism?” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (ed. M.Given; Peabody: Henrickson, 2010), 117– 60; also P. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Jew (New York: HarperOne, 2009); W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2006); M. Zetterholm, “Paul and the Missing Messiah,” in 37

Particularity and Difference in Paul’s Discourse

61

of a former Jew,41 a marginal Jew, or a Jewish apostate have wide-ranging implications. It means that the contextuality and embodiment of human life are taken seriously. Paul is recognized as located in a particular context and tradition, imprinted with a habitus, which although mutable, is nevertheless durable. His perception of the world of his time as well as his life are seen as decisively shaped by Jewish tradition, that is, the particular tradition of a particular people at a particular time. This is a tradition for which the recognition of the particular identity of peoples, that is differentiation within diversity, is core to their understanding of God’s good creation.42 Paul’s insistence on the diversity of peoples to be maintained within the movement, that is, the retention of the difference between “circumcision and uncircumcision” (1 Cor 7:17–20) is rooted in the Jewish scriptural perception that Israel and the nations are different (e.g., Lev 18:3– 5). Israel’s call to serve God establishes a specific bond between God and his people through the covenant. However, this does not isolate Israel from the world of other peoples. The genealogical narratives (Genesis 10) for instance indicate that in and with the particular bond between Israel and her God, there are inherent relations to other peoples, depicted in the form of kinship narratives (fictive or factual).43 Difference and relatedness are not seen as being in contradiction with each other in Jewish tradition. This perception of the relationship between Israel and the nations is not always a happy one despite these inherent kinship ties, but visions of peaceful community between those who are and remain different are found in prophetic and other literature. The particular relationship of God with this people, through election, covenant, and guidance through the Torah, and the perception of “the other” as nevertheless part of God’s creation and divine economy, are not seen as being in contradiction with each other in significant trajectories of this tradition. Terry Donaldson has affirmed Jews could not tell their own national story without reference to the other nations, and if perhaps it was possible to narrate the story in such a way that the nations functioned simply as a foil for Israel, the story itself contained at least latent questions about the relationship between these other nations and the God who created them.44

The Messiah in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 33–54. 41 L.L. Sechrest, A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialectics of Race (London: T&T Clark, 2009). 42 See B.A. Berkowitz, Defining Jewish Difference: From Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 24–59. 43 E.S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 297–307. 44 T.L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 2.



62

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

There are numerous trajectories that envision non-Jews as joining themselves to the Lord as “others,” rather than joining Israel, that is, a socio-ethnic group, through conversion. This differentiation is retained in visions of the future salvation, as, e.g., in Zechariah 2:11–12, Many nations (goyim – ethnē) shall join themselves to the Lord on that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. The Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem.

Similar traditions of a clear distinction between Israel and the nations can be found in Isaiah 56:6; 2:3; Micah 4:2; and Ezra 6:21. These nations are not seen as becoming part of Israel, but they worship God as foreigners because God’s house is now a house of prayer for all peoples (Isa 56:7).45 There are traditions in these narratives that envision non-Jewish peoples joining in the praise of the God of Israel without becoming members of the people Israel, that is, without becoming like them. Their alterity is preserved.46 Trajectories of this scriptural tradition can be found in Second Temple literature as well. Whilst it is not always clear whether the distinction between Israel and the nations is envisaged as being retained in such eschatological visions, some texts clearly presuppose such a distinction, such as T. Jud. 25:5: “and the deer of Jacob shall run with gladness; the eagles of Israel shall fly with joy; the impious shall mourn and sinners shall weep, but all peoples (ethnē) shall glorify God forever” (see also 1 Enoch 90:30–38; Pss Sol 17:28, 34; 2 Bar 72:2–6). The distinctions between, and diversity of, nations/ ethnē is maintained and so is their specific way of life, possibly including their way of relating to God. Whilst other traditions envisaged that the nations would abandon their traditions and “turn to honouring our laws alone” (Philo, Mos. 2:43– 44), the Pauline insistence on the retention of the particular identities of Israel and the nations is part of one of the diverse continuous trajectories of Jewish tradition from the scriptures to Second Temple literature that envisage the unity of Israel and the nations in their diversity.47 It cannot be discerned precisely

J. Kaminsky, “Israel’s Election and the Other in Biblical, Second Temple, and Rabbinic Thought’,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins (ed. D.C. Harlow, K.M. Hogan, M.L. Go; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) 17–30, here 20, argues that even a text like Lev 24:22, which refers to “one law for natives and resident aliens” implies “that the group boundaries remain intact.” 46 On alterity, see E. Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1969), 194–219, and also my discussion of Levinas and Paul in K. Ehrensperger, “Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle: Reading Romans in the Face of the Other,” in Reading Romans with Contemporary Philosophers and Theologians (ed. D. Odell-Scott; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 115–54, now chapter 14 of this volume. 47 For more details, see the discussion by Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles, 499–505; also Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 154–60. 45

Particularity and Difference in Paul’s Discourse

63

which specific traditions of this narrative were influential for Paul’s understanding of his call to the nations, but it can hardly be envisaged that such traditions were not of some importance for his understanding of his call to bring about the obedience of faith among all the nations (Rom 1:5). Thus Paul does not consider particularity a problem that needs to be overcome. The identity, values, and commitment of particular people – Jews, Greeks, and barbarians – are not considered to be an obstacle for peace and reconciliation between people who are different, except that those from the nations have to “turn away from idols” (1 Thess 1:9). Although the latter certainly had major implications at everyday level for those from the nations,48 Paul consistently and repeatedly insists that Jews and “gentiles” retain their identity in Christ that they remain in the calling in which they were called (1 Cor 7:17).49 It is a perception of unity that differs clearly from the prevalent perception of unity as enforced by imperial ideology, where acceptance and some respect by Rome for those who were different came at the price of assimilation to the way of life of the Roman (or Greek) elite.50 Inherent to the recognition that Paul and the message he conveys are embedded in Judaism is the recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the different identities of Jews and non-Jews in Christ. At the heart of the earliest Christ-movement, as in some traditions of Second Temple Judaism, there is thus not a hegemonic claim to sameness, but a recognition of unity and equality in difference. Neither Jew nor Greek have to assimilate to the identity of the other in order for unity and reconciliation to be possible in Christ. “Never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another” (Rom 14:13), not to injure one another (14:15), but accommodate one another (15:2), and welcome one another (15:7), are certainly not calls to assimilate to the identity of the other, and to become the same. The recognition and respect for the others in their difference is a prerequisite for understanding, reconciliation, and unity. Communication and community presuppose difference and plurality rather than sameness or uniformity.51 Paul is trying to negotiate the recognition of “alterity” in relation to non-Jews in Christ, not at the expense of Jewish identity, but the opposite. Rather the particular identities of

See K. Ehrensperger, “The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15.31): Paul's Hopes and Fears,” in Erlesenes Jerusalem: Festschrift für Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed . L. Kundert and C. Tuor-Kurth; Basel: Reinhardt Verlag, 2013), 338–52, now chapter 17 of this volume. 49 W.S. Campbell, Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context (Eugene, 2013), 205–23; J.B. Tucker, Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4 (Eugene: Cascade, 2011). 50 See Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 156–58. 51 Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 73; cf. also Ehrensperger, “Reading Romans in the Face of the Other.” 48



64

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

both are being affirmed positively. It is these that are the building blocks of the unity in Christ rather than their eradication. Such a recognition cannot be merely claimed for the Christ-followers from the nations, who are not required to become Jews and remain the “uncircumcision” but must also apply to the Jews who are not to become non-Jews but remain the “circumcision.” The recognition of Paul’s Jewishness is the recognition of particularity. It means to recognize that there is no such phenomenon as a universal human being in this earthly existence – there are only particular human beings in particular places at specific moments in time. Such particularity is claimed and positively asserted within Jewish tradition. As such the recognition of Paul’s Jewishness should be a decisive aspect in any approaches that try to overcome universalizing hegemonic tendencies in contemporary interpretation, including in gender-critical approaches. As I have argued above, the universalizing tendencies in interpretation not only denied recognition to Jewish identity but also continued to legitimize androcentric gender perceptions in that the ideal generic human being was conceptualized according to a dominating elitist template of masculinity.52 Those who did not conform to this image, whether men or women, would not be granted equal respect, as their difference was considered a hindrance to full humanity. This universalization of a particular male ideal had detrimental effects for women, and for peoples who eventually became subject to European colonization, as well as for men who did not conform to this image of masculinity. The universalization of a particular image of men as representing humanity as such imposed assimilation on those who were different or exposed them to contempt and humiliation. The recognition of particularity as being at the center of the Christ-movement is thus an important step in light of a gender-critical perspective. The Recognition of Particularity: Insights from Gender Studies In contemporary contexts, the implications drawn from the recognition of Paul’s Jewishness, including the recognition of particularity and diversity at the heart of his theologizing, can in my view be extended to issues concerning gender questions. It includes the recognition of the particularity of human beings per se, in the vein Hannah Arendt has formulated: “Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live.”53 The social, historical, cultural, and linguistic imprints of our contexts are durable dimensions of what it means to be human, and they include gender

For a detailed discussion see Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, 97–110. 53 H. Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 8. 52

Particularity and Difference in Paul’s Discourse

65

as well as other dimensions of our identity. I am not arguing an essentialist or individualistic stance here. I consider culture and social location to be constructed not in an individualistic sense but in a corporate sense, which means that individuals are born into existing cultures and societies, nurtured and corporately formed in a relational web that contributes to the formation of the “habitus.”54 Thus men and women are socially conditioned in particular ways in action, reaction, and interaction in and with their contexts, and continue to be so in their respective walks of life.55 Largely through the influence of gender studies, the recognition of the embodied dimension of human beings has moved into the focus of attention in the social sciences and humanities.56 Beate Krais is of the view that Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus provides the tool for “a systematic, analytical approach to the fundamental bodiliness of human action.”57 The body is a repository for social experience, constituting an essential part of the “habitus”58 and as such it enacts what has been learned, “bringing it back to life. What is

Pierre Bourdieu has argued that this habitus, understood as dispositions, is imprinted durably in us and decisively shapes our ongoing interactions and reactions as we walk through life. It is thereby further formed and transformed by new contexts and experiences based on, and in relation to, the existing imprint. 55 Some feminist theorists have argued that this amounts to a deterministic inscription of gender, leaving no room for agency and change. See discussions in Feminism after Bourdieu (ed. L. Adkins and B. Skeggs; Oxford: Blackwell, 2004). Over against this, feminists from a poststructuralist perspective have argued for a radical constructivist stance in that gender is a performative discourse at the symbolic level of language, attributing the potential and power of agency to this level. However, this has been considered as a conflation of social reality with linguistic reality, and as dealing with issues of gender and other inequalities at an abstract level. In response to such theories, Bourdieu formulated that, “While it never does harm to point out that gender, nation, or ethnicity or race are social constructs, it is naïve, even dangerous, to suppose and suggest that one only has to ‘deconstruct’ these social artefacts, in a purely performative celebration of ‘resistance,’ in order to destroy them” (P. Bourdieu, Pascalian Meditations [Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000], 108). I cannot discuss this debate here, but it is worth noting that feminist political theorist Lois McNay comments concerning poststructuralist feminism that “the imperialism of the universal that is implied in the over-extension of a linguistic model of identity formation is, in the final analysis, a form par excellence of symbolic violence perpetuated by ‘enlightened’ élites upon the practical activities of social actors” (“Agency and Experience: Gender as Lived Relation,” in Feminism after Bourdieu (ed. L. Adkins, B. Skeggs; Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 175–90, here 181). She and other feminist theorists engage critically with Bourdieu’s work and consider it relevant, albeit within limitations, for gender-critical approaches. 56 Including biblical studies, as Jennifer Glancy demonstrates in Corporeal Knowledge: Early Christian Bodies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). 57 B. Krais, “Gender, Sociological Theory and Bourdieu’s Sociology of Practice,” Theory, Culture, Society 23, no. 6 (2006), 119–34 (127). Emphasis in original. 58 Ibid., 127. 54



66

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

‘learned by the body’ is not something one has, like knowledge […] but something that one is.”59 Such learning is mediated in particular social contexts; it is both shaped by and contributes to how the context is shaped. Bourdieu thus argues that “the subject is not the instantaneous ego of a sort of individual cogito, but the individual trace of an entire collective history.”60 This collective contextuality is permeated by the omnipresence of gender in all social interactions and processes. In as much as there is no human existence apart from particular ethnic, linguistic, and cultural contexts, there is no human existence in a non-gendered form. However, this does not mean the same for everyone but should rather be considered in the vein of “variations of a theme.”61 Without resorting to essentialized or biological notions of gender in terms of characteristics, roles, or sexuality, the social and contextual dimension of human existence includes the embodiment of gender in various ways. Gender is not an abstraction but always concrete and thus particular, embodied or “inhabited” by men and women in particular ways within the contexts of their societies, who creatively shape, and are shaped by, this embodiment in interaction with other “players” in the multiple social fields of societies. Implicit to this recognition is the insight of the particularity of human existence. An analogy can be drawn between the universalization of the image of the so-called ideal elite man as the template for being human, and the universalization of the non-Jewish way of life as the one and only way of life in Christ. Both are universalizations of particulars and thus are discourses of assimilating domination. To declare a particular embodiment or way of life universal means to ignore, eradicate, or delegitimize any other form or way of life, not just at the level of linguistic discourse but in actual reality. The contempt and at times violent oppression of women, Jews, non-elite men, and gay and lesbians are expressions of similar efficacies of universalizing notions and practices. The recognition of Paul and his theologizing as Jewish, has significant implications in light of gender-critical perspectives since it resonates with the latter’s emphasis on embodiment and the particularity of human experiences, practices, and perceptions. Paul himself did not draw out any implications of his emphasis on the retention of particular identities in Christ in relation to gender. This seemed to have been beyond his horizon. He was concerned about relationships between ethnically different peoples as constitutive of messianic communities. In order for particularity not to disintegrate into factionalism or superiority claims based on difference, the notion of equality is central in his theologizing. And although Paul does not apply his respective guidance explicitly to gender relations, there is no reason to not include these by analogy. Paul’s stance against boasting can be seen as a test case in this regard.

P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), 73. 60 Ibid., 91. 61 See Krais, “Gender, Sociological Theory,” 128. 59

Particularity and Difference in Paul’s Discourse

67

Equality with a Difference It is evident that Paul has a clear stance when it comes to expressions of superiority and humiliating behaviour within the Christ-following communities.62 Although Paul clearly emphasizes the retention of Jewish and “gentile” identity in Christ, this is not an argument for negative stereotyping or any superiority claim by either of them. The particularity of “Jew and Greek” goes hand in hand with the emphasis on their equality in Christ. Neither Jews nor Christfollowers from the nations have any reason to boast over against each other (Rom 2:11, 17). The only acceptable boasting in this movement is “in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31; Jer 9:23). It could be argued that this is merely another way of expressing superiority claims, and that by boasting in the Lord Paul claims authority and domination over the communites he had founded. It is possible to read respective passages in that vein.63 But the Lord Paul refers to here is not one of the heroes of Greek and Roman tradition but a God who taught Israel to walk and who lifted her like an infant to his cheek (Hos 11:1–11), who called Israel, and now through Christ also calls those from the nations into a relationship with him, and does not force them into a connection with him in a dominating way. This indicates that “boasting in the Lord” can hardly have anything to do with superiority claims or an exercise of power in a dominating way. In order to teach a child to walk, nothing but tender, loving care and encouragement will help the child to trust in a steadfast, supportive hand, and eventually in his or her ability to walk. To respond to the call of this God means to live a way of life that corresponds to the One who called. It is a God who reminds his people that he freed them from slavery, which obliges them to care for those who are vulnerable in the community (Deut 10:18–19; 24:17–18). Paul’s Jewish tradition presents

Cf. also K. Ehrensperger, “‘Called to be Saints’ – the Identity-Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 90–109, now chapter 15 of this volume. 63 Such readings are mainly rooted in male-stream theological perceptions of God as the absolute sovereign to whom humans owe submissive obedience. Such images of God have been challenged by feminist theologians as replications of patriarchal/kyriarchal paradigms of domination into the realm of the divine. Read through such frameworks Paul then is seen as replicating such paradigms and contributes to their stabilization. Feminist theologians such as Serene Jones and Joy Ann McDougall (“Sin – No More? A Feminist Re-Visioning of a Christian Theology of Sin,” Anglican Theological Review 88, no. 2 [2006], 215–35), have presented feminist approaches to the image of God and divine – human relation that emphasize interdependence and responsiveness as characteristics in this respect. However, they do not refer to Jewish tradition as actually the basis and root for such a perception of the divine- human relation. Based on feminist theories of power I have argued for a reading of the Pauline discourse of ὑπακοὴ πίστεως as a discourse of responsibility rooted in Judaism (Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 160–72. 62



68

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

alternative perceptions to Greek and Roman notions of the use of dominating power.64 There is a discourse of empowerment at the heart of this tradition, a discourse of trust in a God who hears the cries of those in need (e.g., Exod 2:23–25; 3:7–9; Pss 3:4; 9:12; 22:5; 32:7; 99:6; 106:44; 145:19; 1 Kgs 8:51– 53; Neh 9:9; Isa 19:20; 65:19). This tradition was alive in Second Temple Judaism in various forms, evident in clear echoes of the Exodus passages in 1 Enoch 86:16ff., and when Philo tells of how Moses and Aaron told the people “how God had conceived pity and compassion for them, promised them freedom and a departure from thence to a better country, promising also that he himself would be their guide on their road” (Mos. 1:86). Josephus has Moses admonished to travel back to Egypt without delay, “but to make haste to Egypt, and to travel night and day, and not to draw out the time, and so make the slavery of the Hebrews and their sufferings to last the longer” (Ant. 2:274). According to the book of Judith, the prayers of the people in distress are heard: “The Lord heard their prayers and had regard for their distress; for the people fasted many days throughout Judea and in Jerusalem before the sanctuary of the Lord Almighty” (4:13); and Judith’s own prayer expresses a strong trust that God will hear: “For your strength does not depend on number nor your might on the powerful. But you are the God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, savior of those without hope” (9:11).65 It is in this Lord in whom Christ-followers shall boast, if they boast at all.66 These claims would need to orient themselves on the trust and faithfulness of God and the power exercised needs to be a power that respects and supports others in their particularity and difference. Thus this “anti-boasting” stance is not based on a notion of sameness. Paul affirms that there is an advantage in being Jewish when he asserts that they “were entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), that to them “belong the adoption, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”

Cf. Augustus’s report about the conquest of the Dacians: “an army of Dacians which crossed to the south of that river was, under my auspices, defeated and crushed, and afterwards my own army was led across the Danube and compelled the nations of the Dacians to submit to the rule of the Roman people” (Res gestae 30); or Pliny’s report about Pompey’s success: “Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Imperatur, having completed a war of thirty years, routed, exiled, murdered, or accepted surrender of 183,000 people, sunk or captured 846 ships, received 1538 towns and forts in faith, subjugated lands from the Maetoinians to the Red Sea, rightly vows to Minerva” (Nat. 7:26:97). Numerous further examples of the Roman ideology of conquest that justified violence could be added here. Cf. also the discussion in D.J. Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 125–45. 65 Cf. also A. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 354–55, who sees analogies to the Exodus narrative in the Enochic Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90). 66 For a more detailed discussion, see Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 162–66. 64

Conclusion

69

(Rom 9:4). This clearly is an advantage, but it is not a reason for being superior to non-Jewish Christ-followers. To have an advantage and to be superior are not identical.67 However, the advantage of the Jews provides also no reason for them to be treated more severely for their failure to remain faithful to the covenant, as, for example, an excellent theologian like J. Christiaan Beker could maintain.68 Jews are affected by sin as are non-Jews, and in that sense they are equal with non-Jews, but they remain God’s beloved kata ten eklogen (Rom 11:28). Thus those from the nations who are now in Christ have no reason to boast over those Jews who are not convinced by the message of the gospel (Rom 11:18),69 or to consider the way of life of Jews in Christ as something that needs to be patiently accepted for the time being but that would eventually be rendered obsolete. Israel is called into existence by God through his covenant with them, the Torah is God’s guidance for them to be Israel in an inhospitable world, and “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:19). This means that Israel’s existence and identity are inherently linked with God’s call and it is theologically inconceivable to argue that, if not immediately then eventually, Israel’s way of life will be rendered obsolete in Christ. 70 This would mean that eventually Israel would actually cease to exist, rendering God’s call revocable! This is certainly not Paul’s conviction when he asserts that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). Equality does not “obliterate” difference. What Paul sees as being enabled in Christ is unity and reconciliation between those who are and remain different, Jews and Greeks, men and women, but who now can recognize each other as equals, that is, as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Conclusion Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that there are significant analogies between gendersensitive approaches and those that locate Paul firmly within Judaism. Taking Paul’s Judaism seriously sheds new light on Paul’s perception of women, on

Cf. Campbell, Unity and Diversity, 16, following A.J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 133–39. 68 J.C. Beker, Paul, the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), 81–82, makes statements such as “Paul wants to destroy the preeminently Jewish sin of boasting,” and “The Jew highlights sin in its most demonic aspect.” 69 M.D. Nanos, “‘Broken Branches’: A Pauline Metaphor Gone Awry? (Romans 11:11– 24),” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (ed. J.R. Wagner, F. Wilk; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 339–76. 70 As T. Engberg-Pedersen maintains in “‘Everything is Clean’ and ‘Everything That is Not of Faith is Sin’: The Logic of Pauline Casuistry in Romans 14.1–15.13,” in Paul, Grace, and Freedom: Essays in Honour of John K. Riches (ed. P. Middleton et al.; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 22–38. 67



70

Chapter 3 The Question(s) of Gender

his actual guidance in relation to issues concerning women in particular, as well as on his recognition of them in their leadership roles. Rather than being an indication for a reactionary, innovative, or contradictory tendency, Paul’s attitudes and relations to women are part of the way of life considered appropriate in relation to the God of Israel in Second Temple Judaism, applied by him now to those called from the nations. Paul’s specific and continued embeddedness in Judaism has been seen also in his insistence on the value and retention of particularity and differences in Christ. It leads him to practice a form of theologizing that is concrete and aware of the particularities and diversities of life. The overcoming of particularity and difference is not an option Paul could have advocated as it would have been inconsistent with the traditions of his ancestors also after the coming of Christ. But difference cannot be a reason for superiority claims between those who are and remain different. Inherent to the advocacy for Jews and non-Jews to remain as called is the ruling out of any kind of boasting over one another. Any asymmetry between those called should lead to relationships of transformative power through which empowerment for life emerges.71 Where such empowerment was blocked or hindered, whether in Rome or Galatia or at the Lord’s Table in Corinth, Paul intervened. The calling of God initiates relationships, aiming at freeing those called from the constraints and burdens of sin, rather than from their particular identities, as Jews or nations, men or women. As those who are and remain different, they are those who are called and enabled to “shine forth the goodness of God […] in and through […] beneficent relations with others.”72 Relationality presupposes difference rather than overcoming it and recognition of, and respect for, those who are different is what actually enables community and understanding rather than a supposed notion of sameness. Gender-critical approaches have raised awareness of the universalizing notions of traditional male-stream theologies and interpretations, and they have pioneered the necessity of critical reflection on the hermeneutical presuppositions at work in any interpreter’s approach to biblical texts and theologies. This has transformative and at times radical implications for theologizing in a gender-critical vein. The recognition of Paul’s embeddedness in Judaism has similar although different transformative and radical implications for theologizing in a non-supersessionist vein. Thus the recognition of Paul and his theologizing in its concrete Jewish particularity should be a core dimension of gender-sensitive interpretative and theological approaches, in as much as gender-sensitive approaches should be included as a core aspect in Paul within Judaism studies.

For a discussion of power in feminist perspective and its relevance for Pauline studies, see Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 24–34. 72 K. Tanner, Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 69–70. 71

Conclusion

71

These approaches mutually resonate with each other in many ways, providing illuminating potential for each of them where the other is concerned.



















4. Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man? Gendered Aspects of Cultural Translation The masculinity of Paul has become a focus of interest not just with the recent rise of masculinity studies, but already in 19th-century perceptions of the apostle; he either was considered to be too Jewish, even the paradigmatic Jew and as such a kind of unmanly man;1 or at the other end of the spectrum he was the Christian hero, the lonely fighter against all the odds, the liberator of the Christian message from its Jewish bonds, and as such the epitome of the ideal 19th century man.2 It is interesting that in these perceptions Paul’s manliness and his Jewish identity were closely intertwined, although on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Cf. D. Havemann, Der “Apostel der Rache”: Nietzsches Paulusdeutung (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2002); In his “Der Antichrist” no. 45 (Vol 8, 249f.) Nietzsche considers Paul a “fürchterliche[n] Betrüger” and “den größte[n] aller Apostel der Rache …”. And further he claims that (at no. 58, 276) “Paulus” sei “der Fleisch-, der Genie-gewordene TschandalaHaß gegen Rom, gegen ‘die Welt’, der Jude, der ewige Jude par excellence […] Was er erriet, das war, wie man mit Hilfe der kleinen sektiererischen Christen-Bewegung abseits des Judentums einen ‘Weltbrand’ entzünden könne, wie man mit dem Symbol ‘Gott am Kreuze’ alles Unten-Liegende, alles Heimlich-Aufrührerische, die ganze Erbschaft anarchistischer Umtriebe im Reich, zu einer ungeheuren Macht aufsummieren könne.” For Paul LaGarde Paul’s influence on emerging Christianity was disastrous “Paulus hat uns das Alte Testament in die Kirche gebracht, an dessen Einflüsse das Evangelium, soweit dies möglich, zugrunde gegangen ist: Paulus hat uns mit der pharisäischen Exegese beglückt, die alles aus allem beweist, den Inhalt, der im Texte gefunden werden soll, fertig in der Tasche mitbringt und dann sich rühmt, nur dem Worte zu folgen: Paulus hat uns die jüdische Opfertheorie und alles, was daran hängt, in das Haus getragen: die ganze […] jüdische Ansicht von der Geschichte ist uns von ihm aufgebunden. Er hat das getan unter dem lebhaften Widerspruche der Urgemeinde, die, so jüdisch sie war, weniger jüdisch dachte als Paulus, die wenigstens nicht raffinierten Israelitismus für ein von Gott gesandtes Evangelium hielt. Paulus hat sich endlich gegen alle Einwürfe gepanzert mit der aus dem zweiten Buche des Gesetzes herübergeholten Verstockungstheorie, die es freilich so leicht macht zu disputieren, wie es leicht ist, einen Menschen, der Gründe bringt und Gegengründe hören will, damit abzufertigen, daß man ihn für verhärtet erklärt.” Paul LaGarde, “Über das Verhältnis des deutschen Staates zu Theologie, Kirche und Religion (1873),” in Deutsche Schriften (München: Lehmann, 1937), 68. 2 Chamberlain sees in Paul the greatest man of Christianity who in his perception of the relevance of religion for humankind is so fundamentally un-Jewish that he would deserve the label “anti-Jewish” (“In seinem tiefsten inneren Wesen, in seiner Auffassung von der Bedeutung der Religion im Menschenleben ist Paulus so unjüdisch, dass er das Epitheton antijüdisch verdient; das Jüdische an ihm ist zum grössten Teile lediglich Schale, es treten darin lediglich die unausrottbaren Angewohnheiten des intellektuellen Mechanismus zu Tage”). H.S. Chamberlain, Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts. Vol 2 (Munich: Bruckmann, 1899), 583–84. 1

74

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

This is replicated in more recent approaches especially since the imperial context has been recognized as having had significant impact at all levels on these emerging Christ-following groups, and thus on Paul’s letters. Studies on the socio-political contexts, informed at times by intersections of contemporary post-colonial theories and gender studies, have found divergent images of the apostle – from replicating colonial male dominance3 to being the subversive anti-imperial feminized liberator,4 or an irritating mixture of both.5 Paul does present himself as a man/male, in terms of his body as well as his gender perception. He categorizes the people he refers to in gendered form and places himself on the male side of this gender spectrum. He refers to himself in gendered terms and boasts in gendered credentials as, e.g., in Phil 3:5–6 or 2 Cor 11:22–30. He claims authority and power in relation to the Christ-groups he has set up (2 Cor 10:10), asks for respect, and engages in fierce competitive debates, if not fights, with people he considers to be on the wrong track (e.g., 2 Cor 11:4–15; Gal 5:7–12) or are interfering in activity fields he considers his terrain. On the other hand, he acknowledges his weakness and humbleness, presents himself as a fool (2 Cor 11:16, 12:11), shows himself vulnerable, unimpressive, and actually powerless, seemingly retracting from all power claims. An irritating image of a man – an apparently unclear self-portrait, letting us see a man in a mirror dimly rather than clearly. What sort of a man is this? How can such a wavering image of a man gain trust and authority – which he seems to have achieved, at least to some extent? The divergence of images is irritating in itself – and as with other Pauline themes such as the law, seemingly contradictory statements can be found in his letters. As with other themes, so also here, the starting point of the analysis should be the context of the individual letter, as far as it can be discerned. Hence, I am not presenting here the solution to the conundrum of Paul, the Man – if such a thing were possible, but some considerations with a particular focus on Philippians. Of special interest to me is the dominating Roman socio-political and cultural context of the colony under the early Principate.6 For the purpose of this contribution I will focus on the Roman context of Paul’s self-

Cf., e.g., C.B. Kitteredge, Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the Pauline Tradition (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 37–51; J.A. Marchal, Hierarchy, Unity and Imitation: A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis of Power Dynamcis in Paul’s Letter to the Philippian (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). 4 D.C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). 5 C. Conway, Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), esp. chapter 4 “The Unmanned Christ and the Manly Christian in the Pauline Tradition.” 6 For the history of the colony see, e.g., P. Oakes, Philippians: From People to Letter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); C. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, “Colonia Iulia 3

Presenting Credentials in Philippi

75

presentation as I consider it important not to conflate Greek and Roman culture and identity. There existed no blended Greco-Roman culture or identity7 or sense of “Greekness and Romanness as a seamless pair”8 in antiquity. The focus on masculinity is of course also informed by contemporary research in gender studies. The caution raised by applying the contemporary lens to the looking glass by which we try to get a gaze of life in antiquity is certainly legitimate,9 however, the hermeneutical issue cannot be resolved in the end, but can only be kept at the forefront of attention as I have argued in previous publications.10 I will thus primarily focus on perceptions of manliness in early imperial Roman discourse on the one hand and Paul’s Jewish identity on the other in order to get a sense of the manliness of Paul, the Jewish apostle to the nations.

Presenting Credentials in Philippi Presenting Credentials in Philippi

Paul presents himself in Phil 3:5 in the vein of an honourable free born man – in a vein which seems to somehow replicate the Roman cursus honorum.11 He mentions that he is a free-born male member of his people by reference to his circumcision on the eight day – a clear marker, together with the following reference that he is from the people Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, that he is not only a free-born male but the son of free-born ancestors according to his

Augusta Philippensis,” in Philippi at the Time of Paul and after his Death (ed. C. Bakirtzis, H. Koester; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International 1998), 5–35. 7 Cf. the detailed arguments I presented in K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 17–38 and 76– 83. Similarly A.Y. Reed and N.B. Dohrmann, “Rethinking Romanness, Provinicializing Christendom,” in Jews, Christians, and the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity (ed. A.Y. Reed, N.B. Dohrmann; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 1–21, esp.4–9. 8 Reed, Dohrmann, “Rethinking Romanness,” 5. 9 B. Holmes, Gender, Antiquity, and its Legacy (London: Tauris, 2012); L. Foxhall, Studying Gender in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 10 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), esp.5–42. 11 The traditional cursus honorum had undergone changes in the transition from the Republic to the Imperial period with the competition among the aristocratic houses now giving way to competition to win the favour of the ruling imperial dynasty. Honor was now being acquired in relation to the honor and glory of the Caesar. J.R. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 225–32. Note that the Augustus Forum developed after Augustus’ victory in the battle of Philippi. He had pledged that he would build a temple to Mars Ultor on the eve before the battle (Suetonius Aug. 29:3; Ovid, Fasti 5:569–78; Res Gestae 21:1) to revenge the assassination of his adoptive father.



76

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

tradition. The addressees in Philippi most likely were not members of the Roman elite, but rather Greeks and Thracians living in the Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis, who had experienced the effects of Roman colonization. Prime land and the civil administration were firmly in the colonizers’ hands, the local population were viewed as members of inferior colonized peoples/ ἔθνη in Roman ideological perception.12 With the Roman ideology dominating the public discourse visually and in many aspects of everyday life, the analogy of Paul’s self-presentation would most likely be seen in respective Roman credentials, which certainly were propagated at the time in the Colonia as inscriptional evidence demonstrates.13 It has been noted that the reference to ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ resonates with the designation of a ‘civis Romanus’ as Roman citizen, the reference to φυλῆς Βενιαμίν resonates with the accompanying necessary belonging to a Roman neighborhood, that is, a tribal designation (Tribus Voltinia). The reference to Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων14 could equal the reference to the father in Latin inscriptions whereas the reference to circumcision on the eight day may be seen in analogy to the receiving of the tria nomina of a boy in Roman elite tradition on the ninth day after birth. Pilhofer is also of the view that the additional acquired credentials mentioned by Paul resonate with what a free Roman citizen would need to add to his birth nobility by acquired achievements.15 All of these credentials point to a free citizen of established ancestry, hence a full member of the assembly/ἐκκλησία of his people.16 Paul here seems to replicate a dominating masculinity discourse, claiming equivalence in terms of authority and respect owed to free born Roman elite men. At least this is how his enumeration

Cf. R. Brawley, “An Alternative Community and an Oral Encomium: Traces of the People in Philippi,” in The People beside Paul: The Philippian Assembly and History from Below (ed. J.A. Marchal; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 223–46, (225–27), on the population of the Roman colony see Oakes, Philippians, 44–63. 13 J.R. Harrison, “Excavating the Urban and Country Life of Roman Philippi,” in The First Urban Churches 4: Roman Philippi (ed. J.R. Harrison, L.L. Welborn; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018), 1–61. 14 This does not exclude the possibility that Paul may refer to him being part of a family/clan who continued to speak or have knowledge of Hebrew and who might have considered this a special expression of loyalty to their ancestral tradition. It could serve as an identity marker. Cf S. Schoch, “The Pre-Eminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006 (ed. G.G. Xeravits, J. Zsengellér; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43–54, here 45–48. 15 P. Pilhofer, Philippi I, Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 124–27. On the receiving of the tria nomina see M. McDowell, Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 175. 16 See Philo’s reference to the third generation after the conversion of the grandfather only becoming part of the assembly (ἐκκλησία). Virt 108. 12

Manly Men in Roman Perception

77

of manly credentials could be heard. In the Philippian context this is not such a far cry, the colony was full of Latin honorary inscriptions through which the colonizing Roman elite expressed their “confidence in the flesh.” 17 Clearly Paul tries to establish an authority claim in evoking male credentials of nobility, education, and achievements, even though before (2:3–11) and immediately after this list of male credentials he seems to invert them (3:7–8). To invert something of high value, those addressed must be able to understand the inversion, that is, the value of credentials that Paul presents here. If these credentials are supposed to resonate with the Roman elite ideal of masculinity, that is, the perception of the vir who embodies in his career (cursus honorum) the virtutes which guarantee his perception as a vir and demonstrate his virility in the public realm, the “saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi” (1:1) must be able to discern the allusion. To get a sense of what Paul’s self-presentation might have implied we need to consider some exemplary aspects of this Roman discourse of virility here.18

Manly Men in Roman Perception Manly Men in Roman Perception

Although restricted and now directed towards participation in the honor/ δόξα concentrated in the house of the imperial clan, the Roman perceptions of manliness and male honour were the dominating ethos of a Roman colony such as Philippi in the first century. The status of manhood was not something that a boy arrived at automatically by coming of age, rather, “it is a precarious or artificial state that boys must win against powerful odds.”19 It had to be achieved and demonstrated in the public arena, even if the boy was free born into the right aristocratic clan, and thus at least had the potential of becoming a man – or in Roman terms a vir. One was not born a vir, one had to be moulded into one. Although the biological status was determined at birth, through the inspection of the outer genitals, to be born male did not mean intrinsically that one had the potential to become a vir. Status was a decisive pre-requisite. A male slave could be referred to as

J.R. Harrison, “From Rome to the Colony of Philippi: Roman Boasting in Philippians 3:4–6 in its Latin West and the Philippian Epigraphic Context,” in The First Urban Churches 4 (ed. J.R. Harrison, L.L. Welborn; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018), 307–70 (320–27). 18 For further details see the extensive literature, e.g., M.W. Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Anicent Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995); When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity (ed. L. Foxhall, J. Salmon; London, 1998); L. Foxhall, Studying Gender in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 19 D. Gilmore, Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 11. 17



78

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

a homo or puer in Latin – and σῶμα/body in Greek, but never as a vir; as such he also was never capable of having virtus/virtue; the status a former slave could achieve upon manumission was not that of a “vir” but that of a libertus/freedman. A good freedman (libertus) was not one who possessed virtus but loyalty (fides, πίστις) expressed in relation to his former master, now his patron. To become a vir one had to be born free and, in most cases, into the nobility. In addition a boy had to succumb to fierce training from a young age to learn how to walk and talk, dress and relate to others (social etiquette). Rhetoric played a key role in this clearly staged education process. In addition to learning how to speak and debate in a strong, virile, not too emotional but vivid voice, the boy also had to learn how to perform in public speech and debate. The learning of the correct body language was of eminent importance. Delivery and thoughts are intimately connected, as Cicero claims “Nature has assigned to every emotion its own particular facial expression, tone of voice and gesture.” (Omnis enim motus animi suum quemdam a natura habet vultum et sonum et gestum De Orat. 3 :56.213–58.217). In Cicero’s concept what is innate in natura needs to be perfected by ars (training). Learning how to speak well included learning how to move. A speech was the enactment of thoughts, and only when body and words were in harmony was the orator considered trustworthy, demonstrating that he is a proper vir. (Est enim actio quasi sermo corporis – For by action the body talks, De Or 3:59.222).20 The mastering of this art is the pathway that leads to honor, reputation, status and glory, through fierce competition among young elite men, continuously contesting each others’ status. In a realm where a young man had to be “the best, the greatest, the first, the unus vir”21 to acquire and maintain his dignitas and virtus, there were always others one had to compete against and who had to be overcome. 22 Speech and performance had to be masculine in order to lead to success, and the risk of effeminacy always lured around the corner. If the voice was too high, the hand gesture too “feminine” etc. , ridicule would quickly be the answer – and provide ammunition for competitors to denigrate the rhetorician as effeminate, and thus not a true man. The focus on the embodiment of masculinity in movement and gesture included the concept of the integrity of the body

Cf. also Quintillian 11:3.1 21 C. Barton, Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 47. 22 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 102–03, also S.S. Bartchy, “Who Should be Called Father? Paul of Tarsus between the Jesus Tradition and Patria Potestas,” BTB 33 (2003), 135–47. 20

Manly Men in Roman Perception

79

of a vir. Physical punishment was reserved for the non-elite, slaves and provincials in particular.23 The only deviation from this rule was the option of acquiring a man-like status through an outstanding military career. By showing virtus, that is manly courage, in battle over the course of a long military career under the auspices of a powerful, noble patron, one could become not a vir, but a homo novus who had demonstrated and thus was acknowledged as having virtus.24 Notions of masculinity and femininity were fundamental ordering concepts in the period in question. They were not merely categorising people along outer appearance, that is, biological appearance. As mentioned above, only a small section of new-born babies identified as male would be considered potential men/viri when living to adulthood. Not all males had the same category of a body. The male body (no less than the female) was the place upon which power relations were mapped, including social, economic and political status. From a Roman perspective most males were homines and never would acquire the status of a vir. This not only applied to slaves and freedmen, but to all provincials prior to the granting of Roman citizenship by Caracalla in 212 CE. With most men in the Roman empire of the first century, at least in theory, not being considered men/ viri, it is evident that the concept of gender was not binary but a socially constructed scale of degrees of masculinity and femininity respectively which marked hierarchies of status, power, and value. To be a vir was not a natural state – and to demonstrate virtus was not either. The highest value and status was attributed to the true man/vir, a freeborn male Roman citizen, as far as possible independent of the power of others, but most significantly, free to exercise power over others.25 He had to be able to enact and embody this status and maintain his legal, financial and personal autonomy lest he would loose this status, that is, would cease being a man/ vir. The status of vir was that of the dominating man at the top of a pyramid of power, embodied ideally by the pater familias who had legal authority over the members (free and slaves) of his familia and domus. Loss of this position or not being part of the Roman elite, implied the loss of, or near impossibility to attain, the status

Jennifer Glancy and Davina Lopez have drawn specific attention to the degrading and humiliating dimension implicit in the transgression of bodily integrity by being beaten or sexually penetrated. J. Glancy, “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25),” JBL 123.1 (2006), 99–135; D. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining the Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). 24 On Cicero as an exception to this general rule see McDonnell, Roman Manliness, 332– 55. Note also that under certain circumstances, and particularly as members of the imperial household, women could be attributed virtus, cf. McDonnell, Roman Manliness, 161–65 and 388 with reference to Tac.Ann. 2:41.4 and Dio 60:22.2; Ovid on Livia, Pont. 3:1.115. 25 Cf. R. Alston, “Arms and the Man: Soldiers, Masculinity, and Power in Republican and Imperial Rome,” in When Men were Men (ed. L. Foxhall, J. Salmon; London: Routledge, 1998), 205–23 (206). 23



80

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

of vir, sliding towards the feminine, that is, towards a category inferior to a true vir. The fully feminine was located at the opposite end of the gendered scale hence the loss of, or impossibility of being a vir, meant to be on the slippery road from being truly masculine or being near to masculinity towards the feminine, at risk of becoming more and more effeminate, located at the lower end of the power and value categorization system. What I have briefly described here is of course not descriptive of the power relations and social categorisation but what can be deduced from the prescriptive elite male literature available to us. And this is merely the social side of the categorisation. With gender perceptions not being binary in antiquity, it is obvious that inherent to the categorisation system are values and characteristics attributed to people. I have already mentioned the concept of virtus which was ideally embodied by a vir.26 With autonomy and freedom from the power of others and the ability to exercise power over others being a key aspect of the top value attributed to manliness, it is evident that this perception impacted not only on social and political interactions but also on the perceptions of events and actions – and their interpretation. Thus interestingly, although virtus is an acquired manly characteristic, it could also be “unnaturally” attributed to women who showed exceptional will and energy.27 Although only males could acquire the status of a vir under certain circumstances, the notion of manliness, the manly, virtuous behaviour and action could be found in bodies categorized as female as well. The sliding scale of male-female was a categorization of value hierarchies, embodied and lived by certain males. Moreover, they served as orientation systems for all those who could never embody them fully but were nevertheless deeply influenced by these notions. Carlin Barton has noted that emotionally the slave “was every bit as sensitive to insult as was his or her master. The plebeian was as preoccupied with honor as the patrician, the client as the patron, the woman as the man, the child as the adult.”28 And Valerius Maximus observed that “There is no status so low that it cannot be touched by the sweetness of glory” (Nulla est tanta humilitas, quae dulcedine gloriae non tangantur, 8:14.5). Hence what was the perceived ideal of a noble vir had implications in entangled pluriform ways in social, political and military interactions throughout the Roman empire irrespective of the social status and actual power of those involved.

For a discussion of the concept and the changes it underwent through the intercultural interaction between Roman and Greek notions see McDonnell, Roman Manliness, 12–141. 27 Cf. Barton, Roman Honor, 42. 28 Barton, Roman Honor, 11. 26

Paul – a Provincial Nobody

81

Paul – a Provincial Nobody Paul – a Provincial Nobody

When we consider the trajectories of Paul’s self-portrait that shimmers through his letters in the context of the prescriptive Roman gender discourse of the first century, clearly Paul’s manly credentials do not seem to take him all that far. First and foremost, he is not born into the Roman nobility, but a provincial, member of a subordinate people under Roman rule. He was thus a member not of the populus Romanus but of one of the subjugated ἔθνη/gentes listed in Augustus’ Res Gestae (26–30), and visualized, e.g., in the Sebasteion of Aphrodisias.29 As a provincial Paul did not have the prerequisites of becoming a vir in the Romans sense.30 Nevertheless, he claims power and authority in relation to the addressees of his letters, clearly a manly claim according to the cultural codes of Rome, but also within Jewish tradition. He insists that he is called to be an apostle – to bring about the ὐπακοὴv πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Rom 1:5), claims that he has the right to admonish (Rom 12:8; 15:4–5; 1 Cor 4:13; 1 Thess 4:18, 5:11) and teach (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 4:9) the Christ-following groups he had established, and even refers to himself occasionally as their father (1 Cor 4:15).31 This seems to be a bold move by someone who hardly fitted the credentials prevalent and expected by a male who had aspirations to, or defended his leadership claims. Besides these bold claims he refers to numerous experiences which seem to directly undermine precisely such claims. He thus mentions that he had been mistreated in Philippi (1 Thess 2:2), and worked hard day and night (1 Thess 2:9); he is afflicted when writing to the Corinthians (2 Cor 1:3); tells them that he was “utterly, unbearably crushed” (2 Cor 3:8). He refers directly to aspects which in the eyes of others disqualify him from any leadership claims and hence question his masculinity especially in the controversies prevalent in 2 Corinthians: He is charged with weak performance in person and the inconsistency this indicates compared with his bold letters (2 Cor 10.10); he is an unskilled rhetorician (2 Cor 11:6a), a clear emasculating attack; he is working with his own hands to earn a living (2 Cor 11:7); he admits that he is not able to lord over the Corinthians like a master over slaves, or benefitting from them and in that sense he is weak (2 Cor 11:20–21); whether all of the hardships of the catalogue in 2 Cor 11:23–28 refer to actual real life experiences of Paul need not

For more details on Aphrodisias see R.R.R. Smith, “Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion in Aphrodisias,” JRS 78 (1988), 50–77. The dating of the reliefs has been under debate, however, they do provide insight into the Roman perception of peoples under their rule/imperium. See also Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 108– 12. 30 I do not think that Paul held Roman citizenship and consider the account in Acts fictional serving the purpose of the theological narrative presented. 31 Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 55–62;126–36. 29



82

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

deter us here. What is remarkable is that Paul lists such a number of emasculating mishaps in his attempt to establish his manly leadership credentials. Probably the worst of all these is his reference to the marks of physical abuse and humiliation on his body (2 Cor 11:24–25). The scars of beatings on his back mark him as an enslaved violated male, not able to preserve his bodily integrity, which in Roman perception meant he was at the lowest end of the gender scale. A true vir would maintain his physical integrity at all cost as this is clear evidence that he is in charge of his own life and is able to maintain power over others.32 These scars locate Paul on the feminized side of the dominant perceptions: as a provincial he was part of a subjugated, hence a feminized people who in Cicero’s words were born to be slaves.33 It has to be noted that this did not attribute to Jews a slavish nature but referred to the Roman perception that peoples that were subdued by Rome were destined by the gods to be enslaved in as much as the populus Romanus was destined by the gods to rule. As Cicero states concerning the Jewish people “But now even more so, when that people by its armed resistance has shown what it thinks of our own rule; How dear it was to the immortal gods is shown by the fate that it has been conquered, let out for taxes, made a slave.”34 The Philippians had obviously entered a relationship with Paul upon their first encounter (as had the other Christ-following groups from the nations except those in Rome), and thus considered him trustworthy as a leader at that point. As provincials they shared the status as members of ἔθνη/ gentes, that is, of subjugated peoples. The addressees may have had links or occasional contacts with Jewish groups of some kind before meeting Paul, hence there might have been a level of prior trust in a member of this people among those who felt called by the message Paul conveyed to them. But it appears that subsequent events have cast some doubts about his credentials. In analogy to the dominating elite ideal where the credentials of a vir were not a given, but had to be established and re-established in continuing competition with others, Paul’s authority and leadership role does not seem to have been considered a given once it had been initially established. For addressees who lived in a Roman colony and hence were exposed to the claims of dominating Roman ideology on a daily basis, even if they were members of subjugated peoples (as mentioned, in Philippi most likely Greeks and Thracians), someone who wished to maintain authority and exercise power would be under continued

Cf. Glancy, “Boasting of Beatings.” 33 De provinciis consularibus 5,10. 34 Pro Flaccho 28:69. 32

Changing Perspectives in a Cultural Translation Process

83

scrutiny, and had to prove again and again that he actually was at the top of the leadership game.35 In relation to Philippi it has been noted that the tone of the letter is mostly positive, indicating a sustained level of trust between Paul and the Christ-following group there. However, the fact that Paul feels a need to emphasize his manly credentials in 3:4–6 as mentioned above, in my view indicates that even here Paul’s authority is not on as firm ground as has been assumed. At least Paul seems to consider it necessary to affirm his credentials. Given the context from which he writes – a Roman prison36 – this should not come as such a surprise. Moreover, he refers already in the opening of the letter to his struggles, his sufferings, and hardships. Parts of the disturbing list of seemingly delegitimizing credentials in the Corinthian correspondence might well have been known also by the Philippians. Paul has been beaten and thus shamed like a slave, he right at the beginning of his activities in Philippi encountered problems as he mentions to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 2:2), and now he is evidently again not in charge of himself as he is imprisoned. He clearly does not have the credentials of a man and a leader – when considered in Roman perspective.

Changing Perspectives in a Cultural Translation Process Changing Perspectives in a Cultural Translation Process

What is Paul trying to achieve? It has been argued that he is inverting the prevalent value system and thus presenting a counter-cultural agenda, orienting all and everything on Christ.37 That Paul draws some analogy to Christ cannot be doubted, but whether a mere counter-cultural argumentation would have supported him in maintaining his authority is questionable in my view. As I have argued elsewhere, for intercultural communication to be successful, there have to be links and analogies between source and target context in as much as this is necessary in linguistic translation processes.38 Even the Christ narrative, an entirely Jewish narrative of the Second Temple Period, would have been meaningless if there had been no analogies, narratives, and cultural codes in the addressees’ socio-cultural context and symbolic universe that would have resonated with that of which earliest Christ-followers were convinced. That it is difficult to change ingrained, perceptions – the “habitus” which moulds not just

Cf. E. Gunderson, Staging Masculinty: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), 59–110. 36 Cf. A. Standhartinger, “Letter from Prison as Hidden Transcript: What it Tells Us About the People in Philippi,” in The People Beside Paul: The Philippian Assembly and History from Below (ed. J. Marchal; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 107–40. 37 So recently H.D. Sin Pan, Paul and the Creation of a Counter-Cultural Community (London: T&T Clark, 2016). 38 Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads, 39–62. 35



84

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

our thinking but is embodied deeply in sub-conscious dimensions, is evident in the difficulties in inter-cultural encounters of today, manifest in many small aspects of everyday life. Trying to detach those whom Paul wants to win from their “habitus” entirely would be a difficult endeavour. The question of what Paul was trying to achieve by presenting himself as a beaten, imprisoned, suffering leader in support of his authority claims is puzzling. It is evident that he does claim power and authority. Certain aspects of his self-presentation and the challenges he faces from others in the movement seem to disqualify him from the leadership competition. But he seems to pursue a particular strategy by taking up the challenges and accusations against him. In my view he does this not in a counter-cultural vein, not so much by turning these discrediting aspects into strengths but by presenting them from a different perspective. He does not deny that he struggles, is near death, imprisoned, scared, and beaten. And he does not glorify all of this as something that it is not, by inverting it. There is no glorification of suffering here, but a re-interpretation of what in Roman perspective are emasculating experiences, unworthy of a true man/vir. This re-interpretation does not amount to declaring weakness to be power (as in many traditional interpretations). Rather he taps into another aspect of the Roman masculinity discourse, and tries to switch the perspective on these experiences not as those of a feminized, enslaved, disempowered subjugated provincial but as those of a courageous manly fighter and athlete. Thus apart from the fact that he makes these claims as a provincial, a member of a conquered people who is not part of the dominant nor the local elite, the masculinity Paul claims can hardly be described as counter-cultural. In order to be a trustworthy leader who exercises power in an empowering vein, he has to relate to a discourse the addressees can relate to from within their cultural context as just noted. It must make sense to them that Paul is a trustworthy representative of the message despite significant indications to the contrary. Paul is juggling a difficult balance act of cultural translation here. The message he transmits to those Christ-followers from the nations is rooted and embedded in Jewish tradition, that is, a tradition not necessarily in opposition to, but different from their own. As I have argued previously, this tradition had developed an inherently critical stance over against absolutist power claims by “rulers of this earth,” that is, a perspective or view on events which might have differed from the respective dominating perspective under which Jews through various periods in history had lived.39 Although this did not necessarily lead to attempts at overthrowing “rulers of this earth,” it enabled Jews to develop strategies “for cultural and religious self-definition and group preservation” under

39

Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 113–21.

Changing Perspectives in a Cultural Translation Process

85

the conditions of foreign rule.40 In Jewish tradition and life there was an element of subverting hegemonic values and being critical of dominating institutions through their own traditions. They had developed a way of accommodating to changing rulers and at the same time of maintaining some kind of independence and compensatory self-esteem.41 The messianic message Paul transmits and embodies is entirely rooted in this tradition.42 The challenge he faces is to translate this message into the cultural world of his non-Jewish addressees. The cultural codes and encyclopedias may have been expressed in the same language but this does not render them identical. Tessa Rajak has drawn attention to the difficulties that may have been involved for outsiders – Paul’s addressees in our case – to gain understanding for a tradition whose literature is inter-textually interwoven in pluriform ways. She notes that “since any one text is only completely understood in terms of multiple allusions and resonances […] The full sense of the words could not be conveyed to readers not nurtured in the language and the biblical precedents.”43 Paul’s addressees were only just beginning to learn what it meant to be “a gentile in Christ” in the context of precisely this tradition.44 A cultural translation process was under way with all the complexities this involves including the non-translatability of certain aspects, understanding, transformation, and loss in translation.45

T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 206. 41 Rajak, Translation and Survival, 208. There may have been other traditions which had developed perceptions which differed from the dominating imperial discourse, but there is little literary or material evidence. 42 Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 113–21; M.D. Nanos, Paul within Judaism. Collected Essays Vol 1 (Eugene: Cascade, 2017); Paul within Judaism (ed. M.D. Nanos, M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015); Paul, the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (ed. G. Boccaccini, C. Segovia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016); P. Fredriksen, Paul, the Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017). 43 Rajak, Translation and Survival, 207–08. 44 S. Fowl, “Learning to be a Gentile,” in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. A. Lincoln, A. Paddison; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 22–40; also Ehrensperger, “Embodying the Ways in Christ: Paul’s Teaching of the Nations,” in Second Temple Jewish Paideia (ed. J. Zurawski; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2017), 239–53; now chapter 9 of this volume. 45 Cf., e.g., Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 39–62 and D. BachmannMedick, Cultural Turns. Neuorientierung in den Kulturwissenschaften (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 2006), esp. chapter “Translational Turn,” 238–83; B. Wagner, “Cultural Translation: A Value or a Tool?,” in Translatio/n. Narration, Media and the Staging of Differences (ed. I. Federico, M. Rössner; Bielefeld: Transcript, 2012), 51–68, available also at http://www.goethezeitportal.de, Rubrik: “postkoloniale Studien,” accessed 1 June 2018. 40



86

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

In order for this translation process to have any chance of being successful, there had to be some relation in the language, codes and encyclopedias transmitted that were either shared or understandable to some extent by those involved in this process. Paul’s addressees had entered the process voluntarily. No coercive power was involved, rather the relationship may be deemed to have been based on com-passionability, a willingness to listen and respond, a necessary presupposition for such a translation process even to begin.46 To be heard so as the addressees would respond Paul had to be a trustworthy messenger. A trustworthy messenger had to be seen to be trustworthy according to the message he conveyed. Now, there is a tension. The message Paul conveyed did not cohere with the dominating values the addressees had been exposed to even though they most likely were not part of the group who embodied and transmitted these elite values. As to the challenges to which Paul seems to reply, these were related to the Roman perception of a true man/vir, who displayed the characteristics and credentials of a trustworthy leader with legitimate power and authority claims.

Emasculated Provincial or Courageous Fighter? Emasculated Provincial or Courageous Fighter?

What is considered emasculating and disqualifying with regard to leadership credentials is in Paul’s view what actually precisely does qualify him as a leader who fully embodies the message he proclaims. He sees the marks on his body, and the hardships he endures in analogy to Christ’s suffering (2 Cor 1:5); his imprisonment is for the sake of Christ and for the benefit of ‘the brothers’ (Phil 1:13–14); and his weakness (2 Cor 12:9), renders it clear that whatever is achieved is due to God’s power not his own (2 Cor 13:4). But there is no identification of weakness with power. Weakness is not power, but through and despite human weakness God’s power manifests itself.47 In as much as this self-presentation is in tune with the sufferings of Christ, it is as also rooted in Jewish tradition – not in glorifying suffering and weakness but in acknowledging the limits of human power and ability even when exercised in the service of the one God. In that sense, the leadership credentials Paul advocates are contrary to the leadership and masculinity ideals of the dominating imperial ideology.48 Scriptural leadership notions paint images of kings and prophets precisely in this vein – with even Moses, although the greatest of all prophets,

On such processes see H. Rosa, Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2016). 47 See also my discussion of a similar formulation to the one in 2 Cor 12:10–12 in Philo Vit.Mos. 1:69 in Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 109. 48 Although the notion of being dependent on the goodwill of the gods is also found in Roman tradition of course. 46

Emasculated Provincial or Courageous Fighter?

87

being depicted as sometimes doubting, loosing heart, being weak, as Dennis Olson has noted […] leaders like Moses derive, on one hand, boldness, strength, and authority from their claims of relationship and connection to God. On the other hand in their relationship to God and in the face of realities of human communities, leaders like Moses come to know their own human limits, their frailty, their potential to misjudge God’s will and purpose, their need for the assistance of others, and their susceptibility to God’s judgment and critique as much as God’s affirmation and support.49

Paul presents himself as a man in a similar vein, including a perception of power which emphasizes “not that we lord it over your faith” (2 Cor 1:24). But how would a cultural translation process in the context and under the conditions of imperial rule for people socialized so utterly differently work? Whatever Paul really thought (and I do not claim to know that), although he seems to only reluctantly and in an inverted way participate in this dominating manliness discourse (2 Cor 11:16–18), he nevertheless does actually interpret his embodiment of the message in terms of certain aspects of the dominating masculinity discourse. Whether this is to be understood as a form of accommodation in the vein of 1 Cor 9:23–33 as “becoming all things to all people” or not cannot be ascertained. But his interpretation of how he embodies the values of the movement is certainly not counter-cultural or undermining dominating masculinity perceptions as such. What he challenges is the perception of others within the movement, who are questioning Paul’s role as a leader. Rather than succumbing to the perception that being beaten, naked, weak, hungry, shipwrecked (2 Cor 11:23–27) as being emasculating, and thus disqualifying him as a leader, Paul maintains that these are not signs that he has been deprived of being in charge of himself, but rather that these are the battle signs of a brave virile soldier fighting for the message and for the groups that came to exist through his activities. He presents himself as a good soldier, who is able to endure hardship, is able to fight, courageous, facing up to dangers – and even risking death for the sake of those he is entrusted to lead. He defends the gospel (Phil 1:7, 16), considers death for others as gain (1:21), sees himself and the Philippians as sharing in the fight (ἀγών). He faces hardship and struggle for the sake of the ἐκκλησία, but is far from being overcome by such adversities (2 Cor 4:8–12). He uses military language when taking up the challenge of so-called super-apostles and claims that “we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Cor 10:3b–4). In addition to such fighting metaphors, he also evokes the image of the athlete who does not give up, but keeps running until he arrives

D.T. Olson‚ “Between Humility and Authority: The Interplay of the Judge-Prophet Laws (Deut 16:18–17:13) and the Judge-Prophet Narratives of Moses,” SBLSP (2005), 18. 49



88

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

at the goal (Phil 3:12–14). These are images, codes and encyclopedias of masculinity which are very much in tune with certain notions of the dominant image of the true man/vir. Hence Paul does not deny or refute the points of reference raised in the accusations against him, but takes them up and turns them round, claiming that his credentials although different from those of others, render him precisely the credible manly/virile and virtuous leader they had trusted when they first met him. Far from idealizing weakness he maintains “I am strong in everything through the one who empowers me” – πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με (Phil 4:13). He, through the power of God, remains in charge of his destiny, remains in power of himself and thus refutes the feminizing, emasculating charges raised against him. He presents himself as embodying truly virile virtues, as a credible agent of the alternative message he conveys50 In terms of the competition for leadership Paul argues with reference to aspects of the dominating masculinity discourse and claims manliness despite indications to the contrary.

Jewish Leadership Credentials Jewish Leadership Credentials

This is not the entire picture. As mentioned, the analogy to Roman leadership credentials in Philippians 3 is preceded by the reference to the Christ hymn, introduced in 2:1–4 with admonitions of how the Philippians should relate to each other in a supportive and non-competitive way. The language expresses concern and compassion, support and other regard as core to their relationships. A very different atmosphere emerges from these words compared with the military and competitive language just mentioned. There is a high concern for the well-being of others, and hope that the Philippians will be able to look after each other in the spirit of the one they follow. Here another image of Paul emerges, emotional (as in other passages of Philippians and 2 Corinthians in particular), concerned above all that there be no ἔρις among them. This coheres with the admonition later in the letter that Evodia and Syntyche be of one mind and should be supported (Phil 4:2–3). The details of the issue that lead to this admonition cannot be discussed here, what is significant for the image of Paul, the man is that he appears concerned with harmony and reconciliation where

Since such qualities are not biologically confined to males, they could also be attributed to women as noted above. It is thus not inconsistent or surprising at all that Paul characterised and acknowledges women in the movement with reference to manly characteristics he uses for himself. Thus Phoebe was a benefactor and mediator (Rom 1:1–2), Prisca (and Aquila) risked their necks (Rom 16:3), Mary and Persis have worked hard (Rom 16:6 and 12), Junia was imprisoned (16:7); and Evodia and Synthyche have labored with him (Phil 4:3). Leadership qualities and virtuous behavior were expressed/defined according to the prevalent masculinity discourse. 50

Jewish Leadership Credentials

89

there is potential conflict in the community. This is a concern of course not only here, but one that appears throughout Paul’s letters for diverse reasons. It may cohere with an aspect in his self-understanding as a leader which he mentions briefly in 2 Cor 11:6. He admits that he is not a skilled or learned rhetorician (which disqualifies him according to the dominating masculinity discourse), but adds that he is not unskilled when it comes to knowledge. He may allude to the image of the wise, knowledgeable man here, an image of course that would resonate with philosophers of his day, but above all, when considered from the perspective of Paul’s primary context, that is Jewish tradition, this might include his education in the traditions of his ancestors, as a Pharisee. He would thus fall into a category of men who according to Josephus, are held in highest regard among the Jews who “give credit for wisdom to those alone who have an exact knowledge of the law and who are capable of interpreting the meaning of the holy scriptures.”51 It could well be that the knowledge Paul claims is also related to precisely such wisdom, which according to Jewish tradition attributes him high esteem, and in that sense then is the relevant credential for a true man in this perspective. If this is how Paul identifies himself from within his own tradition, there is a further aspect mentioned in Josephus which could also have impacted on Paul’s self-understanding. Josephus maintains that “the Pharisees are friendly among each other and cultivate harmonious relations with the community.”52 Albert Baumgarten interprets this passage as “meaning that the Pharisees worked to achieve reconciliation among members of the larger public.”53 If there is any hint of historical accuracy here, this may provide a lead into Paul’s understanding and exercising of power and authority in his communities. If Paul sees himself as embodying the traditions of his ancestors as a man of knowledge and wisdom, then this role would have encompassed the notion that inherent to it was the task to settle disputes, to advocate communal care, unity, and to build up a sense of communal belonging. If there were conflicts it would thus be his task – not just since he had become convinced that Jesus was the messiah but already before that – to promote peace and reconciliation, now among the Christ-followers in a given place. Baumgarten sees a trajectory between this perception of Pharisaic leadership roles and what can be found in later rabbinical literature without claim-

Ant. 20:264. 52 Bell. 2:166. 53 A. Baumgarten, “Sages Increase Peace in the World”: Reconciliation and Power,” in The Faces of Torah: Studies in Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade (ed. M. Bar-Asher Siegal, T. Novick, C. Hayes; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2017), 221–36, here 235. 51



90

Chapter 4 Paul, Emasculated Apostle or Manly Man?

ing a direct lineage here. Whatever the trajectory lines are, most likely rhizomatic rather than linear,54 there is one known Pharisee of the first century CE who seems to fit the description of Josephus quite well.

Conclusion Conclusion

It has become evident that Paul, by taking up the challenges to his leadership claims, does not primarily subvert dominating Roman masculinity perceptions, but presents experiences and bodily features which are meant to emasculate and thus disqualify him as a manly man and leader, in a different light. It is the perspective of other aspects of the dominating masculinity/ gender discourse through which he interprets these very same experiences as those of a true, manly man, a courageous fighter and athlete, and as someone who is more than qualified to be recognized as a leader/apostle within the movement. He does not argue in a counter-cultural vein to re-establish his leadership credentials but engages with the prevalent discourse and presents himself in light of this. In order to gain recognition there were hardly any alternative concepts available for Paul. Even though he felt commissioned to convey a message which inherently undermined the hegemonic claims of the imperial power, in order to be able to gain or re-gain respect and authority among his addressees, he had to some extent speak the embodied language of masculinity of the dominating socio-cultural context of the period. Even if he exercised his leadership role in a way that differed from that of the dominating power, as I have argued in my Paul and the Dynamics of Power, in order for him to be recognized as a leader, and exercise power in an empowering vein, he had to be able to demonstrate his manliness, according to the prevalent cultural notions. One of the ways which also may have influenced his perception of his leadership role, was as a conciliator in the vein described by Josephus mentioned above. Thus he not only re-interpreted his experiences in light of Roman perceptions, thus playing the game of cultural accommodation, but most likely also drew for many aspects of his self-understanding from the tradition in which he was educated and embedded for his entire life, a tradition rich in knowledge and practice of playing and not playing the game of accommodation to dominating powers. The diverse glimpses on Paul, the man, thus let us see a Jewish man, who understands himself as called to be an apostle to the nations, and who negotiated his credentials and the message he transmitted through a fascinating multivalent cultural translation process.

54

G. Deleuze, F. Guattarì, Das Rhizom (Berlin: Merve, 1977).









5. At the Table: Common Ground Between Paul and the Historical Jesus Implicit references to, or explicit quotations of, Jesus or Jesus traditions in the Pauline Letters are fragmentary to say the least, and biographical information about Jesus is practically nonexistent. Whether this is an indication that Paul did not know anything about the earthly Jesus and traditions rooted in his earthly life, whether he perceived such traditions as not important for the proclamation of the gospel or even as irrelevant to his mission, has been a matter of scholarly controversy ever since the arrival of research into the historical Jesus in the context of academic studies.1 Perceptions are located on a scale between the two contrasting classics: Bultmann’s contention that “the teaching of the historical Jesus plays no role, or practically none, in Paul,”2 and W. D. Davies’s stance that “Paul is steeped in the mind and words of his Lord.”3 One of the key questions arising from this disparate perception of Paul’s knowledge of the earthly Jesus concerns the hermeneutical presuppositions guiding these readings and the methodologies applied to the data available.

Aspects of Previous Jesus-Paul Research Aspects of Previous Jesus-Paul Research

I cannot provide a detailed hermeneutical and methodological analysis of previous studies here, but I can state that, on the scale between the two contrasting views mentioned above, these numerous studies operate either with the paradigm of similarity and dissimilarity, or that of continuity and discontinuity, sometimes with some overlap between them, as the main indicators of the closeness or distance between Jesus and Paul.4 For the purpose of this essay I will focus on the paradigm of similarity and dissimilarity, which is based on the question whether Paul did know and/or was interested in the earthly dimension of Jesus’ life and ministry. The question of continuity or discontinuity, although related to the latter, does not necessarily address the issue of the

A useful overview of the history of research can be found in V.P. Furnish’s detailed article, “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann,” in Jesus and Paul: Collected Essays (ed. A.J.M. Wedderburn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 17–50. 2 R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; New York: Scribner, 1951–1955), 1:35. 3 W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1948; 50th anniversary edition Mifflintown: Sigler, 1998), 140. 4 Cf. D. Häusser, Christusbekenntnis und Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 21. 1

92

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

knowledge of the earthly Jesus. Thus continuity between the message and ministry of the earthly Jesus and the Pauline message are advocated even when Paul’s knowledge of and/or interest in it are denied. Some have argued that there is no evidence of any knowledge of Jesus traditions, and Paul in developing his specific theology does not cite any words of the Lord, but that there is “traditionsgeschichtliche Diskontinuität, aber grosse sachliche Übereinstimmung zwischen der Verkündigung Jesu und der Theologie des Paulus.” 5 In postulating discontinuity of tradition but continuity in essence, the question of how then this “sachliche Übereinstimmung” could have been achieved is not actually addressed. Certainly, there must have been some “bridge” of transmission somewhere between Jesus’ message and ministry and Paul’s theologizing, even if the latter is perceived as having transformed the former to relate it to contexts different from first-century Judea and Galilee.

Reading the Gospels and the Pauline Letters in Concert: The Question of Historical Priority Reading the Gospels and the Pauline Letters in Concert

Approaches that emphasize similarity between the historical Jesus and Paul’s message establish this by finding parallel texts in the gospels and Pauline letters. Approaches that emphasize the dissimilarity between, or the disinterestedness of, Paul for the earthly Jesus and his message use the gospels in a similar vein: the obvious sparsity of direct references to Jesus or Jesus sayings in Paul’s letters when compared with the gospels is taken as an indication either of Paul’s ignorance or disinterest. In the first case, parallels between gospel traditions that are perceived as citations of Jesus sayings or allusions to such, or theological similarities between Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God and Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to the gentiles are taken as “proof texts” to establish that there must have been a direct transmission of tradition. In the latter case the spare presence of such parallels is interpreted as “proof” for Paul’s ignorance or disinterest. The methodological problem in both cases lies not in the comparative use of gospel passages and Pauline texts; this is an inevitable part of Jesus-Paul research since these are the key sources available to us. The problem lies in the perception of the historicity of the gospels. This is of course an issue not only for Jesus-Paul research, but one that lies at the heart of historical Jesus research generally. In a sense, historical Jesus research could

Cf. U. Schnelle: “Weder lässt sich eine Kenntnis der erzählenden Jesusüberlieferung nachweisen, noch zitiert Paulus bei der Entfaltung seiner spezifischen Theologie Jesusworte,” in Paulus: Leben und Denken (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2003), 32. 5

Similarity or Dissimilarity Between Jesus and Paul

93

also be labeled as “historical gospel” research.6 But whatever stance concerning the reliability of the gospels as sources for factual historical information one advocates, we are dealing with a wide scholarly consensus that the gospels in their literary form have emerged after the undisputed letters of Paul. The issue at stake, then, is that the historically later literary traditions, the gospels, are used to substantiate, prove, and evaluate the historically earlier literary tradition (Pauline letters). There are significant problems in such a use of sources. Using the later to substantiate an earlier source seems anachronistic at best. The differences between the sociopolitical contexts of the gospels as literary traditions and of the letters of Paul are significant. Not only is the Christ-movement obviously not at the same stage in the years 50–60 CE as after 70 CE; but, moreover, the wider historical and political context has radically changed as well. We can only imagine what a difference the existence and nonexistence of the temple as the center of the Jewish world had for Judaism in Palestine and the Diaspora, and for the Christ-movement. Thus although the traditions transmitted in the gospels deal with events that happened prior to the time when Paul joined the Christ-movement, and the Pauline letters witness to the geographical and cultural spread of the movement into the gentile world, Paul actually was a contemporary of Jesus and his first followers. Thus the literary evidence of the chronologically later events provides the chronologically earliest material witnessing to the earthly Jesus and to Jesus traditions! “Early,” of course, does not mean most direct or immediate, since Paul becomes involved in the movement after Jesus’ death, but in historical terms it is as close to Jesus and his followers in Galilee and Judea as we can get.7

Similarity or Dissimilarity Between Jesus and Paul: Is This the Question? Similarity or Dissimilarity Between Jesus and Paul

According to their presuppositions concerning the context of Jesus and of Paul, approaches that advocate similarity between Paul and Jesus can be put into

Paula Fredriksen maintains: “The methods introduced in quest of the historical Jesus, in short, have resulted in turn in a de facto quest for a historical Gospel,” in Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1999), p. 7. For a critical overview on the issue see, e.g., R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 1– 11, 319–57. 7 Cf. Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, 76–78. 6



94

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

three categories: (1) both Jesus and Paul are operating at the margins of Judaism (Crossan8); (2) both Jesus and Paul have moved beyond Judaism (Käsemann, Bultmann, Brunner, Jüngel,9 Wedderburn,10 Wenham,11 Theissen12); (3) both Jesus and Paul operate within the diversity of Second Temple Judaism. Such a broad categorization, of course, needs to be further differentiated. But for the purpose of this article it is sufficient to use these broad categories as analytical tools. The scholarly literature that depicts a discourse of dissimilarity between Jesus and Paul is immense.13 Some characteristics within the dissimilarity discourse can be described as follows. First, Jesus and the early disciples are perceived as being firmly rooted in Palestinian Judaism with Jesus’ proclamation of the coming kingdom of God being part of the apocalyptic discourse prevalent at the time. In contrast, Paul, educated in Greek culture/Hellenism, is seen to have shifted the movement beyond the constraints of the ethnocentric/nationalistic narrow- ness of Judaism to its true self-understanding as a new religion, that is, Christianity. Paul was the one who overcame the constraints of Judaism and actually moved beyond it into the freedom of Hellenistic thinking.14 The perceived dissimilarity between Jesus and Paul combines with a perceived discontinuity or parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity at the very origins of what later became

E.g., J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991). 9 E. Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Präzisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962). 10 E.g., A.J.M. Wedderburn, “Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity,” in Paul and Jesus (ed. Wedderburn; Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 117–43. 11 D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). 12 G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (trans. J.H. Schütz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 40–54. 13 For an overview of earlier feminist approaches that operated with this paradigm see K. von Kellenbach, Anti-Judaism in Feminist Religious Writings (Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), 58– 74. 14 See F.C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings (ed. E. Zeller; trans. A. Menzies; 1873; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003). 8

Similarity or Dissimilarity Between Jesus and Paul

95

two separate religions. This is rooted in an interpretation of history from hindsight in the vein of “what came to be” was what “had to be.”15 Paul is thus depicted as “the second founder of Christianity.”16 A variation of this scenario is the perception of Jesus as being firmly rooted in Judaism and proclaiming a Jewish message in straightforward and clear narratives. This image of Jesus has been strongly advocated in most recent historical Jesus research and is hardly contested. Debates arise “merely” when it comes to evaluating “how” Jewish Jesus and the earliest Christ-movement actually were, whether Jesus was a Jew at the margins or “just” among a diversity of possible variations.17 The situation is significantly different when it comes to Paul. I will not elaborate on it here, as I will deal with this aspect below, but the location of Paul within first-century Judaism is very controversial. Most frequently in studies that locate Jesus within Judaism, Paul is seen as the one who either departed from Judaism when he “found” Christianity, or moved the Christian message so far to the fringes of Judaism that the “parting of the ways” became inevitable. Often combined with this perception is an evaluation of Paul as a very hellenized Roman citizen. This is either asserted, in the footsteps of Baur, as a positive and liberating (or at least as an inevitable) move, or, as in some feminist approaches, as a distortion of the original message.18 Second, a long-standing tradition contrasts with the dissimilarity scenarios above: Paul is the one who is still tied to Judaism, mainly in its rabbinic form. Proponents of this view argue that Paul, the Jewish theologian, transformed or rather distorted the pure, plain, simple message of Jesus by introducing a complicated and confusing way of thinking. Paul is thus the one who moved away from the “pure” origins of the Jesus movement, reintroducing aspects of (Jewish) ethics and belief, and a complicated and confusing (rabbinic) way of think-

Cf. D. Boyarin’s discussion of Yoder’s rubric, “It did not have to be.” Boyarin praises Yoder’s insight “that it is a wrong to the people of the past to assume in any way that what came to be had to be that way and no way else, that a given moment of decision before a Rubicon was crossed could only have gone the way it did,” in “Judaism as a Free Church: Footnotes to John Howard Yoder’s ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited,’” in CrossCurrents 56.4 (2007), 6–21, here 10–11. See also W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 7–8. 16 W. Wrede, Paul (trans. E. Lummis; London: Philip Green, 1907), p. 179; cited in Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate,” 25. On this see also Campbell, Paul and Christian Identity, 86–89. 17 See above, and also C.A. Evans, “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus,” JSHJ 4.1 (2006), 35–54. 18 Some feminist myths of Christian origins show traces of such concepts in that Paul is seen as beginning the distortion of the original Jesus movement of equals/disciples of equals! Cf. K. Corley, “Feminist Myths of Christian Origins,” in Reimagining Christian Origins (ed. E.A. Castelli, H. Taussig; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 51–67. 15



96

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

ing that had been overcome in the early Christ-movement. Although this scenario was not always qualified as an entirely negative development, a scholar like H.H. Wendt could emphasize that “the teaching of Jesus, if it is only grasped and preached in its original strength, can and will exert, in a yet much higher measure, vital and ennobling influences upon the further development of Christendom than have proceeded so far from the teaching of Paul.”19 Although formulated more than a century ago, traces of this image can still be found, as in some feminist approaches attributing some of Paul’s passages about women to his “Jewish past,”20 or in Dodd, who attributes Paul’s concern for his people in Romans 9–11 to some emotional attachment he was unable to overcome despite his best efforts.21 Interestingly enough, precisely this perception of Paul led to a negative response among theologians who had joined the Deutsche Christen movement during the Third Reich. In their attempt to dejudaize Christendom, Aryanize Jesus, and establish Christendom as essentially Aryan, Paul did not fit the requirements of an Aryan. He was ignored as hopelessly Jewish!22 The two basic types of dissimilarity discourses both operate with contrasting paradigms: Jesus, whether Jewish or not, is the one who is the “true” proclamation and incarnation of the original message of the gospel, although according to some approaches in a still particularistic form; in contrast, Paul’s image of Jesus either liberates, develops, or distorts this original message. Significantly, whenever earlier approaches depict Paul as Jewish, this is a negative aspect of his identity. Perceived as being too Jewish, Paul’s message is therefore a distortion of a gospel that had overcome the constraints of Judaism.23 Despite the fact that scholars like W.D. Davies presented a different analysis of Paul’s Jewish identity,24 such analyses had little impact on Jesus-Paul research until recently.

H.H. Wendt, “Die Lehre des Paulus verglichen mit der Lehre Jesu,” ZTK 4 (1894), 1– 78, here 78; cited in Furnish, “Jesus-Paul Debate,” 20. 20 See K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 19–27. 21 See C.H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans (Moffatt NT Commentary; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932), 43. 22 On this see S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). 23 Thus A. Rosenberg maintains that Paul the Pharisee had falsified (i.e., judaized) the gospel by identifying Jesus as the Jewish Messiah; cf. Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts: Eine Wertung der seelisch-geistigen Gestaltungskämpfe unserer Zeit (Munich: Hoheneichen, 1930), 605 (quoted in Furnish, “Jesus-Paul Debate,” 33 n. 54. 24 Of course, Davies was not the only one; cf. Campbell, Paul and Christian Identity, 17– 21. 19

Perspectives for Future Research

97

Perspectives for Future Research Perspectives for Future Research

From this sketchy overview of Paul-Jesus research in the past, we can identify a number of areas that need further consideration and research. 1. Important recent research has established the significance of Second Temple Judaism as the tradition within which the early Christ-movement and the “historical Jesus” were embedded, and likewise significant recent research has also promoted sound arguments and produced evidence that such embeddedness can be presupposed for Paul.25 This new factor in the discussion needs to be taken seriously into account. I consider it a necessary and fruitful enterprise to explore the significance of such research results that demonstrate Paul’s embeddedness in Judaism when dealing with the issue of the relation between Jesus and Paul, or, to put it another way, of the relation of the Jesus traditions as remembered in the gospels and the Jesus as remembered by Paul and his team in the Pauline letters.26 2. An analysis of this relation, in my opinion, should begin with the Pauline letters as the historically earliest literary witnesses to Jesus.27 This is not to deny that there may be earlier traditions remembered in the gospel narratives; establishing this, however, requires more hypothetical grounds than the early literary witness of Paul.28 Thus I propose to read the Pauline letters as the primary, and the gospel narratives as the secondary, sources revealing traces of Jesus and Jesus traditions as remembered by the earliest Christ-followers. The issue is to find not more “proof texts” about the character of two individuals but more texts about traditions remembered as relevant for the movement. As such they provide evidence of the corporate dimension of remembering and of the relevance of this process of the formation of communities.

For an overview see the special issue of BibInt 13.3 (2005): Paul Between Jews and Christians, esp. the essays of W.S. Campbell, “Perceptions of Compatibility between Christianity and Judaism in Pauline Interpretation,” 298–316; N. Elliott, “An American ‘Myth of Innocence’ and Contemporary Pauline Studies,” 239–49; P. Eisenbaum, “Paul, Polemics, and the Problem of Essentialism,” 224–38; and M.D. Nanos, “How Inter-Christian Approaches to Paul’s Rhetoric Can Perpetuate Negative Valuations of Jewishness – Although Proposing to Avoid That Outcome,” 255–69. 26 I think the emphasis on the dimension of remembering, memory, and oral tradition is highly significant. See S. Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); and Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–318. 27 I am informed here by Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth. 28 Despite Bauckham’s fascinating insights, the undisputed Pauline letters are the literary material closest to the time of Jesus and the earliest followers. Cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 114–54. 25



98

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

3. That research into “Jesus” and “Paul” is actually not research into two individuals’ lives but rather research into the lives of groups of people in specific political, cultural, and geographical contexts is a significant aspect of the Jesus-Paul debate that requires further research.29 It is significant not only in relation to the significance of group dynamics in sociological terms but also in relation to the corporate dimension of “memory.” Despite the debate about the individual and collective dimension of memory, even where the individual dimension is perceived as of primary significance the fact that remembering has a corporate dimension in the context of the Christ-movement is at least acknowledged.30 In view of this a statement like ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν (“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,” 1 Cor 11:23) could shed light on the interplay between the memory of an individual and collective memory. The individual is embedded in a group that transmits specific information remembered within their particular context, thus rendering it part of an emerging collective memory. Here Paul as part of a group (senders of the letter) reminds another group (addressees) of a piece of information/tradition they should remember as part of their corporate identity. Neither the process nor the purpose of remembering had as its aim the preservation of the past, but served for building up communities at the present and life for the future. 4. A paradigm used in approaches stressing the similarity as well as the dissimilarity between Jesus and Paul is the notion of development between the two. This paradigm is based on the presupposition of a process model of history as developing from state A to state B, either ascending or descending. I cannot provide an analysis of the anachronism of such perceptions of history,31 but concerning the study of the relation between Jesus and Paul I propose to operate with different hermeneutical presuppositions concerning history that are not tied to a perception of linear progress of/within the early Christ-movement. Aspects of the network dimension of accommodation and enculturation of the early Christ-movement intertwined with parallel processes within Judaism should be taken into account, as well as research that has drawn attention to the multifaceted interplay of events, interaction, and theologizing in the first century CE as well as during the following centuries.32 In the scope of this article I can only touch in a preliminary way upon one of the aspects for which I see potential for further research.

For more on this see K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 31–62. 30 Cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 312–13. Also B.A. Misztal, Theories of Social Remembering (Philadelphia: Open University, 2003), 6. 31 For a critique also of some feminist approaches that operate within such paradigms see Corley, “Feminist Myths of Christian Origins.” 32 Cf. D. Boyarin, Borderlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). 29

Paul the First Personal Witness to Jesus

99

Paul the First Personal Witness to Jesus – in Context Paul the First Personal Witness to Jesus

In the past, three major areas of Paul-Jesus research have been identified: (1) Jesus tradition in the Pauline letters (words of the Lord); (2) theological issues, mainly stressing the theological continuity between Jesus and Paul; (3) Christ as the template that should be imitated.33 These three dimensions can be found in approaches that presuppose either similarity or dissimilarity, or continuity or discontinuity, between Jesus and Paul. They thus are not indicators of different evaluations of the relationship between Jesus and Paul but, as areas that have been identified by scholars who advocate differing stances, they represent the present scholarly consensus concerning the relevant aspects of the Jesus-Paul debate. I will focus in what follows on the third dimension identified, although the three are clearly intertwined and cannot be neatly separated, while additional dimensions of the debate are not covered by these themes. My approach is based on the hermeneutical presupposition that Paul, before and after his call, was embedded in the context of first-century Judaism and that his letters should be read in light of this rather than with the assumption of an intended or actually “achieved” parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity. Significant research in this area has provided substantiated arguments for this perception of Paul. An even greater output of research and data has in my view conclusively demonstrated such an embeddedness for Jesus.34 In comparative research into Paul and Jesus this notion of “double similarity” could provide illuminating insights in relation to the process and role of individual and collective remembering, the transmission of earliest stories/histories remembered, and the function of these “remembered traditions” for the shaping of a corporate identity of the early Christ assemblies. To state that Paul is the first personal witness to Jesus known to us with historical certainty does not mean that he is the most direct and immediate and thus historically the most reliable witness to the earthly Jesus. What we can assert with as much certainty as the above is that he is an indirect witness since he joined the movement after the death and resurrection of Christ. What he may or may not have known about Jesus and his group of followers before these events is a matter of historical imagination, if not speculation. There are

Cf. C. Wolff, “Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus’ Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul,” in Paul and Jesus (ed. A.Wedderburn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 145–60, here 145. 34 Cf. S. Freyne, Jesus: A Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus Story (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Among G. Vermes’s numerous publications, see Jesus in His Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); but for a view that challenges this consensus see J.H. Elliott, “Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a “Jew’ Nor a “Christian’: On Correcting a Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5 (2007), 119–54. 33



100

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

indications that he probably did live in Jerusalem during Jesus’ earthly lifetime.35 But even if this could be confirmed, it still leaves open the question what he may or may not have known. What we can assert with certainty is that Paul himself had his knowledge secondhand. On the other hand we can assert that Jerusalemites were part of the circle Paul was closely associated with, and that Paul knew, and was in communication with, “eyewitnesses” who remembered the earthly Jesus (Gal 1:18–19).36 Whether he did know and meet disciples other than Peter and James again is a matter of informed imagination. Thus we can assert that, although a “secondhand” witness, Paul did know and communicate with “firsthand” witnesses. In presupposing that both Jesus and Paul, as part of the movement in its earliest time, were firmly embedded in Judaism, I consider it as a given that the scriptures, in whatever form and language,37 were the framework, content, and authority that provided the symbolic and social, cultural, religious universe for the movement. Thus the Jesus remembered and confessed as the Messiah/Christ by Paul and the group around him (the Jesus testimony of Paul) is a testimony within the context of a Jewish symbolic and social world. Another dimension shared by Jesus, Paul, and the earliest followers is that to live in this Jewish world meant that they lived in the context of a subculture under the conditions set by the political and cultural predominance and power of the Roman empire.

“Become Imitators of Me as I Am of Christ” and “Welcome One Another as Christ Has Welcomed You” “Become Imitators of Me as I Am of Christ”

Paul’s call to imitation is a call to embody the gospel, to embody the message. To embody something one needs a perception of what ought to be embodied. Significantly, Paul does not outline a concept or an idea but refers to “Christ” as the paradigm to be imitated. What this actually implied is less obvious than one might expect, as scholarly debate demonstrates. In my view it can hardly

Paul’s reference to himself as a Pharisee implies that he was educated in Jerusalem since there is no evidence to suggest that such education could be obtained in the Diaspora. See A.L.A. Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 235–37. 36 36. Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul and Dynamics of Power, 4–11. 37 The issue whether Paul knew the scriptures in Hebrew as well as Greek cannot be discussed here. Since there existed no “canon” of scriptures, the question which writings were perceived to be “scriptures” by Paul and his team needs further investigation. Cf. C. Tuckett, “Paul and Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Gospel of Thomas 17,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict (ed. T.J. Burke, J.K. Elliott; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 55–73. 35

“Become Imitators of Me as I Am of Christ”

101

refer simply to a Christ kerygma, the mere fact of Christ’s death and resurrection, which Bultmann so famously emphasized as the only aspect in which Paul, apparently, was interested.38 Neither the death of Christ at the hands of the Romans nor the resurrection of Christ by God can be imitated. Despite the Pauline language of death and dying with Christ (Rom 6:5–11), Paul is quite alive when he is writing and interacting with communities in the movement. Moreover, to claim a resurrection experience for himself would very much resemble an understanding of the message that the first letter to the Corinthians tries to correct (cf. 1 Cor 4:8). Resurrection is a hope (Rom 8:24–25; 1 Cor 15), and it concerns people as a corporate entity, not individuals as such.39 The focus on the cross, the dimension of death and dying, has been taken as one of the significant dimensions of Pauline theologizing that oriented itself on this central aspect of Jesus’ earthly existence.40 Without denying the significance of the cross in Paul’s letters, I want to focus here on another aspect related to the notion of imitation – which may shed light on the significance of Jesus in the Pauline letters. Significant parts of the Pauline letters deal with issues of hospitality, that is, with welcoming others (Rom 14:1; 15:7) and accommodation to the needs of others (Rom 14:15–21; 1 Cor 9:20–22). I am quite aware that it is not very original to emphasize that issues related to table-fellowship were very important to Paul. Most prominently, of course, these issues are seen as being related to what is called Paul’s relativization of food laws and as such as exemplary for the relativization of the Torah in the Christ-movement. If the incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18) was the “catalyst of the perception of in- compatibility between faith in Christ and life as a Jew,”41 and the event that separated the Christ-movement from Judaism,42 then table-fellowship is the major issue that separates Paul from Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus himself did not cross the boundaries of his people, and did not start a mission to people from the nations. Moreover, some traditions attribute to Jesus a clear adherence to the Torah, even where its interpretation was disputed (Mt 5:17–19; 12:1–8;

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:3–32. 39 For a more detailed analysis of Paul’s discourse of imitation see Ehrensperger, Paul and Dynamics of Power, 137–54; cf. D.A. Brondos, Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 70–72. 40 E.g., Wedderburn, “Paul and the Story of Jesus,” in Jesus and Paul, 161–89. 41 Which Campbell clearly argues is not the case; see “Perceptions of Compatibility between Christianity and Judaism in Pauline Interpretation,” BibInt 13.3 (2005), 298–316. 42 J.D.G. Dunn asserts, “The Antioch incident convinced Paul that justification through faith and covenantal nomism were not two complementary emphases, but were in direct antithesis to each other,” in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 162. Although Dunn is aware that the parting of the ways did happen in various stages, he sees Paul as setting up a foundational incompatibility between “being in Christ” and Judaism. 38



102

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

etc.). If it is really Paul’s emphasis that the Torah, and the food laws in particular, are rendered obsolete in Christ, or at least of no real significance in Christ, and adherence to these is merely tolerated as long as it takes for Jewish Christfollowers to come to a full understanding of the new faith, there is a striking dissimilarity between Jesus and Paul. Nevertheless, there is an aspect in relation to table-fellowship that, in my view, provides a strong indication to the opposite – an indication of a deep and thorough knowledge and understanding of Paul concerning the mission and message of the earthly Jesus.

At the Table: Separated or United? A Word of the Lord At the Table: Separated or United?

The focus of many of the passages in which Paul refers to issues related to table-fellowship cannot be subsumed under the Jew/gentile dichotomy arising from issues related to food laws. In my view it is highly significant that in one of the few cases where Paul does refer explicitly to a word of the Lord (1 Cor 11:18–26), and thereby demonstrates his concern for being true to the traditions handed down to him, he writes in a context where the dispute around tablefellowship has nothing to do with the Jew/gentile “problem.” Kosher or nonkosher food is not mentioned here at all. Paul refers to problems around the sharing of the table but clearly in relation to the issues addressed in the earlier part of the letter (1 Cor 1:10–17). The divisions and factions within the Corinthians’ assembly obviously have a major impact also on their table-fellowship.43 The reason why in Paul’s view they are not eating the Lord’s Supper (οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν, 11:20) when they come together is that they do not actually “eat together.” Paul deplores that they do not share a common meal, but eat and drink when it suits each one individually. This indicates that the Lord’s Supper was meant to be a shared meal, and table-fellowship implied that you shared company with those around the table in sharing the food on the table!44 The Corinthians’ pattern of commensality seems to replicate patterns and values of social hierarchies as was characteristic of the practice of commensality of the Greco-Roman elite. The distribution of food portions, table arrangements, and so on served the explicit

Whether Paul in 1 Cor 11:19 actually confirms the necessity of factions or whether he is simply being ironic about them ought to be seriously considered. 44 This characteristic feature of a shared table as an expression and constituent element of community formation is of course not unique to the Christ-movement. For overviews see the relevant chapters in A. Arterbury, Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in Its Mediterranean Setting (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2005); D.E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); also M. Douglas, “Deciphering a Meal,” in Implicit Meanings (ed. M. Douglas; London: Routledge, 1975), 249–75. 43

At the Table: Separated or United?

103

purpose of registering and confirming the hierarchical social system.45 This pattern causes a huge gap in the Corinthian community between those who have (e.g., have too much to drink) and those who have not (e.g., have not eaten and thus are starving). The implicit promotion of the “freedom of the individual” by some Corinthian Christ-followers must be seen as the exercise of dominating power by the stronger (table fellow) over and at the expense of the weaker! Some have taken the temporal dimension of the problem expressed with προλαμβάνειν as an indication that a situation caused by different social classes meeting as an assembly of Christ-followers was at the heart of the issue. That some eat before others arrive could be taken as an indication that those who arrive later had to work late, whereas the others were in the privileged position of either not working with their own hands at all, or at least not for long hours. Paul’s question in v. 22, “Do you not have houses” (μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε), and the reference to those who are humiliated by the behavior of those who eat and are already drunk prior to the latter’s arrival as “those who have nothing” (τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας), could well refer to their respective social status. Even though one cannot assert what exactly was the difference between the groups, what one can assert with certainty is that a power asymmetry is exercised to the disadvantage of the weaker members. At stake at the table then is not the food on the table but the concern for the “other” follower of Christ who is in a socially weaker position and thus hindered from joining the “table-fellowship” at the same time as the others, these being most likely more affluent members of the community, who did not have to “work with their hands.”46 Paul’s major concern seems to be with the effect of this abuse of power. The “latecomers” are exposed to humiliation, which is in absolute contradiction with the ethos of the Christ-movement and actually means despising not only the weaker brother and sister, but in defying core values it also means despising the entire assembly.47 One should note that the act of humiliating others is condemned and the humiliated are not admonished to bear their humiliation with dignity, in humbleness, or as a sign of Christ-like life!48 The abuse of power is not an adiaphoron that should be tolerated or put

Cf., e.g., O.M. Van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (Amsterdam: Gleben, 1997), 149–35; P. Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 113–43. I am indebted here to W. Braun, “The Greco-Roman Meal: Typology of Form or Form of Typology?” paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Atlanta, November 2003. 46 Cf. E.W. Stegemann and W. Stegemann, The Jesus-Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (trans. O.C. Dean Jr.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 20–27. 47 aul argues in a similar vein in 1 Cor 12:12–26. Similarly R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 838–9. 48 I cannot elaborate on this here, but this has implications for what are perceived to be virtues in Christ. Cf. also Ehrensperger, Paul and Dynamics of Power, 98–116. 45



104

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

up with in the Christ-movement. Paul here voices his strong protest against nonhospitality, that is, against denying the brother/sister the respect owed in Christ expressed in sharing the food at the table. He sees such denial as equivalent to humiliating the brother/sister.

Power Asymmetries at the Table Power Asymmetries at the Table

Although no “weak-strong” language is used in this passage, the issue here nevertheless has some parallels to the “weak-strong” debate in relation to tablefellowship in Rom 14:1–15:13. Coming together at the table as the fellowship of Christ but causing the weaker brother and sister to stumble (Rom 14:15), or humiliating him/her (1 Cor 11:22) – for whatever reason – is not in accordance with the way of life in this movement. At this table the welcoming hospitality of Christ himself has to be imitated (Rom 15:7). The reference to a word of the Lord in a context concerned with the social implications of table-fellowship rather than dietary aspects is, in my view, an indication that the primary significance of table-fellowship for Paul (in accordance with traditions remembered in the gospels) has to do with issues concerning power/hierarchical structures in society.49 Paul insists in this passage as elsewhere that in the assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι) of God there is no room for the static hierarchy of power and honor that dominated the Greco-Roman elite as well as society as a whole.50 As with other aspects of life in Christ that are addressed in 1 Corinthians, the Christ-followers there seem to be struggling with “translating” and incorporating the message of the gospel into their lives. S. Scott Bartchy and others have drawn attention to the difficulties of this “translation” or enculturation process.51 The actual table-fellowship and the sharing of bread and wine in remembrance of the Lord are crucial dimensions of life in Christ not on the sym-

See Jewett’s useful discussion of common meals in Thessalonica and in Rome in which he stresses that “it appears likely that the food for the love feast in Thessalonica was being provided by community members rather than by patrons.” Jewett concludes from his analysis that there existed “a social system […] that enabled congregational groups to function without patrons” (Romans, 68, 69; cf. 64–69). 50 I am not arguing that the Christ-movement was egalitarian as such, but there is a difference in the exercise of power as domination or empowerment as well as in social organization according to static and flexible hierarchical structures. For a more detailed analysis see K. Ehrensperger, Paul and Dynamics of Power, 16–35 and 55–62. 51 S.S. Bartchy, “When I’m Weak, I’m Strong: A Pauline Paradox in Cultural Context,” in Kontexte der Schrift, vol. 2: Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache-Text (ed. C. Strecker; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 49–60. 49

Power Asymmetries at the Table

105

bolic level alone but foremost in its social dimension. There is no division between the symbolic and social dimensions of table-fellowship discernible from the Pauline letter; for Paul they are inseparable.52 The prominence of issues related to table-fellowship in the Pauline letters is a strong indication that Paul and the Pauline communities did share in the remembering of Jesus’ and the early disciples’ table-fellowship during his earthly life. That this emphasis matches the emphasis on table-fellowship in the gospels could indicate that we here have traces of historical Jesus traditions. It seems that the Pauline communities of Christ-followers as well as those associated with the gospel tradition practiced what had been practiced prior to Jesus’ death. Jesus was remembered at the table, or more precisely, the remembrance of Jesus was reenacted around the table, as the early testimony of 1 Cor 11:23–25 clearly demonstrates. The traditions about the importance of this dimension of Jesus’ life and ministry are very consistent. That narratives and sayings in the Synoptics as well as in the gospel of John attribute a central role to table-fellowship in a number of contexts is evidence that this was a decisive characteristic of the movement certainly at the time of the emergence of the written gospels. Thus we find Jesus invited by Pharisees to share the intimacy of a meal at their house (Lk 14:1), and in one narrative the name of the host is remembered: Simon the Pharisee invites him to a meal at his home, thus providing time and space for conversation over issues about which they both were concerned (Lk 7:36–50). Jesus’ and his followers’ habit of eating and drinking together was apparently noted by those who had not joined the movement, and raised questions concerning the significance of this characteristic habit (Lk 7:34; Mt 11:19). Moreover, it was noted that Jesus sometimes shared a table with people who were regarded, by some members of Jewish society, as dubious table fellows (Mt 9:10–11; Mk 2:15–16; Lk 5:27– 30). John mentions the tradition of table fellow- ship at some points, for example, when Jesus is a guest in Martha, Mary, and Lazarus’s house (John 12:2). The centrality of hospitality is also evident in the narratives of the feeding of the multitude (Mt 14:13–21; Lk 9:11–17; Mk 6:33–44; Jn 6:2-14) and in some of the parables, not least of all in the parable of the Great Banquet (Lk 14:16– 23) and the parable of the Prodigal Son, which notably ends with a great feast (Lk 15:11–32). The order in which guests and hosts sit/recline at the table is another significant issue of discussion (cf. Lk 14:7–11 par.). That these traditions were of obvious importance to communities in the late first century combined with the many references to table-fellowship or issues

The significance of daily common meals emphasized by R. Jewett, “Are There Allusions to the Love Feast in Rom 3:8–10?” in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder (ed. J.V. Hills et al.; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1998), 265–78. See also his Romans, 804–15. 52



106

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

related to table-fellowship in the Pauline letters are indications of shared traditions, practices, and concerns within the movement.53 The prominence of the theme and practices surrounding table-fellowship as evidenced in the Pauline letters, and the fact that Paul underscores the significance of “appropriate” behavior at the table, especially of those who are in a socially more powerful position, with a word of the Lord is, if not a clear, then at least a very strong, argument that we here get a glimpse of a reference to the earliest Jesus tradition if not to the earthly Jesus.

Table-Fellowship and “Nonnegotiables” in Christ Table-Fellowship and “Nonnegotiables” in Christ

Many of the dimensions emphasized by Paul as being nonnegotiable for “life in Christ” are related to “table-fellowship.” Romans 14:1–15:13 is another example of this emphasis. The main concern here, as in 1 Cor 11:17–26, is that the fellowship at the shared table, and thus the fellowship of the com- munity, is at risk of being disturbed, if not destroyed. The passage in Romans ends on the admonition that what counts in Christ is that his followers welcome one another as Christ has welcomed them (Rom 15:7), almost certainly indicating a shared table-fellowship.54 Hospitality is of absolute importance, and thus table-fellowship is the key practice of life in Christ.55 This does not imply that at this table all are the same, that all have to become identical and thus eat the same. The kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking but about “justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). Table-fellowship, that is, hospitality, cannot be exercised without eating and drinking, but the eating and drinking together serve the purpose of fellowship; or, to formulate it differently, it has to do with the covenant renewed in Christ and remembered in table-fellowship. The food should not hinder that fellowship. Some have taken this as an argument that Paul perceived any concern about kosher food by Jews as a hindrance to this table-fellowship. It has even been argued that this was one of the main concerns of Paul in that such so-called boundary markers are supposedly a primary obstacle for true fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christ-followers.56 Several aspects deserve further and more detailed consideration here. That Paul refers to a word of the Lord in relation to a problem within the Corinthian

The significance of communal meals within havurot during the late Second Temple period should be taken into account here as well. See A. Oppenheimer, “Havurot in Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period,” in Between Rome and Babylon (ed. N. Oppenheimer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 102–9. 54 J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB 33; London: Doubleday, 1993), 689. 55 On this see also Jewett, Romans, 835–36. 56 Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983), 95–122. 53

Table-Fellowship and “Nonnegotiables” in Christ

107

assembly that had nothing to do with issues of kosher food, but with the ruthless and shaming behavior of some Christ-followers over others, makes it obvious that the main concern at the table of the Lord is to be sensitive to the needs of the other. This means that the one in the stronger, more powerful position is obligated to accommodate to the needs of the “other.” Such obligation resonates with aspects of life in Christ emphasized elsewhere by Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 10:1ff.; see also 1:24). This is the emphasis also in Rom 14:1–15:13, which many scholars perceive as being in the first instance concerned with the issue of kosher food having a divisive effect among Christ-followers. I have argued elsewhere that the focus here too is a concern for the weaker in the conflict – and the ones who are admonished to accommodate are not the weak but the strong.57 The issue is not the food on the table but the fellowship at the table. And in order to render fellowship possible, the more powerful must accommodate to the weak. This is not an option in Christ, since the weak are not supposed to be at the mercy of, or dependent on, the goodwill of the strong. It is the condition sine qua non of life in Christ that the shame and honor hierarchy of the dominating Greco-Roman society is overcome or rendered obsolete, and by no means the identity of Jews as Jews. The obstacle to table-fellowship is not Jewish identity but hierarchies, dominating power structures, and the humiliation of the brother/sister in Christ. I think that the supposed emphasis on issues of food laws in relation to table-fellowship actually reverses the priorities at stake here. The main concern is not what food and drink are consumed at the table; this is the secondary issue and serves only the purpose of enabling the primary concern – facilitating true hospitality, meaning welcoming one another in Christ. In the case of Jewish traditions this can easily be achieved by accommodating to the needs of those who, as a matter of identity, require certain dietary requirements. The main issues Paul is concerned about in 1 Cor 11:17– 25 and Rom 14:1–15:13 are the social hierarchies and the issues of contempt and domination involved in these. The ethos and characteristics within the Christ-movement ought to seek orientation in admonitions like: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God” (Rom 12:2). This ethos is under threat not by Jewish Christ-followers who maintain their identity as Jews but by those followers who are boasting and puffed up and try to “lord” it over others.58

See Ehrensperger, Mutually Encouraged, 181–89; cf. also P.J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 236–45. 58 This emphasis is also found in the later Gospel traditions. One example has to be sufficient here: the conversation over the order at table (Mt 20:20–23//Mk 10:35–40//Lk 22:24– 37 cf. also John 13:3–17) indicates that what has been identified above as Paul’s main concern when it comes to table-fellowship is the issue of hierarchy and imposition of power. This is not part of life in Christ since Christ the servant emphasizes, “You know that the 57



108

Chapter 5 At the Table: Common Ground

Thus when Paul insists that the kingdom is not about eating and drinking (Rom 14:17), this cannot mean that table-fellowship is not significant, but that what truly matters is that no one imposes his/her power on others.59 Hospitality in Christ has to do with the glory of God, “that you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6). This praise by Jews and gentiles of the one God of Israel and the nations is compromised not by the identity of the Jews, which it requires and presupposes, but by a continued adherence to the worship practices of other gods (this is most likely the issue discussed in 1 Cor 8–10) and the imposition of dominating power and practices of contempt over against one another. In a context of rising tensions between Jews and gentiles in the mid-first century in Palestine as well as in some cities of the Greco-Roman world, the implications of table-fellowship between Jews and people from the nations, that is, the risks, difficulties, but also promises inherent therein, should not be underestimated. These contextual factors cannot be explored in detail here, but they are of major significance when we try to understand what was at stake in the emphasis on hospitality in the form of table-fellowship between Jews and gentiles. To reduce the problem to problems of so-called boundary markers in my view diminishes its significance as a practice of reconciliation and anticipation of the coming kingdom of God.

Conclusion Conclusion

We have found Paul’s recurring and consistent emphasis on the importance of table-fellowship to be consistent with the importance of table-fellowship during Jesus’ lifetime as remembered in the gospels. We could not identify any indications for a dissociation of Paul from the Jesus traditions as remembered in the gospels. The fellowship of Jews and gentiles at the table does not render Jewish identity obsolete, and Paul does not argue that in order for such fellowship to be possible Jews would have to accommodate to a gentile way of life. Quite the opposite. The spread of the Christ-movement into the gentile world is an inclusive move rather than an exclusive one: the inclusion of gentiles as

rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mt 20:23–28). 59 The incident at Antioch would require a more detailed discussion than space allows in this article, but the issue here too is primarily the “breaking up” of the table-fellowship in a context already marked by the rising tension between Jews and gentiles, the radicalization of some Jewish groups, which eventually lead to the Jewish-Roman War. Cf. also M. Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity at Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (London: Routledge, 2001), 113–21.

Conclusion

109

gentiles does not imply the exclusion of Jews as Jews. Issues concerning tablefellowship between Jews and gentiles should be seen as subordinate to Paul’s primary concern, which is “to pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom 14:19), so that the gentiles will rejoice with his people (Rom 15:10). If such problems around table-fellowship arise due to differences between Jews and gentiles, as obviously was the case in Antioch, this is not a cause for a parting of the ways but a problem that requires a solution. Since such a problem had not arisen earlier, when the movement was an entirely Jewish movement in the realm of the land of Israel, of course, new solutions had to be found. But the necessity to find new solutions to new problems in new contexts should not be confused with a necessary departure from tradition, nor be seen as a rejection of or an inconsistency with the “original” Jesus tradition. Thus Paul and those working for the gospel among the gentiles should be seen as trying to find ways of life in Christ in new circumstances and true to tradition. The reading of Paul in light of Jesus traditions and vice versa informed by the presupposition of double similarity (the Jewishness of both Paul and Jesus) has led us to see Paul’s emphasis on peace at the table as coherent with the Jesus tradition of table-fellowship as remembered in the gospels. They are both embedded in, and draw from, Jewish traditions that associate the coming of the kingdom of God with a heavenly banquet of abundance and peace for all.



















6. The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι and Images of Community in Enoch Traditions Theories concerning a community, communities, or a movement behind Enoch traditions abound and I am not going to add to the debate in this contribution.1 I am rather interested here in images and characteristics attributed to an ideal eschatological community in some exemplary Enoch traditions, and to what extent or not, such images resonate with characteristics of Pauline ἐκκλησίαι. Numerous scholars have noted that significant parallels and analogies may be identified between the Pauline letters and Enoch traditions.2 Such parallels and analogies are identified with regard to a number of topics such as Adam/second Adam typology, new creation language, the role and function of the Torah, the perception of the ideal eschatological community, and universalism. I will focus here on the latter two aspects and explore to what extent analogies between the two collections of literature may provide insights into the existence of a shared pool of traditions in Second Temple Judaism. Since Paul’s letters are perceived as addressing non-Jewish Christ-followers there may be indications for the cultural translation process discernable through such a comparison which could provide insights into the developing identity/self-understanding of the Pauline ἐκκλησίαι. The chapter explores the issue in four steps: first, I will explore designations used for community members in 1 Enoch and in Pauline literature, second, I will consider particular characteristics of such communities, third, a brief survey of Paul’s perception of unity of Jews and gentiles in Christ will be presented: and lastly I will focus on the perception of the ideal community in the Animal Apocalypse, particularly in 1 En 90:37–38.

Although I doubt that a specific group or movement behind this cluster of texts and traditions can be identified, there must have been groups of people who transmitted these traditions, in my view complementary, rather than as an alternative to Mosaic traditions. Cf. P. Heger, “1 Enoch – Complementary or Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?,” JSJ 41 (2010), 29–62; see also the discussion by A. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 294–307. 2 Cf., e.g., G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 445; D. Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch: “All Nations Shall Be Blessed” (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 242– 43, A. Sherwod, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 14–16. P. Trebilco, Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 122–26. 1

112

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

Designations for Community Members Designations for Community Members

The traditions collected in 1 Enoch use a number of peculiar designations for community members addressed or in focus of the visionary accounts, such as “the righteous,” “the chosen,” “the chosen righteous ones,” “the faithful” and “holy ones.”3 The latter two are highlighted by Paul Trebilco as evidence for Paul sharing in a Jewish vocabulary especially when addressing his communities with these designations. In his brief discussion of Enoch traditions, Trebilco notes that οἱ ἅγιοι refers to humans (as distinct from the more frequent designation for angels) once in the Epistle of Enoch (1 En 100:5) and twelve times in the Similitudes (1 En 37–71) in eschatological contexts, thus serving as a designation for eschatological communities.4 There is no doubt that in the Similitudes, οἱ ἅγιοι is used for humans, but it is one designation among others for those of the eschatological community and it occurs alongside the continued use of the term for angels there (for example 1 En 39:5; 47:2). The data for a distinctive use of οἱ ἅγιοι in 1 Enoch as a designation for the eschatological community is, thus, rather slim in my view, especially when only what are considered early Enoch traditions (1–36, 83–90, 92–107)5 are taken into account, where οἱ ἅγιοι, except in 1 En 100:5, coherently refers to angels.6 Whilst πιστεύοντες and πιστ-related terminology is prominent in Paul, the one reference to “the faithful” in the last chapter of 1 Enoch (108:13) can also hardly serve as an indication of a Jewish vocabulary shared between Paul and 1 Enoch. The predominant terms used for those envisaged to be part of the ideal community in the early Enoch tradition are “the righteous,” “the chosen,” or the combination of the two in “the chosen righteous.” These designations are hardly found in the Pauline letters, with the chosen (οἱ ἐκλεκτοί) only occurring in Rom 8:33, and with reference to Rufus in Rom 16:13, and οἱ δίκαιοι as a designation for the members of the ἐκκλησία being completely absent. In the early Enoch tradition, however, the chosen (οἱ ἐκλεκτοί) appears frequently and prominently as designating either the envisaged audience or the ideal community. It is often paired with righteous (δίκαιος), and significantly, is prominent in the opening verse of 1 Enoch, thus clearly setting the tone as to who is in focus in this literature (“The words of the blessing with which Enoch blessed the righteous chosen who will be present on the day of tribulation, to remove

Cf. Nickelsburg who notes that “Collective terms like ‘the righteous, the chosen, the holy’ indicate a consciousness of community though without any indication that the community had concrete manifestations in specific places.” 1 Enoch 1:64. 4 Trebilco, Self-Designations and Group Identity, 125. 5 Cf. L. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2007). 6 Cf. On the designations for the heavenly entourage see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 43–45. 3

Designations for Community Members

113

all the enemies; And the righteous will be saved”7). Similarly, the Apocalypse of Weeks refers to the addressees as “the children of righteousness […] the chosen of eternity/the world” (93:2) thus indicating that this vision concerns a “righteous community.” 8 As Trebilco has noted, community language in 1 Enoch has a clear focus in eschatological terms but certainly in the early Enoch tradition this is expressed not via holiness terminology, but rather the terminology of election and righteousness. It need not be doubted that Paul was familiar with election language as well as with the terminology of righteousness ( I will come back to this below), but he clearly does not address his ἐκκλησίαι in election terminology. The closest in this respect may be Paul’s “calling” (καλ-) language (Rom 9:24, 1 Cor 1:9, 7.22, Gal 1:6, 5:13, 1 Thess 2:12, 4:7, 5:24). There may be a number of reasons for Paul’s choice of address but I cannot discuss this in detail here. Since Paul is addressing Christ-followers from the nations (gentiles) it could be that he considered election language inappropriate for them, as a terminology reserved for Israel only (as is certainly the case in the psalms, prophetic traditions and wisdom literature Pss 105:6, 43; 106:5; Is 42:1; 43:20; 45:4; 65:15,23; Wis 3:9; 4:15).9 It thus appears that in terms of specific designations for community members, no parallel use between significant parts of 1 Enoch and Paul can be identified. Paul sometimes uses the designation οἱ ἅγιοι when referring to, or addressing his communities – a term not used in early Enoch tradition as a designation for the members of the ideal community. On the other hand, Paul does not use the Enochic designations οἱ ἐκλεκτοί, and οἱ δίκαιοι when addressing or designating members of the ἐκκλησίαι. There could be a number of reasons for this, but before speculating about these, it is necessary to explore whether there might be other indicators, such as specific characteristics of the perception of the ideal community, which are shared between particular Enoch traditions and Paul.

Translation G.W.E. Nickelsburg, J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 19. 8 Cf. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 324. She further notes that the phrase “Children of righteousness” identifies “the community’s defining characteristic as righteousness or justice entailing righteous deeds, ‘order of life’, and participation in the outworking of divine justice (93.2).” 9 On election see J.S. Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007). 7



114

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

Characteristics of Communities and Community Members Characteristics of Communities and Community Members

The communities addressed by Paul and addressed or envisaged in 1 Enoch are not only designated with particular labels but also are supposed to have, or are envisaged to have, specific characteristics. Although the early Enoch traditions do not refer to the members of the ideal community as “the holy ones,” the notion of purification as a decisive step in the eschatological events is clearly present. The concepts of holiness and purity are, of course, not identical; however, they are closely intertwined in scriptural perception.10 Thus prior to the transformation of “all the sons of men” to righteousness, the earth needs to be cleansed “from all impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) and from all wrong and from all from all lawlessness and from all sin […] and all the earth will be cleansed from all defilement and from all uncleanness” (ἀκαθαρσία) (1 En 10:20,22). Although the “plant of righteousness” does appear after the power of violence and destruction is overcome by the intervention of Michael (“Destroy all perversity from the face of the earth and let every wicked deed be gone and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear and it will become a blessing, (and) the deeds of righteousness and truth will be planted forever with joy” [1 En 10:16–19]), the transformation of all the sons of men can only happen after the earth has been cleansed entirely. The transgression of the created order – that is, the boundaries between heaven and earth – by fallen angels (1 En 7:1)11, leads to violence and bloodshed (teaching humans “to make swords of iron and weapons and shields and breastplates and every instrument of war” [1 En 8:1]), and to idolatry (“and there was much godlessness on the earth,” [1 En 8:2]). These transgressions lead to the defile-

Although the concepts of holy/profane and pure/impure are not the same there is some overlap and interrelationship between them. The cultic categories of pure/impure did not apply to gentiles/the nations since they were considered profane and thus could not come close to the Holy One due to their profane status. Cf. P. Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56, 232–52. The prerequisite in antiquity generally for approaching any deity’s sphere was a status of purity, achieved through the performance of purification rituals. Cf. A. Bendlin, “Purity and Pollution,” in A Companion to Greek Religion (ed. D. Odgen; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 178–89: also J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Cf also B. Ego, “Purity Concepts in Jewish Traditions of the Hellenistic Period,” in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (ed. C. Frevel, C. Nihan; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 477–92. 11 Note the Greek here which qualifies this transgression as an act of defilement by the transgressors – μιαίνεσθαι. Stuckenbruck notes that “the angels have breached the boundaries that distinguish the heavenly from the earthly sphere,” L. Stuckenbruck, “The Eschatological Worship of God by the Nations: An Inquiry into the Early Enoch Tradition,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. K.D. Dobos, M. Köszeghy; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 189–206. 10

Characteristics of Communities and Community Members

115

ment of the earth. (“and all the earth was filled with the godlessness and violence that had befallen it” [9:1])12 In consequence, the defiled earth is unfit as the place where the God of Israel can be worshipped. The sequence of eschatological events is not always perceived in the same way throughout the different stages of the early Enoch tradition. Jerusalem and the Temple play a specific role as the place to which the people Israel returns in 1 En 90:37–38, whereas in the Book of Watchers, in 10:16–22, Israel, the plant of righteousness, is restored before the transformation of “all the sons of men” without any reference to Jerusalem or the Temple. The restoration of Israel and the transformation of “all the sons of men” can only happen after the cosmological cleansing has taken place, thus setting the stage for Israel and the nations to worship God in truth and peace (1 En 11:2). The joint worshipping of Israel and the nations is one of the key aspects of the eschatological transformation envisaged in the early Enoch traditions as Stuckenbruck has clearly demonstrated.13 I will come back to this aspect below. For now, the focus remains on the issue of cleansing and purity, which, I think, is also in view in the color white that plays a prominent role in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En 85–90).14 White in scriptural tradition is occasionally the color of purity and sinlessness or purification, as for example, in Ps 51:7 (“Purge me with Hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow”) or Isa 1:18 (“though your sins are like scarlet they shall be like snow”). It possibly is the color of the garments priests wore on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:4). It certainly is the color of festivals and celebrations in ancient Rome, and, according to Plato, the color of the gods.15 More striking than the actual role of the color white in the scriptures, however, is the frequent requirement of washing and cleansing when cult activities are in view. It is not surprising that a preponderance of occurrences of respective passages and terms is found in Leviticus and Ezekiel (LXX Lev 8:6 [λούω]; 11:25, 28 13:34 [πλύνω]; 13:34,35,37,59, 14:4 [καθαρίζω], 8 [καθαρίζω, λούω] 9 [πλύνω, λούω] 11, 14, 17, 18, 19 [καθαρίζω] ; 16:26 [λούω ], 28 [πλύνω]; 22:6 [λούω]; LXX Ez 16:9 [λούω]; 24:13 [καθαρίζω]; 36:25,33 [καθαρίζω]; 37:23 [καθαρίζω]; 39:12,14,16 ; 43:26; 44:26 [καθαρίζω])16. In order to be able “to come near” the “Holy One” one had to be in a status of holiness – that is, a

Note that it is the earth here which “raises the voice of their cries to the gates of heaven” (9:2), cf. Rom 8:19–22. 13 Stuckenbruck, “Eschatological Worship,” 189–91. 14 Cf. also R. Nir, “‘And Behold Lambs were Born of Those White Sheep’ (1 Enoch 90:6). The Color White and Eschatological Expectation in the Animal Apocalypse,” Henoch 35 (2013), 50–69. 15 For further examples and discussion see Nir, “Behold Lambs,” 51–52. 16 The Greek terms consistently translate respective Hebrew terms in Leviticus and Ezekiel, thus λούω which denotes the washing of the body translates ‫רחץ‬, πλύνω translates ‫כבס‬, whereas καθαρίζω translates ‫טהר‬. 12



116

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

member of the holy people Israel (as distinct from the nations who were profane), as well as in a state of sanctification and purity, having undergone processes of purification. The significance of this can be seen in a scene mentioned almost by chance. In re-telling a scene in the context of Hezekiah’s invitation of all Israel and Judah, including Ephraim and Manasseh to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem in 2 Chron 30:17–19, it is noted that “there were many in the assembly (ἐκκλησία/‫ )קהל‬who had not sanctified (ἡγνίσθη/‫ )התקדשו‬themselves; therefore the Levites had to slaughter the Passover lamb for everyone who was not pure, “to make it holy (ἁγνισθῆναι/‫ )להקדיש‬in the Lord.” (2 Chron 30:17). The LXX makes a terminological distinction not made in the Hebrew text, indicating that the sanctification required here was a state of temporary dedication achieved through purification rituals and dedication prayers, as distinct from the permanent status of holiness expressed in the LXX by the Greek term ἅγιος and related terminology.17 According to this passage, everybody in the assembly had to be in a temporary state of sanctification, which included purification, in order to bring an offering to the Lord. The notion of temporary sanctification in a cultic context is inherently bound up with purity and a process of purification. The high frequency of washing and cleansing language in Leviticus and Ezekiel is due to the crucial concern of these books with the state in which members of the people Israel could “come near” the Holy God. By analogy, the color white in the Animal Apocalypse may well indicate such a status of purity of those patriarchs envisaged as white bulls, with an analogous status of the eschatological community of white sheep and white cattle. Cleansing/purification is a core aspect in the early Enoch traditions, and although the designation “holy ones” is not used for the community of “the righteous,” it is evident in the images of purification and the prominence of the color white that aspects of the notion of sanctification as an aspect of the status of holiness are not alien to this tradition. The Pauline use of the designation οἱ ἅγιοι for his ἐκκλησίαι resonates with the Enochic emphasis of purification in that the status of holiness which is intertwined with, although not identical with a state of sanctification, is core to the characteristic of the Pauline ἐκκλησίαι. Consistent with scriptural and Second Temple traditions the status of holiness and the state of sanctification are inherently bound up with processes of purification/cleansing for Paul. Contrary to the assumption that for Paul purity issues were of no concern as they were

No such distinction is made in Hebrew which refers to both aspects with the term ‫קדש‬. Cf. T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 165; also my “The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul: Peculiarities of Cultural Translation,” chapter 10 of this volume. 17

Characteristics of Communities and Community Members

117

supposedly overcome in Christ, such issues were core to the vision and perception he had for the ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ.18 As assemblies which related to the God of Israel through Christ, their transformation into a status of holiness was vital. The question here was not whether this was essential for those assemblies of Christ-followers from the nations, but how they could acquire such a status without becoming Jews – that is, part of the people Israel. The core question for them was how they could be purified, and thus, rendered holy so as to be in a status which allowed them to come near and be loyal to the one Holy God, and to worship him without becoming Jews. The connection between purification and holiness is explicit in 1 Cor 6:11 (ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσασθε ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν (“But you were washed, you were rendered holy, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”)19. Paul addresses the Corinthians explicitly as “those who are rendered holy in Christ Jesus” (ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 1 Cor 1:2). The intrinsic link between purity and holiness is also evident in 1 Thessalonians 4, where Paul reminds the members of the ἐκκλησία about the will of God for them as their holiness (ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, 4:3), which requires from them to abstain from “fornication” (πορνεία: most likely understood not primarily as sexual promiscuity but rather as expression of loyalty to other deities). After some further clarification Paul emphasises that “God did not call us to impurity but into holiness” – οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπἱ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, 4:7). Paul’s letters deal with the implications of this status of holiness for Christfollowers from the nations as they arise from practicalities of everyday life. This is evident in Romans 12–15 for example, and already earlier in Rom 6:19, where he clarifies “For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for holiness” (ὥσπερ γὰρ παρεστήσατε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσἰᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν οὕτως νῦν παραστήσατε

See K. Ehrensperger, “‘Called to be Saints’ – the Identity Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation. Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 90–109 (now chapter 15 of this volume), and K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures – Theologizing in the Space-Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 175–213, also P. Eisenbaum, Paul was Not a Christian: The Real Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 153–67, and P. Fredriksen, “Paul, Purity and the Ekkelsia of the Gentiles,” The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. J. Pastor, M. Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Tzvi Press, 2005), 205–17. 19 The traditional translation of ἡγιάσασθε with “sanctified” is unclear as it does not render the distinction made by Paul’s use of respective terminology (rooted in the LXX use) between temporary dedication, thus a state of sanctification expressed with ἁγνίζω and related terminology, and the permanent status of holiness expressed with ἅγιος and related terminology, cf. above and n.17 18



118

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν). He more explicitly explains what this encompasses in Romans 12. There is clearly a connection between issues concerning purity and the status of holiness in Paul’s notion of what ought to characterize the ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ he had founded. In addition, Rom 6:19 indicates a further connection between these two aspects and issues concerning righteousness/justification (δικαιοσύνη). I cannot elaborate on the links between these here but just note that they are obviously not detached, purely theological notions but inherently intertwined in the form of a web or rhizome20 rather than in a linear vein of cause and effect. The mentioning of δικαιοσύνη here in one sweep with an admonition to avoid ἀκαθαρσία for the purpose of ἁγιασμός demonstrates that what is of high importance in the early Enoch tradition – that is, δικαιοσύνη and the perception that the members of the eschatological community are δίκαιος – is not out of view in the Pauline letters either. The analysis of specific community related designations in 1 Enoch and the Pauline letters provides an indication if not for a shared terminology, then nevertheless for a shared pool of perceptions of an eschatological community in Second Temple Judaism, involving notions of purification, purity, sanctification, holiness and righteousness. It is expressed differently in that the groups directly in view are addressed or labeled differently (ἅγιοι in Paul, δίκαιοι in 1 Enoch). A further detailed study is needed to critically analyze possible reasons for this but it is evident that Paul embodies, is embedded in, and draws on Jewish traditions that had circulated for some centuries before his time. The analogies in the use of these designations and characteristics between Pauline and Enochic literature are significant in my view and point to a perception of ideal communities, distinct from Greek and Roman community traditions. Although notions of purity and holiness are evidently also of decisive importance and permeate all aspects of life in Greek and Roman tradition,21 to attribute respective designations to an entire community, even if only an ideal one of the end-time, is rather peculiar. A status of purity, or holiness, was, no doubt, required of certain cult adherents or at moments of cult performance in Greek and Roman cults, but these would be individual attributes or attributes of groups of particular people such as priests rather than attributes of entire communities. No voluntary association would require purity or holiness, or righteousness per se from its members. They may call themselves brothers,22 but hardly “holy ones” or “the righteous.” Thus what emerges is clear evidence

Cf. G. Deleuze, F. Guattari, Rhizome: Introduction (Paris: Éditions du Minuit, 1976). 21 See Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 178–86; also the volume of essays Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions, in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (ed. C. Frevel, C. Nihan; Leiden: Brill, 2012). 22 Cf. R. Aasgard, “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters”: Christian Siblingship in Paul (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 107–16,196–99. 20

Commonality or Sameness: This is the Question

119

that Paul’s perception of the core characteristics of his ἐκκλησίαι was primarily rooted in Jewish traditions – both scriptural and others such as Enochic traditions – whether there exists a direct link between these or not. The shared terminology indicates shared cultural perceptions. Holy, cleansed, and righteous: this is what these ἐκκλησίαι as ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ ought to be. The designations and characteristics clearly originate from the pool of Jewish eschatological expectations and hopes. They refer not just to a state but a status to live by: a way of life in light of eschatological events. Paul’s letters witness to the fact that the implications of being called into a community perceived as characterised by such Jewish core values were not self-evident for Christ-followers from the nations. These designations and required characteristics were not easily integrated by people who formerly were pagans, and who were, and to some extent, continued to be, embedded in Greek and Roman, Galatian and Macedonian culture. Although the designations and characteristics as such were most likely familiar to them, their perception of what these encompassed were shaped by their experiences from within their particular cultural and social contexts, rather than from a Jewish context. Thus what it means to live a life in holiness, purity, and righteousness is culturally and socially conditioned, culturally coded, and thus embodied in different ways. The understanding of these designations and characteristics is decisively shaped by this pre-conditioning, or, as Bourdieu called it, by the respective habitus of Jewish and non-Jewish Christ-followers. To mediate these designations and characteristics of an eschatological community (or in Paul’s case a community in anticipation of the eschaton) involves a complex translation process beyond linguistic terms: it involves a cultural translation process with all its challenges for understanding, transformed understanding and misunderstanding.23

Commonality or Sameness: This is the Question Commonality or Sameness: This is the Question

As demonstrated above, there are characteristics used by Paul for his ἐκκλησίαι which clearly originate from the pool of Jewish eschatological expectations, even though specific designations may differ between different textual traditions. The question which needs to be addressed now is who the people were who gathered as ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ – and who are envisaged/imagined to be the bearers of these designations and characteristics in 1 Enoch. One core difference needs to be kept in mind at the outset here: whilst Enoch traditions present images of ideal communities in the context of final eschatological events at the consummation of history, the Pauline letters address communities that are living in the here and now in anticipation of the “final days”. The

For a detailed discussion see Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 39–62, 131–39. 23



120

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

Christ-event has initiated the eschatological process but not concluded it. Thus it could be said that the communities envisaged by the Enoch traditions and by Paul – although both are seen in light of eschatological events – are located at a different point on the eschatological calendar: the Pauline ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ at the very beginning, those of the Enoch traditions at the very end. One thus has to be careful not to overstate both commonalities and differences between Pauline and Enochic perceptions of communities. The temporal difference in terms of what is envisaged has to be kept in mind. Commonality in Sin in Pauline Perspective It is evident that Paul includes Jews and non-Jews in the designation of “holy ones,” that the emphasis on righteousness concerns both, Jews and non-Jews, and that the purification from sin also applies to Jews as well as to non-Jews. It is evident that Paul stresses commonality between Jews and non-Jews in Christ when he uses terms and characteristics that he applies to all of those who are in Christ. Thus the designation “holy ones,” which is inherently linked with cleansing and purity indicates that Paul considers both, Jews and non-Jews, as in need of release from contamination by sin. In Rom 3:9–18 he emphasizes that all are affected by the power of sin, thus there is commonality between Jews and nonJews in that no one escapes from the all-pervasive power of sin. But how they are affected by sin may nevertheless be different. To be affected by sin is something they have in common, but it does not render them the same. The citations in Rom 3:9–18 from the Psalms and Isaiah (Pss. 5:9; 10:7; 14:1–3; Isa 59:7) are expressions of Israel’s anguish in the face of oppression, crying to God for deliverance. The all-pervasive power of sin does not render all the same: it affects people differently, distorts their lives in different ways. The scriptural citations imply situations of abusive power and violence. It is not the same to be a violent perpetrator as to be the victim of violence. Although this distortion of what it means to be human distorts everyone involved, and does not render victims righteous per se, the effects of sin are terrible and enclose all in an inescapable circle. But this does not render all who are trapped under the power of sin the same.24 This negative differentiation is evident in other passages such as Rom 2:12, where Paul certainly affirms that both, those without the law and those under law, have sinned, but precisely here the commonality is qualified by difference in that it is clarified that those who sin apart from the law will perish whilst those who sin under the law will be judged by the law. Thus the

For a more detailed discussion see K. Ehrensperger, “Reading Romans ‘in the Face of the Other’: Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle,” in Reading Romans with Contemporary Philosophers and Theologians. Romans Through History and Cultures Series, vol 7 (ed. D. Odell-Scott; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 115–54, (133–36), now chapter 14 of this volume. 24

Commonality or Sameness: This is the Question

121

difference between Jews and those from the nations is maintained in the commonality of life under the power of sin, including its effects when it comes to judgement. This emphasis on abiding difference is of course also the emphasis of Paul’s passionate arguments against the conversion of Christ-followers from the nations to Judaism (as in Galatians) as well as the cause for his passionate concern for the abiding value and thus required recognition of, and respect for, Jewish identity in or without Christ. Paul’s perception of the ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ does not arise in a vacuum as we have already seen above. He shares in a pool of Jewish eschatological traditions. But as someone who lives under the omnipresent power of Rome, Paul was certainly affected by its reality and ideology as well. Thus when it comes to his perception of how Israel and the nations will relate to each other in anticipation of “the world to come” it is difficult to envisage that the grand Roman imperial enterprise of the unification of the nations under their power would not have had some influence on him. The Roman Programme of the Unification of the Nations The Augustan programme of peace and justice (pax et iustitia), supported by the introduction of a number of laws (leges) was officially hailed as the inauguration of an age of salvation for all peoples, a Golden Age of prosperity. At a formal and military level there were no substantial internal challenges to the system of Roman domination at that time, although in specific contexts and at the boundaries of the empire, of course things would not look as settled as at, and from, the center. This military and political domination, accompanied by the respective ideological underpinnings, could not and did not intend to override or eradicate diversity in cultural, ethnic and linguistic terms.25 The Roman empire, rather than eradicating difference, operated through accentuating, even stereotyping the difference of conquered peoples and nations. Thus there were the “effete Persian,” the “educated Greek,” the “painted Gaul,” and the “circumcised Jew,” marked out as those who were not civilised and who, by nature had to subjugate under Rome. Roman domination and wide-ranging diversity under its rule, and the multi-layered negotiations between these dimensions, are the decisive contexts of the early Christ-movement.26 This was not an encounter between equals, but between those who ruled and those who were

Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 72–97. 26 For the impact of imperial ideology and domination see, e.g., R. Hingley, Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire (London: Routledge, 2005), D.J. Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), also N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), I.E. Rock, Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Roman Imperialism: An Ideological Analysis of the Exordium (Romans 1:1–17) (Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2012). 25



122

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

ruled. Even the encounter between Romans and Greeks, despite some recognition and admiration of Greek traditions and practices on the part of the Romans, was never an encounter of equals – certainly not from a Roman perspective. It was in admiration of Graeca capta as Andrew Jacobs in his recent study maintains, that the “Greek language and literature became the cultural spoils of Rome, but were never fully internalized – that is, Greek culture had to remain legibly ‘Greek’ in order to retain value within the logic of Rome’s empire.” 27 All other traditions and peoples under Rome and beyond its borders were beyond the “benefits” of civilization: that is, barbarian. The world of Greece and Rome was divided into two categories: civilized and uncivilized. Although it was not a hermetically sealed world and the boundaries could be crossed, this was only possible if one was willing to become like them, that is, civilised according to Greek and Roman perception. Paul and his people were not one of “them.” He was one of those others, ruled, but not really civilized despite speaking Greek. According to the perspective of the civilized, Greece and Rome, Paul, like all other members of peoples who were not part of the latter, was part of a non-civilized nation. He was a member of a barbaric people, as Josephus’ reference to his own people in Roman perspective discloses.28 He was one of those who were circumcised, bearing the mark of Jewish distinction as a mark of cultural difference which was already an over-determined symbol in Roman elite literature and a mark of general ridicule (Horace considers the superstition of “clipped Jews” a social nuisance Hor. [Sat. 1:9.69–7]; Martial is jealous about the sexual prowess of foreskinless Jewish men [Epig. 7:30.5]; and Juvenal refers to the weird Jews who “worship the sky” and “by and by shed their foreskins” [Sat. 14:99]).29 The division of the world in Roman (and Greek) perspective into “us and them,” despite the recognition of diversity, emerged according to criteria which were not negotiated between the subjugated peoples, but dictated by those in power. Although the Romans could grant different status to different conquered peoples, as colonia, amici, or confoederati, they could also enslave them, and none of these turned the conquered nation into an equal partner of Rome.30 Any status attribution was granted by the mercy (clementia) of Rome.

A. Jacobs, Christ Circumcised: A Study in Early Christian History and Difference (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 9. 28 Josephus Bell. 1:3. Evidence for this perception can still be found in the third century writings of Clement of Alexandria who refers to part of the Christian tradition as the “barbaric philosophy,” see E. Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 92–93. 29 Jacobs, Christ Circumcised, 16. 30 S. Dmitriev, The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 260; also C. Strecker, “Fides-Pistis-Glaube. Kontexte 27

Commonality or Sameness: This is the Question

123

The options available to those included under Roman rule by conquest were, if one was part of the provincial elite, to eventually join them in becoming “civilized” or to submit, the latter being the only option available if you were not a member of the elite. Submission was required in economic and military terms even where partial autonomy in civic and cultic affairs might have been granted. Cultural, military, economic, and cultic domination were intertwined. The power asymmetry in the relationship between Rome and the provinces should not be underestimated. Rome’s territorial expansion and domination was built on military violence even where the mere threat of such violence achieved its goal. To become part of the empire was not a democratic process but involved “intrusion, exploitation, violence, and coercion.”31 The provincial voices we know of are mostly those of the elite “who had aligned themselves with Rome and had taken their place in delivering Roman government and justice.”32 But even those voices would not be able to claim equal standing with the Roman elite during the first century CE, much as they might have aspired to such recognition. They were representatives of conquered peoples, accepted as useful tools of Roman power.33 To be recognized by the Roman elite rulers in the first century CE, if not as equal, then at least as “civilized” and “human,” was only possible on the condition that the conquered nations accepted this “civilising” force and turned “human” according to the Roman concept of humanitas – that is, by becoming Roman, accepting the pater patriae as their Father, and embracing Roman ideology.34 It meant copying the Roman way of life in a discourse of sameness.

und Konturen einer Theologie der ‘Annahme’ bei Paulus,” in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive (ed. M. Bachmann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 223–50, here 236–39, also Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 167–72. 31 Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity, 94. This is the case even when the initiative for a treaty came from the non-Roman side as in the case of the Jews. Cf. also my Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007/09), 9, and E. Baltrusch, Die Juden und das Römische Reich: Geschichte einer konfliktreichen Beziehung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002), 137–41. 32 Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity, 26. 33 Cf. Tacitus description of the adoption of Roman practices by elite Britons “they descended to the seductions to our vices, to porticos, baths and the refinement of dinners. This was called humanitas, civilisation amongst the ignorant, although it was an aspect of their enslavement.” (Agr. 4:21). 34 Pace, e.g., Thorsteinsson who maintains that “The sources reveal clearly how basic the tenet of universal humanity was to the Stoic moral teaching, and how strongly the Stoics emphasised impartiality in human relations. (Cf. Seneca, Clem.1:11.2). With this teaching, Seneca and his fellow Stoics sought to point out to people something that was inherent in human life itself, something that already existed as part of the creation of the world. According to the Stoics, then, if properly informed and motivated, people will (re)discover their true nature as human beings and act accordingly.” (R.M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity



124

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

Conquered nations were united under Roman control; they were united in their defeat, and in their status as enslaved, marginalized others.35 Unity between these peoples could only consist in unity under Rome, in submission to Roman law and order. Any unity between these ἔθνη/gentes which would have emerged from their own initiative and based on their self-perception as peoples distinct from Rome, was considered to mean trouble for Rome and thus, must be prevented.36 Unity in Christ Paul’s letters are predominantly addressing people from these ἔθνη/nations, and he himself refers to his calling experience as a commissioning to proclaim good news among the nations (Gal 1:16). This includes the call for unity and solidarity in Christ among peoples who at that time were under Roman control and domination. Distinct from the Roman programme the template of his perception of the ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ has its roots in scriptural traditions of the unification of Israel and the nations and their interpretation in the first century. Whether there are trajectories of commonality also between Paul and early Enoch tradition will be explored below. Paul’s perception of the association of the ἔθνη/nations to the God of Israel is interpreted from within existing Jewish traditions and is neither novel to nor inconsistent with it. Israel’s narrative of belonging begins with God’s creation and humankind as a whole. All peoples, rather than only a few, are seen as related to each other after the flood through their common descent from Noah, according to this narrative tradition. The genealogies of Genesis 10 and 2

and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 191. Thorsteinsson seems to overlook the significance of one detail here, that human beings had to be “properly informed and motivated” in order to “discover their true nature.” This information and motivation consisted in nothing other than the Roman perception of humanitas. Rather than being evidence for the recognition of a common human nature of all, the concept of humanitas attributes to all peoples the potential of being able to conform to the Roman elite way of life. This is far from any recognition of other peoples as human in their particularity and difference. It universalizes an imperialist concept, which is actually very particular. 35 D.C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 172. 36 As Tacitus’ comment illustrates “May the nations retain and perpetuate, if not an affection for us, at least an animosity against each other! Since, while the fate of the empire is thus urgent, fortune can bestow no higher benefit upon us, than the discord of our enemies” (Maneat, quaeso, duretque gentibus, si non amor nostri, at certe odium sui, quando urgentibus imperii fatis nihil iam praestare fortuna maius potest quam hostium discordiam [Germ. 33.2] ). Cf. also Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered, 110.

Commonality or Sameness: This is the Question

125

Chron 1:1–2:2 connect Israel and the nations in a web of interrelations.37 The election and particularity of one people, Israel, is seen in conjunction with openness to other nations. The particular relationship of God with this people, through election, covenant, and guidance through the Torah, and the perception of “the other” as part of God’s creation and divine economy, are not seen as being in contradiction with each other in significant trajectories of this tradition. Although enmity between Israel and the nations forms part of the tradition as well, this is not the only way they are perceived to interact with each other. The nations have never been out of view in Israel’s narrative, and form part of the visions of the “world to come” in as much as they are there after the flood. When “the world to come” is envisioned, people from the nations – rather than joining Israel, that is, a socio-ethnic group, through conversion – are seen as joining themselves to the Lord as “others,” (cf. Zech 2:11–12, 8:22–23; Isa 66:18–20).38 These people are not seen as becoming part of Israel, but they worship God as foreigners because God’s house is now a house of prayer for all peoples (Isa 56:7).39 By joining in worship the distinctions between, and diversity of, Israel and nations/ἔθνη is maintained and so is their specific way of life, and of relating to God.40 It cannot be discerned precisely which specific traditions of this narrative were influential for Paul’s understanding of his call to the nations. But it can

J.M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 5–56. 38 Cf. also Isa 56:6 where we read “and the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants,” (foreigners = ἀλλογενής = ‫ – נכר‬one from a foreign land). Similar traditions of a clear distinction between Israel and the nations can be found in Isa 2:3 (ἔθνη as distinguished from the house of Jacob), Mica 4:2 ( ‫ – גוים‬ἔθνη), Ez 47:22–23 ( ‫ – גוים‬προσηλύτοι) , Ezra 6:21 (It was eaten by the people of Israel who had returned from exile, also by all who had joined them and separated themselves from the pollutions of the nations of the land to worship ( ‫ )דרש‬the Lord, the God of Israel.) Terence L. Donaldson also refers to the narratives of Ruth and Jonah, Solomons prayer 1 Kgs 8:23–53, Psalm 96 and a as a peculiar example Naaman 2 Kgs 8:15 (T.L. Donaldson, Judaism and the gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 478. Cf. also F. Crüsemann, “Ihnen gehören […] die Bundesschlüsse” (Röm 9:4). Die alttestamentliche Bundestheologie,” KuI 9 (1994), 21–38. 39 Cf. Kaminsky is of the view that even a text like Lev 24:22 which refers to “one law for natives and resident aliens” implies “that the group boundaries remain intact.” (J. Kaminsky, “Israel’s Election and the Other in Biblical, Second Temple and Rabbinic Thought,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins (ed. D.C. Harlow et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 17–30 (20). 40 Stuckenbruck notes that “It is not clear […] that any of these passages refer to a ‘conversion’ of the nations especially if we define the term ‘conversion’ as the complete transfer from one religion to another.” “Eschatological Worship,” 192. 37



126

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

hardly be envisaged that such traditions were not of some importance for his understanding of his call to bring about the obedience of faith among all the nations (Rom 1:5). These traditions of a unification of Israel and the nations to jointly worship the God of Israel in themselves present an alternative scenario to the scenarios of united nations under a dominating force.41 Admittedly, not all of these Jewish traditions envisage a peaceful relationship between Israel and the nations. There are those traditions that, rather than presenting an alternative, merely present inversions of the domination-subjugation scheme, with the non-Jewish nations being subjugated now under the rule of Israel or violence exercised against them.42 Paul’s arguments concerning the relationship of Israel and the nations, however, resonate rather with those traditions which envisage the unification of the nations not by force but by them responding to the call to serve the God of Israel (cf. Tob 14:6). The earliest Christ-followers saw this call actualized in and through the Christ-event, that is, through the implications of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the first century CE, to envisage a non-violent unification of the nations presented a powerful alternative to the notion of their unification under the dominating, “civilising” force of Rome. Unlike the Roman perception, where a degree of equality could only be achieved by assimilation – that is by the adoption of the Roman way of life – the scriptural traditions of the nations joining Israel in glorifying their God do not presuppose such assimilation: in these visions, the nations are not required to become the same, that is Jews, nor does Israel become like the nations in this process of united glorification of God. For Paul, the already of “the world to come,” seen as revealed in the Christ-event, actualized such visions, rather than initiating them. Based on these, the envisaged unity presupposes and actually supports the diversity and particularity of these nations, and of Israel. The nations/ἔθνη are precisely not to become the same as Jews, they are not to convert to Judaism, nor is Israel to become like the nations and give up its Jewish identity. This is evident in passages such as Gal 5:2: “Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit for you” (Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει). Here Paul sums up his passionate plea to the Galatians to maintain their identity as Galatians and not become Jews. He argues for the necessity for these Galatian Christ-followers to be just that: Galatian Christ-followers. Through Christ, they are now heirs to the promises of Abraham, related to the people Israel, and as such, called to glorify the God of Israel as the God of all

J. Harrison, Paul and Imperial Authorities at Thessaloniki and Rome (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 36, B. Kahl, Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 242–43. 42 As, e.g., Isa 14:2–9; 29:5–8;34:1–4; 60:11–16; Jer 10:25; 25:31–38. 41

Commonality or Sameness: This is the Question

127

creation – all without becoming Jews, that is, without becoming part of the people Israel. They become part of God’s people: a diverse people not a uniform people of sameness. No one shall compel these Christ-followers from a conquered nation to assimilate and become the same as Jews. Thus Galatians concludes with a blessing for all, for those from the nations and for Israel, rather than with a blessing for a new Israel or a new humanity (Gal 6:16).43 In 1 Cor 7:18–24 we find a strong affirmation of the identity of both Jews and people from the nations in Christ. They are both confirmed in what they are, their transformation in Christ does not lead to a mutual assimilation into some generic undifferentiated humanity – those who are circumcised, that is, Jews, remain Jews when called in Christ, those who are not circumcised (that is people from the nations), will also retain their identities. The main issue is to remain with God (ἕκαστος ἐν ᾧ ἐκλήθη αδελφοί ἐν τούτῳ μενέτω παρὰ θεῷ (“In whatever [condition] you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God,” 1 Cor 7:24). In Romans Paul sees a need to address issues concerning the identity of Jews and attitudes which denigrate their particular way of life. As passionately as Paul defends the identity of the Galatians in Christ, he here defends the identity of the Jews, and their on-going bond with their God, whether they are in Christ or not (it is worth noting that no such defence is made for people from the nations who are not in Christ). Romans 9–11 clarifies Paul’s position in this respect. If, as it has been argued, Jewish issues concerning food are involved in some of the problems in the Roman ἐκκλησίαι, then Paul in Rom 14:1–15:14 does not argue for assimilation towards each other, but rather for the accommodation to the needs of the weaker partners in the debate.44 To accommodate is not the same as to become the same. Accommodation recognizes abiding difference. Here, the difference between those who eat meat and those who eat vegetables remains and no argument is made that this should change over the course of some development. Paul merely admonishes the “strong” to accommodate to the needs of the weak on occasions where the unity of the community is at stake. No requirement is made that they should change their practice entirely, but only in particular circumstances. The key issue again is that Christ-followers from the nations glorify the God of Israel in their diversity together with Israel (Rom 15:9–10). The paradigm of sameness promoted by the imperial power is precisely not what these people

Cf. also W.S. Campbell, Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context (Eugene: Cascade, 2013), 209–12; cf. also S. Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Rereading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11,” NTS 56.3 (2010), 147–70. 44 Cf. also T. Engberg-Pedersen, “‘Everything is Clean’ and ‘Everything that is not of Faith is Sin’: The Logic of Pauline Casuistry in Romans 14.1–15.13,” in Paul, Grace, and Freedom: Essays in Honour of John K. Riches (ed. P. Middelton et al.; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 22–38. 43



128

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

from the nations and the people Israel were to follow as followers of Christ. The nations do not become the same as Israel nor are they integrated into Israel or become a new Israel. If they were to become part of Israel, their identity as those from the nations would be assimilated to, and thus lost in Israel. If Israel were to cease to be Israel, Jewish identity would be assimilated to, and thus lost, in the identity of the nations. Either way, the particularity of those in Christ is lost in a paradigm of assimilation or sameness. The nations are to join Israel in the praise of God as the nations/ ἔθνη; they are related to Israel, but the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision is not obliterated in Christ but maintained.45 Unity is not achieved by the eradication of cultural and ethnic distinctions, but by affirming their validity and value in Christ.46 Paul’s strong arguments for the respect for people in their difference in the exemplary passages mentioned above, sets out an alternative discourse to the Roman imperial ideology of sameness. It is, if not an explicit, then certainly an implicit challenge to the prevalent Roman paradigm.

The Unification Vision in 1 Enoch 90:37–38 The Unification Vision in 1 Enoch 90:37–38

Similarities or Differences to Paul? In light of Paul’s vision of unity in diversity, what are we to make of the unification vision in 1 En 90:37–38 ? As noted above, analogies between Paul and early Enoch traditions have been affirmed, particularly in interpretations of the concluding section of the Animal Apocalypse: “And I saw a white bull was born and its horns were large. And the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven were afraid of it and made petitions to it continually. And I saw until all their species were changed and they all became white cattle […] And the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the cattle” (1 En 90:37–38). Thus Daniel Olson finds striking similarities between Paul and the Animal Apocalypse in their perception of the relationship between Jews and gentiles47/people from the nations and the future of Israel. His perception of this similarity is based on the interpretation of 1 En 90:37–39 as indicating that “God’s purpose in

On distinction see W.S. Campbell, “No Distinction or no Discrimination? The Translation of Διαστολή in Romans 3:22 and 10:12” in Erlesenes Jerusalem: Festschrift für Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed. L. Kundert, C. Tuor-Kurth; Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 2013), 353–71. 46 Cf. also Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 22–24; also W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 149. 47 Olson’s terminology. 45

The Unification Vision in 1 Enoch 90:37–38

129

human history is not to glorify the nation of Israel but to abolish all nationalities entirely and return all humanity to single, Adamic state […]”48 The transformation into white cattle is understood by Olson in the vein of a new creation where there is neither Jew (sheep) nor gentile (wild animals). Paul is interpreted similarly as arguing that the division between Jew and gentile is to be abolished and those in Christ are a new creation, that is, “a kind of third race.”49 George Nickelsburg argues slightly differently that “in the end all the species representing the diversity of nations and people return to the primordial unity from which they diverged.” 50 This seems to imply that the problem which needs to be overcome consists in the diversity of nations and peoples, although Nickelsburg places the emphasis on the unity of people rather than explicitly on the overcoming of diversity as God’s purpose in the eschatological events. It is the violence of the nations against Israel that comes to an end and only thus is peace and unity between them rendered possible. The similarities seen between 1 En 90:37–38 and Paul’s vision of the unity of Jews and people from the nations in Christ here is based on an interpretation of the Pauline Letters that assumes that Paul advocates the obliteration of difference between Israel and the nations. A variation of this theme is the assumption that gentiles will become part of a new or true Israel – a notion that is also identified in Aaron Sherwood’s interpretation of 1 En 90:37–38 of the Animal Apocalypse. Although noting that the key focus is on Israel’s restoration, Sherwood argues that “[…] prior to all humanity being Israel (v. 38a), Israel is given primacy. But ultimately the nations shed their identity and share Israel’s and so implicitly share in their worship.”51 While in the previous trajectory of interpretation the identity of Israel is lost, here the identity of the nations is annihilated. In both interpretative scenarios unity and peace are achieved at the expense of diversity. This is a questionable interpretation of Paul, as demonstrated above, and if the final vision of the Animal Apocalypse does envisage the abolition of all “nationalities”52 – that is, distinct collective identities of peoples, either at the expense of Israel or of the nations – then Paul’s notion of unity could not be more different. If this is the vision of the Animal Apocalypse, and other early Enoch traditions then there is no similarity to Paul in this respect. In that case, their respective perceptions of eschatological communities differ fundamentally. However, in light of the unity in diversity advocated by

Olson, New Reading, 242. 49 Olson, New Reading, 242. 50 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1,406, also 40. 51 A. Sherwood, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 200. He concludes that “from Urzeit to Endzeit, humanity consists of Israel alone, over whom Israel’s God ultimately rejoices (1 En 90:38b).” This is matched by his interpretation of Gal 6:16 when he affirms that “the ἔθνη audience are definitively and christologically re-identified as Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ,” 229. 52 Of course not understood in the modern sense of nation states. 48



130

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

Paul for his eschatological communities argued above, I propose to re-read the two verses of the Animal Apocalypse in question afresh. Aspects of Sin in the Animal Apocalypse Interestingly, Nickelsburg in his introduction to “Enoch’s Second Dream Vision” (1 Enoch 85–90), identifies the all-permeating presence of sin as a dominant feature in this vision in a vein rather similar to Paul. As in Rom 2:12 and 3:9–18, this all-permeating presence does not affect Israel and the nations in the same vein. Humans are either victims or perpetrators of sin, with violence being the core sin here. Nickelsburg concludes sins of violence […] are not attributed to Israel. The Israelites are victims of Gentile violence, which is usually punishment for another kind of sin committed by Israel […] this sin is caused by blindness and involves the flocks straying from the path that God had shown them.53

He thus identifies a clear difference between Israel and the nations with regard to sin in the section of the Enoch tradition in question here. I have not found any interpretation which attributed the origin of sin to the mere fact that peoples are different. The diversity of peoples is not the cause of sin, nor does sin cause the emergence of a diversity of peoples.54 The sin of Israel is to turn away from their God; the sin of the nations is to violently oppress Israel. These aspects are multifaceted and intertwined but this does not render them the same. There is a commonality in sin between Israel and the nations according to the Animal Apocalypse, but not sameness. This perception of sin certainly resonates with aspects of what we found above as characteristic of Paul’s notion of sin. The Animal and Color Symbolism A number of interpretations consider the animal symbolism and the color symbolism in the Animal Apocalypse as referring to the diversity of peoples per se, the nations on the one hand and Israel on the other. 55 The transformation of the nations – or of Israel and the nations – into white cattle (90:38) is interpreted as the overcoming of the diversity of peoples.56 It appears to be assumed

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 355. Nickelsburg notes the core significance of the cultic dimension in the narrative here. This is an important aspect of comparison with Paul which cannot be pursued here further. 54 The problem in the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1–9) is uniformity not diversity. 55 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 406, Sherwood, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity, 190– 91. 56 Olson maintains that “[…] since both sheep and wild animals disappear into a uniform race of white cattle, it is reasonable also to conclude that the An.Apoc. expects ‘Israel’ as a 53

The Unification Vision in 1 Enoch 90:37–38

131

that the unity of peoples who worship God requires that they all become the same. However, I am not convinced that the different animals and colors in the Animal Apocalypse actually represent the diversity of peoples per se. If we consider the animals mentioned, then a common characteristic appears, which is also clearly expressed in the wording of the text. Almost all of them are wild animals, or, more precisely, predators, and no domesticated animals are included in this zoological park, with the exception of sheep, bulls, and cows. In light of the diversity of creation this is quite a limited selection of creatures. No reasons are given for the emergence of cattle of different colors (1 En 85:3; 89:9). The animals emerging after the flood are not just any kind of wild animals but rather, they are characterized or caricatured in a specific way and for a specific purpose: lions, leopards, wolves, dogs, hyenas, wild boars, foxes, conies, pigs, falcons, vultures, kites, eagles and ravens (89:10). Distinct from domesticated animals, these wild animals are not guarded or guided by a fence or shepherd, but they are roaming wild. They exert destructive power when in contact with domesticated animals. Thus the core aspect they represent is conflict, mostly violent conflict against the domesticated sheep and cattle.57 What we find in the Animal Apocalypse is not an image of the diversity of peoples, but a scenario of violent conflict, allegorised in the destructive encounter between predators and domestic animals. Moreover, the colors of the cattle and sheep do not represent the full spectrum of colors but typified white, black and red. It has been noted that black most likely here indicates the destructive power, whereas red is the color of the victims (as in the case of the black and red calf, Cain and Abel respectively in 1 En 85:3). The diversity of these animals hence cannot mean the diversity of peoples per se, but a diversity of violence and enmity against Israel. The colors may also be indicative of the relationship of these animals to God, with white expressing the faithful and pure bond of humans to God and black and red, and the absence of the color white of the sheep after Jacob (89:12) perhaps indicating the strained relationship between Israel and her God.58 Oppressive violence against Israel is a core emphasis in this vision, set “in the broader context of humanity’s story,” as Nickelsburg has convincingly argued.59 If the animals and the colors do not represent diversity per se, it is rather difficult to envisage that the overcoming of diversity, or the abolition of “nationalities,” should be the aim of eschatological

distinctive political or ethnic category to evaporate in the Eschaton,” New Reading, 21, also Sherwood, although differently Paul and the Restoration of Humanity, 200. 57 Clearly noted by Nickelsburg, who in his comment on 89:10–12 notes that “the author has drawn on the animal imagery here from Ezekiel 34, where the wild animals […] representing the nations, prey on the sheep of Israel […]” and further “Thus the author introduces here the antagonists in the central drama of the Vision: the struggle between Israel and the Gentiles who prey on them, disperse them, and destroy them.” 1 Enoch 1, 377, also 358. 58 Cf. also Olson, New Reading, 76–78. 59 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1,356, also 63.



132

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

transformation. In light of this, it needs to be considered what could be implied with the image of the transformation into white cattle in 1 En 90:38 if it does not refer to the overcoming of difference and the transformation of all peoples into the same. The color white certainly indicates purity, as noted above.60 The white of the bulls, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac and of the ram, Jacob, at the beginning of the vision may indicate closeness to God in a relationship which is not estranged by sin through forsaking the ways of the Lord and by the exercise of violence. Whether these white bulls are mentioned here in an anticipatory vein pointing to the eschatological white of the white bull at the end of the vision – and these primordial bulls are thus typologically depicted in relation to the messianic white bull as Rivka Nir has recently argued – or whether the messianic white bull and the white cattle are referring to the restitution of the primordial intimate relationship with God has to remain open, in my view.61 But certainly, in both periods, the color white indicates an ideal state in relation to God with the period in between being characterized by the absence of white.62 The color white refers to a core characteristic in the relationship between God and humans in the absence of violence and destruction (black and red). Thus the color white of the bulls of primordial times may refer to them being in tune with the order of Creation, whereas the white of the ram (Jacob) may indicate his obedience to the specific order given to (the people) Israel, the Torah.63 The color white is thus not associated with a general notion of overcoming difference but rather with the absence of violence and destruction. The color white disappears, according to the vision, when God’s guidance for life through creation and the Torah is abandoned. Only through this deviation perpetrators and victims emerge, symbolized in the respective species and colors. The deviation affects both perpetrators and victims, but in different ways. The Scenario(s) of Transformation There is a consensus that the eschatological events in the scenario of the Animal Apocalypse begin with the restoration of the relationship between God and Israel, that is, the restoration of the white sheep (1 En 90:6, 32). Whilst initially, they are still under attack, the flock of white sheep with their thick and pure wool64 eventually all return to the renewed temple. The text seems unclear,

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 371. 61 Nir, “And Behold Lambs were Born of Those White Sheep” (1 Enoch 90:6). 62 Nir argues that the reappearance of the color white in 90:6 “indicates inauguration of a new period, namely that the eschatological-apocalyptic has dawned” “Behold Lambs,” 58. 63 I would like to thank Bill who has drawn my attention to this aspect of the image. 64 The reference to thick and pure wool indicates that these are strong and healthy sheep nurtured on good pastures, an image which is contrasted by the earlier images of violent 60

The Unification Vision in 1 Enoch 90:37–38

133

according to Nickelsburg, who is of the view that the following verse, 1 En 90:33, cannot possibly mean that all the predators and birds of prey were also gathered in the temple together with the sheep, because it could not be said of them that they had returned to that house (the temple).65 He therefore argues that “and all” (wa-kwellu) should be translated as “by” or “among.” If Nickelsburg is correct then 1 En 90:32–36 only say something about the sheep (Israel). The nations (predators and birds of prey) only appear on the scene again (after having paid respect to the sheep and submitted to them in 1 En 90:30) in 90:37, where they pay respect to the white bull, and then, are transformed into white cattle. In this reading, there remain two species involved: white sheep and white cattle. The white sheep comprise both, the sheep who had been resurrected and those who had returned, and are now all together in the temple. They sealed the sword that had been given to them and are now so numerous that the temple cannot not hold them all. The eyes of all of them are now opened “and they saw good things; and there was none among them that did not see. And I saw how that house was large and broad and very full.” (1 En 90:35–36). Upon his appearance, the white bull is recognized and respected by the predators and the birds of heaven, which leads to their transformation into white cattle (90:37–38a). There is no mention that the sheep respect or fear the white bull or that they “make petition to him.” There is also no mention of a further transformation of the sheep in this reading: those who had been destroyed had been resurrected to life and those who had been dispersed re-gathered (90:33a). They were already pure (white), their relationship with God restored in their turning away from “straying away”: they were healthy sheep who lived in abundance (thick wool). Only the predators and birds of prey are still in need of transformation at this point, to re-establish their relationship with God. They all, white sheep and white cattle, recognize the one God, thus “the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it” (90:38). But they recognize and worship God in their difference as sheep and cattle. The unity is a unity for the purpose of worshipping the Lord of the sheep. With the return of the sheep to the temple – that is, to their restored relationship with God – their sin is overcome. The sword is now being sealed in that Israel is not being punished anymore for going astray, the violence of the predators against Israel has no foothold anymore, and with the sheep’s return to the ways of the Lord, they do not need to defend themselves anymore with the sword. Thus the violence and enmity between Israel and the nations is overcome and with the sealing of the sword, violence and

destruction where the seer sees the sheep being “devoured by the doges and by the eagles and by the kites. And they left them neither flesh nor skin nor sinew, until only their bones remained.” (1 En 90:4). 65 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1,403, for a discussion of the issues involved here see also Olson, New Reading, 19–22.



134

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

enmity have come to an end. The different species do not represent the diversity of people and nations but the horror of violence and oppression. White sheep and white cattle represent people who, in their diversity, respect and worship the one God and thus, can live in peace and harmony, in and with their difference. If wa-kwellu is translated as “and all” or “along with” then the scenario is slightly different. The white sheep and the predators and birds of heaven are then seen as all being all in the temple, “and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced greatly because they were all good and had returned to that house” (1 En 90:33). Thus Stuckenbruck concludes that “the inclusion of gentiles with the statement “they had all become good” ensures that, alongside Jews to be restored, gentiles will be the object of divine joy.”66 The sealing of the sword and the open eyes still refers specifically to the resurrected and re-gathered sheep (1 En 90:34–35). Difference remains: the only question concerning the interpretation under the presupposition that the predators and birds of prey are also in the temple is whether the transformation into white bulls also includes the white sheep. The text as such does not solve this issue. Even when the predators and birds are considered to be in the temple, it remains unclear who precisely is being transformed. The fact that no role for the white bull is mentioned in relation to the white sheep gives credit to the interpretation above, of the abiding difference of white sheep and white cattle.67 But even if we were to assume that “all the species” in 1 En 90:37 includes all – the white sheep and the predators and birds of prey and they were all transformed into white cattle – the overcoming of diversity seems the unlikely eschatological goal here. Since, as argued above, the problem prior to the transformation is not diversity but violence and destruction between the animals concerned, the overcoming of the diversity in the process of transformation would present a solution to a problem which does not exist. The animal and color symbolism needs to be seen in relation to the problem of sin, that is, of violence and destruction, as depicted in the vision. As mentioned above, hostile gentile nations are depicted as threatening straying Israel. The overcoming of violence and destruction is symbolized through the transformation of the predators and the change in color of all animals. This is not identical to indicating the overcoming of diversity. Since neither the colors nor the animals symbolized diversity, but violence, on the one hand, and destruction on the other, neither cattle and sheep nor the color white can symbolize the overcoming of diversity. The transformation of the predators and the birds of prey – the hostile

Cf. Stuckenbruck, “Eschatological Worship,” 204. 67 Although Stuckenbruck translates wa-kwellu as “alongside,” and thus sees gentiles included in the gathering in the temple, he seems to imply that only the predators and birds mentioned in v. 37 are being transformed into white bulls, although there is some ambivalence in his statement. Cf. “Eschatological Worship,” 204. 66

Conclusion

135

gentile nations – happens after the sheep have turned back to the “ways of Lord,” expressed in their return to the “house.” Since the sheep have turned white – have turned back to God – the punishing function attributed to gentile nations by God has come to an end. The return of the white sheep is, thus, the presupposition of the transformation of the predators (the gentile nations) into white cattle. Their transformation is a direct result of the sheep’s return, and the color white, together with the predators’ transformation into domesticated cattle, should be seen as indicating the power and strength emerging from seeing with open eyes and from being in the right relationship with God. Neither the color white nor the species of bulls/cattle should be taken as symbols of uniformity or the abolition of difference.68 The emphasis in this symbolism is not on the one species but on the strength and prosperity cattle represent, the color white indicating the cleansing from sin. Both are rooted in and represent a close and intimate relationship with God, recognizing his guidance, which empowers all – in their diversity – to life.

Conclusion Conclusion

The interpretation of the final verses of the Animal Apocalypse argued for here presents an image of an eschatological community that is characterized by the overcoming of violence and enmity between Israel and the nations. In as much as the vision depicts difference in sin, there is also difference in the restoration of the relationship with God. The human predicament is not diversity, but violent oppression and abandoning the ways of the Lord. Thus restoration cannot consist in the overcoming or abolition of the difference between Israel and the nations, but rather in analogy with the respective restoration of their relationship with God, the relationship between Israel and the nations is restored from destruction to peace and life in abundance. The symbolism of transformation in the Animal Apocalypse is on the strength and abundance of life in a life lived in relation to God, rather than on uniformity. Despite their difference in terms of language and imagery, we thus find analogies and parallels to Paul’s perception of the ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ. Paul’s at times passionate defense for the retention of the identities of Jews and those from the nations in Christ resonates with the differentiated scenario concerning Israel and the nations in the Animal Apocalypse. The unity of “Jew and Greek” in Christ so that they may jointly worship the God of Israel (Rom 15:9–11) has strong analogies not only with the ending of the Animal Apocalypse but with

The argument that the transformation of all into white cattle, that is, into the image and likeness of the white bull as analogous to Adam, who is created in the image and likeness of God cannot serve as an argument for the overcoming of difference, as in Gen 1:27 Adam is created male and female, that is, diversity is inherent in the creation of humankind. 68



136

Chapter 6 The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι

other aspects of this vision as well. 69 The nations’ transformation does not mean that they are transformed into Israel; it is, rather, an image that indicates that they join Israel in worship. The culmination of events in 1 En 90:37–38 in the temple clearly indicates that the worshipping of Israel and the nations in peace and unity is what is envisaged as the goal of the restoration of Israel, as well as of the nations, to their true calling, not in a assimilative move to sameness, but in diversity. Paul and the Enoch traditions, thus, seem to have significant aspects in common, drawing on a shared pool of traditions that envisage the eschatological events as leading to the overcoming of enmity and the joint worshipping of all peoples in unity in diversity. It is a pool of traditions which decisively differs from that of dominating imperial powers, in its vision in Enoch and in its actualization in the Pauline communities.

69

Although of course the order of events is reversed in Paul’s scenario.







III. Among Greeks and Romans



















7. Speaking Greek under Rome: Paul, the Power of Language and the Language of Power Introduction Introduction

“Quintus Ennius used to say he had three hearts, because he knew how to speak in Greek, Oscan and Latin”1 and Paul claims that he is “A Hebrew of Hebrews,” a man who calls himself by a Latin name and writes in Greek to people who live under Roman rule in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean, and at the center of this ruling power, in Rome. Here we have the testimony of two men both living in areas which have become part of the Roman empire, albeit at different periods, both providing an indication that awareness of cultural diversity and multilingualism is not a modern phenomenon. Ennius clearly signals this with reference to the “three hearts.” Paul clearly indicates this with reference to a distinctively Jewish identity, whilst writing in Greek and using a Latin name. That the cultural and political world in which Paul operated was characterised by cultural diversity is evident. No great surprise then that scholars have noted that the interplay between diverse cultures is a significant aspect of the Pauline discourse and the emerging Christ-movement.2 Paul roamed a geographical area at a time when it was dominated by a unified Roman imperial power, where the language of a previous power was the lingua franca, as a member of a people which regarded as its center neither Rome, nor Athens or Alexandria, but Jerusalem. The diversity of cultures under specific political circumstances is at the heart of the context of Paul’s theologizing. The Christ-movement with its origins in Galilee and Judea among Jewish people (under Roman rule) spread east and west into geographical areas where Jewish people and their culture lived as minorities if there was a Jewish presence at all. Moreover, it not only spread geographically into what is called the Jewish Diaspora but also ethnically to people who were not Jewish. I am aware that I am not the first to notice this and that this states the seemingly obvious. The process of transmitting traditions embedded in one culture to another has been researched at least over the past 200 years, primarily under the presupposition of the existence of a cultural hegemony labelled “Hellenism,” asking what role “Hellenism” played in the spreading of the early Christ-movement. The Judaism/Hellenism debate has recently been complemented by “empire” and postcolonial studies which focus more on the relevance of the influence of Roman imperial ideology and domination for the study of early Judaism, the

Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 17:17.1 2 A. DuToit, “Paulus Oecumenicus: Interculturality in the Shaping of Paul’s Theology,” NTS 55 (2009), 121–43. 1

140

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

New Testament, and Pauline Tradition in particular. Empire studies have contributed to the recognition that the traditional perceptions of the significance of “Hellenism” need to be revisited in light the political aspect of hegemonic discourses. When Greek initially spread beyond its native use it was the language of a dominating power. This raises the question whether inherent to the use of this language is the inscription of domination and subordination. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza3 has raised important questions concerning such inscription in her critical discussion of empire studies demonstrating that where opposition to dominating power structures resorts to a reversal of these by merely exchanging the respective protagonists, structures of domination and subordination are not overcome but are being re-inscribed in the emerging new discourse. Schüssler Fiorenza’s warnings are well warranted, however, whether the use of a language of power inherently replicates structures of domination and subordination is a matter of debate in my view. Whilst I agree that the political dimension is a significant context of Paul’s theologizing, including his use of language, and that the Judaism/Hellenism dichotomy as such is not a helpful concept, I think recent scholarship on intercultural interaction and socio-linguistics could provide us with helpful tools for a new paradigm with which to interpret Paul in the context of the Roman empire. In this essay I will outline some aspects of such a new paradigm in relation to Paul’s use of the language of power in light of sociolinguistic studies: I will firstly look briefly at – The Hellenism/Judaism Debate Revisited – Concepts of Hybridization and Multilingualism – Language and Power: Greek under Rome in the Context of Linguistic Diversity – Greek Language and Jewish Identity – Paul and the Language of Power and Resistance – Paul’s Discourse of Holiness as an Alternative Discourse

The Hellenism – Judaism Debate Revisited The Hellenism – Judaism Debate Revisited

When F.C. Baur in the 1830’s stated that Paul, in transmitting Christian doctrine into the Hellenistic world freed it from its particularistic Jewish constraints, and thus enabled it to come into its own as the truly universal religion, he signalled an awareness that a cultural translation process must have had a significant identity shaping influence in the earliest period of the Christ-movement.

E. Schüssler Fiorenza, “Paul and the Politics of Interpretation,” in Paul and Politcs: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 40–57. 3

The Hellenism – Judaism Debate Revisited

141

The debate concerning the “Hellenism” of Paul is ongoing, often combined with the question whether or how Jewish Paul was and remained after his call experience. Although there is now a significant and established strand in Pauline studies which pre-supposes that Paul was and remained a Jew, the question of the extent to which he remained Jewish, to what extent he was Hellenized, and what significance such Hellenization had for his theologizing, is not settled. In many discussions the concept of Hellenism is taken as a stable factor, which, even when it is critically discussed, is taken as a term which is more or less self-evident. Thus Martin Hengel admits that the term has been used in a variety of ways and has thus been rendered imprecise and oscillating but he nevertheless hopes to get to an understanding of the essential characteristics of the era which shows the imprint of “Hellenism.”4 Despite the stated awareness of the problems inherent in the term, scholars continue to use it as the most accurate-convenient label for describing the cultural characteristics of the period after Alexander the Great. What is striking in Hengel’s and other scholars’ assumption is their decision to ignore the historical context in which the term emerged in the first instance. Thus the term is used to describe what is perceived as a “comprehensive cultural melting pot,” a “mixture which was sufficiently similar across time and places for a culture to count as a single, comprehensive entity.”5 Although Engberg-Pedersen does allow for diversity rooted in pre-hellenistic traditions he maintains that all the people in the lands conquered by Alexander lived “within the comprehensive mix of Hellenistic culture.”6 Even when “Hellenism and Hellenization” are seen as “Problematic Historiographic Categories,” as by P. Alexander, Hellenism is seen as “a broadly uniform culture pervading the whole region, within which various groups adapted the dominant cultural patterns and structures in order to create subcultures and establish ethnic identities.”7 Diversity is acknowledged here but only as a variant of a generic overarching super-culture. The concept of an overarching, all-permeating culture is thus not questioned but presupposed and varied only slightly in order to provide some space for apparent cultural differences which could not otherwise be explained. The concept of an overarching entity is retained as that which characterized the language and way of thinking of all the peoples who had come under Greek influence after Alexander’s conquest.

R. Bichler, Hellenismus: Geschichte und Problematik eines Epochebegriffs (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983), 181. 5 T. Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 1–16, here 2. 6 Ibid., 2. 7 P. Alexander, “Hellensim and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographic Categories,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/ Hellenism Divide (ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen; Louisville: Westminster John Know, 2001), 63–80, here 70. 4



142

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

Hellenism in its initial period (up to the 3rd century BCE) is seen by Hengel as “the political, economic, and cultural permeation of the East by the conquerors from Greece and Macedonia,”8 followed by a “process of fusion.” However, Hengel maintained that Judaism was included in this fusion – at least up to a certain point in time. According to Hengel the Maccabean reaction against Hellenization, put a “brake on syncretism, fixed intellectual development and precluded any fundamental criticism of the cult and the law.”9 Hengel’s presupposition is shared widely, thus a critical evaluation of the concept of Hellenism per se is hardly considered relevant in New Testament and Pauline Studies (as far as I am aware), except for recent studies which view the Maccabean revolt not as triggered by forced Hellenization but by the imposition of dominating power using Greek cultural markers.10 The debates predominantly circle around the extent of the Hellenization of first century Judaism, and the early Christ-movement rather than the concept itself. Since Hengel and subsequent studies apparently demonstrated Hellenistic influence on Judaism in the Diaspora as well as in Galilee and Judea, it seemed that the Judaism/Hellenism divide postulated by earlier scholarship had been overcome and demonstrated to be anachronistic.11 R. Bichler in his profound study of the concept of Hellenism however, challenged the notion that the concept itself could continue to be of any use in the study of the period. He maintained that since the term and concept were coined in the 19th century, and were thus deeply rooted in a specific metaphysical concept of history, any attempt to separate the concept of Hellenism from these roots and to define its essence and characteristics apart from these is problematic in his view. Trying to define the essence of the “Hellenistic era” means to search for a terminological and conceptual unambiguousness which does not exist as we are dealing with such a complexity of issues (geographical, cultural, in terms of time etc.) that it is not possible to subsume all of these under one clearly defined concept.12

M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Vol 1 (London: SCM, 1974), 3. 9 Cf. J.J. Collins, “The Limits of Hellenization in Judea,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (ed. JJ. Collins; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 21–43, 21–22. 10 A.E. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 113; D.R. Schwartz, “Why Did Antiochus Have to Fall (II Maccabees 9:7),” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. LiDonnici, A. Lieber; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 257–64. 11 J.J. Collins, “Hellenistic Judaism in Recent Scholarship,” in his Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 12 Bichler, Hellenismus. 8

Hybridisation, Fusion, Creolization?

143

Hybridisation, Fusion, Creolization? Hybridisation, Fusion, Creolization?

A challenge to the concept of Hellenism similar to that of Bichler has recently been presented by Classicist Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. He not only challenges the notion of Hellenism as a fusion of oriental and Greek culture, he challenges a number of current paradigms with which patterns of cultural interactions in antiquity are described. He maintains that neither the metaphor of “fusion” nor that of “hybridity” can adequately describe the complexities of cultural identity and interaction, especially “the layering of identities in the wake of passages of conquest and colonisation.”13 The latter is one of the decisive factors which needs to be taken into account when talking of cultural encounter in the period under discussion. The Greek language, and institutions in the Near East were the language and institutions of conquest. Thus in the first instance economic, military and political power was in the hands of Greek speakers. This was the culture of those in power, with the power to enforce their control over the nonGreek speaking population.14 Even though over time interaction between colonisers and colonised naturally intensified at various levels, cultural encounter and inter-action in Wallace-Hadrill’s view cannot be described with the help of metallurgical or biological examples, which would assume that identities are blended or hybridised to form something entirely new or different. He maintains that even in “colonialist circumstances, different cultures do not simply blend to form a single new entity (fusion, hybridization, creolization, métissage), but that the elements can survive in plurality alongside each other […]”15 Waves of different conquests, ruling powers and thus cultural impositions do not wipe out what has been there before, rather in complex interactions many diverse cultures coexist linguistically and retain highly distinctive particular identities under the dominance of Roman and Greek economic, military and political power in the Western and Eastern Mediterranean.16 And although the concept of hybridisation allows for an active role of the colonised in the shaping of a new identity, this constitutes only a shifting of the problem in that it is still assumed that the “old,” colonised identity, is displaced by the new “hybrid” identity. The usefulness of the concept of hybridity has been called into question from different perspectives as well: when it is recognized that culture “as an analytical concept is always hybrid […] since it can be understood […] only as the historically negotiated creation of more or less coherent

A. Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 7. 14 J.N. Adams, S. Swain, “Introduction,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word (ed. J.N. Adams, S. Swain; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 12. 15 Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 13. 16 Adams and Swain, “Introduction,” 11. 13



144

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

symbolic and social worlds,”17 then the use of the word hybrid to label a particular phenomenon is rather meaningless. This tunes in with the genealogical complexities of ancient kinship networks as envisaged in numerous writings of Antiquity, including the Jewish scriptures. People often described their peculiar relationship not in contrast but in relationships to other peoples as fictive kinship networks.18 This seems to indicate that purity of genealogy or “race” was not a matter of concern for peoples around the Mediterranean and in the Ancient Near East, but hybridity would have been seen as the “norm” rather than a special identity status. Thus concerning the concept of Hellenism, Wallace-Hadrill maintains that neither the Greek language of the three centuries commonly subsumed under this term, or the Greek culture show any sign of fusion or creolization (there are no Egyptian or Syrian elements in the Greek of that time). The model of Hellenism as the fusion of Greek and oriental cultures is thus deemed inappropriate from the start. Rather than being a fusion of different cultures “Hellenising” is what Greeks do when they speak Greek, and foreigners do when they use Greek. It is intransitive, thus never something that is done to someone else but can only be something that one does to oneself. No colonial power can thus “hellenise” another people!

Bilingualism/Multilingualism – a New Paradigm Bilingualism/Multilingualism – a New Paradigm

What should be taken into account is the fact that although there is no evidence of Creole languages in the Greek East nor in the Roman world as it is known, there is abundant evidence of bi-and multilingualism at all social levels. This leads Wallace-Hadrill to propose bi-or multilingualism as a paradigm for analysing cultural interaction in the period under discussion.19 Such bi-or multilingualism is not confined to the knowledge and use of different languages it includes cultural bi-or multilingualism. The concepts of fusion, hybridisation etc., including “Hellenism” are based on the assumption that culture is unitary, that one has to be one or the other, or a blend of two. To envisage that two or more languages and cultures can be in use at the same time, and thus can be handled by one and the same person seems inconceivable. The model of bilingualism demonstrates that this is exactly what is possible, and there exists evidence for it in the period in question. To imitate Greek ways of doing things

P. Werbner, “Introduction: The Dialectics of Cultural Hybridity,” in Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism (ed. P. Werbner, T. Modood; London: Zed Books, 1997), 15. 18 E.S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 355–58. 19 Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 13. 17

Bilingualism/Multilingualism – a New Paradigm

145

for a Roman did not in any way diminish his Roman identity. Nor did acquired familiarity with Greek and Roman ways diminish another “original” identity. Wallace-Hadrill in his reference to Quintus Ennius mentioned above draws attention to the reference to himself as having three hearts, which seems to refer to the core of his identity. His Roman citizenship did not lead him to conceive of his Oscan (original) identity as being obliterated, nor did his Greek education lead him to lose his sense of roots. This is only one example of a conscious awareness of the simultaneous existence and handling of different cultural systems. This is cultural multi-lingualism. What emerges from this is that to learn Greek, that is to speak and/or write Greek and be able to do certain things the “Greek way” in no ways implied that the language and culture of origin had to be given up, nor was there such an expectation. Thus, e.g., to be able to write fluently in Greek and express his own thinking in Greek ways did in no way diminish the Jewish identity, and the Jewish way of life for Philo. One of the characteristics of bi-and multilingualism is the clear awareness of the difference between the languages and cultures involved; there is no confluence of ideas or identities when Romans swapped their clothes for Greek ones. It was precisely the awareness of the difference, which made such games of exchanging cultural identity markers possible.20 This is not to deny the influence cultures have on one another. But as mentioned above the character of this influence must be carefully analyzed, rather than assuming that cultural encounter leads to a blending, fusion or hybridization. Since “the Mediterranean both connected and divided hundreds of islands and coastal plains,”21 cultural diversity with an emphasis on local particularities should be regarded as the default setting in analyses of cultural encounter in antiquity. Aspects of the power discourse often inherent in such encounters and in the encounter of Greek and Roman culture with the cultures of the Near East in particular need to be taken into account. J.J. Collins noted that although Jews took Hellenistic culture for granted “[…] they were very much conscious of being different […] and were at pains to assert both their different identity and their common values.”22 He continues “That perspective was essentially the desire to maintain a bi-focal identity.”23 Thus even when speaking the same language, Jews in the Greek and Roman Diaspora maintained their distinction

Cf. Suetonius’ report noting “sed et ceteros continuos dies inter varia munuscula togas insuper et pallia distribuit, lege proposita ut Romani Graeco, Graeci Romano habitu et sermone uterentur.” Suetonius, Augustus 98, quoted in Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 39. 21 G.D. Woolf, “Afterword: The Local and the Global in the Graeco-Roman East,” in Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World (ed. T. Whitmarsh; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 189–200, here 189. 22 Collins, “Hellenistic Judaism in Recent Scholarship,” 17. 23 Ibid., 19. 20



146

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

in core aspects of their cultural and ethnic identity. It has been noted that Bilingualism by definition acknowledges the existence of ethnic differences.”24 This not only applies to the linguistic but equally to the cultural level. It emerges from this discussion that the concept of bi/multilingualism constitutes an interesting alternative paradigm to the concepts of fusion, hybridisation, blending etc. in trying to understand processes of cultural interaction, communication, and identity formation under the conditions of empire. What needs to be further explored is how the use of dominating languages in a context of multilingualism impinges on the intercultural interaction. I can only sketch out some of the aspects I consider relevant here as this is a wider area of research which awaits further investigation.

Language and Power Language and Power

Language is not a neutral tool of communication between people, nor a mere system of signs applied to exchange information, as, e.g., Schüssler Fiorenza has noted.25 Language and power are intrinsically linked as Bourdieu has argued in his critique of linguistic theories. He drew attention to the socio-historical context and conditions of the emergence of languages in distinction from dialects. What is called a language in the sense of an “official” or “legitimate” language emerges through “complex historical process, sometimes involving extensive conflict especially in colonial context” through which one particular dialect is being constituted as this “official” language with other dialects and languages being subordinated. It is the language of the “victorious” which emerges as a dominant or “official” language – hence the saying “Language is a dialect with an army […]” is not inappropriate when the implicit power involved in the use of language is addressed, as noted by Bourdieu, “The official language is bound up with the state, both in its genesis and in its social uses […] Integration into a single “lingustic community,” which is a product of the political domination that is endlessly reproduced by institutions capable of imposing universal recognition of the dominant language is the condition for the establishment of relations of linguistic domination.”26 What Bourdieu describes as the process through which “official” languages were defined in emerging nation states is not identical with the dominant use of Greek and Latin in the Roman empire but there are insights which I consider helpful in assessing the power issues which are involved in the use of these languages which were favoured by the dominating military and political power. This is

Adams and Swain, “Introduction,” 11. 25 E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 93. 26 P. Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 45–6. 24

Language and Power

147

not a phenomenon restricted to Greek and Latin, similar issues of power would need to be considered in the use of Aramaic as the “official” language of the Persian empire. Although the Macedonian conquest was not aiming at imposing Greek culture on the peoples conquered, Greek kings in the aftermath of Alexander’s conquest could deploy “Greekness” as a status marker and a means to establish and maintain dominance. Signs of Greekness such as “language, style of dress, public architecture, and religious iconography could readily become symbolic assertions of power and domination.”27 The dominance of the language of the imperial power in conjunction with other aspects of their particular identity is thus primarily part of the strategy to impose and maintain domination over conquered people. Greek under Rome in a Context of Linguistic Diversity This particular role of the Greek language changed with the consolidation of the Roman empire throughout the Mediterranean. The “official” language of the empire was Latin and in official communication this was the preferred language. This rendered Greek a secondary language in some sense, although it remained the dominating language in the Eastern part of the empire. In addition it was the language which was associated with a form of education admired by Rome, although sometimes with reservation. In these two functions Greek remained more than the language of another conquered people and less than the language of a dominating power. How far this use as a lingua franca in a multilingual and multicultural context may have been intertwined with the structural power of the empire or was a factor more on the surface level, as a commodity via which people of different languages could more easily communicate is a question which requires further research. Did such a use of the language require enculturation, and in the case of Greek buying into the dominating power structures which were associated with it? The fact that Greek was not the primary language of the dominating political and military power adds an ingredient to the mix of multilingualism which renders the question of power even more complex. Although being the language of a culture which was admired to some extent, it was also the language of a conquered people and as such not deemed appropriate for official administrative, military and political use.28 However, what is important to note in relation to Paul and his use of Greek, is the fact that “[…] the dominance of Latin and Greek in the Western and Eastern spheres of the Mediterranean cultural zones hides an enormous linguistic diversity.”29 This includes cultural diversity understood as argued above in the vein of multilingualism/culturalism

Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 113. 28 Wallace-Hadrill, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 64–70. 29 Adams and Swain, “Introduction,” 11. 27



148

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

without resorting to the model of hybridisation or fusion of cultures or languages. The use of a language as a lingua franca has to be distinguished from the question of enculturation but it cannot be entirely separated from the question of its association with a dominating power. This renders the evaluation of Paul’s use of language more complex than most studies in my view have recognized. They are either studies on the linguistic and cultural aspect (to the exclusion of the political aspect) or on the issue of empire with an understanding of the language as an expression of imperial power. The complexity of Paul’s use of Greek emerges from the fact that this language (like any other lingua franca) could only begin to serve as a lingua franca due to its dominating status as the language of empires. However, once the function as lingua franca is only partly associated with the imperial power the questions of enculturation and power present themselves differently. The claim that the use of the language is an indicator for the degree of enculturation and hence identification with the values and ethos of Greek culture, or that it replicates the dominating power system is too simple an explanation. In a context of multilingualism the use of a lingua franca is more and less than an indication of enculturation and accommodation to the hegemony and domination of the imperial power. On the one hand its dominance forces speakers of other languages and cultures to express themselves in Greek if they wish to be heard. In that sense it imposes an helleno-centric matrix upon the writings of the period, in that Greek forms of writings and patterns of expression had be taken on in order to explain different cultural practices to a Greek or Roman audience, or to enable communication between speakers of different languages where Greek is the common language between everyone involved. An example for the former practice, although from a slightly later period is Pseudo-Lucian’s description of his pilgrimage to the temple of Hierapolis in Syria. In his analysis of the text Elsner notes that The moment the text attempts to assimilate the indigenous world of the Semitic Near East in its classical Herodotean Greek, it foregrounds the difficulties of mapping foreign culture […] unto the terms, stories and encyclopaedia offered by the Greek language into which the world of Sidon is being translated.30

The attempt is made to describe the temple chambers and activities at the temple in a way which is meaningful within a Greek discourse but it emerges that the categories available in this discourse are “simply insufficient to accommodate the sacred identity of an entirely different world.”31 This is all the more

J. Elsner, “Self in the Language of the Other: Pseudo-Lucian at the Temple of Hierapolis,” in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire (ed. S. Goldhill; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 123–53, here 130. 31 Ibid., 137. 30

Greek Language and Jewish Identity

149

significant since Pseudo-Lucian explicitly addresses a Greek and/or Roman audience. However, not all Greek writings have such an audience in view. There are writings which use the language but address insiders of a different primary cultural affiliation and hence do not attempt to convey a message in terms of Greek discourse. Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sira, Tobit certainly classify as such insider literature using Greek without loosing a clear sense of their primary affiliation. This leads to the question of the relation between language and identity in the context of the hegemony or Roman imperial power.

Greek Language and Jewish Identity Greek Language and Jewish Identity

Certain passages in Paul’s letters present us with aspects of Paul’s self-perception as far as he communicates it to the communities he addresses. He is of the people Israel, a Hebrew of Hebrews as he emphasizes in Phil 3:5 and 2 Cor 2:11 among other aspects of his Jewish identity. The fact that he mentions Hebrew of Hebrews is of particular interest here. Does he indicate that he knew Hebrew and that his family did so as well? What was his relationship to that language? It could hardly mean that was brought up speaking Hebrew since we are lacking evidence for the language as still being an everyday means of communication. However, indications pointing to Paul knowing more than one language have been identified.32 He seems to indicate that he knows more than one language, is bilingual at least, is able to accommodate to people of different cultural contexts, and is able to write/dictate and hence communicate in Greek. But the reference to a Hebrew of Hebrews may indicate more than a language affiliation. It could refer to a specifically close link to the geographical area of Judea/Galilee. Thus an inscription from a Jewish catacomb in Rome dated between the second and the fourth century CE reads “Alypius of Tiberias and his sons Justus and Alypius, Hebrews, with their father lie here.” David Noy considers this to refer to the geographical affiliation of the three rather than to their mother tongue.33 Another dimension worth mentioning here is the fact that possibly during the Maccabean revolt, and certainly during the two revolts against Rome, a revival of Hebrew served more than just linguistic purposes, namely to clearly set a mark of distinction to dominating Greek cultural practices in

J. Dochhorn, “Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit. Eine Studie zu den exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm 16,20a,” ZNW 98 (2007), 189–21; T.H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qurman Communities and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 163. 33 D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 43. 32



150

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

establishing a link between language and identity.34 Such emphases, possibly in a combined form, may have been considered relevant in the first century by some Jews, and the fact that Paul emphasizes that he is rooted in a family or clan tradition labelled by himself as “Hebrews” might explain why he would have been educated in Jerusalem. It could also imply that his education encompassed some learning of Hebrew. Whatever the precise details, an image of a first-century Jew emerges who is able to navigate between cultures. There seems to exist a scholarly consensus now that Paul was more or less at home in both, the Greek-speaking as well as the Jewish world. Thus Sanders notes that “The mere fact that Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew, probably from Asia minor tells us that he relates both to Judaism and the Greco-Roman culture in some way.”35 The debates arise around the extent to which he was at home in these worlds and to what extent he continued to be so after his call experience, although the latter is actually only debated in relation to Jewish tradition (a radical Jew, a marginal Jew, a former Jew, an apostate etc.).36 Related to this debate is the question whether and to what extent Paul was educated in the respective tradition and context.37 Although a Jewish education is widely assumed, the question debated is whether or not he did get his Pharisaic education in Jerusalem.38 Whether Paul did actually get a formal education in the Greek and Roman sense of the word, however, is a controversial issue. As a Greek speaking and writing Jew he must have known some strands of Greek and Roman culture reasonably well. Some scholars argue that his skilled letter writing attests to some primary education in Greek. However, some familiarity with certain rhetorical tropes need not in my view be attributed to a formal Greek education as familiarity with speech patterns and other aspects of Greek and Roman culture could have been acquired at a general popular level. Jerome already noted that if “he was also educated in the wisdom of this world” – this was not to perfection (licet non ad perfectum). 39 Linguistic studies have

S. Schwartz, “Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine,” in Past and Present 148 (1995), 3–47; S. Schwartz, “Hebrew and Imperialism in Jewish Palestine,” in Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (ed. C. Bakhos; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 53–84. 35 E.P. Sanders, “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism” in St. Paul Among the Philosophers (ed. J.D. Caputo, L.M. Alcoff; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 74–90, here 75. 36 M.D. Nanos, “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism?” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (ed. M. Given; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), 117–60. 37 K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective on Paul (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 125–29. 38 Sanders, “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism,” 77; Du Toit, “Paulus Oecomenicus,” 122–23. 39 I owe this reference to M. Meiser, “Anthropologie bei Paulus,” unpublished paper. 34

Greek Language and Jewish Identity

151

demonstrated that Paul’s Greek is “not stylistically grand,”40 that his vocabulary is not that of an average rhetorician or philosopher41 and that he does not show any knowledge of Greek literature or philosophical discourse, although there are sections in his letters where a quotation from such literature could be envisaged.42 If he did have even a standard or basic Greek education this would have involved the memorization of significant parts of Homer, Euripides and other classics; not to find any traces of such memorized traditions renders such an education very unlikely.43 But as a Greek speaker he certainly did have, as mentioned above, general knowledge and some familiarity with the Greek and Roman world/culture within which he operated before and after his call. The Jewish education of Paul is only a matter of debate with regard to the language in which he received this education. Was it Greek or Aramaic/Hebrew? Sanders has recently argued for a Greek Jewish education since he cannot find any “signs of a distinctively Palestinian Pharisaic education.”44 Since Paul is able to quote the Greek Bible and was an “expert in the argumentative use of the Bible”45 he must have memorized and studied this version intensively. Others find traces which point to the knowledge of different languages and their use in the study and interpretation of the scriptures.46 It has been noted that Paul calls himself “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:5) and consistently “calls Peter by his Aramaic name Κηφᾶς in his letters […]”47 According to Hogeterp, this seems to indicate some bilingual orientation which extends to “the Semitic scriptural culture.”48 Hogeterp has also demonstrated, convincingly in my view that the Pharisaic education, which Paul claims (Phil 3:5), could only be acquired in Jerusalem as no traces of Pharisaism have been found outside Judea/Galilee of the time.49 It can thus be affirmed that Paul’s expertise in, and arguing with, scripture demonstrates that his primary social and symbolic universe is Judaism, and that this is relevant not merely as supplying the vocabulary for the Christ-movement. The Jewish social and symbolic universe provides the thought patterns, cultural codes, and “the principal categories of Paul’s brain when he thought about time and history.”50

J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan, 323 BCE – 117CE (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 383. 41 R.D. Anderson Jr, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 281. 42 Sanders, “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism,” 80. 43 Ibid., 78–79. 44 Ibid., 77. 45 Ibid., 82. 46 Dochhorn, “Paulus.”. 47 A.L.A. Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 254. 48 Ibid., 255. 49 Ibid. 50 Sanders, “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism,” 86. 40



152

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

The question which arises from this image of Paul as living in the world of Judaism and knowing Greek to a certain extent raises the question of the relationship between the two aspects of culture and identity. Does his use of the Greek language indicate his degree of enculturation, and does it indicate a taking over of the political and social aspects that accompany the use of the language of a former imperial power which served as a kind of official language of the Roman empire? Since Paul’s enculturation in Judaism is widely acknowledged some light might be shed on this through the pattern of the interplay between these two aspects as discernable through Greek Jewish writings of the period. The use of Greek by first century Jews draws on some two to three centuries of acquaintance with Greek language and Greek traditions. However, despite this long period the use of Greek among Jews of the Diaspora is diverse and in most cases does not lead to an abandonment of their affiliation with their traditions nor to a wide-spread high appreciation of formal Greek education, παιδεία certainly not at the expense of their cherishing of their own tradition. It is quite telling that, e.g., Josephus although claiming an excellent Jewish education, obviously did not get any Greek education before arriving in Rome. Only then did he undertake great efforts to achieve excellence in learning Greek. This indicates that although Josephus did know some Greek prior to his arrival in Rome, such knowledge was not related to actually having a Greek παιδεία and having been immersed in Greek culture. Josephus even acknowledges that his mastery of the Greek language is limited due to his “foreign tongue.” Milikowski51 notes that “[…] even after approximately twenty years in Rome, he is still acutely aware of how haphazard is his grasp of Hellenistic culture.” Although the Jewish interaction with all things Greek was generally not confrontational, it was ambiguous in many aspects. Tessa Rajak has demonstrated that the Septuagint is an example of this ambiguity in that it is evidence for the perceived necessity to translate the scriptures into the dominating language and at the same time provides an indication of a kind of reluctance to the use of this language. 52 If this translation had served the purpose of rendering Jews and their tradition as a showcase of best Greek literature it could be expected to have it presented in polished classical Greek. By presenting a translation which respects the peculiarity of the source language a bridge between cultures was built which connected and separated at the same time. The translation was a means “to play and not to play the

C. Milikowski, “Josephus between Rabbinic Culture and Hellenistic Historiography,” in Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (ed. J. Kugel; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 159–200. 52 T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 51

Paul and the Language of Power and Resistance

153

game.” For Jews living in the Greek speaking Diaspora it was almost unavoidable to communicate their own tradition in this language. Rather than being a matter of choice this was a matter of necessity as Rajak considers indicated by the myth of the translation of the LXX in the Letter of Aristeas.53 Thus in translating the scriptures, which are at the core of their identity, they are playing the game of acculturation. By “creating” a special type of Greek which expresses the respect for the source language, that is by the foreignization of the translation, the translators of the LXX are in fact distancing themselves from the game. In fact, this type of translation is a powerful assertion of the distinctiveness of Jewish identity, a “self-protection against imperialism.”54 The language is used in a particular way and hence serves as an assertion of “communal independence” and as such serves “as a vehicle for quiet cultural resistance.”55 A similar pattern (although in more polished Greek) has been identified for Philo’s use of Greek. Naomi Cohen notes that in continuity with the LXX translation Jewish Greek discourse had developed a use of Greek with decisively Jewish connotations. Hence when used by Jews in a Jewish context in relation to a Jewish subject Greek words were used with a specifically Jewish meaning. The existence of such Judeo-Greek discourse “lends an entirely different dimension to Philo’s writings.”56 Taking into account that Jewish education, as education in antiquity generally, consisted in the memorization of significant parts of the tradition, the significance of this inherent resistance to imperialistic claims through the Greek text of the LXX cannot be underestimated. Greek Jewish education in particular would have equipped learners by default with a narrative and poetic discourse of resistance to imperial/hegemonic claims of domination.

Paul and the Language of Power and Resistance Paul and the Language of Power and Resistance

If Paul did get a Jewish education via the medium of Greek he would have been drawing to a great extent from this tradition. The scriptural citations and echoes in his letters actually do provide evidence for a vast amount of memorized texts; the sometimes almost casual scriptural references and allusions in conjunction with the conflation or combination of two or more biblical passages clearly point towards a practice of memorization. Sanders asserts that “[…] from reading the letters one of the few things that we know for sure about his

Ibid., 62–63. 54 Ibid., 154. 55 Ibid., 155. 56 N. Cohen, Philo Judeaus: His Universe of Discourse (New York: Peter Lang, 1995), 178; N. Cohen, “Context and Connotation. Greek Words for Jewish Concepts in Philo,” in Shem in the Tents of Japheth (ed. J. Kugel; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 31–61. 53



154

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

education is that he knew the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture cold: backward and forward.”57 Paul’s use of Greek rather than providing evidence of his degree of enculturation in Greek culture including his embracing of the dominating imperial power system which admired and used the Greek language, is evidence of his embeddedness within Jewish tradition intensified through an education through memorization. This particular use of the Greek of his own tradition should play a decisive part in assessing the transmission of the message of the gospel into the gentile world. Being embedded in a tradition which had developed a peculiar form of the language of power for their core identity marker, the scriptures, surely meant to have been embedded in a tradition for which the awareness of an alternative discourse to the hegemonic imperial discourse was actually part of their fabric of identity. What Tessa Rajak claims for the context of the emergence of the LXX applies to the subsequent use of this translation in different contexts of hegemonic imperial power claims as well “[…] the very character of this special language in itself served from the beginning as a means of self-identifying, with a primary ethnic indicator, the language of the patria, and self-distancing from Alexandrian society.”58 For Paul the awareness of an alternative discourse within the context of a Greek world under the rule of Rome, would have been part of his Jewish “habitus.” The transmission of the Greek scriptures was associated with traditions of interpretation and arguments, including a Jewish way of using Greek. This included interaction with, and incorporation of, traditions of the respective imperial powers. But rather than seeing such incorporation as evidence of adaptation to these powers, these strategies actually could undercut the very foundations of imperial claims to authority. Portier-Young notes with regard to apocalyptic traditions “By appropriating elements from traditions of the various empires that had ruled their people over the centuries, the apocalyptic writers could engage and subvert imperial claims to knowledge and power.”59 Paul must surely have continued to be part of this discourse even after his call as apostle to the gentiles. Paul’s letters then are evidence for a continued Jewish Greek tradition of resistance, quiet rather than open, indicative rather than direct and explicit but nevertheless clear for those who could discern the message. The subversive anti-imperial aspect of Paul’s language has mainly been analysed through a Christological perspective. From Dieter Georgi to Neil Elliott this perspective has been the main focus of the anti-imperial discourse which mainly perceives the Pauline discourse as being one of “turning the world upside down.” Informed by Hannah Arendt and others (Derrida and Levinas) I

Sanders, “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism,” 82. 58 Rajak, Translation and Survival, 152. 59 Portier-Yong, Apocalypse Against Empire, 390. 57

Paul and the Language of Power and Resistance

155

have argued elsewhere60 that a mere reversal of a power discourse or of power structures does not actually present an alternative to the pattern of domination and subordination of the imperial discourse. Although the Pauline discourse is not free from hierarchical power I consider Paul’s use of the power of language to be transformative rather than an example of replicating the language of power. Although Paul uses one of the languages of power, his message is primarily embedded in an alternative discourse of Jewish tradition. Paul’s interpretation of the Christ-event is part of this tradition. The alternative to the hegemonic discourse of the empire was already part of this tradition, particularly through the formation of a peculiar form of Greek in the LXX (and in Jewish apocalyptic literature). The Christ-event is understood in light of this tradition. To interpret Paul’s alternative or resistance discourse as entirely focused on and informed by the Christ-event is a too narrow perspective in my view. The power of language of the Pauline discourse is rooted in the resistance tradition of the Jewish Greek scriptures and the interpretive tradition associated with it. The Christ-event is understood as part of and in light of this tradition, particularly in its relevance in relation to non-Jews/gentiles. For Paul to transmit the message of the gospel to non-Jews there is no more powerful language than the language of his own tradition and its interpretation in light of the Christ-event. Greek, an imperial language under imperial power is subverted and transformed through this power of its use by an alternative discourse. The Discourse of Holiness as an Alternative Discourse An example for Paul’s specific use of the language of power is the LXX term ἅγιος and its cognates. Rajak has drawn attention to the peculiar choice of this term for translating ‫ קדש‬and related terms. Rajak critically discusses J. Barr’s critique of lexicographical word definitions and the tradition of the TDNT which advocated that some inner aspect of a word carried specifics of thought patterns or group mentalities. She concurs with this critique in its unveiling of implicit theological, doctrinal, and possibly even political agendas but argues that despite Barr’s refutation of individual word studies significant word choices can be discerned which seem to have more than purely linguistic connotations.61 Hence it is noted that rather than using the common Greek term ἱερός,the LXX almost exclusively uses ἅγιος and related Greek words for the translation of the Hebrew ‫קדש‬. This seems to be a deliberate choice of terminology to indicate the distinction of what is perceived ‫ קדש‬from all that is perceived to be ἱερός in the non-Jewish environment. What in a non-Jewish context is commonly called ἱερός is primarily associated with the gentile cultic

K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2009). 61 Rajak, Translation and Survival, 164–65. 60



156

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

practice, even idolatry, and thus this term seems to be avoided in the Septuagint when translating ‫קדש‬. Hence the translation seems to indicate the decisive difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish perception of the realm of the holy. This is more than a purely “religious’ affair. It is one of the decisive aspects in the self-understanding of Jewish identity as distinct from gentiles. The holiness of God and the holiness of his people are closely interlinked. The exclusive loyalty claim of the Holy One demands holiness of his people ([…] you shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy, Lev 19:2). Whatever its precise meaning in specific contexts, inherent to the discourse of ἅγιος is the notion of boundary to that which is profane or impure, that is, to that which is incompatible with the realm of the Holy One. Separation from whatever could threaten this holiness is required.62 It seems that this distinction is demarcated through the choice of term in the LXX. Paul argues from within this tradition when he emphasizes the importance of holiness for his communities. Significantly he almost exclusively uses ἅγιος and related Greek words when talking about holiness related issues. Only in two instances does he actually use ἱερός related words, in 1 Cor 9:13 where he discusses the right to get a living from what you are doing. Here he uses the common word for temple in the Greco-Roman world, which can also be used in Jewish tradition for the Jerusalem temple. The term thus serves as a bridge between Jewish and non-Jewish cultures referring in a non-specific way to temples but does not actually express anything about the state of holiness of temples as such. The other passage where a ἱερός related word is used is Rom 15:16 where Paul describes his activity in the language of cultic practice viewing himself in the role of a priest. Both usages of the terms do not refer to issues which would be rendered by ‫ קדש‬in LXX language. Paul’s use of ἅγιος terminology is thus consistent and may indicate an awareness of the distinction drawn already through the translation practice of the LXX. The letter in which Paul most frequently uses ἅγιος terminology is the letter “To all God’s beloved in Rome who are called to be saints” (πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ⸃, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις Rom 1:7). Although this is quite a frequently used address for the members of the ἐκκλησίαι (1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 1:1, Phil 1:1), the density of ἅγιος terminology in these opening verses of Romans is remarkable and in a sense programmatic in character. Paul is writing to Christ-followers in Rome, at the center of the empire, in a Greek terminology which in no uncertain terms expresses powerfully an alternative to the hegemonic claims of the discourse of Rome. Paul in 1:1 calls himself “set apart for the gospel of God’ (ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ). He thus distinguishes

K. Ehrensperger, “‘Called to be saints’ – the Identity Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation, Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 90–109, now chapter 15 of this volume. 62

Conclusion

157

himself as a messenger for a “good news” which is neither that of Caesar nor of one of his generals or client kings. He clearly sees this alternative “news” as rooted in and permeated by the alternative discourse of Jewish tradition, the holy scriptures (ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις) of Israel; descent from David establishes royalty for this Son; in the realm of this God there is life where the imperial power imposed death; and Paul asserts that loyalty to this God through Christ is what he shares with all those called to be saints. In this alternative discourse there is no room for any other loyalty than loyalty to the Holy One. Hence to be called to be holy (ἅγιος) implies separation from everything which interferes with this loyalty. This is not to say that I consider either the Jewish tradition of the time or the Pauline discourse as countercultural or as a call to abandon the world. It is a clear call however to “test everything, hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess 5:21); thus whatever is deemed “good” from whatever culture, can be part of this alternative discourse. I consider the entire letter to the Romans as permeated with this holiness discourse but Paul from 12:1 onwards provides explicit guidance to life as “saints” in this world but not of this world when he emphasizes that their loyalty to the one God means to embody this loyalty. Their entire existence is to be marked by holiness. One of Paul’s key concerns in my view is the concern for the holiness of the ἐκκλησίαι. It is threatened not only by idolatry which does not seem to be a concern in Romans but by hurting brothers and sisters through contempt, or causing them to stumble etc. Such behaviour imparts impurity to the community and hence not only threatens the brother or sister but the holiness of the community. Though the individual admonitions of Romans 12–15 which Paul sees as essential for the holiness of the ἐκκλησίαι may have parallels in Greek and Roman discourse, their particularity arises from their rootedness in the alternative discourse transmitted through Greek Jewish tradition. Paul clearly establishes this link when he summarizes behaviour in adverse circumstances with reference to Prov 25:21–22 in Rom 12:20, and when he in 13:9 summarizes the entire law in Hillelite fashion with reference to Lev 19:18.

Conclusion Conclusion

This alternative discourse advocated by Paul which subverts the hegemonic claims of domination of the empire (Greek first followed by Rome) thus does not merely arrive with the emergence of the Christ-movement. The new aspect in this subversive use of the language of power is that through the powerful language of Paul this alternative discourse is communicated as being of decisive relevance to non-Jews/gentiles. Paul advocates that this alternative discourse, which is rooted in the exclusive loyalty to the one God of Israel through



158

Chapter 7 Speaking Greek under Rome

the inauguration of the age to come by the Christ-event, now includes gentiles as well. Paul uses the language of power in the tradition of the Greek Jewish discourse of resistance. This use of an alternative discourse, which touches at points on aspects of Greek and Roman culture, does not lead into direct opposition to the dominating imperial power nor to a detachment from the surrounding culture. It allowed for both, that is, relating to and distancing from the surrounding context. To play and not to play the game. The exclusive loyalty claim at the heart of the Christ-movement to the One God of Israel, and the understanding of the crucifixion of Christ in the context of the resistance discourse of the Jewish scriptures was distancing the Christ-movement decisively from the dominating power system. Any totalizing power claims were subverted by the exclusive loyalty claim of the one God. Hence in embodying life in Christ, Christ-followers should “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of (their) your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good ad acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2). However, the practice of life was focused on peace within and outside the Christ-following groups and as such promoted a non-antagonistic stance over against gentile people and culture. “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peacefully with all” (Rom 12:18). These aspects combined provided the ingredients of a powerful discourse which had the potential of developing an alternative to the discourse of domination and subordination. Paul is part of this tradition. His use of this specific Jewish Greek discourse in interpreting the Christ-event and in his mastery of the power of language certainly presents the building blocks for the self-understanding of the Christ-movement. The fact that it was the Greek language which he used however had an ambiguous side to it: once it was detached from the inherent Jewish discourse with which it was permeated it was open to interpretation from the perspective of very different discourses. This language could be interpreted in the vein of the discourse of imperial power, it could be interpreted in the context of Greek philosophy, hence although it emerged from a discourse of resistance and promoting an alternative to the domination-subordination pattern of imperial power, the very use of the Greek language also made it open to a very different understanding. The foreignization aspect of the language could get lost and hence the sense for the resistance to dominating power discourses could be obscured. In trying to read Paul from divergent perspectives, including to read him from within a Greek Jewish resistance discourse contributes to the reemergence of an image of Paul as an advocate of an alternative discourse of power, a discourse of transformation to mutual empowerment in Christ.









8. Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia: The Challenge of Negotiating the Spirit World (1 Cor 12:1–11) Most members of the Corinthian ἐκκλησία were accustomed to a context in which numerous deities and spiritual beings were seen as responsible for diverse aspects of life. Entrenched in their habitus was the perception that each and every aspect of life required the appropriate relationship to a specific deity or spiritual being. This permeated public life but to an even greater and more significant extent kin group and household on an everyday basis. Those directly addressed in 1 Cor 12:1–11 certainly were embedded in Roman, Greek and possibly other cult practices. Having joined the Christ-movement, these Corinthian practitioners of diverse cults needed to work out how this formerly life-assuring and meaning-generating habitus related to their new loyalty, as is evident in issues such as marriage and meat eating dealt with earlier in the letter. They were obviously also concerned about issues pertaining to pneumatic things (τὰ πνευμάτικα) and had asked for Paul’s advice and views. The general translation of τὰ πνευμάτικα as “spiritual gifts” is questionable because it is based on the presupposition that Paul speaks here generally of “gifts” imparted by the spirit, due to the occurrence of χαρίσματα in 12:9. However, there is no indication in this section that the “gift” character of the aspects mentioned in 12:3–11 is the focus of Paul’s clarifications. The fact that τὰ πνευμάτικα is translated as “spiritual things” (1 Cor 2:13), “spiritual good” (1 Cor 9:11), “spiritual blessing” (Rom 15:27), or, when referring to people, as “those who are spiritual” (1 Cor 2:13, 15; 3:1), those who have “spiritual powers” (1 Cor 14:37) or “who have received the spirit” (Gal 6:1) clearly indicates that what is at stake here is not primarily a gift but something related to the “spirit world.”1 Thus I will explore in this essay what Paul might be talking about here, whether spiritual gifts or, more likely, spiritual things or spiritual powers. Since the spirit world was a key aspect of life in antiquity, it should not surprise us that Paul replies at length about these πνευμάτικα. issues concerning pneumatic things are addressed throughout chapters 12–14, including the “body” section, the “love” song of chapter 13, and the detailed discussion of “tongues” in chapter 14. All these important topics are dealt with under the heading περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν (issues concerning pneumatic things). My concern here is

The passage from Eph 6:12 could prove illuminating here in that τὰ πνευμάτικα are clearly specified as τῆς πονηρίας. This implies that there are most likely other πνευμάτικα that would be charaterized differently. On the spirit world generally, see G.J. Williams, The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2009), 19–29. 1

160

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

the first section (12:1–11), where the key aspects/components of τὰ πνευμάτικα to be addressed are initially mentioned. The passage indicates the challenge the Corinthians are facing when it comes to things of a pneumatic kind. Thus here I will focus on (1) the challenge of separation from cults and their idols (12:2), (2) Paul’s explanatory preamble (12:3), and (3) Paul’s reassurance concerning the “spiritual things” (12:4–11).

The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols

Before discussing anything in further detail, Paul reminds the addressees who they were before they joined the Christ-movement: they were ἔθνη entirely led by what Paul calls speechless idols (τὰ εἴδωολα τὰ ἄφωνα). Concerning the past tense in the reference to the Corinthians as ἔθνη, I follow those who do not take this as an indication that Paul considers them as no longer ethnically distinct people, that is, as “former” ἔθνη. Paul, in my view, here clearly qualifies them as the kind of ἔθνη they were in the past in relation to their trust and loyalty to τὰ εἴδωολα τὰ ἄφωνα. They were ἔθνη who followed and sought guidance from τὰ εἴδωολα τὰ ἄφωνα, but they now are ἔθνη who follow Christ. This specific aspect of their former life should have been left in the past – not their cultural and ethnic diversity. What else would they have become? Paul certainly could not regard them as Jews, not even as honorary Jews, and to my knowledge there were no other categories available, as it is widely acknowledged that the Christ-followers at that time were not a “third kind” of ἔθνη.2 The question arises why Paul reminded them at this point of this aspect of their past lives. He had only referred to “some” who had previously been accustomed to idols (8:7) and are thus still influenced by this affliation, in a context where he provided guidance to what did and did not constitute idolatry. Here, however, they are all reminded of this dimension of their past lives. (It is obvious that the addressees are not Jews!) Tὰ Πνευμάτικα – Life Essentials The specific reminder must have something to do with the topic: τὰ πνευμάτικα. These pneumatic things and following τὰ εἴδωολα τὰ ἄφωνα must be interfering with each other in an even wider sense than just the eating of meat where only some are reminded that they formerly had been accustomed to εἴδωλα. With regard to τὰ πνευμάτικα, their past following of εἴδωλα might cause problems for all of the ἐκκλησία when it comes to the appropriate understanding and handling of the pneumatic things in Christ. it needs to be noted

For discussion, see K. Ehrensperger, “Paul, his People, and Racial Terminology,” JECH 3 (2013), 17–33; now chapter 11 of this volume. 2

The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols

161

that not all aspects of the Corinthians’ previous life are considered problematic by Paul, as he confidently affirms that “all things are lawful” (6:12; 10:23). I will come back to this aspect later. Moreover, as in 8:5, Paul does not deny the existence of εἴδωλα, but here he particularly emphasizes that they are ἄφωνα, mute, speechless. Although there must be room in the ἐκκλησία for previous life experience, this aspect of their life is to be relegated to the past. Paul has already tried to clarify this with regard to the eating of meat or other food prepared in the context of pagan sacrifices, when he orders them to “shun the worship of idols” (10:14b) and states “I do not want you to be partners with demons” (10:20b). It seems he should have made his point clear there, but the issue concerning the pneumatic things is most likely of similar if not higher importance than the partaking in pagan sacrifices. Paul indicates this by noting the power by which they had been drawn to seek guidance and follow in the paths of these deities (ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι, 12:2). Following the guidance of the gods was no minor aspect of their previous lives: this was the core to their being in, and perceiving the world. It was the social and symbolic universe of the ἔθνη. This was not just an additional practice that could be followed or not, but rather something that permeated all aspects of their life. No dimension of life was outside the realm of deities and spiritual beings.3 The lives of humans and gods were intertwined, and the only variation was the hierarchy of priorities in which one participated in the cult of particular deities. Thus Aelius Aristides tells of a dream in which he refused to honor the emperor with the required kiss, explaining to the ruler that he was a follower of Asclepius.4 Similarly, not all Corinthians would have participated in all cult practices of all the deities that were relevant to the city during the first century. Although it cannot be ascertained with certainty which cults were practiced at the time of Paul’s visits and thereafter, there seem to have been Roman and Greek, possibly also Egyptian, cults present in the first century CE.

S.K. Stowers, “Greeks Who Sacrifice and Those Who Do Not: Toward an Anthropology of Greek Religion,” in The Social World of the First Centuries: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L.M. White, O.L. Yarborough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 293–333; J. Rüpke, The Religion of the Romans (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007), M. Öhler, “Das ganze Haus: Antike Alltagsreligiosität und die Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 102 (2011), 201–34. 4 Προσειπόντος δὲ κἀμοῦ καὶ στάντος ἐθαύμασεν ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ ὡς οὐ καὶ αὐτὸς προσελθὼν φιλήσαμι. Καγὼ εἷπον ὅτι ὁ θεραπευτὴς εἴμην ὁ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ τοσοῦτον γάρ μοι ἤρεσκεν εἰπεῖν περὶ ἐμαθτοῦ. Πρὸς οὖν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔφην καὶ τοῦτο ὁ θεός μοι παρήγγελειν μὴ φιλεῖν οὑτωσί καὶ ὅς ἀρκεῖ ἔφη κάγω ἐρίγησα. καὶ μὴν θεραπεύειν γε παντὸς κρείττων ὁ Ἀσκληπιός: “When I too saluted him and stood there, the emperor wondered why I too did not come forward and kiss him. And I said that I was a worshipper of Asclepios. For I was content to say so much about myself. ‘in addition to other things,’ I said, ‘the god has also instructed me not to kiss in this fashion.’ and he replied, ‘I am content.’ I was silent. and he said, ‘Asclepios is better than all to worship’” (Or. 47:23 [Behr]). 3



162

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

Aspects of Public Cult in Roman Corinth i) Roman Cults The establishment of Corinth as a Roman colony privileged Roman deities as the officially practiced cults. The Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis was organized according to Roman patterns – not as a variation of a Greek πόλις – and this certainly included the organization and status of Roman cults. As a Roman colony, the civic and cultic institutions of Rome would have been replicated in Corinth, and the colonists would have been expected to be “Roman” in recognizing the Roman gods and participating in their cults.5 Archaeological evidence shows that the Roman cults were laid out around the periphery of the lower forum.6 There is evidence for Roman cults of Fortuna, Neptune, Clarion Apollo, Venus, Mercury, Diana, and Bacchus. The imperial cult seems to have been present in the city during the first century as well. As Nancy Bookidis affirms, the cults of the forum were closely linked to Rome, and the cults were performed according to Roman practice and calendar. The issue of the calendar reminds us of the importance of time and the life-structuring dimension of calendars. The rhythm of life ticked according to the official calendar of a city, and a Roman colony clearly ticked according to the Roman calendar in all aspects of its official organization.7 Cult was performed in the Roman vein at the official temples, organized and supervised by the Ordo Decurionum, the city council.8 Valerius Maximus (writing during the reign of Tiberius, 14–37 CE) described Roman cult practices as follows: “Our ancestors desired that fixed and formal annual ceremonies be regulated by the knowledge of the pontifices; that sanction of the good governance of affairs be marshalled by the observation of augurs; that Apollo’s prophecies be revealed by the books of the seers” (Fact. 1:1a–b).9 Proper regard for the gods served the purpose of addressing problems in the here and now. Rituals were performed to have a desired effect and, if effective, were conducted in exactly the same way until a change was required due to changed circumstances. The key factor for Roman piety was knowledge. It was essential to know how to give to the gods what they were

M. Beard, J. North, and S.R.F. Price, The Religions of Rome: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1:315–17; see also J.C. Walters, “Civic Identity in Roman Corinth and its Impact on Early Christianity,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth (ed. D.N. Schowalter, S.J. Friesen; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 410. 6 N. Bookidis, “Religion in Corinth 146 BCE−100 CE,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth, 152. 7 Ibid., 157. 8 G. Woolf, Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 224–25. 9 Similarly Cicero, Nat. d. 3.2.5: “The religio of the Roman people comprises ritual, auspices, and the third additional division consisting of all such prophetic warnings as the interpreters of the Sybil or the haruspices have derived from portents and prodigies.” 5

The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols

163

due: scientia colendorum deorum was considered key in all Roman activities. The grace and generosity of the gods depended on such accurate knowledge and meticulous performance of rituals. Only if one was able to give to them what they were due in the right way would one be blessed with their gifts. Correct communication with the gods was thus vital for the well-being of the city. However, peculiarly, the Roman gods did not speak: they were mute, ἄφωνος. They did not speak either to priests or to magistrates during rituals or otherwise. Verbal communication was restricted to the prophecies of the officially sanctioned Sibylline books. The only way of understanding their communication and of responding appropriately was through haruspices (observation and interpretation of bird flight, entrails of victims of sacrifices, the smoke formation during sacrificing) performed by auguri. It was thus vital to perform the rituals in exactly the right way: one had to have knowledge/scientia to that effect and also to know how to interpret the flight of birds, the entrails of victims of sacrifices, and the smoke formation of sacrifices. Thus Cicero notes Moreover we receive a number of warnings by means of signs and of the entrails of victims, and by many other things that long-continued usage has noted in such a matter as to create the art of divination. Therefore, no great man ever existed who did not enjoy some portion of divine inspiration (Nat. d. 2:166–167 [Rackham]).

Divine inspiration here is understood as practical knowledge, the key for communicating accurately with the gods and giving them their due so they would grant favor and success to one’s actions. Roman colonists would most likely adhere to these cults, and the Greek elite, as far as they were present in the city, would probably do so as well in so far as they cooperated with the colonizers, whereas locals are considered to have adhered to the indigenous Greek cults.10 ii) Greek Cults While the Roman cult practice must have had a dominating impact on the daily rhythm of life in Corinth, there is also evidence that Greek cults reemerged after the destruction of the city, even if they might not have been in direct continuity with the pre-Roman period. It is at least a question as to whether all of the above-mentioned deities were merely worshiped in their Roman vein or also in their Greek identity, but this is difficult to assess. Outside the forum there seem to have been cultic activities at the temple of Asclepius, which was repaired by a Roman official, Marcus Antonius Milesius, and thus most likely operated under some form of Roman supervision. Bookidis further refers to the worshiping of Jupiter Capitolinus possibly also outside of the forum district, which could be an indication that there was a Greek cult at the same site where Zeus Olympios might have also been worshiped. The sanctuary of Demeter

Beard, North, and Price note “local élites in the provinces showing greater interest in ostensibly Roman deities than their poorer compatriots” (Religions of Rome, 1:314). 10



164

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

and Kore was reestablished.11 The character of the cult of Demeter and Kore cannot be clearly confirmed, but it may well be that there was a continuing or, as Jorunn Økland has argued,12 a reemerging Greek aspect to this important cult in Corinth. The temple of Aphrodite on Acrocorinth was officially revived shortly after the establishing of the Roman colony, but again this says little about possible ongoing significance at the local level even in the interim period after the destruction of the city. Although Bookidis believes that the cults of Asclepius, Jupiter Capitolinus/Zeus Olympios, Demeter and Kore, and Aphrodite were established or reestablished upon Roman initiative and thus were under Roman supervision and control, their local significance cannot be denied, and a particularly Greek aspect of worshiping that may not have taken on official guise cannot be ruled out.13 All of these cults would have been considered of decisive significance for the well-being of the city in Roman as well as Greek perspective. Thus participation in cult practice was not only normal but was essential for the well-being of individuals as well as for the community, at the level of the πόλις/oppida/colonia, provinicia, and imperium. The coherence and prosperity depended on the right and accurate performance of cult, the accurate communication between gods and humans, and the accurate interpretation and understanding of the deities’ communication. How this was done had to do with accurate performance of cults: the sacrifices at temples, including meals associated with these. Thus public performance of cult practices was a decisively important aspect of civic life in πόλεις/oppida and colonia throughout the empire, hence also in the colonia of Corinth. Paul had addressed issues arising from the public cult participation in chapters 8–10. However, cult practice was not only important at the official level, visible on a grand scale in temple ceremonies, sacrifices, and festivals. The other possibly more important aspect was that of a more private nature: the role and function of cults in households and families, which governed daily life and provided help and orientation.14 This may have been more significant for early Christ-followers, since this is where they encountered cult practice in relation

Bookidis, “Religion in Corinth,” 160. 12 J. Økland, “Ceres, Kore, and Cultural Complexity: Divine Personality Definitions and Human Worshippers in Roman Corinth,” in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (ed. S. Friesen, D.N. Schowalter, J.C. Walters; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 199–229. 13 See also Walters, “Civic identity,” 410. 14 P. Foss, “Watchful Lares: Roman Household Organization and the Rituals of Cooking and Dining,” in Domestic Space in the Roman World (ed. R. Laurence, A. Wallace-Hadrill, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 22; Portsmouth: JRA, 1997), 196–216; S.K. Stowers, “Kinds of Myth, Meals, and Power,” in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians (ed. R. Cameron, M.P. Miller; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 111; Öhler, “Das ganze Haus.” 11

The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols

165

to “mute idols” on a daily basis. It is to this context that we now turn in order to gain an impression of what the separation that Paul required of them actually meant. In the House and at the Crossroads: The Significance of Domestic Cults Small neighborhood shrines at crossroads and fountains, and altars at the entrance of houses were scattered throughout any ancient πόλις/oppidum. With regard to the family and household cults, not only the great deities of the official cult were important but also in-between spiritual beings. The world was not only populated by humans on earth and deities in heaven; there were divine powers of a middle nature who “sinuate in this interval of the air between highest ether and earth below through whom our aspirations and our deserts are conveyed to the gods. The Greeks call them ‘daimons’ (De DeoSoc 6).”15 They existed in such a diversity and multitude that there was no situation for which they were not responsible. 16 According to Plutarch, they were fundamental parts of the hierarchy of the cosmos, structurally indispensible in that they were the “interpretative and ministering nature” between gods and humans. To remove them would mean to “make the relations between gods and men alien and remote” or else “force us to a disorderly confusion of all things, in which we bring the god into men’s emotions and activities, drawing him down to our needs” (Def. orac. 13:52–53 [416F] [Babbitt]). There were ways and means via which one related to these “spiritual powers”: one had to know the rites, when and where to do them, in order to maintain the relationship not only with them but also with the deity to whom they were subject. A differentiated hierarchical system ordered the cosmos and thus every aspect of daily life. Daimons were part of one’s life as much as family members and neighbors. In as much as the spheres of deities and mediatory spiritual beings were differentiated but interrelated, so were the cultic dimensions. Thus when we distinguish between civic and domestic cult practices, these should not been seen as separate or oppositional spheres but as part of a cosmic network. In sum, encounter with and separation from “mute idols” would have been most frequent. I will present a broad overview of aspects of domestic cults relevant for Roman Corinth, being aware that these spirits, demons, and deities were relevant not only at this level in the domestic sphere but for other contexts as well. These spiritual beings were differentiated by Greeks and Romans in various ways. Only the Romans know of Penates, Lares, and genii. For classical Greece, although no such specific designations existed, there is still clear evi-

N. Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (London: Routledge, 2001), 34. 16 Ibid., 29. 15



166

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

dence for domestic cults as well. Since Greek public cults continued to be practiced after the destruction of Corinth or reemerged after its constitution as a Roman colony, it is likely that Greek domestic cults continued to play a certain role in houses and among kin groups as well. i) Aspects of Domestic Cults in Classical Greece Recently Christopher A. Faraone has argued for a distinction between οἶκοςand γένος-related cults, both relevant in the domestic sphere. The former included all members of a particular house and was thus a locative cult; the latter was specifically related to those who claimed descent from a common ancestor. It appears that the οἶκος-related cult was a kind of replication of civic cults on a smaller scale, as the deity most frequently mentioned in this respect is Zeus Herkeios or Zeus Ktesios. They represent “a fairly common characteristic of Greek domestic religion, and one of the ways in which it intersects with the practices of larger communities: household cults can be smaller versions of civic cults.”17 But of course these two were not the only ones. Another key deity of the house was Hestia, probably the most widespread of the domestic deities, despite her low-key presence in civic cult and mythology. The daily life of the house centered around the hearth, so Hestia was the center of daily life.18 Distinct from such locative cults were ancestral cults. Indications for the distinction between the two in classical Greece can be found in the questions candidates for public office in Athens had to answer. It was thus decisive that they could name their Apollo Patroos and Zeus Herkeios and confirm the location of their shrines, thus demonstrating that they were godfearing citizens, in order to be eligible for an office in the polis.19 Plato has Socrates refer to his βωμοὶ καὶ ἱερὰ οἰκεῖα καὶ πατρῷα and thus, in Faraone’s view, clearly distinguishing between altars and shrines of the household and of the kin group.20 In addition to the parallelization with civic cults, household and kin-group rites focused on aspects that were not well represented by the former. They had to do with immediate needs and life transitions such as birth, illness, weddings, death, with female household members playing key roles in these rites. As such, the distinction advocated by Faraone may not always have been clearly maintained, as such rites could have involved all those living in the house or only those of the specific kin group. Many of these particular rites circled

D. Boedeker, “Family Matters: Domestic Religion in Classical Greece,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity: Contextual and Comparative Perspectives (ed. J. Bodel, S.M. Olyan; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 233. 18 Ibid., 234. 19 Ibid., 212. 20 Plato, Euthyd. 302C. See also the discussion by C.A. Faraone, “Household Religion in Ancient Greece,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, 210–28. 17

The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols

167

around the hearth, that is, Hestia, when, for example, a bride was welcomed by the groom’s mother and introduced by her to the household deities or when a newborn child was accepted by the father in the amphidromia, a rite that included “running around the hearth” and whereby the child was placed under the protection of Hestia.21 Children generally had to be protected from ill fate by numerous measures, including charms and amulets, as were women safeguarded during pregnancy and childbirth.22 Although these are examples from classical Greece, there is little doubt that such household and kin-group cults continued to be of core significance for the Greek population of Corinth in their daily lives into the first century CE. ii) Aspects of Roman Domestic Cults This is certainly the case for the Penates, Lares, and genii of Roman tradition. As with the Roman public cult, Roman domestic cults would have made their way into the colonia of Corinth. There is wide evidence from different parts of the Roman empire for domestic deities and spiritual beings. They figure prominently in literary and visual sources, as well as in material culture in the form of statuettes and small shrines and altars in and near houses. Similar, although not identical, to the pattern found in classical Greece, the domestic deities were either those of the domus, that is, of all who lived in the house (the Lares), or those of the clan or gens (the Penates). Without a Greek equivalent is the genius, the guardian spirit of the head of the household. Although often found together in niches or shrines, the two groups were distinct, as John Bodel emphasizes. The Lares “were represented iconographically in a remarkably consistent way and in paintings were seldom accompanied by depictions of other gods. The other embraced collectively a stylistically heterogeneous and conceptually diverse assortment of aniconic and iconic objects representing individual deities, demi-gods, and heroes.”23 Their material difference is evidence for their distinction in terms of role and function. Although both could move with the respective household and clan, the Penates were normally only honored at one place in the house, whereas the Lares could have diverse locations where they would be worshiped. Although the Lares were more communal in their worship focus, they did not bind the slave and free members of the household together in one worshiping community. Rather, it appears that the Lares of the freeborn kin group were also the Lares of the slaves of this kin group, with the result that the Lares were worshiped in separate groups. Cicero maintains that the Lares were “handed down by our ancestors both to masters and to slaves” (cum dominis tum famulis, Leg. 2:27;

Boedeker, “Family Matters,” 241. 22 Ibid., 240–42. 23 J. Bodel, “Cicero’s Minerva, Penates, and the Mother of the Lares: An Outline of Roman Domestic Religion,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, 258. 21



168

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

also 2:19.5), but significantly he refers to their role for slaves and masters separately. Similarly, Columella advises villa owners to get their agricultural slaves to have their meals “around the household hearth and the master’s Lar.” Most likely this envisages a scene where master and slaves are in sight of each other but are not eating together. Thus commensality is reserved for rare special occasions if at all (Columella, Rust. 11:1.19). Archaeological findings from Pompeii indicate a similar segregation in terms of domestic worshiping communities between slaves and freeborn members of the kin group, even though the cult activities are related to the same Lares within the one and the same house. Although through the Lares slaves were included in domestic daily cult activities, nevertheless as slaves they were denied any protection by Penates, since legally they were considered to have no ancestors and thus were not part of a kin group/clan. Thus the Lares also had somehow the function of being the deities of the slave families (dis famulis).24 Bodel concludes that in ancient Rome “‘household’ religion and ‘family’ religion, like the conditions of slave and free generally, were separate and interdependent, but not equal categories.”25 The numerous archaeological finds of niches and shrines in houses and shops, and the diversity of statuettes and other objects found there, are indications of the significance of these private forms and places of devotion in Roman tradition. Even if it is difficult to establish precisely what meaning was attributed to these statuettes and objects in a particular context, the fact that these were part of the house demonstrates that a sacred or spiritual function was affirmed for them, and correct performance of worship, that is, of giving them what one owed, was vital for the well-being of the house and those who lived in it.26 It was here at these shrines, small altars, and niches in houses that all inhabitants of the empire related to the spirit world of gods, half-gods, demons, and spirits. This is the place and form through which people communicated with this world by performing rites and offering sacrifices and prayers for their daily needs that were intertwined with the powers and needs of these spiritual beings. Although the practice of “official” cults dominated public life in many ways, probably the most important cult practice happened low-key and smallscale in the realm of daily life. As noted already, these deities, spirits, or demons were of decisive importance for daily life, and it was inconceivable from the life experience in the first century to ignore or consider these powers as

See ibid., 265–67. 25 Ibid., 267. This is a significant insight that has important implications for understanding how slave members of a pagan household could become Christ-followers. If there were separate cult communities within one and the same household, this might have opened a niche for alternative cult activities for slaves, something that seems to have been feared and was discouraged. See Bodel, “Cicero’s Minerva,” 274–75 n.56. 26 Bodel, “Cicero’s Minerva,” 261–63. 24

The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols

169

non-existent. They were part of people’s lives and required due attention through cult practice. iii) Forms of Jewish Domestic Piety Since Corinth was a Roman colony in Greece, it can be assumed that both Greek and Roman forms of domestic cults were prevalent there and permeated the context of daily life in the πόλις for all its inhabitants. For Jewish inhabitants, the situation would have been different. They were, of course, not part of this world of domestic and public cults. However, it should not be assumed that the “spiritual” world did not play an important role in Jewish tradition.27 Since the major form of public cult practice was performed in the temple in Jerusalem, this was, although of central relevance, not part of the daily form of worshiping practice for Jews in the Diaspora. Although Sabbath communal prayer and Torah reading and teaching were undeniably important communal practices, it is evident that, with regard to the spirit world, there must have been ways and means to relate to it also for Jews, although in distinction from their pagan neighbors. Without being able to provide much detail in a contribution of this length, the key difference between Jewish and pagan perceptions of these spiritual beings lies in them being seen by Jews as subordinate to the One. Only God was to be given glory through worshiping. This is what decisively distinguishes Jews from their pagan neighbors: the latter honor these as deities. This is what Paul refers to when he accuses pagans that they do not honor God as God (Rom 1:21) and instead worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (1:25). The problem is not the existence of the spirit world as such but how to relate to it appropriately. Also in Jewish perception, the world, heaven, and earth and the realm in between is populated by spiritual beings, but the power of these is clearly subordinated to, and distinguished from, the power of God.28 There is clear evidence in numerous magic texts for “holy men,” or magicians, in numerous magic texts who could specifically relate to these beings; in addition, spells from the period in question attest to the numerous practices through which Jews, similar to their pagan neighbors, related to this world. Although from the late third or early fourth century, the Sefer Harazim is evidence for known magical practices to relate to this in-between world of demons, spirits, and the dead. Those who are able to relate to this world are men of particular charismatic power, knowledgeable, and wise mediators. They know how to compel such spirits to exert positive effects through “offerings,

J. Lightstone in The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine among Jews in the Greco-Roman World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 36, notes that “in the Greco-Roman diaspora, at the very least, belief in demons seems everywhere, and in all periods.” 28 See ibid., 15–16. 27



170

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

and other ritual actions, magical syllables, adjuration of one power in the name of its superior, prayer and praise.”29 Key to “handling” such spiritual powers was the necessity to have power over them rather than being taken over by their power. Authority from God and protection or immunity from these lesser powers were requisites of holy men. Intimacy with God or union with the divine realm were decisive for mastering those inferior spirits and demons. What is evident from magical texts is that “the Jewish communities of the Hellenistic world had recourse to sacred creative power from the heavenly angelic realms.”30 There certainly were other ways to relate to this world on a daily basis or to express belonging to God in specific ways, but little is actually known about the domestic piety of Diaspora Judaism. Their pagan neighbors noted the lighting of candles on the Sabbath, commented on by Seneca as something that should be forbidden, “since the gods do not need light, neither do men take pleasure in soot.”31 As for the Torah scrolls, they were attributed some kind of sacredness, and keeping them in specific niches in synagogue buildings attributed sacredness to them. Nevertheless, synagogue assemblies, although they met regularly on Sabbath, were not the places of daily life generally for Jews. What happened in the homes of Jewish families in the Diaspora is difficult to assess, given the rarity of material findings. The fact that tefillin and mezuzoth have been found or are mentioned by Philo (Spec. 4:137–139) and Josephus (Ant. 4:213) is evidence for the existence of small items of piety, but how widespread these were and how exactly they were used cannot be established with any degree of certainty.32 Nevertheless, the example of magical texts demonstrates that the spirit world with its demons and other spiritual beings was as real for Jews in the Diaspora of the first century as it was for their polytheistic contemporaries throughout the Roman empire. Such a reality had to be dealt with: one needed knowledge, practical knowledge, to relate to this world accurately on a daily basis one way or another. For Jews in the Diaspora as much as for their pagan neighbors, the kin group and household provided the most important dimension of their social and symbolic world. In this realm the relationship to the spirit world was lived through daily practices and traditions that protected the members against risks and dangers, and affirmed their identity and sense of belonging.33 This is the world to which Paul refers with the term τὰ πνευμάτικα. Jewish communities in the Diaspora obviously had developed ways and means to relate to the spirit world in a manner that was in accordance with their loyalty to their one God. The separation Paul requires affects the Christ-followers from

Ibid., 29. 30 Ibid., 35. 31 Seneca, De superstitione (Ep. 95.47), cited in Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, 66. 32 See Öhler, “Das ganze Haus,” 217. 33 Ibid., 226. 29

The Challenge of Separation from Cults and Their Idols

171

the nations, and it is inconceivable that the space this separation requires could remain vacant. iv) Separated from “Mute Idols” – What Now? Issues pertaining to the public cult had already been addressed by Paul in 1 Cor 8–11. There he emphasized that for Christ-followers abstinence from any form of cult practice associated with deities other than the God of Israel was a nonnegotiable requirement. Although this seems to be clear, it apparently raised questions among the Corinthians. It seems it was not obvious to them what did and did not constitute participation in such cults.34 Paul’s reminder of their former loyalty indicates the enhanced importance of this fact when pneumatic things, τὰ πνευμάτικα, are addressed. The extent of this dissociation cannot be underestimated: given the all-permeating nature of cult practices at all levels and in all and every context of life, to abstain from any such activity was an enormously challenging and possibly dangerous endeavor. It would have been challenging in that daily cult practices in the domestic realm had to be given up, including the security they provided.35 It would have been difficult in a context of multiple small shrines, niches, and altars dedicated to Lares and Penates or Greek domestic deities in every house. It is difficult to imagine how this requirement could have been fulfilled if not an entire household had not joined the Christ-movement. Thus if you did not live in the house of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) but as a woman were possibly married to an unbeliever (7:13), how could you avoid being involved at all? How, as a slave (7:21), could you not have followed the cult practice of your master? It might have been possible for slaves, women, or possibly freedmen and freedwomen, to avoid participating in some of the official Roman or public Greek cult practices without drawing attention to themselves, but not to participate in any cultic practice would most likely have been regarded as antisocial behavior at least, more likely as endangering the well-being of at least the household, if not of the community/city. In the worst case, it could have been seen as an act of more or less open resistance to Roman domination. It would have been considered an ex-

For a detailed discussion of this aspect, see K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between, (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 189– 213. 35 M.D. Nanos (The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002], 265) has emphasized the significance of this concerning the situation in Galatia, noting, “The pagan networks of support into which they were born and raised would begin to break down […] bringing shame and fear, creating the need to provide for themselves and any family members in their trust by appeal to the network of those whom they perceive to share in this new identity.” 34



172

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

pression of ἀσέβεια, which could have severe repercussions. “Roman authorities moved to suppress (or ‘emend’) religious forms that seemed to be a focus of opposition to Roman rule – whenever and wherever they found them.”36 At the macro-social level, to abstain from cultic practice would have been a difficult position; at the micro-social level it would have been almost impossible. In terms of normal communication with the deities, it deprived Christ-followers of the familiar means of daily communication to and from deities. It also deprived them of the guidance and support on which they relied in their daily lives. Where could one get support and help when one was sick, pregnant and giving birth, traveling, and so on? Since all these aspects were vital in people’s daily lives, these had to be covered in the context of their new loyalty to Christ. Since they obviously had some expertise on how to communicate with the realm of the divine, what would have been more logical than to draw on this experience? But Paul explicitly denies that their former familiarity with cult practices and forms of communication were of any use; they had to be abandoned when it came to communicating with the God of Israel.37 With regard to τὰ πνευμάτικα, they could not draw on their previous experience, and there was nothing “lawful” in this respect that could be “transformed” in Christ. With regard to τὰ πνευμάτικα, they had to learn afresh how to relate to and communicate with the divine sphere.

Paul’s Preamble (1 Cor 12:3) Paul’s Preamble (1 Cor 12:3)

After establishing that their loyalty and attraction to deities was to be a dimension of their previous lives that had no room in their lives in Christ, Paul adds an explanatory note that seems in some sense to be superfluous. Oscar Cullmann suggested that this could have related to persecution situations,38 others that this is merely clarifying what can and cannot be expected from the perspective of Christ with a clear line of demarcation being drawn between the spirit of God and any other spirits. These may be possible aspects, but they do not provide an explanation for these rather strong expressions. If the Roman presence is as significant in Corinth as has been suggested, then an allusion to Rome in this verse should not be excluded: the dichotomy between ἀνάθεμα and κύριος applied to Jesus could indicate a reversal of an imperial perception of Jesus: one convicted and crucified as an enemy of the Roman empire would

Beard, North, and Price, Religions of Rome, 1:339. Concerning Egypt, they note, “even where existing religious institutions were not abolished by the Romans, there is a clear trend towards increasing Roman supervision, if not direct control” (340). 37 R.E. Ciampa and B.S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 564. 38 O. Cullman, The Earliest Christian Confessions (London: Lutterworth, 1949), 22–23. 36

Paul’s Reassurance Concerning the “Spiritual Things”

173

certainly be declared ἀνάθεμα, whereas no one loyal to Roman claims would dare to declare anyone else except the emperor to be his or her lord. Given the emphasis on the cross in 1:18–2:2, the reference to the rulers of this age who do not understand and thus crucified the Lord (2:6–8) and the role of the spirit in knowing and understanding God’s wisdom (2:9–16) provide links to 12:3, which, in light of these previous passages, then sounds like a summary reminder of the longer explanations earlier in the letter. Paul already stated that wisdom, knowledge, and understanding in relation to the God of Israel are available only through the spirit. An understanding of Jesus crucified is impossible through the channels of divine communication with which the Corinthians had been familiar in their lives thus far. One could not perceive Jesus as a criminal convicted and thus declared ἀνάθεμα by Rome and at the same time be loyal to him as Lord. These two perceptions were mutually exclusive. A different interpretation of ἀνάθεμα in this verse has been proposed by Kenneth l. Waters. He draws attention to the fact that ἀνάθεμα in Greek and Jewish literature of the period does not mean “curse” but rather refers to an offering to a deity: a dedicatory gift. Rather than referring to a practice of cursing Jesus, Paul is here correcting a Corinthian misunderstanding of Jesus’s life and death as a dedicatory offering in a sense with which the Corinthians had been familiar from their pagan past.39 I cannot discuss this proposal in any detail here, but it deserves further consideration as a viable interpretive option. Whatever the precise meaning, 1 Cor 12:3 could be Paul’s summary reminder of the fundamental difference between the Corinthians’ former life, as those drawn to τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα, and their present life in Christ, before providing reassurance in light of the challenge that the abandonment of anything related to idolatry means for the Corinthians.

Paul’s Reassurance Concerning the “Spiritual Things” (1 Cor 12:4–11) Paul’s Reassurance Concerning the “Spiritual Things”

At the outset Paul reassures his addressees that, within the sphere of the Lord, communication with God is possible. The diversity of gifts needed to communicate with, and relate to, the spirit world and to God were freely given to them, but the source of these χαρίσματα, διακονίαι, and ἐνεργήματα for them were no longer the plurality of deities and diverse spirits but the one spirit, Lord and God. The parallel construction of 1 Cor 12:4–5 is noteworthy here, and it is possible that Paul refers here in some kind of “technical” vocabulary to relevant “skills” and ways and means to communicate with the divine world.

K.L. Waters, “No Cursing in the Church: Anathema in the Corinthian Congregation (1 Corinthians 12:3) and the Letters of Paul,” paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Rome, 2009. 39



174

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

Thus Paul here confirms the diversity of gifts (χαρίσματα) they receive, the diversity of mediating practices (διακονίαι), and the diversity of real effects (ἐνεργήματα) in their lives, but he affirms in no uncertain terms that all of these were actually granted, exercised, and effected by one and the same spirit, Lord, and God. It is the oneness of God in which this diversity is rooted and held together. The diversity of their life experiences and needs is not abrogated or downplayed but acknowledged. However, this diversity does not require a diversity of deities, spirits, and demons. Mediating Powers and the One Spirit: Transforming Cultural Practice In their previous lives the addressees were not only used to a diversity of deities who were the guarantors of good life if addressed and looked after properly, but in conjunction with these there were numerous mediators who were able to communicate on their behalf with the deities, spirits, and demons, if they could not or were not supposed to do so themselves. In addition to those involved in the performance of sacrifices were those designated to communicate with the deities: augurs, sacerdotes, diverse priests of diverse cults, and the pontifex maximus, that is, the emperor. Of no less importance were all those specialists needed for issues of a more ordinary kind, relevant in daily life, the sortileges, vates, harioloi, coniectores, interpretes somniorum, psychomanteis, magi, astrologi, chaldaei (Cicero, Nat. d. 1:55–56; Div. 1:128). For transitions during the life cycle, specialists of specifically designated members of the kin group took care of the relevant communication with the spirit world.40 Thus in as much as the world was inhabited by deities, spirits, demons, and the like, there were equally high numbers of specialists who had knowledge (γνῶσις), wisdom (σοφία), and effective power (ἐνεργήματα δύναμεων), to mediate appropriately between this world and the world of humans. The absence of all of these practices, along with distancing oneself from any such mediators, would have possibly been challenging if not frightening for anyone whose well-being relied on the right means to relate to and communicate with the spirit world. Here Paul steps in and assures the Corinthians that all essential aspects of communicating with the divine are provided for through manifestations of the spirit in members of the community. Thiselton has noted that Paul seems to change the term probably used by the Corinthians, πνευμάτικα, to χαρίσματα. This may indicate an emphasis on Paul’s part that the means to relate to the spirit world were not special qualities that were self-acquired or “earned” in reciprocity to a service for a deity.41 In their diversity the χαρίσματα were all granted in Christ as gifts from the one

M. Bettini, Anthropology and Roman Culture: Kinship, Time, Images of the Soul (trans. J. van Sickle; Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1991). 41 A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 929–30. 40

Paul’s Reassurance Concerning the “Spiritual Things”

175

God. They were not qualities that elevated the status of any individual bearer in the community. Their only purpose was to contribute to the well-being of the community as a whole. Within the diversity of these gifts, the one source of all of them is emphasized, thus countering any attempts to enhance individual status at the expense of the unity of the community.42 The list Paul presents here seems to be rooted in the Jewish tradition of the messianic age, but at the same time it reflects aspects of divine communication from a Greek and Roman perspective. The point here is not whether this list is Greek/Roman or Jewish in essence but that it most likely resonated with both worlds. Paul and Jewish Christ-followers drew on the Jewish scriptural tradition, in which wisdom and knowledge, the strength of trust and loyalty (Isa 11:1–5), the power of healing (Isa 61:1; 2 Kgs 2:15–16), and the power to effect peaceful life, prophecy, and visions (Joel 2:28) are signs of the world to come. The fulfillment of these prophecies and visions is seen as having been inaugurated through the Christ-event. Thus for Paul as for other Jewish Christfollowers, the scriptures and Jewish tradition of their times provided the context for understanding the pouring out of the spirit. The effects of the spirit were decisive, not its nature or essence. Not what it consisted of, or how it worked but that it worked was decisive. For Paul and his fellow Jews, it was obvious that all of these events and effects had nothing to do with the “rulers of this age” nor the power of any deities or demons but exclusively with the power of God. To impart this to an audience that probably was only partially familiar with the Jewish social and symbolic universe (if these gentiles were former sympathizers of Judaism or godfearers) would have been an uphill struggle. This is especially so when it is taken into account that the God of Israel relates to “human desire, aspirations, and emotions in a way quite different from Greek and Roman deities,” as Stowers notes.43 For these Christ-followers from the nations, who had not previously been embedded in the Jewish scriptural tradition and the Jewish social world, it would have been normal to draw on their previous experience and knowledge, that is, Greek and Roman understandings of τὰ πνευμάτικα. The transformation of the habitus of people is a challenging endeavor, and Paul does not generally require that these Christ-followers from the nations give up everything of their former lives. “All things are lawful,” he agrees with the Corinthians, but he advises the Thessalonians to “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess 5:21). But that which probably was most relevant to them – their embeddedness in the world of their domestic and public cults and the practices with which they were familiar for relating to the spirit world –

D.B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 87. 43 Stowers, “Kinds of Myth,” 199, n.35. 42



176

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

had to be given up. That difficulties would arise here in terms of their understanding and with regard to their relations with the city and the empire could almost be anticipated.44 The aspects Paul mentions in 1 Cor 12:8–10 could provide an indication to realms or practices that were central in daily relations to the spirit world. I assume that they resonated with both, the Greek and Roman, as well as with the Jewish social and symbolic universe. Essential Manifestations of the One Spirit For Christ-followers, wisdom and knowledge are no longer in the hand of auguri, who would only know how to read the flight of the birds or be able to understand the ruling power of Rome as ordained by the will of deities, thereby promoting appropriate behavior and thus peace and prosperity. Talk of wisdom (λόγος σοφίας) and of knowledge (λόγος γνώσεως) are now nothing but expressions of the spirit of God. It is a kind of wisdom and knowledge associated with weakness and the cross, as Paul already referred to in 1 Cor 1:18−2:5 and which he exemplifies further in chapter 13. It has nothing to do with the dominating power for which Jesus is ἀνάθεμα but with everything relating to wisdom and knowledge, which is inseparably intertwined with trust, hope, and love. This wisdom and knowledge is embedded in Jewish tradition, as noted above, and has nothing to do with the accurate performance of cult practice and the correct interpretation of entrails. The real purpose of wisdom and knowledge is to contribute to the empowerment of all members of the ἐκκλησία. The next manifestation of the spirit, πίστις (12:9a), has caused problems for interpreters in that it is strange that a core aspect of being in Christ for all Christ-followers should be a special gift to some in the ἐκκλησία.45 It may refer to a special aspect of trust and loyalty within the community, or by the “mature” in Christ, or to a technical form of loyalty the allusion of which is lost to us. There can hardly be any doubt that the gift of healing (12:9b) was of vital importance for everyone in the first century. Paul confirms this, but the source of the gift is neither Asclepius nor any other deity or spirit but the one spirit. Jewish tradition links the healing of the sick and wounded as a core dimension associated with the messianic age. The prophecies of Isaiah most prominently refer to this aspect in relation to messianic hopes. In 1 Cor 12:10 a whole cluster of manifestations of the one spirit is listed, and it is unclear whether Paul considers these to be inherently related to each

The difficulties addressed in Galatians seems to be caused by this very same problem, as Nanos has convincingly demonstrated (Irony of Galatians, 265–71). 45 For a discussion, see Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 177–78. 44

Paul’s Reassurance Concerning the “Spiritual Things”

177

other. The working of miracles and discernment of spirits, in my view, are evidence that it is not the spirit world as such that is being rejected here but rather the existence of this world and the taking of these spiritual beings and powers as self-evident. Now the ability to discern the character or nature of these beings is provided as a manifestation of the one spirit rather than through one of the numerous deities or spirits with which the Corinthians had been accustomed. Prophecy is a means of communication known in both the Greek and Roman as well as in the Jewish world. Prophets were entrusted in the present with a message from a deity, a spokesperson on behalf of a god, and they could be related to a particular place, the place of an oracle or a temple. Prophetic utterances seem to have been responsive to specific issues, circumstances, or needs; they seem to have been taken for granted in both worlds. Later on in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul provides his understanding of prophecy as speech, which was intelligible without the need for further clarification. This distinguishes his understanding of prophecy to some extent from the Greek and Roman understanding: the Sibylline books as well as the oracle in Delphi required interpretation for being understandable; the message had to be translated into intelligible language by specialists. This kind of prophecy may have resembled what Paul mentions under γλώσση, which is speech that requires interpretation, whereas Paul assumes that prophecy in the spirit of God would be intelligible in itself. The only aspect that Paul mentions here that does not lead to immediate understanding is the γένη γλωσσῶν (12:10). The γλῶσσαι require inter- pretation, and again in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul explains why this is so. The issue here is not the nature of these γλῶσσαι but their effects. I find Martin’s arguments with regard to this aspect of the passage convincing.46 Given the recurrence of the term γλῶσσαι at the beginning of chapter 13 with the additional distinction between γλῶσσαι of humans and γλῶσσαι of angels, it could well be that Paul has such a language in mind here that might have been perceived by some as a particularly well-suited means of communication with the divine realm. Martin demonstrates that in the Greek and Roman world deities were perceived as having a special language, a language that some humans have heard or seem to know. Since this was the language of higher beings, humans with experience with this higher language were attributed higher status. The daughters of Job who, instead of inheriting property like their brothers, were provided with angelic language certainly do not suffer from a diminishing of their status through this gift (T.Job 49:1–50.3). Martin argues that the length of Paul’s discussion of issues related to γλῶσσαι indicates that the Corinthians must have misunderstood the significance of this particular means of communication with God. Mentioning it at the end of this section of the letter, together with its downplaying later in 1 Corinthians 13 and 14, and the emphasis in the body metaphor

46



D.B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 87–103.

178

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

of the significance of the less-honorable parts all point in the direction of status reversal. The gift of γλῶσσαι cannot be associated in any way with an enhanced status in the community. If speaking “out of one’s senses” was a sign of divine speech, as understood in Greek tradition, this would possibly be perceived as the closest possible communication with the divine realm. Paul plays down the significance of this not by denying its existence or importance but by stressing that its importance does not consist in an individual’s close link to the deity but in its relevance for the well-being of the community.

Conclusions: Cultural Translation as Transformation of Cultural Practice Conclusions

Paul assured the Corinthians that the challenge that their turning away from idols implied – the loss of the means of communication with the spiritual realm – was compensated for by the gifts imparted to them through the spirit. He reminded them that they could not rely in any way on their previous experience for the communication with, and relation to, this realm, as there was an insurmountable difference between mute idols and the God of Israel, and they were to have nothing to do with the former. What sounds clear and nonnegotiable in theory must have been very difficult in practice in a context in which every aspect of life in the πόλις and οἶκος, in the colonia and domus, was permeated by cultic practice. Thus issues pertaining to the realm of public cult practice were addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8–11, followed by the issues of cult practice and communication with the spirit world in the context of daily life in 12:1–11. Paul tried at length to cover all aspects of life that seemed important when it came to communicating with the divine sphere. He acknowledged the diversity of these aspects and the experiences to which they were related. But the source of the diversity of gifts and practices required to relate to, and deal with this sphere, was the spirit of God, not numerous spirits and deities. It was not important to conduct the numerous rituals in a correct way, because such knowledge was not necessary; one did not need to know the right deity or the right name to ensure a particular area of life was actually covered. This did not imply that one was at risk of attracting the anger of a god or had to go without protection or help. The source for life was the one God of Israel, Paul assured them: all gifts for life come from this very same source through the very same spirit. Paul’s perception of relating to God and the spirit world were Jewish, and although certain aspects of this spirit world were shared with their neighbors from the nations, there was only one God in this spiritual hierarchy. To communicate this intelligibly to people from the nations was no incidental as-

Conclusions

179

pect of the transmission of the gospel. It involved a process of cultural translation that required of the Christ-followers from the nations a transformation of essential cultural practices. The issue was not the belief system, whether the beings that populated the spirit world existed or not. The issue was how to relate to this world, now as a member of τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν οὔσην ἐν Κορίνθῳ. In sum, it was an issue of practice. The implications at every level of life for Christ-followers from the nations were enormous and potentially dangerous in that refusing to participate in cultic practices could have been seen as posing a risk to the πόλις and the οἶκος, depriving them of prosperity and harmony, or attracting the anger of deities or neighbors. Paul does not consider the wider implications of this separation from cult practice for the ἐκκλησία in relation to πόλις/colonia and οἶκος/domus, nor does he provide any assurance to the Corinthians in this respect. The dimension of the πόλις/ colonia does not seem to be in view in Paul’s guidance here, although what is required had wide-ranging consequences for Christ-followers from the nations. Paul’s concern was with the building up and well-being of the ἐκκλησία. This was the key focus of his assurance. The manifestations of the spirit themselves provided the community with those aspects that were vital for sustaining life (from the perspective of former adherents of Roman and Greek deities), but at the same time their significance was considered only in relation to the good of the community. They were not supposed to lead to any status enhancement and were nothing to boast about. This not only applied to the gift of γλῶσσαι, as Martin has demonstrated, but to the other gifts as well. It is in tune with the theme of the letter with its emphasis on status change. The gifts provided the Corinthians assurance and challenged them to grow in their learning of Christ, in their building up a community that was “not of this world,” socializing into an ethos that was rooted in their relationship to the God of Israel through Christ, an ethos that was strongly associated with the Jewish social and symbolic universe but resonated with aspects of the identity of people from the nations as well. The passage 1 Cor 12:1–11 provides a glimpse into the challenges of a cultural translation process through which Paul attempted to transmit an ethos and practices embedded in the Jewish world to the world of the nations.47 It demonstrates the challenge former pagan members of the ἐκκλησία faced within the context of a πόλις/colonia that was structured around an entirely different ethos. The notion of well-being might have provided a trajectory that enabled Christ-followers to expand the well-being of the ἐκκλησία to the πόλις/colonia, as hinted at in Rom 12:18. But the separation from all aspects of cult practice that were considered vital for the well-being of the οἶκος and πόλις community certainly made it difficult for Christ-followers not to be seen as undermining civic society itself. The cultural translation of the message of

For more details on the process of cultural translation in Paul’s letters see Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, esp. 175–213. 47



180

Chapter 8 Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia

the gospel into the daily practices of the social and symbolic universe of the nations was a challenging task not least for the Christ-followers from the nations themselves.









9. Embodying the Ways in Christ: Paul’s Teaching of the Nations Introduction Paul is remembered as a teacher of the nations (διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν) in 1 Tim 2:7, a role – even if fictional – which could obviously be envisaged by second generation Christ-followers. It indicates that aspects of Paul’s activities were considered educational, and although the term παιδεία is absent from his undisputed letters, and other specifically educational terms like διδάσκαλος, διδαχή, μανθάνω, are rare, there are indeed numerous passages where Paul can be seen as engaged in a teaching-learning discourse and as actually teaching his addressees, since they have to “learn to be a gentile in Christ.”1 This teaching-learning discourse in the Pauline letters sheds fascinating light on the process of cultural translation in the earliest Christ-following groups from the nations. It is an aspect of high significance in my view when the notion of “Hellenism” is not envisaged as some uniform melting pot but rather as a label for a period during which Jews, Greeks, Romans, and other peoples and their respective traditions were in contact and interacted with each other in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, an interaction facilitated through the use of Greek as a lingua franca. The diverse traditions were not only linguistically different, but encompassed diverse practices and were embodied at numerous levels of social interaction.2 Thus the Pauline letters provide glimpses of a teaching, a learning process between people who had been socialized partly in diverse, partly in shared, cultural, social, and linguistic traditions. Paul and his colleagues were deeply steeped in Jewish tradition, some expressed in Greek, some in other languages. The addressees were embedded in Greek, Galatian,

S. Fowl, “Learning to be a Gentile,” in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. A.T. Lincoln, A. Pattison; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 22–40. See also K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 117–36. 2 Cf., e. g., Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds (ed. A. Mullen, P. James; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); D.J. Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011); C. Markschies, Hellenisierung des Christentums: Sinn und Unsinn einer historischen Deutungskategorie (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012); and K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 63–101. 1

182

Chapter 9 Embodying the Ways in Christ

Roman, and possibly a number of other traditions, with some having been familiar to some extent with aspects of Jewish traditions.3 The communication process between peoples of different cultural contexts involves cultural translation processes. It is thus to be expected that aspects of cultural translation in the teaching-learning process are also discernible in the Pauline letters. My particular focus in this contribution is on the dimension of embodiment in this process.

Paul, the Teacher Paul, the Teacher

As mentioned above, in post-Pauline letters Paul is perceived in the role of a teacher. Although he never refers to himself as a teacher, there are numerous allusions to a teaching-learning process in his letters. There are some explicit references, such as 1 Cor 4:17 where he emphasizes that he is sending Timothy to the Corinthian Christ-followers to remind them τάς ὁδούς μου τάς ἐν Χριστῷ καθὼς πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ έκκλησίᾳ διδάσκω; or in 4:6 he clarifies that he had written to them ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε; and he admonishes the Philippians (4:9) to keep doing what they had learned (ἐμάθετε). In addition to these few explicit uses of teaching-learning language there are further indications throughout that Paul considered his task as apostle to the nations as one of teaching the nations how to live life as Christ-followers. Jewish terminology of education, that is the transmission of tradition, is found e. g. in Phil 4:9 (ἅ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ήκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν έμοί ταῦτα πράσσετε; also 1 Cor 15:1, 3; 1 Thess 4:1). In addition, the terminology of nurturing indicates a teachinglearning process which is also found, in Philo for example.4 It should not come as much of a surprise for a number of reasons to find trajectories of an education discourse in the Pauline letters. Given the significance of learning in Jewish tradition, it seems rather self-evident that people who wished to join a movement, which in the first century is located in a Jewish social and symbolic universe, are expected to “learn” how to live their way of

I am of the view that most of the earliest non-Jewish followers of Christ had been familiar to some extent with Jewish traditions as sympathizers or “godfearers”; irrespective of the historical existence of a group called godfearers, there is substantial evidence that sympathizers to Jewish tradition existed in the first century. Cf. T.L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 473–75; A. Chester, “Jewish Inscriptions and Jewish Life,” in Neues Testament und jüdische Alltagskultur – Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (ed. R. Deines, J. Herzer, K.-W. Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 383–441, 415–26; P. Fredriksen, “If it Looks like a Duck, and it Quacks like a Duck: On Not Giving Up the Godfearers,” in A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer (ed. S. Ashbrook Harvey; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2015), 25–33. 4 Prob. 160; Cong. 15–19. 3

Paul, the Teacher

183

life as part of this movement. If these Christ-followers from the nations were already familiar with Jewish tradition through their sympathies and occasional or frequent participation in synagogue gatherings in the Diaspora, they would already have been familiar with this particular kind of learning process, or education. But as former pagans, that is, people who had not previously been socialized in a Jewish way of life, there certainly was a need for them to be inducted into the particularities of the way of life in Christ.5 Whether they had a formal Greek paideia or not, these Christ-followers from the nations had learned a way of life which differed from the way of life of Jews in many aspects, even if certain features were shared and communicated in the same language. Their primary socialization differed from that of their Jewish contemporaries in a number of ways, and I cannot address all of the aspects I consider relevant in the space of this chapter. Not only would traditions and literature with which formally educated people were familiar have been different, but also the cultural narratives – the narratives of belonging and of providing meaning – were different.6 Although some values and traditions were shared, significant discrepancies remained. What was considered accurate and appropriate in one discourse might be disregarded or even looked at with contempt in another. The fact that the dominating educational ideal, which transmitted the perceived ideal values and narratives of meaning, was the ideal of the dominating imperial power, decisively shaped the cultural, linguistic, and social interactions throughout the empire.7 The interaction between those who were different was asymmetrical; it was clearly dominated by a power imbalance, not an interaction between equals. These aspects must have impacted the educational process between Paul and his communities, as bridges between these diverse worlds would need to be built through a translation process which involved far more than mere linguistics. I have discussed difficulties involved in this learning process in previous publications.8 Here I will focus on an aspect I had previously only marginally considered, that is the bodily dimension in the educational process between

This is not to say that Jewish Christ-followers had nothing to learn but their learning process would have differed from that of the gentiles. Paul does not address this issue in my view as his letters are addressed to Christ-followers from the nations, hence we do not know his views about a learning process for Jews in Christ. Cf. P. Fredriksen, “‘Judaizing the Nations’: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010), 232–52. 6 Cf. C. Hezser, “The Torah versus Homer: Jewish and Graeco-Roman Education in Late Roman Palestine,” in Ancient Education and Early Christianity (ed. M.R. Hauge, A.W. Pitts; London: T&T Clark, 2016), 5–24. Although dealing with Late Antiquity, some aspects also apply to the earlier period. 7 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, “Speaking Greek under Rome: Paul, the Power of Language and the Language of Power,” Neotestamentica 46 (2012), 9–28. Now chapter 7 of this volume. 8 Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 117–54. 5



184

Chapter 9 Embodying the Ways in Christ

Paul and the Christ-followers from the nations.9 Paul clearly conveyed content, a new message about Jesus as the Christ, which he expected to be grasped cognitively and which he expected to be cognitively transmitted (1 Cor 14:19). But this message, this trust in and loyalty to Christ, was not something to be merely cognitively understood or considered to be true; it was expected to be translated into the practice of everyday life. It was expected to be embodied.

Paideia – Embodied Paideia – Embodied

Body language in the self-presentation of Paul plays a significant role in his letters.10 This is in tune with the significance of body language and physical appearance as decisive aspects of communication in Greek and Roman culture. However, the ideals advocated in elite male education/paideia and the image Paul presents of himself differ fundamentally. Body language and physiognomy played an important and explicitly acknowledged role not only in Greece and Rome but in diverse cultures in antiquity.11 The physical shape and movement of the body was interpreted as revealing the character of the person.12 It mattered how one walked, held one’s hands and head, raised one’s voice, etc. These human expressions were not perceived to be mere addenda to other aspects but were seen as intrinsically interwoven with all aspects of life. The interpretation of physical expressions was based on the notion that humans physically participated with their environment; thus body movements, when properly performed could influence the world around them, that is, the social world of human interaction, as well as the physical environment and the more than human world of the gods.13 My

I am informed here by contemporary pedagogical theories which emphasize the relevance of the emotional and bodily/physical dimension of teaching and learning in addition to the cognitive aspect as decisive for this process to be successful and on approaches which are informed by the “corporeal turn” in cultural studies and philosophy, e.g., J.-L. Nancy, Corpus (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008); E. Alloa and M. Fischer, Leib und Sprache – Zur Reflexivität verkörperter Ausdrucksformen (Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, 2013). 10 W. Shi, Paul’s Message of the Cross as Body Language (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); J. Glancy, “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25),” JBL 123/1 (2004), 99– 135; D. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008); also B. Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). 11 Cf., e.g., M. Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic Early Roman Period Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 12 Earliest occurrences concerning physiognomics with a specific focus on the face are Demosthenes and Aristotle. Cf. Popović, Reading the Human Body, 4–6. 13 A. Corbeill, Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 108. 9

Paideia – Embodied

185

focus here will be on body language in Roman perception, but aspects of course pertain also to the Greek as well as other discourses, although they are not identical.14 Although there can be hardly any doubt that body language was a decisive aspect of social interaction in Roman society, explicit evidence that the education of the male elite included the learning of appropriate body language as intrinsic to the habitus of the male members of the Roman aristocracy only emerged by the time of the late Republic/early Principate. The values of the Roman elite were embodied and were decisive aspects of social interaction between peers as well as between elite men and non-elite or subordinate people, such as women, freedmen, slaves, or provincials. Teaching of this body language was for centuries a matter of practice rather than based on written codes. Only in Cicero and later Quintilian can we find detailed accounts to the appropriate gestures and bodily posture corresponding to the ideal of the elite man. Boys born into Roman aristocratic families acquired this body language through their primary socialization and in a secondary step through formal education. Since for elite men the ability to perform public speeches was a decisive aspect of gaining and asserting power, recognition, and authority among peers as well as in the wider population, Roman education in particular was dominated by learning how to perform as a rhetorician. This not only included the structuring of a speech but more importantly, as Quintilian asserts, the body language in which a speech is presented, that is, its performance.15 Every aspect was deemed important; every movement, gaze, and vocal expression was decisive for rendering the performance of a speech successful. Through his posture, eye movement, voice, handshake, etc., a young man had to prove that he was born to lead. Thus Cicero, in providing instruction to his son, warns him not to walk too quickly since this prompts “quick breathing, a changed facial expression, a misshapen mouth” and thus renders it clear to any observer that one lacks in constantia. 16 However, an elite man should not walk too slowly as this would indicate a lack of effectiveness.17 It was of highest importance to get this balance right, as in movement and bodily expression, especially in facial expressions,18 the social status of a person could be “read” in

A differentiated overview is beyond the scope of this essay. But see, e. g., M. Popović, “Networks of Scholars: The Transmission of Astronomical and Astrological Learning between Babylonians, Greeks and Jews,” in Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature (ed. J. Ben-Dov, S.L. Sanders; New York: New York University Press, 2014), 153–93. 15 Inst. Orat. II 3:5 16 Off. 1:131. 17 Corbeill, Nature, 122. 18 This is an interesting aspect which cannot be further discussed here, but note that Pliny (Nat. II:145) asserts that the eyes are superior to any other part of the body as they indicate 14



186

Chapter 9 Embodying the Ways in Christ

public. To hurry was certainly the mark of a slave or an inferior person.19 The bodily expression is taken to refer directly to social status and to the moral quality of the person. A man’s style renders his morals visible, as Seneca powerfully asserted: “Everything has its own indicator, if you pay attention, and even the smallest details offer an indication of a person’s character. An effeminate man is revealed by his walk, from the way he brings his finger up to his head, and from his eye-movement” (Epist. 52:12).20 Cicero notes that “gesture is used not merely to emphasize words, but to reveal thought – this includes the movement of the hands, the shoulders, the sides, as well as how one stands and walks.”21 This mattered because seeing and being seen were decisive aspects among the Roman male elite, and appearance (aspectus) was listed by Quintilian in one breath with wealth, influence, authority, and self-worth (pecunia, gratia, auctoritas, dignitias) as the features that render a person’s speech and action persuasive.22 Becoming a rhetorician and establishing one’s status in Roman elite society is bound to the ability to embody male elite values accurately. Education/paideia was the induction of boys and adolescents into this world. Rhetorical skill, which decisively encompassed the respective bodily expression, was the test of excellence. Significantly, accurate embodiment of these values included differentiating oneself not only in terms of status (e. g., not to move like a slave) but also in terms of gender and in relation to the subordinate provincial ἔθνη. Thus the guidance to masculine bodily expression included warnings not to appear feminine. Certain movements and gestures had to be avoided as they were deemed feminine, such as the way one brought a finger to one’s head, and the vocal expression had to be firm and strong, as a thin and feeble voice was deemed feminine.23 As Maud Gleason so aptly described, paideia was about making men, Roman and Greek elite men.24 Paideia aimed at differentiating Roman

emotions in such a way that they actually are a mirror of the soul in that the soul lives in the eyes. Cf. Corbeill, Nature Embodied, 146. 19 Plautus, Poen. 522–23, cited in Corbeill, Nature Embodied, 117. 20 Cf. Cicero, Off. 1.184: anhelitus moventur, vultus mutantur, ora torquentur; ex quibus magna signification fit non adesse constantiam. See also Cicero, Orat. 1:59; 3:220. For a more detailed discussion, cf. Corbeill, Nature Embodied, 122–23; T. Fögen, “Sermo Corporis: Ancient Reflections in gestus, vultus and vox,” in Bodies and Boundaries in GraecoRoman Antiquity (ed. T. Fögen, M. Lee; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2009), 15–44, 37. 21 Cicero, Orat. 3:216. 22 Inst. Orat. II 15:6. On the role of perception in Roman ideology, Cicero’s claim is interesting: “we have surpassed all nations in piety and in knowledge that we have perceived (perspeximus) how everything is ruled and ordered by divine spirits.” (Har. Resp. 19). Cicero attributes Rome’s success to the accuracy of their perception. Cf. also Corbeill, Nature Embodied, 150. 23 Fögen, “Sermo Corporis,” 26. 24 M. Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).

Teaching Christ-followers from the Nations

187

elite men not only from women or effeminate men but also from all “others.” Thus not only should the orator not be seen to move in an effeminate way, he should also not speak with an accent or move in a rustic way.25 Provincials demonstrated their inferior status and the fact that they were not part of elite Roman society through their “accent, pronunciation, sense of humor, and speaking gestures.”26 This was perceived as evidence of their lack of paideia and knowledge, possibly a high degree of emotionality and even immorality. People who did not conform to the ideal of Roman elite masculinity were not perceived as worthy of equal standing as they were not able to articulate themselves accurately or move in accordance with what was considered nature.27 Through the embodiment of masculinity according to Roman elite values, an exclusivist, gendered discourse of “othering” was established.

Teaching Christ-followers from the Nations: Translating Body Language Teaching Christ-followers from the Nations

This elitist body discourse must have had implications concerning the perception of the role and status of Paul. He presents himself as flogged and generally as suffering which categorizes him as a low status person close to slaves;28 combined with the fact that he is a member of a conquered people, this appears to be a reference to himself as a man who clearly does not conform to the prevalent masculinity ideal, and thus renders him susceptible to being perceived

Cicero, Off. 1:128–29. 26 Corbeill, Nature Embodied, 113. 27 Cf. Fögen, who notes that “According to some ancient authors, gestures and facial expressions can be employed as universal language because all human emotions have by nature corresponding expressions in the face, voice, and gesture – a hypothesis which is much disputed in modern research” (“Sermo corporis,” 19). Cf. also Cicero, Orat 3:223. 28 Glancy notes “The whip teaches abasement and humiliation. Nonetheless, because his experiences of physical abuse unite him with Jesus, Paul presents his abject body as evidence of his authority. In order to make sense of Paul’s somatic rhetoric, we must learn to read the storytelling bodies of the Roman world.” J. Glancy, Corporeal Knowledge: Early Christian Bodies (New York: Oxford University Press), 27. Shin argues that “Paul’s decision to refrain from following the current social conventions in his proclamation of the gospel, especially as this included self-representation, is understood as a clear indication that he intended to act in a manner distinctly contrary to what society expected of an orator” (Paul’s Message of the Cross, 269). Both Shin and Glancy attribute this almost exclusively to the message of the cross which renders this a rather unique and isolated quality of Paul based on the notion that this alternative only came into being through the Christ-event. Also K.Y. Lim, “The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us”: A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Sufferings in 2 Corinthians, (London: T&T Clark, 2009). 25



188

Chapter 9 Embodying the Ways in Christ

as an effeminate apostle.29 Clearly Paul does not embody the Roman ideal of elite masculinity. He presents himself in the tradition of the fallible and vulnerable leader,30 characteristics which in Roman perception would have rendered him unmanly, possibly feminine, and certainly a member of an inferior people.31 I have argued elsewhere that I see this self-presentation not as merely based on the message of the gospel, although it is certainly part of it.32 But it needs to be taken into account that Paul and his interpretation of the Christevent are embedded in and part of Jewish tradition, that is, of an embodied tradition which had developed an alternative to the dominating masculinity and authority discourse of Greece and Rome. As Catherine Hezser notes, “Paul’s presentation of a weak body that was subject to inflictions may also be based on a particularly Jewish perception of the (male) body which was different from Roman views of manliness.”33 Paul’s embodiment of alternative values differentiates him from Roman elites, but in this differentiation he is not so much an exception as an advocate of certain existing Jewish traditions. This to some extent alternative tradition was transmitted through its own set of educational literature through which the young men were inducted into their own distinctive ideals and practices.34

D. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 141. 30 Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 98–116, 187–91. 31 Cf. Cicero, De. Rep. 3.35–37. 32 Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 155. 33 C. Hezser, “Paul’s Fool’s Speech (2 Cor 11:16–32) in the Context of Ancient Jewish and Graceo-Roman Culture,” in Second Corinthians in the Perspective of Late Second Temple Judaism (ed. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, P. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 221–44, 238. Daniel Boyarin notes with regard to the ideal of the rabbis that “those practices and performances that defined the rabbi as feminized from the point of view of the dominant culture were those that constituted masculinity within the dominated culture,” and “Rabbinic masculinity is significantly like Roman femininity in certain ways” in Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 142. Boyarin also draws attention to the interwoven aspects of physical pain and political suffering as expressions of resistance against Roman imperial power, an alternative “masculinity” which from a Roman perspective was “feminine” (93). Cf. also the critical discussion by I. Rosen-Zvi, “The Rise and Fall of Rabbinic Masculinity,” JSIJ 12 (2013), 1–22. 34 Cf. D. Carr, Writing on Tablets of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 267, who is of the view that Hebrew traditions emerged as a collection of literature partly as an alternative to the Greek traditions prevalent under the Seleucids. He argues that the Hasmonean monarchy “is the prime candidate for the sharp definition of purportedly pre-Hellenistic Hebrew scriptures and the promotion of this sharply defined collection as a focal point for the education-enculturation in its broader, increasingly complex, and specifically Jewish kingdom.” Cf. also T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University 29

The Addressees: From the Nations

189

The Addressees: From the Nations The Addressees: From the Nations

What are the implications of this alternative discourse when it comes to “teaching the Christ-followers from the nations” the ways in Christ? From a number of passages, it seems evident that Paul was not only aware of the relevance of body language as such (e.g., as in the context of leadership debates in 2 Corinthians), but specifically of its significance with regard to the educational process for Christ-followers from the nations. It can be assumed that these former pagans were socialized in their particular traditions and embodied these traditions in their primary habitus. Little is known about these provincial traditions beyond the Greek and Roman perceptions, which hardly reflect the self-perception of the provinces and conquered peoples, who in Roman sources predominantly serve the Roman imperial narrative.35 The image of peoples from the provinces were used to enhance the image of Rome as the just and divinely ordained rulers of the oikoumene. Therefore, positive traits of the provincials, such as bravery in battle, served to depict Roman victory in an even more favorable light.36 Subjugated peoples were typically depicted as inferior, thus providing the rationale for the conquest and the imposition of Roman rule. Greece was not exempt from this perception, despite the fact that Greek paideia and aspects of Greek culture were held in the highest regard by the Romans. They could acknowledge that Greeks were superior in areas such as poetry and literature (Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1:1), but since these areas were considered less relevant, it was beyond Roman dignity to compete with Greeks. In areas that mattered, Romans perceived themselves as far superior to the Greeks.37 It can thus be assumed that Paul’s addressees would certainly have been exposed to Roman values and ideas of superiority, even if their own traditions and values might have differed. Although most of them were not part of the elite population (1 Cor 1:26–28) and thus not “made into men” through formal paideia, the ideals of Greek and Roman education most likely trickled down to the lower strata of the population since many of the related activities were performed publicly. Paul’s addressees certainly would have been able to “read” the body language of “running” or “walking in a moderate gait” as expressions of status differentiation through everyday encounters and as part of the necessity to “know their place” in this hierarchically stratified society. In addition,

Press, 2009), 154–56, who argues that especially Greek Jewish traditions constituted an alternative to the dominating discourse. Cf. my discussion in Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 143–49. 35 The situation for Greek sources is slightly but not substantially different. For the purpose of this essay I focus here mainly on the Roman context. 36 As, e.g., in Tacitus, Germania. 37 Cf., e.g., Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1:1.2. See Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 76–90.



190

Chapter 9 Embodying the Ways in Christ

they would have learned the ideal of Roman elite body language indirectly through public speeches and the requirement upon them as members of the non-elite to be able to relate to elite body language with an accurate embodiment of their own inferior status.

Translating Body Language in Philippians and 1 Corinthians Translating Body Language in Philippians and 1 Corinthians

Paul seems to refer to elitist perceptions of “the other” when he reminds the Corinthians that God chose what is foolish, weak, low, and despised (1 Cor 1:27–28) in the world (in worldly perception) and tries to teach the addressees a different perspective on the elitist qualifications. Although the addressees would have not likely received a Greek paideia, as non-elite members of Roman provinces they would have embodied some of the values of Greece and Rome as attributed to inferior peoples. The fact that Paul feels compelled to mention that he did not conform to the image of the ideal orator and did not display the required qualities, either in speech or body language (2 Cor 10:10), indicates that at least some in the Corinthian community challenged the legitimacy of his leadership and authority based on such Roman elitist values. It was evident that Paul did not embody these. Paul’s teaching did not only encompass verbal guidance. In several passages Paul refers to embodiment and body language generally,38 aspects which constituted a decisive part of his teaching of the nations. In Phil 4:9 he reminds the addressees to “Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me” (ἁ καὶ ἐμάθετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί ταῦτα πράσσετε). The first three aspects could be seen as referring to traditional teaching of traditions; the last, however, “what you have seen in me,” refers to the dimension of embodiment. It is evident that in order to teach the Christ-followers the embodiment of the message, Paul has to embody it himself. This resonates with teachers of rhetoric who not only taught young boys persuasive speech but also the requisite body language. It is not quite clear what the Philippians would have seen in Paul. The admonishment “to do” what they have seen indicates that learning to be Christfollowers from the nations meant to learn to embody the message. Earlier in the letter Paul refers to a “struggle” the Philippians have seen in him (1:30), which he links with “suffering,” but in 4:9 no such specific link is made. So it seems that Paul does not restrict “what they have seen in him” to suffering. It seems that he admonishes them to consider for themselves which aspects of their lives correspond to what they have learned, received, heard, and seen in Paul: “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is

Cf. B. Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 74–78. 38

Translating Body Language in Philippians and 1 Corinthians

191

pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (4:9). This is not very precise guidance as to what should be embodied but leaves the addressees to their own assessment and judgement. They should work out for themselves what aspects of their own experience and possibly previously embodied traditions were compatible with what they have learned from Paul. This means that Paul considers them able to make such assessments without his detailed guidance, and moreover, that he presumes that aspects of their own nonJewish traditions were compatible with being in Christ.39 In 1 Corinthians there are passages with more details concerning the embodiment of the teaching the addressees had heard and seen in Paul. In 1 Cor 4:6 Paul explicitly notes that he had written about Apollos and himself “so that they may learn through us (ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε).” Although the phrase “not beyond what is written” remains cryptic and cannot be discussed here, the reference immediately afterwards to “so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another” indicates that learning from Apollos and Paul means learning how to relate to each other. The social behavior refuted here is very much what is expected of Roman elite men and what is promoted in the education of young members of Roman aristocracy. They were taught to embody competitive strife in order to outdo and surpass others.40 This is the problem Paul feels urged to address in the opening verses of this letter where faction building and competition threaten to distort the social relationships among the Corinthian Christ-followers. The Corinthians had not yet understood and, thus, had not been able to embody core aspects of Paul’s teaching in their social interactions with each other. They appear to relate to each other as they had learned or seen in social interactions. Although not members of the elite, they related to each other according to the pattern of Roman elite competitiveness (and later in 2 Corinthians it is evident that this included the ideal of leadership and authority advocated particularly in Roman elite education). Paul clearly considers this to be a failure in the learning process he had expected of them, and so in 1 Cor 3:1–2 he labels them infants in Christ, who could not yet be fed with solid food. This is educational language as noted above, as is Paul’s reference to them as children.41 The assertion of group membership via association with what were perceived to be people of status and authority is patterned

For further discussion see W.S. Campbell, The Nations in the Divine Economy:Paul’s Covenantal Hermeneutics and Participation in Christ (Lanham: Lexington/ Fortress, 2018), 255–97; J.B. Tucker, Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in Christ (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011). 40 Cf. S. Bartchy, “‘When I’m Weak I’m Strong’: A Pauline Paradox in Cultural Context,” in Kontexte der Schrift II: Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache, Text. Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. C. Strecker; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 49–60 (54–55); and Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 115. 41 Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 127–36. 39



192

Chapter 9 Embodying the Ways in Christ

on the pervasive patronage system prevalent in Roman society,42 a pattern Paul clearly considers to be incompatible with being a member of the Christ-movement. Paul tries to rectify the Corinthians’ misunderstood embodiment of the message by referring to Christ crucified, to himself as a messenger who does not conform to the ideal of the Roman elite orator (2:4), and to the cooperation between himself and Apollos as fulfilling different but equally important tasks in the service of the gospel without competing with each other (at least this is the image Paul depicts here). In addition, he had sent Timothy as an embodied reminder of the ways in Christ he “taught everywhere in every assembly (καθὼς πανταχοῦ ἐν πάσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ διδάσκω)” (4:17). Paul’s appeal to imitate him needs to be seen in the context of his attempts to teach these former pagans “the ways in Christ,” as a teaching method. This teaching included the embodiment of the message and the values of the movement and thus had to include bodily dimensions of learning in analogy to, but at the same time different from, the paideia discourse of the dominating culture.43

Conclusions Conclusions

The problems Paul tries to address in 1 Corinthians 1–4 demonstrate the difficulties in translating the message of Christ, as a message thoroughly rooted and embedded in the diversity of the Jewish social and symbolic universe, into the social and symbolic universe of Christ-followers from the nations. This is particularly true with the embodiment of the message. This does not come as a surprise when we consider the imprint bodily socialization leaves on humans from a very early age, famously labeled the habitus by Bourdieu. Paul certainly tried to transform the habitus, that is the embodiment of values of Christ-followers from the nations. He faced an upward struggle. What is learned in the body is not easily left behind, if this is possible at all. However, according to Bourdieu the habitus, although durable, is malleable, hence the reshaping and transformation that happens throughout the human lifetime. 44 The human learning process is open and includes embodiment. But teaching Christ-followers from the nations the embodiment of values and behavior concerning social relations which differed significantly from the dominating elite male discourse obviously led to some fundamental misunderstandings. Teaching via his own body was decisive for Paul if there was to be any chance of a successful translation process. But it was also decisive that aspects of the social and symbolic universe with which these Christ-followers from the nations were familiar were

Cf. the discussion in Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 146–47. 43 On imitation as part of the educational discourse in Paul, see Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 137–54. 44 P. Bourdieu, Pascalian Meditations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000), 134. 42

Conclusions

193

incorporated in this teaching and translation process. In my view, it is significant that Paul referred to their world in Phil 4:8, providing them with a bridge to aspects of embodied values and experiences from the world they were familiar with in order to embed these in their life in Christ as far as they conformed to the values of the message of the gospel. Moreover, the fact that most of these early Christ-followers were not members of the elite themselves may have helped in that they themselves would have been perceived, as Paul reminds them, as not wise by human standards, not powerful, and not of noble birth. From the dominating, normative perspective they would have been perceived as deficient of the credentials of elite men, of lower standing, and thus despised and weak. Their low social status, combined with the fact that most of the early Christ-followers were members of conquered nations, meant that it was impossible for them to ever entirely overcome this perception of the elite. Even Josephus acknowledged that he could not speak Greek without an accent, a clear sign of his inferiority in the eyes of Rome.45 Thus the addressees’ embodiment of the values of the elite possibly was aspirational and a mimicking game rather than an expression of an elite status; there was little they could do to change their actual status. Even if provincials or slaves aspired to join the elite or at least come close to them, their status as “other” would not substantially have changed. 46 Paul’s embodied teaching includes a transformation of the self-perception of Christ-followers from the nations. The perception of the dominating elite was not the perception of the God of Israel who also was the God of Christ and through him of the Christ-followers from the nations. Paul tries to teach them not to try to imitate the pattern of this world (Rom 12:1–2) but to transform their perception so they could see and act differently. Humility and humbleness, support for others, even suffering at the hand of a dominating power are then not seen as the embodiment of inferiority, but rather of their relationship with the one God of Israel through Christ under the conditions of Roman domination. Thus, while it might be difficult to “translate” or transform body language, the perception or interpretation of body language could certainly be transformed. 47 Paul’s teaching of the nations may be described as including a transformed perception of embodied practice in light of the Christ-event.

J.W. 20:263–64. 46 In the first century even granting Roman citizenship to freedpersons or conquered peoples did not elevate them to the same status as free-born Roman citizens. Cf. C. Ando, Law, Language, and Empire in the Roman Tradition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 86–92, who notes that “the Romans were clearly capable of conceiving of citizenship as a means to embrace conquered populations within structures of domination, and hence of citizenship as entailing obligations – above all, taxation and military service – without any correlative privileges whatsoever” (88). 47 Cf. also chapter 4 of this volume. 45



194

Chapter 9 Embodying the Ways in Christ

To conclude, Paul embodies aspects of his own Jewish traditions and as such also of the Christ-event. At the same time he demonstrates awareness of, and familiarity with, the Greek ideals of paideia as appropriated by Rome, in relation to leadership issues, group dynamics, and social interactions within the Christ-movement. Paul is fully cognizant of the socio-political and cultural context of his addressees as their teacher in Christ. Most of his addressees were not socialized through a process of formal education into Greek and Roman male elite values and behavior. Nevertheless, since the Roman elite ideal permeated all aspects of public life, it influenced all members of society, and the elitist patterns may well have been replicated in the social relations of the lower strata of the population. Through the bodily dimension of his teaching, Paul tries to translate alternative values and perceptions of his Jewish tradition, highlighted in his view through the Christ-event, into the world of his addressees. Paul refutes the dominant perception with the alternative interpretation of his own bodily experience and his respective teaching of the nations in Christ, which is embedded in the Jewish perception of the world as God’s creation. This alternative narrative of belonging and meaning challenges Roman claims that only their form of embodiment coheres to nature, rendering “others” subhuman or at least human in a secondary sense. Paul’s teaching through embodiment aims at translating the Jewish challenge to the hegemonial Roman claims via the message of the Christ-event into the world of these “others,” these former pagans, encouraging and empowering them not to replicate the patterns “of this world” as the ideal to embody, but instead to transform their perception and embody the values of the Christ-movement by presenting “their bodies as living sacrifices to God” (Rom 12:1).









10. The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul: Peculiarities of Cultural Translation It seems rather strange that Paul strongly emphasizes the need for his Christfollowing addressees to live a life which is characterized by holiness, but there is no mention in any of his letters of the core term which expresses the relation to the realm of the divine, εὐσέβεια/pietas.1 Notions of holiness – in whatever terminology expressed could hardly be considered without any relation to the divine realm, whether in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc or Jewish perceptions.2 The fact that Paul does not use the predominant Greek and Roman terminology of εὐσέβεια/pietas may be more than mere chance and in this essay I will explore possible reasons for the absence of an εὐσέβεια/pietas discourse in his letters to Christ-followers from the nations. Intercultural interaction and communication are at the core of the Christmovement and contributed significantly to the formation of its self-understanding. I am aware that I am not the first to notice this and that this states the seemingly obvious. Whilst traditionally it has been argued that the blended milieu of Hellenism facilitated such interaction, there is an increasing awareness of the distinctiveness of Greece and Rome, and a conflation even into what is traditionally referred to as Greco-Roman is being questioned. 3 In light of the recognition of the linguistic, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the area and pe-

Versions of this chapter were presented at the Research Conference “Paul and Diaspora Judaism,” University of Munich, 24th to 26th of February 2015 and at the Workshop “Abraham as a Ritual Model,” Max Weber Kolleg, University of Erfurt, 17th of December 2018. 2 I am not suggesting that there was a dimension of life in antiquity that could be separated as “religion,” a term which I try to avoid as anachronistic for the period. What is separated today as difference spheres, that is, as politics, economics, religion, etc. could not be separated in Greek, Roman or Jewish cultures hence I am very much in agreement with Carlin A. Barton and Daniel Boyarin who argue that “our task now is to imagine a form of life that attended the language of the ancient Romans (including those called Christians) and Greeks and (Greco-Roman) Judeans, to accept their languages with their own aggregations and disaggregations, paradoxes and obfuscations, and thus to ‘imagine no religion’,” Imagine No Religion: How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities (New York: Fordham University Press 2016), 8. Cf. also B. Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven, 2013). 3 For an overview see K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures-Theologizing in the Space-Between (London, 2013), 63–101, also although with a focus on Late Antiquity rather than the period in question here, the illuminating essay by A.Y. Reed and N.B. Dohrmann, “Introduction: Rethinking Romanness, Provinicializing Christendom,” in Jews, Christians and the Roman Empire: The Poetics of Power in Late Antiquity (ed. A.Y. Reed, N.B. Dohrmann.; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 1–22. 1

196

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

riod in view here, I propose to read processes of interaction between those involved in the early Christ-movement informed by recent research in sociolinguistics, the sociology of languages and cultural studies focussing on the phenomena and function of bilingualism and biculturalism particularly in cultural translation processes.4 I am proposing here that the fact that Paul entirely omits a core term of the Greek and Roman world in which his addressees and he himself lives, has to do with the cultural translation process involved in transmitting the message of Christ to people from non-Jewish nations. Rather than assuming that terms have a static meaning irrespective of the milieu and cultural context, I think it is necessary to consider these terminological peculiarities here primarily in the context of the Greek Jewish Diaspora milieu within which Paul was, and continued to be embedded under the conditions of the Early Roman Principate. This milieu was not detached from the Hebrew and Aramaic speaking context as is now being more and more recognized, including the high likelihood of Paul himself having been trilingual rather than merely a “Hellenistic Jew.”5 Emphasizing these diverse Jewish contexts, does not mean that the Greek and Roman contexts are irrelevant. Of course, this is the context within which Jews of the Western Diaspora, including Paul, lived and to which they related in diverse ways.6 Moreover, this interaction was not linear, nor genealogical – I am not in the business of unearthing pure origins or origins per se. The interactions between these diverse “players” may be better described with the help of images such as networks or rhizomes.7 But this does not imply that the self-perception of the peoples who interacted with each other was blurred. Paul leaves no doubt, as do Philo, Josephus and others, that he identifies himself as part of the Jewish people. 8 This impacted significantly on the way Josephus presented his narrative of the Jewish War, or tried to defend the Jewish way of life in Against Apion, or on the

On the significance of cultural translation with regard to Josephus see also Barton, Boyarin, Imagine No Religion, 158. Cf. also chapter 7 of this volume. 5 Cf., e.g., M. Vahrenhorst, “Zwischen Alexandria und Tiberias: Berührungen zwischen dem Text der LXX und rabbinischen Traditionen,” in Die Septuaginta: Text, Wirkung, Rezeption (ed. W. Kraus, S. Kreuzer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 484–500. Also Barton, Boyarin, Imagine No Religion, 170. 6 Cf. Sievers who draws attention to Josephus as a multi-linguistic Jew writing in Greek, (which includes Latinisms), but seems to have continued to be part of an Aramaic-speaking Jewish community possibly even in Rome. “Josephus’ Rendering of Latin Terminology in Greek,” JJS 64.1 (2013), 1–18 (2), with reference to AJ 20:263, also T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 2002), 47–51. 7 F. Deleuze and G. Guattari, Rhizome: Introduction (Paris: Editions du Minuit, 1976). 8 In as much as, e.g., Aelius Aristides identifies himself as an Athenian, cf. L.C. Kelly, “Greek Piety in a Roman Context: Aelius Aristides’s Panathenaic Oration,” Digressus 11 (2011), 51–73. 4

Pauline Use of ἅγιοι-Terminology

197

way Philo depicted Moses as the ideal philosopher. It impacted on the translators of the LXX at numerous levels, not least in their skilful way of “playing and not playing the game of acculturation.”9

Pauline Use of ἅγιοι-Terminology – Tapping into the Greek-Jewish Discourse Pauline Use of ἅγιοι-Terminology

The designation ἅγιοι is one of the key labels with which Paul addresses his communities (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1). This is clearly related to Paul’s perception of them as eschatological communities who live in anticipation of the world to come. The designation is rooted in Second Temple Jewish perceptions of the ideal eschatological community as saints, as is evident, e.g., in Daniel, 1 Enoch 37–71 (in 1 Enoch 1–16 and 83–107 without using ἅγιοι terminology per se, although occasionally using ὅσιοι),10 and relates to the holiness discourse which permeates Paul’s letters. Intertwined with the eschatological dimension is the notion that those who form this community as holy ones are qualified to come near the Holy One. Those people from the nations who joined the Christ-movement had undergone a purification process which led to a permanent status change from profane/common to holy.11 The details of this process need not concern us here.12 In focus is the terminology used by Paul when he refers to issues of ἅγιοι from the nations in Christ. Ἅγιοι indicates their belonging to the realm of God, the Holy One. Τhe use of the term ἅγιοι for those now belonging to this realm indicates a permanent status change. What Paul envisages is different from the temporally limited dedication of oneself to a deity which in Greek and Roman terminology would have been expressed with ἅγνος and related terms.13 This pattern in the use of ἅγιος and ἅγνος and related terminology is also evident in the LXX, and is actually

T. Rajak, Translation & Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 7. Cf. now also Barton, Boyarin, Imagine No Religion, 164. 10 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, “The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι and Images of Community in Early Enoch Traditions in Bi-Cultural Perspective,” in Paul, the Jew: Reading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (ed. G. Boccaccini; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 183– 216; now chapter 6 of this volume. 11 Cf. P. Fredriksen, “Paul, Purity and the Ekklesia of the Gentiles,” in The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. R. Pastor, M. Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Tzvi Press, 2005), 205– 17. Cf. also M. Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 60–61. 12 P. Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56, 232–52. 13 For a detailed discussion cf. Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache, 23–24. 9

198

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

also found to a significant extent in Philo, Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas14 and widely in the Pseudepigrapha. In the LXX, in Philo, Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and the Pseudepigrapha ὅσιος is sometimes used, a term that is completely absent in Paul, as is ἱερός, apart from one single occurence in 1 Cor 9:13 where Paul refers to the practice at pagan temples known to his addressees. Whilst I cannot pursue here the absence of ὅσιος in the Pauline letters, the consistency in his use of ἅγιος and ἅγνος seems to indicate that this is due to his embeddedness in the Jewish Greek Diaspora discourse. This is further substantiated by his use of the Septuagint neologisms of ἁγιασμός (Rom 6:19; 6:22; 1 Cor 1:30; 1 Thess 4:3; 1 Thess 4:4; 1 Thess 4:7) and ἁγιάζειν (Rom 15:15; 1 Cor 1:2; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Thess 5:23). It seems evident that with this rather striking pattern Paul is clearly participating in “a web of meaning forged”15 initially through the translation of the Septuagint. It is not one particular use of one isolated term, but rather as Rajak noted, the web of meaning evolves through a peculiar pattern of terms and neologisms with which a specific range of Hebrew terms is translated. The issue is not only, and in certain instances not even primarily, lexicographical but it is rather related to the cultural codes and encyclopedias which are transmitted through such conscious translation patterns. The use of the Greek language in the translation of the Septuagint creates a particular realm of meaning, clearly steeped in the tradition of the source rather than the target language.16 This is an accordance with patterns which have found to be dominating when a language is used as a lingua franca.17 The LXX is thus not merely a translation from one language into another where adaptation to the target language is vital in order to transmit the

Cf. S. Honigman, “Nomos in the Letter of Aristeas and the Papyri of the Politeuma of the Judeans in Heracleopolis,” Paper presented at the Seminar “The Dominion of Letters: The Roles of Books in Ancient Societies,” Institute for Advanced Studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, June 2005. Honigman demonstrates that the Jewish law nowhere in the Letter is characterized as ἱερός, which she considers to be possibly due to an attempt to avoid any connotation that the phrase ἱερός νόμος would have had for Greek speakers generally. The term ἱερός νόμος referred to the sphere of rites associated with particular shrines and deities. Since the terms ἅγιος, ἅγνος and ὅσιος are used in the Letter with reference to νόμος this may constitute an avoidance similar to the LXX and in Paul. 15 Rajak, Translation & Survival, 166. 16 Boyarin sees a similar process at work in Josephus noting that “the term that embraced the Book and the entire Judean way of life was nomos, and that it was equivalent to Hebrew Torah and Aramaic orayta. […] the point here is not that the Greek translators [of the LXX ] misunderstood the import of Torah with this translation but that rather the word nomos in Greek was resignified by being used among Judeans as the equivalent of Torah,” Imagine No Religion, 158. 17 Cf. F. Sharifian, Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications, 2011), 32–39, also S. Canagarajah, “Negotiating the Local in English as Lingua Franca,” Annual Review of Applied 14

Pauline Use of ἅγιοι-Terminology

199

sense of the source language into the cultural codes and encyclopedias of the target language.18 The translation of the LXX is the translation into a lingua franca and follows patterns which can be observed in the adaptation of a lingua franca by its users to their respective cultural codes and enyclopedias.19 That this inherently encompasses an aspect of resistance to the political, cultural and linguistic domination as Rajak argues, is a very likely aspect in my view. Paul’s replication of LXX particularities in his letters demonstrates that he is part of this specific Jewish Greek Diaspora tradition and what he formulates in his letters should be read in light of this context. His designation of the Christ-followers from the nations in ἅγιος terminology serves as an identity marker for them.20 These groups have been purified, and as those sanctified they now are in a state which allows them to be associated with the one God of Israel. Their status has changed in that the boundary between holy and profane people has shifted in Christ, and non-Jews through their association with Christ can now come close to, and praise the one God of Israel together with his people (Rom 15:10). As mentioned, this is a permanent status change, in that through Christ these people from the nations are now holy people as is the people Israel. Since the Pauline holiness discourse is so deeply concerned with the relationship between humans and God, it could seem somewhat surprising that the one core term which in the Greek and Roman world designates precisely this relationship, and which is used in the LXX and by Philo and Josephus, is entirely absent in the undisputed Pauline letters.21

Linguistics 26 (2006), 197–207; A. Cogo, “English as Lingua Franca: Concepts, Use, and Implications,” ELT Journal 66.1 (2012), 97–105, also discussion in Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads, 39–62. 18 See the discussion in U. Eco, Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation (London: Phoenix, 2004). 19 For a more detailed discussion cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 59–63. 20 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, “‘Called to be saints’ – the Identity Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation, Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 90–109, now chapter 15 of this volume. 21 A similar absence has been noted by Eduard Bons with regard to βοήθης in the New Testament. E. Bons, “The noun βοήθης as a Divine Title,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (ed. E. Bons, R. Brucker, J. Joosten; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 53–66, here 54. And Boyarin has noted that in Against Apion Josephus avoids the term thrēskeia entirely, Imagine No Religion, 163.

200

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

No Eὐσέβεια /pietas – A Differentiation Discourse in Paul? No Eὐσέβεια /pietas – A Differentiation Discourse in Paul?

The practice and terminology of εὐσέβεια/pietas was core to Greek and Roman perceptions of their relation to the divine realm. Its absence in the Pauline letters is strange given that he writes to people who are entirely familiar with this concept and practice. It could be argued that the terminology, which was prominent in the Augustan era, only re-emerged towards the end of the first century CE, thus being less prominent during the time of Paul’s activities (early to middle Neronic period), and not really familiar to Paul or his addressees. However, the relevance of the right relationship to the divine realm, including the accurate performance and practice of cult activities remained core to the continued and sustained preservation of the wellbeing of domus/οἶκος, urbs/πόλις, colonia and imperium during Paul’s time. 22 The significance of εὐσέβεια/pietas can hardly have diminished during that time. The absence of respective terminology must have had other reasons. Eὐσέβεια/pietas in the LXX, Philo and Josephus It is noteworthy that there seems to be a reluctance on the part of some translators of the LXX to use the term εὐσέβεια when translating expressions of the relationship to the divine.23 The predominant term used is φόβος θεοῦ and only on rare occasions did the translators resort to εὐσέβεια. (Prov 1:7; 13:11; Is 11:2; 33:6). The frequency of the term φόβος θεοῦ is not matched in Greek literature of the period. On the contrary there is a significant discourse, which actually considers φόβος θεοῦ to be a problematic way of relating to the gods for various reasons, advocating that εὐσέβεια or δεισιδαιμονία is the accurate attitude not only towards the gods, but toward parents or superiors.24 The reluctance of the LXX translators to use εὐσέβεια was obviously not shared unanimously, and in the first century CE the terminology of φόβος θεοῦ came to be significantly criticised also in Jewish circles. Philo only very occasionally used it, arguing in accordance with contemporary philosophical perceptions, that this Greek term expressed an attitude which was rather negative and thus could hardly be used to accurately translate the respective Hebrew terms (Somn 1:173). However, Philo refers to εὐσέβεια in a very differentiated although not entirely consistent way.25 He occasionally uses it fully conversant with traditional Greek or Roman use, as εὐσέβεια owed to parents (DeJos 240), or as the

M.-R. D’Angelo, “Ἑυσέβεια: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals,” Biblical Interpretation 11.2 (2003), 139–65 (141–45). 23 I am indebted here mainly to M. Wiegler, “Εὐσέβεια et ‘Crainte der Dieu’ dans la Septante,” in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage, Reception (ed. E. Bons, J. Joosten; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 101–56. 24 For a detailed discussion cf. Wiegler, “Εὐσέβεια et ‘Crainte der Dieu’,” 113–28. 25 Wiegler, “Εὐσέβεια et ‘Crainte der Dieu’,” 133. 22

No Eὐσέβεια /pietas – A Differentiation Discourse in Paul?

201

εὐσέβεια of the Jewish people towards the emperor (Flacc 48:98.103; Legat 27981, 333). But significantly he mostly refers to εὐσέβεια in a philosophical vein, as a cardinal virtue, the highest virtue in fact, thus referring to it as the attitude the real sage should strive for, often paired with ὁσιότης (e.g., Sacr 37; Spec Leg IV :135). Wiegler concludes that “Il semble en tout cas que sa ‘piété’ ne soit pas identique à la pietas impériale et qu’elle renvoie au contraire, dans la majorité des cas, à celle des sages.”26 Only rarely, as Wiegler notes does Philo refer to ἡ πρὸς θεὸν εὐσέβεια (Quod Deus 17).27 It thus appears that Philo does not avoid εὐσέβεια terminology and to some extent shared in a particular philosophical understanding of it. But he nevertheless mostly avoids using the term to directly express the relationship of humans to God in a vein that would resonate with the Greek and particularly Roman emphasis on εὐσέβεια/pietas as that which is owed to the gods. In the cases where he uses the term, he clarifies that this is directed or to be directed to the one God of Israel. This might well be an indication that he considered this terminology as not appropriate and possibly causing misunderstanding on the part of the educated Greek elite audience he tried to address.28 Josephus on the other hand, seems to use the term with less differentiation in a vein which resonates directly with Greek and Roman understandings. Εὐσέβεια is what is owed to parents, neighbors, superiors and the emperor.29 It is the characteristics of great biblical heroes, but significantly and distinct from Philo Josephus also uses εὐσέβεια πρὸς θεὸν frequently in accordance with common Greek and Roman usage30 as he does with the compound εὐσέβεια καὶ δικαιοσύνη31. Despite this more conformist use of εὐσέβεια terminology by Josephus, Wiegler points out that Josephus also clearly indicates that for him εὐσέβεια is entirely based on the Torah. According to the programmatic introduction to the Antiquities the aim of his work is to provide an explanation of the identity of the Jews from their very origin and “by what legislator they had been educated in εὐσέβεια and other practices of virtues” (Ant 1:6). He also presents εὐσέβεια as the virtue which encompasses all others (Ap 2:170–

Ibid., 131. 27 Ibid., 129. 28 Aitken has argued that “the lack of adoption of a word by later writers, especially those such as Philo and Josephus who were so heavily influenced by the Septuagint and yet aspire to be literary writers is an important indication that they saw the words concerned as not fitting for educated Greek writers.” J.K. Aitken, ‘Outlook,’ in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (ed. E. Bons, R. Brucker, J. Joosten; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 183–94 (187–88). 29 Cf. Bell 1:630–33; Ant 2:152, 5:327, 7:269, 20:13. 30 Bell 2:128, 7:265, 7:267; Ant 3:49, 7:267,269, 7:13,196,280, 9:3,17,22,276, 11:120, 132, 12:53,150,290, 13:242, 15:172, 18:117,128, 20:75,100; C.Ap 1:212. 31 Ant 6:265, 7341,356, 8:121,280,314,394, 9:17, 10:50, 12:56,284, 14:283, 315, 15:182, 375, 376, 18:117. 26

202

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

71) and is the τέλος of the Jewish way of life (Ap 2:181). Eὐσέβεια is the core virtue for Josephus, and it that sense he taps into the Greek and Roman discourse, possibly in an attempt to counter accusations against the supposed ἀσέβεια of the Jews. At the same time he clearly distinguishes the Jewish εὐσέβεια discourse from that of the dominating culture by emphasizing that it is clearly linked not to the Roman deities but to the God of Israel and the way of life set out in the Torah. Torah observance is the true expression of εὐσέβεια in Josephus’ understanding.32 In different ways, both Philo’s and Josephus’s agenda was to demonstrate, that contrary to the perception of their Greek and Roman neighbors, Jews were actually εὐσεβής not ἀσεβής, and through their εὐσέβεια contributed as much if not more to the stability of the order of society, that is to the peace and wellbeing of the urbs, colonia and imperium. However, they both take care to emphasize that true εὐσέβεια in Jewish tradition consists of Torah observance and the relationship to the one God. Although this latter emphasis was certainly shared by Paul, he does not seem to share in the concern about εὐσέβεια of his contemporaries (as part of an attempt at playing and not playing the game of acculturation). The reasons for the LXX translators’ avoidance of the term εὐσέβεια may be difficult to discern in detail, but it certainly triggered a multifaceted reception as the examples of Philo, and Josephus demonstrate. Paul’s omission of the term may well be related to the LXX reluctance of its use.33 But the fact that known contemporary Diaspora Jews did actually use this terminology leads me to question whether the absence in Paul’s letters should merely be attributed to the tradition of the LXX.34 Since the term is not entirely avoided in the LXX, is used by Philo and Josephus, and later in the Pastorals as well as in contemporary Jewish writings, it seems justified to consider this to be a conscious omission.35 There may be particular contextual factors, which contributed to this omission on the part of Paul. These factors may be specifically related to the social

Cf. also A. Standhartinger, “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römischen Denkens in den Pastoralbriefen,” NovTest 48.1 (2006), 51–82 (79), also Wiegler, “Εὐσέβεια et ‘Crainte der Dieu’,” 134–35. 33 Another peculiarity which I cannot discuss within the scope of this contribution is the LXX use of ἀσέβης/ἀσέβεια and what is considered its opposite δίκαιος (cf., e.g., Gen 18:23, 25; Ex 9:27; 23:7; Dtn 25:1; Ps 1:6; 10:5; 57:11; prominent in wisdom tradition such as Prov 3:33; 10:3,7 etc. But also found in the prophets such as, e.g., Hab 1:4, 13; Isa 5:23; 22:4; Jer 12:1). This peculiarity is also found in Paul (cf., e.g., Rom 1:18; 4:5; 5:6; 11:26 and 1:17; 2:13; 3:10; 3:26; 5:7; 5:19; 7:12; Gal 3:11; Phil 1:7; 4:8). 34 Admittedly further research is required in order to get a wider picture of εὐσέβεια terminology in Second Temple Judaism. 35 Cf. Quintillian, Inst. 9:2.65–66. 32

No Eὐσέβεια /pietas – A Differentiation Discourse in Paul?

203

and symbolic universe of Paul’s addressees from the nations, with Rome being of particular significance.36 The Roman Context There can be no doubt that for Romans εὐσέβεια/pietas was the core and foremost virtue.37 It is that which is owed to parents, the deceased, the πόλις/urbs and of course the gods. Already prior to its instrumentalisation particularly by Augustus in the consolidation of his position as emperor, it was the kit of the stability of society with impiety far from being a private preference of individuals, constituting a risk for the community as a whole, a sin against the gods, which could have terrible repercussions for the entire house, neighborhood, city or country. Eὐσέβεια/pietas was the visible performance of giving the gods the honour owed, for which in turn they provided for the needs of mortal humans. Cicero explains that “est enim pietas iustita adversum deos” (Nat.Deorum 1:116). This is the foundation and condition of human society based on the maintenance of the pax deorum through “doing right” with the gods. With the Early Principate and the “reform” programme of Augustus εὐσέβεια/pietas moved center stage for the empire as a whole with a particular imperial connotation. Eὐσέβεια/pietas can be described as the summary of Augustus’ concept of his rule, with himself as the embodiment of the virtue in analogy and accordance with the myth of the founding father of Rome, Aeneas.38 The function of εὐσέβεια/pietas in imperial ideology and practice permeated all aspects of life, but its importance was not restricted to the highly visible public cult performance. The presence of lararia, shrines at crossroads and wells testify to the everyday presence and importance of the relationship with the deities, and hence the expression of εὐσέβεια/pietas.39

The relevance of the Roman context in relation to Romans and the Pastorals has been highlighted by N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 121–41, and also J.B. Tucker, You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010), esp. 89–128; Standhartinger, “Eusebeia.” 37 Wiegler, “Εὐσέβεια et ‘Crainte der Dieu’,” 130. 38 Standhartinger, “Eusebeia,” 61, also Elliott, Arrogance, 125–28, on the perception and reactions to the Roman claims by dominated peoples cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads, 77–83. 39 For an overview on daily rituals pertaining to families and cities see R. Turcan, The Gods of Ancient Rome (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), 14–84. He asserts that there is actually nothing more specifically Roman than domestic worship, with reference to Cicero “What is more sacred than each citizen’s home? It houses its altars, his hearths, his Penates, his sacrifices; it is the place of his devotions and ritual ceremonies” (Dom. 109), ibid., 14. Cf also J.B. Lott, The Neighbourhoods of Augustan Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); cf. also chapter 8 of this volume. 36

204

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

It was important to know how to do “right” (δίκαιος) with the gods, that is, know and perform the “right” rites right, or in Greek the νόμοι, in the correct way to assure the assistance of the gods effectively. Ando affirms “Roman religion was in its strict sense an orthopraxy, requiring of its participants savoirfaire rather than savoir-penser – and knowing what to do – scientia colendorum deorum, the knowledge of giving the gods their due – was grouned upon observation.”40 Life was vulnerable, and human activity was seen as under constant threat from adverse events, or powers. The need for protection was allpervasive and could be guaranteed only by “doing right” in relation to the right deity.41 One had to know which god to invoke for what purpose and in what ways. The rites had to be performed with upmost precision and the fact that Pliny the Elder notes that “to prevent any of the terms being skipped or inverted, someone first reads the formula from what is written, while another supervisor has the task of monitoring his accuracy, and yet a third must ensure that silence is observed” (Nat.Hist. 28:11) indicates the same for the prayers which were part of any ritual act. The deity had to be invoked by the correct name and in case of doubt out a word of caution would be introduced just to be on the safe side, such as sive dea sive deo (whether goddess or god).42 Eὐσέβεια/pietas depended on such precise performance (exactissimo cultu caerimoniarium Val. Max 1:1.8), and it is to this precise performance that Romans attributed their success in expanding the empire as it confirmed their superiority over other peoples and hence justified their domination.43 Since the division between secular and religious did not exist for the Romans, nor for anyone in antiquity,44 acts relating to the gods were public acts and there were no public acts which did not relate to the gods, with magistrates being responsible for both fields, the relations to gods as well as human inhabitants in the realm of their responsibilities.45 Cicero argued that “Among the

C. Ando, The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 13, also J. Scheid, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 30–31. 41 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, “Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia: The Challenge of Negotiating the Spirit World,” in The First Urban Churches. Volume 2: Roman Corinth (ed. J.R. Harrison, L.L. Welborn; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 105–32; now chapter 8 of this volume. 42 This was similar in Greek tradition cf. Bons, “Noun,” 54. 43 As Cicero claims “Et si conferre volumus nostra cum externis, ceteris rebus aut pares aut etiam inferiores reperiemur, religione, id est cultu deorum, multo superiores.” (If we compare our history to that of other nations, we shall see that although we may be equal or even inferior to them in other respects, we outshine them by far ‘in religion’, that is to say, in the worship of the gods. ND 2.8). 44 Cf. Boyarin, Imagine No Religion, 1–38. 45 Cf., e.g., Scheid, Introduction, 130. By analogy the same applies of course also to the “private” sphere of households with the paterfamilias acting as the main responsible actor. Cf. ibid., 145–46. 40

No Eὐσέβεια /pietas – A Differentiation Discourse in Paul?

205

divinely inspired institutions of our ancestors, there is none finer than the will to entrust to the same men the worship of the immortal gods and the higher interest of the state.”46 The “right” performance of rites/ νόμοι was a matter of accumulated experience of successful rituals. These were thus repeated precisely as their effectiveness was evidence of their “right” performance. Important as such precise performance of the rites/νόμοι was, these were not static but could be adjusted according to actual needs, or repeated until the performance was successful.47 Although no codified books of sacred laws existed there were annual reports of priestly colleges about the rituals, celebrations and decisions performed by the acting priests in Rome. They eventually became source books of information and thus were attributed designations such as libri sacerdotum.48 The performance of rituals although not set out in a code of law in the strictest sense of the term nevertheless depended on adherence to rules and regulations which had a proven successful track record. “The sole command of Roman piety was to observe its rules and prohibitions.”49 For doing “justice (iustitia) to the gods” sacred and civil laws were essential in order that εὐσέβεια/pietas were expressed correctly and hence successfully. Gods had a “right” (ius) to be offered sacrifices, as is evident in Cato’s reference to a respective prayer formula “ut tibi ius est” (Cat. Agr. 139). The “right” expression of εὐσέβεια/pietas meant that the hierarchy between gods and humans was accepted and honoured by the latter, and replicated in the hierarchy of Roman society. In turn the gods would provide blessing and well-being to those who honoured them correctly. Although εὐσέβεια/pietas was reciprocal, human agency was the driving force. Through the correct performance of the rites, humans established that they were “right” with the gods and thus secured their well-being in this life as well as thereafter. It was an exchange relationship, often referred to as do ut des, although the response of the deity was not always immediate, nor was it expected to be. It was more the continuous observance and performance of rites/νόμοι of εὐσέβεια/pietas that were decisive for the

Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium et summae rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rem publicam bene gerendo religiones, religiones sapienter interpretando rem publica conservarent (Dom 1). 47 Ando concludes that “Roman religion was thus founded upon an empiricist epistemology: cult addressed problems in the real world, and the effectiveness of rituals – their tangible results- determined whether they were repeated, modified, or abandoned.” Ando, The Matter of the Gods,13–14. 48 Cf. J. Scheid, “Oral Tradition and Written Tradition in the Formation of Sacred Law in Rome,” in Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome (ed. C. Ando, J. Rüpke; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 14–33, also J. Scheid, Romulus et ses frères. Le college des frères arvales, modèle du culte public dans la Rome des empereurs (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1990), and Scheid, Introduction, 131. 49 Scheid, “Oral Tradition and Written Tradition,” 15. 46

206

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

well-being of the community as well as individuals, rather than always the individual performance of one ritual, although these aspects were inherently intertwined. It is significant to recognize that εὐσέβεια/pietas was not a matter of individual perception or intimacy with the divine realm but a practice to be performed continually, publicly as well as in the realm of the house/domus/οἶκος. The correct performance, that is the precise replication of particular rites/νόμοι in relation to particular deities at particular times, places and occasions was οf the essence of εὐσέβεια/pietas as understood by most peoples of the first century in the realm of the Mediterranean, and certainly was the decisive aspect of Roman εὐσέβεια/pietas.50 It can thus be assumed that in the first century the terminology invoked the respective Greek but most certainly the Roman cultural encyclopedia among peoples steeped in these traditions. In that sense εὐσέβεια/pietas is intrinsically interwoven with the correct performance of rites/νόμοι. Where in a Roman context the one is invoked the other co-resonates with it in an interlinked cultural coding system, triggering almost automatically respective associations and responses. The reluctance of the LXX translators, the careful differentiation on the part of Philo and the avoidance of εὐσέβεια/pietas terminology by Paul could well be linked to this dominating, particularly Roman, cultural encyclopedia. It included of course political dimensions with the Roman right to rule, that is, Roman imperial domination, being justified as the expression of divine blessings due to the εὐσέβεια/pietas of the Romans expressed in their correct performance of the rites/νόμοι. Precisely this particular Roman claim could thus have constituted a serious problem for the process of cultural translation in which Paul and the Christ-following communities from the nations are involved.

Paul’s Problem and Solution Paul’s Problem and Solution

In view of the key cultic, civic and political role of εὐσέβεια/pietas in the practice and ideological narrative of the Roman empire, it seems that Paul avoids the term εὐσέβεια and its cognates in his letters hardly by pure chance. This is even more so when it is taken into account that Jews by their absence from this core practice could be seen as potentially undermining the peace and wellbeing of the πόλις, urbs, colonia or the imperium.51 In order to clarify for his non-

Scheid argues that this also applied to mystery cults and other Greek traditions, Introduction, 189–90. 51 Scheid notes that “[…] the gods have their revenge on perjurers, as on other impii. The Romans always stress that divine anger represents an enormous danger for the whole city if the city does not end all relations with the guilty person.” (with reference to Livy 29:18.9) “Oral tradition,” 27. 50

Paul’s Problem and Solution

207

Jewish addressees aspects and implications of their loyalty to the God of Israel Paul refrains from using a term with which they would have been very familiar. This term expressed for them the all-permeating aspect of honouring those to whom honour and respect were due including deities at all levels of their lives. All activities were accompanied or preceded by cult activities, practices which “gave the gods what they were due” in order to safeguard well-being in everyday life, in travel, success in fire-lightening as well as the peace in the neighborhood and the city, and in the end the stability if not existence of the empire. Paul’s addressees were socialized into these activities, this was their habitus so to say. They knew how to honour and relate to the gods, they knew what to do (or not to do) to maintain that all-important, life-guaranteeing relationship with the realm of the divine and all the beings in-between heaven and earth. When we follow theories of cultural translation, the most obvious thing for Paul to do would have been to set up a link exactly here, with the practices with which his addressees were familiar, to clarify how to practice the “right” relationship to the God of Israel. Since learning processes, also such of cultural translation, have to begin where people are, and guide them from the familiar to something new, Paul’s avoidance of εὐσέβεια/pietas terminology seems rather difficult to understand. But possibly this is precisely the point. In order for these Christ-followers from the nations to understand and begin to embody their relationship to the one God, Paul may see a need to advocate a clear differentiation from the practices which had established their former relationship with the divine realm. The relationship with the God of Israel, through their belonging to Christ, should not be seen in analogy with their relationship to the world of the gods, including the respective justification of law and order by imperial ideology and respective hierarchies in society. Similar to Jews, they should precisely not participate in any activity which resembled the cult practice of their Greek, Galatian or Roman neighbors. The kind of εὐσέβεια/pietas as they had known it, that is, as the expression of the “right” relationship between gods and humans, and thus as the stabilizing factor of empire, city, neighborhood and house was not the paradigm for their way of life “in Christ.” Paul’s clear stance against idolatry is evidence of the significance he attributed to this necessary abstinence. But what this actually implied was not as clear-cut as the mere prohibition of idolatry may lead us to think.52 Jews had a longstanding practice of negotiating this prohibition in a Diaspora context, within boundaries that were obviously not as clear-cut as one might assume. For Christ-followers from the nations this was new territory, and Paul tries to provide guidance for what seem to be rather difficult negotiating processes. The use of familiar terminology which activated different cultural encyclopedias for Greek speaking Jews and Greek speaking non-Jews, rendered the cultural translation process in relation

52

Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads, 189–209.

208

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

to Christ-followers from the nations challenging. In the case of εὐσέβεια/pietas Paul may well have considered the problems to be too complicated and thus avoided the term altogether.53 For his former pagan addressees εὐσέβεια/pietas had clear connotations of relating to the deities of their houses, neighborhoods, cities and the empire. It was about that which we can still see today in the massive and impressive sculptures on the Ara Pacis, in statues of Augustus as the pontifex maximus etc. Paul may have considered it necessary to clearly differentiate between this Greek and Roman practice of εὐσέβεια/pietas and the relationship to the one God of Israel. It is a telling omission rather than a silent one, one which is a clear signpost that this relationship is different from that to the divine realm they had been embedded in. I consider two major implications of this distancing discourse of Paul to be highly relevant here. One has to do with the dimension of political power claimed by Roman imperial ideology as the result of the blessing of the gods achieved precisely by Roman εὐσέβεια/pietas. The other, a variation of this aspect, is how this blessing is achieved or earned through the correct practice of cult rituals. As has been demonstrated above, εὐσέβεια/pietas as the right relationship to the gods is expressed by “doing the rites/νόμοι right.” 54 Whatever one thought about the divine realm, to be right with the gods depended on human action. This is not how the relationship with the one God of Israel is established or maintained. In Jewish tradition God’s grace and mercy are prior to any human response. In as much as a human response in “hearing and doing,” was expected, that is, in leading life in accordance with the God of compassion and mercy, it was not this response which established the relationship. There was neither doubt nor confusion as to who had initiated this relationship. God in his mercy had found a child, raised him and taught him to walk (Hos 11:1–4). God calls his people, rendering divine agency prior to any human response in Jewish tradition. Divine and human agency were interlinked but not reciprocal. The performance of rites/νόμοι certainly also has its place in Jewish tradition and practice, but it does not establish the relationship between God and humans. They are part of the response to God’s call. Moreover, the crucial cult performance took place only in one place. By the first century, Jews in the Diaspora had long developed responses to divine agency which differed from what was done on behalf of all Jews in the Temple

Cf. also J.R. Harrison, who highlights “In contrast to Paul’s language of divine praise, the inscriptional word typically used for relations of benefactors towards the gods is eusebeia (piety) and it refers routinely to the cultic benefactions paid for by civic luminaries.” “Paul and Ancient Civic Ethics: Redefining the Canon of Honour in the Graeco-Roman World,” in Paul’s Greco-Roman Context (ed. C. Breytenbach; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 109. 54 I am not arguing that this amounts to a perception of ontological priority of humans (as Augustine assumes in his interpretation of Varro Aug. Civ 6.4). Cf. discussion in Ando, Matter of the Gods, 15–18. 53

Paul’s Problem and Solution

209

in Jerusalem. This did not mean that cult performance in the Temple was regarded as being of minor significance, it remained of core importance,55 but most Jews in the Diaspora would have known this important practice only through readings of the scriptures on Sabbath in the synagogue or narratives of travellers. 56 What was at the heart of a Roman understanding of εὐσέβεια/pietas was a practice which was remote for most Diaspora Jews. Moreover, it expressed a rather different perception of how to relate to the divine realm and what this relationship actually meant. Paul may have considered the use of εὐσέβεια/pietas terminology as providing a high risk for a potential “theological” misunderstanding due to a Roman perspective, a “loss in translation” of the theological priority of God’s activity on behalf of Israel and the nations. This highly significant theological aspect is paired with the political dimension which is inextricably intertwined with it. The absence of εὐσέβεια/pietas terminology indicates to Paul’s addressees that in the realm of this God the ideology of the empire and its dominating power did not provide the decisive narrative of belonging or meaning. It indicated that the narrative of meaning and belonging of the dominating power was not total or ultimate. An alternative to the myth of united nations under Rome achieved by the exercise of explicit or implicit violence, and Roman superiority claims, was envisaged in tune with some alternative Jewish traditions. By avoiding an εὐσέβεια/pietas discourse Paul may well have tried to provide an alternative to the totalitarian claims of the empire. The relationship with the God of Israel was different. The relationship to the one God, through Christ, associates these Christ-followers from the nations to the alternative narrative of meaning and belonging of the Jewish people. An alternative which had asserted itself in playing and not playing the game of acculturation over centuries of experiencing dominating imperial powers. Paul is part of this tradition in its multiple linguistic and cultural expressions, expressions which entail codes and encyclopedias that differ from respective dominating narratives. The totalising claims of imperial narratives are often not openly opposed but inherently undermined in that the mere existence of a different narrative of meaning and belonging, of a different perception of life, challenges any totalitarian claim to meaning and interpretation. Paul’s omission appears to be a telling story. It shows him as a conscious cultural translator, sensitive to potential “loss in translation” through the use of all too

Cf. S. Fraade, “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 CE: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. L. Levine, D. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 237–64. 56 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, “The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:13): Paul’s Hopes and Fears,” in Erlesenes Jerusalem: Festschrift für Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed. L. Kundert, C. Tuor-Kurth; Basel: Reinhardt Verlag, 2013), 338–52; now chapter 17 of this volume. 55

210

Chapter 10 The Absence of ἐυσέβεια in Paul

familiar concepts and terms. His addressees may have been led to understand their new loyalty in terms of the old, imperial ones. This is what Paul is trying to avoid. As subsequent history demonstrates unfortunately not with much success.







IV. The Language of Belonging



















11. Paul, His People, and Racial Terminology Introduction In attempts to clarify what is meant by the phrase “in Christ” in the Pauline letters a number of proposals have been made including some which argue for it to be an ethnic, racial, or ethno-racial denominator. These attempts are motivated partly by seeking to avoid theological or spiritual definitions of Christian identity which often has been formulated in opposition to “fleshly” Jewish identity, thereby creating or contributing to a hierarchical negative stereotyping of Judaism, (including supersessionism).1 I am sympathetic to the motivation which frames such approaches but I do have questions concerning the proposed solutions. I will focus here on the discourse about γένος, its translation as “race,” and the hermeneutical presuppositions on which these are based, as one aspect of this discussion which seems to be gaining particular prominence in Anglo-American interpretations of the New Testament and the history of Early Christianity, indicated in some recent publications.2 In this article I will firstly look briefly at discussions about the race/racism discourse in antiquity mainly triggered by the publication of Benjamin Isaac’s book on Proto-Racism, followed secondly by issues concerning the translation of γένος in the wake of Adolf von Harnack; in a third section I will present an analysis of the Pauline texts (Rom 16:7, 11, 21; Rom 9:3; Gal 1:14; Phil 3:5; and 2 Cor 11:26), where a γένος discourse can be identified, including the respective translations. I will specifically focus on the significance of this discourse in the context of Paul’s use of kinship language generally and will explore options for a reading of Paul’s γένος discourse in the context of his wider discourse of relationships between groups of different people in their diversity.

D.K. Buell in Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 4 says “[…] ethnic reasoning resists the impulse to reconstruct Christianness over and against Jewishness and resists periodizations that mark an early and decisive split between Christianity and Judaism.” Cf. also C. Johnson Hodge who notes in If Sons then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 48 that “The choice to privilege ‘belief’ as central to Christianity results in a downplaying of features viewed as bodily, including ethnicity.” 2 Cf. Buell, Why This New Race; L.L. Sechrest, A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialects of Race (London: T&T Clark, 2009); E.D. Barreto, Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); D.G. Horrell, “‘Race,’ ‘Nation,’ ‘People’: Ethnic Identity-Construction in 1 Peter 2.9,” NTS 58 (2012), 123–43. 1

214

Chapter 11 Paul, His People and Racial Terminology

The Discourse about Race and Racism in Antiquity The Discourse about Race and Racism in Antiquity

If there was, as has been argued,3 something like a proto-racist discourse in antiquity, as Benjamin Isaac claims – which in my view would presuppose something like a concept of “race” – we would need to analyse what the similarities to a contemporary understanding of such a concept of “race” might be.4 The “race” discourse of modernity is inherently and inseparably intertwined with racism. There is, as Isaac has convincingly argued, no concept of race which can be separated from the emergence of racism in the 17th century.5 In Isaac’s view “race” is merely a theoretical concept which “tends to mean whatever the racist wants it to mean.”6 To summarize some of the key aspects of racist perceptions here: it has been argued that there were stable hereditary traits in humans which expressed themselves physically as well as morally and intellectually, with the physical aspect being the dominating one to determine inclusion in one “race” or another. These “races” transcended vast geographical areas (hence were not bound geographically) and were not restricted by boundaries of nation states (which emerged around the same period as racist ideologies developed). They were particularly identified as sub-Saharan Africans, Natives of the Americas, Natives of Australia, Jews, people from Asia. Defined in this way, “race” is considered a biological concept. However, it is accepted that such a perception is not scientifically tenable when applied to human beings. “‘Race,’ then does not exist,” Isaac concludes, but adds that “it is extremely difficult to combat the acceptance of something that does not exist and yet is widely believed to exist.”7 The problem then is the belief in the existence of human “races” – and this belief is at the heart of racism in all its forms. Thus it is argued that although biologically “races” do not exist, they exist sociologically because they are believed to exist.8 The question which needs to be addressed when the existence of “race” as a sociologically viable concept is advocated, is in whose perception does this concept exist? Who are the driving agents in such a perceived “race” discourse, and what is the purpose of this discourse? Is it necessary, in order to combat racism, to acknowledge a

B. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 4 Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, 515 avoids defining “race” as such but presents a definition only in the context of a definition of “racism” instead. 5 Cf. also H. Arendt, Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft (Munich: Piper, 41995), 167–357. W.J. Jennings locates the emergence of racism in the context of colonialism in the 15th century cf. his The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 15–64. 6 Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, 515 and also 25–7. 7 Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, 30. 8 Buell, Why This New Race, 13–25; Sechrest, A Former Jew, 42–53; M.E. McCoskey, Race: Antiquity and its Legacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 30–31. 3

The Discourse about Race and Racism in Antiquity

215

sociological category of “race” irrespective of its use by racists? I cannot present a detailed discussion of the problems inherent to such an argumentation here, but can only note that this, in my view, would actually lead to succumbing to a discourse imposed by racism. Whatever stereotyping of other peoples existed in antiquity – and it certainly did exist, operating with various images and prejudices9 – no such concept as the modern concept of “race” can be found. No trans-geographical stereotyping in the sense noted above has been identified in antiquity, nor the perception of immutable hereditary traits, which would exclude any non-Greek or non-Roman from becoming part of these respective groups, that is, from becoming Greek or Roman. Through various means, Greek education (παιδεία), the Roman army etc., outsiders could become part of these entities irrespective of their birth origins.10 Thus whatever negative stereotyping existed it did not lead to exclusivism in an absolute sense as is the case in the racist discourse of modernity. Moreover, Erich Gruen notes the observation of difference hardly amounts to racial stereotyping, let alone racism […] moderns have quarrelled over the degree to which Greeks and Romans possessed racial prejudice or resisted it. But “race” may be an altogether misleading and erroneous category.11

Whether some views expressed in certain elite literary documents of antiquity had an influence on the modern discourse of “race” and racism, as Isaac maintains, is another question.12 But the influence of some aspects of one discourse on another does not render these discourses similar let alone the same.13 Since it is evident in my view, that no discourse of “race” existed in antiquity as no ideas expressed in negative stereotyping literature expressed anything which resembles the “racial” categories of modernity, it is anachronistic and misleading to use this word in the first place as it indicates something which was alien to the ancient world.14

E.S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011). 10 Gruen notes “[…] the Romans had no fears of diluting the purity of stock by admitting aliens to citizenry” (Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 210). 11 Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 197. Cf. also W.S. Campbell, “The Rationale for Gentile Inclusion and Identity in Paul,” Criswell Theological Review 9/2 (2012), 28–32. 12 As Isaac who nevertheless is careful to note that he is talking not of “racism” but of “proto-racism” in his book. 13 See the critical reviews of Isaac’s book by M. Lambert, The Classical Review New Series 55/2 (2005), 658–62; F. Millar, The International History Review 27/1 (2005), 85– 89; S.P. Haley, The American Journal of Philology 126.3 (2005), 451–54. 14 D. Martin maintains “that race is a more misleading term when used of the GrecoRoman world than ethnicity.” “The Promise of Teleology, the Constraints of Epistemology, and the Universal Vision of Paul,” in Paul Among the Philosophers (ed. J.D. Caputo, L.M. Alcott; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 107–08. Contra Buell who argues that the concept of race already existed during the Middle Ages, which leads her to conclude that 9

216

Chapter 11 Paul, His People and Racial Terminology

The fact that in the USA the concept of race is used in official demographical and other documents does not prove the existence of the category nor its adequacy.15 It rather draws attention to an issue within the US discourse which has not been addressed nor resolved since these categories, although meant to be helpful, cause more problems than they solve and lead to the assimilation to a theory of “race” which is inherently intertwined with racism.16 This is not to deny the existence of racism in contemporary societies – and the necessity to address it. But I doubt that the re-introduction of a category which is highly problematic in itself with its historical baggage and problematic theoretical underpinnings is helpful in this respect, whether in the contemporary context, let alone in antiquity. You hardly can cast out the devil by Beelzebub. I cannot see the benefit of introducing such a highly problematic concept into New Testament interpretation.17 However, to challenge this current “race” discourse in New Testament scholarship, and in Pauline scholarship in particular, does not mean to refute the fact that group divisions and the awareness of differences between people were an important aspect of ancient discourses. Negative stereotyping of other peoples and xenophobia were part of these in various contexts and circumstances, but to conclude from this that some aspects related to such stereotyping amount to a discourse of “race” in antiquity is anachronistic in my view, and not helpful. In addition to the recognition of the existence of negative self-definitions it is important to note that this is not the entire discourse of self-perception and the perception of the other. There is significant diversity with regard to selfperception and the perception of others – widely but not exclusively in terms of depicting such relations in kinship language.18 The implications of such kinship language are variable as Emma Dench in her book Romulus’ Asylum has highlighted noting that “specifically claims of common kin certainly do not necessarily imply claims of common Greek identity, but can seem ethnically indifferent or neutral.”19 Claims to common kinship served a number of purposes and were not the only means through which self-perception/ identity as a separate group of people was perceived. As with Herodotus’ use of ἔθνος/ γένος language these different ways of circumscribing self-perception and

there is no reason why such a concept could not also be traced further back into the period of antiquity. Why This New Race, 172–77, also 164–5. 15 This primary context is also noted by McCoskey, Race: Antiquity and Its Legacy, 31– 34, cf. also C. Hirschmann, “The Origins and Demise of the Concept of Race,” Population Development Review 30/3 (2004), 385–415. 16 Cf. also Hirschmann, “The Origins and Demise of the Concept of Race.” 17 Contra Buell, Why This New Race, 10–21. 18 See the excellent and detailed discussion by Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 223–307. 19 E. Dench, Romulus’s Asylum: Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 236.

The Discourse about Race and Racism in Antiquity

217

identity are analogical and contextual, in some instances cumulative, but we should be careful not to perceive them as if they represented philosophical or sociological definitions or systems.20 Emma Dench notes the following: […] “family trees” have the potential to be used primarily either in an “aggregative” way, to write peoples into the world of the beholder, or with more of an eye to the consequences of inclusion or exclusion.21

Thus definitional clarity or homogeneous purity do not seem to have been concerns when it comes to describing group identity in antiquity whether from an emic or from an etic perspective. Where literary expressions to that effect are found, these need to be considered within their specific as well in their wider historical and social context rather than in some abstract isolation as a general expression of a universally held perception22 – this actually applies to all such expressions and socio-historical contextual factors need to be considered in conjunction with literary (predominantly elitist) evidence. Particularly with regard to negative stereotyping in Roman imperial contexts the elite literary discourse contributed to the justification of the subjugation of other peoples, and thus facilitated colonial violence23 rather than representing a mere “neutral” description of these other peoples. D.J. Mattingly, in Imperialism Power and Identity thus even argues: Much of what we learn from Roman ethnography about neighbouring peoples is thus of highly dubious value since its prime purpose was to dehumanize the enemies of Rome and make their slaughter and enslavement more straightforward.24

This rhetorical purpose and context thus should not be generalized as “the perception” of others in antiquity generally. Thus, for example, the negative stereotyping of Egyptians happened at a particular period in time, when a specific political agenda was prevalent, which served Augustan propaganda.25 Vergil and Ovid contribute their image of Cleopatra and Anthony, as does Propertius, who characterizes the city of Alexandria as the breeding place of a “harlot

Cf. C.P. Jones, “Ἔθνος and γένος in Herodotus,” CQ 46 (1996), 315. 21 Dench, Romulus’s Asylum, 236. 22 Cf. P.F. Esler, who notes that “Stereotypes are not unchanging and inflexible, not fixed mental images stored in people’s heads, but vary depending on the realities of any particular social context and the state of intergroup relations in which they are deployed.” Conflict and Identity in Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 21 23 D.J. Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 215. 24 Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity, 215. 25 Cf. Virgil, Aen. 8. 688 where Cleopatra is described as Aegyptia coniunx; cf. also 8.696–700. Also Ovid, Metam.185.826. Cited in Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 108. 20

218

Chapter 11 Paul, His People and Racial Terminology

queen,” and “barking Anubis opposing Jupiter.”26 Two centuries later still this topos resonates in Dio Cassius who has Augustus deliver a speech in which Egyptians are depicted as “slaves of a woman and adherents of outrageous rites like animal worship.” 27 But this can hardly be taken as “the” perception of Egyptians by Rome which has to be assessed taking into account not only the particular purpose of the literary evidence mentioned here, and other negative assessments of Egyptian traditions, but also the popularity of the Isis cult or the respect of Egyptian ancient traditions expressed in other contexts.28 Even the depiction of the Persians in Persians by Aeschylus, sometimes perceived to represent the “invention of the barbarian” in classical antiquity, Gruen claims, is not aimed at “trumpeting any inherent superiority of Hellenes over barbarians.”29 Thus although literary evidence demonstrates that negative stereotyping formed part of group interaction in antiquity, this is only one side of the coin and one aspect of group interaction. Another common thread of circumscriptions of group identities was that they were not seen as “hermetically sealed” nor merely requiring distancing but rather including also the tendency to emphasize ties with other groups and peoples, locating oneself within the context of a network of others. Neither existence in a vacuum nor in glorious isolation seemed to be a desirable way to perceive one’s own group or people.30 Antagonism, indifference and friendly and familial bonding to various degrees were obviously options of relating to those who were not considered part of one’s own group. To categorise or systematise these relationships with modern concepts of “race” is obscuring rather than illuminating. Whether and to what extent contemporary concepts of ethnicity can be clarifying is another question which I cannot pursue in this article, but I fail to see any inherent link between the two categories, race and ethnicity, as has been proposed in some recent publications where the compound word “ethnoracial” is used.31 The basis for

Propertius 3:11.33–42, noxia Alexandria, dolis aptissima tellus […] ausa Iovis nostro latrantem opponere Anubim, et Tiebrim Nili cogere ferre minas. Cited in Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 108. 27 Dio Cassius 50:24.6–25.3, 50:27.1, referred to in Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 109. 28 Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 111–14, referring to Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride, where it is obviously noted that the Egyptian practices and beliefs were different from Greek and Roman traditions, nevertheless the emphasis is on comparable and analogous aspects of their culture and traditions despite these differences. 29 Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 11. 30 Cf. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, 223, 249, 251 31 Horrell, “‘Race,’ ‘Nation,’ ‘People,’” 137–39; Sechrest, A Former Jew, 15; Buell, Why This New Race, 35. Caroline Johnson Hodge’s approach differs from these approaches in that she proposes that Christian identity is an “ethnic” identity but she does not conflate this into a racial or ethnoracial discourse. 26

ΓΕΝΟΣ in Translation

219

this conflated term seems to be located in the terminology used in writings of antiquity which deal with relationships between peoples. Frequently, although not exclusively, the terms γένος and ἔθνος are used there, which seemed to be linked to each other to some extent.32 In this essay the focus is on γένος which I will leave untranslated33 for the time being, being aware that the explicit use of γένος and related terms is part of a wider relationality discourse in Paul which includes, but is not confined to, ἔθνος related terminology. Both terms are found in the Pauline letters, although γένος terminology is rare.

ΓΕΝΟΣ in Translation ΓΕΝΟΣ in Translation

There is a tradition in the English speaking world to translate the term γένος with “race.”34 The rationale provided for this is the argument that in some contexts γένος refers to what one becomes by the fact of birth, that is, common descent, family, or clan. In New Testament scholarship a frequent point of reference for such a translation of γένος is the seventh chapter of Adolf von Harnack’s seminal Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, entitled “Die Botschaft von dem neuen Volk und dem dritten Geschlecht (das geschichtliche und politische Bewusstsein der Christenheit).” Von Harnack’s key emphasis in this chapter is on the “peoplehood” dimension of what he calls Christianity for which γένος is a key designation. And whilst von Harnack is certainly of the view that the perception of Christianity as a τρίτον γένος was inherently already present in the Pauline letters (as, e.g., in 1 Cor 10:32),35 he does not claim that the explicit terminology existed prior to at least the middle of the second century. Thus he notes that in the Praedicatio Petri (Clement of

Jones, “Ἔθνος and γένος in Herodotus,” also McCoskey, Race: Antiquity and its Legacy, 30. 33 For the difficulties of translation see also McCoskey, Race: Antiquity and its Legacy, 29 although she comes to conclusions which are very different from those argued here. 34 Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, 36 has warned that: “Although it is true that traditional English usage commonly confuses race and people, this is no longer acceptable in our time.” 35 Α. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den Ersten Drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1924; repr., Wiesbaden: VMA, 41984), 261–62. It is interesting to note here that von Harnack does not see Paul arguing that the Christian people is a third people alongside the others, but rather that it is the new stage in the historical process of humanity at its culmination which has replaced the prior two part stage, in which not only the social but also gender differences are overcome or rendered ineffective. Jews and Greeks are “aufgehoben” in this new stage in the progress of humanity. 32

220

Chapter 11 Paul, His People and Racial Terminology

Alexandria, Strom. 6:5.41) the term is used to refer to a “third kind” of worshipping (“eine dritte Art der Gottesverehrung”) which distinguishes Christians from Greeks and Jews. Von Harnack explicitly states that this first occurrence of τρίτον γένος means that “[…] hier die Christen selbst noch nicht ‘das dritte Geschlecht’ heissen, sondern ihre Gottesverehrung als die dritte gilt. Nicht in drei Völker teilt unser Verfasser die Menschheit, sondern in drei Klassen von Gottesverehrern”36 (“[…] it is not the Christians themselves who are labelled the third clan/house/lineage, but that their kind of worshipping is perceived as the ‘third’. Our author does not present a categorization of humanity into three peoples but into three classes of worshippers”). Interesting aspects of von Harnack’s philosophy of history can be discerned in this chapter of Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, but this is not what interests me here in the first instance. The two aspects which I wish to highlight are: a) that even for the mid-second century von Harnack does not claim that there is evidence for a concept of Christians as a third people let alone that he would label such a people as a third race. Von Harnack asserts this despite his emphasis that the “Bekenner des neuen Glaubens” should be perceived as a people with a political-historical self-awareness which included their claim that all the prerogatives and advantages of the Jewish people had been transferred to them. The explicit concept of Christians as a τρίτον γένος in the sense of a people only developed from the second half of the second century onwards;37 b) The term γένος is never translated with the term “Rasse,” the German equivalent to the English term “race.” The term “Rasse” was certainly available to von Harnack at the time, but he chose not to use it but rather to use the term “Geschlecht” instead, which comes closer to “lineage,” “house” or as Esler has suggested “descent group.”38 Von Harnack’s choice can hardly have anything to with an attempt to avoid racism/Rassismus by avoiding the term “Rasse,” nor with trying to avoid any association with the burden of historical events. The fact that translators of von Harnack’s work chose the term “race” where he in German uses the term “Geschlecht” does in my view not justify the attribution of the use of the term “race” for γένος to von Harnack. Von Harnack cannot be used to substantiate claims that the term “race” and thus a “racial” discourse was already prevalent in early, that is, second century Christianity, let alone reading such a discourse back into the first century, or into Paul.39

Von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 265. 37 Von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 266–67. 38 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 55. J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; London: Doubleday, 1993), 544 also translates συγγενεῖς (Rom 9:3 etc.) as “‘relatives’, in the broad sense of tribesmen, members of the same background and culture.” 39 Horrell, “‘Race,’ ‘Nation,’ ‘People’,” 134–35; Sechrest, A Former Jew, 14. 36

ΓΕΝΟΣ in Paul

221

ΓΕΝΟΣ in Paul ΓΕΝΟΣ in Paul

As already noted above, the seven verses in which Paul uses the term γένος all refer in some sense to his own people. This is most evident in the greetings list of Romans 16 where the men and women characterised as συγγενεῖς (16:7, 21), and συγγενῆ (16:11), clearly refer to members of his own people. No further indication seems to be necessary to render this label intelligible for the addressees, which leads to the assumption that it was considered self-evident. Since only Andronicus, Junia, Herodion, Lucius, Jason and Sosipater are characterised with this label it could be assumed that the others are not. But it does not seem to be as clear cut as that. Prisca and Aquila most likely were also part of Paul’s people,40 as was probably Timothy (according to Acts 16:1), and probably Mary as well.41 Reasons for labelling these Christ-followers in particular are not obvious to me, but Paul seems to see a need to identify these six specifically as fellows of his own people, people of shared descent. Why does this specific characterisation not include Prisca and Aquila, and possibly Timothy? One possible explanation suggested by Fitzmyer, sees in these six a group of close family members of Paul.42 Whether or not this is so, Paul seems to indicate a close clan related relationship with these συγγενεῖς, which is distinguished from other relationships 43 (brothers and sisters are not necessarily συγγενεῖς nor are co-workers etc.). Beyond these few observations these three passages do not help us to get a sense of what was specifically implied with this term.44 The other four passages seem to be more telling in this respect: Romans 9:3 Following his identification with his people in Romans 9:3, Paul in verses 4 and 5 actually presents additional aspects of who these συγγενεῖς are more specifically, what their characteristics are: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” There

R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 955. 41 See Jewett, Romans, 960. 42 Fitzmyer, Romans, 738, 740, 749. 43 Cf., e.g., Jewett, Romans, 561, regarding Rom 9:3 “The word συγγενής appears here with the meaning of ‘compatriots’, fellow Jews. The formulation expresses a close association of Paul with his fellow Israelites, which is a further expression of solidarity […].” 44 I am not convinced by Jewett’s interpretation – he proposes that the specific naming of these as συγγενεῖς is part of “his campaign to grant equal honour to the Jewish Christian minority in Rome.” Cf. Jewett, Romans, 978. This does not explain why these in particular were identified as συγγενεῖς without including, e.g., Aquila and Prisca, or Maria. 40

222

Chapter 11 Paul, His People and Racial Terminology

are quite a number of interesting aspects Paul emphasizes here, the foremost with regard to the focus of this chapter is the fact that he mentions the fathers very late in his list. Given the definitions which have been provided for γένος emphasizing the aspect of origins, descent, common ancestry this is rather surprising. The primary key indicator of members of this γένος called “Israelites” is their sonship, followed by the glory, the covenants, the law-giving/legislation, worship/ cult, and promises. These are all mentioned before Paul comes to an ancestry label with his reference to the fathers, which is followed by the identification of Christ as one of these. This list of ten attributes which characterise Israelites and which render them identifiable as Israelites all belong to the sphere of shared tradition linked to loyalty to a deity. They are key aspects of the narrative circumscribing Israelite identity as a people from an emic perspective. The fathers are only one aspect in this context and there is no hierarchy, nor an attempt presented here to relate these aspects to each other in any kind of systematic order. If we consider what has been noted above generally in relation to kinship discourses in antiquity this is an aggregative, cumulative, and analogical list of characteristics of the γένος of Israel rather than a systematic and logical definition. If there is any primacy in the order of Paul’s list here then it is noteworthy that the “ancestry/kinship” denominator does not identify a father (Abraham, Isaac or Jacob) but a relationship with God. The sonship of the people Israel does not refer to the relationship with the fathers and ancestors, but their relationship with God.45 This seems to be the key identity-related aspect from which the others follow. They are relational in that covenants indicate a mutually agreed and ratified bond between the partners involved, lawgiving refers to the accountable order and guidance for the life of a community, worship and cult are the expression of loyalty to the deity, and promises are pointers to the ongoing commitment of the deity not only in the remembered past, but in the present and in the future. The reference to the fathers could entail both, genealogy or the tradition represented by them; but the fathers are significant not primarily in genealogical terms but as the bearers of the tradition of loyalty to the one God who is the God of Israel. This latter aspect seems to be more decisive when other passages of Romans, e.g., Romans 4 are taken into account. The reference to Christ as part of this γένος reminds the followers of Christ, and the gentile followers addressed here in particular, of their indebtedness to this γένος. This γένος encompasses aspects of peoplehood, cult, kinship, and

‘Υἱοθεσία is found only rarely as a term in Jewish literature, cf. Jewett, Romans, 562. However, the perception of the communal relationship between God and his people is prominent in the scriptures and first century Judaism as is evident in Hos 11:1; Exod 4:22; Deut 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; Jer 31:9; Isa 43:6 and Jub 1:24, Jewett, Romans, 562 n.95. 45

ΓΕΝΟΣ in Paul

223

civic, that is, polis related identity. What Paul describes here as inherent characteristics of his γένος has nothing to do with a concept of “race” even if one deemed such a category as sociologically viable. This self-perception is certainly corporate but although the dimension of kinship is part of it, it is nothing more than that: part of the aggregative, analogical circumscription of what here is perceived as the Israelite γένος. The other aspects are as important as the dimension of kinship which should thus not be perceived as the decisive aspect in the perception of this γένος, and possibly also not of other ones either. Although the dimension of cult and tradition are frequently mentioned as key dimensions of ethnic identity46, and this is certainly an important aspect here as well, covenants and law-giving refer to dimensions which have not been focal points in γένος related discussions in Pauline scholarship as far as I am aware. They highlight the important factor of the organisation of people as a polis or civic entity – and the way in which such an organisation is an identity shaping factor.47 2 Corinthians 11:26 In this list of hardships only a few aspects contribute to a further understanding of the γένος discourse in Paul. The fact that γένος is used here in a list of hardships inflicted by the powers of nature, by risks Paul encounters on his journeys, in different context,s and from different people is interesting, in that Paul seems to clearly distinguish between his own people and non-Jews as originators of such risks and dangers. It is evident that the term next to γένος does not refer to the group just mentioned before, but refers to a different group of people. Thus the term γένος here seems to hold a similar position as the term Jews in the pair Jews/Greeks in other contexts of the letters. There is no specific kinship implication associated with this reference here. All that seems to be implied is that Paul ran at times into problems with almost everyone, including his own people. But they are neither better nor worse than any of the others. They are also among those with whom he gets into trouble.

Cf., e.g., J.M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 17–33; Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 9–10. 47 This is a significant aspect in Greek self-perception, who consider their particular way of organizing the polis as peculiar to being Greek. The Romans too considered their way of organizing the “state” as peculiar to their identity; part of it was the care with which any notion of kingship was avoided even during the imperial period. How these aspects of Greek and Roman self-perception find an analogy in Jewish self-perception is explored in K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures (London: T&T Clark, 2013). 46

224

Chapter 11 Paul, His People and Racial Terminology

Galatians 1:14 The context of Paul’s reference to his own people (ἐν τῷ γένει μοῦ) here is his only direct reference to his calling experience. Paul notes his achievements for safe-guarding Jewish identity, his rootedness in the traditions of his ancestors, and his passion for these. These are the characteristics he shares with his γένος. All have to do with tradition rather than kinship. The fathers are mentioned here in their primary function as bearers of these shared traditions. There is no indication that there is anything negative about this identification with his own people, nor with the passionate concern for the traditions of the ancestors. There is also no indication that this identification is a thing of the past which he would have left behind or given up. Safe-guarding Jewish identity, and passion for the traditions of the fathers is what he shares with his γένος, before as well as after his call experience. This passion is not superseded by his call as apostle to the gentiles. The call experience radically changed his attitude towards the followers of Christ, not towards his people and the traditions of their ancestors. Philippians 3:5 In this passage the term γένος qualifies the name Israel. It is one in a sequence of self-descriptive terms. Obviously not all who belong to this γένος express this belonging in the same way, and would emphasise or include the same specific aspects. There are various not mutually exclusive options with which belonging to this γένος can be qualified and expressed as the list that Paul presents here indicates. The γένος is called Israel, and a key indicator of belonging, not only but also, according to Paul here, is circumcision. But within this overarching dimension there are further aspects which differentiate this group membership more specifically. Paul mentions a tribe, Benjamin, a reference to language or what this language symbolizes, his membership and education in a particular school, his relationship to the Christ-followers before his call, his relationship to the Torah. Not all of these aspects are shared by all of those who belong to the γένος Israel. A decisive aspect seems to be circumcision of a newborn boy on the eighth day after birth. The other aspects are characteristic for some of those who are part of this γένος, but not for all. Not all are Benjaminites, not all are Hebrews, not all are Pharisees, not all had the passion to persecute the ἐκκλησία, not all would say of themselves when it comes to the justice according to the Torah, that they are blameless. Paul’s list here does not imply that he embodies all possible aspects of being of this γένος, it rather implies that there are others belonging to this γένος who would refer to different aspects which characterise them in a specific way. But all of these characteristic aspects are inherently connected to being a member of the γένος Israel. They cannot be separated from it. One cannot be a Benjaminite or a Hebrew of

Conclusion

225

Hebrews without being part of this γένος.48 Except for the characterisation as a Benjaminite none of the other aspects refer to something, which has a genealogical dimension in the biological sense; all of the aspects mentioned by Paul have something to do with the traditions related to the God of Israel. Circumcision, Pharisaic training and interpretation of the Torah, disapproval leading to action against a specific group, justice according to the Torah, Hebrew as a language or as a reference to some other, potentially political stance, all have to do with traditions and their understanding or interpretation.

Conclusion Conclusion

Despite there being only a few occasions when γένος-related terminology is used in the Pauline letters, some indications of an actual discourse can be identified. Paul clearly uses γένος terminology only for his own people, never for any other group of people. This seems to indicate that he associates with it origins, roots, belonging as identified in dictionaries. But what emerges from this exegetical survey is that despite this clear delineation Paul does hardly if ever characterise the specifics of this γένος in kinship language. When he does use filial language, as in Rom 9:3–5, the relationship is with God, not with any of the fathers. The γένος Israel is not referred to as sons or daughters of Israel or the house of Jacob as might be expected. When the fathers are mentioned, then as transmitters of the traditions of this γένος. Other aspects which are characteristic for this γένος are far more prominent, and most of these, like the Torah, covenant, education etc., belong to the civic dimension, the governance of, and relationships within a group of people in the vein of a polis or a similar entity. In the case of Paul’s people such aspects are inherently linked to a cult, that is, the people’s relation to their God. There seems to be a clear indication that the characteristic aspects Paul mentions in the passages analysed above are specific to this γένος. They differentiate this γένος from others for whom Paul uses most frequently the term ἔθνη, but who can also be called Ἕλληνες and βάρβαροι. They are distinguished from Paul’s γένος, but in the passages analysed there are neither traces which would indicate that Paul distanced himself from his own γένος, nor are there traces of antagonism against others. The

In a number of sociological approaches used in New Testament scholarship this is referred to as sub-group identities under an over-arching identity with particular aspects becoming salient in specific contexts. I cannot get into a detailed discussion of sociological models and their usefulness within the scope of this chapter, but whilst I consider it useful to consider multiple and various aspects of the identity of a group or an individual I am not convinced of the appropriateness of referring to these as “identities.” For the sake of terminological clarity I prefer to refer to multiple and different aspects of the identity of a group or an individual, rather than to multiple identities. 48

226

Chapter 11 Paul, His People and Racial Terminology

characterisations rather indicate a positive self-assertion on Paul’s part, an affirmation that these are aspects of an identity to be proud of without being triumphalist over against others. Given that this analysis of the Pauline γένος discourse demonstrates that kinship is neither the only, nor the most prominent aspect of this discourse what is the motivation for introducing the concept of “race” into Pauline interpretation? Why is it so important or obvious, as has been argued in some recent publications, that Paul’s attempts to characterise what it means for his gentile converts to be in Christ, are seen as a kinship or ethno-racial discourse? To translate the term γένος as race and thus to claim that the word “race” was common in antiquity49 is anachronistic and obscuring, as I have argued above. Could it be that this claim has something to do with the fact that in the Pauline letters γένος always refers to Paul’s Jewish people? Since they, according to modern racial theory fall into the category of “race” – Paul must mean race when he uses γένος?50 That Paul does use kinship language in diverse ways cannot be denied. But to equate the use of kinship language with a racial or ethno-racial discourse is an undifferentiated assertion to say the least. It might be more accurate to follow cautious linguists like von Harnack and stick to the general meaning of γένος as “kind” in order to avoid anachronisms in the first place, certainly until we have found a more accurate translation than race. To argue that translations which do not use the term race – as is actually the case in all German translations as far as I am aware – do this because they are trying to avoid the term because of its problematic history is almost cynical and ignores the fact that this term actually only emerged in racist discourses of the early modern period (imperialist expansion, colonialism, Spanish inquisition). It needs to be noted that the term “race” is never used in the King James Version of the Bible to translate γένος-related words, nor is it a term used at all (except in the athletic sense of “running a race”).51 Hence it is not just a concept which had been hijacked by a racist ideology (as other words such as “Endlösung”/ final solution), it is a concept which never existed separate from racist ideology.

Sechrest, A Former Jew, 25. 50 Jennings, The Christian Imagination, 275 has drawn attention to the inherent link between anti-Judaism in Christianity and racism emphasizing: “The return to the original relationship of Jews and Gentiles is blocked by the advent of whiteness and its deeply embedded social performances in the pedagogical, economic, and cultural relations of the Western world […] We must think through to the utter limits of the racial calculus to expose its deepest fault lines.” Cf. also J.K. Carter, Race: A Theological Account (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 82–121. 51 Arendt, Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft, 295 has noted that Herder had maintained explicitly that the common term “Rasse” should not be used with reference to human beings (see her reference that “Herder ausdrücklich betont, man solle das ‘gemeine Wort’ Rasse nicht auf Menschen anwenden […]”). 49

Conclusion

227

The Pauline discourse demonstrates awareness of differences between peoples and groups of peoples. Paul seems to be aware that relationships between people who are different are complex, lingering between negative stereotyping, respect, the stress on similarities, including fictive kinship ties and family trees. Traces of numerous aspects of this complex discourse can be found in the Pauline letters. Group characteristics and relationships between different groups are described in various ways, including kinship language. But this is certainly neither the only, nor the most prominent discourse in Paul, certainly not when it comes to his own people. There are significant other aspects of self-perception found in the Pauline γένος discourse which should be further explored, particularly those which point to aspects of civic identity. These might be relevant also in relation to what it means for Paul’s gentile converts to “be in Christ.”

















12. Narratives of Belonging: The Role of Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning Introduction Genealogies are a common feature of ancient cultures of the Mediterranean basin and the Ancient Near East. As Erich Gruen and others have convincingly demonstrated, genealogies provide the means to present relationships between tribes, peoples, groups and cities and thus establish (fictive) networks which facilitate interaction and communication between different groups of people.1 They provide narratives of belonging by establishing continuity over time and thus serve specific functions within narratives of origin and migration, thereby enabling peoples to situate themselves in the world in which they lived. As Kristopher Fletcher notes, “genealogies offer a picture of perceived connections between peoples and places and times; they are, in short, a reflection of a perceived reality: ‘Genealogies put things in their place.’”2 Genealogies were a means to transcend one’s own group by relating others, those who were not part of the group, to the group, and internally to establish a narrative of belonging over time.

E.S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 253–307; C.P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), recently also L.E. Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010), 1–21. Genealogies and kinship relations have been noted in the context of studies which consider relations and developments over time in light of network paradigms, informed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s notion of rhizome. Rather than looking at relations in terms of roots, stem and branches they argue for developments and relations as interconnected in the vein of a network with mutual interactions, which cannot be attributed to a progressive development, or assessed in linear causeeffect vein. Cf. their A Thousand Plateaus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 3–26, also I. Malkin, “Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity,” in Mediterranean Paradigms and Classical Antiquity (ed. I. Malkin; London: Routledge, 2005), 56–74. 2 Fletcher also emphasizes, that “In their temporal aspect, they are also etiological, serving to explain how the world reached its present state. In this capacity, genealogies play an important role in justifying the present, for they offer a type of logic” (“Systematic Genealogies in Apollodorus: Bibliotheca and the Exclusion of Rome from Greek Myth,” Classical Antiquity 27 [2008], 59–91, here 63). 1

230

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

Genealogical Reasoning and Christian Origins Genealogical Reasoning and Christian Origins

In the course of reception history genealogical images have been used as models for explaining the origins of “Christianity” for more than a century. The genealogical patterns used were those of mother and daughter, of older and younger brothers,3 or of twin brothers.4 The mother-daughter model was advocated among others by Adolf von Harnack and Wilhelm Bousset and was based on the hermeneutical presupposition that Judaism represented particularism, whilst Christianity stood for universalism. The daughter was perceived as having eclectically selected the useful elements from the mother without transmitting the constraining elements. The “Weltreligion” was already inherent in the mother but could only be liberated through the daughter from the restrictions of particularism.5 The daughter thus superseded the mother in that she overcame the constraints of the particularism or nationalism of her mother.6 Aspects of this argument resurfaced again in the “New Perspective” where not

Thus famously formulated by Pope John Paul II at the occasion of his historic visit of the synagogue of Rome, April 13, 1986. 4 A.F. Segal, Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge: Havard University Press, 1986); D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999). 5 Von Harnack formulated, “Eine solche Ungerechtigkeit wie die der Heidenkirche gegenüber dem Judentum ist in der Geschichte fast unerhört. Die Heidenkirche streitet ihm alles ab, nimmt ihm sein heiliges Buch, und, während sie selbst nichts anderes ist als transformiertes Judentum, durchschneidet sie jeden Zusammenhang mit demselben: die Tochter verstößt die Mutter, nachdem sie sie ausgeplündert hat! […] Aber ist diese Betrachtung wirklich zutreffend? Auf einer gewissen Stufe allerdings, und vielleicht kann man niemanden zwingen, sie zu verlassen. Aber auf einer höheren Stufe stellt sich die Sache anders dar: das jüdische Volk hat durch die Verwerfung Jesu seinen Beruf verleugnet und sich selbst den Todesstoß versetzt; an seine Stelle rückt das neue Volk der Christen; es übernimmt die gesamte Überlieferung des Judentums; was unbrauchbar in derselben ist, wird umgedeutet oder fallen gelassen. In Wahrheit ist diese Abrechnung nicht einmal eine plötzliche oder unerwartete; unerwartet ist nur die spezielle Form: Das Heidenchristentum führt doch nur einen Prozeß zu Ende, der in einem Teile des Judentums bereits längst begonnen hatte – die Entschränkung der jüdischen Religion und ihre Transformation zur Weltreligion” (A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, vol. 1: Die Mission in Wort und Tat [Leipzig, 41924], 76). Wilhelm Bousset in Das Wesen der Religion, dargestellt an ihrer Geschichte (Halle, 1903), has formulated similarly, “[A]lles, was wir im Evangelium finden, das ist irgendwie auch bereits in der vorhergehenden Religionsgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes vorhanden, oder doch angebahnt“ (196), but only through Paul could this potential eventually be released in that he had been the one who “das befreiende Wort in die Welt [jubelte]: ‘Hier ist nicht Jude noch Grieche […]’” (197). 6 A “milder” variation has been presented by Gerd Theissen who argued that “Die Geschichte des Urchristentums ist die Entstehungsgeschichte einer neuen Religion, die sich von ihrer Mutterreligion ablöst und verselbständigt. Eine Theorie der urchristlichen Religion wird sich um eine Deutung dieses Wandels bemühen” (Die Religion der ersten Christen: 3

Genealogical Reasoning and Christian Origins

231

the particularism but the ethno-centrism7 of the mother was identified as the problem. Inherent to this genealogical approach in its diverse past and contemporary variations is the perceived opposition between all that is bound to a particular people, the Jews/Israel, and that which has overcome such negatively perceived particularism in a universalism encompassing all of humanity, namely Christianity. The particular, that is primarily Judaism in its particularity as a people is thus designated as the problem, which has to be overcome in and through the universal, that is, Christianity. The older/younger-brothers and the twin-brothers model have their inherent problems as well, although a more parallel development and mutual interactions in the emergence of Judaism and Christianity is accounted for in these proposals.8 But the question how then these brothers relate to each other remains, and in both cases the issue is, who then is the mother? Common to all these approaches is the recognition that there is an inherent link between those groups from which eventually Judaism and Christianity as two separate religions emerged. These links are both social and theological. But since the notion of religion as a separate sociological category did not exist in antiquity9 the question that needs to be addressed not only concerns the ways in which these groups are socially and theologically linked. We also need to consider the categories in which they can be described and analyzed as adequately as possible. Partly in reaction to the mother-daughter paradigm and its inherent particularism/universalism dichotomy scholars such as Denise Kimber Buell 10 and Caroline Johnson Hodge,11 and more recently in a variation David Horrell,12 have proposed to use the category of ethnicity, to designate the emerging Christ-movement.13 Buell argues “If universalism is defined in contrast to ra-

Eine Theorie des Urchristentums [Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2000], 27). But in his approach it is also the particularism of the mother that constitutes the problem which is being overcome by the daughter. 7 J.D.G. Dunn, “Paul: Apostate or Apostle of Israel?,” ZNW 89 (1998), 256–71. 8 Cf. Boyarin, Dying for God (see n.4), 1–20. 9 B. Nongri, Before Religion: The History of a Modern Concept (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 10 D. Kimber Buell, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). 11 C. Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 12 D. Horrell, “Ethnicisation, Marriage, and Early Christian Identity: Critical Reflections on 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Peter 3, and Modern New Testament Scholarship,” NTS 62 (2016), 439–60, also his “Race, Nation, People: Ethnic Identity-Construction in 1 Peter 2.9,” NTS 58 (2012), 123–43. 13 Also race has been proposed as a category to designate the Christ-movement, cf. D.K. Buell, “Race and Universalism in Early Christianity,” JECS 10 (2002), 432–41; also L. Sechrest, A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialectics of Race (London: T&T Clark, 2009).

232

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

cial specificity, and universalism is seen as a distinctive feature of Christianness, then Christianness is defined as not-race particularly over and against Jewishness as race. Even when the goals of this logic are valuable – to end racism, for example– this construction of universalism paradoxically perpetuates racist anti-Judaism in the name of antiracism.”14 Whilst I consider the use of the category and terminology of race or ethno-racial to be problematic,15 I share the concern from which this or similar proposals emerged. In my approach I take seriously that the movement to which the book of Acts refers as “the Way” consists of real people in actual socio-historical contexts who assemble, in Paul’s terminology, as ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ. The concrete embodiment of being part of this movement is a decisive dimension since there is no purely spiritual or abstract way of “being in Christ.” It is human beings, in their particularity, in the here and now who are bearers and transmitters of this message aimed at Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι. What we encounter in the Pauline letters are his attempts at integrating Ἕλληνες or ἔθνη as Ἕλληνες or ἔθνη into the narrative of belonging to the God of Israel through Christ.16 Genealogical reasoning is one of the ways through which Paul pursues this. Rather than being precise science I understand genealogical reasoning as a way of relating outsiders via kinship narratives and associative reasoning toa particular narrative of belonging. It is something which of course is not unique to Paul, as has been demonstrated,17 but what needs to be noted is that Paul’s genealogical reasoning is contextualized in discourses of collectives, that is, groups of people, rather than in relation to individuals. The use of genealogical reasoning in relation to individuals (such as the Roman emperors) or to collective entities such as the Ἕλληνες differs in that in the case of the former they clearly serve the purpose of legitimizing the exercise of power or the status of an individual in relation to a particular task. Collective genealogies although

D. Kimber Buell, “Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-Definition,” HTR 94 (2001), 449–76, see also Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 4. 15 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, “Paul, His People, and Racial Terminology,” Journal of Early Christian History 3 (2013), 17–33; now chapter 11 of this volume. 16 I follow the British sociologist Floya Anthias here, and focus on the narrative element in processes of group identifications in emic perspective. Cf., e.g., her articles “Trans-locational Belonging, Identity and Generation: Questions and Problems in Migration and Ethnic Studies,” Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration 4 (2009), 6–16, and (with Maja Cederberg) “Narratives of Ethnicity, Resources and Social Capital,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35 (2009), 901–17. This is not to be seen in opposition to sociological concepts of collective identity, the distinction being rather one of an emic or etic perspective as far as such can be discerned when dealing with groups in antiquity. To some extent, however, it has to be recognized that the emic/etic distinction cannot be upheld unambiguously as even the attempt at arriving at an emic perspective is etic in that the contemporary context and theoretical framework is what determines what is labelled emic. 17 Gruen, Rethinking the Other (see n. 1); Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 33–36; Fletcher, “Systematic Genealogies.” 14

The Function of Genealogical Reasoning

233

possibly also designating hierarchies between different groups who are considered as kin, serve mainly the purpose of presenting relational, world structuring maps.18 Thus when kinship language is the focus of attention the individual or collective character of a genealogy needs to be taken into account as they do not serve identical purposes. Genealogical reasoning in relation to collective entities is part of the structuring of the world from different perspectives in antiquity and hence also inherent to Jewish scriptural traditions and their interpretation. These traditions constitute the primary social and symbolic context for Paul as for the message of the gospel generally. The socio-cultural context of the Roman empire and respective traditions certainly also play a role in the conversations in which Paul is involved as it is the context of the primary social and ideological belonging of his addressees, Christ-followers from the nations. In critical conversation with colleagues who have drawn attention to Paul’s kinship language I will consider the function and meaning of genealogical reasoning in some Greek, Roman and Jewish tradition, followed by an interpretation of some traditions of the patriarchs as used by Paul.

The Function of Genealogical Reasoning in Greek and Roman Traditions The Function of Genealogical Reasoning

No doubt constructions of kinship relations in the form of genealogies were widely in use in Greek and Roman contexts. It has been argued that their main purpose was the construction of identities and the definition of group membership.19 A brief glance into a number of documents, however, demonstrates that they serve multiple purposes and cannot be confined exclusively to this one function. Fletcher in his analysis of the second-century work Bibliotheca by Apollodorus argues that “For the most part, however, the idea of Greekness in the Bibliotheca is implicit, and such an idea of readily apparent Greekness is necessary for Apollodorus to be able to position peoples as either close to or distant from this identity.”20 It is with this pre-existing notion of what Greekness encompasses that Apollodorus depicts the relation of the Greeks to others. Apollodorus’s as well as the genealogies of others express particular worldviews, that is, they are conceptual maps of the world as perceived in the

Gruen, Rethinking the Other, 355–57. 19 Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 19. Hodge acknowledges several functions of genealogies but focuses specifically on the notion of identity construction rather than on other aspects. 20 In the case of Apollodorus’s Bibliotheca, it has been argued that actually the purpose is not identity construction at all, as Greek identity is presupposed in the genealogy and not argued. Cf. Fletcher, “Systematic Genealogies,” esp. 66. 18

234

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

perspective of a particular people at a specific moment in time. As such the distance, incorporation, or omission of others serves the purpose of indicating the significance of these others in relation to oneself. Diplomatic relations could be facilitated or hindered by such perceptions, establishing networks of communication and interaction, or legitimizing hostility. The Persians and Egyptians are depicted as having multiple relations with Greek characters according to Apollodorus, hence indicating the importance of interaction between Greeks and them. Some appear only at the margins, possibly once, whilst others are omitted entirely. It seems extraordinary that among those omitted by Apollodorus are the Romans. As Fletcher notes, “This exclusion is particularly relevant because of the time in which Apollodorus was writing, when the Roman empire controlled all of the Mediterranean world, including Greece, and numerous myths had long since circulated connecting this area to its eastern neighbors.”21 Apollodorus’s genealogy could be interpreted as a powerful example of an implicit political statement, in that it asserts the significance of Greece through important connections in the East, and diminishes the significance of Roman domination by completely ignoring their existence.22 The assertion of a collective identity, in the case of Apollodorus, of Greekness, in this particular work is thus one function of the genealogy, but by far not the only or most important one. The genealogical network presented rather serves the positioning of Greeks on the map of the eastern Mediterranean, and thereby claiming a position of relevance and power rather than merely establishing their identity as such. The assertion of a common descent provided a means to vaguely acknowledge an underlying consubstantiality. Thus, to belong to the network of the Ἕλληνες – in Apollodorus’s version – asserted a certain commonality between different peoples and thus could provide the basis for diplomatic and trade relations as well as cultural exchange. However, those who were presented as part of this Helleno-centric network were by no means considered to have become part of the group of people who called themselves Ἕλληνες. To be related and incorporated into the genealogy of the Ἕλληνες did not mean that these peoples became Ἕλληνες themselves. No change of ethnicity or primary loyalty is part of this genealogical inclusion. Those thus related remain what they were, Persians, Egyptians, Lydians etc. But as such, as people who were not Ἕλληνες, they nevertheless were considered to have something in

Fletcher, “Systematic Genealogies,” 66. 22 There are other examples of the Second Sophistic which seem to have consciously omitted specific references to Rome in their assertion of Greekness, cf. L. Pernot, “Aelius Aristides and Rome,” in Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods (ed. W.V. Harries, B. Holmes; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 175–200. 21

The Function of Genealogical Reasoning

235

common with the Ἕλληνες. Thus the expression of commonality features significantly in genealogical reasoning but commonality is by no means identical with sameness or shared ethnicity. Even within the group of those who referred to themselves as Ἕλληνες, the awareness of different levels of belonging remained prevalent. Thus Herodotus refers to the Athenians as the “oldest ἔθνος of the Ἕλληνες” (7:161:3) using the term ἔθνος for two entities which are not of the same kind, one, i. e., the Athenians, being clearly a sub-category of the other, the Hellenes. Similarly, in Ptolemaic Egypt the Greek immigrants even after several generations still specified themselves particularly as Boiotiai, Cretari, Milesian, or Macedonian.23 In addition to the construction of ethnic identity genealogical reasoning also serves other purposes. Transethnic networks are expressed through supposed kinship relations, but to be kin to someone in such networks does not necessarily mean to belong to the same ἔθνος. Even the case of Ἕλληνες, when considered in light of this does not merely denote an ethnic category as Herodotus’s definition seems to imply, but it encompasses a composite collective, that is, Athenians, Spartans, etc. who in their difference, and with their different genealogical particularities have something in common, through their ancestor Ἕλλην. Ἕλληνες thus refers to a conglomerate of ἔθνη, and as such denotes a composite collective identity. It is interesting to note that in the period after the Alexandrian conquest the categorization as Ἕλληνες shifted or better expanded, to refer not only to those who according to Herodotus’s definition would be considered to be Ἕλληνες. Under the Ptolemies a tax system was set up which taxed people – καθ’ ἔθνος. Ἔθνος in this context did not function specifically as an ethnic category but rather as a tax category, that is, it was used as a specific categorization term. Thus Rachel Mairs has noted that the “Greeks” of the Ptolemaic tax-registers are a status-group: originally – and still primarily – an ethnic category, expanded by co-option of these to certain privileged professions and social milieu.”24 Greek status, Greek ethnicity and Greek cultural behavior were not entirely identical in Ptolemaic Egypt, what was decisive was that “whatever the ethnic background […] it was Greek status that brought fiscal benefits, and at least those who could call themselves ‘Greek’ had the advantage.”25 This is evidence that the ethnic identification was not confined to ethnicity in the modern sense of the term, but served as a status category, related but not confined to an ethnic connotation. The examples from tax registers of Ptolemaic Egypt

R. Mairs, “Intersecting Identities in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,” in Egypt: Ancient Histories, Modern Archaeologies (ed. R.J. Dann, K. Exell; New York: Cambria Press, 2013), 163–92, here 180. 24 Mairs, “Intersecting Identities,” 170. 25 Mairs, “Intersecting Identities,” 172. 23

236

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

demonstrate that “ethnic” categorizations served as categorizations of social groups, straddling the borders of ethnic identity, and marked the groups so designated for fiscal rather than ethnic purposes. In fact, the category did not necessarily provide any information about the ethnic identity of someone categorized as Ἕλλην. What from an etic perspective might appear “ethnic” may have had a quite different emic connotation, depending on the respective context. The use of ethnic terminology in Ptolemaic Egypt sends a signal of caution about the meaning of such terminology to New Testament scholars. What looks like an ethnic categorization or “ethnic reasoning” may actually point to something else. In the case of kinship language, which often is associated with ethnic identities, such a signal of caution is appropriate in my view as well. Not that the ethnic dimension should be completely ignored in kinship terminology, but the use of this terminology – in analogy to the Egyptian examples, although serving the purpose of categorization may nevertheless point to a purpose distinct from ethnic categorization. Genealogies, by constructing relations between groups and subgroups, structure the world and provide orientation in the midst of numerous smaller and bigger groups who have or may not have, or have to some extent, a sense of belonging and belonging together. They are maps, whose lines of lineage provide some guidance how to relate to those who are closer or further away in the social and symbolic universe in which one lives. As we have seen with respect to Apollodorus’s Bibliotheca, genealogies integrate others, that is, foreigners into their network: Greeks integrate Perseus, that is, the Persians, Romans actually construct a founding myth based on a foreigner, a Trojan refugee, Aeneas; and so do the Jews with Abraham who leaves Ur in Chaldea and is remembered as a wandering Aramean (Deut 26:5).26 Numerous peoples are integrated into genealogies of the people Israel and in the Hellenistic period, Jewish tradition also found a way of integrating the Spartans into their network of belonging (1 Macc 12:21) and of linking Heracles to Abraham.27 The integration of foreigners into one’s own genealogy, certainly by the first century CE, is not an exception but a feature to be found widely in cultures around the Mediterranean.28 Significantly, these genealogies integrated others into their respective networks, but thereby did not replace any ancestor by a foreigner. Those who are envisaged as genealogically related from times past, remain related, even when new additions widened the network.

I. Malkin, “Foreign Founders: Greeks and Hebrews,” in Foundation Myths in Ancient Societies: Dialogues and Discourses (ed. N. Mac Sweeney; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 20–40. 27 Cf. also 2 Macc 5:9; Josephus too knows of this tradition, A.J. 12.226; for the Abraham-Heracles connection, A.J. 1:240–241. Cf. also Jones, Kinship, 72–80, and E.S. Gruen, “Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity,” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (ed. I. Malkin; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 347–73, here 361–64. 28 Gruen “Jewish Perspectives,” 356–57. 26

Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning

237

The genealogies in the scriptures also serve this purpose of structuring and categorizing the surrounding world, and thereby to provide guidance or a rationale for the code of conduct to those closely or further related kin. They permeate the scriptures at significant junctions of the narrative as if after one section, the audience needed some re-orientation of where they were to position themselves in relation to other peoples who lived around them, neighbors as well as those further afar (Gen 5; 10; 11:10–31; 46:8–27). As noted above, the structuring of the world through genealogies reflects the perception of the world from the perspective of the narrating people, who see themselves at the center of the respective genealogy. Apollodorus’s genealogies are Helleno-centric. 29 The characterization of a “cousin” as distant, hostile, or friendly reflects the perspective of the people who locate themselves via genealogies at the center of the social and symbolic world in which they live. Genealogies provide a structure to narratives of belonging. Jewish traditions too, structured the world through genealogies, with themselves, that is, the people Israel, at the center of their social and symbolic universe.

Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning

To find in the Pauline letters trajectories of genealogical reasoning is thus not a surprise. His project of proclaiming the gospel to the ἔθνη involves him in the task of construing a narrative of belonging for ἔθνη in Christ. This narrative involves several aspects, genealogical reasoning being one of them. The role and function of kinship language in the Pauline letters has been analyzed in recent publications. One dominant conclusion which has been drawn from these, is that it demonstrates that Paul considered the ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ to be some sort of ethnic entities, hence Paul’s use of kinship language was labelled as ethnic or even ethno-racial reasoning.30 But in light of Apollodorus’s Bibliotheca as one example of the function of a genealogy close to the geographical, cultural and temporal context of Paul, the construction of ethnic identity is not the only, possibly main, purpose of genealogies. The inclusion of others/foreigners into the map of the world of a particular people does not convey that those thus included acquire thereby a new ethnicity or ethnic identity. Genealogical reasoning is drawing a map of relationships and belonging from the perspective of the map drawers, without changing or blurring ethnic distinctions. Thus the question concerning the function of Paul’s genealogical reasoning should not be settled with reference to ethnic identity construction, but

E. Hall, “When Is a Myth Not a Myth? Bernal’s ‘Ancient Model,’” in Black Athena Revisited (ed. M.R. Lefkowitz, G.M. Rogers; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 333–48. 30 Buell, Why This New Race, 20–21. 29

238

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

needs to be considered afresh in the context of the multivalent purpose of genealogical reasoning. Σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ and the Role of Isaac When Paul calls Christ-followers from the nations σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ (Gal 3:29), the first and foremost question is what does he mean by σπέρμα? Is it, as has been argued, a reference generally to descent from an ancestor, equivalent to, or resonating with the preposition ἐκ?31 The affirmation of this assumption has led to the argument that the non-Jewish nations were included in Abraham’s σπέρμα right from the beginning, that is from the moment the promises were made to Abraham. This would mean that the non-Jewish nations were included in the promises together with Israel, and thus were Abraham’s σπέρμα all along.32 That fact that in the Septuagint passages of Genesis (Gen 15:5, 18; 17:7–12) the promises are consistently made to Abraham and his σπέρμα, is perceived as meaning that all the offspring of Abraham were present in his σπέρμα. In this line of argument, σπέρμα refers to all of Abraham’s offspring, and this is interpreted as what Paul actually implies when he refers to Abraham as the “founder of two lineages: the uncircumcised (or ‘foreskins’) and the circumcised” in Rom 4:11–12.33 This is interpreted as referring back to Abraham’s trust in God before circumcision became the sign of God’s covenant and promise. Genesis 17:5 and 15:5 are read as referring to the inclusion of the ἀκροβυστία/ἔθνη in Abraham’s σπέρμα right then and there when God made his promises to him. This raises a number of questions, not least why those who are already σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ need the assertion that they actually are σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ through Christ (Gal 3:29). How can this be a new ancestry or lineage when (non-Jewish) ἔθνη were part of this σπέρμα all along? This interpretation is based on the assumption that σπέρμα in the Pauline argument must refer to all the descendants (Jews and non-Jews) of Abraham before Christ. But this is precisely what Paul clarifies as not being the case when he argues that οὐδ’ ὅτι εἰσίν σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ πάντες τέκνα, ἀλλ’· ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα (“Not all the children are seed of Abraham, but in/ through Isaac that seed shall be called for you,” Rom 9:7). In my view this verse provides a clear indication of what Paul means by σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ. It does not refer to all of Abraham’s children but only to those of the promise, that is, Isaac and sub-

Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 79–91. 32 C. Johnson Hodge, “The Question of Identity: Gentiles as Gentiles – but also Not – in Pauline Communities,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (ed. M.D. Nanos and M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 153–73, here 162, 172. 33 Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 88. 31

Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning

239

sequently Jacob/Israel. And this promise is intrinsically connected to the covenant. The term σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ is used in a specific way by Paul, rather than as a general kinship term. It is worth looking at the relevant passages of the Genesis narrative at this point, in order to assess Paul’s use of them. It is evident that not all of Abraham’s children are children of the promise. It is only through Isaac and Jacob that this lineage of promise bearing Abraham’s name is continued (Gen 17:19, 21). This is repeated in Gen 21:12: πάντα, ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπῃ σοι Σαρρα, ἄκουε τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῆς, ὅτι ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα. Only the lineage of Isaac will be called σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ. It is this lineage that is tied to the promise and the covenant although interestingly there is no direct promise made to Isaac himself. Isaac’s role in the narrative seems to be focused on him as the child of the promise; only through the birth of this child is God’s faithfulness in his life-giving action against all evidence being confirmed. According to the Genesis narrative Abraham’s trust in God depends on the existence of Isaac, as he did not trust in the promise that he would become the father of a great nation until Sarah got pregnant. Although Abraham trusted God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, Abraham’s trust occasionally waivered. Isaac is the living evidence and confirmation of the promise and as such he is σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ. Maybe this is the reason why there is no direct divine address to Isaac confirming the promise to his father, because he, through his mere existence, is the living evidence of God’s promise and faithfulness. The confirmation of the covenant with him is made to Abraham (Gen 17:19). The promises are explicitly and directly then made again to Jacob in almost the same vein as they were given to Abraham (Gen 28:13–16 LXX).34 The transmission of the promises in the narrative of Isaac is made in the bestowing of the blessing upon Jacob (although this happens with a little help from Rebecca; Gen 27:1–29). God goes along with Rebecca’s actions and eventually confirms these by re-affirming the promises, made to Abraham, now also to Jacob. Although I cannot pursue this further here, it is interesting that especially Ishmael, the descendant of Abraham who is not named his σπέρμα, is not left without God’s blessing. The specific promises to Abraham (land, great and numerous people, and blessing of all the “families of the earth” in his name) and most importantly the everlasting covenant asserting that God will be their God (Gen 17:7) are restricted to those called σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ; Abraham’s other descendants are blessed or provided with gifts (Gen 17:20; 25:1– 6), but they are not included in the specific promises, nor in the covenant which

Gen 28:14: καὶ ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς γῆς καὶ πλατυνθήσεται ἐπὶ θάλασσαν καὶ ἐπὶ λίβα καὶ ἐπὶ βορρᾶν καὶ ἐπ' ἀνατολάς, καὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου (“And your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring”). 34

240

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

is tied to Isaac. The specific promises are being made to Abraham and his σπέρμα called after him, that is the child of the promise, Isaac. It emerges then, that with the term σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ in the Genesis narrative a genealogical argument of a specific not of a general kind is made. The term σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ in this scriptural tradition is restricted to those who are bearers of these specific promises and of the covenant. The scope of the promises as such is not limited to the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, but as far as the bearers of the promises are concerned the scope is limited. The narrative of the promises given to those who are σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ is Israel-centered. Nevertheless, the scope is universal, in that the blessing expands to the nations beyond the boundaries of the people Israel. In Jub 15:30–32 this Israel-centered universal scope is expressed as follows: For he did not draw near to himself either Ishmael, his sons, his brothers, or Esau. He did not choose them (simply) because they were among Abraham’s children. But he chose Israel to be his people: He sanctified them and gathered them from all humankind. For there are many nations and many peoples and all belong to him. He made spirits over all in order to lead them astray from following him. But over Israel he made no angel or spirit rule. Because he alone is their ruler.

This differentiation between different peoples in God’s realm resonates with Paul’s insistence of differentiation in Rom 9:7. But it also indicates that this Israel-centered differentiation does not imply that those who are not of the lineage of the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, i. e., of the promise, are outside of the scope of God’s concern. Paul’s genealogical reasoning clearly needs to be seen in the context of these scriptural traditions and their interpretation in Second Temple Judaism. Isaac is the child of the promise, and only through him are the promises transmitted. The restriction of the term σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ to this specific meaning is scriptural and Rom 9:7 is evidence that Paul argues from within and in relation to this tradition. Those to whom the promises and the covenant are given are a specific group, specific people, hence it is inconceivable that Paul or other contemporary Jewish interpreters could have meant that the lineage designated as σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ inherently included nations other than Israel/Jacob. However, in Rom 4:11–12 Paul does refer to the narrative of Gen 17 where Abraham is promised to become the father of many nations (ἔθνη/‫)גוים‬. It is a tradition only found in Gen 17:2–6, whilst the tradition of the blessing of the nations in Abraham’s name is missing here. The reference to the nations in the terminology ἔθνη/‫ גוים‬in the Genesis passage could indicate that at the point of its composition the terminological differentiation of ἔθνη and λαός which we find in the Second Temple period and certainly in Paul, was not as yet prevalent.35 The promise of becoming the father of a multitude of nations, however,

The use of ἔθνη/ ‫ גוים‬in the Hebrew scriptures/Septuagint is discussed in detail by I. Rosen-Zvi and A. Ophir, “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles,” JQR 105 (2015), 1–41. One of their arguments proposes that in terms of terminology no clear distinctions in part of 35

Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning

241

does not render these “nations” σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ. As noted above, the term σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ties lineage and promise, not in terms of the scope of the promise but in terms of bearers/transmitters of the promise. Σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ and the multitude of nations are not identical. The covenant tradition of Genesis 17 includes the promise to Abraham and his σπέρμα, but the covenant nevertheless is not made with the multitude but with Abraham and his σπέρμα. That σπέρμα is used to refer to the bearers of the promises is confirmed a few verses later in Gen 17:19–21, where the term σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ is tied to the child of the promise Isaac, as is clarified in Gen 21:12. Thus even when in Gen 17:2–6 Abraham receives the promise to become the father/ancestor of many nations/ἔθνη, it is evident that the term σπέρμα also here is restricted to Isaac and his lineage and does therefore not include the non-Jewish nations as bearers of the promise.36 The distinction is evidently maintained there. However, in the argumentation of Romans 4 it seems as if Paul were ignoring this distinction. If his reference to Abraham as the father of many nations in Rom 4:17 is read as referring to the past, as something that has already happened then the distinction is lost indeed. However, it is more likely that Paul refers to something that from Abraham’s perspective is still to happen, and from Paul’s perspective only just happened, namely in Christ. The nations, that is, those who are in Christ (πιστεύοντες) are only now included in this genealogical map of relations. Although the intention to render Abraham the father of many nations was there from the beginning according to Genesis 17, this does not mean that these nations are already included in the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ from the beginning. Those of the ἀκροβυστία and those of the περιτομή can now both count Abraham as their father, but this does not render those of the ἀκροβυστία σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ from the very beginning. The term σπέρμα is tied to the recipients as the bearers of the promise. At the point of the initial expression, the nations are neither direct recipients nor bearers of the promise. In relation to the multitude of nations, the future dimension is maintained and Paul expresses this future dimension of the narrative in his reference that this was written not only for Abraham’s sake “but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom 4:24). Being of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob means being bearers of the promises, and the lineage of the promises is continued only in and through them. That Abraham will become the father of many nations and that in the

the Hebrew scriptures (as in later Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period) are made between Israel and the nations, hence ‫ גוים‬can occasionally include Israel, especially in a passage like Gen 17:4 where Jacob/Israel has not yet appeared on the scene this distinction as such cannot as yet be made. This is convincing in that the differentiation into Israel and the nations is made only after Jacob becomes Israel (Gen 32:28). 36 The role of Abraham as the ancestor of many ἔθνη does not render these ἔθνη σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ.

242

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

name of Abraham and his σπέρμα also many nations (non-Jewish) will be blessed is one of the promises, alongside the promises of land and becominga great nation (Gen 12:1–3 ; 17:2–6). But through none of these promises are the nations included in the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ. The promises are confirmed and actualized only through the Christ-event (λέγω γάρ Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ¸ ἐις τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων, Rom 15:8). The intention of expanding the blessing to the nations (Gen 12:3; repeated and confirmed to Jacob in Gen 28:14) and the intention of their inclusion into the lineage of Abraham (Gen 17:4) in the initial promises did not include them into the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, despite the universal scope of these promises. This intention is only actualized in and through the Christ-event in Paul’s perspective. Only in and through Christ are the nations now becoming part of the salvation narrative of the God of Israel. The confirmation of the promises to Jacob (Gen 28:14–15), in accordance with its formulation in Gen 12:2 is clearly pointing to the future: ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου. Paul’s genealogical reasoning accounts for this clear scriptural distinction, in that he sees the nations/ ἔθνη not inherently (or from the beginning) included in the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ but only through Christ (Gal 3:29). Although I cannot discuss this further here, there are indications in Second Temple literature, that the awareness of this scriptural distinction concerning the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ was retained. A possible example can be found in the Maccabean reference to the inclusion of the Spartans in the genealogy of the people Israel. This inclusion is not described as a sharing or inclusion in the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, but the Spartans are referred to as being of the γένος Abraham (εὑρέθη ἐν γραφῆ περί τε τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν καὶ Ιουδαίων ὅτι εἰσίν ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ὅτι εἰσίν ἐκ γένους Ἀβραάμ, 1 Macc 12:21). With the term σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ carrying a specific promise related connotation, it emerges that a general genealogical meaning cannot get to the core of the Pauline use of the term.37 As noted above, genealogies serve particular purposes, which are not restricted to myths of ethnic origins or of establishing ethnic identities. So far this analysis has indicated that Paul’s genealogical reasoning serves such a particular purpose, rather than being concerned with establishing a myth of origins. Σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, the Promise and the Promises Although they are included in the promises to Abraham and thus being on the scene from the very beginning it is only in and through Christ that ἔθνη become σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ. They are included in the promises from the beginning, but

Johnson Hodge bases her argument on an assumed shared perception that ancestors contain within them – whether in their womb or their seed – all of their progeny (If Sons, Then Heirs, 105). 37

Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning

243

they are not bearers of, or heirs to, the promises. The promise of blessing for the nations (καὶ ἐνυλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς, Gen 12:3 [cf. also 22:18]; καὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου, 28:14b), the promise of making Abraham the father of many nations (Gen 17:4 with reference to Abraham and Gen 17:16 with reference to Isaac), are inherently bound to the bearers of these promises, the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, that is, specifically to Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. Although I agree with Paula Fredriksen, that Paul refers to the ἔθνη as being related to Abraham specifically through Christ, their more specific transformation as σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ in Christ, is inherently tied to the mediating bearers of the promise, that is, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.38 The promises, including the specific promise concerning the nations is never made to Abraham alone, but to Abraham and his σπέρμα. And as such the genealogical map includes Christ who is part of Jacob/Israel, and as such σπέρμα, that is, of the lineage of the promise (οἵτινές εἰσίν Ἰσραηλῖται […] ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, Rom 9:5; τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, 1:3). Christ is part of those who are σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ including Isaac and Jacob/Israel, who are the designated σπέρμα as identified above. Christ, as being from (ἐκ) Israel is genealogically related to the recipients and bearers of the promises and only as such can he be the confirming mediator of these (Rom 15:8). The non-applicability of the law/Torah for ἔθνη in Christ has nothing to do with a bypassing of Israel as recipient and bearer (σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ) of the promises. Irrespective of their observance of the Torah (which is not in view in this discussion), to them belong the promises and the fathers (Rom 9:4–5). By becoming σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ in Christ the ἔθνη do not replace anybody who is already σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, but rather they are now also intrinsically linked via Christ and thus via Jacob/Israel to Abraham. By referring to the nations in Christ as being also σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, Paul nevertheless maintains the distinction between Israel and the nations.39 In analogy, rather than in supersession to, or conflation with Isaac and Jacob, the nations as σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ through Christ now also inherit the promises. The focus of the argument is not on ethnic identity but on the mediation of the promises. This is the specific relevance of becoming σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ: the inheritance that comes with it. The purpose of Paul’s genealogical reasoning thus can be seen in rendering (representatives of) the nations heirs or rather co-heirs to the promises. Through the mediation of Christ the nations (via adoption of the

Fredriksen has argued that “Pagans-in-Christ are from Abraham’s lineage, since Abraham was the father of many nations (Gen 17:4; Rom 4:17); but they descend from Abraham alone, not also from Isaac and Jacob” (“Judaizing the Nations,” NTS 56 [2010], 232–52, here 243). 39 Rather than blurring them as T.L. Donaldson has recently argued. “Paul within Judaism: A Critical Evaluation from a ‘New Perspective’ Perspective,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First Century Context to the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 277– 301, here 297–301. 38

244

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

spirit)40 are now also recipients and bearers of the promises. The fact that Paul seems to make distinctions between ἐπαγγελίαι (plural, Rom 9:4; 15:8) and ἐπαγγελία (4:13–16, 20; 9:8–9) in Romans may be due to a particular rhetorical strategy in this letter. He possibly wishes to emphasize the relevance of the specifics of the promise made in relation to the ἔθνη, namely the blessing, as Stanley Stowers has argued.41 This may be a particular concern in Romans. However, Paul refers to the ἐπαγγελίαι in Rom 15:8 as being confirmed and actualized through Christ for Israel and the nations (to the Jew first and also to the Greeks) as part of the initiation of the messianic age. Although they mean different things for those who are and remain different, that is, Israel and the nations, Jews and Greeks, I am not convinced that this distinction can be drawn along the line of Paul’s singular and plural use of ἐπαγγελία. Ἔθνη in Christ are now also blessed in the name of Abraham, but at the same time the promises are confirmed to Israel. It appears to me that the meaning of σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ for those of the nations in Christ cannot be confined to the promise of the blessing but encompasses other dimensions of the inheritance as well; as σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ in Christ both, Jews and those from the nations, are now heirs to the promises (plural) which includes, as Paul formulates specifically in Rom 4:13 (Οὐ γάρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραάμ ἤ τῷ σπέρματί αὐτοῦ, τὸ κληρονόμου αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου, ἀλλὰ διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως) that they will also be heirs to the κόσμος. The uniquely Pauline use of κόσμος here may be read as a Pauline variation of the Genesis promises of land (Gen 12:2–3 ; 15:18; 17:8; 22:18; 28:13–15). The reference in Gal 5:21 that “envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these” cannot inherit the kingdom points to another aspect of inheriting as σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ. The inheritance mentioned here is the kingdom of God, which is cosmological in scope – and thus possibly another way of expressing what is expressed in Rom 4:13 as κληρονόμον κόσμου. But the reference to what possibly is the core aspect of the inheritance from which all the others follow is most likely found in 2 Cor 7:1. Although not in contradiction to the reference to inheriting the blessing, the κόσμος or the βασιλεία the promises referred to are summarized in 2 Cor 6:16b–18: I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.

Cf. M. Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 129–60. 41 S.K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 133, has drawn attention to the fact that Paul refers to promises in the plural only when he refers to the promises which clearly relate to Jacob/Israel, whereas when referring to these as far as the nations are concerned he uses the singular. 40

Conclusions

245

If the actualization of the promises to Abraham and his σπέρμα for the nations in Christ implies not merely the specific aspects of blessing and the multitude but the promises in toto, then the core promise and affirmation that God will be their God must be decisive. The nations in and through Christ are heirs to the promise that the God who promised Abraham and his σπέρμα, and who committed himself in the covenant, to be their God, now is the one who also commits himself to be the God of the ἔθνη in Christ.

Conclusions Conclusions

Genealogies in antiquity served multiple purposes. Not all of these had to do with myths of origins or constructions of the identity of a particular people. A significant purpose was to draw maps of the world from the perspective of particular peoples, integrating others into one’s own symbolic universe without assimilating their particular identities into one’s own. I have argued that similarly the purpose of Paul’s genealogical reasoning is the inclusion of the nations into the map of the people Israel in its universal scope. He is pencilling them into the symbolic universe as others who nevertheless now consider the God of Israel to be also their God. It is an inclusion, which is decisively shaped by the trust that in the Christ-event the messianic age was beginning to dawn, and thus the promises to the fathers were confirmed (Rom 15:8). In light of this the inclusion of non-Jewish nations as those who also belong to the one God, the God of Israel and of all of creation, which was on the horizon of the narrative of belonging of the people Israel from the very beginning, is seen as being actualized and in the process of being implemented through Christ. The structure of this genealogy is Israel-centered. But it is Israel-centered in its focus on the universal scope of this particular perspective. The inclusion of ἔθνη into this Israel-centered narrative of belonging does not render these representatives of the nations Jewish, in as much as the inclusion of the Spartans into the genealogy of Abraham did not render the Spartans thereby Jewish. Paul’s genealogical reasoning does not strip the nations of their particular identities as Greeks, Galatians, Corinthians, etc. nor does their inclusion render the particularity of Jewish identity obsolete or replace Israel in the genealogy of Abraham. But in as much as this genealogy of belonging is Israel-centered, that is, a Jewish narrative, and thus could be labelled “ethnocentric” its scope is not limited to Israel nor even to the κόσμος, although all of these are included of course. This genealogy is decisively theocentric. To become σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ through Christ, is not a means in itself. At the heart of the world map thus depicted is God, the God of Israel, who is also the God of the nations, and of

246

Chapter 12 Narratives of Belonging

all of creation.42 This is a Jewish universalism. Paul’s genealogical reasoning relates non-Jews to the God of creation who had committed himself through his promises and his covenant to the people Israel, and now, at the dawn of the messianic age, in and through Christ also to the nations. The narrative of belonging to Christ and thus becoming σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ, is a narrative of belonging to God. It is a narrative of trust in God’s promises. This certainly implies a significant change in the lives of those who are called, οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν. They are ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, included in the worshipping community of God as ἔθνη in their diversity. As such they gather as assemblies which are universal and particular at the same time. This does not render these assemblies entities in which ethnic particularity was irrelevant or overcome, they were not assemblies where the members were considered merely humans, that is, abstractions.43 Paul’s genealogical reasoning accounts for this inherent diversity. Through integrating ἔθνη through Christ into Abraham’s lineage they now are also heirs to God’s promises and to his commitment to Israel and the nations. Paul’s genealogical reasoning in its theo-centricity is thus a form of embodied theological reasoning.

Cf. also T.L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 509. 43 As if humans could exist as an abstraction rather than as specifically embodied beings, hence in particularity. Cf. J.L. Nancy, Being Singular-Plural (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000). 42









13. What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich in German New Testament Interpretation Past and Present Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

Ammianus, a polytheistic historian of the late fourth century CE, noted that it was unclear how one was to denote the strange groups that followed Christ (Χριστιανοί) and thereby indicated that according to a certain established system of categorization these people did not fit. There could be a number of reasons for this, not least the system of categorization known to, and favoured by, Ammianus, which for him was the system of categorization innate to the world (although in his context this was already contested).1 That Ammianus captured the phenomenon of these Christ-centered groups in the categories of his world is of course what one would expect: “Categories structure and order the world for us. We use categories to parse the flow of experience into discriminable and interpretable objects, attributes, and events.”2 Ammianus’ question is highly contemporary when we look at the flow of publications which try to understand, define, describe, or analyse the groups which assemble as those ἐν Χριστῷ (Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 1:2), are referred to as οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor 15:23; Gal 5:24), are addressed by Paul as ἅγιοι, or ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ (e.g., Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13), and in 1 Peter are referred to as λαός, ἔθνος, and γένος (1 Pet 2:9–10). The question of categorization seems intertwined with the question of identity; and the categories of ethnicity and race are only a few of those proposed recently, along or combined with associations (collegia, θιασοί), 3

For example, Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum 21:16.18. Cf. E.A. Judge’s assessment of Ammianus’ various comments on behaviour and practices of Christians in, “On this Rock I will build my Ekklesia: Counter-cultic Springs of Multiculturalism,” in The First Christians in the Roman World (ed. E.A. Judge; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 619–68. He notes that although Ammianus attempts to describe these groups, he cannot find any one category known to him into which they would fit: “They indicate his broad sense of a practice he cannot de ne and for which he has no word” (661). Ammianus’ attitude towards Christianity is debated, wavering between positive openness and aggressive repudiation. The fact that he describes them and their practices as not fitting the “normal” system may be a deliberate attempt at presenting them as odd outsiders. See also D. Woods, “Ammianus 22:4.6: An Unnoticed Anti-Christian Jibe,” JTS 49 (1998): 145–48. 2 R. Brubaker, Ethnicity without Groups (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 71. 3 Cf., for example, R. Ascough, Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 1

248

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

subgroups of synagogues,4 or πολιτεύματα5 as possibly having provided the template for the groups beginning to assemble in the name of someone referred to as the Christ. Current events and events of the recent past have triggered questions of categorization, self-understanding, and identity in religious terms (in Western Europe religious affiliation/identities are being substantially questioned). It is particularly interesting that social-categorization terminology and respective concepts of ethnicity and race have emerged or re-emerged in current New Testament scholarship, given that such terminology was prominent in certain strands of biblical interpretation during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, providing building blocks for biblical interpreters who had embraced the ideology of the Third Reich.6 The use of such categories is not self-evident since Christian self-understanding was not always formulated as a question of “identity” and to an even lesser extent as a question which involved issues concerning “ethnicity.” In the nineteenth century the question was predominantly formulated as a question concerning the essence or the core of Christianity rather than one concerning Christian identity.7 And although Judaism or the image of Judaism always played a role in the self-perception of Christianity, this relation was not necessarily formulated as a question of ethnicity but rather in terms of the question for truth, faith, 8 the concept of religion, and notions of universalism and particularism.9 In current discussions, however, core questions are discussed in relation to identity and ethnicity which is due primarily to respective contemporary sociological and political debates. This is not to deny that there are trajectories in the sources which would render themselves open to interpretations which are informed by such contemporary concerns. In this discourse, an enduring question is the relation between universalism and particularity. Did the Christ-movement set out to overcome all distinctions between peoples

See, for example, M.D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); idem, “To the Churches within the Synagogues of Rome,” in Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (ed. J.L. Sumney; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2012), 11–28. 5 Cf., for example, D. Schinkel, Die himmlische Bürgerschaft: Untersuchungen zu einem urchristlichen Sprachmotiv im Spannungsfeld von religiöser Integration und Abgrenzung im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2007). 6 Cf. A. Gerdmar, Roots of Theological Antisemitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 7 A. v. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums: Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Fakultäten im Wintersemester 1899/1900 am der Universität Berlin gehalten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901). 8 Cf. W. Homolka, “Adolf von Harnack und Leo Baeck: Zwei liberale Theologen, ein fiktiver Dialog,” in Wende-Zeit im Verhältnis von Juden und Christen (ed. S. von Kortzfleisch; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2009), 189–217. 9 B. Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 4

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

249

and individuals as Pauline statements such as “there is no distinction” (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή, Rom 3:22; 10:12) or “no longer Jew or Greek” (Gal 3:28; cf. 5:6) seem to imply? And did it thus intend to create a universal identity above or beyond ethnic distinctions by overcoming or transcending them as a “new creation” (cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15)? Or is the movement itself actually an ethnic entity, embarking on separating out a “new race”? This recent discussion focuses almost entirely on the relation between Jewish and non-Jewish identities, with other differentiations, such as Greek and Roman, or Greek and Barbarian, or Galatian and Scythian, playing a marginal role, if any at all.10 Hence the discussion concerning the categorization is not about ethnicity, race, or nation, Volk, Rasse, or Ethnizität as such but about ethnic, or racial aspects as far as Jews and non-Jews – in Pauline terminology ἔθνη/Ἕλληνες – are concerned. It is – in the terminology of the nineteenth century – the Jewish Question, which lies behind the contemporary discussions (not the Roman or Italian, nor the Muslim question for that matter).11 The use of the term race – or the compound adjective ethno-racial – as a designation for the identity of the Christ-following groups12 owes its current interest to concerns to move away from abstract theological terminology and perceptions. The hermeneutical presuppositions of my response to these attempts at tackling the issue of Christian identity in its earliest days are rooted in the tradition of German and Swiss scholarship, that is, they are contextual in terms of time and place. In light of these traditions, the use of the term and concepts of race in relation to first-century Christ-groups, and also more generally for antiquity, seems rather surprising. However, race/Rasse is not the only term and concept which comes under scrutiny from this perspective, but other terms such as Volk, völkisch, and Nation are considered with caution as well, given their recent history. In January 1961 a group of German historians, lawyers, and journalists met in Bad Soden near Frankfurt a.M. for the sole purpose of answering the question, “Was bedeuten uns heute Volk, Nation, Reich?” 13 The meeting was guided by the conviction that it was time that “the Germans began to rehabilitate terms that had been polluted or abused by Hitler and thus rendered suspect

Cf. C.D. Stanley, “The Ethnic Context of Paul’s Letters,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts of the New Testament (ed. S.E. Porter, A.W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 177–202. 11 In the nineteenth century it surfaced with a new dimension in the context of the integration of Jews into nation states, which introduced into their legal systems the notion of the legal equality of all those living under its respective jurisdiction. 12 See D.K. Buell, Why is New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); L. Sechrest, A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialectics of Race (London: T&T Clark, 2009); D.G. Horrell, “’Race,’ ‘Nation,’ ‘People’”: Ethnic Identity-Construction in 1 Peter 2.9,” NTS 58.1 (2012), 123–43. 13 “What is the meaning of people, nation, and empire for us today?” 10

250

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

or unusable.”14 The term that was remarkably absent in their list is the term Rasse (race). Of course, the Bad Soden meeting was conducted in the shadow of particular events and discourses in Germany, and hence the terms and concepts were discussed specifically in relation to their respective historical and conceptual context. The mere translation of these terms into other languages and contexts does not render them identical either in terms of linguistics or in terms of cultural encyclopedias. The English terminology which translates these German terms is infused with, and carries the connotations of, its specific cultural and historical context.15 Thus a critical analysis of the terminology of one language should not be directly applied to the terminology of another. The specific cultural encyclopedias need to be taken into account in any comparative endeavour. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to draw analogies between the English and German terminology because there have been interactions, interchanges between, and mutual influences of English and German speaking scholars in intellectual as well as popular discourses on issues concerning collective identities since the early modern period. I thus wish to focus here on two terms: Firstly, Volk (usually translated “people”), which has a particular German history and connotation; and secondly, Rasse, the term omitted from the discussion at Bad Soden, and again one with a particular German history, although not confined to it. This leaves open the question of how far these discussions are also relevant in relation to British and American biblical scholarship. The terms are particularly relevant of course as translations of the Greek terms ἔθνος and γένος in New Testament interpretation. In light of these preliminary observations, I will focus on some specific and necessarily eclectic aspects of ideological and terminological issues particularly in past and present German-language scholarship. In the first main section I will discuss Herder’s use of the terms Volk and völkisch, and the racist interpretations of these in the period of the Third Reich. Next I will turn to Adolf von Harnack’s discussion of the Christianoi as “a third kind” in the context of late-nineteenth/early-twentieth-century debates in Germany. Finally, I will consider discussions of kollektive Identität and ethnicity in some current German-language New Testament interpretation.

W. Erbe, “Einleitung,” in Was bedeuten uns heute Volk, Nation, Reich? (ed. W. Erbe, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1961), 3–11, here 3. 15 Hanna Arendt has brilliantly written about this in her Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft: Antisemitismus, Imperialismus, totale Herrschaft (Munich: Piper, 1986. German Translation of the Origins of Totalitarianism; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1951), 292–300. 14

Herder and the “Volk”

251

Herder and the “Volk” Herder and the “Volk”

The term and concept of “Volk” was decisively shaped by Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803).16 It did not initially emerge as a nationalistic concept in the modern sense. Based on its etymological roots, which referred to “Volk” in the vein of those who follow (“Gefolgschaft”), Volk was the term used to refer to people of the lower classes as distinct from the aristocracy. “Volk” were those who followed and obeyed those who were born to be leaders. With Herder a conceptualization of the term was initiated, which – inspired by Enlightenment enthusiasm for education in the sense of holistic formation (in German, “Bildung”) – attributed the potential and capability of acquiring knowledge to all, including especially the lower classes, the “Volk.” Thus Herder was of the view that the “Volk” also had culture, that is, expressions and traditions worth being called culture in the sense of higher civilization. These traditions were seen as tied to the particular language of a “Volk,” and the specific characteristics of a “Volk” – its “Volksgeist” (spirit of the people) – were expressed most prominently through song (Volkslied), narratives (Märchen), and poetry (Volksdichtung). Through its language a “Volk” expressed its essential characteristics (Wesen), its way of thinking and feeling. The diversity and distinctive characteristics of peoples/Völker were viewed as strongly intertwined with their respective language and, in Herder’s perception, considered to be part of God’s order of creation. Each and every “Volk” had its location and task in the course of the world. Significantly in Herder, there is as yet only the emphasis on a distinction between “Völkern” but no hierarchical order as such nor a sequence of tasks assigned to them. With religion being part of the essence of a “Volk” and intrinsically intertwined with it, the postulated equality between “Völkern” in their diversity was nevertheless somewhat hampered. Herder considered Christianity to be the ideal religion, the goal of divine providence, thereby establishing an inherent hierarchy between “christlichen Völkern” and all the others.17 It needs to be noted that Herder wrote his ideas and concepts as aspirations; they were republican and egalitarian and as such implicitly directed against the rule of German principalities. The idea of the “Volk” served primarily an antiaristocratic purpose and Herder sympathized with the revolutionary movement in France up until 1793.18

Herder was not the first to give significance to the term but had predecessors, such as Friedrich Carl von Moser who in 1765 published a pamphlet entitled Vom deutschen Nationalgeist. 17 Cf. also Gerdmar, Roots of Theological Antisemitism, 53. 18 From 1793 Herder became disgusted at the turn the revolution took with the execution of Louis XVI and his wife. Cf. A. Löchte, Johann Gottfried Herder, Kulturtheorie und Humanitätsidee der Ideen, Humanitätsbriefe und Adrastea (Würzburg: Königshausen& 16

252

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

There was, however, no reality behind these ideas as yet. Lessing could state in 1768 that “wir Deutschen noch keine Nation sind”19 which meant the concept of the German “Volk” had not (yet) been translated into the political form of a state encompassing the German “Volk.” The “Volks-” idea was a discourse shared only by a small minority of intellectuals during Herder’s lifetime, but it was politicized by Schleiermacher in the context of the German resistance against the Napoleonic invasion. Herder’s idea only really became relevant after the Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) collapsed under Napoleon in 1806. Before that, throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (particularly after the disastrous Thirty Years War), the loose federation of principalities in its confessional and organizational diversity was an effective umbrella for otherwise disparate units under their princes. The Reich thus served a purpose and there was no need or urge to search for origins or a Volk, less still a race, to provide a unifying concept for this federation which had feudal ties to Savoy, Burgundy, the Lorraine, and Bohemia. The Reich was less a state than a loose commonwealth of princely states. The label “Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation” did not refer to nationality or peoplehood in the modern sense. “Nation” at the time meant the aristocratic groups, in this case, those who elected the emperor, the prince electors of certain principalities (Kurfürsten).20 Eventually, Herder’s ideas of a German “Volk” as essentially constituted by a common language through which its spirit was expressed could easily be harnessed by the Prussian government in the campaign against Napoleon after 1813. Although what the unification aspired to was not achieved at that time, the goal was set and Herder’s ideas were built upon by others (Hegel, Baur, et al.). In parallel but distinct from these “völkisch” ideas, we also see the emergence and rise of racist theories, initially in the wake of the scientific drive towards classification. It is noteworthy that Herder – against later dominating developments – clearly distinguished his idea of “Volk” from any notion of “Rasse.” He even stated that the category of race/Rasse was not suitable to be applied to humans. Concerning emerging racial concepts he argued: Some, for instance, have thought fit to employ the term races for four or five divisions, according to regions of origin or complexion. I see no reason for employing this term. Race refers to a difference of origin, which in this case

Neumann, 2005), 94–5; J. Whaley, “Reich, Nation, Volk. Early Modern Perspectives,” The Modern Language Review 101.2 (2006), 442–55, here 453. 19 G.E. Lessing, “Hamburger Dramaturgie,” in Werke, Vol. 4 (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1973), 698. 20 Cf. Whaley, “Reich, Nation, Volk,” 447.

Herder and the “Volk”

253

either does not exist or which comprises in each of these regions or complexions the most diverse “races.”21 Similarly Goethe refused to apply his classification of colors to humans. And the first cultural historian, Gustav Klemm, who classified humans to some extent into categories (in his Allgemeine Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit, published 1843–1852), assumes and respects a unified humanity, rather than one categorized into different races.22 But for the idea of one nation-state, the notion of one “Volk” was of course an important underpinning in the unification under Prussian military domination in 1870 and was harnessed ideologically in the build-up and consolidation of the Second German Reich. As noted, the notion that “Volk” and religion were intertwined constituted an inherent inconsistency in an ideology which intended to be egalitarian. It converged with claims that the German language was the highest possible development of any linguistic expression; hence, the German “Volksgeist” – in conjunction with the highest form of religion, Christianity – was seen as the highest form of human civilization. This “perfect” civilization obviously inherently created a problem for all those who were not or did not want to be part of this “German Christian Volk,” such as the Jews. It becomes evident that the concept and idea of “Volk,” although devised under different circumstances and for different purposes, served as the basis for the ideology of the Third Reich and biblical interpretation which associated itself with it.23 Racializing Biblical Interpretation The idea of the intertwined aspect of “Volk” and Religion was taken up and further developed by theologians such as Ernst Moritz Arndt and Paul LaGarde, who maintained that Christendom developed to its highest form as Germanic religion, in that only here was it finally purified of its distortion through Judaism and through Paul in particular. LaGarde advocated a

J.G. Herder, “Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind,” in Herder on Social and Political Culture (trans. and ed. F.M. Barnard; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 255–326, at 284. Herder particularly rejected Kant’s On the Different Races of Man (Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen, published 1775). Cf. also Arendt, Elemente und Ursprünge, 295; and Gerdmar, Roots of Theological Antisemitism, 58, who notes that “Herder did not support national chauvinism or racial ideology in the same vein as later racial nationalism but his thoughts could be used as an important building block in such ideology.” 22 Arendt notes that the situation is different in Britain and the United States where the question concerns issues of practical life after the abolition of slavery rather than theories (Elemente und Ursprünge, 296–306). 23 Cf. C. Weber, Altes Testament und völkische Frage: Der biblische Volksbegriff in der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft der nationalsozialistischen Zeit, dargestellt am Beispiel von Johannes Hempel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 21

254

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

“völkisch gefärbte” Religion as inherently necessary for the unified German Reich. He maintained that “Germany is the totality of all German-feeling/sensing, German-thinking, German-willing Germans: each one of us is a traitor to the fatherland (Landesverräther), if he does not consider himself personally responsible for the existence, the wellbeing, and the future of the fatherland at each moment of his life, and each one is a hero and liberator if he acts accordingly.”24 This implied that Jews either had to totally assimilate – that is cease being Jewish – or emigrate. There was no space for others in this political programme of the German Reich. It has been argued that LaGarde was not particularly influential during his lifetime. However, he was a protegé of the Prussian king (before the unification), was endowed with a chair in Göttingen, and was an important source for Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who has been described as the Kaiser’s “Evangelist of Racism.”25 Of course, LaGarde’s writings could be harnessed by the racism of National-Socialist ideology, even though this use and subsequent effect cannot be directly attributed to him.26 He nevertheless provided further ideological underpinnings for the racialization of Christian theological discourses, which did not emerge with the National Socialists’ rise to power but clearly came to flourish in the nineteenth century. Through socalled scientific and popular perceptions the concept of race was intertwined with theological notions. Aspects of Christian beliefs, from both Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, were accommodated to racist convictions. The most important concept was a variation of Herder’s idea of different “Völker” in that, as Stanley Stowers in a recent analysis notes, it was postulated that the God of Jesus Christ had created the world with distinct human races that each had its own God-given and essential species characteristics; and that the destiny of world history centered on the struggle of one superior race to protect itself from the depredations of another

P. LaGarde, “Über die gegenwärtige Lage des Deutschen Reiches,” in Deutsche Schriften (ed. P. LaGarde; Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1878), 98–167, here 167. When searching LaGarde on the internet I came across some hugely problematic internet sites – actively promoting racism, antisemitism, etc., in unbroken continuation of the ideology of the Third Reich. 25 See W. Kinzig (ed.), “Der Kaiser und der ‘Evangelist des Rassismus’. Houston Stewart Chamberlains Brief an Anne Guthrie über seine erste Begegnung mit Wilhelm II, mit einer Einleitung,” ZNThG/JHMTh 11 (2004), 79–125; see also idem, “Harnack, Houston-Chamberlain and the First World War,” ZNThG/JHMTh 22.2 (2015), 190–230. 26 Although, there are formulations which could be integrated into racist Nazi-terminology without further adaption: “Es gehört ein Herz von der Härte der Krokodilshaut dazu, um mit den armen ausgesogenen Deutschen nicht Mitleid zu empfinden und […] um die Juden nicht zu hassen, um diejenigen nicht zu hassen und zu verachten, […] die zu feige sind, dies Ungeziefer zu zertreten.” P. LaGarde, Juden und Indogermanen. Eine Studie nach dem Leben (Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1887), 330. 24

Herder and the “Volk”

255

race and that this struggle had been dramatically enacted and prefigured by Jesus Christ’s struggle against the Jews recorded in the New Testament.27

Thus Gustav Adolf Wislicenus argued in 1864 (similar to Ernest Renan) that Galilee had a mixed population – hence Jesus could not have been a Jew. Wislicenus’ thesis about Jesus’ origin, and the fundamental antithesis he postulated between Jesus and Judaism, neatly intertwined and eventually led to a Jesus specifically compatible with the concept of an Aryan race.28 The nonJewish Jesus and the anti-Jewish gospel went hand in hand in the Wilhemine period, that is, quite some decades before National Socialism’s rise to power. The term Deutschchristentum (German Christianity) was coined by Adolf Bartels in 1913, advocating that there should be “More Deutschchristentum; less Jewish Christianity.”29 Bartels adhered to the völkisch movement, which eventually became closely intertwined with Nazi ideology. Prevalent was the conviction concerning the inseparability of religion and race, hence the precondition of the “Germanization” of Christianity was its Entjudung (de-Judaizing). Anti-Semitism was thus inherent to this perception of the interrelation of religion and race. The Deutsche Christen (German Christians) declared Jesus an Aryan, and original Christianity an Aryan religion. As such, it was the appropriate religion for all Germans. These concepts had formed before the First World War and provided the crucible for the ideology and propaganda of the National Socialists.30 The racialization of theology and biblical interpretation in particular thus combined with the idea of the “Volk” developed by Herder, but they were not identical with it. Herder’s notion of Volk was not inherently racist but could easily be assimilated to ideologies of racism.31 And this assimilation of ideologies of race and theology (in New Testament interpretation in

S. Stowers, “The Concepts of ‘Religion’, ‘Political Religion’ and the Study of Nazism,” Journal of Contemporary History 42. 1 (2007), 9–24, here 24. 28 M. Leutzsch, “Karrieren des arischen Jesus zwischen 1918 und 1945,” in Die völkischreligiöse Bewegung im Nationalsozialismus. Eine Beziehungs-und Konfliktgeschichte (ed. U. Puschner, C. Vollnhals; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 22012), 195–218, here 199. 29 A Bartels, A., Der deutsche Verfall (Zeitz: Sis-Verlag, 31919), 37. 30 Cf. U. Puschner, “‘One People, One Reich, One God’. The Völkische Weltanschauung and Movement,” German Historical Institute Bulletin 24.1 (2002), 5–25. 31 The leading theologian of the Deutsche Christen, Reinhold Krause, considered the Old Testament to be the expression of the inappropriate morals of a people of cattle traders and pimps, and Paul to be a Jewish theologian, which obviously was not meant as an expression of appreciation and respect. Cf. S. Heschel, “Rassismus und Christentum. Das Institut zur Beseitigung des jüdischen Einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben,” in Die völkischreligiöse Bewegung im Nationalsozialismus: Eine Beziehungs-und Konfliktgeschichte (ed. U. Puschner, C. Vollnhals; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 22012), 249–64. 27

256

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

particular) was not due to National Socialism; this assimilation happened before and was not limited to particular ideologies of the conservative right.32 It was in this context that Deutsche Christen eventually formed an academic society (Bund für deutsches Christentum) in 1938, in the immediate aftermath of the Reichskristallnacht, and subsequently established the Institut für die Erforschung und Beseitigung des jüdischen Lebens auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben (1939). The racial argumentation by scholars like Gerhard Kittel and Walter Grundmann did not emerge in a vacuum, but rather should be seen as the tip of an iceberg which had formed over more than a century. Kittel and Grundmann had racialized New Testament scholarship in different ways. Kittel did not argue for an Aryan Jesus but, by setting up a sharp dichotomy between true Israelite (Old Testament) religion – of which Jesus was the true representative – and post-biblical degenerate Judaism, he nevertheless argued on a racial basis for true Christianity which could not have anything to do with the degenerate Jewish tradition and race. Grundmann, in his early work, had attempted to “rescue” Jesus from his Jewishness by arguing that he was not racially bound since as the son of God he is above and beyond any racial connotation, a truly new creation.33 However, in his later publications Grundmann embraced the dejudaized Jesus, who fitted the needs of a Christianity compatible with Nazi ideology. This Galilean Jesus was by no means a purely theological construct. Jesus’ Jewishness was questioned on the basis of racist arguments.34 But not all German New Testament scholarship of the period prior and up to 1945 embraced racist ideologies and terminology. Significantly, one of the most prominent scholars of the early twentieth century did not.

Harnack and “the Third Kind” Harnack and “the Third Kind”

In a context where racism and the idea of the “Volk” were advocated by a significant number of biblical scholars as being inherently intertwined with the true understanding of Christianity and its role in the German Reich, it is quite significant that a highly regarded scholar, Adolf von Harnack, who had very close connections to Kaiser Wilhelm II (who was certainly open to anti-Semitism and cherished Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Die Grundlagen des 19.

As is evident in the Berliner Antisemitismus-Streit triggered by Heinrich von Treitschke’s publication “Unsere Aussichten,” Preussische Jahrbücher 44 (Berlin: Reimer Verlag, 1879): 560–76, in which the Jews were identified as constituting an obstacle, even threat, to the inner consolidation of the unified German Reich. 33 W. Grundmann, Religion und Rasse: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nationaler Aufbruch und lebendiger Christusglaube (Werdau: Meister, 1933), 16. 34 W. Grundmann, Totale Kirche im totalen Staat: Kirche im Dritten Reich (Dresden: O. Günther, 1934), 29. 32

Harnack and “the Third Kind”

257

Jahrhunderts, published in 1899), did not integrate racist arguments into his writings. Although, unlike his contemporaries, he did not engage in serious debate with Jewish academics at all (he did not take seriously Leo Baeck’s Das Wesen des Judentums, which constituted a response to von Harnack’s Das Wesen des Christentums),35 he did oppose the political anti-Semitism of contemporaries like historian Heinrich von Treitschke and theologian Adolf Stöcker in their request to exclude Jews from serving as civil servants of the German Reich (and other antisemitic political requests such as the expulsion of Jews who did not have German nationality).36 Nevertheless, he famously argued that Marcion had been correct to consider the Old Testament as not part of the Christian canon and advocated that now was the time to act upon this and cease to view the Old Testament as canonical.37 This is not the place to consider all aspects of his writings concerning the Jewish question, but I will focus on that which is immediately relevant for our discussion – the passage in the seventh chapter of his second book, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (first edition 1902), where he deals with the notion of Christianity as a third entity.38 Harnack discusses the different perceptions in the first two centuries from an emic and etic perspective. He notes that pagan writers as well as early church fathers were interested to find a category into which Christ-followers could be classified. In his excursus, “Die Beurteilung der Christen als drittes Geschlecht seitens ihrer Gegner,” Harnack sets out that pagan writers differentiated clearly between Jews who were considered a people (Volk) like other peoples (Völker), however distinct in their practices, and the “Christians” (as Harnack calls them). Thus, in the first century, references to Christians as a superstitio abound (Suetonius, Nero 16; Pliny, Ep. 10:96; Tacitus, Ann. 15:44).39 In the second and third centuries Christians are considered to be crazy enthusiasts (halbverrückte Schwärmer) or a horrendous “natio” which falls outside the category of humans. Harnack notes that the Latin term “natio” should not be overrated here, since it does not refer to a “Volk” in the sense of a nation (state). He indicates in a footnote that “natio” here refers to a group

See note 8. 36 Cf. Der „Berliner Antisemitismusstreit” 1879–1881: Eine Kontroverse über die Zugehörigkeit der deutschen Juden zur Nation. Kommentierte Quellenedition (ed. K. Krieger; München: Saur, 2004); also for example, J. Malitz, ““Auch ein Wort über unser Judenthum,’ Theodor Mommsen und der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit,“ in Theodor Mommsen: Gelehrter, Politiker und Literat (ed. J. Wiesehöfer; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005), 137–64. 37 A. von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Grundlegung der Katholischen Kirche (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924). 38 A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 4th edn (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), 259–89. 39 Ibid., 282. 35

258

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

rather than a nation in the contemporary sense.40 Further references include Origen’s Contra Celsum (8:55) where Christians are referred to as τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος, which Harnack translates “diese Art” (“this kind”).41 Discussing Tertullian’s references in Ad Nationes to pagan labelling of the Christianoi as a “tertium genus,” Harnack concludes that this label was common in Carthage around 200 CE and that it referred exclusively to a third kind of worshipping and perception of a deity, with Greeks, Romans, and all those who mutually recognized each other’s gods being regarded as the “genus primum,” and the Jews as the “genus alterum.” Harnack is convinced that Tertullian’s presentation of the pagans’ perception is accurate and he refers to a passage in Nat. 1.20 where Tertullian apparently specifies that “tertium genus (dicimur) de ritu.”42 For Harnack, it is evident beyond doubt that the terminology does not refer to any sequence of peoples (Völker) nor any other aspect like the sexual asceticism or libertinism of Christianoi. This etic evidence coincides, according to Harnack, with the emic evidence that Christianoi considered themselves in the second century as “tertium genus,” as displayed in the earliest written version of this expression from the fragment of the “Preaching of Peter” (transmitted in Clem. Alex. Strom. 6:5.41) where the Christianoi are warned not to worship God according to the pattern/kind of the Greeks or the Jews but are told instead that ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ καινῶς αὐτὸν τρίτῳ γένει σεβόμενοι, [ὁι] Xριστιανοί (“but you, who newly worship him in a third manner/way, the Christians”). Harnack consistently translates genus/γένος with “kind/way” (Art) and emphasizes that Greek and Roman writers obviously noted the different kinds/ ways (Arten) of relating to the divine. Thus Harnack is adamant in identifying the worshipping practices as that which distinguish the Christianoi from pagans and Jews. He emphasizes explicitly that the author does not present a categorization of peoples but a classification of worshippers.43 We may or may not agree with his assessment of the second-century literature, but it is evident, in my view, that in his assessment of the attempts at categorizing Christianoi in the second century the concept and terminology of Rasse/race was not considered, nor was it even remotely an adequate means of translating the ancient classifications. As we have noted above, racist ideology and terminology was certainly available as an acceptable option for Harnack. The fact that he did not use it in any way in relation to categorizations in antiquity can also not be attributed to a positive perception of Judaism, although he was convinced of the inherent link between the Christianoi and Judaism in the first century CE. This was a historical insight which did not impact on his perception of the Judaism of the nineteenth

Ibid., 283. 41 Ibid., 284. 42 Ibid., 286. 43 Ibid., 265. 40

Harnack and “the Third Kind”

259

and twentieth centuries, which he considered a legalistic, degenerate petrification of the biblical tradition. Nevertheless, he did not argue in his writings in a racist vein, and the translation of the Greek and Latin terminology by a linguist of his stature should not be ignored. Harnack did of course note that the Christianoi eventually referred to themselves as a people/Volk. Significantly, they claimed the heritage of Israel and as such were both the ancient and new people superseding the Jewish people.44 This perception, however, was relevant in the internal debates, and Harnack translates and interprets second-century texts which refer to this aspect of the self-perception of the Christianoi only when the Greek λαός evidently expresses the claim to the title people of God.45 Particularly with reference to Paul, Harnack explicitly states that the Christian church is not a third Volk, Rasse, or Geschlecht alongside or besides the others but the new step in human history at its end point which transcends or rather renders ineffective the distinctions between peoples as well as differences of social status and gender. In this new creation, both Jews and Greeks are “aufgehoben” – encompassed, not obliterated.46 Thus Harnack sees initial aspects of the church as an entity that transcends the dichotomy of Jews and Greeks (or circumcised and uncircumcised) in the writings of Paul, but he does not see this as evidence for the church being identified in terms of peoplehood or race. That the church eventually – from the second century onwards – is considered a third entity (genus) and eventually claims in self-references a designation as Volk/people as those who encompass in the new creation both Jews and Greeks is not denied but distinguished in careful terminological analysis from any racial connotations. The Volks-Theologie which emerges from this argumentation is not without problems, of course, but it cannot in my view be conflated with racial connotations. The new humanity (not new race!) which Harnack saw emerging in the Christ-movement, however, left no room for people who were not Christian, particularly not for Jews who in Harnack’s view had petrified the message of the Old Testament in Rabbinic Judaism. The new humanity could only be Christian and was identified by him with German Protestantism as the form of Christianity which had come closest to the envisaged new humanity or new creation. Although, as a profound philologist, Harnack did not use racial terminology in his translation of γένος and ἔθνος but remained as close as possible to the meaning of these terms as he saw them in the cultural context of their time, his interpretation was inherently problematic for all those who did not fit into this universalizing image of Christianity.

Ibid., 268. 45 Ibid., 262. 46 Ibid., 261. The German term is notoriously difficult to translate. It wavers between “integrated” or “merged” and “suspended” or “abrogated.” 44

260

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

Racism, Stereotyping, and Xenophobia Harnack’s solid philological work is being taken seriously by contemporary German colleagues who consider it inconceivable that the concept of Rasse could play any role in their research on collective identities in the first century. This is not only because the shadow of the Shoah is ever present, but also because there was already, prior to the events between 1933 and 1945, a vigorous debate concerning the terminology and concepts with which to categorize the groups out of which Christianity and Judaism, as they were later known, emerged, as is evident from the examples discussed above. The omission of the term Rasse at the Bad Soden conference is thus not an accident. Certainly when considered in the German context, there can be no rehabilitation of the term Rasse/race. It is inherently bound up with racism and its consequences of the worst imaginable kind during the National-Socialist regime. This indicates that the Bad Soden conference differentiated the terminology and concept of Rasse/race from the terminologies and concepts of Volk, Nation, and Reich. These are not identical or analogous with the former. The terms and concepts of Volk, Nation, and Reich were open to being harnessed by National-Socialist ideology, but they were not inherently part of an ideology of explicit contempt as such. Although “Volk” and “Nation” too acquired specific meaning in the German context, their ideological baggage is of a different kind to that of the terminology and concept of race and racism. Race/Rasse is a concept, when applied to human beings, that never existed apart from racism. It is used only in connection with racist ideologies. Hence, I am of the view, as I have argued elsewhere, that it is problematic to postulate a neutral use of the term.47 Since “race” is a construct of the racist theories of early modernity, I consider it inaccurate to speak of race and racism in antiquity – even in a sociocultural sense.48 That xenophobia and stereotyping existed is beyond doubt, but, as many theorists emphasize, these categories should not be conflated or confused with each other or with racism. It is noteworthy that in stereotyping in antiquity, although bodily features were discussed, such bodily features were

See K. Ehrensperger, “Paulus, sein Volk und die Rasseterminologie. Kritische Anfragen an den “Race”-Diskurs in neuerer englischsprachiger Paulus-Forschung,” Kirche und Israel 27 (2012), 119–33; K. Ehrensperger, “Paul, His People, and Racial Terminology,” JECH 3.1 (2013), 17–33, now chapter 11 of this volume. Debates concerning contemporary ethnicity and race-related issues are controversial and complex as is evident, for example, in A. Wimmer, “Race-centrism: A Critique and a Research Agenda,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38.13 (2015), 2186–205. 48 B. Isaac, who has been quoted frequently in discussions concerning such terminology, carefully refers in his study to “proto-racism” rather than racism per se in antiquity (despite the title of his book). See B. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 515. 47

Harnack and “the Third Kind”

261

not applied in the stereotyping of Jews at any time.49 The physical categorizations distinguished rather three major types: the northerners who were pale, the southerners who were dark, and those in the middle, the “normal” people of the Mediterranean. These categorizations could be used alongside others and were not merely negative but served descriptive purposes as well. And those categorized as normal did not all belong to the ruling people (Greeks or Romans); hence this categorization was not exclusively hierarchical as later racist categorizations always were. And as mentioned, Jews, in these categorizations, were one of the “normal” Mediterranean peoples. There is a date for the emergence of racism, but there is none for the emergence of xenophobia and stereotypes; and as Karin Priester notes, there are no systematized ideologies or doctrines of xenophobia and stereotypes, but there certainly are racist ideologies and doctrines.50 The English word race is attested from 1508, but as applied to humans only from 1580. It does not occur in the KJV other than in the sense of racing (as in running a race).51 Priester also notes that although since its emergence in the fourteenth/fifteenth century there have been numerous forms of racism, with divergent connotations, inherent to all of them was the aim to re-establish hierarchical structures of domination and subordination.52 Thus the fact that racial terminology in German-language New Testament interpretation was predominantly used in explicitly racist approaches and is unimaginable in any current interpretations might serve as a voice of caution for the New Testament academic community.

S.J.D. Cohen has drawn attention to the idea that “Jews and gentiles were corporeally, visually, linguistically, and socially indistinguishable”; S.J.D. Cohen, “Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?,” in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (ed. S.J.D. Cohen; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999), 25–68 (37). See also the highly informative discussion by J.P. Roth, “Distinguishing Jewishness in Antiquity,” in A Tall Order: Writing the Social History of the Ancient World. Essays in Honor of William V. Harris (ed. J.-J. Aubert, Z. Várhelyi; München: Saur, 2005), 37–58. He particularly notes that “what is surprising, is that in all the ancient Greek and Roman references to Jews, including anti-Semitic ones, there are no references to the Jews having any distinctive physical features whatsoever with the exception of circumcision. Even here, it is almost always referred to as part of the Jewish cultus, not corpus, that is, as a ritual feature of Judaism […] and not part of any ‘Jewish body’” (41). 50 K. Priester, Rassismus und kulturelle Differenz (Münster: Lit Verlag, 1997), 13–14. 51 S. Kelley, Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology, and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship (London: Routledge, 2002), 26. 52 Priester, Rassismus, 14. 49

262

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

Ethnicity and Identity in Current German-Language New Testament Interpretation Ethnicity and Identity

Compared with English-language publications, the number of publications which focus explicitly on ethnicity in contemporary German-language New Testament approaches is rather limited. There is no widespread discourse concerning ethnicity in contemporary German-language scholarship, although a number of colleagues engage with English-language publications on this topic to some extent. This does not mean that research into the emerging identity of the Christmovement is marginal; rather the discussion is based more on theoretical approaches to collective identity53 or, in more traditional terminology, is formulated as a question of ecclesiology.54 In the context of the reception of cultural anthropology in particular, Wolfgang Stegemann has critically interacted with approaches which attempt to avoid the anachronistic concept of religion in their reconstruction of the emerging identity of the Christ-movement.55 Building on the recognition that the term and concept of religion are both anachronistic for the period in question, for Stegemann, the concept of ethnicity serves as a more accurate template for the characterization of the early Christ-movement. Significantly, Stegemann follows Stanley Stowers, and others, in their emphasis on the paradigm of ethnicity as a concept which encompasses the intertwined aspects of traditions and ethos, including cult practice and rituals, as well as rules and regulations. In her overview of recent Anglo-American Pauline interpretation Christina Tuor-Kurth notes the focus on the genealogical link with Abraham as a decisive commonality in approaches which emphasize the ethnicizing terminology in Paul.56 Although she follows Caroline Johnson Hodge in many respects, it is significant that, alongside acknowledging the relevance of the genealogical aspect in relation to the ethnically perceived Christ-movement, Tuor-Kurth maintains that the dimension of a shared ethos is a decisive factor for the constitution of a group. The genealogical constitution of a new group – the Christ-movement as related to but not replacing the people Israel – is thus constituted not only through the genealogical link but also through a shared habitus, a shared ethos which in turn defines the group through shared

For example, S. Hübenthal, Das Markusevangelium als kollektives Gedächtnis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2014). 54 For example, W. Kraus, Das Volk Gottes: Grundlagen der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). 55 W. Stegemann, “The Emergence of God’s New People: The Beginnings of Christianity Reconsidered,” HTS 62, no. 1 (2006), 23–40. 56 C. Tuor-Kurth, “Abraham, Vater aller Glaubenden? Neuere Zugänge zur Frage der Abstammung der Christus-Gläubigen bei Paulus,” Kirche und Israel 31 (2016), 33–49. 53

Ethnicity and Identity

263

practices and values.57 The interrelation between ethos and collective identity has been highlighted by Michael Wolter, although without the focus on ethnicity as a category applicable to the Christ-movement. Wolter maintains that the social dimension of a community manifests itself in its practice or activities.58 This emphasis on ethos as a decisive aspect of collective identity can be found in other German-language publications as well, whether in positive interaction with English-language publications on ethnicity or differentiating themselves from them. Markus Öhler, in a recent article, considers a number of aspects of the relevance of ethnic identities in relation to the Christ-movement and, like others, notices the importance of ethnic belonging and its inseparability from the religious dimension.59 He draws attention to ethnically defined voluntary associations but, particularly in his discussion of New Testament passages, he emphasizes traditional perceptions of Paul as arguing for the overcoming or irrelevance of ethnic belonging when it comes to the identity of those in Christ. Although he carefully distinguishes Paul’s language from later New Testament texts and notes that it is in 1 Peter that we find the explicit use of terms like λάος, ἔθνος, and γένος in relation to those in Christ, he does not further discuss the implications of this use. He refers to Harnack’s insight that the use of these terms becomes relevant for the self-understanding of those in Christ from the second century onwards as the notion of being a third entity (Geschlecht) emerges. Significantly, Öhler never uses race-related terminology, but discusses definitions of ethnicity prevalent generally in the discourse in Englishlanguage publications (of Frederik Barth, Jonathan Hall, et al.). The use of γένος, λάος, and ἔθνος terminology in the New Testament is not considered as a case of ethnic reasoning by Öhler, nor does he argue that by these terms the Christ-movement considers itself or should be considered an ethnic entity. Thus, although ethnic categorizations are considered and viewed as relevant for New Testament interpretation, Öhler concludes that the characteristic of the Christ-movement is precisely the overcoming or irrelevance of these ethnic distinctions. The collective identity of those in Christ, although considered in the context of ethnic diversity (rather than religious diversity or theological differences), is eventually identified as universal, with analogies to some nonethnically defined associations, in that ethnic differences are rendered obsolete. In a recent and very informative article Lukas Bormann emphasizes the significance of “ethnicity as a helpful analytical category for the understanding of

Tuor-Kurth, “Abraham, Vater aller Glaubenden,” 44. 58 M. Wolter, “Ethos und Identität in den paulinischen Gemeinden,” NTS 43 (1997), 430– 57

44. 59 M. Öhler, “Ethnos und Identität. Landsmannschaftliche Vereinigungen, Synagogen und christliche Gemeinden,” in Kult und Macht: Religion und Herrschaft im syro-palästinensischen Raum (ed. A. Lykke, F. Schipper;Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 221–48.

264

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

culture, religion, and politics in antiquity.”60 But in the references to recent publications about this important analytical category that he considers relevant there is only one German-language publication! He cautions that, in order to arrive at valuable new insights rather than mere terminological innovation, contemporary concepts of ethnicity need to be considered in light of potential analogies to the categorization of concepts in antiquity itself. Bormann draws attention to the tension in constructivist concepts of ethnicity even in relation to its modern use, something which Irad Malkin has formulated as follows: Clearly DNA is irrelevant for the formation of historical groupings; however, if ethnic identity persists for some centuries and keeps functioning historically, it becomes primordial both in terms of how outsiders see a group […] and when defined as such also from inside.61

Bormann argues that this is particularly relevant when we take seriously that in antiquity the concept of religion, like other aspects of collective belonging, could not be separated from what in modern terms is called ethnicity.62 Since the issue under discussion is collective rather than individual identity, or the social aspect of individual identity,63 then we might ask if collective identity as such could not also be labelled ethnic – as the term ἔθνος is a collective term? If with ethnicity this collective aspect of a group of people who relate to each other with a sense of belonging is meant (as is the case in the narrative of belonging to which the New Testament writings witness), then their identity might be called ethnic in this broad sense. However, the question is whether any added insight is thereby gained compared with other options. Bormann notes that, when discussing the issue for the period in question, the frame of reference for the term ἔθνος in its specific context needs to be considered in the first place. He draws particular attention to the fact that inherent to the perception of an ἔθνος is the notion that such a group is constituted by their

L. Bormann, “Griechen und Juden – Skythen und Barbaren: Ethnizität, kulturelle Dominanz und Marginalität im Neuen Testament,” in Alternative Voices: A Plurality Approach to Religious Studies: Essays in Honour of Ulrich Berger (ed. A. Adogame, M. Echtler, O. Freiberger; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2013), 116–33 (116). 61 I. Malkin, “Between Collective and Ethnic Identities,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne supplément 10 (2014), 283–92 (284). 62 Bormann, “Griechen und Juden,” 118. 63 Cf. H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (London: Academic Press, 1978), and the reception of Social Identity Theory in P.F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); P. Luomanen, “The Sociology of Knowledge, the Social Identity Approach and the Cognitive Science of Religion,” in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contribution to Cognitive and Social Science (ed. P. Luomanen, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 199–229; J.B. Tucker, You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4 (Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2010). 60

Ethnicity and Identity

265

ἔθος/ἤθος.64 An ἔθνος, in Bormann’s perception, is a group of people who are used to living together according to identifiable customs and traditions, whether these have been transmitted orally or in written form. The terms which refer to these traditions are most frequently derived from the legal sphere with the groups attributing their application and interpretation often to specific categories of people within the group, such as priests or lawyers. Hence, for Rome, this ἔθος/ἤθος is the mos maiorum; for Greek cities it is referred to as the πάτριοι νόμοι. In Judaism, this is obviously the Torah associated with Moses. Other aspects of course complement this perception of what constitutes an ἔθνος, but no group without an ἔθος would be considered as such in antiquity, according to Bormann.65 An interesting variation of this perception of an ἔθνος is Bormann’s reference to Cicero’s contemplation concerning Roman identity. With the expansion of the imperium and the inclusion of the Italian tribes into Roman citizenship, the option of dual or eventually triple identity became viable. Hence, in Cicero’s perception – and later – one could be Roman, Greek, and Messapian all at the same time; the three aspects of one’s identity were not mutually exclusive.66 The question arises, however, whether this means that such a person would have three identities, or is a confluence of ethnic identities, or an ethnic hybrid? Interestingly, in the perception of contemporaries, neither of these modern categories would fit as the different aspects of their “identity” neither mingled nor fused, nor were they cumulative. They could possibly best be described as forms of cultural and political bi- or multiculturalism, or should we say these aspects of identity intersect? Bormann concludes his important article by emphasizing that the overcoming or transcending of ethnic identities was inconceivable for the period in question. He maintains that Paul’s universalism is a particular universalism, that is, a universalism from within the Jewish symbolic and social universe. As such, it is an ethnically specific universalism. I consider Bormann’s approach quite convincing as it comes close to a perception of the Pauline vision of a

Benedikt Eckhardt has analysed this aspect in detail in his Ethnos und Herrschaft. Politische Figurationen Judäischer Identität von Antiochos III. bis Herodes I (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2013). His focus being on the use of ἔθνος in the period after Alexander the Great, he notes that the term was a categorization term which could include numerous diverse groups in the first place, but then was also used in a more specific way as a term denoting a subjugated status, especially in Seleucid and Ptolemaic usage. It is a “differentiation” term, labelling “us” and “them,” in a vein similar to the Roman differentiation of the populus Romanus and the gentes/nationes as all the “others,” particularly those in the realm of the Roman imperium. 65 Bormann, “Griechen und Juden,” 119. 66 Cicero, Leg. 2:5 – patria loci sive natura – patria iuris sive civitatis. (A local or natural fatherland – a fatherland according to law or citizenship.) 64

266

Chapter 13 What’s in a Name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich

diversity of peoples forming a unity in Christ without giving up their particularity, as Ι have argued elsewhere.67 The traditions which nurture the Pauline vision(s) were Jewish in their relation to the scriptures, and their diverse interpretations, as expressions of the relationship to the one God. Of course, all of these were not culturally enclosed traditions (I nowhere argue a purist stance), but part of the vivid cultural interactions of the period, intersecting with numerous other traditions of the time. And although Paul probably had hopes that his vision might be shared by all his Jewish contemporaries, he refrained from considering those who did not see things the way he did as excluded from being God’s beloved. The incoming of the ἔθνη does not replace Israel, but is part of the mysterious ways of God which leads to the saving of πᾶς Ἰσραήλ (Rom 11:26).68 Her specific place in the purpose of God is never in doubt, as God’s “gifts and calling are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).69

Conclusion Conclusion

Where does this leave us? The categories of ethnicity are certainly referred to and reflected upon in some recent German-language scholarship, but there seems to be a reluctance to embrace the discourse as fully as it has been embraced in Anglo-American scholarship. The German-language discussion nevertheless engages in the critical debates concerning the concept of religion, which significantly influenced the search for alternative concepts to understand the processes which, at the end of the fourth century, led to identifiable and more or less distinct entities, Christianity and Judaism. The terminology and concepts in which this discussion is phrased, however, differ mostly from the English-language debates in that open terms such as collective identity are preferred, thus leaving the precise definition of the nature and essence of these groups more open than specific terms like ethnicity or race would allow. The

K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 172–74; “The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι and Images of Community in Enoch Traditions,” in Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (ed. G. Boccaccini, C. Segovia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 183–216, now chapter 6 of this volume. 68 Israel is not equivalent with being in Christ but remains a distinct entity which is neither replaced by, nor “aufgehoben” in Christ. 69 I have dealt with this in two articles, see K. Ehrensperger, “Reading Romans ‘in the Face of the Other’: Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle,” in Reading Romans with Contemporary Philosophers and Theologians (ed. D. Odell-Scott; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 115–54, now chapter 12 of this volume; and also “The ‘Mysterion’ in Romans 11.25–36,” in Religious Secrecy as Contact: Secrets as Promoters of Religious Dynamics (ed. A. Akasoy, et al.; Leiden, forthcoming), which is a revised version of chapter 16 of this volume. 67

Conclusion

267

rather open terminology also takes into account that the terms ἔθνος, γένος, λάος, and so on were used in a wide variety of ways in antiquity and need to be analysed in their specific sociocultural, linguistic, and literary contexts in order to come to any solid conclusions as to their potential meanings. The fact that, certainly in New Testament texts, they were part of, and embedded in, the symbolic and social world of first-century Judaism indicates that attempts at dealing with their meaning need to take this context into account. The cautious reluctance of German-language scholarship to embrace ethnic or racial language without critical caveats as the solution to the terminological and conceptual categorization of the early Christ-movement should not merely be seen as a reaction to terminology prevalent in the period of 1933–45 but rather indicates that this debate needs to be seen in light of earlier debates concerning the appropriate categorization and terminology applicable to the early Christmovement, including such earlier questioning of racial terminology. The question of what the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ precisely is, remains an open question, maybe not unlike Ammianus’ question noted at the outset.







V. Romans









14. Reading Romans “in the Face of the Other”: Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

Introduction Introduction

Before I start this daring project a few issues need to be clarified: 1. This is not a chapter about Emmanuel Levinas. As I am neither a philosopher nor a specialist in Levinas’s philosophical approach this would be a pretentious venture. 2. Levinas himself has neither interpreted Romans, nor any other of the Pauline letters. He only refers occasionally to the apostle and when he did he commented on traditional Christian perceptions of Paul. 3. This contribution is thus not an analysis of a Levinasian interpretation of Romans but a reading of Romans which takes seriously into account aspects of Levinas’s emphasis on the primacy of ethics and the responsibility for the other. 4. In thus reading Paul’s letter to the Romans “in the Face of Emmanuel Levinas” there are themes and issues resonating in both men’s writings which could have stimulated a fascinating conversation between the two (and their co-workers) if they could have met overcoming the gap of space and time. With a little help (not from Derrida)1 but from our imagination2 I would like to bring aspects of both men’s writings into a virtual conversation of learning, debate, agreement and disagreement, associations and analogies, disputation and consensus over concerns they might not directly share but which might prove more related to each other than suspected at first glance. (A relatedness which, in my opinion, is rooted in their shared Jewish heritage.) The intention of this virtual conversation cannot be to bring them into final harmony or agreement but to participate in the ongoing process of negotiating meaning in interpretation.3

See K. Ehrensperger, “Let Everyone be Convinced in his/her Own Mind: Derrida and the Deconstruction of Paulinism” in SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta, 2002), 53–73. 2 On the function of informed imagination or “depth historiography” see Peter Ochs in his Foreword to D. Weiss Halivni’s Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (London: Taylor&Francis, 1997), xvi. 3 On this see K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 4–42. Also R.A. Cohen, Ethics, Exegesis, and Philosophy: Interpretation after Levinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 248–52. 1

272

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

To begin with (section II) I will summarize general aspects of Levinas’s thinking which to me seem most relevant for the purpose of our “reading of Romans in the face of the other,” and will then analyse briefly how these resonate with aspects of the history of interpretation of the letter. The second part (section III) will take up the role of interpretation or “scriptural reasoning” in Levinas’s work, particularly in his Talmud readings, proposing the thesis that with fresh inspiration from Levinas, Romans could be read as an example of Pauline scriptural reasoning. The third part (section IV) will focus on the emphasis of the priority of ethics which Levinas advocates throughout his entire work. I will advocate the thesis that similar to Levinas and in accordance with Jewish tradition and in distinction from many Pauline scholars, Paul throughout Romans prioritizes ethics, the relationship with the other, over against doctrine. The argument of Romans throughout chapters 1–15, not only in chapters 12–15, is inherently driven by ethical concerns, that is, concerns for the other in his/her abiding difference.

Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, and Paul the First “Christian” Theologian – in Confrontation or Conversation? Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, and Paul the First “Christian” Theologian

Levinas’s thinking cannot be described easily. It resists and is intended to resist any systematization, as it is not developed in a systematic form following traditional (philosophical) ways of reasoning. It is a thinking which could be described as unfolding variations of basic issues in ever new ways. This is by no means incidental, but it is rather consistent with what Levinas’s philosophizing is all about. Philosophical thinking is not free from pre-philosophical presuppositions and Levinas did not perceive his philosophical approach as a means in and for itself but as related to life and experience prior to and beyond philosophical reflection. Any philosophical approach presupposes pre-philosophical experience. Levinas’s own approach is rooted in Jewish life and thought. He himself is aware that it was in Jewish thinking that he had found ethics to be the primary experience. 4 Levinas is both personally and philosophically deeply influenced by his living through the Shoah. Levinas and Universalizing Ontology One of his main concerns is the distortion violence imposes on humans and by which their identity is destroyed. He is concerned about totalitarian tendencies

Cf. an interview with Christian Deschamps in Entretiens avec le Monde, Paris: Editions la Découverte, 1984, 142. 4

Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, and Paul the First “Christian” Theologian

273

which he regards as inherent in the Western philosophical tradition and its emphasis on universalism.5 In approaches which are trying to grasp the totality of being in systems of cognition Levinas uncovers and thus exposes the notion of assimilating the other to the already known, a process which leads to annihilating the other into the same. In the Western philosophical tradition the process of knowing is essentially perceived as being attached to “being” – to that which it is acquiring knowledge about. Inherent to the concept of “being” is the form of knowledge to apprehend it. Knowing then is the coalescence of my thinking/reasoning with the form of “being” – or as Hegel has formulated “Erkenntnis ist die Übereinstimmung des Geistes mit sich selbst” – “the process of knowing is the movement of being itself”.6 Knowing is thus a process of identification. The “I” ends up identifying that which is different/the other with myself or with something already known. Thus whatever exists in the world even though not yet known by me, could become part of my knowledge of the world, could be integrated by me, it could become my possession. 7 Knowing is a self-centered process, an “egologie.” Levinas describes this process not merely in negative terms. To live life in this world is to live from something. To live means to be in need of something – breathing and nourishment. To live means to depend on that which we are not. Levinas perceives this dependency not as an enslavement or as lacking something but sees it as the source of enjoyment. He states The life that is life from something is happiness. Life is affectivity and sentiment; to live is to enjoy life. To despair of life makes sense only because originally life is happiness. Suffering is a failing of happiness; it is not correct to say that happiness is an absence of suffering. Happiness is made up not of an absence of needs, whose tyranny and imposed character one denounces, but of the satisfaction of all needs.8

Cf. his preface to Totality and Infinity, trans. A. Lingis (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1992), “[…] violence does not consist so much in injuring and annihilating persons as in interrupting their continuity, making them play roles in which they no longer recognize themselves, making them betray not only commitments but their own substance […]” and “The visage of being that shows itself in war is fixed in the concept of totality, which dominates Western philosophy” (21). 6 Cf. Levinas, Of God Who Comes to Mind (Stanford: Standford University Press, 1998), 101. 7 Cf. Levinas “But in knowledge there also appears the notion of an intellectual activity or of a reasoning will – a way of doing something which consists precisely of thinking through knowing, of seizing something and making it one’s own, of reducing to presence and representing the difference of being, an activity which appropriates and grasps the otherness of the known […] Knowledge as perception, concept, comprehension refers back to an act of grasping.” In “Ethics as First Philosophy” in The Levinas Reader (ed. S. Hand; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 75–87, here 76. 8 Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 115. 5

274

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

Levinas even states that “[…] one becomes a subject of being..in enjoying happiness, by the interiorization of enjoyment […].”9 The I only crystallizes in enjoyment, in enjoying living by living from the world and thus being at home with oneself. However crucial this “living from something,” this process in which aspects of “the world” are integrated into “my world” is, it is not the same as life itself. 10 This egocentric enjoyment, and being at home with oneself is the presupposition for the relation to the other. To relate to the other means to confront him/her out of myself, to proceed from myself rather than to compare him/her with myself.11 But if this notion of egocentric enjoyment and living from the world by assimilating it to me is turned into the driving force in relation to the other (human being) it becomes the source of dehumanizing violence, that is, when it is universalized and made into the general principle of relating and knowing. To recognize and respect the other and his/her needs on the basis of the analogy that he/she is the same as I am, is based on the assumption of cognition. Knowing the other on the presupposition that he/she is similar to me means, according to Levinas, to grasp him/her, reducing him/her to the same. To integrate the other into my life means to assimilate him/her to myself, into my world. This, according to Levinas is a form of violence against the other not in teaching violence but in trying to “know”/understand the other in assimilating him/her to the same, to the already known, to myself. To know something means to grasp it totally, that is to assimilate it to the already known. The alterity of the other is assimilated into the same, and thereby rendered identical. For Levinas the process of knowing as a process of identification is enclosing the other into the totality of the same, and as such the source of violence.12 He states Western philosophy has most often been an ontology: a reduction of the other to the same by interposition of a middle and neutral term that ensures the comprehension of being. This primacy of the same was Socrates’ teaching: to receive nothing of the Other but what is in me, as though from all eternity I was in possession of what comes to me from the outside – to receive nothing, or to be free. […] Cognition is the deployment of this identity: it is freedom. That reason in the last analysis would be the manifestation of a freedom, neturalizing the other and encompassing him, can come as no surprise once it is laid down that sovereign reason knows only itself, that nothing other limits it. The neutralization of the other who becomes a theme, an object – appearing, that is, taking its place in the light – is precisely his reduction to the same […] To know amounts to grasping being out of nothing or reducing it to nothing, removing from it its alterity.13

Ibid., 119. 10 Ibid., 122. 11 Ibid., 62 and 121. 12 Cf. also J. Derrida, “Violence and Metaphysics,” in Writing and Difference (J. Derrida; London: Routledge, reprint 2002 of the first edition of 1978), 97–192. 13 Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 43. 9

Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, and Paul the First “Christian” Theologian

275

This implies that the other is not seen or encountered as the other in his/her alterity but reduced and assimilated into my world and made the same. Reducing the other to sameness is a means of adapting difference and particularity to concepts of universal meaning. Universalism is achieved by suppressing diversity. Ontology, according to Levinas is a philosophy of power and injustice.14 Levinas and the Other Over against the totalizing tendency of universalizing ontology Levinas formulates his emphasis of the radical alterity of the other – an alterity which he perceives as so radical that he uses the term “metaphysics” for it. Nothing links me to the other, he/she is the stranger who interrupts my life, “disturbs my being at home with myself.”15 But the face of the other is nevertheless the radical call to responsibility. The relation to the other cannot consist in grasping or knowing. To know the other is to enter into a relationship, to encounter the other is prior and beyond any knowing. To relate to the other always already implies to be called, to be called into responsibility for the other, for the other’s life. Thus ethics is prior to anything else. Ethics is the first philosophy.16 This responsibility has nothing to do with assimilating the other to myself, but to enter a relationship to absolute alterity, the other transcends myself in this encounter. He/she is always more than I can expect, can encompass. Richard A. Cohen notes that For Levinas the breakthrough of the other into the self is so fundamentally and so essentially out of order that it is “otherwise than being or beyond essence.” The other is always more than the self bargains for, more than the self wants, more than what the self can handle.17

The other is delimiting my limitations. She/he encounters myself in a way which exceeds “the idea of the other in me.”18 Any images or analogies that are already formed in me are destroyed at the moment of immediate encounter. The face of the other overflows any image – it expresses itself. 19 The other is breaking into the totality of a world I can encompass via knowledge, it renders totality in fact impossible as in its alterity it refers to the idea of infinity: “[…] the existent breaks through all the envelopings and generalities of Being to

Ibid., 46. 15 Ibid., 39. 16 Cf., e.g., Levinas, Totality and Infinity, Section III.B. “Ethics and the Face,” 194–219, also his essay “Ethics as First Philosophy” in Levinas Reader, 76–87. 17 Cohen, Ethics, Exegesis and Philosophy, 194. 18 Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 50. 19 Ibid., 51. 14

276

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

spread out in its ‘form’ the totality of its ‘content,’ finally abolishing the distinction between form and content.” 20 To encounter the other implies to receive something from outside, from beyond myself. This disturbs and uproots myself in any totality of knowledge or experience. I have nothing that comes merely from within and of myself. In rendering the idea of totality impossible the emphasis of the radical alterity of the other also questions the notion of universalism. Radical alterity implies particularity. To meet the other face to face can only mean to meet him in her/his particularity. There is no general “other” in this earthly existence, there is in fact nothing “general” or “universal” existing in this sensible world. I can meet the other only as a particular human being at a specific moment in time in a particular place. Thus history cannot be “[…] the privileged plane where Being disengaged from the particularism of points of view […] is manifested.”21 To integrate everyone into universal concepts (e.g., a universal spirit unfolding itself in the course of human history) actually means to ignore the alterity of the other, that is the other him/herself. Integration into a general universal humanity is, according to Levinas, an act of cruelty and injustice.22 Levinas and Communicating with the Other The relation with the other, the encounter face to face is not only a disruption of my being at home with myself, it is a call and as such it is already discourse.23 The face of the other calls me. I am chosen to respond, into responsibility. I am inescapably responsible for the other. Not because he/she is of the same genus as I am but because he/she is precisely different. As such “the face of the neighbor signifies for me an unexceptionable responsibility, preceding my consent, every pact, every contract.”24 As the face of the other calls me and I am called to respond, a discourse is established. Inasmuch as the other is not assimilated to me in relating to me, language establishes and transcends the difference between me and the other. Language

Ibid., 51. 21 Ibid., 52. 22 He states that “Totalization is accomplished only in history – the history of the historiographers, that is among survivors. It rests on the affirmation and the conviction that the chronological order of the history of the historians outlines the plot of being in itself, analogous to nature. The time of universal history remains as the ontological ground in which particular existences are lost,” Totality and Infinity, 55. 23 “The face is a living presence, it is expression […] The face speaks. The manifestation is already discourse,” Totality and Infinity, 66. He also states that “The banal fact of conversation, in one sense, quits the order of violence.” “Ethics and Spirit,” in Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism, trans. S. Hand (E. Levinas, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1990), 7. 24 E. Levinas, Otherwise Than Being, Or Beyond Essence (trans. A. Lingis; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981), 87. 20

Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, and Paul the First “Christian” Theologian

277

does not presuppose sameness or generality but rather presupposes difference, it presupposes interlocutors which are and remain different, it presupposes the separation of terms, that is, language presupposes plurality.25 A discourse is interaction between others constituting community rather than presupposing it. It is the experience of something unknown or as Levinas formulates traumatism of astonishment. It is the means via which I can respond to the call of the other, by which I can give to the other. In speaking, I and the other are creating a common world.26 This “perception” of humans and human society derives not exclusively but primarily from the Jewish traditions Levinas sees himself rooted in. 27 For Levinas, as Cohen has expressed it […] each human being, regardless of differences […] is ‘created’ in ‘the image and likeness of God.’ Humanity would be constituted not by the embrace of a unitary idea or hidden substructure, but across encounter – face-to-face. Though it may be incomprehensible, the trace of transcendence passes here through the very heart of humanity.28

As Jewish traditions first of all are scriptural traditions the necessity of interpretation is a given. Interpretation is not to be equated with explanation. Explanation is an objectifying approach to life, appropriate in a scientific perception, whereas understanding aims at self-understanding, a focus which humanities and religion share. Far from advocating a literalist or fundamentalist reading of the scriptures Levinas does not reject rational critical approaches in interpretation but he emphasizes that these cannot be exhaustive.29 Levinas even sees a similar naïveté in both fundamentalist and literalist as well as in critical readings of the scriptures.30 Distinguishing between pure criticism and exegesis, Levinas perceives Jewish spirituality as exegetical. There is no Judaism without scriptures and vice versa. But it is never scriptures pure that is encountered but always scriptures interpreted. Reading scriptures is a continual process of interpretation and reinterpretation of multiple readers and readings, a process of negotiation and renegotiating meaning in life.31

Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 73. 26 Ibid., 76. 27 Cf. E. Levinas, “On the Jewish Reading of Scriptures,” in Levinas and Biblical Studies (ed. T.C. Eskenazi et al.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 101–15. 28 Cohen, Ethics, Exegesis and Philosophy, 219. 29 Levinas is influenced by Rosenzweig here, cf. E. Levinas “The State of Israel and the Religion of Israel,” in The Levinas Reader, 263, and N.N. Glatzer, Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), 245. 30 See E. Levinas, New Talmudic Readings (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1999), 95. 31 I am indebted to Richard A. Cohen’s excellent analysis of Levinas’s approach to reading scriptures, cf. especially chapter 7 “Humanism and the right of exegesis” in his Ethics, Exegesis and Philosophy, 216–65. 25

278

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

Levinas and Universalization in Pauline Interpretation These emphases in Levinas’s philosophizing stand in stark contrast to an image of Paul that perceives him as the champion of hegemonial universalism. It is an image which attributes to him the role of the first Christian theologian, who freed Christianity from the particularism of Judaism and its reliance on “good works” and thereby enabled it to attain its true self-understanding as the religion of the pure, universal spirit.32 If Paul actually is the founder of universalism33 in that sense, the encounter between Levinas and Paul would probably take on the form of confrontation rather than conversation. This image of Paul, though criticized in the last three decades from various perspectives that may be summarized under the heading of the “New Perspective,”34 is still having significant impact in Pauline interpretation and has experienced a revival in recent scholarship which is reacting against approaches in the vein of the New Perspective. Scholars such as Stephen Westerholm35 and John M.G. Barclay36 emphasize that the emphasis on ethics, on the doing of the will of God in Judaism actually stands in irreconcilable contrast to Paul’s emphasis on salvation by grace which can only be accessed by faith in Christ irrespective of works of the law. Jewish identity is thus an obstacle to being in Christ and has to be given up. In Christ the particularities of specific identities

Many aspects of this image were developed by F.C. Baur in the first half of the 19th century in his attempt to free New Testament studies from doctrinal church constraints through the application of historical-critical methodology to the New Testament. In the process theological anti-Judaism was transformed into historical anti-Judaism read back into the origins of the early Christ-movement. Cf. also S. Kelley, Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship (London: Routledge, 2002), “Jesus and the Myth of the West: Tübingen and the construction of early Christianity,” 64–88. 33 See the differentiated analysis of A. Badiou, Saint Paul: Founder of Universalism, trans. R. Brassier (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003). 34 The term is now applied to a number of distinct approaches which emerged after E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). They are diverse and amongst them there are also critical differentiations and developments since Sanders’, so it is not always self-evident what the term actually encompasses. The New Perspective cannot be described as one homogenic school or system of thought about Paul but must be seen as a movement of interpretation. For an overview and critical evaluation see W.S. Campbell, “Perceptions of Compatibility between Christianity and Judaism in Pauline Interpretation,” Biblical Interpretation, Vol. XIII.3 (2005), 298– 316; also Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, 123–60. 35 S. Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 36 J.M.G. Barclay, “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (ed. B.W. Longenecker; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 133–56. 32

Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, and Paul the First “Christian” Theologian

279

are overcome and thus should be obliterated. Christ is the model to be imitated,37 a model which is perceived as something absolutely new which has no relation to anything known, being exclusively determined by the revelation of God. To be one in Christ implies that all have to become the same in Christ. Moreover, faith in Christ is perceived as something that has to be believed in – a system of doctrine one has to believe in in order to be saved. Ethics is an outcome of this affirmation or knowing and accepting of doctrines of faith. In perspectives such as Westerholm’s and Barclay’s then once again, as, e.g., in Bornkamm, the letter to the Romans comes close to being perceived – despite being a real letter – as “Paul’s last will and testament,”38 an outline of his almost “systematic theology.” There could hardly be a stronger contrast to Levinas’s philosophizing than this depiction of Paul.39 The perception of Paul as the champion of universalism at the expense of particularity, and as the theologian for whom ethics is an appendix to true faith, needs Judaism as a negative foil in order to formulate the new faith in Christ positively. Paul is viewed as having separated or having been in the process of separating himself from his ancestral faith and practice in his interpretation of the Christ-event. The Christ event and first century Judaism are perceived as being in an opposition to each other that is mutually exclusive. For Paul, in this perception, there is only room for one and the same way of faith and life in relation to the one God; that is through Christ, which implies at the expense of historic Israel. There is no room for difference, no room for the other. The alterity of the other is deplored as a defect that has to be extinguished as it threatens the oneness of being in Christ and the universal truth of Christ. Perceived in this way it is difficult if not impossible to read Paul and his letter to the Romans in particular in the face of the other without violent implications. It is difficult to start a conversation with the other when his/her alterity and thus integrity is not respected. A conversation necessarily fails when there is only the option of either me or the other. This applies not only to the relationship of Christ believers and Jews: the relationship between Jews and gentiles in Christ and between Christ believers and non-Christ-believing Jews in the first century has a paradigmatic character for a Christ-defined identity. It is also of great significance, for what was later to become, “Christian” identity and its relation to the other who remains and wants to remain different. This relationship is the test case for the openness of Christianity not only first to Jews, but to other “others,” to alterity that cannot be integrated into the same,

On this see K. Ehrensperger, “‘Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ’: A Hidden Discourse of Power and Domination in Paul?,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 38/4 (2003), 241–61. 38 G. Bornkamm, “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament,” Australian Bible Review 11 (1963), 2–14. 39 Cf. his Vier Talmud-Lesungen (Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag Neue Kritik, 1993), 154. 37

280

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

or into the totality of any system. Paul’s letters, and Romans in particular, pertinently address the issue of this relationship. Romans is actually of crucial significance for Christian self-definition/understanding since it is the only place where Jews as Jews (and not merely as Christ-believers) are seriously discussed in relation to the gospel. But as scholars of and beyond the New Perspective have demonstrated, the universalistic and thus exclusivist reading is not the only possible reading of the Pauline letters, including Romans.40 There is ample historical and sociological as well as theological indication to argue that faith in Christ and being rooted in his ancestral faith and culture were not perceived as being incompatible by Paul. There is also sound reason to argue that Paul strongly emphasized the inherent necessity of the relatedness of faith in Christ to Judaism and its scriptures.41 This may even be viewed as being the main issue in his argumentation in Romans. Paul is seen as being deeply rooted in first-century Judaism, his life, thoughts and activity as interwoven with the traditions and practices of his ancestors and contemporaries, which were based on the scriptures.42 The perception of Paul’s life and activity as being rooted entirely within the symbolic universe of first-century Judaism (which in its diversity encompassed differing groups even though the contemporary term pluralism might not be quite appropriate) and thus as not using Judaism or the “other” as a negative foil for “faith in Christ” opens up the option of reading Paul/Romans in the face of the other. If they are perceived as being rooted within the same symbolic universe Levinas, the Jewish philosopher and Paul, the Jewish Apostle could actually be related in a conversation over their shared tradition, as “others,” who are and remain different, but are nevertheless related via this tradition.

Cf. the overview in Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, 123–60. 41 See W.S. Campbell, “The Contribution of Traditions to Paul’s Theology,” in Pauline Theology, Vol II,1 & 2 Corinthians (ed. D.M. Hay; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 234–54; M.D. Nanos, “The Jewish Context of the Gentile Audience Addressed in Paul's Letter to the Romans,” CBQ 61.2 (1999), 283–304; N. Elliott, “The Apostle’s Self-Presentation as AntiImperial Performance” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2004), 67–88; N. Elliott, “Paul and the Politics of the Empire” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honor of Krister (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International 2000), 17–39. 42 See Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, 142–44. Also K. Ehrensperger, “Scriptural Reasoning – the Dynamic that Informed Paul’s Theologizing,” Irish Biblical Studies 26.1 (2004), 32–52 (also Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 5.2 [2005], http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/). 40

Romans and Scriptural Reasoning

281

Romans and Scriptural Reasoning Romans and Scriptural Reasoning

Read from this perspective a number of themes and issues of Levinas’s approach resonate with Romans. Not all can be addressed within a contribution of this length; I will focus on some aspects I consider relevant without claiming to address even these exhaustively. If we take Levinas seriously, this claim is neither an aim worth trying to achieve nor is it actually possible to achieve, since he emphasized that to encounter the other means to respond, to be responsible to the other rather than trying to understand him/her in the categories of my own experience or thinking. To discuss a theme or issue exhaustively would imply the enclosure within a closed system, the closed system of my own thought and experience, thus not respecting the alterity of the other but assimilating it to the already known. 43A virtual encounter between Paul and Levinas cannot claim to deal with the issues addressed exhaustively. This conversation will hopefully answer some questions and at the same time raise new ones that keep the conversation open and lively. The first issue I will address is the issue of communication between “others.” A second will be the reasoning or conversation over shared Scriptural tradition in relation to contemporary problems and questions. A third issue will be the priority of ethics. Letter Writing as a Process of Mutual Communication The fact that Paul is writing letters to his communities demonstrates that he is involved in an ongoing process of communication with them. This communication usually had begun in a face-to-face encounter, when Paul and future Christ-believers had first met. The relationship thus established and the communication thus initiated continued and was nurtured through the means of letter writing. This was the main function of Paul’s letters as Eve-Marie Becker recently has emphasized: “So the letter serves primarily as a substitute for an oral communication, that is, for a conversation and thus claims no apostolic authority but has above all a communicative that is an inter-communicative function.”44 The letters are thus perceived as being part of oral communication,

As Levinas has formulated “Knowledge as a perception, concept, comprehension refers back to an act of grasping […] Knowledge is re-presentation, a return to presence, and nothing may remain other to it” (“Ethics as First Philiosophy” in The Levinas Reader, 76–77). 44 My translation of the German “So dient der Brief zunächst als Ersatz für eine mündliche Kommunikation, d.h. für ein Gespräch, und beansprucht keine apostolische Autorität, sondern hat primaer eine kommunikative bzw. interkommunikative Funktion” (Schreiben und Verstehen: Paulinische Briefhermeneutik im Zweiten Korintherbrief [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002], 271. 43

282

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

serving the purpose of maintaining the relationship. They are literary products45 only insofar as they were the only ways and means by which the oral communication could be maintained, they could be described as “long distance oral communication.”46 Paul presupposes that his letters on reception are presented to the group of Christ-believers orally. His letters thus address the recipients directly on the issues discussed, not in the style of an abstract or more distanced essay. He is involved and wants to involve the recipients in the conversation. He does not elaborate about something from an objective perspective, but he is engaged in a discussion with them concerning issues that really matter between them. Paul is addressing real people, in a specific historical context and communicating with them about issues arising from that relationship.47Although communication through letters cannot have the same directness and mutuality as immediate oral communication, letter writing nevertheless is the only written form of communication that allows for dialogue and mutuality.48 Letter writing is not a one way process but allows for real interaction in both directions, especially since the letter bearer could elaborate on the contents of the letter and report back to the sender.49 Although a number of suggestions have been made regarding the character of Paul’s letter to Rome, it has been demonstrated convincingly, in my view, that Romans is a real letter.50 The aspects of letters as means of “long distance communication” thus also apply. The difference from the other letters consists only in the fact that Paul has not yet been able to meet the Christ-believing groups in Rome personally. The communication between the addressees and

45 As

such they also show certain signs of literary construction, which in a secondary sense have to be taken into account. I am concentrating here on the oral dimension. For more on both aspects see Becker, Schreiben und Verstehen, 132–34.; also C. Osiek, “The Oral World of Early Christianity in Rome: The Case of Hermas,” in Judaism and Christianity in FirstCentury Rome (ed. K.P. Donfried, P. Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 151–72; J. Dewey, “Textuality in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions,” Semeia 65 (1994), 37–65. 46 Cf. B. Oestreich, “Leseanweisungen in Briefen als Mittel der Gestaltung von Beziehungen (1 Thess 5:27),” NTS 50 (2004), 224–45, here 224. 47 Cf. M.L. Stirewalt, Paul, the Letterwriter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 108. 48 In an era prior to e-mail communication. 49 Cf. “Briefe stellen indirekte, medial bzw. schriftlich vermittelte kommunikative Prozesse dar, denen die Unmittelbarkeit und Wechselseitigkeit mündlicher Kommunikation fehlt. Dennoch ist die briefliche Kommunikation die einzige schriftliche Kommunikationsform, in der ein Richtungswechsel und damit eine dialogische Kommunikation ohne Schwierigkeiten möglich ist” (Becker, Schreiben und Verstehen, 121). 50 Cf., e.g., W.S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context, Jew and Gentile in The Letter to the Romans (Berlin: Peter Lang, 1992); N. Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's Dialogue with Judaism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).

Romans and Scriptural Reasoning

283

the sender rather than starting with a meeting face to face begins via long distance mediation. This does not render the relationship a literary construction or merely virtual. Despite the geographical distance between the interlocutors, a real relationship and a real process of communication are established here; Paul indicates strongly that he intends to meet the addressees face to face. It has been argued that the issues addressed in Romans emerged not from some theoretical doctrinal, but from actual problems within the Christ-believing groups in Rome and their situation; some links already exist between these groups and Paul, as the list in Rom 16:1ff. indicates. Romans, as the other letters, can be perceived as a written example of an interactive, dialogical and mutual process of communication between groups of Christ-believers and Paul. The diatribe style of Romans supplements this perspective.51 It is not a proof text for a one way communication or an outline of the main doctrines of Christianity, nor is it Paul’s last will and testament, but rather another example of the interactive process within which early Christ believers tried to work out and negotiate what to live in Christ meant and implied in their actual lives. Paul’s letters including Romans are indications of a concrete historical communication process. In Levinasian terms this implies that those involved in this process had established real relationships within which the other was not assimilated to the same but the alterity of the other was maintained and respected otherwise, it would be no relationship at all. To meet the other without assimilating him/her to the same means being already in conversation.52 As noted above, Levinas perceives the encounter face to face as already establishing a discourse, since the other as a face already speaks to me. He tries to show that the relation between the same and the other […] is language. For language accomplishes a relation such that the terms are not limitrophe within this relation, such that the other, despite the relationship with the same, remains transcendent to the same. The relation between the same and the other […] is primordially enacted as conversation […]53

The specific function of Paul’s letters as part of a vivid process of communication indicates that those communicating with each other did so as people who met the other as other without trying to assimilate them to themselves. Levinas states “The fact that the face maintains a relation with me by discourse does not range him in the same; he remains absolute within the relation.”54 In such a discourse true encounter can happen, an encounter in which truth can arise, “Truth arises where a being separated from the other is not engulfed in him,

Cf. S.K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico: Society of Biblical Literature Series, 1981), 75–77. 52 Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 76–81. 53 Ibid., 39. 54 Ibid., 195. 51

284

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

but speaks to him.”55 The letters of Paul, including Romans, are indicative of such a process of true encounter between the apostle and his addressees. To perceive Paul’s letter writing as indicative of a “face to face” conversation within a network of Christ believers (in this case Paul, his co-workers and Christ believers in Rome) has significant implications for a reading of these letters, Romans in particular. With this goes the implication that insights of faith do not emerge in a system of theological thought imposed on others but in the face-to-face encounter within a particular conversation. Thus a contemporary reading which is trying to uncover a theological system of thought from Romans seems anachronistic. It is rather by trying to listen into the conversation, in the fragmentary form it has been transmitted, that glimpses of truth might be revealed to us in our contemporary conversations. Moreover, to view Paul as only one, certainly significant, partner in a conversation has implications for the perception of authority and power that he exercised and that is attributed to him. I cannot elaborate on these implications here, but such a reading suggests that domination and control were not what Paul was aiming at when he engaged in these conversations with other Christ believers.56 The Hermeneutics of Negotiating Meaning in Romans To perceive truth as emerging in true encounter between “the same and the o/Other” has consequences for the way in which the scriptures are read. Levinas’s practice of interpretation – or as others have called it, his practice of scriptural reasoning57 – emerges from his focus on the pluralism of human so-

Ibid., 62. 56 On the issue of power see now K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics od Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007). Cf. also Levinas, Totality and Infinity, 171–73. 57 The term “Scriptural Reasoning” has come to prominence in postcritical theologies as expressed in the series Radical Traditions: Theology in a Postcritical Key, edited by Peter Ochs and Stanley Hauweras. What is being proposed is a return to scriptural traditions, “with the hope of retrieving resources long ignored, depreciated, and in many cases ideologically suppressed by modern habits of thought.” It is in the first instance a movement that began as an offshoot of the study of Judaism but parallel to this movement of Jewish thinkers there has now developed a movement that invites Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologians back to the texts of their respective traditions, recovering and rearticulating modes of “scriptural reasoning.” The movement is driven by questions concerning the place of theology and, more specifically, of scriptural faith in contemporary life. Significantly, the participants of this discourse locate themselves at home both within their respective faith communities as well as in Western universities. The move towards scriptures does not imply a naïve return to some ‘original’ pure text or original truth, but neither is it an uncritical application of socalled ‘rational’ forms of thinking and reasoning in the Western philosophical tradition. The movement finds significant affinities between Jewish forms of reading and reasoning and 55

Romans and Scriptural Reasoning

285

ciety, which he perceives as constitutive of interpretation. Community and society do not presuppose sameness but rather presuppose difference, the respect for and safeguarding of the integrity of the other in his/her alterity.58 Pluralism is not only constitutive of society but, as we have seen above, of discourse as well.59 As interlocutors necessarily have to be and remain different any discourse presupposes plurality. A discourse over scriptural tradition thus cannot but reflect this pluralism. Multiple readings, expressions, commentaries then are not mere or unfortunate ambiguities but the necessary ‘manner’ and way of interpretation.60 The letter to Rome could adequately be described as a discourse over scriptural tradition. In none of Paul’s letters do we find as many obvious allusions to Scriptural tradition as here. We are listening in to a conversation which reveals glimpses of the process of the search for meaning which was unfolding in the early Christ-movement in the aftermath of the Christ-event. In this process the scriptures apparently played a vital part. The discourse unfolds entirely within the symbolic universe of the scriptures of Israel and in close relation to others, living within this same symbolic universe, that is Jews (which were not part of the Christ-movement), Jewish Christ believers as well as Christ believers from among the nations. Paul’s reasoning is not only rooted in the scriptures but is developed in association with, and in the context of, contemporary Jewish thinking and exegesis. Paul moves within the biblical thought world and uses its idiom and language but he did not receive his Bible in a vacuum. Paul encountered the challenge of scripture through a Jewish filter. His thinking was directly influenced by the scriptures but it was also influenced by his familiarity with contemporary Jewish reasoning. As B. Rosner notes “The significance of many portions of the Pauline paraenesis can only be appreciated by taking full account of Old Testament background as well as the conceptual development of Old Testament ideas in early Jewish paraenesis.”61 In my view this applies not only to

postmodern thought. It challenges the notion of there being just one single discourse of reasoning and rationality, that is, that of Western science and logic, as the valid model for the “right” way of thinking. Cf. Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (ed. P. Ochs, N. Levene; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). See also P. Ochs, “The Rules of Scriptural Reasoning,” The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 2.1 (2002), etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr. 58 See E. Levinas, Zwischen uns: Versuche über das Denken an den Anderen (Munich: Hanser Verlag, 1995), 258ff. German translation of Entre nous: Essais sur le penser-al’autre (Paris: Grasset&Fasquelle, 1991). Also E. Levinas, Of God Who Comes To Mind (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 143–45. 59 See above. 60 Cf. Cohen, Ethics, Exegesis and Philosophy, 248. 61 B.S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics, A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 181.

286

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

the paraenetical sections of Paul’s letters but to his theologizing as such. This means that we must acknowledge and take into account the fact that Paul shares common ground with fellow Jewish exegetes, despite other differences from them. Gone then is the image of Paul, the isolated exegete using the Old Testament for his own gospel purposes in a manner that, whilst emphasizing his rootedness in scriptures, simultaneously suggests that his gospel hermeneutic radically distances him from all contemporary Judaisms. To acknowledge Paul’s relation to contemporary Jewish thinking is merely to put Paul in his social and theological context, to recognize the sociality of his reading and reasoning.62 The gospel Paul proclaimed was the actualization of Jewish hopes as expressed in their scriptures and traditions, which he and the early Christmovement believed to be confirmed in the Christ-event. This gospel thus could only be formulated in the context of these hopes. Since in Romans Paul is not addressing Jews as such, it is clear that the Jewish scriptures and Jewish traditions also have fundamental importance for gentiles in Christ. Moreover, the hermeneutical significance of the fact that Paul devotes substantial space in Romans to non-Christ-believing Jews cannot be underestimated.63 Here is a superb example of Paul taking the alterity of the other seriously into account. What is significant is not merely the details of his opinions but rather the fact that he addresses the theme at all. This is a clear indication that he shared and lived in the symbolic universe, the “cultural-linguistic system” of first century Judaism.64 It seems inconceivable that he could have envisaged, let alone that he could have promoted actions in directions that moved beyond the “cultural-linguistic system” of first-century Judaism.65 He is tied in with the future of his own people and their identity even though they disagree concerning the Christ.

Cf. D. Ford, “Responding to textual reasoning: What might Christians learn?” in Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (ed. P. Ochs, N. Levene; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 259–68, here 265f. Cf. J.H. Charlesworth on the diversity of Judaism, “The contradicting ideas should not be explained away or forced into an artificial system. Such ideas in the pseudepigrapha witness to the fact that early Judaism was not a speculative philosophical movement or theological system, even though the Jews demonstrated impressive speculative fecundity. The pseudepigrapha mirror a living religion in which the attempt was made to come to terms with the dynamic phenomena of history and experience,” “Pseudepigrapha” in Anchor Dictionary of the Bible, Vol 5, 537–40 (538). 63 Particularly Romans 9–11. 64 I am aware that this paradigm is only partly adequate to describe a religious tradition. It presupposes a static view of culture and religion, taking rules, terms, symbols and narratives as set. It does not account sufficiently for the fact that traditions are living networks which are constantly negotiated in continous conversations. Cf. Havlini, Reasoning after Revelation, 26–28. 65 Although being in Christ for Paul transforms his Jewish thought world it did not obliterate it. 62

Romans and Scriptural Reasoning

287

As the letter with numerous scriptural citations and allusions, Romans particularly demonstrates Paul’s entrenchedness within his ancestral tradition. It is not something he merely refers to or deals with – he is rather living entirely in it, in his interpretation of the Christ-event. Moreover, he apparently presupposes his addressees as well to be familiar with the Jewish scriptures, (cf. Rom 1:2 ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις and 7:1 Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε, ἀδελφοί, γινώσκουσιν γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ, ὅτι ὁ νόμος κυριεύει τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐφ᾿ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ)66 even though he explicitly addresses only gentiles in this letter.67 He sees no need to explain to them why he is referring to the Jewish scriptures as this apparently is selfevident to both. From this I conclude that the incoming of the gentiles through Christ implied necessarily the rooting of them in this scriptural symbolic universe. Paul takes it for granted that the authority of scripture extends to his gentile Christ communities and that it should play a significant role for the formation of their identity in Christ. As Stanley perceives it, it is beyond doubt that “Paul regarded the words of Scripture as having absolute authority for his predominantly Gentile congregations.” 68 Paul expects gentiles who live in Christ to enter the symbolic universe of the scriptures. More to the point, however, and even when he differed from his Jewish contemporaries, Paul’s reliance on the authority of scripture is something he shares with, and that is wholly in line with, contemporary Jewish practice.69 Sameness or uniformity are not ideals of early Jewish interpretation nor of later rabbinic interpretation.70 That Paul and contemporary Jews disagreed over certain issues is not yet reason enough for a parting of the ways but part of their common tradition of Scriptural reasoning.71

Cf. R.M. Thorsteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography (Stockholm: Almqvist&Wiksell, 2003), 36. 67 I cannot elaborate on the problem of the composition of the Christ believing groups in Rome. To me it is most likely that Paul addresses gentiles without excluding the presence of Jewish Christ believers in Rome. But they did not belong to Paul’s mission field and thus were not directly “meant” by his letter. Cf. M.D. Nanos, “The Jewish Context of the Gentile Audience,” also Thorsteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2, 91–92. 68 Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 338. 69 Cf. Nanos, who sees Paul’s discussions about the status and conduct of his gentile congregations as part of the Jewish debates about the relationship of gentiles with Jews (The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter to the Romans [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 42ff. 70 Cf. D. Patte, “In other words what is essential is not a correct (orthodox) theological doctrine but an openness to Scripture, a ‘listening to Scripture’ in the context of actual life. This in fact results in ‘a multiplicity of theological conceptions’ not necessarily fitting with each other […]” (Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975], 75). 71 On the issue of the parting of the ways see also D. Boyarin, Borderlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), esp.17–26. 66

288

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

Negotiating Meaning through Scriptural Reasoning in Romans To say that Paul lived in and with the scriptures of Israel indicates that these are not merely “used” to prove or add more authority to a previous argument. This perspective rather views the apostle as living, thinking and acting from within this specific symbolic universe whilst working out the implications of life in Christ for his gentile communities. The authority of the scriptures as that which shapes his perception of the world is thus presupposed in this perception of Paul’s way of reasoning and theologizing.72 It is an authority which does not impose itself in static decrees or eternal dogmas but which unfolds in interaction and conversation with people in particular circumstances, thus being part of the process of negotiating meaning in conversation with and over the scriptures – in the case of the Christ-believers, in the light of the Christ-event. This is by no means to imply that Paul’s approach is identical with Levinas’s reading of scriptures, which he describes as a reading of a reading in interpreting extracts from the Talmud. It is Exegesis of the exegesis, a privileged text, even if it does mot exclude insights into the same subject. This is in keeping with the characteristic pluralism of rabbinical thought, which paradoxically aspires to be compatible with the unity of Revelation […]73

Whether or not such a pluralism can be found in Paul’s way of reasoning, he is not doing “exegesis of exegesis” but interpreting the biblical tradition in light of the Christ-event. In that he clearly does something that distinguishes his reading from Levinas. But they both nevertheless can be seen as engaging in a process of negotiating meaning in conversation with and about scriptural tradition. To perceive Paul’s way of reasoning as a form of scriptural reasoning has considerable consequences for the interpretation of Romans. This is particularly obvious in passages where a high density of Scriptural allusions and/or citations are found. We will thus look in more detail at Rom 3:9ff. and then later proceed to a discussion of Rom 9:24ff.

This resonates with Levinas’s interpretation of scriptural tradition as Annette Aronowicz has stated, “It is quite obvious that Levinas has already decided […] that a meaning existed, a meaning for us […] This decision made before the act of interpreting itself, lies at the heart of Levinas’s hermeneutic. It is the most basic embodiment of its responsibility.” (“The Little Man with the Burned Thighs: Levinas’s Biblical Hermeneutic,” in Levinas and Biblical Studies (ed. T.C. Eskenazi et al.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 33– 48, here 41–42. 73 “On the Jewish Reading of Scriptures” in Levinas and Biblical Studies, 17–31, here 17. 72

Romans and Scriptural Reasoning

289

i) Scriptural Reasoning in Romans 3:9–18. Most interpreters read the sequence of scriptural verses in Rom 3:10–18 as being introduced by Paul here to prove the accusation with which all are charged in 1:18–3:8, that gentiles (1:18–32) as well as Jews (2:1–29) are all “under sin” (3:9).74 The verb προαιτιάομαι in that case is read as referring back in a sequential sense to what Paul has stated previously. But as some scholars have pointed out, this does not really fit Paul’s prior argumentation.75 It certainly seems strange that Paul would have to introduce such a long and heavy scriptural “proof” for something he himself had already elaborated at such length just before. In his study on Romans 2 Runnar Thorsteinsson demonstrates, in my view convincingly, that προητιασάμεθα is more likely to be referring to the literary sequence following in 3:10f., reading the pro- in a temporal sense thus meaning “what has been demonstrated at an earlier period in time.” It introduces a new sequence in the text rather than being the conclusion or summary of what immediately precedes 1:18–2:29 (–3:8).76 Paul then is not summarizing a previous argument which accuses all of being sinners; rather, he is aware that from a scriptural perspective the contemporary time they are living in is a time dominated by sin – forcing them all, gentiles and Jews, to live “under sin.” To live under Roman rule, contrary to its claim of establishing peace and well-being for all, for many means to live under a regime of apparent and structural violence and oppressive power.77 This is not proved but demonstrated by the verses of scriptures Paul refers to.78 The termn προητιασάμεθα here indicates that there is clear scriptural evidence in Paul’s view for what he is saying rather than his setting out a charge in a juridical sense. Read from this perspective the scriptural references are describing the effects of “sin” on the life of people who have no option but to live under its rule. The references should not be taken as citations Paul arbitrarily picked up to prove his case. Referring to these verses implied that the literary as well as some supposed historical context would resonate with these. It is significant then to take into account that the verses referred to are lamentations of oppressed Israel crying to God for help and vindication. This is also acknowledged by Dunn in his commentary, but rather than continuing to think along that line he argues that Far from being a ground of complaint against Israel’s oppressors which the righteous can hold before themselves in pleading before God […] the scriptural catena functions as an

So among many J.D.G. Dunn, Commentary on Romans 1–8 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 148. 75 Cf. J.M.Bassler, “Divine Impartiality in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984), 43–58. 76 Thorssteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor, 235–36. 77 Cf., e.g., N. Elliott, “Paul and Politics of Empire” in Paul and Politics, 17–39. 78 I am following Thorssteinsson’s view that the first pers.pl. here indicates a reference to the Scriptural tradition rather than to a group or individual, Paul’s Interlocutor, 235. 74

290

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

indictment of both Jew and Gentile […] Paul is probably deliberately attacking the sort of attitude […] which found expression in the Psalms cited by Paul.79

Whilst I think there is no doubt that Paul perceives the power of sin as universal and thus affecting both Jews and gentiles, I cannot find any sound reason or indication in the text of the letter why the primary expression of the psalms referred to should be twisted into its contrary by Paul. Such an interpretation of the psalm references may seem logical and necessary in the light of Dunn’s reading which emphasizes that the passage 2:1–3:8 primarily serves to prove the “misconceived Jewish claim to distinctiveness” and which argues that “the main thrust of his [Paul’s] attack is still to expose the falseness of the typical Jewish presumption of distinctiveness as far as righteousness/unrighteousness is concerned.”80 But in such a reading Paul once again is viewed as rendering the Jew the paradigm of the universal human sinner! Conversely, a reading in the vein of scriptural reasoning takes seriously into account the resonating of the (literary and supposedly some historical) context of the psalm verses (which, by the way, means also to the take the text as other – in its alterity – seriously as a partner in conversation). To read the psalm verses in the first instance as lamentations of Israel about their situation as deprived of life in abundance by violent powers draws our attention to the situation of those who are victims of those powers. To be victims does not render them righteous or without sin. They too, as well as the agents of violent power are “under sin.” The domination of violence/sin can be escaped neither by the oppressor nor by their victims. But to state that sin affects all is not identical with saying that it affects all in the same way. To say that those “under sin” are not righteous, do not understand, do not do good deeds is not the same as to state that they use their tongues to deceive, that they are shedding blood, are pursuing ways of destruction and misery and do not know the ways of peace (despite claims to the contrary).81 Paul describes in Rom 3:9-16 different effects of being “under sin” that do not apply to all in the same way. The agents of “sin” – those exercising domination, oppression and violence – are inherently accused by these lamentations, but with the literary context resonating with these verses of the psalms they are as much cries of the victims for deliverance. Paul thus does not make a universal indictment against sinners but he

Romans, 1–8, 148. 80 Ibid., 147. 81 Discussions with Ian E. Rock contributed to a clearer perception of these distinctions. Cf. his The Implication of Roman Imperial Ideology for an Exegesis of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium, Rom 1:1–17 (PhD Thesis University of Wales Lampeter, 2005); now published as Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Roman Imperialism: An Ideological Analysis of the Exordium (Romans 1:1–17) (Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2012). 79

Romans and Scriptural Reasoning

291

describes the terrible effects of “sin” and the tragic but inescapable circumstances under which both Jews and gentiles are forced to live. Here Paul is possibly arguing against a gentile misconception that by becoming Jews they could escape from this domination of sin. Paul is demonstrating to them that there is no escape from this domination, not even through doing the works of Torah. (This also might be a gentile misconception of Judaism rather than a Jewish misunderstanding!) But now for these gentiles to find a way out of this tragedy is not in becoming Jews and taking on the Torah as Jews but through Christ.82 If we presuppose that Paul here is addressing gentiles, then he is opening their eyes to the inescapable tragedy they live in. The Torah cannot be a means to get out of this – but it is the means via which one can come to the recognition of sin – the Torah reveals the true nature of the rulers of this kosmos, the all-pervasive power of sin (3:20b). We have here an example of Paul’s dealing with scriptures which moves beyond a mere use of scripture as proof text or addition to something already said or as proof that what he says is in accordance with the authoritative source of faith. He is thus not proving previously made accusations against all humanity. Instead of simply accumulating a list of varied proof texts as additional support for previous arguments, Paul is rather elaborating for his gentile audience the tragedy of living under sin. This, then, refers to the rule of the Pax Romana and the function of the Torah in revealing the true nature of this system of violence contrary to its own claims for universal peace. In parallel to Levinas we see Paul arguing from within and with scriptures83, closely relating them to contemporary constraints and vice versa, thus illuminating both. In distinction from Levinas, one could say that in a way Paul is teaching gentiles in Christ scriptural reasoning in the light of the Christ event. ii) Scriptural Reasoning in Romans 9:24–29 The second example of scriptural reasoning we will consider is Rom 9:24ff. In this passage, Paul demonstrates with a string of scriptural citations the mercy

This is not implying that there were Judaizers in the Roman context but rather that gentiles previously having turned to Judaism might be in doubt as to how to continue this relation. Cf. W.S. Campbell, “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1–15:13: The Obligation of Humble Obedience as the Only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God,” in Pauline Theology Vol III Romans (ed. H.M. David, J.E. Elizabeth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 259– 86 (277). 83 The parallel with Levinas is that he distinguishes between Talmudic reasoning and using scripture as proof text. See his Vier Talmud-Lesungen: “Den Talmudgelehrten liegen scholastische Übungen fern, obwohl sie stets den Eindruck erwecken, als wollten sie sich Zitate an den Kopf werfen oder sich in Haarspaltereien ergehen. Verse werden nicht angeführt, um deren Autorität in die Waagschale zu werfen […] sondern um einen Kontext zu zitieren, der die Debatte auf ein höheres Niveau heben kann und die tatsächliche Tragweite der Grundgedanken, aus denen er seinen Sinn bezieht, erkennen lässt,” 41. 82

292

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

of God on those whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the gentiles. Paul begins by citing Hosea 2:25 “καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην.” Because this citation seems designed to support an argument for the inclusion of gentiles as well as Jews, scholars have claimed that Paul now applies texts that originally referred to Israel to believing gentiles. The “not my people” are seen as the gentiles and Paul thus seems to adjust scriptural meanings to suit his own purposes. Dodd voices the sentiments of many commentators when he states “It is rather strange that Paul has not observed that this prophecy referred to Israel, rejected for its sins, but destined to be restored – strange because it would have fitted so admirably the doctrine of the restoration of Israel which he is to expound in chapter 11.”84 Again we find a scholar describing what could be a reading of the citation from within its literary context and that is coherent with Paul’s reasoning here, but rejecting this reading because for theological reasons this cannot be what the apostle of the law-free gospel, the champion of universalism could possibly mean! Apart from such particular theological presuppositions I cannot see any reason why this scriptural reference should not be read according to its literary context and coherent with Paul’s reasoning in this chapter. As noted also by Dodd, Paul’s primary concern in Romans 9–11 is with the historic people of God and their apparent lack of faith in Christ (rather than the inclusion of gentiles, which at this point is brought in more as an aside. The inclusion of gentiles has already been established in Romans 3–4.) When we consider the context more carefully we note that the Hosea citation in 9:25 is followed by two others that clearly can refer only to Israel. It seems strange that Paul would include a rather arbitrary reference to gentiles in such a grouping. A better explanation of Paul’s pattern of citation is that all three citations retain their primary reference to Israel and that the first citation referring to the “not my people,” whilst retaining its reference to Israel, can by analogy be extended to include gentiles who in a more distinct sense are “not my people.” Such an emphasis is much more in keeping with the Hosea context where the mercy of God is the dominant theme. It would seem strange if in fact in a passage where the prophet refers to God’s merciful dealings with Israel whereas in Paul’s version of the same passage Israel is simply left under judgment and the “not people” – the gentiles – take her place. This is all the more surprising since Paul’s theme at this point in Romans 9 is demonstrated to be divine compassion. In Rom 9:15 Paul sets up a scriptural text to serve as if it were as a major heading for the next section of his argument ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω. This is followed by other scriptural citations; but the pattern of scriptural reasoning Paul uses here is one in which major scriptural citations dominate later scriptural citations which are subsidiary to the main heading. Thus subsidiary citations do not nullify the major thesis previously

84

C.H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder&Stoughton, 1932), 160.

The Epiphany of the other/Other and the Primacy of Ethics

293

stated but stand under and serve to clarify the primary purpose of emphasizing divine mercy.85 Most likely, therefore, Paul does not primarily “use” or twist the Hosea citation to refer to gentiles. There is no reason to read it other than in accordance with its primary reference to Israel. What Paul thus is claiming is that rejected Israel, like the northern tribes in Hosea’s prophecy, will be restored and, along with them another “non people,” the gentiles, will also be blessed. In this reading Paul is seen as applying the Hosea citation in a secondary sense typologically to gentiles but only after it has served his primary purpose to argue for the restoration of Israel.86 In both exemplary passages, Rom 3:9ff. and 9:24ff., we have seen Paul at work in his scriptural world. He moves within innumerable citations to illuminate and develop his argument step by step with major and minor scriptural premises; but he uses these creatively not in opposition to their primary content and context but in the first example, in joining the victims in their lament over the tragic situation they live in, in the second primarily to refer to Israel and only then by extension to gentiles. At this point in particular, because he dialogues so intensely with scripture, a comparison could be drawn between Paul’s nuanced use of his Jewish scriptural heritage and the activity of jazz musicians. As Elsa B. Brown describes this, multiple rhythms are played simultaneously and in dialogue with each other – each member of the group has to listen to the other so as to respond and at the same time concentrate on his/her own improvisation.87 In parallel to this we might maintain that Paul plays with the multiple rhythms of scripture with some improvisation and ingenuity.88

The Epiphany of the other/Other and the Primacy of Ethics The Epiphany of the other/Other and the Primacy of Ethics

The primacy of ethics is the starting point and the issue which permeates all of Levinas’s philosophy. I will argue that it is also of primary significance in Paul, and in Romans in particular. It cannot be dealt with substantially in this article, so I will only give some brief sketch as to where a more detailed consideration of this aspect would lead to.

An analysis of the scriptural references 9:15ff. and the relation of God’s sovereignty and mercy from a scriptural reasoning perspective would be exceedingly interesting but is beyond the scope of this contribution. 86 Cf. W.S. Campbell, “Divergent Images of Paul and his Mission,” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (ed. C. Grenholm, D. Patte; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 187–211, here 198–200. 87 E.B. Brown, “What Has Happened Here,” in The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory (ed. L. Nicholson; New York: Routledge, 1997), 275. 88 Cf. also Ford, “Responding” in Textual Reasoning, 259. 85

294

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

The respect for the alterity of the other and thus the primacy of ethics for Levinas are constitutive of human life and community. These do not follow from insights or cognition about some universal human condition but from the encounter with the other face to face. Hand summarizes Levinas’ position as follows […] responsibility for the other pre-exists any self-consciousness, so that from the beginning of any face to face, the question of being involves the right to be […] I do not grasp the other in order to dominate, I respond instead to the face’s epiphany.89

Inherent to this epiphany of the other’s face, Levinas perceives a transcendent dimension. In this epiphany and the response to the call transcendence breaks in, the Other per se. The primacy of ethics and transcendence are not separate dimensions but go hand in hand.90 The fact that Paul’s letter to Rome ends neither with chapter 8 nor with chapter 11 is of utmost significance. Rather than being mere paraenetical additions to the central theological arguments advocated in the main body of the letter, chapters 12–15/16 are inherently part or even more the focus of the arguments previously made. William S. Campbell has strongly argued for the inherent relation of these chapters particularly with the end of Rom 11:30- 32.91 The close relation between these and the previous chapters are indicative for what I would call the primacy of ethics in Romans. In chapters 9–11 Paul tries to understand and come to terms with God’s dealing and ways with the other, that is, his fellow Jews who are not “in Christ.” He finds some viable explanation in his reading of Hosea as well as in his olive tree metaphor. In both he strongly emphasizes the faithfulness of God and his promises towards Israel which encompass Christ-believing as well nonChrist believing Jews. There is no doubt that Paul hopes all Israel will be saved. From the flow of his argument the direction can be guessed where Paul might

“Ethics as First Philosophy,” 75. 90 Levinas, Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism, 17. 91 Campbell claims “In 11:13f. Paul after a long discussion begun in 9:1, addresses himself pointedly to the Gentile Christians and specifically warns them not to boast over the fate of the unbelieving Jews […] This is no hypothetical situation and the dialogue style gives no warrant for the belief that Paul does not address himself to a real situation in Rome where current anti-Judaism was threatening the unity of the church. Paul's carefully constructed conclusion in 11:30–32, his exhortations in 12:1f and in 14–15 support this interpretation of ch 11. An even clearer indication in support of the above is the concluding scripturally substantiated imperative in 15:7f. […] In view of the direct connection of 15:7f with 14:1f, it is clear that the division between the weak and the strong is one along Jew-Gentile lines and it is then easy to read back via 12:3 and to relate 9–11 with 4:16f and 6:11f to a particular set of circumstances in the Christian community in Rome.” (“Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter,” first published in Novum Testamentum 23 [1981], 22–40, now in his Paul's Gospel in an Intercultural Context, 25–42, here 33. Cf. also Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, 181–83. 89

The Epiphany of the other/Other and the Primacy of Ethics

295

like to proceed in this: an inclusive tendency in Romans which has a potential to erase the alterity of the other in one redeemed people. But significantly, Paul does not proceed along that route and he also does not elaborate on how God will achieve the desired outcome. In good prophetic fashion, Paul leaves the future of his people Israel open to God. In citing the wisdom of Job he moves beyond his own comprehension of the divine purpose whilst acknowledging his full confidence in the faithfulness of God. But there is no closure on this vital issue. In this openness Paul and Levinas have much in common. Hoping for the salvation of all Israel, Paul is working through his own tradition in an effort to explore and correlate in the light of the Christ event, seemingly contradictory realities such as the incoming of the gentiles, the coming to faith of some and the hardening (in Paul’s perception) of other Jews. It is clear that Paul is primarily disposed to hold to a hopeful outcome for his own people because of divine faithfulness and in the face of contemporary evidence to the contrary; yet despite this hopeful optimism he stops short of claiming salvation exclusively in Christ for his own people and instead entrusts them to the divine mercy. In this he follows the prophets of Israel. In entrusting the outcome to the One who is wholly Other he safeguards both, the integrity and alterity of the other and the transcendence of God (Rom 11:26 and 11:33ff). This is a unique and remarkable glimpse of the perception of the other outside the Christ believing group Paul reveals to us here. In this reading Levinas would resonate. To continue, as Paul does at this point in Romans, with explicitly ethical issues indicates that for Paul to respond to the other, and to the transcendent Other cannot be separated. To encounter the other/Other means to be responsible. Ethical living is thus not an addition to being in Christ but inherent in and integral to the call to respond in discipleship. Here we find a primacy of ethics that, though not identical, is still similar to Levinas’s perception.92 Thus the sequence of Paul’s argument in the transition from 11:36 to 12:1ff. is not coincidental but necessitated by the reference to the mercy of God which continues the theme of chapters 9-11, introduced in 9:15. To trust in the mercy of God and to entrust the other to the divine mercy does not free us from the obligation to respond to the other but is in fact the basis of this responsibility.93

It is worth noting here that whereas in Levinas to encounter the other has a transcendent dimension open to the wholly Other, in Paul this transcendent dimension is found in the encounter with Christ. This is a difference between Levinas, the Jewish philosopher and Paul, the Jewish Apostle, which nevertheless does not set them in contradiction to each other as, e.g., Mt 25:31ff. demonstrates. 93 As Martin Buber has formulated “[…] event and word are definitively located among the people, in history, in the world. What transpires does not transpire in a separate space between God and the individual; through the latter the word passes to the people, who are to hear and translate it into reality […]” (“Toward a New German Translation of the Scriptures,” now in The Return to Scripture in Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Postcritical Scriptural Interpretation [ed. P. Ochs; New York: Paulist Press, 1993], 334–57, here 334. 92

296

Chapter 14 Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, Meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle

Paul begins to elaborate on this for the Christ-believers in Rome in chapters 12-15. In these chapters the broad outline of living in relation to the other is set out.94 It is most likely that Paul has issues of living together within Christbelieving groups rather than with those outside in mind, but even for them he does not advocate sameness in Christ but emphasizes the necessity of mutually appreciating differences amongst them. We note especially 12:10 “give pride of place to one another in esteem” (NEB) where the other literally has priority and is esteemed in his/her alterity. Likewise, in chapter 14 the weak though they remain different must not be violated either by judging or causing to stumble but are to be welcomed and respected not despite, but with their convictions (Rom 14:5b, 13-15).95

Conclusion – Sharing Traditions in Difference Conclusion

The flow of Paul’s scriptural reasoning in Romans thus can be described as being driven by the responsibility for the other/Other, that is, by ethics. In this primacy of ethics – and thus his advocating for the respect for the alterity and integrity of the other – Paul is in keeping with the traditions of his ancestors which are also basic for Levinas’s philosophical approach. This does not render Paul the Jewish Apostle and Levinas the Jewish philosopher the same. Paul’s scriptural reasoning and prioritizing of ethics differs from Levinas not only but basically in the fact that Paul does so in the light of the Christ-event. But both are rooted in the same scriptural tradition; both are engaged in a vivid and open and pluralistic process of interpretation that is driven by the primacy of ethics. Thus both can be perceived as participating in the process of negotiating meaning for their respective time and situation from within a tradition they share in difference. They contribute to an “exegetical pluralism [that] is a product of and tribute to the pluralism constitutive of human society [and] thus it is a reflection of lived ethics, the pluralism of the face-to-face.”96

Cf. Campbell, “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1–15:13,” 259–86. 95 Cf. Ehrensperger, “Let Everyone Be Convinced in His/Her Own Mind,” 53–73. 96 Cohen, Ethics, Exegesis and Philosophy, 248. 94









15. “Called to be Saints”: the Identity Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans1 Presuppositions in Interpretation Presuppositions in Interpretation

A wide range of evaluations concerning the character of Romans 14:1–15:13 has been presented in recent scholarship ranging from considerations which view this section to be paraenetical guidance to the otherwise highly theological letter to the Romans2, to provide evidence of the actual situation which Paul addresses3, to be inherently linked to the previous sections of the letter in that this part presents the concrete outworking of Paul’s theologizing4, or even that this is the actual culmination of the letter5. Key issues discussed in relation to this passage are hospitality, table-fellowship, and the identity of the weak and the strong. In addition verses 14:14 and 20 render this passage a key in the discussion concerning Paul’s view of the Torah. These verses are frequently perceived to provide proof that ultimately Paul considers the Torah to have lost its validity for all those who are in Christ. This is the interpretation one would expect in approaches which perceive Paul to be the advocate of a law-free gospel as one who has broken away from the bonds of Judaism; but even approaches which see Paul as embedded in Judaism perceive these verses as evidence that his stance eventually must lead to an “undermining” of the Torah. The statements οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾽ ἑαυτῦ (nothing is profane/unclean in itself, 14:14), and πάντα μὲν κάθαρα (all is clean, 14:20) are seen as clear indications that Paul actually no longer adheres to the Jewish food laws, and thus considers the role of the law as having come to an end in Christ. In John Barclay’s words “This constitutes nothing less than a fundamental rejection of the Jewish law

For Bill, whose companionship on our journey means more to me than words can tell. Earlier versions of this article have been presented at the SBL International Meeting in Rome 2009 and the SNTS Annual Meeting in Vienna 2009. 2 Cf., e.g., J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 3 W.S. Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House Churches and Synagogues?,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (ed. F. Wilk, J.R. Wagner; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 171–96. 4 Cf. Barclay who argues “[…] that in Romans 14:1–15:5 we are given valuable insight into the practical effects of Paul’s stance on the law, even though the term νόμος does not appear in this passage.” “‘Do we undermine the Law?’ A Study of Romans 14.1–15.6,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J.D.G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 287–308 (287). 5 Cf. W.S. Campbell, “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1–15:13: The Obligation of Humble Obedience to Christ as the only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God,” in Pauline Theology vol. III (ed. D.M. Hay, E.E. Johnson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 259–86. 1

298

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

in one of its most sensitive dimensions.”6 Barclay is one of many who come to such a conclusion. Leander E. Keck, Robert Jewett, Troels Engberg-Pedersen are in agreement in their careful analyses of the passage, concluding convincingly in my view that Paul emphasizes the responsibility of the “strong” not to cause the “weak” to stumble over this issue of food and drink, and thus putting the demand to change on the “strong” to accommodate to the “weak.”7 Nevertheless, they are of the view that these verses are radical if not revolutionary,8 and that “the motto declares a complete break from the purity laws that bound both Judaism and the Greco-Roman world.”9 The insistence on adhering to Jewish food laws is designated as “wholly unjustified scruples of their Jewish brothers.”10 There is a wide consensus that Paul’s main concern here is maintaining the unity of “all God’s beloved in Rome who are called to be saints” (Rom 1:7). A key element in the living out of such unity seems to be table-fellowship between Jews and gentiles in Christ. This is the main aspect of the significance of hospitality and accommodation to each other that Paul so powerfully advocates here. It is obvious that those who abstain from eating meat are not pushed to give up their practice but rather the strong are admonished to accommodate out of concern for the weaker brothers.11 The problem with many interpretations is that the accommodation is seen as a temporary measure, necessary only for a limited time until the “weak” have gained proper strength in faith and adopt the practice of the “law-free” gospel. 12 This implies that they would

Barclay, “Do We Undermine,” 300. 7 Cf., e.g., Barclay who states that “Paul is careful to preserve the legitimacy of the lawobservance among Roman Christians. His requirement that the strong adapt their diet at the communal meals is a measure of how seriously he takes this matter.” in “Do We Undermine,” 303, also R. Jewett, Romans. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 860. 8 L.E. Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 344. 9 Jewett, Romans, 867. Jewett’s position oscillates slightly in the evaluation of the Pauline statements here. Concerning the beginning of chapter 14 he draws attention to what seems to be a two way exaggeration: it is unlikely that anybody in Rome would just eat “everything,” in as much as it seems unlikely that Jews would “only” have eaten vegetables. 10 T. Engberg-Pedersen, “‘Everything is Clean’ and ‘Everything that is not of faith is sin’: The Logic of Pauline Casuistry in Romans 14.1–15.13,” in Paul, Grace and Freedom: Essays in honour of John K.Riches (ed. P. Middleton, A. Paddison, K. Wendell; New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 22–38, here 34. 11 Cf. W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2006 [pb 2008]), 113–20; K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 181–89, now also Engberg-Pedersen, “Everything is Clean,” 37. 12 Cf. Käsemann who claims that “Die bleibende dogmatische Bedeutung von 14a liegt darin, dass nicht nur die Frage reiner und verunreinigender Speisen beantwortet, sondern der 6

Presuppositions in Interpretation

299

eventually be able to overcome their “wholly unjustified scruples” and eat everything. Accommodation is perceived to serve the purpose of leading those with “scruples” to a stage where they too can see that “what God has done through Christ as the only thing that matters.”13 Paul is seen as advocating tolerance, a paternalistic attitude exercised by those in power. Although Barclay, Jewett, Keck, and Engberg-Pedersen all emphasize that this tolerance of the practice of the weak is not a minor issue since for the weak changing their practice would violate their faith, to maintain that Paul’s assertion “tacitly grants the individual the right to be wrong […] and that such a person is to be respected” does not really overcome the basic assumption that those who adhere to food laws are wrong, or are “displaying a defect in their faith.” Paul is perceived as advocating that actually “the distinction between clean and unclean has been done away”14 which in essence means the abrogation of the law.15 This is a problematic stance in itself and it is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the issue further in any detail but in my view such a paternalistic attitude cannot be in tune with the “imitation of Christ” Paul advocates elsewhere ( 1 Cor 4:16–17; 11:1).16 It also is hardly in tune with the “welcoming of Christ,” the example Christ-followers are admonished to follow in their “welcoming of each other” (Rom 15:7).17 Most significantly it would require that eventually Jews in Christ would have to give up their identity as Jews and accommodate to the gentiles’ way of life in Christ, obliterating differences and rendering the gentile way of life, that is, a particular way of life, the norm for being in Christ. The conclusion that Paul’s statements in vv. 14 and 20 imply an abrogation of the Torah seems to be based on a number of presuppositions. The first and most basic assumption is that these verses are a declaration of nullification of these laws wholesale and for everybody. From this it is concluded since these

für die gesamte Antike grundlegende, bis heute nachwirkende Unterschied zwischen kultischer und profaner Sphäre für den Christen aufgehoben wird.” An die Römer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 359. 13 Engberg-Pedersen, “Everything is Clean,” 35. 14 J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 830. 15 As, e.g., Barclay asserts, cf. “Do we undermine the law?” Dunn’s stance is more nuanced here in that he maintains that although this is Paul’s own conviction he advocates that those who do not share this perception have to be respected “Paul does not so much call for the abolition of the law of clean and unclean as for shifting the basis on which such a distinction may be regarded as relevant in the Christian community […] as an issue affecting the expression of liberty within a community which embraces diverse viewpoints.” Romans 9–16, 820. 16 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007 [2009 pb]), 137–54. 17 Cf. also Paula Fredriksen’s critique of Barclay in her “Paul, Purity, and the Ekklesia of the Gentiles,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. J. Pastor, M. Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Tzvi Press, 2005), 205–17, here 215–17.

300

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

laws are declared irrelevant for those in Christ, all laws, the whole of the Torah, are declared irrelevant. The second frequent assumption is that the distinction between pure and impure, and holy and profane refers to a Jewish peculiarity unique in the Greco-Roman world or the Ancient Near East. A third aspect which often seems to be presupposed in the interpretations of these verses is that the characterization of a particular group in ethnic terms or in terms of cult via peculiar eating habits is seen as something uniquely Jewish as well. These three main presuppositions individually or combined shape most interpretations of these verses. They are perceived as cultural-historical facts without much further elaboration. It does not come as a surprise then that scholars starting with these presuppositions come to the conclusions mentioned above. But if one were to question or at least critically evaluate the presuppositions on which these interpretations are based I envisage the possibility of arriving at different conclusions. This chapter is a proposal in this direction. I will first address issues related to the second and third presupposition, although this can only be done in a sketchy way, before discussing aspects related to the first presupposition.

The Context: Purity/Impurity and Holy/Profane in Greco-Roman Culture The Context: Purity/Impurity and Holy/Profane

The notion of contextualization has been advocated strongly and with diverse emphases in Pauline studies.18 When specific attention is paid to the GrecoRoman context, Paul’s theologizing is often compared with philosophical ideas of the time.19 Thus when it comes to Paul’s theologizing, contextualization is seen as an important factor for understanding the Pauline letters. However, it is significant to note that when aspects of practical life, ritual and cult come into play, these are mostly attributed to a unique Jewish pattern, which in many cases is evaluated as a negative factor or at least as a factor which Paul would have overcome, and perceived superfluous for life in Christ. Although I do not question the validity of comparative studies which focus on elements of GrecoRoman ideas and Paul’s theologizing, such comparisons should not be confined mainly to the realm of philosophy. If contextualization is taken seriously then all aspects of life need to be considered relevant, this includes cult and

W.S. Campbell has been a consistent advocate for the social as well as theological contextualization of Paul’s activities and theologizing. 19 Cf., e.g., T. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), L. Welborn, Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (London: T&T Clark, 2005). 18

The Context: Purity/Impurity and Holy/Profane

301

ritual as well as seemingly mundane things such as eating and drinking etc. Ritual and cult are not only significant aspects of a Jewish way of life, they are key aspects of life for all Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures in antiquity.20 The focus on ritual, even on the distinction between pure and impure, far from being a particularly Jewish characteristic, is actually, in diverse ways, a shared cultural feature in as much as certain elements of thinking are shared. As S.J.D. Cohen highlights “The observance of purity rules and of dietary taboos did not in and of themselves make Jews distinctive in the ancient world.”21 To perceive Paul as influenced by Greco-Roman thought, whilst neglecting or ignoring the concrete side of life in the Mediterranean, or depicting such aspects as a relic of his Jewish heritage, is methodologically questionable. The patronage system, honour and shame values, and kinship language have been recognized as significant structuring categories throughout the ancient Mediterranean, and thus as dimensions which need to be taken into account when contextualizing the Pauline letters. To these the dimension of ritual and cult needs to be added as a crucial factor in the shaping of the life-world of GrecoRoman as much as of Jewish culture. Paul, in talking of such issues in his letters, and in Rom 14:14–15:13 in particular, would not have been talking in strange language or categories which would have been alien to his audience, whether Jewish or gentile.22 The categorization of all aspects of life into holy and profane and, related to these, pure and impure is basic to life in antiquity. Concerning this distinction in classical Greece A. Bendlin states that “The conceptualization of boundaries – both real and imagined – between the sacred and the secular realms – between purity and normality – is a matter of serious attention.”23 This is all the more significant, as there was no dimension of life which was not touched by the realm of the divine, and thus by these distinctions. The gods were involved in all aspects of life, particularly the most significant: birth, sexuality, and death. Specific space and time was allocated to the realm of the gods, and the relationship with the divine realm was organized through offerings and sacrifices. There were specific rules and regulations which organized around the events, places, times and practices which involved the gods. Events concerning life and death mark humans off from the gods. They were associated with specific

This has recently been emphasized by R. DeMaris, The New Testament in its Ritual World (London: Routledge, 2008), 37–56. 21 S.J.D. Cohen, “Common Judaism in Greek and Latin Authors,” in Redefining First Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of E.P.Sanders (ed. F. Udoh et al.; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 69–87, here 77. 22 Cf. Fredriksen, “Paul, Purity, and the Gentiles,” 205. 23 A. Bendlin, “Purity and Pollution,” in A Companion to Greek Religion (ed. D. Ogden; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 178–81, here 180. Cf. also R. Parker, Miasma (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 2–6. 20

302

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

impurities and required specific rites to restore humans “to a fit state for keeping company with the divine, and so these rites of purification continued, wherever people were born, had sexual relations and died.”24 Specifically when entering the sacred realm purification was one of the requirements prior to crossing the boundary to the divine.25 Bendlin further draws attention to the fact that the Greek leges sacrae note numerous sources of “ritual pollution, the time which has to pass before the polluted person may enter the sanctuary, and the required purificatory ritual.”26 Space does not allow for dealing with these issues in more detail here but what is significant to note is the evidence for the organization of the life-world into the realm of the divine, that is, the holy and profane in association with, but distinct from, the division of aspects of life into pure and impure. Requirements of purification, or adhering to either rituals to restore, or maintain, certain patterns of behaviour to preserve a state of purity, is thus obviously not a specific concern of Jews but of all peoples around the Mediterranean in the ancient world.27 Thus purity regulations as such are not exceptional and would not have distinguished the Jews from any other group or people.28 It therefore does not come as a surprise that this aspect is not mentioned in Greek and Latin authors when describing distinctive characteristics of the Jews.29 What is mentioned of course is their abstention from pork (in addition to circumcision and the keeping of the Sabbath). However, even this is not remarkable as such, in that it is a variation within a pattern of categorization familiar around the Mediterranean. As Schäfer asserts “[…] different people behave differently in respect of food in people’s worship of their gods […] Dietary laws, like the prohibition of eating pork belong to the worship of gods, and they are as diverse as the belief in different gods.”30 Sextus Empiricus writing in the second century CE notes that “a Jew or an Egyptian priest would prefer to die instantly rather than eat pork, while the taste of mutton is reckoned

R.L. Fox, Pagans and Christians (Hammondsworth: Viking, 1986), 83. 25 DeMaris notes the location of two basins at the entrance to the Asklepeion in Corinth and suggests that the function of the smaller one as “to provide water for purification before sacrifice and entry into the temple,” New Testament in its Ritual World, 48. 26 Bendlin, “Purity and Pollution,” 181. 27 Thus recently also M. Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulus-Briefen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 7–9. 28 Cf., e.g., examples for regulating access to the sacred after giving birth for women in Parker, Miasma, 352–56. 29 Even the connection between purity and dining is not uniquely Jewish. De Maris reports archaeological finds of sacral water basins near dining rooms in the Demeter and Kore sanctuary in Corinth which indicate a close connection between ritual cleansing and dining. New Testament, 48–49. 30 P. Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 70 24

The Context: Purity/Impurity and Holy/Profane

303

an abomination in the eyes of a Lybian, and Syrians think the same about pigeons and others about cattle.”31 And Plutarch discusses the requirement of priests of Jupiter to abstain from even touching either flower or yeast, or raw flesh.32 And when the women of Eleusis celebrated the festival of the Haloa this included a common meal where everything could be eaten “except these forbidden in the Mysteries – pomegranates, apples, eggs, and fowls, and certain specified kinds of fish.”33 Examples like these (more could be added)34 demonstrate clearly in my view that issues concerning food in relation to purity and the sacred are by no means peculiar to Judaism. On the contrary, they are actually what Judaism has in common with the cultures around the Mediterranean, and the question was not whether but which kind of food should not be eaten by whom in what circumstances.35 It has been argued that the consistent note Greek and Latin authors take of the Jews abstaining from eating pork is evidence that their identity was seen as characterized through eating practices. This argument overlooks two aspects that have to be taken into account here: it is a characteristic of Greek and Latin “ethnography” to describe people in terms of difference rather than similarities. Thus the fact that aspects where Jews differ from others are mentioned is typical of their style of writing, not only in relation to Jews but to all other peoples as well.36 The Persians were known for their luxurious food, whereas “barbarians” were significantly classified as meat eaters, nomadic tribes as milk drinkers. Civilized cultures like Greeks and Romans perceived themselves as cultivated not least because their staple food was grain, that is, agriculture was at the heart of their self-understanding.37 Greeks and Romans characterized themselves via food and thus perceived “themselves as different with their foods, their relationship to animals and the land.”38 This leads to the insight that food did play a significant role for Jews in many aspects of their lives, but this again is a feature shared with other ancient Mediterranean cultures. “Food did not only keep people alive; it also helped them to shape their identity.”39 It was an

Schäfer, Judeophobia, 70 – see there for precise reference. Although this is a 2nd century reference I cannot see any reason why this would have been radically different in midfirst century. 32 Plutarch, Roman Questions, 109–10; 289e–290a. 33 J.M. Wilkins, S. Hill, Food in the Ancient World (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 107. 34 For further examples see also Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache, 90–92. 35 Cf. Schäfer, Judeophobia, 70. 36 Cf. Cohen, “Common Judaism,” 81. 37 Cf. Wilkins who notes that “‘the milled life’ was in fact a term in Greek for the civilized order-and all the hard work necessary to prepare and grind the grain was performed largely by women or slaves,” Food, 117. 38 Wilkins, Hill, Food, 37. 39 Wilkins, Hill, Food, 15. 31

304

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

integral part of the cultural system of the Greco-Roman world, identity shaping and at the heart of the cult, the exchange system between gods and humans. Purity regulations and issues concerning food at the exchange boundary between gods and humans thus, far from being Jewish peculiarities, were shared key aspects of life in ancient societies around the Mediterranean. These shared aspects provide the context of the particular Jewish regulations and the wider context of Paul addressing issues of food and drink, and the discussion of κοινός and καθαρός in particular. Thus the fact that Paul was addressing such issues and the terminology and perceptions that were associated with them were far from foreign even to a gentile audience. To refer to these distinctions is rather familiar talk to the ears of both Jews and gentiles.

To Eat or Not to Eat – the Decisive Question? To Eat or Not to Eat – the Decisive Question?

There can be no doubt that Paul perceived the categories of holy/profane and pure/impure as understood in Jewish tradition to be of decisive identity shaping significance also for those in Christ. What needs to be taken into account is, that the two pairs holy/profane and pure/impure are two distinct categories. In many publications dealing with the passage in question they are treated as synonyms – or, at least, profane and impure are perceived to be identical. Such a blurring of the differences between the categories can even be found in the TDNT. 40 This blurring of the categories is replicated in translations of and commentaries 41 and articles on the passage when, concerning 14:14, it is claimed that this is a “strong denial of the Scriptural distinction between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ food”42 without any further explanation. James D.G. Dunn and Robert Jewett in their commentaries note the distinction in terminology between v.14 and v.20, and translate κοινός with “profane” but do not attribute further significance to this peculiar distinction. They both refer to 1 Macc 1:47 and 62 where κοινός is used in conjunction with eating implying that the food in question is impure, and view Paul as using the word in the same vein.43

TDNT, III, 428 where it is stated “The distinction between profane (κοινός) or unclean (ἀκάθαρτος) and clean, which is maintained by Judaism, ceases to have any divine validity for the conduct of the community.” 41 Keck, Romans, 344. 42 Barclay, “’Do we undermine the Law?,” 300. 43 Dunn, Romans 9–16, 818–20; Jewett, Romans, 859–60. Cf. also R. Bauckham’s discussion of Acts 10:14–15 and 10:28 in “Peter, James, and the Gentiles,” in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (ed. B. Chilton, C. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 91–142, here 102–03. 40

To Eat or Not to Eat – the Decisive Question?

305

However, the distinction between the categories holy/profane and pure/impure should not be blurred lightly. Although these two pairs are often mentioned in one and the same verse, as, e.g., in Lev 10:10, Ez 22:26, and 44:23, they are never referred to as synonyms.44 Research by Christine Hayes, Jonathan Klawans, Saul Olyan and last, but not least, Mary Douglas shed significant light on the differences between these categories which are relevant for the passages under discussion here. A brief note on these basic distinctions must be sufficient. Saul Olyan maintains that “The holy/common distinction establishes a boundary around the sanctuary; the clean/unclean distinction determines who may cross it.”45 Thus the categories holy/profane and pure/impure have something to do with each other but they are not identical. It needs to be noted in particular that “holiness” is not intrinsically related to impure. Nor are profane and impure intrinsically related. What is profane is merely not holy, but that does not render it impure. And what is pure is by no means intrinsically holy. As Olyan has clarified The category holy cannot exist without the category common […] similarly clean cannot exist without unclean […] But holy can exist as a distinct category without unclean, demonstrating that the two terms are not inextricably bound to one another. 46

The questions which need to be addressed in relation to the two verses are: a) how do these categories apply to gentiles in Christ as gentiles, that is, as people who have turned away from idols but who are not required to become Jews; b) what are the implications of this application for the assemblies of Christ-followers? If we take the distinction between the two categories holy/profane and pure/impure into account how does this impinge on Paul’s use of the term κοινός in 14:14 and of καθαρός in 14:20? It is difficult to decide whether Paul used κοινός in v.14 as a synonym for ἀκάθαρτος or whether he used it consciously in the sense of profane meaning to emphasize the difference. The latter possibility should not be ruled out completely and I will subsequently provide an interpretation presupposing Paul used the terminology conscious of the implicit difference between the two categories.

Bauckham notes the differentiation in Acts 10–11 “We may reasonably suppose therefore that, in Acts 10–11, Luke does not couple ἀκάθαρτος with κοινός as synonyms for emphasis, but as distinct, if closely associated, attributes of both impure animals and Gentiles.” Peter James, 103. 45 S. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 17. 46 Olyan, Rites and Rank,130 n.12. Cf. also J. Dubbnik, “Ähnlich und doch ganz anders: Priester und Propheten über die Begriffe Heilig und Unrein,” in Communia Viatorum 50/1, (2008), 6–19 (8–9). 44

306

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

“[…] Nothing is Profane in Itself” (Rom 14:14) “[…] Nothing is Profane in Itself” (Rom 14:14)

The fact that Paul uses κοινός here rather than ἀκάθαρτος should at least let us pause for a moment before assuming that he simply means the latter using just a different word. Although κοινός in the first instance refers to that which is profane, accessible, permissible to all, and as such corresponds to ‫ חול‬which denotes that which is not ‫ קדש‬and its corresponding Greek ἅγιος, the LXX consistently uses the term βέβηλος when translating ‫ חול‬. Philo follows this tradition of translation and does not use κοινός for “profane.” The use of κοινός in relation to food seems to be a peculiarity of the Maccabean books, but whether it is as the TDNT suggests a peculiarity of “Jewish soil” seems difficult to substantiate any further (Jos.Ant 2:346; 3:181;12:320; 13:3). The evidence does not allow us to come to decisive conclusions. It seems obvious that κοινός is used with reference to food in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, which in the more technical sense refers to “impure.” But the notion of profane should not be ruled out either, especially when the partial overlap of these two categories is taken into account. There are passages in Acts 10 and 11 which, although post-Pauline, seem to indicate that the terms κοινός and ἀκάθαρτος are used in a way which indicates overlap and difference at the same time.47 In Acts 10:14 they are used in relation to eating – although it is unclear whether they are merely meant as duplications or whether there is another emphasis intended. An indication which in my view clarifies the use of the two different terms comes from the following verse (Acts 10:15) ἁ ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισεν, σὺ μὴ κοίνου. This response in Peter’s vision clearly does not relate to food as is confirmed by Peter’s explanatory address to Cornelius in 10:28: κἀμοὶ ὁ θεὸς ἔδειξεν μηδένα κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λέγειν ἄνθρωπον; here the pair is explicitly related to people . What is implied is – that if God himself cleansed gentiles they are not merely cleansed from impurity but they now have been transformed through the activity of the Holy spirit from being perceived as profane to a status of holiness and thus are now fit to be part of the community of saints. Using language related to the category of holy/profane in Rom 14:14 seems to imply that the problem Paul addresses is not in the first instance related to food stuff, that is meat and wine, which is consumed or not consumed. The problem he seems to address is not the food itself, but the impact the food related behaviour of some Christ-followers has on others (and thus on the holiness of the community). The purity/impurity of food is of importance only in relation to this major issue, not as a self-standing problem. Whether Paul emphasized that nothing is “profane” in itself or nothing is impure in itself, this is in both cases far from being a revolutionary statement.

47

Cf. Bauckham n.44 above.

“[…] Nothing is Profane in Itself” (Rom 14:14)

307

Rather, he formulates in accordance with Jewish perceptions that the distinctions between holy and profane and between pure and impure are not essential qualities inherent to whatever is perceived according to these categories, but these categorizations are seen as related to God’s covenant with Israel; they are his ordinances for them. As far as, for example, the purity of animals is concerned, the covenant does not annul the goodness of creation; there is nothing wrong or abominable with animals that are declared “impure.” These distinctions are relevant for those who deem them relevant because they are aspects of their identity-shaping relationship with the one God. Such a restricted perspective on the relevance of these distinctions has nothing to do with obliterating or undermining their significance for those for whom they are and remain significant. The nations in this perception are “profane” because they are not part of God’s covenant with his people and thus not “holy,” but again that in and of itself does not render them at fault and it certainly does not render them impure. It could be that Paul specifically uses κοινός here rather than ἀκάθαρτος because this is the category which applies to people of the nations/gentiles generally. From a Jewish perspective gentiles are “profane,” but they are not inherently “impure.” Non-observance of food laws, and laws that are summarized as “ritual laws” does not render gentiles impure, since these are not meant for them. 48 gentiles become impure, as likewise do Jews, through immoral deeds, with idolatry at the center of the problem, as Rom 1:18–32 demonstrates. Thus whilst gentiles, as worshippers of other gods, are deemed impure, this is not an ontological status inherent to the nature of gentile people. As nonmembers of God’s covenant with Israel they are profane, again a status to which no ontological quality is attributed.49 Rather, the categories holy/profane are categories of distinction and with regard to people have an identity shaping dimension. Such distinctions, however, did not constitute impermeable boundaries between Jews and non-Jews, as evidence for the numerous everyday interactions between them at any period in time demonstrates. With regard to the scriptural tradition, Hayes notes that “[…] not only does the Torah contain no

C. Hayes notes the connection to issues related to identity “Purity and the holiness to which it conduces are covenant notions. Because only God’s covenant partners are obligated to avoid most voluntary ritual impurities and cleanse themselves from unavoidable ritual impurities, gentiles are by definition exempt from the ritual purity laws […]” Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 20. Cf. most recently P. Eisenbaum who follows Hayes in her Paul was not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 101 and 153–67. The volume only came to my attention during the final stages of working at this article. 49 Hayes in her discussion of Genesis 1 and 2 notes that “the divine-human intimacy in these chapters all but precludes the idea of an intrinsic or ontological impurity that attaches to human beings,” Gentile Impurities, 20. 48

308

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

warnings to stay away from non-Israelites lest one contract ritual impurity, it also urges good relations and mutual assistance between Israelites and resident aliens.”50 This continues into the Second Temple period – otherwise the voluntary migration of Jews throughout the Greco-Roman world would be inexplicable 51 – and is supported by literary evidence of the period, such as in 3 Maccabees where it is maintained that differences of food and worship are insignificant compared with the friendship, neighborhood and business partnerships that exist between Jews and gentiles.52 Interaction with that which is profane is not in any way problematic in everyday life, whether with regard to interaction between Jews and gentiles or to other aspects as well.53 This is not to deny that there were other Jewish perceptions that were less favourable towards interaction with gentiles but even these were not “based on a desire to avoid a ritual defilement communicated by impure gentiles.”54 In such a context it can hardly come as a surprise that Paul states that nothing is profane in itself signalling his familiarity with Jewish perceptions of the time. Thus his use of the word κοινός here could be a deliberate and appropriate choice in that the category “profane” applies generally to people of the nations whereas the term ἀκάθαρτος does so only in a specific way (cf. Rom 1:24). There is one example of such a use of κοινός in the LXX version of the book of Esther where it clearly refers to gentiles Τί ἐστιν, Εσθηρ; ἐγὼ ὁ ἀδελφός σου, θάρσει, οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃς, ὅτι κοινὸν τὸ πρόσταγμα ἡμῶν ἐστιν· πρόσελθε (15:9/ 5:1 [6]). (“What is the matter, Esther? I am your brother. Take heart, you are not going to die; our order applies only to ordinary people. Come to me”). I am aware that this is a small basis for an argument but I believe it worth asking whether aspects of this meaning may well resonate in Paul’s use in Rom 14:14 even if not exclusively. The fact that Paul uses the word κοινός here rather than ἀκάθαρτος may indicate that we find an allusion to the pair holyprofane in conjunction with a reference to pure-impure. When Paul states that “Nothing is profane in itself but it is only profane for anyone who thinks it profane” he tunes in with a general Jewish perception of

Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 22. 51 Cf. P. Fredriksen who notes that “As supporters of Hellenistic regimes, whether as merchants, mercenaries, or regular soldiers, they were willing to move out into the Hellenistic world: Diaspora (“dispersion”) is not exile.” Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 16, cf. also 16–24. She further notes that pagans and gentile Christians were welcomed by synagogue communities well into the third/forth century (35–6). 52 Cf. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 49. Hayes lists a number of examples which confirm the lack of intrinsic gentile impurity: PssSol 17:34; Sir 36; T. Levi 14:4; Tob 14:6 (p. 22). 53 For instance, animals which are deemed fit for the purpose of sacrifice are pure but profane until the moment when they are actually offered as a sacrifice, only then they are considered to be holy. 54 Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 50. 50

“[…] Nothing is Profane in Itself” (Rom 14:14)

309

the world in terms of the profane/holiness distinction. As mentioned above these categories are not related to any ontological or “natural”55 qualities but to God’s statutes, which are relevant for those who consider themselves in a covenantal relationship with him. The decisive qualification of this statement in Rom 14:14 comes from Paul’s introduction of the verse “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus.” The relevance of this emphasis should not be seen in a supposed allusion to a Jesus tradition56 but it rather derives from the passage immediately preceding this verse. The statements in vv. 5–12 draw the addressees’ attention to the allpervasive presence of the Lord. Whatever they do, and wherever they are in their life cycle, as Christ-followers they are in the realm of Christ the Lord. There is no sphere of their lives which is outside of “the Lord.” Since, as is generally acknowledged, Paul addresses gentile Christ-followers here,57 it is obvious that he reminds them in particular that to be in Christ means that the divine presence, that is, the presence of the Holy One, permeates their entire lives in all its aspects. This theme was introduced actually at the beginning of chapter 12, where clear indications of a holiness discourse are found. It is a discourse that shows striking similarity with themes combined in Leviticus 19, to the extent that part of Romans 12–13 almost read like a commentary on /homily to Leviticus 19. As those who are in Christ, the addressees are reminded that they have to aspire to be holy; they are admonished “[…] to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (12:1b), which corresponds with them being addressed already in Rom 1:7 as “called to be the saints.” Thus, similar to Israel at Mount Sinai, these, as the called in Christ, are now in the realm of God, the Holy One, who calls them to be holy (Lev 19:2b). Paul repeatedly admonishes the addressees in chapter 12 to love and honour one another, to contribute to the needs of the saints and to practise hospitality (12:9–13). After his excursus on how to relate to state authorities he returns to this emphasis on love in directly quoting Lev 19:18 (13:9). It is interesting to note that the discourse in Leviticus 19 begins with an appeal to the holiness of the people “You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy.” (Lev 19:2) to which Paul’s appeal in 12:1–2 sounds like a parallel, or a variation of the tune. One of the basic requirements of “holiness” is separation and distinctive behaviour in relation to other peoples. In Leviticus this emphasis is found in close literary proximity to chapter 19, for example in 18:2 where the

Cf. M. Douglas note on these distinctions “[…] for anthropologists it is always wrong to take natural as a universal category, forgetting that nature is culturally defined,” Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 144. 56 For arguments supporting a Jesus tradition here see Jewett, Romans, 858–9. 57 Cf. Campbell, “The Addressees,” 171–96, also Engberg-Pedersen, “Everything is Clean,” 24. 55

310

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

Israelites are required not to “do as they do.”58 After his initial reference to holiness, Paul reminds the community that they should “not be conformed to this world” (12:2a), which implies that as part of this community Christ-followers should develop an identity distinct from “this world.” What follows in Leviticus 19 is a reminder of a mixture of laws, ritual and ethical, emphasizing that “holiness” is not confined to the boundaries of the sanctuary and that of the cult but expands into “the everyday life of common people.”59 This aspect strikingly corresponds with Paul’s emphasis in Rom 12:3–21 on support, care and love for the neighbor, and beyond, as that which is required of, and characterizes, the holy community (Lev 19:9–10; 13–14;15–18; 33–34). These requirements could thus be described as the identity markers now not only of Israel but of the Christ-following community “called to be saints” as well. This discourse of holiness is the immediate and wider context which I think impinges on the verse in question. Paul emphasizes in 14:14a that in the realm of the Lord Jesus – that is, in a sphere now under God’s sovereignty and thus holiness – nothing and no one is profane anymore. Only if someone considers anything or anyone to be still outside this realm is this so. As part of the Christ-movement, gentiles in Christ are not “profane” people from among the nations anymore. They are supposed to have “turned away from idols to the true and living God” (1 Thess 1:9), and as such they are supposed to have ceased from committing morally impure actions, hence Paul’s reminder that they should “not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (12:2). In Christ they have turned away from actions which according to Jewish perception, rendered gentiles impure; that is, first and most important from idolatry and following from this from immoral deeds which rendered them unfit (like Jews who committed such deeds) to come close to the realm of the holy. In Christ they were now morally pure. As such, through being in Christ, they were now in a state in which they could come close to the realm of the holy without risk. This, however does not mean that they would need to adhere to ritual purity laws as these are only meant for Jews and are part of Jewish identity. gentiles have to abstain from idolatry and morally defiling actions.60 This is what is required of them to be eligible as gentiles to be part of the community of the saints. The key issues thus for these gentiles in Christ are not ritual purity regulations but their change in status from “profane” to “holy,” which may well be indicated by Paul’s use of κοινός

H.H. Wills, Leviticus (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009), 171. 59 Cf. Wills, Leviticus, 165. 60 Cf. Hayes who notes that “[…] moral impurity, being conditioned on behaviour, is entirely avoidable. Gentiles no less than Israelites, are capable of refraining from those sinful acts that generate moral impurity. Thus, to the degree that the distinction between Jew and Gentile was perceived a moral distinction, to that degree the boundary between Jew and Gentile could be crossed as gentiles abandoned idolatry and immorality and adopted the behavioural norms of Jewish culture and identity.” Gentile Impurities, 193. 58

“[…] Nothing is Profane in Itself” (Rom 14:14)

311

here. As Fredriksen formulates “[…] through Christ, in the Spirit, these Gentiles are no longer common (‫ )חול‬but holy (‫ )קדש‬and thus suitable to be brought close to holiness.”61 Evidence for this change of status is that they have turned away from idols and immoral actions.62 A scenario could be envisaged in Rome where some Jews, whether Christfollowers or not, and possibly some gentiles (godfearers) could accept that gentiles are purified through their association with Christ and thus “fit” for being in the realm of the God of Israel through Christ – that is, in the sphere of holiness – but who perceived them to be either to be still profane or even impure despite being in Christ. Within the Christ-movement one could envisage a number of reasons for such a perception; one of these could be doubts as to whether these gentiles had completely turned away from idols and immoral behaviour. With regard to meat eating there is only an issue when, as in 1 Corinthians 8–10, meat has been involved in sacrifice, or (to a lesser extent) when it is meat from an animal deemed impure, most likely pork.63 Although sacrifice is the most likely source of meat where it was part of the menu in antiquity, Paul does not address this particular aspect here. The issue of food only comes into play in relation to the main concern of holiness. The food the “strong” gentiles may eat could cause the stumbling of a brother or sister. To act in a way which harms the brother or sister constitutes an immoral deed, and the impurity which is associated with such a deed, classified as sin, thus threatens to profane the holy community, that is, threatens to “blaspheme your good” (14:16). The major problem associated with eating here is not the food stuff, which is consumed; meat and vegetables are not the question, but the injuring of the brother or sister caused by refusing to be attentive to the very understandable injury such an act could have for someone else. In the reading proposed here, it is evident that Paul does not in principle “undermine the law,”64 nor even declare part of the law, as related to food, to be irrelevant in Christ. Paul rather argues within the parameters of Jewish reasoning. He is talking about the realm in which those who are in Christ now live, that is, the realm of a holy community. The food laws, and purity laws more generally, have something to do with this realm, but in different ways for Jews and gentiles. It certainly does not imply that Paul denies the validity of food laws in Christ. The issue is something else. That which actually threatens

Fredriksen, “Paul, Purity, and the Gentiles,” 213. This aspect is actually emphasized in Acts 10–11 where gentiles, not food, is the focus of the narrative; it is gentiles in Christ rather than food, who are declared to be neither profane nor impure in joining the assembly of God (Acts 10:28). 62 Cf. also C. Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 105. 63 On the popularity of pork in Roman cuisine cf. M. Corbier, “The Broad Bean and the Moray: Social Hierarchies and Food in Romem,” in Food: A Culinary History (ed. J.L. Flandrin, M. Montanari; New York: Penguin, 2000), 128–40 (133). 64 Contra Barclay cf. n.3 above. 61

312

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

the realm of holiness in Christ is neither adherence or non-adherence to the law, neither eating nor not-eating, but “injuring the brother and sister.” The repeated emphasis on “love” in the previous chapters of Romans clearly resonates here. “Not to walk in love” is that which “blasphemes”/ “profanes” the “good.” It constitutes an immoral act over against members of the community and as such threatens the holiness of the entire community through the impurity emanating from such an act.65 The most significant values in this movement of Jews and gentiles are peace and what contributes to mutual up- building. The food laws are not seen as a hindrance to achieve this, but conflict around food issues does cause a serious problem. Significantly, Paul does not call the covenant obligations for Jews adiaphora;66 to the contrary, they are inviolable in Christ, and if people are injured because of an ambiguity in how to evaluate gentiles’ eating practices in a context of mutual hospitality, Paul clearly emphasizes the necessity to accommodate to the needs of the “one for whom Christ died,” not out of pity, not out of tolerance, but because of the necessity to “pursue what makes for peace.” This peace is not built on the eventual requirement to move beyond the Torah and form a uniform identity in Christ. It is not built on a temporary tolerance of those in power who already know better than “the weak.”67 It is built on the strengthening of the identity of all involved here, the ones who eat and the ones who do not eat and who thus in their different ways “serve Christ”; as servants of Christ in their diversity they are thus “acceptable to God and approved by men” (14:18). This is the basis on which peace, joy, and mutual up-building can grow. The diversity in practice within the movement becomes evident in relation to eating and drinking and is confirmed by Paul here, in that he has made it clear that whatever is done in honour of God and service of Christ is acceptable to God. Read in this vein, Paul then does not see a problem with food laws, nor does he make any statement which indicates their irrelevance, but he does make a strong statement against that which does actually threaten the holiness of the community “called to be saints,” that is disrespect for the brother and sister and his/her vulnerability. “Not walking in love” means to behave in a way which still conforms to “this world” (12:2), “this world” meaning “outside the realm of Christ.”68 He formulates the relevance of such behaviour not in emotional or ethical terminology but in a rather “Levitical” vein and emphasizes that such “causing the brother/sister to stumble” inflicts moral impurity on the violator, and thus risks the profaning and hence blaspheming of God and “the community of saints.” Holiness is thus seen by Paul to be a decisive identity shaping

Cf. also Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A Christian, 157. 66 Also emphasized by Käsemann, An die Römer, 360, Jewett, Romans, 860, EngbergPedersen, “Everything is Clean,” 36, and prominently Campbell, Paul, 104–20. 67 Contra, e.g., Engberg-Pedersen, “Everything is Clean,” 34–5. 68 Cf. also Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 160–61. 65

“Everything is Indeed Pure” (14:20)

313

aspect of the community. The maintenance of holiness implies to some extent different things. The adherence to the Torah in its identity shaping significance for Jews is not questioned by Paul, nor whatever constitutes characteristics of gentile identity as long as this did not involve idol worship and behaviour which was associated with it. Thus, it can be assumed that Paul also affirmed aspects of gentile identity in Christ which did not contradict the message of the gospel (e.g., 1 Thess 5:21, Phil 4:8).69 The particular identities of Jews and gentiles in Christ are not a threat to the holiness and to peace, joy and harmony within the community; they are rather presupposed. Holiness is lived in diversity and as such constitutes nevertheless the “universal” identity shaping category for both Jews and gentiles in Christ.

“Everything is Indeed Pure” (14:20) “Everything is Indeed Pure” (14:20)

Although in this passage Paul clearly refers to the categories of the Jewish purity system, insights gained from the analysis of 14:14 are relevant here too. Since the issue under discussion is directly related to food and drink, πάντα μὲν καθαρά here most likely refers specifically to food stuff. If we presuppose that Paul’s perception here is embedded in Greco-Roman and Jewish understandings of purity issues rather than that he is stating something revolutionary or breathtaking that is foreign to Jewish tradition, then this implies that he merely states what everybody knows anyway. “Everything is indeed pure” refers to Jewish perceptions of purity and impurity as non-ontological categories, but as God’s ordinances, his Torah for his people. A tradition attributed to Jochanan ben Zakkai formulates “In your life, it is not the corpse that defiles […] and not the water that cleanses […]; it is the ordinance of the King of all Kings.”70 Read in this context Paul quite unspectacularly merely states what is the Jewish perception in this matter: the Jewish food laws of course are regulations related to God’s covenant with the people Israel. That “the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it” (Ps 25:1) is not questioned in any way by the setting of the laws which regulate which parts of God’s creation are at the disposition of the people Israel.71 The impure animals are impure for the covenant people as is emphasized in an almost mantra-like manner in Leviticus 11, “it is unclean/impure for you” (11:4; 5; 6; 7); “they are unclean for you”

Cf. J.B. Tucker, “You Belong to Christ”: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4, PhD Thesis (University of Wales, Lampeter, 2009); now published as “You Belong to Christ”: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4 (Eugene: Wipf&Stock 2010). 70 Peski/40b. 71 Cf. Douglas, Leviticus, 136. 69

314

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

(11:8); “they are untouchable for you” (11:10–11;12;23) etc. As with other purity regulations these apply to the covenant partner Israel and not to the nations. Gentiles are not required to keep purity laws, particularly not (all of) those which are related to ritual impurity as these are only relevant for Jews in their relationship with God.72 Although directly dealing with the issue of different perceptions concerning food, confirming that these categorizations only apply to those who deem them relevant, thus not for gentiles, Paul’s emphasis even here again is not on this specific difference as the factor which causes a real problem. In this verse as in v.14 the holiness and unity of the community is threatened by actions, that is, the eating of food by gentiles which in the eyes of Jews or gentiles who adhere to Jewish traditions is not pure beyond doubt. This injures the brother/sister, and doing harm to the other is, as we have seen above, an act which profanes the holiness of the community through the transmission of moral impurity. Clearly Paul refers to the purity of food which is mentioned earlier in this verse. He uses the common technical term for purity καθαρός, in a context where food and drink as means for providing hospitality are discussed directly. As indicated above, the addressees in this passage are gentiles.73 Thus what Paul formulates here is not a general statement about the perception of food, but a specific statement addressed to specific people in a specific context. Food laws are part of the rules which regulate ritual purity for those under the covenant. Non-adherence to these laws does not render gentiles impure or sinners because they are irrelevant for them from a Jewish perspective. The division of animals according to purity categories is thus irrelevant for gentiles. “For them” the food laws do not apply. Thus, “for them” all food is pure. Paul in addressing non-Jews is arguing in a Levitical vein here. The pure/impure categorization of animals and the admonition to observe these laws is addressed to the covenant people, that is, these animals are impure “for you” – the addressees of Leviticus. It follows they are not impure for non-Jews, who are addressed here by Paul, thus, for them, everything is pure. This does not mean that everything is to be considered pure by Jews in Christ, and the food laws are by no means abolished for Jews. Paul just confirms that the general Jewish perception concerning these laws in relation to gentiles applies also to gentiles who are now in Christ. The Jewish distinctions relevant for Jews do not apply to gentiles in Christ. This cannot be otherwise. If they were to adhere to Jewish food laws now that they are in Christ this would actually mean they would be required to take on Jewish identity. This is precisely, however, what Paul in other contexts and discussing other issues opposes. Gentiles in Christ should under no circumstances aspire to become

Cf. Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian, 100–01. 73 Cf. Campbell, “The Addressees,” also Engberg-Pedersen, “Everything is Clean,” 23– 72

34.

“Everything is Indeed Pure” (14:20)

315

Jews. Not because there is anything wrong with Judaism or the Torah, not because the Torah is actually obsolete and it is only a matter of time until its validity for Jews is overcome, but because in the eschatological time inaugurated by the coming of Christ, Jews and gentiles together will with “one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” If in Christ, gentiles were to become Jews it would be impossible for gentiles as gentiles to rejoice with his people! There would be no gentiles to rejoice since there would only be one kind of people, Jews. Thus, in Christ, for the gentiles eating their kind of food is not an issue, because in that context, for them, everything can be perceived as being the Lord’s and thus pure (cf. Rom 14:6–8). This does not render such food pure for Jews, as for them the identity shaping covenantal obligation does not become void in Christ. But the fact that they are now in Christ renders gentiles who eat their kind of food (e.g., pork74) nevertheless acceptable as part of the community who are “called to be saints.” Thus, v.20 is an assertion and confirmation of gentiles’ identity as gentiles in Christ, but not a break with the law or an indication that Paul advocated that Jewish identity was eventually obsolete in Christ. It is at the same time an assertion and confirmation of the Jews’ identity as Jews in Christ. The problem Paul addresses is obviously related to the provision of hospitality. The great length with which he goes about this issue may have to do with the sensitivity it has for Paul in particular since he had the experience of the breaking up of table-fellowship possibly early on in his career in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). I cannot discuss this major aspect in detail here but a possible scenario in Rome could be as follows: the food and wine which some gentiles may have consumed at the shared table may have raised doubts among other Christ-followers, gentiles or not, whether these “eaters” actually had transformed and now conformed to life in Christ. The discourse in which Paul describes this transformation is the Levitical holiness discourse. The doubts raised concerned the identity of the “eaters” as people who were supposed to be holy. Such doubt could have either lead to the breaking up of the tablefellowship or to pressure on those who had their doubts about these gentile “eaters” to suppress their concerns; thus some “doubters” could have felt obliged to eat without being confident that they did the right thing. Thus the food gentiles may have eaten/brought to the table may have caused a brother/sister to stumble and do something which was not done “in faith.” The eating practice of gentiles, which Paul acknowledges as entirely appropriate and in accordance with gentile identity in Christ, nevertheless in certain situations threatens the holiness of the whole community because by it the brother/sister may be injured. In order to maintain righteousness, peace, and joy, and thus the status of holiness among the Roman Christ-followers Paul

The issue of idol food is complex as Paul’s discussion of the issue in 1 Corinthians 8– 10 demonstrates. 74

316

Chapter 15 “Called to be Saints”

admonishes thus the gentiles, whose identity he has just confirmed, to accommodate with their eating practices to the needs of the brother/sister and thereby enable mutual hospitality based on faith for everybody (Rom 12:13).75 This does not mean that gentiles are required to adhere to the food laws, they are admonished to accommodate not because the food laws are “for them,” but out of concern for the “brother for whom Christ died,” that is, in conforming to a life in which the imitation of Christ is the guiding parameter. T. EngbergPedersen has drawn attention to the careful way in which Paul argues here. Engberg-Pedersen works out how Paul attempts to get the gentiles to understand that it is right in this case to adhere to Jewish food laws, but not because these laws are binding for them, but out of concern for the unity and holiness of the community.76 But, contra Engberg-Pedersen, in my view this admonishment to accommodation has nothing to do with a perception of food laws and the Jews’ concern for these as being wholly unjustified. They are justified in as much as the gentiles’ non-adherence to these laws is justified since in the service of Christ both practices are “accepted by God and approved by men” (14:18). For Jews their practice is part of their abiding loyalty to the covenant of God with them which is not annulled through their participation in Christ, and for gentiles their practice is similarly confirmation that now in Christ they as gentiles live, in association with Israel, as holy people of God.

Conclusion Conclusion

Paul’s concern for the peace and joy among the Christ-followers in Rome and their continued table-fellowship is expressed as a concern for the holiness of the community in Rom 14:1–15:13. Christ-followers are called to be saints, as Paul emphasizes in his greeting at the beginning of the letter. In the realm of Christ gentiles who previously were considered profane and impure are now sanctified, together with Jews. This messianic community which in its internal diversity lives in anticipation of the world to come, is supposed to be holy, to live a life in holiness. Purity is an issue when one enters the realm of the Holy, but it is an issue in different ways for people who are and remain different. Thus, the holiness of the community is under threat to be profaned not by food and drink, nor by the food laws for that matter, but by actions which harm the “brother for whom Christ died.” Such actions render the doer impure and this defilement threatens the holiness of the community of saints. This is the focus of Paul’s argument in 14:1–15:13. In this context the purity issues concerning food are of relevance given that the closest possible expression of unity of those who are and remain different in Christ – that is, the provision of hospitality at

Cf. Ehrensperger, Mutually Encouraged, 181–89. 76 Engberg-Pedersen, “Everything is Clean,” 36. 75

Conclusion

317

the table – is at stake. But, far from advocating the relativization of Jewish identity, Paul here affirms and strengthens the particular identity of both, Jews and gentiles, in Christ. The identity shaping characteristic shared by both in Christ is their status of holiness. The unity in diversity and mutual respect is fundamental for the holiness of the community of Christ-followers, who are called to welcome each other for the glory of God.















16. The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36: No Mystery But a Space for Reconciliation In the context of transmitting the gospel to the nations, Paul encountered those of his fellow Jews who did not share the Christ-followers’ perception of Jesus as the Christ and of his significance in the context of the inauguration of the age to come.1 That this was an issue of great concern for Paul is evident in Romans 9–11. In the context of this long, and at points passionate discourse, he refers to the ways of God’s dealings as a μυστήριον (in 11:25–36). It is puzzling that Paul refers to what he outlines in this passage as a μυστήριον. In this contribution I will explore the strategic function of this μυστήριον in the context of Paul’s letter to “all God’s beloved in Rome” (1:7). My approach presupposes the contextuality and particularity of each of Paul’s letters, including Romans. The context encompasses particular contextual issues of the communities as well as political and social aspects of the first century CE under the conditions of Roman rule. Based on this presupposition the function of the μυστήριον in 11:25 will be analysed in relation to the drawing of group boundaries, its purpose as stated by Paul, and the relation of the μυστήριον to Paul’s authority claims; I will consider the bonding dimension in the sharing of the μυστήριον, will address issues concerning the authority of the μυστήριον, and discuss whether and to what extent Paul’s use of the term μυστήριον acts as a “blank space” in the contact zone of different traditions. To conclude, effects of the understanding of this μυστήριον in the course of its reception history will be considered.

Drawing Boundaries in Rome Drawing Boundaries in Rome

The social and symbolic universe Paul shared with fellow Jews, Christ-followers or not, provided diverse scenarios and narratives concerning the age to come and the inclusion of the nations.2 Israel was not excluded in any of these scenarios. Paul’s emphasis in Rom 11:29 that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” is not just a statement out of emotional attachment or solidarity with his people. It is a statement about Israel and also a deeply theological affirmation of God’s faithfulness. Although Paul hardly ever mentions those

An earlier version has been an invited paper as part of the discussions of the ‘Focus Group “Secret”’of the Käthe Hamburger Kolleg ‘Dynamics in the History of Religions’, University of Bochum in 2013. 2 Cf. T.L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007). 1

320

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

of his people who are not persuaded by the message of Christ, Romans 9–11 demonstrates clearly that this is not merely a side-concern but at the heart of Paul’s perception of God and his relation to his people Israel. It has been argued convincingly in my view that Paul in Romans (as in his other letters) addresses Christ-followers from the nations. 3 This is emphasized in 11:13 by directly addressing them out of a contextual need to clarify certain issues 4 which have arisen among Christ-following communities in Rome. 5 They obviously concern the relationship of Jews and non-Jews 6 within the Christ-movement but are not confined to such intra-group relations.7 Although a clear boundary seems to be drawn between those who are “in Christ” and those who are of τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, that is, between those from the nations (gentiles) outside the Christ-movement, no such boundary is drawn between those “in Christ” and Jews, who are not convinced (ἀπειθούντες )8 by the messianic message. This means that the insider-outsider boundary is clearly drawn only in relation to non-Jewish outsiders. (Even in the latter case this did not lead to some isolationist stance, or a request to refrain from social interaction with outsiders, but rather to the admonition to keep the peace as far as they were concerned [Rom 12:18]). No such boundary is drawn over against Jews.

Significant arguments that Romans is addressed to “gentiles” have been presented by W.S. Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House Churches and Synagogues?,” in Between Gospel and Election:Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (ed. F. Wilk, J.R. Wagner; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 171–95; S.K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994); M.D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). Campbell in particular has argued that this address does not exclude the presence of Jews, Christ-followers or not in the social context of these “gentile” Christ-followers. 4 On the contextuality of Romans see, e.g., Campbell, “The Addressees,” also K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 181–89. 5 Significantly Paul does not use the term ἐκκλησία for the Christ-followers in Rome, except for one assembly in the house of Prisca and Aquila (16:5). 6 The term “gentiles” is not an accurate translation for the term Paul uses for non-Jews, “ἔθνη.” Where possible I will thus translate “ἔθνη” with “nations.” The term “gentile/gentiles” will only be used where “nations” would lead to linguistically complicated sentence structures. For more details see K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), chapter 5. 7 W.D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies (ed. W.D. Davies; Philadelphia: Fortress,1984), 153–63, here 156–57. 8 The traditional translation of ἀπειθούντες as “disobedient” introduces a moral stance to the term which is not inherent to it. I thus translate it as “not convinced” or with Nanos as “not persuaded.” For a good discussion see M. Nanos, “‘Callused’ Not ‘Hardened’: Paul’s Revelation of Temporary Protection Until All Israel Can Be Healed,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 52–73, here 60. 3

Drawing Boundaries in Rome

321

In that sense the Christ-followers from the nations are drawn into a Jewish social and symbolic universe even though clearly and decisively as non-Jews.9 Paul’s explicit emphasis that non-Jews who joined the Christ-movement should do so as precisely that, meant that aspects of their identity as Greeks and barbarians, Galatians and Corinthians had to be retained and positively acknowledged as far as these were not incompatible with the values of the Christ-movement.10 On the other hand, as people who had been socialised and embedded in different social and symbolic universes, they had to “learn to be a gentile”11 in Christ in the process of becoming a member of this movement. The retention of aspects of their previous identity and “learning to be a gentile” involved a translation process between traditions and practices not so much at the linguistic level but rather at the level of traditions and narratives of belonging and respective practices. The contact of Jewish and non-Jewish traditions and practices required negotiation as to how these diverse traditions and practices could interact and be integrated into the movement. For non-Jews to abstain from any involvement in the worshipping of deities other than the God of Israel was only one, although possibly the decisive, and at the same time most difficult aspect of this learning process.12 Contact between different traditions and their identity shaping significance for people who were and remained different was at the heart of Paul’s mission. The social interaction in the form of the up-building of a community of diversity was not an addition to this endeavour but inherently intertwined with its theological dimension. Paul’s role and activity thus could be described as that of a cultural mediator or go-between, or as a cultural translator in the context of bilingualism/biculturalism.13 As part

P. Fredriksen, “‘Judaizing the Nations’: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS, 56 (2010), 232–52. W.S. Campbell, The Nations in the Divine Economy: Paul’s Covenantal Hermeneutics and Participation in Christ (Lanham: Lexington/Fortress, 2018); M. Zetterholm, “Jews, Christians, and Gentiles: Rethinking the Categorization within the Early Jesus Movement,” in Reading Paul in Context, 242–54. 10 Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, chapters 6 and 7; J.B. Tucker, “You Belong to Christ”: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4. (Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2010). 11 Cf. S. Fowl, “Learning to be a Gentile: Christ’s Transformation and Redemption of our Past,” in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (A.T. Lincoln and A. Paddison; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 22–40, also K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement. (London: T&T Clark, 2007/09), 117–36. 12 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, chapter 7 and “‘The Ministry to Jerusalem’ (Rom 15.31): Paul’s Hopes and Fears,” in Erlesenes Jerusalem: Festschrift für Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed. L. Kundert, C. Tuor-Kurth; Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 2013), 338–52, now chapter 17 of this volume. 13 I have presented arguments for a reading of the Pauline letters through the lens of cultural translation processes in Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures. 9

322

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

of a team he is involved together with others14 in mediating a Jewish narrative and sense of belonging to the world of the nations. Paul assumes that for people from the nations this involved a significant learning process placing him in the role of a teacher who transmits knowledge. An asymmetrical relationship between him and his ἐκκλησίαι is what should be expected in this situation, with Paul and other leaders being in positions of power albeit not necessarily of domination.15 Paul assumes this role, although only partially and quite cautiously in his letter to Rome, that is, to Christ-following groups he clearly had not founded and could thus not claim authority over them based on such a role. Nevertheless, he seems compelled to write to them – as he says at times “boldly” (Rom 15:15) in order to clarify certain aspects of his message. The issues discussed in the letter indicate that at least questions, if not major problems, have arisen in Rome concerning the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in the realm of the Christ-movement and beyond. These issues seem to concern boundaries between insiders and outsiders as well as practices within the movement. As mentioned above, the boundary between insiders and outsiders is clearly drawn over against the world of “Greeks and barbarians,” “Galatians,” and “Corinthians.” Those from the nations who are not “in Christ” have no part in the “world to come,” that is, in the coming salvation. Could it be the case that the clear boundary towards those of the nations who are not “in Christ,” has led to the conclusion on the part of gentile Christ-followers in Rome, that the same applies to unconvinced Jews? If being “in Christ” was the exclusivist identity marker over against the world of the nations, as Paul clearly advocates, e.g., in 1 Corinthians 8–11, and also in Galatians, this could be understood as being applicable in the same vein over against “unconvinced” Jews. According to theories of group dynamics and social interaction this would be a “normal” boundary drawing process among groups,16 and in this perspective there is a certain logic in such a conclusion. “In Christ” then would serve as the decisive identity marker defining who is part of the group to whom God’s mercy extends, and who is not.17 Paul’s argumentation throughout Romans 9–

I consider Paul as being part of a team rather than a lonely fighter, see K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 35–51, also L. Schottroff, Der erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013); 11–12. 15 Not every asymmetrical relationship is one of domination, as power can also have transformative and empowering dimensions. For more details see K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 16–34. 16 H. Taifel et al., “Social Categorization and Intergroup behviour,” EJSP 1 (1971), 149– 77. 17 For a useful discussion of Social Identity Theories see P.F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 19–39, also Tucker,“You Belong to Christ,” 36– 60. 14

The Purpose of the Μυστήριον

323

11 indicates that this seems to be the perception of at least some Christ-followers from the nations in Rome. He emphasizes that he is specifically addressing them in 11:13 arguing subsequently explicitly against such conclusions.

The Purpose of the Μυστήριον The Purpose of the Μυστήριον

According to Jewett Rom 11:25–32 “contains two major parts, a disclosure of the mystery with scriptural support […] and a theological explanation of its significance for salvation history.”18 It is puzzling that Paul refers to what he is about to disclose as a μυστήριον, although by doing so “it is public rather than esoteric, in principle available to all even if it remains hidden from those on the way to perdition […]” as Rowland has argued with regard to the revelation of Christ.19 Since Paul declares the purpose and content of the μυστήριον openly, its communicative and strategic function as a place of contact seems rather evident and leaves us with the question why then does Paul call this a μυστήριον ? What is the mystery of this μυστήριον ? Since the content is obviously communicated explicitly, no “blank space” seems to be created that would function as a place of an encounter of traditions or of a “concrescence of traditions.” Nevertheless, if we do not wish to assume that Paul used the term accidently but rather consciously, the purpose of this non-hidden μυστήριον needs to be explored in more detail in terms of its strategic function within the passage. In terms of what is communicated, there seems to be no hidden agenda in Paul’s reference to the μυστήριον: he openly declares that he “does not want brothers and sisters to be ignorant” (11:25) concerning this. But rather than this merely being a statement about their state of knowledge, the aim of enhancing their knowledge serves a specific purpose in Paul’s communicative strategy: they shall be prevented from considering themselves wise or as Jewett has translated “super-minded.”20 In telling the addressees that he wishes them to “have knowledge” Paul implies that they are lacking such knowledge and are in need of being informed to prevent them from a false self-perception. The declared purpose of informing them of this μυστήριον places the addressees strategically in a position of deficiency and at risk of a misconception from which they need to be protected through knowledge they apparently cannot gain for themselves. This knowledge needs to be mediated to them. Paul does not mention any reasons why he considers them unable to acquire such knowledge for themselves, but the olive tree metaphor immediately preceding

R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 695. 19 C. Rowland, C.R.A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 153. 20 Jewett, Romans, 699, also 738–41. 18

324

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

this passage (11:17–24) provides some indication about the risk of their ignorance: they are warned here against boasting and against an overinflated selfperception. Superiority claims over against those Jews who are not convinced of the gospel are considered to result from ignorance concerning the μυστήριον Paul is about to explain to the gentile addressees. The fact that “knowledge and understanding” need to be mediated to them indicates that the previous contexts and traditions of belonging and of finding meaning in the world did not provide them with accurate channels for understanding this μυστήριον. From Paul’s argument via the olive tree metaphor it can be assumed that their understanding of belonging to Christ was at risk of following a separatist and dualistic pattern which linked God’s mercy in a causal and conditional way to “being in Christ.” Jews who did not respond positively to the message of the gospel may be perceived as having forfeited God’s mercy. This is not only problematic in terms of social relations but also theologically in that it perceives God’s activity and mercy as conditional on the human response and thus limits God’s sovereignty and freedom. “Greeks and barbarians” had been embedded in their particular social and cultic traditions which did not provide them with the means for understanding the process of salvation initiated by the God of Israel and his dealings with Israel and the nations. In Paul’s view they were not equipped with sufficient knowledge to understand the difference in terms of the extent and boundaries of God’s mercy between Israel and the nations in this process. Thus in terms of the purpose of what Paul is about to tell the addressees, the label μυστήριον indicates that this is something they could not have known in and of themselves. They are, on the one hand, depicted as those who do not know, that is, as the “weaker” part in an asymmetrical power relationship; on the other hand they are also not held responsible for their ignorance at this point, since they needed the mediation of someone with more or “higher” knowledge in order to be prevented from going “in the wrong direction.” Paul indicates that they were in need of a “translator” in order to understand the implications of different responses by different people to the message of the gospel. Such understanding was not self-evident. Paul, in writing to a community he has not founded and over which he thus does not have any authority as a “founding father” (as, e.g., in Corinth or Galatia), is cautious not to put blame on them for their lack of knowledge. He did not found them nor has he taught them. The μυστήριον thus serves the purpose of communicating to them in a cautious way that, although lacking in certain knowledge and understanding, they are not being blamed for, or exposed in their ignorance by Paul. The μυστήριον has a supportive function for establishing a positive relationship with a community he has not founded, and thus for a positive reception of the explanation of the μυστήριον that follows.

Authority through the Μυστήριον

325

Authority through the Μυστήριον Authority through the Μυστήριον

The term μυστήριον, in addition to the transmission of knowledge to prevent the addressees from developing a “super-minded” attitude, protects them from blame or exposure as being ignorant. At the same time, it puts Paul in the position of the “subject who knows” and who, by such superior knowledge, exercises power over those who do not know. The claim to explain a μυστήριον to those who are depicted as “not knowing” inherently establishes an asymmetrical relationship. Paul in the letter opening emphasizes the mutuality of their relationship (Rom 1:12), but by the mere fact of his claim to explain a μυστήριον, he leaves the level of mutuality, and places himself in a superior position above those addressed. This does not mean that he establishes a position of domination over them, 21 but as far as knowledge of the extent and boundaries of God’s mercy is concerned, he certainly claims an authority position. The fact that he calls the particular “content” of knowledge a μυστήριον adds weight to the seriousness of the purpose as well as of the content, but also to Paul’s role as a mediator of insights which require special access to the realm of the Divine. This is not merely a “teaching” (διδαχή), or an “admonition” (παρακλήσις). The fact that it is a μυστήριον seems to locate it in a different sphere and establishes a more immediate link to this realm also for the addressees. Paul claims to have special knowledge but interestingly here he does not refer to anything which has been revealed to him or which has been hidden before, or which was made known to him through a visionary experience. Unlike his commissioning experience (Gal 1:12, 16), revelation language is absent as is any reference to “unveiling” a secret. This mystery is not secret, it does not need to be disclosed via special channels. Rather, it needs to be understood and such understanding Paul implies, needs mediation. But interestingly, the μυστήριον is substantiated via reference to the scriptures rather than to a heavenly journey or a similar ecstatic experience. Rather than claiming authority based on experiences as an ecstatic seer, Paul claims authority as someone who knows, is embedded in, and understands the scriptures. He mediates the link to the realm of the Divine, and to understanding the extent of God’s mercy via the scriptures. This is actually consistent with the scripturally based argumentation throughout chapters 9–11. Knowledge and understanding of the Divine is not limited to mystical and visionary experiences, although Paul can refer to such as well (Gal 1:12,16; 2 Cor 12:1–4). But for Paul these do not seem to be the only or the most important ways and means of relating to the realm of the Divine. More often than referring to mystical or ecstatic experiences or special

21

Cf. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 126–36.

326

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

revelations to him, Paul actually engages in what I have elsewhere called scriptural reasoning.22 He lives in and with the scriptures in coherence and in conversation with Jewish practice of interpretation he negotiates meaning and understanding of current events in light of the scriptures, and understands the scriptures in relation to events of contemporary life. Thus I am not convinced that this passage, and the term μυστήριον in particular should be seen as an indication of Paul’s access to divine secrets which he occasionally makes public, or as “the revelation of one of these mysteries and not the summation of rational reflection on a knotty doctrinal issue.”23 Nor do I think that “Paul’s uses of the word μυστήριον in this context” is a reflection of “the perspective of a mystic whose ‘revelation experiences’ remain partially beyond analysis.”24Although I agree with the second part of Rowlands claim, I do not see the dichotomy between the two options he sets up, and I do not see the inherent link between the word μυστήριον and the mystical experience Jewett advocates here. What is missing in Jewett’s and Rowland’s evaluation is the recognition that for Paul as well as for his fellow Jews, the scriptures were the core and frame of their access to, and relationship with their God. The knowledge and understanding of this particular μυστήριον does not require a visionary experience, and Paul does not claim authority due to a mystical experience here which would be exclusive to some extent as was his calling experience (Gal 1:15–16) or what seems to have been his “wrestling with God” experience (2 Cor 12:1–10). He had ruled out that such experiences could be the basis of his authority (2 Cor 12:11–13). He rather refers to what he considers the proper understanding of the scriptures as the point of reference for what he tells the addressees. Although the reference to the μυστήριον here does function as an authority claim and assertion, it does so not in an exclusivist way, via the means of a unique charisma, but rather via the interpretation of the scriptures, an activity which was not confined to a few elect, but could be shared and learned by all in the Christ-movement. “Learning to be a gentile in Christ” included learning to understand God through the scriptures as Paul for instance advocates when he reminds the Corinthians that “this was written for our instruction” (Rom 15:4, 1 Cor 10:11). The relationship to God is mediated not via a special experience in the first instance, but via the scriptures. This is not in opposition to visionary experiences as such, as these are also mostly related to,

See Ehrensperger, “Reading Romans ‘in the Face of the Other’: Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher, meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle,” in Reading Romans with Contemporary Philosophers and Theologians (Romans Through History and Cultures series, volume 7; ed. D. Odell-Scott; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 115–54; now chapter 14 of this volume. See also W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 57–61. 23 Rowland, The Mystery of God, 142. 24 Jewett, Romans, 699. 22

The Μυστήριον and Bonding

327

based on, or inspired by the scriptures.25 Thus whether through interpretation in the vein of scriptural reasoning, or through visionary experiences, the basis and framework of the relationship to the God of Israel are the traditions of the ancestors, that is the scriptures. Consistent with this perception Paul refers to the scriptures rather than a revelatory experience as the guide to understanding this μυστήριον. As noted above, that which Paul wishes the addressees to know and understand is obviously not evident to them. They could not have known this by themselves, neither from their own cultural context, nor from their probably limited knowledge of the scriptures. Without Paul’s guidance it seems they would not have been brought into a position to understand. The label μυστήριον thus functions in support of Paul’s authority claim as someone who is in the position to understand and thus is able to transmit the understanding of this μυστήριον to those Christ-followers from the nations in Rome who would otherwise be ignorant and at risk of a misconception of core aspects of the gospel. To have knowledge and understanding of this μυστήριον based on his embeddedness in the scriptures enhances his role as apostle to the nations who is commissioned to “bring about the obedience of faith among all the nations” (Rom 1:5). At the same time it is a specific claim to authority only in relation to the understanding of this particular μυστήριον. Paul is careful not to overstep his boundaries, and acknowledges that the addressees actually “are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another” (Rom 15:14). Only with regard to certain specific dimensions of the gospel, as for instance the μυστήριον here, does he consider them in need of his mediation and authority.

The Μυστήριον and Bonding The Μυστήριον and Bonding

To share a mystery or a secret in everyday situations necessarily creates boundaries between insiders and outsiders. The sharing of something others do not know and understand creates a bond between those who know and understand and thus distinguishes them from others. A mystery thus can function as a means to contribute to the construal and shaping of group identities. To label that which Paul is about to explain to the addressees as a μυστήριον thus could also be seen as having the function of establishing or contributing to the creation of a special bond between Paul and the addressees. He indicates that he is

Cf. A. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 218–21; cf. also K. Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 146–49 and A. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 40–52. 25

328

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

willing to share something very special with them, to include them in the circle of those who have knowledge and understanding. The sharing of a mystery can create a sense of intimacy. As mentioned, such bonding primarily works through an insider-outsider dynamics established by the sharing of something that only some know or understand and from which others are excluded. The sharing of a secret mystery requires ways and means of transmitting it by those who are insiders, initiation rites for newcomers to the group, and ways and means to guard and protect the secrecy of the mystery from outsiders. All of this does not apply to the μυστήριον Paul is about to explain here. The content of Paul’s μυστήριον is not secret or hidden, and nowhere does Paul indicate that it needs to be kept secret from those who are not “in Christ.” It seems that this μυστήριον does not bind a group together in distinction from outsiders who do not have access to such knowledge and understanding. Although knowledge and understanding are important, the fact that it is in principle not secret or hidden from outsiders implies that it is not the act of sharing this μυστήριον which has particular bonding power. The bonding dimension is rather related to the purpose of the sharing of this μυστήριον, namely the prevention of boastful and super-minded attitudes of Christ-followers from the nations over against Jews. The key dimension lies in the significance of this knowledge and understanding in and for the lives of the addressees. Maybe this is what Paul actually means by emphasizing that he does not want the addressees to be ἀγνοεῖν. That practice of everyday life is actually the crucial point in the sharing of this μυστήριον is supported by Paul’s concern that their lack of knowledge (ἀγνοεῖν) might have effects in their lives with a negative impact on the community. Thus Paul is actually primarily concerned with the negative effects of not understanding the μυστήριον, and by implication must also be primarily concerned with the effects their shared understanding has for the community. The effects of not understanding this μυστήριον are boasting and super-mindedness. The function of sharing Paul’s understanding of the μυστήριον is to prevent such attitudes including their detrimental effects for the community. Since these attitudes are mentioned in a literary context where Jews who are not convinced by the gospel are concerned, the link between the sharing of the μυστήριον and in-group solidarity or boundary drawing to outsiders is rendered unclear. The sharing of the μυστήριον obviously aims at changing or preventing gentile boasting and super-mindedness primarily although not exclusively, as they affect unconvinced Jews. The shared understanding of this μυστήριον aims at creating a bond not only between those “in Christ” but also, and it seems even more importantly here, with certain others who are outside the realm of Christ. An insider-outsider boundary is construed through a bond not between those who are “in Christ,” but between those “he has called not from the Jews only but also from the nations” (9:24), and those who are “beloved for the sake of their ancestors” (11:28). Interestingly, only one sub-group from

The Μυστήριον and Bonding

329

among those mentioned here is imparted and seen in need of being informed about this μυστήριον, namely, the Christ-followers from the nations. The μυστήριον is not shared between all those involved in this passage. The bonding function does not emerge out of a shared understanding of the μυστήριον. Understanding is communicated to Christ-followers from the nations about something which concerns others who are currently not part of the communication process, nor part of those groups who are “in Christ.” At least there is no direct literary evidence for unconvinced Jews to be somehow, even if indirectly, involved in this communication.26 Whether they were listening into this communication of Paul with Christ-followers from the nations or not, they are neither addressed nor included as active participants in the sharing of the understanding of this μυστήριον. It is Paul who shares his understanding of the μυστήριον with gentile addressees, and thereby aims at maintaining and strengthening a bond between them and unconvinced Jews.27 We can only speculate as to why only Christ-followers from the nations are addressed and in need of understanding this μυστήριον. The communication strategy of this passage, as of other passages of Romans (e.g., Rom 14:1–15:6) indicates that the bond between those “in Christ” and unconvinced Jews is under threat from those from the nations rather than from Jews. It is somewhat inconceivable that Jewish Christ-followers would have considered that being “in Christ” might imply a separation from their fellow Jews. That this is not so can best be seen in Paul himself. His positive appreciation of his Jewish identity in Phil 3:4–6, his identification with fellow Jews as well as his submission to synagogue discipline (2 Cor 11:24) are clear indications that he perceived himself as inseparably part of his people and their traditions.28 Nor is there any indication during Paul’s lifetime of such a move on the part of unconvinced

Nanos has argued for a scenario where Christ-following groups from the nations are operating within the context of synagogue communities in Rome (The Mystery of Romans, 13–14, 163). I consider this a possibility but would not exclude the possibility of some diversity in such relationships. That there existed close links with Jewish communities should not be doubted in my view. For further discussion see also Campbell, “The Addressees.” 27 Cf. I.E. Rock, who asserts “to affirm the Lordship of Christ is to simultaneously recognize the preference of Israel. But to recognize the primacy of Israel is also to accept the importance of the Jews,” in “Another Reason for Romans – A Pastoral Response to Augustan Imperial Theology: Paul’s Use of the Song of Moses in Roman 9–11 and 14–15,” in Reading Paul in Context, 74–89 (88). 28 Cf., e.g., W.S. Campbell, “‘I Rate All Things as Loss’: Paul’s Puzzling Accounting System. Judaism as Loss or the Re-Evaluation of All Things in Christ,” in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy O’Connor and Joseph A. Fitzmyer (ed. P. Spitaler; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2011), 39–61; Nanos, the Mystery of Romans; P. Fredriksen, Paul, the Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 61– 93; Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (ed. M. Nanos, M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). 26

330

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

Jews. Paul’s sharing of the understanding of the μυστήριον aims at strengthening a group bond, and a boundary. But it is not a bond between those who share in understanding the μυστήριον with him, but rather a bond between them and others that Paul seeks to establish. The μυστήριον is inclusive not merely in relation to all those who share in its particular understanding but with regard to all who share in the exclusive relationship to the God of Israel, whether they are “in Christ” or not. The understanding of the μυστήριον implies that this inclusive perception is a decisive dimension of being “in Christ.” It thus serves not only as a means of bonding between Jews and gentiles within the Christfollowing groups, but also clearly asserts that the bond with unconvinced Jews is a decisive dimension of being “in Christ” not only for fellow Jews but also for Christ-followers from the nations. The μυστήριον functions as a means of supporting solidarity between all who are “in Christ,” Jews and gentiles, and all Jews, also those who are not “in Christ.” This has significant social as well as theological implications.

The Authority of the Mυστήριον The Authority of the Mυστήριον

Although there is nothing hidden in what is called a μυστήριον in Rom 11:25– 36, to refer to what requires understanding with this label still indicates that its content, although seemingly not leaving a blank space, is not easily accessible and does not speak for itself. What is hidden and requires explanation is not the content of what is transmitted but its understanding and implications. Although, as argued above, this μυστήριον does not necessarily require a visionary experience, it requires specific knowledge and understanding of the scriptures which entail “the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1). When understood in the context of apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple period generally, and other Pauline uses more specifically, the term clearly indicates a direct link with the Divine and as such emphasizes the significance of what needs to be understood and translated into everyday life. In conjunction with emphasizing the authority of the mediator of understanding, that is, the subject “who knows,” the label also adds weight to the content in question. Although the content is not secret, it is only evident for those who are able to see and understand its meaning. The term thus functions as a point of reference and alerts the audience, that what seems obvious at first sight is not the only perspective, not the only way of understanding events, and certainly not the way the events in question ought to be understood. The label μυστήριον indicates that a shift in perspective is required. As Rowland has noted Paul has not worked out this shift through a logical argument via which he is trying to solve a conundrum that puzzles him. But it is also not something which Paul claims as having been revealed to him via a visionary or similar experience. As noted above, the fact that Paul here refers

The Authority of the Mυστήριον

331

to the scriptures indicates that he is of the view that the understanding of this μυστήριον is actually found there. For him God’s mysteries are revealed in the scriptures in the first instance. They provide the means via which to understand events in the present. For someone embedded in a Jewish social and symbolic universe this is self-evident. Paul is part of a tradition which had been challenged to develop and maintain its identity and perception of the meaning of life under the conditions of ideologies of empires for centuries. Jewish apocalyptic traditions did not emerge in a vacuum but in and with specific political and ideological contexts.29 They reassured the faithful that despite the plights which they suffered under current dominating powers, and against what the course of events seemed to tell, their God had not abandoned them, and was still the sovereign power in and through history. As Portier-Young summarizes “Apocalyptic faith maintained that what could be seen on the surface told only part of the story.”30 Living in and with these scriptures and traditions, its narratives and lyrics provided a means to find guidance and understanding in current events, a reassurance that in as much as God had been faithful in the past, so he would be in the present and future. Knowledge gained through living with the scriptures could “counter other knowledge claims, including claims of empire.”31 A perspective from the Divine realm was claimed thus inherently challenging the validity of dominating ideologies.32 The μυστήριον in Rom 11:25 points towards such an alternative perspective. The fact that many Jews were not convinced by the gospel Paul and his colleagues proclaimed appears to have been interpreted at least by some in the movement, as evidence that they had placed themselves outside the realm of those to whom God’s saving mercy extended. As noted above, this seems a logical conclusion in terms of inter-group dynamics and boundary drawing. It also seems a logical conclusion in light of imperial ideology and its loyalty claims. The empire required the loyalty of nations which had come under its rule and domination, in return for “benefits” and “protection” being extended to them. Non-compliance triggered reactions of various degrees depending on the degree of non-compliance. Inclusion into the empire could be enforced, but above all it required assimilation to the “ways of Rome” in those aspects which concerned Roman interests. Inclusion happened on “Roman terms” even though there were no pre-conditions for such an inclusion other than accepting

A. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 3–10, 217–22; R.A. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). 30 Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 389. 31 Ibid., 393. 32 On the Jewish social and symbolic universe as an alternative to dominating discourses see, e.g., T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). 29

332

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

the “Roman terms” for such inclusion.33 “Roman terms” included the perception that the fact of their rule and domination over provinces was evidence that the gods had favoured them. To become included into such divine favouritism consent to “Roman rule,” that is, inclusion into the empire on Roman terms was required. Exclusion meant exclusion from the favours bestowed to Rome by the gods. Perceived from such a perspective, the conclusion that unconvinced Jews would have excluded themselves from the group of those to whom God’s mercy extended, is not all strange. They had not accepted the “in Christ” terms of God’s mercy, and if viewed through the lens of Roman ideology, could not expect to be included in the respective realm of benefits and “protection.” This would have been the perspective with which most Christ-followers from the nations would have been familiar.34 Paul’s warning against boasting and super-mindedness could well be directed against a perspective on events informed by such dominating exclusivist attitudes. In parallel to the exclusivist pattern of inclusion into the realm of the benefits and protection of the empire, inclusion into the realm of God’s mercy and saving activity would then exclusively be seen via inclusion into the Christ-movement. However, an understanding of God’s ways and the extension of his mercy cannot be deducted from imperial patterns of inclusion and exclusion.35 The label μυστήριον adds divine authority to the content of what needs to be understood. It is a counter-perspective to imperial patterns of inclusion and exclusion, and is of upmost significance for understanding the gospel in its allencompassing relevance. The contact of these gentiles with the world of the Jewish social and symbolic universe upon joining the Christ-movement affected not merely the “religious dimension.” Since it is widely acknowledged that the religious, political and ethnic aspects of collective, and of individual social identities were inseparable any ‘religious contact’ included these other aspects as well. The μυστήριον should thus not merely be considered as located in a special sphere of the “Divine,” but is related to political as well as other dimensions of life. The contact between the world of gentiles and the world of Jews within the Christ-movement included all of these aspects.36 The strategic

For a discussion and references see K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, chapter 6. 34 For an excellent analysis of the all-pervasive visual presence of the perspective of victorious Rome see D. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). 35 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, 6.4; Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered, 56–118; also Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations; I.E. Rock, Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Roman Imperialism: an Ideological Analysis of the Exordium (Romans 1:1–17) (Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2012). 36 Cf. C.A. Barton and D. Boyarin, Imagine No Religion: How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities (New York: Fordham University Press, 2016), 1–38. 33

The Authority of the Mυστήριον

333

functions of the μυστήριον as a means to prevent boasting and super-mindedness, as a means in support of Paul’s authority claims, and as a means of bonding, are related to the contextuality of Paul’s argument in Romans, and in Romans 9–11 in particular, but the content of this μυστήριον plays a significant role in the evaluation of the authority supporting function of what is communicated per se. The identification of what actually constituted the μυστήριον in need of proper understanding has led to numerous hypotheses which cannot all be discussed in any detail here. Thus, e.g., Murray Baker claims that The mystery encompasses the full sweep of action that Paul outlines – part of Israel hardened, fullness of gentiles coming in, and “all Israel” being saved – but also has a focal point: “Until the incoming of the fullness of the gentiles.”37

Others have considered particular aspects as constituting the actual μυστήριον such as the temporal “hardening” of part of Israel, or the effect of this temporal hardening as that which opens up a period in time which allows for gentiles to join in the worshipping of the God of Israel before the final days.38 But irrespective of what actually constitutes the μυστήριον per se, it is hardly disputed that the “hardening”39 of part of Israel does not imply their exclusion from God’s mercy and saving activity, but that this is a temporally limited special means rendering the incoming of people from the nations possible. In the end “all Israel will be saved.” In this respect the μυστήριον is neither hidden nor secret, and it is reasonable to assume that Paul thought he had clearly communicated how the Christ-followers from the nations in Rome should understand this μυστήριον. However, the subsequent history of interpretation demonstrates that this is far from being the case. Although I have argued that there is no “blank space” in Paul’s reference to a μυστήριον, the diverse understandings of “all Israel will be saved” clearly demonstrate that precisely this aspect of the μυστήριον functioned as a “blank space.”

M. Baker, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul’s Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and Israel’s Yes,” CBQ 67 (2005), 469–84, here 481. 38 Donaldson argues that “the logic at work in Paul’s statements here is not the spatial logic of displacement but the temporal logic of delay. Israel’s failure to respond to the gospel makes possible the ‘riches of the Gentiles’ by opening up not some space but some time.” T.L. Donaldson, “Riches for the Gentiles,” JBL 112 (1993), 81–98 (94). For a discussion of the possibility of a temporal translation of καὶ ὅυτως see P. van der Horst, “‘Only Then Will All Israel Be Saved’: A Short Note on the Meaning of καὶ ὅυτως in Romans 11.26,” JBL 119 (2000), 521–25, also W.D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” 347 n.36 and Fitzmyer, Romans, 622. 39 For an excellent discussion of the meaning of πώρωσις see Nanos, “‘Callused’ Not ‘Hardened’,” 53–60. 37

334

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

The Blank Space: “All Israel Will Be Saved” The Blank Space: “All Israel Will Be Saved”

More precisely it is actually a vacancy immediately after this apparently clear assertion which creates the blank space of the μυστήριον. Although Paul continues to explain why “all Israel will be saved,” and via the scriptural references seems to indicate something about this Divine activity, he does not present a scenario for “how” this is supposed to happen, nor does he consider it necessary to define the identity of “all Israel.” Whether he did not wish to do so, did not know, or did not consider this relevant for the purpose of preventing the Christ-followers from the nations in Rome to develop an overinflated self-esteem and boastful attitude to Jews within and outside the Christ-movement, remains hidden to us. But exactly this apparent non-definition of “all Israel” (which indicates clarity on Paul’s side) and the non-description of any scenario of the salvation of Israel has created a vacancy which took on the function of the blank space of a secret in the contact zone of diverse traditions. Concerning the how of Israel’s salvation the scriptural references (11:26– 27) have been taken as either proof-texts which provide clear indications about this process, or as indicative hints which leave certain aspects still open. What will happen seems to be uncontroversial – ἀσεβεία will be turned away from Jacob, and sins will be removed from them. However, the question of what would be Israel’s ἀσεβεία is open – does Paul mean that it consists in the nonrecognition of Jesus as the Christ – or is it to be understood more generally? The most controversially discussed section is the initial part of the reference ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος. The key question is who is the agent in the salvation of “all Israel.” Although the scriptural reference is clear, it has been argued that in Paul’s use this clarity has been obscured and thus a space for divergent interpretations is opening up. Subsequently, this space was hotly contested,40 and the attempts to occupy this space and claim its content and meaning have had a significant impact not only in the history of the interpretation of this passage but more importantly in the history of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Christian interpretation did not leave this blank space blank. The prevalent agent to occupy the vacancy was Christ, thus rendering the salvation of “all Israel” conditional on their acceptance of Christ. In some interpretations this led to the claim that Israel, in order to be saved would join the church,41 whereas others have argued that Israel’s acceptance of Christ would be an act

See K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 27 and W.D. Davies’ critique of the same in “Paul and the People of Israel,” 350 n.62; see also the discussion in Jewett, Romans, 702–04. 41 For an excellent discussion of various stances on this see C. Zoccali, Whom God Has Called: The Relationship of the Church and Israel, 1920 to the Present (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010). 40

The Blank Space: “All Israel Will Be Saved”

335

of God rather than Israel herself. 42 The passage further led to discussions whether it implied actually a Sonderweg for Israel to salvation, and included hypotheses of two pathways to salvation, one for Jews and one for gentiles.43 The identity of “all Israel” is discussed similarly controversially. The mentioning of a remnant in 9:27 in conjunction with the formulation in 9:6, οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραὴλ, has contributed to this debate in that it has been argued that Paul himself does not consider “all Israel” to include all Jews, but only those individuals who are part of the remnant and have turned to Christ.44 Moreover, there is a Christian interpretation that understands “all Israel” as “spiritual Israel,” that is, an Israel made up of Jews and gentiles who had turned to Christ.45 Some interpretations argue that the inclusion of gentiles into the Christ-movement actually means their inclusion into the covenant. Since the covenant is God’s covenant with Israel, inclusion in the covenant is identical or presupposes the inclusion of gentiles into Israel. The incoming of the gentiles then is interpreted as their inclusion into Israel, “all Israel” then is this “new” Israel of Jews and gentiles in Christ.46 Ἰσραὴλ κάτα σάρκα is being replaced by a new entity, a third kind, if not a third race.47 The history of the interpretation of this “blank space” would require a further extended study. I can here only indicate some issues which I consider remarkable: The vacancy created by Paul by being silent about the “how” of the salvation of “all Israel” presents an exemplary blank space in the contact of Jewish and non-Jewish traditions. This blank space could have provided an opportunity for these diverse traditions to meet in precisely this vacancy by actually leaving the space blank, the μυστήριον untouched. It almost appears that Paul would have liked to say more about this, be more definite about events of the endtime, as he is, e.g., in 1 Thess 4:16–17. But he stops short of “revealing” any details about the “how” of Israel’s salvation. The hymn at the end of the entire

Baker, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel,” 483. 43 L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987); J. Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 44 So J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC 36b; Dallas: Word, 1988), 681, N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 250. 45 See the discussion with references in J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Commentary (New York. Doubleday, 1993), 623–24. 46 J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 508–13. For an excellent discussion of the clear and maintained difference between Israel and the nations see W.S. Campbell, “Covenantal Theology and Participation in Christ: Pauline Perspectives on Transformation,” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations (ed. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 41–60. 47 I have discussed the problems inherent in such a perception in “Paul, his People, and Racial Terminology,” in JECH 3.1 (2013), 17–33, now chapter 11 of this volume. 42

336

Chapter 16 The “Mysterion” in Romans 11:25–36

passage (11:33–35) could be taken as signpost as to where Paul wished to guide these gentiles – into the praise of God, rather than towards an explanation of the “how” of Israel’s salvation. It seems as if at the end of chapter 11 he puts this μυστήριον back into the hands of God. But this is not where it was left by those who eventually exerted the dominating influence in the Christ-movement. The authority Paul tried to assert personally and with regard to the content by using the label μυστήριον did not prevent the church from cutting its ties with Judaism not only with those who were unconvinced by the gospel, but eventually also theologically and within the church by declaring anything Jewish to be in opposition to Christ. The how of the salvation of Israel was thus seen exclusively in the conversion of Jews to Christianity, leaving actually no room for God’s activity at the end of time. The gentile church claimed that the way to salvation was exclusively through it. By filling the space which Paul had left vacant, even the μυστήριον which Paul had clearly and unmistakably explained, was twisted. The one-dimensional filling of the blank space did not lead to a concrescence of diverse traditions but to the exclusion of one and the take-over by another. A similar dispossession occurred with regard to “all Israel.” Although I am not convinced at all that here Paul intentionally created a vacancy, but used this expression as it was prevalent in Second Temple Judaism as including actually “all of Israel,” that is, the Jewish people, as a corporate entity, it was treated similarly as at least a partly vacant space.48 This is all the more extraordinary as it clearly is an inhabited space. And whoever claims to occupy it must expel those who have inhabited it. Thus even the well-meant argument that gentiles in Christ become part of Israel, means that an identity is claimed which is somebody else’s.49 Since the identity of Israel is thus defined via Christ this inclusive notion by necessity leads to the expulsion of those who do not share the conviction about Christ. As mentioned, “all Israel” is either reduced to the

Detailed arguments against the perception of an Israel within Israel in Rom 9:6 have recently been presented by K. Wengst,“Freut Euch Ihr Völker mit Gottes Volk!”Israel und die Völker als Thema des Paulus – ein Gang durch den Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 293–302 and, informed by Wengst, W.S. Campbell, who notes that “[…] it is probable that verse 6b should be read as a rhetorical question, “Is it not so that all Israel are Israel?” That this is feasible is supported by 9:14,19,30 and by the diatribe style of other important sections of Romans in which questions feature strongly at the juncture of chapters and sections of these as a standard means of advancing the argument. Wengst’s view is to be strongly supported in that it gives continuity to Paul’s affirmation of Israel and his recording of her God-given gifts in verse 4, while simultaneously avoiding the confusion caused by an apparent qualification or diminishment of these only two verses later (if 9.6b is read as a statement rather than as a rhetorical question).” The Nations in the Divine Economy, 227– 31, 229. 49 See the arguments against this view in Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity, 134–39. The translation of ἐν αὐτοῖς as “in their place” rather than “in amongst them” (Rom 11:17) in the NRSV is indicative for a supersessionist reading of this passage. 48

The Blank Space: “All Israel Will Be Saved”

337

“remnant” (in Christ), or is claimed to encompass all who are in Christ, which amounts to a take-over of Israel’s identity and legacy. To treat “all Israel” as a blank space has not allowed this space to provide room for an encounter of diverse traditions but has led to a Christian take-over of this space with all the problematic consequences this has had for those who have been expelled and dissociated from their place of living and their traditions. To conclude, Paul’s reference to a μυστήριον which the addressees need to understand does not actually present a mystery in the sense of a secret or of unveiling something which is hidden from sight. The purpose of this μυστήριον is not to create an exclusivist and closed circle of insiders. It is open and inclusive in being shared. It does function as a means to claim authority on the part of Paul and to express the seriousness of the content of the μυστήριον as something which links those who share in it to the Divine realm. The sharing of this μυστήριον in itself and in terms of the content it conveys intends to lead to a bonding of those who share it, significantly also beyond the circle of those who are addressed here. The strategic function of this μυστήριον rather than being its secrecy actually consists in it being openly communicated. One could even anticipate that the circle of those who share in the understanding of this μυστήριον should and would be extended beyond the range of those addressed here directly in Rome. There is, however, the dimension of a blank space or vacancy found in some particular aspects of this μυστήριον as well: I have identified two such aspects: “all Israel” and the how of “all Israel’s” salvation are the aspects which have been treated as vacant in the reception history of the passage. The first has been found to be not a vacant space at all, but most likely occupied in Paul’s perception by actual Israel, the entire corporate entity as understood throughout Jewish tradition, and also in the first century. The “how” of Israel’s salvation has been found to be a vacant space, but one which did not lead to an encounter of diverse traditions but rather to an occupation by exclusivist Christ-centered interpretation providing clarification and definitive answers where Paul had left the space vacant to God. Sadly, what could have been a place of encounter of diversity in the face of, and trusting in, the faithfulness of God, Christian triumphalism initiated a tragic trajectory of dispossession. The blank space left vacant by Paul in Rom 11:25–36 is directed at the recognition of God’s sovereignty and wisdom and the limitations of human comprehension. The vacant space is God’s. Human recognition and respect for this may open ways to reconciliation in the trajectory of Pauline hopes and visions.















17. The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31): Paul’s Hopes and Fears Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

Paul is evidently keenly interested in establishing not only a theological but also a very concrete link/relationship between the ἐκκλησίαι of the nations he had founded and Jerusalem. The key means via which he pursues this aim is through the “collection.”1 Numerous explanations which cannot be discussed here in detail have been proposed for this passionately pursued Pauline endeavour.2 Most of them see in it a combination of poverty relief in the vein of almsgiving and a means of establishing solidarity between the ἐκκλησίαι of the nations and the Christ-followers in Jerusalem; an assertion of Paul’s commitment to the agreement between him, Barnabas3 and the Jerusalem pillars has also been considered as a motivation for the collection. A critical point of discussion has been whether the collection was a voluntary contribution to Jerusalem or whether it was seen by Paul as an obligation in the vein of gift-exchange or even as a tax in analogy to the half-shekel Jews contributed to the Temple.4 Although I think all of these aspects may well have been part of the Pauline endeavour they do not satisfactorily explain the central importance this project appears to have not just for Paul’s theologizing but for his entire activity. It is of foremost concern in the Corinthian correspondence; it must have been part of Paul’s activity in Thessaloniki and other parts of Greece as he mentions the Macedonians and Achaians as exemplary “collectors” in Rom 15:26. The fact that he also mentions the “remembering of the poor” in Gal 2:10 and the explicit reference to the Galatians in 1 Cor 16:1–4 as examples the Corinthians should follow with regards to regularly setting money aside, indicates that they also were part of this project. All of this, the frequent and at times passionate mentioning of this Jerusalem centered project, the arrangement of travel plans

For a discussion of the terminology see the paper “Die Kollekte für Jerusalem” presented by Ekkehard W. and Wolfgang Stegemann at the SNTS Annual Meeting in Leuven, 2012. 2 Cf., e.g., Dunn who emphasises the significance of Jerusalem for Paul; he highlights how the collection offers a visible link between Paul’s theology, missionary work, and pastoral concern. J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul, the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 706–11. 3 On the corporate dimension of the Pauline mission, including the Jerusalem agreement see K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2007/09), 35–53. 4 For a discussion of these aspects see Stegemann & Stegemann “Die Kollekte für Jerusalem.” For the analogy to the Temple tax see, e.g., M. Hengel, “Jakobus, der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?,” in Glaube und Eschatologie. FS für W.G. Kümmel (ed. E. Grässer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 71–104. 1

340

Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

to suit its delivery (Rom 15:25), together with activities Paul must have pursued which do not surface in explicit references in the letters indicate that this was a core implication of the gospel in Paul’s view. If almsgiving were the key dimension, why is Jerusalem so important? To remember the poor seems to be an aspect of the gospel which is not confined to the poor in Jerusalem as Bruce Longenecker has recently argued.5 Although Longenecker does not deny that there might have been poverty among the Christ-followers in Jerusalem, they were certainly not the only poor among the Christ-followers. Care for the poor rather seems to have been a specific hallmark of the movement also among the Christ-followers from the nations. Longenecker has demonstrated that poverty relief was not a general virtue in the world of Rome and Greece. Although occasionally friends would have considered it noble to help out if one of them was in financial trouble, this was a practice only between members of the elite, and not a general attitude towards the vast numbers of people who lived at or below subsistence level.6 To take care of the poor and those in need, however, was part of Jewish tradition, thus for Jewish Christ-followers it would have been superfluous to remind them to “remember the poor.” This admonition, in Longenecker’s view, was clearly directed at the Christ-followers from the nations, as people who were not familiar with such a notion at a general level due to their cultural context. If Longenecker is correct then Paul’s focus on Jerusalem cannot be taken as the fulfilment of the agreement with the Jerusalem pillars. Poverty relief was expected to be an inherent aspect of the ethos of the Christ-movement, thus also of the ἐκκλησίαι of the nations. This could have included support for Christfollowers in Jerusalem, but they were not the specific focus of the collection. And why should these Christ-followers be more in need of support than, e.g., Christ-followers in Judea? If the purpose was to strengthen the bond of solidarity between Jewish and non-Jewish Christ-followers it seems slightly strange that those from Judea would not be specifically included, as in other passages such as Gal 1:22 In addition, Longenecker has raised the question, if this “ministry to Jerusalem” was actually merely the completion of the task set for Paul by the Jerusalem “pillars,” why would Paul be worried about them accepting this collection now, since this was exactly what they had asked Paul to do?7 These issues and questions direct our attention to aspects of the collection which specifically have to do with Jerusalem as the place and space which

B.W. Longenecker, Remember the Poor:Paul, Poverty and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). 6 Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 69–72. 7 Ibid., 186–88. 5

Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

341

occupies center stage in Paul’s social and symbolic world.8 The link and relationship Paul is so keen to establish seems to have more to do with this centrality of Jerusalem rather than the extent of poverty in that part of the Roman world. A further indication for a meaning of the collection beyond poverty relief can be found in 2 Cor 9:12 where Paul emphasizes that “the transmission of this service” (ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας) not only supplies the needs of the saints but also is overflowing through “many thanksgivings to God” as also E.W. Stegemann and W. Stegemann have noted. In their differentiated discussion of the voluntary and obligatory dimension of the collection, they conclude that both aspects are found in Paul, and might actually be intertwined in his perception. They conclude that the collection is an expression of gratitude and ecumenical community between Christ-followers from the east and those in Jerusalem.9 This is certainly so, but 2 Cor 9:12 could indicate that the gratitude which “overflows to God” not only benefits the needs of the poor but also is expressed in a concrete way through offerings in the Temple. Maybe the narrative depiction in Acts hints at something which deserves further consideration. Paul is envisaged here as providing the rationale for his visit to Jerusalem as follows: “Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices” (Acts 24:17). The cultic activity of offering sacrifices10 for Jews could only be performed in the Temple in Jerusalem. In this contribution I will explore whether this is an additional important dimension in Paul’s pursuit of the collection in that he may be trying to establish some kind of link for Christ-followers from the nations not only with Jewish Christ-followers but also with the cult center of the God of Israel, the Temple in Jerusalem. It is here in particular, although of course not exclusively, that God is praised. With the emphasis in Rom 15:9–12 on Jews and the nations jointly praising God, it is not inconceivable that this might also have been envisaged by Paul as taking place at the center of Jewish worshipping. That the collection might be something like a parallel to the half-shekel Diaspora Jews contributed to the Temple, has been argued by Holl and others.11 This should not be ruled out, and in as

As is indicated, e.g., in Rom 15:19. 9 Stegemann & Stegemann, “Die Kollekte,” 17. 10 I will use “cultic activity,” “cult practice” and “cultic dimension” to indicate specifically the offering of sacrifices at a sanctuary. For detailed analysis and discussion see K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures – Theologizing in the Space-Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 183–89. 11 K. Holl, “Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhältnis zu dem der Urgemeinde,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. II, Der Osten (ed. K. Holl; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 44–67. 8

342

Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

much as the half-shekel was not merely significant in financial but also in cultic terms12 a similar notion may apply to such a dimension of the collection.

The Cultic Dimension of the Collection The Cultic Dimension of the Collection

In 1 Cor 16:1–4 in particular Paul uses terminology for the collection which is rooted in the cultic realm. The use of λογεία links this with cult related activities such as contributions to a temple or deity. Deissmann has noted that these could be small contributions which were expected from adherents of particular cults such as the Isis cult. The fact that such a contribution could be acknowledged on an ostracon indicates that this was a common and wide-spread activity.13 Stegemann & Stegemann note that such financial contributions should be not seen merely in their “religious” character but also as social and public contributions. They are owed to the deity or the temple, and their social and public aspects are thus linked to the dimension of cult. These realms are not separated. This most likely also applies to Paul’s and his communities’ perception of “religious,” social, and public life. The fact that Paul uses this term in 1 Cor 16:1– 4 thus should not only be seen as just another term to refer to the collection, with an inherent notion of obligations associated with it. It should possibly also be heard in its association with the cultic dimension. In Jewish tradition cult practice was only performed in one place, at the Temple in Jerusalem. The centrality of Jerusalem is not only but significantly associated with the Temple cult. Thus if the collection had a cultic dimension the rather exclusive focus on Jerusalem rather than on Jewish Christ-followers in Jerusalem and Judea, would be more understandable. It is noteworthy that the focus in Rom 15:25–31 on Jerusalem is found in a context of dense cultic terminology in the immediately preceding verses, and of worshipping language in chapters 12 and 15 in particular. This concentration of cultic language and on Jerusalem in the midst of it in this part of Romans resonates well with the cultic terminology for the collection in 1 Cor 16:1–4. In both passages the dimension of social and theological solidarity is not isolated from the cultic dimension inherent to all these aspects. Paul’s frequent use of cultic language and metaphors certainly has to do with the embeddedness of Paul himself in this common aspect of Jewish life. For Paul the Christ-event did not amount to a replacement of cult practice in Jerusalem or to its spiritualization. Vahrenhorst in his important study Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen has convincingly argued that in order for such

See, e.g., A. Hogeterp, Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 30. 13 See references in A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistischrömischen Welt (Tübingen: Mohr_Siebeck, 41923), 83–84. 12

Paul’s Creation of a Problem

343

language to be meaningful for the audience it has to have positive value for Paul. Positive appreciation of cult practice of course was not confined to Jewish tradition but was the all-permeating dimension of life in the Roman world.14 Cult practice and language was familiar to both, Jews and non-Jews, although with different overtones. For non-Jews cult practice was a matter of everyday life in that the numerous deities associated with all aspects of life had to be attended to in the appropriate way. For Jews, although their commitment to the covenant with their God permeated all aspects of life as well, cult practice was concentrated in the Temple in Jerusalem and thus particularly for Diaspora Jews not an everyday practice. This did not render this cult performed hundreds of miles from where they lived less important, 15 but this importance was mediated through the texts which dealt with cult performance in the Temple, possibly memories of rare visits to Jerusalem, and the contribution of the halfshekel by men from the age of 20, rather than through their active participation in the Temple cult. At synagogue gatherings through such collective mediation of cult tradition, the sharing of memories, and the collection of the half-shekel, the link with Jerusalem was maintained and strengthened. This means that for Jews there was an established practice of relating to the cult center in Jerusalem wherever they lived. In the perspective of their polytheistic neighbors the nonexistence of a regular daily cult practice contributed to the perception of Jews as atheists16 or at least as lacking in piety and occasionally as undermining the stability of the order of civic society.17

Paul’s Creation of a Problem Paul’s Creation of a Problem

In as much as Paul must have considered aspects of the life of people from the nations as compatible with life in Christ,18 there was one dimension which was non-negotiable when someone from the nations joined the Christ-movement. To worship the God of Israel together with his people, Christ-followers from

M. Vahrenhorst, Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 15 Cf. S. Fraade, “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 CE: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. L. Levine, D. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 237–64. 16 See, e.g., J. Lightstone, “Roman Diaspora Judaism,” in A Companion to Roman Religion (ed. J. Rüpke; Oxford: Oxford University, 2007), 345–77 (368). 17 The Roman authorities accepted the daily sacrifice on behalf of Caesar and the empire in the Temple in Jerusalem as an adequate expression of the submission of the Jews to their authority and their contribution to the stability of the empire. But this may not have been the perception of everybody in the empire. 18 See Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures; esp. chapter 7. 14

344

Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

the nations had to abstain from being involved in the cult practices of other deities. Significant parts of 1 Corinthians deal with issues concerning “idolatry,” with Paul arguing in detail and with respect to specific examples what did and did not constitute such cultic involvement. Although the boundaries between “idolatry” and just honouring lesser spirits or men required careful negotiation and were not always clear,19 honouring deities through cult parti-cipation was considered a confusion by the nations in that “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25), and thus had to be avoided. This absolute restriction seems to have caused some problems or at least some confusion among Christfollowers from the nations. Being used to a cumulative practice of cults with several deities being worshipped alongside each other, this request on Paul’s part would have appeared unusual to them, and most likely alien and strange. It has been argued that since there existed some kind of cult criticism on the part of Roman and Greek philosophers, the notion of exclusively worshipping only one God may have been welcomed by some from the educated elite, rendering the Christ-movement particularly attractive to them. But this would have been a rather rare exception in that most Christ-followers would not have come from this section of the society of the empire. So we assume that for most of the Christ-followers from the nations to abstain from any cultic involvement with any of the familiar deities would have been strange and problematic. This would have been so even for those Christ-followers who prior to joining the Christ-movement had some familiarity and association with Judaism as Godfearers.20 For them the requirement of exclusive loyalty to the God of Israel would have been applicable to Jews but not to them, as they most likely adhered to Jewish tradition to a certain extent, but did so alongside continued loyalty to other deities. Thus godfearers continued to participate in everyday cult practice, and it seems that this was accepted, or at least not challenged by the Jewish communities with which they associated. Since godfearers already considered themselves associated with the God of Israel to some extent, Paul’s requirement for them to abstain completely from the association and cult practice with any other deity, would have been new and possibly surprising. It could have instigated negative reactions not only on the part of their polytheistic neighbors as undermining the peace and stability of civic society in a polis or colonia, but also on the part of unconvinced Jews. Martin Goodman considered this to be a possible reason for negative reactions of fellow Jews against Paul. The foundation of communities of Christ-follow-

For a more detailed discussion see Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads, 189–209; and also chapter 8 of this volume. 20 Cf. M. Goodman, “The Persecution of Paul by Diaspora Jews,” in Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (ed. M. Goodman; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 145–52, here 150. 19

Paul’s Creation of a Problem

345

ers from the nations who were associated to some extent with Jewish communities and who were requested to abstain from any polytheistic cult practice, could be seen by Jews as threatening their volatile arrangements with their host cities which were based on mutual non-interference.21 As long as “the altars continued to smoke and the benevolence of the gods (was) assured” local authorities would most likely consider Jewish non-participation as strange or ridiculous but not as threatening. But where interference with this normal routine was suspected, things could turn unpleasant for Jews. 22 To encourage nonJews to give up their traditional cult practice most likely would have been seen by civic authorities as interference. For Christ-followers from the nations the requirement would above all have created a significant vacancy in their social and symbolic world. Not to participate in cultic practices in the house, at the street corner, or at the frequent festivals in a polis or colonia separated these Christ-followers from the nations from their “normal” ways and means of finding meaning in life, and protection and reassurance in risks and dangers. Of course Paul reassured them that all of this was now encompassed and granted in Christ, when he affirms, e.g., that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38–39). But how was this expressed? For Jews this assertion was rooted in their tradition that is, in their narrative of belonging, the scriptures, expressed through rituals on the Sabbath, during Synagogue gatherings in the Diaspora, and the Temple cult in Jerusalem, as well as a cycle of annual festivals. For Christ-followers from the nations, these traditions are considered to be also their traditions to some extent now, although in their identity as “Greeks and barbarians,” that is, without them becoming Jews. The scriptures, Paul assures them, were written also for their instruction. The implications of this for Christ-followers from the nations are far from evident. They are not to become Jews, thus in order to get an understanding of how Jewish tradition applies to them they can only partially follow a Jewish way of life. Some aspects of their lives as “Greeks and barbarians” must be compatible with life in Christ in order for Paul’s emphasis on the distinction between “Jews and Greeks” to make any sense.23 But the decisive dimension of cult practice had to be re-oriented in Christ and directed to the God of Israel. With this cult practice only being performed in the Temple in Jerusalem, this re-orientation implied significant changes in everyday practice for

Ibid., 150–52. 22 Ibid., 151. 23 On this see W.S. Campbell, “Gentile Identity and Transformation in Christ According to Paul,” in The Making of Christianity: Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions: Essays in Honor of Bengt Holmberg (ed. S. Byrskog, M. Zetterholm; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 22–55. 21

346

Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

Christ-followers from the nations. Traditions are not merely a matter of the minds of people, they are inhabited in corporeal form, they are part of our “habitus.” Thus old inhabited traditions do not merely disappear because new traditions are being formed. For these Christ-followers from the nations life without cult practice, that is, a collective corporeal expression of their association with, and loyalty to the God of Israel in Christ was inconceivable. This vacant space Paul created by his request to abstain from any cult practice with other deities was a problem on a scale which, in my view, has not been sufficiently taken into account in Pauline scholarship. Paul seems to have been at least partially aware of the problem this requirement created and seems to have attempted to provide guidance for his ἐκκλησίαι from the nations with regard to particular problems. In 1 Cor 8:14– 21 Paul compares the table of “demons” and the table of the Lord, creating a parallel between these. He seems to imply that the table of the Lord moves into the vacant space created by his request to stay away from the tables of “demons.”24 Although the table of the Lord then is presented as a substitute for the tables these Christ-followers from the nations had to leave, the vacancy is only partially filled. Nowhere does Paul associate the table of the Lord with sacrificial or other cult language. Thus the important function of sacrifices remains vacant. The parallel between the table of “demons” and the table of the Lord in this passage does not consist in the sacrificial dimension, Paul does not set up a parallel between altars as the places of the actual offerings, but between tables which establish and celebrate community. The table of the Lord thus does not replace the altars for the Christ-followers of the nations, but the tables of community. The vacancy of the altars remained a problem for them. Whether Paul was aware of this is an open question. But could it be that his focus on Jerusalem as the recipient of the collection has something to do with this vacant altar space ? In the next section we will need to consider the role of the Temple for Diaspora Jews as a possible model for an association of Christfollowers from the nations.

Diaspora Judaism and the Temple in Jerusalem Diaspora Judaism and the Temple in Jerusalem

The Temple in Jerusalem was the only place where offerings to the God of Israel could be presented in Paul’s time. As we have already noted, the centrality of the cult practice there was not diminished by geographical distance for Diaspora Jews. Philo refers to the importance of the practice of sacrifices, and describes them as an expression of human aspiration to relate to the Divine, to

For a more detailed argument see Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures, chapter 7. 24

Diaspora Judaism and the Temple in Jerusalem

347

seek blessings and compensate for failures of virtue. He emphasizes that sacrifices are a medium of prayer and thanksgiving for the sole purpose of rendering honour to God for his own sake exclusively, and to obtain blessing from him (Spec.Leg 1:195).Moreover he asserts that the one thing that unites all Jews, whatever they call their fatherland, “they hold the Holy City where stands the sacred Temple of the most high God to be their mother city” (Flacc. 46). There can be no doubt that the Temple was central for Judaism whether as a divisive or unifying symbol of God’s continual covenantal relation to Israel […] whether as a contested reality or romanticized ideal, or as a complex intersection of the two, the Jerusalem Temple stood at the center of Jewish national, ethnic, and religious selfunderstanding.25

There are no indications that this role changed for Jews who joined the Christmovement. The narrative of Acts, which depicts the earliest Christ-followers as gathering in the Temple courts, is theologically accurate irrespective of its historical accuracy. Thus pre-70 CE the problem of a vacant altar space did not emerge for Jewish Christ-followers. The situation most likely changed after 70 CE not only for Christ-followers but Judaism generally with diverse solutions to the problem being proposed. The impact of the loss of the Temple on Judaism and the early Christ-movement cannot be pursued within the limits of this article, I only wish to draw attention to the difference in context and the historical, social, and theological implications which the continued existence and practice of the Temple cult has when dealing with pre-70 Pauline literature as distinct from texts which emerged after 70 CE.26 In addition to the desirability of festival pilgrimages, contributions to the Temple by Diaspora Jews were considered the main means via which an ongoing link with this important institution and the cult practice there could be maintained. Although the precise function of the half-shekel may not be clearly identifiable, it is evident that it also contributed to sacrificing activities.27 It is important to note that the financial contributions were not a substitute for actual offerings but were contributing to these by donors who could not be present at the Temple themselves. There is a debate whether and to what extent non-Jews could or did contribute financially to the cult practice in Jerusalem, and whether this implied that they participated to some extent in the Temple

Fraade, “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 CE,” 240; also M. Goodman, “The Temple in First Century Judaism,” in Judaism in the Roman World. Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 47–58, here 47. 26 For a discussion of the significance of 70 CE in Jewish perspective see the collection of essays Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (ed. D. Schwartz, Z. Weiss; Leiden: Brill, 2012). 27 Cf. M. Ben Zeev, “From Toleration to Destruction: Roman Policy and the Jewish Temple,” in The Temple in Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah. Essays in Honor of Professor Louis H. Feldman (ed. Stephen Fine; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 57–68, here 64–65. 25

348

Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

cult themselves. Daniel Schwartz rules out the latter possibility,28 but financial contributions by non-Jews seem to have been acceptable if Josephus’ note implies that the daily offering for the wellbeing of the Caesar, his family and the empire was paid for by imperial funds (Bell. 2:409). However, the note is unclear and contradicted by Ap. 2:77 where Josephus claims that these offerings were actually funded by the Jews.29 The passage in Bellum nevertheless indicates that financial contributions to the Temple by non-Jews had been accepted at times and were then rejected in the build up to the War. It is thus evident that financial contributions to the Temple, by Jews and partly by non-Jews were part of the normal “business” of Temple related activities. The half-shekel seems to have been a contribution expected of Diaspora Jews and as such it seems to have been considered obligatory. The money was mainly collected and possibly also kept at synagogues, a practice explicitly approved by the Roman authorities as Josephus reports (Ant. 16:164). Such an approval of financial funds kept at, or collected for the purpose of, a sanctuary, by Rome was not exceptional. All activities in provinces related to sanctuaries were tightly controlled by Rome. Not only the appointments of priests or cult officials generally required Roman approval, but also any financial transaction related to a Temple or shrine was subject to Roman control. Thus no collection or transfer of money directed at a sanctuary was allowed without Roman consent. This applied to all sanctuaries of subjugated peoples, as they were considered to be centers of potential resistance to Roman rule. Thus in Asia minor local high priests were expected to serve the interests of Rome; if they did not do so, they were punished. This eventually resulted in them turning into magistrates of the empire. When Augustus took control over Egypt, he confiscated most sacred land and thus made priests dependent on financial support from Roman authorities. Gaulish Druids were persecuted as they were considered subversive and Suetonius reports that Claudius “completely abolished the barbarous and inhuman religion of the druids in Gaul, which under Augustus had merely been forbidden to Roman citizens” (Suetonius, Claudius, 25). The Temple in Jerusalem was no exemption to such Roman perceptions and practice. Josephus’ emphasis in Antiquities on Roman decrees of approval of Jewish synagogue gatherings and activities like communal meals, festivals, Sabbath prayers, and the collection and storing of funds reflect Roman claims to actual legal oversight of any cult related or ritual activities (16:164). The collection and transmission of the half-shekel for the Temple was certainly subject to Roman oversight, whether the money was used to directly fund offerings at

D. Schwartz, “Sacrifices of Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem,” in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (ed. D. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 102– 16. 29 Which is the more likely scenario as it coheres with the widespread practice in the provinces to present offerings to the Caesars as a sign of submission and loyalty to Rome. 28

The Collection: The Temple and the Vacant Altar Space

349

the Temple, or also served as alms for the poor did not make any difference in the eyes of Roman authorities.

The Collection: The Temple and the Vacant Altar Space The Collection: The Temple and the Vacant Altar Space

Paul clearly models the collection of money in the ἐκκλησίαι on the practice of the regular collection of money at Diaspora synagogues. As an aside this provides us with a hint that he expected these ἐκκλησίαι to meet on a weekly basis again in analogy to synagogue gatherings. Such a regular collection of money directed to Jerusalem appears as normal practice in Jewish perspective, and as such it can be assumed that this financial contribution would in some way or another be directed towards the Temple. We do not know of any other collection by Jewish communities, although almsgiving was established Jewish practice at the time. Paul sets his collection up in a vein which resembles the function of the half-shekel. The language he uses in some instances clearly refers to cult related money transfer (1 Cor 16:1–4) as we have seen above. On the other hand, the passages which emphasize the voluntary character resonate more with the practice of almsgiving although the duty related character is not entirely absent there either. The designation of the collection as λογεία tunes in with the density of cult language Paul uses in Rom 15:16 and 25–31. It is remarkable in my view that precisely here Paul actually combines cult related language for the collection with a clear focus on Jerusalem as the recipient of this mediating activity. I think it is quite probable that Paul here does not merely use cultic language in a metaphorical sense but tries to communicate to the Romans, as he did to the Corinthians, that their solidarity with the community in Jerusalem includes a link to the cult center there as well. Such a link includes a number of aspects of which poverty relief could be one, but most likely is not the only one. The expression of ecumenical solidarity could well be another aspect. In addition to these I think that there is a link between the cult language in relation to the transmission of the collection in Rom 15:16 and 25–31 and the emphasis on the purpose of the coming of Christ as confirming the promises to the patriarchs and “in order that the gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” and that they may rejoice with his people in Rom 15:9–12. Although one could imagine that such joint praising and glorifying could happen during synagogue gatherings, the center of the worshipping activity directed at the God of Israel was the Temple in Jerusalem. If the purpose of the coming of Christ was to mediate common worshipping activity of Jews and the nations, the Temple cult certainly was included in Paul’s perception as a, if not the, sacred space where such praising and glorifying should take place. The collection could have been an indirect means to achieve just this. Since for non-Jews direct participation

350

Chapter 17 The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)

in the Temple cult was not possible, they would need mediation in order to be included in some sense in the worshipping community. It is evident that the community of the saints in Jerusalem continued to participate in the Temple cult (as is assumed in Acts). This required some financial means. Could the contribution from the Christ-followers from the nations be intended not as general poverty relief but as a contribution to a “joint” participation in the cult practice at the Temple? The financial contribution by those from the nations would then establish a link for these Christ-followers with the cult practice of the God of Israel, via their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ. This is a hypothetical scenario. It is not impossible that Paul envisaged the Christ-followers in Jerusalem to act in such a mediating role. It would establish a concrete expression of the participation of people from the nations in the cult practice at the Temple in Jerusalem and thus fulfil the hopes of the Scriptural passages in Rom 15:9–12. Moreover, it would fill for Christ-followers from the nations the vacant space of cult practice which had emerged through the requirement to abstain from any act of worshipping other deities. Such a scenario would provide an explanation for Paul’s anxieties and fears associated with the delivery of the collection. If the collection were merely an act of charity, or the fulfilment of the agreement with the Jerusalem pillars to remember the poor, why then would Paul be so worried about the delivery of this money? Longenecker has argued convincingly that if the collection were merely the delivery of the funds as agreed with the pillars, why would Paul envisage that they might reject it? But if Paul expected them to act as mediators for a participation of the Christ-followers from the nations in the Temple cult, as an expression of the joint worshipping practice of “Israel and the nations” mentioned in Rom 15:9–12, Paul could not be certain of the cooperation of the saints in Jerusalem, as there was no agreement concerning this between him and the pillars. The fear from the ἀπειθούντες has been explained as having to do with nationalistic stances in the build-up of the war which might lead to the rejection of any donation from non-Jews. But this explanation again leaves questions open. If the collection was charitable poverty relief for the tiny Christ-following community in Jerusalem – why would this be of any concern to outsiders? Such possible troubles caused by ἀπειθούντες would only make sense if the money was directed in some sense to the Temple, as this is, as we know from Josephus, where questions concerning non-Jewish contributions eventually emerged. Thus Paul’s fear from those who are not part of the Christmovement again directs at least part of the purpose of the collection towards the Temple cult. Such a rejection by both, brothers and sisters in Christ, and Jews in Jerusalem generally may not only be linked to notions of resistance in the build-up of the war, but also with the fact that as a collection from non-Jews this was a financial transfer to a sanctuary which was not approved by Rome, and as such was illegal in the eyes of Rome. Jews, whether Christ-followers or not may

The Collection: The Temple and the Vacant Altar Space

351

have had good reasons to dissociate themselves from being seen as being involved in such “illegal” financial activities and thus would reject the money out of concern for the stance in the eyes of Rome. Despite such potential obstacles, Paul has put significant energy into this project and associates high hopes with it. In as much as ethical concern for the material needs of brothers and sisters in Christ is an inherent aspect of life in Christ, there are significant indications in Rom 15:9–31 that the collection encompasses more than poverty relief. The collection was more than a charitable act of almsgiving, more than the fulfilment of the agreement between Paul, Barnabas and the Jerusalem pillars. The focus on Jerusalem, the cultic language used in relation to the collection particularly in Romans 15, the problem of the vacancy of cult practice Paul had created for the Christ-followers from the nations, and Paul’s fears, all point to a function of the collection which has to do with the Temple in Jerusalem. Moreover, Paul hopes to achieve something he considers to be core to the proclamation of the gospel, a “completion and sealing of the fruit” (Rom 15:28) , which will lead to “the fullness of the blessings of Christ” (Rom 15:29). Nothing less than the actual worshipping of the God of Israel by “Israel and the nations” at the center of the Jewish social and symbolic world is what Paul might hope for.















18. The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond Introduction Introduction

The emergence of the “New Perspective on Paul,” labelled after Dunn’s lecture of the same title1 has obviously had a significant impact on the interpretation of Romans although this strand of research had initially not developed with a specific focus on this particular letter. Dunn’s lecture formulated in more general terms the insight with which Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism2 had freed Pauline interpretation from a distorted image of Judaism, thus opening up pathways for new interpretations, or as he called it, a new perspective on Paul. Although the names of Sanders and Dunn are frequently referred to in one breath as the key advocates of the New Perspective, it should be noted that their views on Paul differ substantially. Moreover, although it was their respective work which gained wide recognition in the scholarly guild, they were by no means the first to propose alternatives to the dominating, mainly Lutheran, strand of Pauline interpretation. As the volumes of the Romans through History and Cultures series clearly demonstrate, diversity of perspectives in reading Romans has a long trajectory in the history of interpretation. Neither the early Church Fathers nor the Reformers of the 16th century read Romans in a uniform way, but by reading with hermeneutical/theological different presuppositions and from within and into diverse contexts they arrived at different interpretations of the letter.3 In their search for theological answers to contemporary questions they saw in Paul, and in Romans in particular, a key authority. Whether this was so because many saw in Romans something like an outline of Paul’s theology similar to later systematic theologies4, or whether it had to do with what many contemporary

“The New Perspective on Paul,” first published in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 65 (1983), 95–122, reprinted in J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 183–214, now also J.D.G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 89–110. 2 E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 3 See the earlier volumes in this series, especially Engaging Augustine on Romans (ed. D. Patte, E. TeSelle; London: T&T Clark, 2005), Early Patristic Readings of Romans (ed. K.L. Gaca, L.L. Welborn; London: T&T Clark, 2006), Medieval Readings of Romans (ed. W.S. Campbell, P.S. Hawkins, B.D. Schildgen; London: T&T Clark, 2007), Reformation Readings of Romans (ed. R.W. Holder, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2008). 4 Cf. G.N. Hansen, “Door and Passageway: Calvin’s Use of Romans as Hermeneutical and Theological Guide,” in Reformation Readings of Romans, (ed. R.W. Holder, K. Ehrensperger), 77–94. 1

354

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

scholars see as an example of Paul’s contextual theologizing remains a contested issue.5 Either way, in order to be relevant for churches and society the factor of contextuality plays a significant role. Luther’s quest for theological answers to social and theological issues prevalent in 16th century Northern and Western Europe were developed in conversation with Romans and should not be considered a flawed or illegitimate reading. Luther did not ask historical questions, thus his use of the text of Romans should be seen as the springboard for the formulation of his Protestant theology, rather than as historical exegesis and interpretation as understood in contemporary scholarship. 6 However, if Luther’s interpretation is not appreciated for what it is and, in different contexts and with different hermeneutical presuppositions, his readings are reiterated without critical reflection then critical questions need to be asked. Scholars, even prior to the New Perspective, have argued that Paul’s own context in as much as it can be (re-)constructed, should play a significant part in the interpretation of his letters. Prior to Sanders, Krister Stendahl’s famous lecture pointed to the specific hermeneutical presuppositions and contextuality of Augustine’s and Luther’s interpretation, an emphasis which was seen as a challenge to the core of Lutheran theology.7 Although Stendahl was not the first to advocate an alternative to the dominating image of Paul, but is himself rooted in the Scandinavian school, his contribution led to wider discussions than the studies of scholars like, i.e., G.F. Moore and W.D. Davies had done previously.8 However, the debate that has dominated Pauline studies now for more than 30 years has been initiated by the publications of E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism and J.D.G. Dunn’s “The New Perspective on Paul.” The scholarly conversations initiated or influenced by these publications were and are innumerable. Thus I will focus on a few key aspects here; firstly on what is subsumed under the label of the New Perspective, followed by an analysis

See Pauline Theology, volumes I–IV Minneapolis. Fortress 1991–96 which were the result of the 10 year SBL project Pauline Theology which had committed itself to reading each letter in its particularity. 6 Cf. V. Stolle, Luther und Paulus. Die exegetischen und hermeneutischen Grundlagen der lutherischen Rechtfertigungslehre im Paulinismus Luthers (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002). 7 Cf. First published as “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963), 199–215, republished in K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976). Cf. also W.S. Campbell’s discussion in “Ernst Käsemann on Romans: the Way Forward or the End of an Era?,” in Modern Interpretations of Romans: Tracking their Hermeneutic/ Theological Trajectory (ed. D. Patte, C.Grenholm; London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 161–89. 8 G.F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921), 197–254, W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1948). 5

Sanders’s Image of Judaism and Paul

355

of some of the approaches which can be subsumed under the label “Beyond the New Perspective”; that is, approaches which maintain that New Perspective scholars like Dunn and Wright do not really develop the potential of the new approach. I thus do not provide a comprehensive analytical overview of all aspects of this conversation. In particular I will not deal with reactions to the New Perspective which challenge it at a fundamental level, maintaining interpretations based on more traditional theological readings of Paul’s letters.9

Sanders’s Image of Judaism and Paul Sanders’s Image of Judaism and Paul

The key publication which is considered to have initiated the New Perspective, and which subsequently influenced most interpretations of Romans, seemed to arrive in the arena of scholarly debates from the margins to say the least. It could be claimed that almost twenty years after Stendahl, Sanders set out to provide evidence for the insight that the contextual presuppositions for the traditional interpretation of Paul were those of the Reformation debates of the16th century. He demonstrated, convincingly in my view, that the image of Judaism which was prevalent in Pauline interpretation, was decisively influenced by Ferdinand Weber’s 19th century depiction of Judaism as a legalistic religion of works righteousness. Weber maintained that the Jews had forfeited their relationship with God in what he called the second fall, the golden calf incident upon which the covenant with them had been annulled. Although scholars did not follow Weber in this theory of a “second” fall, the image of Judaism as legalistic was established to stay and was never critically challenged by mainstream New Testament scholarship. Sanders intended to provide a historically more accurate image of first century Judaism, thus doing more justice to Judaism as a religion. There is no need to repeat the details of the characteristics of his analysis; it is sufficient to note that he found in Judaism a religion rooted in the grace of God, in which Jews are called to respond to this grace by keeping the covenant established by God with them. He summarized his findings under the famous term “covenantal nomism.” A key methodological aspect in Sanders’ approach is that he analysed Judaism as an entity in itself rather than

Reactions opposing the “New Perspective” can be found among Lutheran and existentialist approaches as well as other representatives of Protestant theologies, some evangelical and also Roman-Catholic scholars. The former see in the New Perspective a threat to core aspects of Protestant Theology, others fear a de-theologizing of Pauline interpretation. On this cf. K. Haacker, “Verdienste und Grenzen der ‘neuen Perspektive’ der Paulus-Auslegung,” in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive (ed. M. Bachmann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 3–15, here 4. 9

356

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

in direct interaction with the Pauline texts thus preventing Judaism from being instrumentalized in the service of Pauline interpretation.10 In his comparison of first century Judaism with Paul’s thought, Sanders came to the conclusion that Paul’s arguments showed no traces of covenantal nomism but were embedded in his understanding of the life in Christ as “participation in Christ.” Although many reactions to Sanders’ interpretation of Paul such as, for example that of Morna Hooker,11 indicated some surprise at this non-Jewish Paul who stood in such stark contrast to the characteristics of first century Judaism, it is less surprising when we consider the hermeneutical presuppositions and methodological choices which guided Sanders in his research at the time. Rather than comparing elements of one religious system with another he applied insights from comparative religious studies and emphasized that appropriate insights into one religion compared with another could only be gained by comparing the entire system – thus his approach could be labelled a systemic approach. This approach led Sanders to a clear re-assessment of the image of first century Judaism and the demonstration that most aspects of the image of Judaism prevalent in the academic discipline of New Testament Studies applied a grossly distorted image of it to the New Testament texts. He does not claim to present a detailed analysis of Judaism in all its diversity at the time of Paul, but rather he set out to identify an element or structure which was shared between the diverse life realities of first century Jews. He was interested in the question whether there was a shared perception of what was required to live a Jewish life.12 Whether Sanders’ analysis of Judaism is always correct in its details may be and is debated, but I cannot see a way back to a perception of Judaism preSanders. Taking into account Sanders’ presuppositions, that is, the fact that he perceived Paul’s theologizing to be a complete religious system in the sense of the concept of religion13 prevalent at the time, it is not surprising that he ended up by comparing two different systems. This was his presupposition – thus his image of Paul almost logically had to be different from his image of first century Judaism. He had already decided to compare Judaism, that is, what he found to be the shared aspect within first century Judaism, characterized by him as “covenantal nomism” (rather than as legalism or works-righteousness),

Cf. I. Bendik, Paulus in Neuer Sicht? Eine kritische Einführung in die ‘New Perspective on Paul (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 122. 11 “Paul and ‘Covenantal Nomism’,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of CK Barrett (ed. M.D. Hooker, S.G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982), 47–56. 12 Cf. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, xi. 13 E.P. Sanders, “Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Holistic Method of Comparison,” HTR 66 (1973), 455–78. 10

Sanders’s Image of Judaism and Paul

357

with “Paulinism” which Sanders considered to exemplify all the necessary elements of a religious system. And although in his view Paul saw nothing wrong with this Judaism, his conviction separated him entirely from it, in that “being in Christ” was something entirely different from “convenantal nomism.” Sanders in a sense had overcome the problem of using Judaism as the negative foil for Christian self-understanding, but there nevertheless remained a dichotomy in his perception: he replaced the dichotomy of “works of the law over against grace” of traditional Protestant perspectives with that of “covenant” over against “participation in Christ.”14 Although his analysis of first century Judaism did initiate a paradigm shift in New Testament scholarship concerning the perception of Judaism to which all subsequent Pauline interpretation responded one way or another, Sanders’ own interpretation of Paul remained within the traditional paradigm, although emphasizing with Schweitzer, participation in Christ rather than justification by faith as the core of Paul’s theology.15 Sanders’ contribution to revising the image of Judaism in New Testament scholarship was and is invaluable even if it may not be accurate in all its details. Indeed, research into first century Judaism certainly has not come to a halt since the publication of Paul and Palestinian Judaism, but Sanders’ interpretation of Paul demonstrated the weaknesses of a comparative approach to two religious systems. The system he identified in Paul had surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) close similarities with the Paul of Paulinism, that is, Paul as interpreted by traditional Protestant (mainly Lutheran) interpretation. He thus compared not so much first century Judaism with Paul, but rather first century Judaism with Paulinism, which presupposed that Paul had overcome and left behind Judaism to establish a new religion. The reasons for this relinquishing of Judaism seemed slightly obscure, since there could be no real explanation why someone would want to leave a perfectly adequate religion of grace for something else – called “in Christ.” Thus Sanders’ interpretation of Paul was not actually designed to contribute to a “New Perspective on Paul,” his real contribution is to a “New Perspective on first century Judaism”. The impact of this New Perspective on Pauline interpretation, however, was mould breaking.

Cf I. Bendik, Paulus in Neuer Sicht?, 122–4. 15 Cf. C. Claussen, “Albert Schweitzer’s Understanding of Righteousness by Faith according to Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Modern Interpretations of Romans: Tracking their Hermeneutical/Theological Trajectory (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 87–107. 14

358

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

The New Perspective The New Perspective

In his recognition of the significance of Sanders’ work on Judaism, J.D.G. Dunn simultaneously identified precisely this problem in Sanders’ interpretation of Paul maintaining that Sanders had missed the chance to draw the consequences from his mould breaking work. Sanders’ Paul is seen as “[…] an idiosyncratic Paul who in arbitrary and irrational manner turns his face against the glory and the greatness of Judaism’s covenant theology and abandons Judaism simply because it is not Christianity.”16 Dunn sees Paul not in opposition to Judaism characterized as covenantal nomism, but as embedded within it. He maintains that the issue Paul is concerned about has to do with the right understanding of the law, not the law per se. He argues that the concept of justification by faith is thoroughly Jewish, and that Paul thus shares the conviction that δικαιοῦσθαι and δικαιοσύνη are part of covenantal language and theology, δικαιοῦσθαι/ δικαιοσύνη thus means “God’s acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant.”17 Justification is what happens after covenant and election, it is God’s gracious activity to save his people. This perception is shared between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries. The problem for Paul is thus not Judaism per se, but what Dunn maintains to be a misunderstanding of Judaism, and of the law in particular. Dunn’s interpretation is based on his reading of Gal 2:16 where he identifies the “real” problem Paul has with Judaism: “works of law” are identified as those commandments which mark Jewish identity over against other people. Circumcision, food laws, and observing Sabbath are the identity markers of Jews as Jews, and are thus seen as establishing an ethnocentric, nationalistic, even zealous misunderstanding of the law and the covenant.18 To maintain these identity markers at the time of the fulfilment of the promises through the coming of Christ is not merely superfluous, but is an act against the eschatological goal of the covenant which was intended to extend the blessings to the non-Jewish nations. Thus Dunn argues for the continuity of the covenant now in Christ; through Christ, the covenant is widened to include gentiles, thus Jewish identity markers are rendered obsolete, now that all who are called are included in the covenant through Christ. To continue to adhere to these identity markers

Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 183–214, here 187. 17 Ibid., 190. 18 This zeal is characterized as “an unconditional commitment to maintain Israel’s distinctiveness, to prevent the purity of its covenant set-apartness to God from being […] defiled, to defend its religious and national boundaries […] a readiness to do this by force […] this zeal was not only directed against Gentiles who threatened Israel’s boundaries, but against fellow Jews too.” Dunn, “Paul’s Conversion: A Light to Twentieth Century Disputes,” in J.D.G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 355. 16

The New Perspective

359

means to continue to insist on a privileged position as God’s chosen people with a zeal to maintain its own separate identity. Dunn considers this zeal for its own distinct identity to be the characteristic of Second Temple Judaism.19 Having identified the main problem that Paul has with Judaism in Galatians, that is, its ethnocentric, nationalistic zeal, Romans is interpreted from the stance of this hermeneutical presupposition. Passages like Rom 3:27–31 or 9:30–10:4 are clearly seen as evidence that Paul perceived the particularistic perception of the law by non-Christ following Jews – i.e., their understanding of it as a boundary drawing identity marker, as the indication that the law thereby becomes an instrument for sin, because trust is set on the flesh. Paul is seen as focussing in 3:27–31 on boasting and works of the law, thereby indicating that both encourage the conclusion that God is the God of the Jews only.20 Although Dunn acknowledges that in Rom 9:7–13 the Israel of the old covenant or “historic Israel” as he calls it, is characterised as called by God, that is, through promise and election, Israel actually is seen as a religious rather than an ethnic entity, designating all who respond to God’s call. Historic Israel had stumbled (Rom 9:32), in not responding to God’s call in Christ and thus cannot be the Israel of God’s calling anymore.21 In his clinging to ethnocentric identity markers “the ‘Jew’ (is) still boasting in privileged status before God.”22 In Rom 10:4 Paul sees Christ as the end of the law, that is the law in its Israeldefining, Judaism defending boundary role. True Israel, now claimed to be a purely religious entity, consists of those thus who responded to the call in Christ, from the Jews and the gentile nations. The continuity of the call, the covenant, the promises, and the law are now maintained in the church, whilst, at least until the fulfilment of time, the Jews who are not convinced by Paul’s gospel have lost their calling. Although Dunn notes that historic Israel is “not yet as such the Israel of God’s call,” and that this problem will be solved at the eschaton, such a statement seems rather problematic. Dunn intends to interpret Romans in the context of the new options available through Sanders’ work on Judaism. Dunn identified and addressed a methodological problem, in that he recognized that Paul has to be located within the Judaism of his day. But Dunn ended in creating a new problem, or rather, he reiterated actually a structurally old problem in creating an image of Judaism as zealous, ethno-centric, works-righteousness-oriented. In his attempt to interpret Romans as a document of covenantal theologizing, he sees the Jews as

This perception has some similarities with the concept of the “Spätjudentum” of earlier scholarship. 20 Dunn, “Paul’s Conversion: A Light to Twentieth Century Disputes,” in The New Perspective on Paul, 341–59, here 359. 21 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 511. 22 Ibid., 508. 19

360

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

those responsible for misunderstanding or even hindering God’s original intention with the establishing of the covenant. He maintains that Paul’s reaction to his native Judaism was not one of wholesale denunciation but was targeted against the misconception of the role of works in the process of salvation, the covenantal nomism which effectively excluded gentiles from the process.23

Although Dunn in his interpretation of Rom 3:22–23 attributes the diminished distinction between Jews and gentiles to the power of sin in the world, he does not continue this line of thought but rather attributes to the Jews the power to interfere or sabotage God’s plans. If Israel is as powerful as this, it is a short step to claim that it has lost its status as God’s people. Dunn claims the “glory and greatness of Judaism’s covenant theology”24 for the church as the entity in which particularism is overcome and “Israel” is universalized, a fusion of Jews and non-Jews where Jewish identity is rendered obsolete.25 Although Dunn acknowledges that Romans should be read as addressed to a particular community, in his Theology of Paul, he uses Romans as the template thereby arriving at a reading of the letter as general theology rather than as part of a conversation addressing a particular context. The addressees are seen as Jews and gentiles in the Roman churches, which provides sufficient reason to read the letter as actually addressing issues not confined the Roman context, but concerning the nature of the gospel per se. The key problem that Paul is seen as addressing is Jewish boasting, against which the freedom of the gospel needs to be defended. Thus passages like Rom 3:1–20 are interpreted as polemic against a wrong Jewish self-perception, Paul thus arguing against Jewish opponents, as in Galatians.26 This key motivation is seen throughout Romans, and since Romans is interpreted as the template for Paul’s theology, opposition to (a misconceived) Judaism remains a core part of the self-understanding of Paul’s communities. Dunn is the most prominent and influential among the protagonists of the New Perspective. Others only differ in degrees from this interpretation of Romans. Dunn emphasizes that the breaking down of barriers between Jews and gentiles was a make or break issue for Paul, in Christ the hostility had come to an end and God’s purpose of old to include gentiles in his people had been

Dunn, “The New Perspective: Whence, what and whither?,” in The New Perspective on Paul, 205, 1–88, here 50. 24 Ibid.,187. 25 I am indebted here to Bendik’s excellent analysis. Cf. Paulus in Neuer Sicht?, 143–48. 26 W.S. Campbell has argued already in 1981 that Romans 3 should not be read as polemic, but as a rhetorical strategy raising questions to which later in the letter Paul would provide answers. This is good teaching practice rather than polemic. Cf. his “Romans 3 as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter,” Novum Testamentum 23 (1981), 19–28. I will come back to this aspect below. 23

Beyond the New Perspective

361

revealed in the gospel.27 The key problem threatening this purpose was the Jewish ethnocentric attitude to gentiles based on the law.28 Thus despite intentions to the contrary, Judaism, at least as misunderstood in the Second Temple period, yet once again is seen as the “classic example of how sin abuses the law and uses the weakness of the flesh to tie humankind into the nexus of sin and death.” 29 Although the notion of Jewish legalism has disappeared in Dunn’s reading of Romans the latter is now shaped by the presuppositions of Jewish ethnocentrism over against Pauline universalism. Structurally, the lawgospel dichotomy of the traditional perspective is replaced by a variation of the particularism – universalism dichotomy – claimed already by F.C. Baur. 30 Thus the question has to be asked whether the New Perspective is actually new or rather a variation of the “old” perspective which repeats what Sanders had tried to overcome – a negative stereotyping of Judaism through a replacement theology.

Beyond the New Perspective Beyond the New Perspective

This is the question which has driven a number of approaches “after” Sanders and Dunn. I will focus on scholars who claim that neither Sanders nor the New Perspective have actually arrived at interpretations of Paul, and Romans in particular which take the changed image of first century Judaism sufficiently into account.31 They move “Beyond the New Perspective” and there is one key presupposition which they share: They see Paul as embedded in Judaism before and after his call, and they see no incompatibility for Jews of being Christfollowers and observing the Torah, although the implications and the significance of this, both socially and theologically, is a matter of debate.32

Dunn, “The New Perspective: Whence, what and whither?,” 30. 28 Ibid., 29. 29 Dunn, Theology of Paul, 160. 30 Cf. my discussion of this aspect of Baur in K.Ehrensperger, That We Maybe Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 27–31. 31 There are of course also those scholars who challenge Sanders’ depiction of Judaism and revert to patterns of interpreting Romans in what they see as theological over against social scientific interpretations, i.e., Gaventa, Barclay, Westerholm etc. Space does not permit to provide a detailed discussion of all scholarship which in one way or another reacts and responds to issues raised by Sanders and Dunn and will focus here on those approaches which claim that they are moving the field in those areas where Sanders and Dunn had not gone far enough. 32 Among “Beyond the New Perspective” scholars are Stowers, Campbell, Nanos, Fredriksen, Runesson, Elliott, Eisenbaum, Zetterholm, myself. 27

362

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

There are a number of scholars who prior or parallel to the publications of Sanders and Dunn have developed approaches to Romans which distinguished them from the traditional Lutheran and existentialist interpretation of Paul. As mentioned above, members of the “Scandinavian School” reacted against existentialist interpretations, which they considered to be too individualistic, neglecting the community and mission related aspect of Romans.33 The letter was seen as addressing issues concerning the mission of Paul to the gentiles, “a missionary’s contribution to a discussion.”34 In this framework, Romans 9–11 was moved center stage and particular attention paid to the group dimension and the category of God’s people in the letter. 35 I noted already Stendahl’s contribution which is embedded in this tradition. Albert Schweitzer is another scholar who should be mentioned in this context with his emphasis on the importance of Jewish Apocalypticism for Pauline interpretation. Following the trajectory of such early alternative approaches scholars such as Stanley Stowers, William S. Campbell, and Peter Tomson36 have proposed interpretations of Paul which try to avoid the negative stereotyping of Judaism, and do not adhere to a two covenant theory37, but also have developed nuances in their interpretations which distinguish them to some degree from a number of scholars who are beginning to be labelled “Radical New Perspective.” Since Stowers and Campbell have focussed most prominently although in different ways their work on Romans I will briefly discuss their work here.38 With others who have moved beyond the New Perspective Stowers39 (and Campbell) have drawn attention to the key difference the envisaged addressees make for interpreting Romans. Stowers develops his argument from the presupposition that the addressees in the text of the letter40 are gentile Christ-fol-

Cf. my analysis in That We May Be Mutually Encouraged, 150–51. 34 J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959), 200. 35 See R.H. Fuller’s critical overview in The New Testament in Current Study: Some Trends in the Years 1941–1962 (London: SCM, 1963), especially his critique of Bultman’s existentialist approach, 72. 36 P. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). 37 Such as L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), and J. Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 38 Peter Tomson’s work could be seen as a continuation and refinement of W.D. Davies emphasis on the close relation between Paul and what later became Rabbinic Judaism. Tomson developed his approach in his critical analysis of the Corinthian correspondence rather than Romans. 39 A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). 40 Stowers emphasizes the difference between the audience as encoded in the letter and the actual recipients. The first can be identified in the text of the letter, whereas he maintains 33

Beyond the New Perspective

363

lowers, and thus the issues, problems and controversies discussed concern gentiles in Christ rather than Jews. “Romans tries to clarify for gentile followers of Christ their relation to the law, Jews, and Judaism and the current place of both Jews and gentiles in God’s plan through Jesus Christ.”41 Paul is clearly seen as the apostle who has a special commission to the gentiles, and who emphasizes this special role in the opening of the letter. Contrary to traditional and New Perspective readings no indication can be found for Jewish addressees. This does not mean that Stowers advocates that there were no Jewish Christ-followers in Rome. But they are not the addressees nor is Judaism in itself a problem. Only if it is already presupposed that “Jewish arrogance would have been obvious in the first century”42 and that there was a typical Jewish presumption of Jewish moral superiority over against gentiles could Jewish opponents be the target of Paul’s arguments in Romans.43 But the key problem Paul addresses according to Stowers is not Jewish arrogance or boasting on the part of a supposed powerful Christ-following Jewish minority, but rather how gentile unrighteousness, evident in their loss of self-mastery, can be overcome. Although the Torah had been regarded as a way to attain the Greco-Roman ideal of self-mastery by some Jewish writers of the period, and this may have rendered Judaism attractive for some gentiles, it is Paul’s view that with the coming of Christ this cannot be achieved by gentiles through adherence to the Torah since the Torah is intended for Jews. Paul’s arguments in the imaginary dialogue with a Jewish teacher in Rom 2:17–29, rather than addressing Jews and Jewish adherence to the law, are intended to indicate to the gentile audience that they cannot and should not seek to acquire righteousness before the God of Israel through adherence to the law. Throughout the letter thus Paul, in Stowers’s reading, demonstrates that now through Christ gentiles […] have sonship (8:15–23:29), as Israel has always had (9:4). The readers gain a kinship with God modelled after Christ’s sonship (8:29) and that includes empowerment by the Spirit now (8:4–8, 12–17, 26–27) and a perfected body in the future (8:9–11,23).44

The main problem of Jews who do not share Paul’s view is that they cannot see the way for gentiles to attain righteousness apart from the law available to them in Christ. This focus on gentile addressees does not constitute a denigration of Judaism, but a clarification for gentiles about their role and way of life in relation to the God of Israel and thus also in relation to Jews. Judaism is a

the “I can only speculate about who actually read the letter, their assumptions, knowledge, and reactions to the letter.” Rereading Romans, 22. 41 Stowers, Rereading Romans, 36. 42 Ibid., 28 43 Cf. J.L. Sumney, “Servants of Satan”, “False Brothers”, and Other Opponents of Paul (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). 44 Stowers, Rereading Romans, 40.

364

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

theme – in that Paul provides gentiles with some explanations for the temporary rejection of the gospel by some Jews as part of God’s plan in that this leaves time and space for the mission to the gentiles. The gentiles have to understand this mystery and cannot in any way boast or claim to have replaced Israel as the people of God.45 Some of Stowers emphases had previously been advocated by William S. Campbell in lectures and articles which predated the emergence of the New Perspective. Influenced by the Scandinavian school he had recognized the significance of Romans 9–11 in a context when dominating Lutheran and existentialist interpretation had declared these chapters marginal. In a paper presented in 1973 he drew attention to “The Place of Romans 9–11 within the Structure and Thought of the Letter.”46 Campbell finds the hermeneutical key for his reading of the letter in these chapters, in their emphasis on the faithfulness of God and his calling of Israel, which is irrevocable.47 The Christ-event does not change that, but confirms the covenant promises to Israel. This includes a spreading of the blessings to the gentile nations, and the gentile Christ-following groups are seen as the fruit and evidence of the beginning of the age to come. Since Paul introduces himself as apostle to the gentiles in the opening of the letter and explicitly only addresses gentiles in the letter, there is no reason for Campbell to doubt that these were the main addressees. Nevertheless, chapters 14–15 indicate that these gentile Christ-followers lived in a context of Jewish communities, Christ-following or not. Thus Romans is seen as a conversation with gentiles in a context where Jews are present and issues concerning Judaism and its role in the current context need to be clarified. There is no indication that these Christ-following groups had separated from Judaism or as Campbell formulated at the time, from the synagogue.48 Also, the problem is not Jewish opponents49 who try to impose Jewish practice on these gentiles, rather the opposite, these gentiles are seen as in danger of becoming arrogant

Ibid., 40. 46 Published in Studia Evangelica, vol. 7, Papers Presented to the 5th International Congress of Biblical Studies, Oxford 1973 (ed. E.A. Livingstone; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982), 90–99. 47 This is similarly emphasized in “the Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel,” JSNT 13 (1981), 27–45. 48 W.S. Campbell, “Did Paul Advocate Separation from the Synagogue,” SJT, 1990, now also Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991), 122–31. Also M.D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: the Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 41–84. 49 W.S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 111–13. Cf. also Sumney, Opponents. 45

Beyond the New Perspective

365

over against their Jewish brothers and sisters. 50 Although Campbell sees Paul at times as being engaged in a critical dialogue with fellow Jews,51 this is seen as an intra-Jewish affair, and nowhere does Campbell resort to negative stereotyping of Second Temple Judaism in contrast to Paul’s gospel. Since there is no Jewish arrogance or boasting found in Romans, but rather the opposite, there is also no problem with Jewish identity in Christ.52 Rather it is gentile arrogance and perceived superiority, possibly nurtured by anti-Jewish GrecoRoman stereotyping prevalent in the Roman context generally which constituted a threat to the peace and unity of the communities in Rome as “the references to boasting over the discarded branches” implies.53 Adherence to the Torah for Jews and being in Christ are acknowledged, even necessary, according to Campbell’s reading of Romans. But such acknowledgment also applies to gentile identity in Christ, which explains Paul’s strong stance against their conversion to Judaism. Gentile identity in Christ also needs to be preserved in its distinctiveness. This is not only a concession for the time being, but a core dimension of the gospel, in that Jews and gentiles as Jews and gentiles together, but in their difference, glorify the God of Israel now that Christ has come. Paul is seen in Romans 9–11 as trying to find an answer to the question he had posed in chapter 3 (“Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?” Rom 3:3), that is, the non-response of fellow Jews to the gospel. In distinction from New Perspective scholars, Campbell does not see Paul arguing for a transfer of the identity of Israel to those called from the Jews and the gentiles, understood as the church. There is no separation of what is labelled the religious dimension from the social or ethnic dimension, thus Israel cannot become a purely “religious” entity, not even in the form of a remnant, a fusion of Jews and gentiles in Christ with neither one nor another ethnic identity. The identity of Israel is non-transferrable, in as much as God’s faithfulness is related to Israel, if it is faithfulness at all.54 He maintains that “[…] the ‘church’ in Paul’s perspective is inseparably related to Israel […] but however related to Israel, the church is not Israel; Israel’s identity is unique and cannot be taken over by gentile Christ-followers […].”55 He continues “Israel remains a given in Paul’s theologizing.”56 The remnant for Paul is a Jewish remnant, a saving remnant rather than a saved remnant, to which gentile Christ-followers are associated

Cf. W.S. Campbell, “Divergent Images of Paul and His Mission,” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 187–211. 51 Campbell, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context, 44. 52 Contra Dunn, see discussion above. 53 Campbell, Christian Identity,105. 54 Campbell, “The Freedom and Faithfulness of God,” 43–59. 55 Campbell, Identity, 170. 56 Ibid., 171. 50

366

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

to form a unity with them in Christ, a unity which presupposes difference. Although they are and remain different in Christ, their unity implies transformation. Thus Campbell maintains that although Paul addresses gentiles in Romans, and admonishes them to “conform to Christ,” this does not mean that the coming of Christ has only implications for gentiles. Both, Jews and gentiles are affected by the coming of Christ. And although the gospel Paul proclaims is a Jewish gospel, and gentiles remain gentiles in Christ, “Israel is not left untouched by the Christ-event,” rather it is for the time being divided into the remnant, that is, those who recognize Jesus as Messiah, and the “rest” who are not convinced. The history between the “remnant” and the “rest” remains shared, at least in the earliest centuries, whilst the “remnant” at the same time share with gentile Christ-followers “the concern that ‘all Israel’ will be saved.”57 Campbell is careful to note that the process of transformation has to be seen in relation to eschatological hope and expectation, which is not realized as yet. The promises are confirmed, the blessings shared, but the Christ-event is not a closure, nor the eschaton, but open to God’s future. It has been argued over against Campbell’s approach that it reduces the gospel to issues of ethnicity and social interaction, mainly driven by a post-Shoah concern of guilt over against the Jews. The post-Shoah perspective is certainly an important aspect of New Perspective as well as Beyond the New Perspective scholars, however, Campbell embarked on his analysis of Romans inspired by issues raised by the Scandinavian school, Munck in particular and the questions raised in the debates between existentialist and “Heilsgeschichtliche” approaches. Unconvinced by the individualization of existentialist theology, and the discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity advocated by it, he emphasized the community/group aspect of the Christ-movement and the element of continuity between Israel and the church in the vein of the heilsgeschichtliche Schule, without falling into the trap of the dangers of a Geschichtstheologie.58 Thus the relationship between Jews and gentiles in Romans is emphasized by Campbell in the context of Paul’s theologizing concerning the faithfulness of God. At the heart of God’s faithfulness are the faithfulness to the call of, and promises to Israel. The focus on diversity in Christ and mutuality over against boasting emerge from this overarching theological concern, presenting a reading of Romans in which social and ethnic aspects are seen as inseparably intertwined with Paul’s theologizing. Romans is seen as a theological letter, but not at the exclusion or denigration of the specific context and actual real life issues in Rome, amongst Jews and gentiles. Paul’s theologizing in Romans is seen as contextual and concrete – not abstract. God’s agency is seen as moving real people and it is in their concrete living together that the truth of the gospel

Ibid., 171. 58 Cf. Campbell, “Ernst Käsemann on Romans.” 57

Beyond the New Perspective

367

is actualized. In this actualization the respect for diversity is inherent, as it reflects faithfulness to the God of Israel who is confessed as the One who created the world in its diversity. From a different angle, Neil Elliott has identified gaps in the New Perspective in his emphasis on the significance of the political, that is, the imperial context of Romans. A letter addressed to groups at the center of the imperial power cannot but have implicit and explicit political overtones. Rather than addressing issues of Jewish boasting or arrogance, it actually engages with the far bigger issue of the all pervasive presence of imperial ideology and domination. Romans contrasts not Jewish works righteousness or ethnocentrism but loyalty to the Roman empire with loyalty to the God of Israel and his Messiah, crucified at a Roman cross but vindicated by God. Although the letter does not offer an open critique of imperial propaganda, Elliott follows Jacob Taubes in his characterization of Rom 1:3–4 as a “political declaration of war on the Caesar.”59 The contrast is between the justice of God and the injustice of Roman imperial order, rather than the gospel and Judaism or Judaism misunderstood in an ethnocentric, nationalistic zeal.60 He maintains that “The rhetoric of Romans shows that Paul participated in a cultural transcript, drawing on the repertoires of Judean scripture and apocalyptic writings, that was inescapably in conflict with the empire’s absolutizing claims to allegiance.”61 Elliott considers the reasons for Romans as situated within the context of the Christ-following groups in Rome,62 more specifically in tensions between different ethnic groups. But these tensions, rather than being merely ethnic, should be seen in the context of the broader ideology and culture of the empire. Thus Elliott reads the letter “not as a Christian critique of Judaism, or a defence of gentile Christianity, but as a Judean critique of an incipient non-Judean Christianity in which the pressures of imperial ideology were a decisive factor.”63 Similar to Campbell, Elliott considers a gentile misunderstanding of Paul’s mission to the gentiles to be not only one aspect but actually the primary reason for the letter.64 This misunderstanding is not some specifically Christian theological misconception, Elliott emphasizes, but in confronting the boasting and supremacy claims over Israel, the wider cultural, imperial environment, in which such

J. Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 13–16. 60 Contra Dunn, see above. 61 N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 12. 62 Elliott, Arrogance, 20. Cf. also W.S. Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House Churches and Synagogues?,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Intepretation of Romans 9–11 (ed. F. Wilk, J.R. Wagners; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 171–95, and Nanos, Mystery, 41–84. 63 Elliott, Arrogance,15. 64 Cf. also Campbell, “Divergent Images of Paul and His Mission.” 59

368

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

boasting was nurtured, was confronted. The Non-Jews among the addressees had confused “their status in Christ with the status that imperial ideology promised them as participants in the civilization of wealth.”65 There is no legitimation of a “gentile church” against a supposed Jewish opposition in Romans. Rather, Paul seeks to reorient disoriented non-Judean perceptions “around a more authentically Judean scriptural perspective […] a more communitarian perspective […].”66 In Elliott’s approach ethnicity is a factor Paul addresses in Romans, but it is neither the theological contrast between particularistic, ethnocentric Judaism and universalistic gospel, nor is it a factor with only a religious-ethnic dimension. The religious-ethnic dimension must be seen in its political context. Thus rather than being merely an issue of worshipping gods or God, of national pride or zeal, the problem at the heart of the ethnic tensions, that is, of gentile arrogance, is the imperial, dignity defying arrogance promoted by Roman imperial ideology and executed by Roman military power. That Paul is embedded entirely in Judaism, and argues from within a Jewish perception of the world is the clear presupposition of Elliott’s reading of Romans. From within this world Paul is seen as engaging with Roman imperial ideology in challenging implicitly rather than explicitly the absolute power claims of the empire,67 especially where this ideology and practice threatens to infiltrate the Christ-movement and pervert the life of the communities of Jews and gentiles. Mark Nanos in his Mystery of Romans and subsequent articles68 has consistently argued for a reading of the letter from within a Jewish context. Paul is seen as arguing entirely from within his Jewish social and symbolic universe, addressing a gentile audience.69 Nanos analyses the Pauline letters throughout his work consistently from this hermeneutical presupposition and presents well-substantiated exegetical arguments in support of it. In Rome gentiles in Christ are seen as being closely affiliated within synagogue communities.70 One of Nanos’s arguments for such an entirely Jewish context is quite pragmatic when he draws attention to the fact that only in such a context could these gentiles have learnt about the Jewish scriptures which was a vital part of learning to be a gentile in Christ. Moreover, in a political climate where possibly only associations with ancient foundations and traditions could assemble

Elliott, Arrogance, 158. 66 Ibid., 158. 67 See also I.E. Rock, Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Romans Imperialism: An Ideological Analysis of the Exordium (Rom 1:1–17) (Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2011). 68 “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul's Judaism?,” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (ed. M. Given; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), 117–60. 69 Mystery, 41–84, cf. also his “The Jewish Context of the Gentile Audience Addressed in Paul's Letter to the Romans,” CBQ 61 (1999), 283–304. 70 Mystery, 103–19, 289–334. 65

Beyond the New Perspective

369

securely “how would Christians, outside association with the synagogues, obtain the right to congregate for fellowship and worship […]?”71 Paul thus is working within a Jewish context, himself being a Torah observant Jew. Paul’s own adherence to the Torah is one of the key components shared between scholars of the “Radical New Perspective,” but not of all those who moved “Beyond the New Perspective.” Stowers for instance thinks Paul would have compromised on adherence to the Torah for the sake of community with gentiles.72 Nanos shares with Stowers, Campbell and Elliott, the view that in Romans the problem Paul addresses is gentile arrogance and boasting over against Jews. Nanos sees Paul refuting exclusivist claims on the part of gentile Christfollowers who had dissociated themselves from the Jewish roots of the gospel. A situation is envisaged where non-Jewish Christ-followers are beginning to be in the majority in these synagogue sub-groups in Rome, and thus might challenge the necessity to adhere to “the halakhot which applied to Christian gentiles as ‘righteous gentiles’ when in the midst of Jews.”73 This would actually have contributed to forcing Jews to accommodate to a gentile life style. Such attitudes may have been nurtured by general anti-Jewish stereotyping in the surrounding society. In conjunction with an assessment of the non-response of many Jews to the gospel this may have led to a kind of early gentile triumphalism, assuming that God had rejected the Jewish people. Paul counters such a development in admonishing these gentiles concerning their indebtedness to the Jews, and in reminding them boldly that they are dependant on the Jews. The branches grafted into the olive tree are not grafted “in their place” but “in amongst them”; and those Jews who are not convinced by Paul’s gospel rather than being branches broken off, are simply branches broken.74 Nanos interprets the olive tree metaphor consistent with the image of the stumbling (not falling) of some of the Jews/Israelites, in that he refutes any notion that this might imply that they might be “cut off or fallen and supplanted with non-Israelites, or that carnal Israel is replaced with spiritual Israel (i.e., the church) […]”75 Neither is the church replacing Israel, nor are the gentile Christ-followers entering the covenant or becoming part of Israel. In Christ there is a special place now for these non-Jews in God’s plan, but it is as co-heirs with Israel. Similar to Campbell, Nanos emphasises the maintained difference of Jews and gentiles in Christ. Paul characterizes the gospel consistently as “to the Jew first, but also to the Greek,” thus “the point is not to eliminate or deny ethnic identity, but to

Ibid., 74. 72 Stowers, Rereading. 73 Nanos, Mystery, 84. 74 This might be an allusion to Isa 42:3. 75 M.D. Nanos, “‘Broken Branches’: A Pauline Metaphor Gone Awry? (Romans 11:11– 24),” in Between Gospel and Election (ed. F. Wilk, J.R. Wagner; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 339–76, here 362. 71

370

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

keep its relative valuation in proper perspective.”76 This mutual dependence must translate into gentile accommodation to Jewish practice for unity to be possible. And although Paul strongly emphasizes that gentiles are not to convert to Judaism in their turning to Christ, they nevertheless are becoming closely related to a thoroughly Jewish message and social world. Nanos sees the Oneness of God, expressed in the Shema, as the core of Paul’s emphasis on diversity in Christ. In and through Christ these gentiles as gentiles now can come near the God of Israel, who is not the God of the Jews only but of the whole of creation. Paul’s purpose of Romans, according to Nanos is to clarify for the gentile Christ-followers there that the non-response to the gospel of many Jews is not what it seems to be, but part of God’s plan. In his task to proclaim the word of God to the gentile nations now that the age to come was beginning to arrive, he is anxious lest these gentiles through their arrogance and “super-mindedness” might cause those Israelites who have “stumbled” to fall. Thus Paul admonishes them that “they are to live righteously, which includes the demonstration of respect for Israelite covenant norms.”77 Paul hopes that when his fellow Jews will see the success of Paul’s mission – that is, the incoming of the gentiles – they eventually will join him in the proclamation of the good news of the arrival of the world to come and thus will be restored to their task of proclaiming God’s word to the nations.

Hermeneutical Presuppositions and Diversity Hermeneutical Presuppositions and Diversity

The approaches analysed in this article are taken as representative of certain trends in current Pauline studies in the context of the emergence of the New Perspective and Beyond. It is obvious that each of these is shaped by their specific hermeneutical presuppositions, which frame their respective exegesis and interpretation of Romans. They are part of specific contexts, academic and otherwise, they are part of specific conversations inside and outside academia. Thus Sanders can be seen as presenting his mould breaking revised image of first century Judaism in the aftermath of the major paradigm shifts in the 1970’s. He applied a comparison of religion approach in the context of the realities of multi-faith societies and in the context of the growing recognition that Christian anti-Judaism had had a detrimental influence on the rise of antiSemitism in 19th century Europe with its catastrophic outcome in the Shoah. As seen above, comparing Judaism with Paulinism could not lead Sanders to a

Nanos, “Broken Branches,” 372. 77 “‘Callused’ not ‘Hardened’: Paul’s Revelation of Temporary Protection Until all Israel Can Be Healed,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation (ed. K. Ehrensperger, J.B. Tucker; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 52–73, here 70. 76

Hermeneutical Presuppositions and Diversity

371

revised interpretation of Romans. Sanders rather than re-interpreting the Pauline letter compared a traditional reading of Paul, that is, Paulinism, with the revised image of Judaism. He thus re-established the notion of discontinuity between Judaism and Paul, that is, subsequent Christianity, in emphasizing the fundamental difference of the two “religions.” Dunn, concerned with aspects of theological continuity, and traditional doctrinal stances of justification by faith, and the salvation of the individual, recognized the potential of applying Sanders’ revised image of Judaism to the interpretation of Romans. He re-locates Paul within a specific kind of Judaism, distancing him from what he considers to be a distortion of Judaism, in its zealous insistence on a distinct ethnic identity. Dunn thus emphasizes continuity and discontinuity at the same time, and in his attempt to reclaim Paul as Jewish, he also re-introduced claims of the traditional perspective on Paul, in maintaining that true Judaism is actually realized in the church. This is most explicitly formulated in N.T Wright’s numerous writings where Israel and the Jews are conflated entirely into the church and continuity between Israel and the church is maintained at the expense of the existence of non-Christian Jews.78 The heritage of Israel is claimed fully by the church. There is no room for Jewish identity, the people Israel, except as the church, void of any Jewish identity markers, but rather fully gentile. Thus the New Perspective, in its most prominent voices, Dunn and Wright, actually re-introduces into Pauline interpretation the negative stereotyping of (part of) Judaism that Sanders had tried to overcome, and re-formulates a re-placement theology in an attempt to safeguard what are considered to be key Christian theological truths. The Scandinavian school on the other hand was in the first instance concerned with a challenge to the individualism of the dominating existentialist Bultmann school, which was seen as emphasizing the salvation of the individual at the expense of the community aspect of the gospel. The emphasis on the centrality of Romans 9–11 and the continuity of the “Old Testament” and the “New” must be seen in this context. Romans 9–11 was seen as the clear indication that what is at stake in Romans is not the salvation of the individual but the interaction of groups, and God’s activity in history. Paul is seen as an activist rather than a theologian in the first instance. This is the starting point of Stendahl’s, and also Campbell’s re-reading of Romans. It is the presupposition of the continuity of God’s activity on behalf of his people and of his creation. The theological concern leads them to the recognition that an emphasis on God’s faithfulness and on anti-Jewish interpretation of Romans is untenable. The theological concern for the continuity of God’s activity in the world is paired with the recognition that this can only be maintained in respectful recog-

Those who respond to Christ are “the people of God,” “the Israel of God,” N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 113. 78

372

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

nition of those “to whom belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises,” who are and remain different. Thus diversity within the Christ-movement, the recognition and respect for Jewish and gentile identity in Christ, is seen as a core aspect of what Paul advocates in Romans, not only for social reasons. Whether or not Jews are part of the Christ-movement, their identity has to be respected. This is the key factor in approaches of scholars who now are beginning to be grouped as the “Radical New Perspective.” A key hermeneutical presupposition is their concern about Christian anti-Judaism. Setting out to explore whether Paul can be attributed with interpretations which suggest that he developed his theology in antithesis to Judaism, their interpretations seek to demonstrate that this is not so. Paul’s embeddedness and theologizing from within Judaism is thus taken for granted, and continuity with the ancestral traditions is seen as being at the heart of Paul’s theologizing. Paul’s Jewishness is taken seriously by some to the extent that one could get the impression that in “Judaizing the nations,” gentile identity in Christ almost becomes irrelevant and disappears.79 A key aspect, shared in the reading of Romans from the stance “Beyond the New Perspective” in addition to the points already mentioned, is the attention which is paid to the actual or implied addressees of the letter. Those scholars who critically distance themselves from the New Perspective and claim that it did not fulfil the potential that had been opened up with Sanders, and thus moved “Beyond the New Perspective” emphasize that reading the letter as addressed to gentiles and specific issues of concern in the Roman communities leads to a significant shift in the understanding of the letter. Rather than addressing in a general and thus unclear, unspecific way “all humankind,” Paul’s writing should be seen as particular, speaking in a concrete way to particular people rather than making generalized theological statements.

Cf. P. Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56, 232–52, who presents an attempt not to anachronistically separate ethnicity and religion, and proposes rather than to refer to non-Jews as gentiles they should be called pagans in Christ,. These pagans in Christ are being judaized, that is, introduced to a Jewish symbolic life and have to learn what is implied in living a life in relation to the God of Israel. Fredriksen is careful to emphasize the distinction between Jews and non-Jews which she sees as maintained by Paul. She clearly states that “This distinction between Israel and the nations, and these convictions about God’s constancy, shape the most programmatic discussion that we have from Paul, namely his letter to the Romans.” Her attempt against a “spiritualization” of being “in Christ” identity as above ethnicity and thus universal is commendable, and her argument that the that non-negotiable dimension of being in Christ, the demand of worshipping exclusively the God of Israel is so Jewish that this demand can be described as ‘Judaizing’ is intriguing. But it might lead to obscuring Paul’s insistence that these Christ-followers from the non-Jewish nations should do this precisely as non-Jews. A similar problem arises with Johnson Hodge’s claims that “in Christ” identity is actually an ethnic, Jewish identity. C. Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). 79

Conclusions

373

Conclusions Conclusions

Interpretations of Romans by “New Perspective” and “Beyond” scholars are diverse and, as we have seen, framed by diverse hermeneutical presuppositions. It is thus impossible to summarize them under one or even two headings, be this “New Perspective,” “Radical New Perspective,” or “Beyond the New Perspective.” Even the scholars often subsumed under the “New Perspective,” and mentioned together as if they were one and the same, Sanders and Dunn, do not share in their interpretation of Romans although they share some of the presuppositions concerning the image of first century Judaism. However, there seems to be one aspect these diverse perspectives and interpretations share: Israel/Judaism is center stage in one way or another. It is thus not just the preference of the group of scholars who initiated the project Romans Through History and Cultures which led to the publication of the first volume under the title Reading Israel in Romans. The question of Israel is the question none of the diverse interpretations of the letter can bypass or omit. This maybe one of the key contributions of the New Perspective to which all subsequent interpretations in one way or another relate. It was Sanders’ forceful challenge of the distorted image of Judaism in New Testament scholarship that triggered the widespread recognition that this image impinged on all interpretations of Romans. Whilst Sanders adhered to the traditional perception of discontinuity between first century Judaism and Paul, which as we noted is the Paul of Paulinism, Dunn had set out to demonstrate that this revised image must have a direct impact on Pauline interpretation and the interpretation of Romans in particular, and thus tried to explore the interplay between continuity and discontinuity in the letter. This is where the conversation is continuing in all the perspectives beyond the New Perspective. Far from being a question confined to issues concerning social relations, that is, the relationship between Jewish and gentile Christ-followers, or non-Christ following Jews and Christ-following groups, as some interpreters assume, the intensity and continuation of the debate demonstrates that inherent to these issues of social relations are questions concerning the social as well as theological identity of Paul’s Christ-following groups. What is shared between scholars of the “New Perspective,” “Beyond the New Perspective” and the “Radical New Perspective” is the recognition that these aspects are inseparably intertwined in Paul. He theologizes contextually, and does so also in Romans. Whether justification by faith, or participation in Christ, or covenantal theology are perceived to be the core of Paul’s theologizing (if such a theologoumenon as a core has then to be identified) in Romans, whether questions concerning the law/Torah and the gospel, grace and works are considered central, the question of Israel has to be part of the theological thinking in as much as it was and remains part of social reality. Since the question of Israel and the ekklesia is explicitly addressed by Paul only in Romans, and specifically in Romans 9–

374

Chapter 18 The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond

11, it was central to start the series with a focus on this topic and these chapters.80 I do not see a problem in the fact that this focus of the “New Perspective” and “Beyond” and “Radical New Perspective” may at least to some extent be due to a concern about Jewish-Christian relations in the aftermath of the Shoah. If interpretation is contextual it would be strange if such a horrific event did not lead to a significant rethinking of scriptural interpretation and Christian theologizing. However, the image of Judaism played a significant part in the interpretation of scripture, and of Paul in particular in the history of interpretation for centuries prior to the events of World War II, albeit mostly in a negative way. Thus the focus on Israel as such has actually nothing to do with the events of the Shoah, but with the texts themselves. The necessity to revise interpretation in light of these recent events however does. In a sense Romans, and chapters 9–11 in particular are central to Paul’s theologizing. Not because this is his last will and testament, not because it is a summary of his theology, not because it is a systematic treatise, and not because of the Shoah, but because it deals, in a contextual way with a theologically, socially, and ethically central question of the gospel. Inherent to the question of Israel and the ekklesia is the question of “God’s character” – God’s faithfulness. In a sense all subsequent issues follow from this. Thus center stage in this question is God, everything else emanates from this center. Because of God’s faithfulness, Israel matters, the relationship between Israel and the ekklesia is important, the question of continuity-discontinuity derives from it, the question of salvation, the meaning of the Christ-event is inherent to it. But all of these aspects are outer circles, proceeding from and depending on what is central to Romans, that is, God’s faithfulness itself. This common denominator in “New Perspective” and approaches beyond the New Perspective, – the focus on Israel/Judaism – is not a side track important “only” in relation to social and ethnic issues, or issues concerning the relationship between Christians and Jews. New Perspective and beyond scholars in their diversity thereby actually focus on the center of Paul’s theologizing in Romans. It is striking that Romans, as before in the history of interpretation, and of the churches, is at the heart of most significant interpretative debates. The current debates and diverse approaches are of course contextual and the specific contexts in which they emerge significantly influence the respective hermeneutical presuppositions of the diverse readings. Hermeneutical presuppositions, rather than being regarded as a problem or even illegitimate, are part of the business of interpretation, and should not be deplored but recognized as part of our interpretive conversations. The diversity in approaches and emphases which is prevalent in current interpretations of Romans generally, and more

See D. Patte, “A Post-Holocaust Biblical Critic Responds,” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 222–45. 80

Conclusions

375

specifically among scholars of the “New Perspective” and “Beyond” may be indicative of some characteristics shared between Paul’s context and today. Paul lived and theologized in a context of cultural diversity, he theologized in conversation with others, in relation to concrete everyday life issues in his communities. This may render him the ideal partner in our theological conversations today in all their diversity, not dispensing us from our responsibility for the outcomes of our readings of Romans, but inviting us into an open conversation about the issues of living together that matter most today.







VI. Early Reception









19. Striving for Office and the Exercise of Power in the “House of God”: Reading 1 Tim 3:1–16 in Light of 1 Cor 4:1 Introducing Hierarchies? Introducing Hierarchies?

What seems to drive the first letter addressed to Timothy is a concern for how to live in the house of God, the assembly of the living God. The concern seems motivated as indicated in several passages (1:3–7; 4:1–3) by people/forces which confuse the brothers and sisters in this respect and the letter claims to provide guidance in this confusion. The emphasis in the verses with which this chapter is concerned seems to be on the introduction of some hierarchical church order which should support stability within the assembly,1 counter disruption by internal struggles,2 and maintain peace with the surrounding society (1 Tim 2:1–2).3 A significant number of scholars see in this the intention to accommodate the assemblies to the norms of the dominating Greco-Roman society, its values and patterns of life. The labels used for this process range from “catholicising,”4 introducing church order5, promoting a process of institutionalization6, introducing the episcopate and hierarchical structures, to promoting a process of “patriarchalisation,” including the introduction of misogyny into

M.Y. MacDonald, “Exhortations concerning leadership roles in the Pastorals provide evidence of a prevailing domestic ideal which apparently acts as an important means of stabilizing community life.” The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 220. 2 Cf. I.H. Marshall notes that “If anything about the circumstances of the PE is clear, it is that their immediate occasion is the development of groups within the churches which are regarded as opposed to the authority and teaching of Paul,” in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 41. 3 M.R. D’Angelo, “‘Knowing How to Preside over His Own Houshold’: Imperial Masculinity and Christian Asceticism in the Pastorals, Hermas, and Luke-Acts,” in New Testament Masculinities (Semeia 45; ed. S.D. Moore, J.C. Anderson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 265–95 (294). 4 E. Käsemann, “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (ed. E. Käsemann; London: SPCK, 1964), 5–9. 5 H. Schlier, “Die Ordnung der Kirche nach den Pastoralbriefen,” in Die Zeit der Kirche. Exegetische Aufsätze und Vorträge (ed. H. Schlier; Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 129–47. 6 Cf. D. Horrell, “From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity,” JBL 20/2 (2001), 293–311 (310); also MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 164, 220. 1

380

Chapter 19 Striving for Office

the assemblies of God.7 Depending on the perspective of the interpreter this is either negative or positive, a necessary evolution from the earliest days of the movement, the logical sequel to Paul’s undisputed letters, or a distortion of the original Jesus movement’s intentions.8 In whatever sense the letter is interpreted there seems to exist a widely held consensus that what we find in this letter are instructions to accommodate to the values of the surrounding society, a kind of appeasement policy at the expense of the challenging dimension of the gospel.9 When it comes to the interpretation of the verses in question, scholars have often assumed that the introduction of hierarchical offices in the assemblies of God is advocated here.10 The fact that the function of the ἐπισκοπή is closely associated with the role of the head of a household is interpreted as pointing clearly in that direction. In addition, e.g., the order in which the two named functions are presented in these “prescriptions” (not descriptions) is taken as an indication that the relationship between the two functions is hierarchical, the episcopate being the superior function over against the διάκονοι because it is mentioned first and the list of qualities required of an ἐπίσκοπος is longer.11 In addition the episcopate is perceived to have some superiority also over the “elders” mentioned in 4:14; 5:17. This assumption is accompanied in some interpretations with a reading of these verses in conjunction with 2:11–15 which are then seen as intending to silence and subordinate women generally under the authority of men.12 To summarize, most interpreters perceive the focus of 1 Tim 3:1–17, as of the letter as a whole to be the introduction or affirmation of an hierarchical church order, this being actually the main purpose of the letter.13 Thus the perception of 1 Timothy (and in most interpretations of the Pastorals as a whole) is that of a document which demonstrates the process of development in a new movement from being charismatic and thus following

E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM, 1995), 347–51; L. Schottroff, Lydia’s Impatient Sisters (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 104–19. 8 Schottroff, Lydia’s Impatient Sisters, 112. 9 As, e.g., J.W. Aageson maintains “Deeply embedded in the thought world of 1 Timothy is the image of a natural order to which people in the household of God ought to conform, the result of which is a tendency towards consolidation and conformity, rather than novelty and innovation.” In Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 35. 10 J.M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996). 11 See, e.g., Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 488. 12 Schottroff, Lydia’s Impatient Sisters, 106–07. 13 This seems to be the emphasis even when it is acknowledged that this is part of a wider goal, namely the missionary enterprise of the church as, e.g., by P.H. Towner, The Goal of our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 256–57. 7

Hierarchical from the Beginning

381

a charismatic leadership style to the institutionalization of power in hierarchical structures at the later stage of the movement.14

Hierarchical from the Beginning Hierarchical from the Beginning

However, recently some scholars have questioned this consensus and proposed alternative readings of 1 Timothy.15 In my own research I have demonstrated that the existence of asymmetrical relationships within the Christ-movement, and of hierarchies of authority is not a development of a later more institutionalized “church.” but is present also in the undisputed Pauline epistles. It is evident that Paul presupposes the existence of clear leadership roles with different degrees of hierarchies between these; there is, e.g., a hierarchical difference between apostles and other workers in the gospel, and between these and the communities.16 Already at this early stage there seem to exist certain named functions within the ἐκκλησίαι. In addition to the specific role of apostles17 different terms are used for these leadership functions, such as συνέργοι, διάκονοι, ἀδέλφος, although the specific task associated with such labels remains difficult to ascertain for sure.18 Thus in 1 Cor 4:1 Paul refers to himself and other apostles, in this case to Apollos in particular, also as ὑπηρέται, and οἰκονόμοι which implies a perception of leadership roles as being in a subservient position in relation to an authority. This perception of leadership roles in the Christ-movement is supported by the use of διάκονοι for Paul’s own service at various points as well (e.g., 1 Cor 3:5). The clearest reference to specific functions within the ἐκκλησίαι can be found in 1 Cor 12:28–29 where in addition to apostles a whole range of functions is listed: prophets, teachers, miracle workers, healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in tongues, and interpreters

Cf., e.g., E. Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1961). Horrell, “From ἀδελφοί,” 306–09, and to some extent also MacDonald, “It is indisputable that we find a more established or institutionalized church in the Pastorals than can be traced in other Pauline or deutero-Pauline writings.” Pauline Churches, 164. Approaches which argue for such a development in some form or another are based on Max Weber’s paradigm “from charismatic leadership to institution building,” Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Vol.1 (ed. G. Roth, C. Wittich; New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), 246, which is critically discussed by J.H. Schütz, Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 264–73. 15 Marshall sees a change reflected in the Pastorals which has to do with the absence of the first leadership generation, rather than the introduction of a hierarchical church order. Cf. Pastoral Epistles, 175. 16 Cf. K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 35–62. 17 Ibid., 37–45. 18 Ibid., 46–55. 14

382

Chapter 19 Striving for Office

play specific but different roles within the group.19 This is hardly a description of a spontaneous group which meets without any kind of structured order! Although the precise characteristics of this order and of hierarchies within it cannot be identified, it can hardly be denied that there were members in these groups who in specific contexts claimed power over others. Different functions, including leadership roles, are characteristic of the earliest Christ-movement.20 However, asymmetrical relationships and hierarchies need not be inherently expressions of dominating power structures. A number of factors contribute to dominating hierarchical structures, among them are the means to exercise force over against others and static arrangements of superiority and subordination. As long as they remain flexible and open to the members of the group in question hierarchies need not necessarily lead to domination and oppression.21 Thus hierarchical relationships as such need not be detrimental to a movement which emphasizes equality for all its members. Groups need to organize themselves and attribute certain functions to members in order for them to function. There is evidence for this already in the earliest Christ-movement and certainly in the undisputed Pauline letters. However, it is not possible to identify specific tasks for each of the named leadership roles, and certainly not the same task set for each role across all the undisputed Pauline letters. As with other topics each occurrence of such named roles needs to be evaluated in its specific literary and social context rather than assuming identical tasks for these roles across the letters.22 From this brief survey it can thus be concluded that neither hierarchies nor specific terms for certain leadership functions within the Christ-movement could have been later introduced to what were formerly so-called charismatic assemblies in a process of institutionalization.23 The model for such a development relies too uncritically on the paradigm set

With reference to the terms with which Timothy (and Titus) is addressed Marshall notes that they “do not significantly diverge from the picture of the apostolic co-worker that emerges in the main Pauline letters.” Pastoral Epistles, 172. 20 As, e.g., in 1 Cor 3:5–7; 12:28–29. See also A. Clarke who affirms that “irrespective of the absence of official titles in the early Pauline epistles, there is clear evidence that there were leaders in each of these communities.” A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 16. 21 On flexible hierarchies see J. Derrida, Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews 1971–2000 (ed. E. Rottenberg; Stanford University Press, 2002), 20–21. 22 Clarke in his fine study acknowledges the diverse contexts and the potential difference in tasks for the same named roles but tries to identify common themes for all the named leadership roles in the corpus Paulinum, thus claiming that “there was remarkable consistency across the Pauline congregations during the New Testament period,” Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, 73. 23 Cf. also Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, who maintains that “[…] the distinction sometimes drawn between an earlier charismatic ministryand a later institutional system of ‘office’ is inappropriate and should be dropped from the discussion,” 176. Also Clarke, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, 71–73. 19

Puzzling Hierarchical Relationships

383

out by F.C. Baur which combined with the sociological model of Weber resulted in the perceived “dichotomy between the early charismatic community of faith and incipient institutionalization.”24

Puzzling Hierarchical Relationships Puzzling Hierarchical Relationships

It should thus come as no surprise that evidence for the existence rather than the introduction of specific leadership roles can be found within 1 Timothy itself. The guidance given to “Timothy” by the author presupposes the existence of the roles of an ἐπίσκοπος and of διάκονοι, rather than arguing for the necessity of introducing such roles. As J. Herzer has argued convincingly “[…] the letter does not seek to establish a certain hierarchy in the community. Instead, the way the author speaks about these offices suggests that they are already established and structured.”25 The issue the author addresses is how to find appropriate candidates for these roles, not the roles as such. This may explain the absence of any description of what these roles actually encompassed, what their duties and tasks were within the assemblies.26 A role description would be required if the letter intended to introduce these functions, but if they are already established the addressee/s would know what they encompass. If the issue is who would be an appropriate candidate for such a role then it seems natural that what follows are characteristics a person should have rather than what they are supposed to do.27 The role seems to be so established that it is apparently superfluous to explain its function to the addressee. Unfortunately, this means that it remains unclear to contemporary readers what these functions actually encompassed precisely. In this article I deliberately do not use any of the possible translations for these terms, as there is so much history attached to them that I think they obscure rather than help to uncover potential meanings at the time of writing. Despite this obvious lack of information interpreters have tried to find hints in the text which may shed some light on the nature of, and the relationships between these roles. As mentioned above it has been argued that the order the roles are dealt with gives an indication of the hierarchy between these, ie since

W.A. Meeks, “Introduction to the Westminster John Knox Edition,” in Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (ed. J.H. Schütz; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007) xii–xxiv, here xx. 25 J. Herzer, “Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A Perspective on the Pastoral Epistles,” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in antiquity. Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (ed. A. Houtman; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 547–66, here 558. 26 Also Clarke, Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, 43. 27 Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 487; Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles and the Early Church, 22. 24

384

Chapter 19 Striving for Office

the epsicopate is mentioned first this must be the superior role over against διάκονοι.28 This is not convincing in my view as apart from later history there is no indication in the text which would lend itself as a basis for such a conclusion. The relationship between the two functions is not addressed at all (nor is the role of the elders and the relation between episcopate and elders is an issue later in the letter). It does not emerge conclusively that the episcopate implies superiority over the group of elders or over the διάκονοι. In addition, it is significant to note that “Timothy” and the author are referred to as διάκονοι – rather than as ἐπίσποκοι,29 whilst clearly claiming a leadership role probably even superior to the ἐπίσποκος. There is an interesting dimension one could derive from the use of the terms οἰκονόμος in 1 Cor 4:1 and of ἐπίσποκος in 1 Timothy – their range of meaning seems to cover roughly the same role/function in a group, organization, or institution. As a term which denoted the function of supervisors or leaders in diverse contexts in Greek societies it was used in the LXX in relation to civil and military leadership roles, including some which involved religious leadership (Num 31:14; Judg 9:28; Neh 9:11; Isa 60:17).30 There seem at least to be some similarities in that the οἰκονόμοι have to be trustworthy – a requirement which seems to be referred to in more detail in 1 Tim 3:2–4. Whilst there is no way by which a direct link between 1 Cor 4:1 and 1 Timothy 3 could be established it is worth noting the similarity. Whilst “Timothy” is clearly perceived and addressed as one who is in a leadership position this is not identified with the episcopate and the internal relationship between the specific functions mentioned in the letter, ἐπίσποκος, διάκονοι, πρεσβύτεροι, and widows remains mainly unclear. Thus a hierarchical relationship between ἐπίσποκος and διάκονοι cannot be established beyond doubt. Although there is a concern with the functioning of the community life and thus the relationships between its members, there are only fragmentary indications as to what these relationships actually imply. What emerges from this is that the relationship and thus the hierarchy between the terms and roles mentioned in 1 Timothy is impossible to establish. Thus the question arises, whether the characteristics of these relationships were presumed to be selfevident for the audience –or whether they were of no interest or importance to the writer and the addressee/s. Some scholars presume the first in that they

Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 488. 29 Cf. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 171. 30 Kathleen C. Corley recently argued that leadership roles in voluntary associations are the most likely source for these functions within the early Christ-movement, cf. Maranatha: Women’s Funerary Rituals and Christian Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 13–14, also R.S. Ascough, “Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Christian Communities: Overcoming Objections,” in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (ed. A. Gutsfeld, D.-A. Koch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 146–83 (162–9); however, Corley’s argument is based on Phil 1:1 and does not take “house” terminology into account. 28

Managing the House

385

assume that the reference to the “house” inherently implies that the relationships are more or less structured hierarchies according to the pattern prevalent in the Greco-Roman household.31 However, if the latter is assumed could this mean that we have here a glimpse of an insight into hierarchies on the one hand and the handling of these in a flexible way? To me this seems a plausible option which requires further research although I cannot pursue this in this article. However, it should be noted that the absence of clear references one way or another leaves room for interpretive explorations in more than one way.

Managing the House Managing the House

If an obvious hierarchy is seen as present here, with the ἐπίσποκος in the key leadership role, this is based on a combined reading of the description of this role in 3:1–7 and the reference to the οἶκος θεοῦ in 3:15.32 Thus Andrew Clarke maintains that The overseer has been the most neglected of the offices in Pauline studies, and yet it emerges that this is the essential post of leadership in all communities […] the essential requirement that an overseer is able to ‘manage his household’ is precisely because this is a fundamental element of the job description – and not merely evidence of the potential overseer’s character.33

It has further been argued that the characteristics required of ἐπίσποκοι and διάκονοι in conjunction with the reference in 1 Tim 3:15–16 of the assembly as the house of God is evidence for the accommodation of the church to the Greco-Roman household structure, even to Roman imperial family values. As, e.g., Jouette Bassler emphasizes “when the author conceptualizes the social structure of the church as household, he is following a familiar pattern, for Greek and Roman philosophers viewed the family as the microcosm of the empire.”34 There can be no doubt that the “house,” meaning the “family,” is the most important social unit of societies in antiquity.35 But it needs to be noted that this not only applied to the Roman empire but to societies in antiquity and

Aageson, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, 21–22; Clarke, Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, 87–88. 32 Thus I.H. Marshall maintains “The conceptual link between church and household is clear in v.5; the church/household analogy is not in itself an innovation […] but new ground is broken in developing the implications of the analogy into a concept of leadership,” Pastorals, 480; also Clarke, Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, 137. 33 Clarke, Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, 185. 34 Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 73. 35 Cf., e.g., D.L. Balch and C. Osiek, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997). 31

386

Chapter 19 Striving for Office

beyond in general. To emphasize the importance of this unit and to present certain values and characteristics of good “management” of the “house” as of relevance beyond the “house” is neither unique to Greco-Roman societies nor is it exceptional as such.36 To refer to it as an organisational unit meant to refer to the most important and widespread social structure known by the addressee/s. It is not per se a reference to Roman imperial values despite the fact that the “house” and family values as the key to the stability of the empire were promoted in a particular way in support of imperial ideology since Augustus’ ascent to power. They could only become an instrument of imperial power because all groups in the realm of the empire recognized their importance without any doubt. The construction of an ideology which required loyalty to the empire in the form of loyalty to the house of the emperor and the house deities associated with him was built on the strength of this omnipresent “institution” in societies subjugated by Roman power. This was done in a particular way with the emperor as the pater patriae – the Father of the House of the Roman empire who guarded over the loyalty/πίστις of the members of the house and through his own piety/εὐσέβεια to the ancestral gods guaranteed the success of the “house,” that is, the domination of the imperial house/ Rome over the “nations.”37 That this common social unit was used as an instrument in support of Roman imperial ideology and power cannot be doubted. Whether this renders this unit inherently and necessarily an instrument of imperial domination is another question. In my view the two aspects are frequently not dealt with separately and it is assumed that wherever reference to the “house,” “household” or family values and structures are made this must be an indication for the introduction of, or accommodation to, Roman imperial domination structures.38 Without a critical review of the evidence it cannot be assumed that the references to “houses” in the Pauline tradition are universally accountable for replicating and stabilizing the imperial order of domination. And although the structure of the “house” or “family” was patriarchal throughout this did not inherently hinder women from playing a significant and by no means subservient role in the “house,” this being a “women’s place,”39 the place where power was exercised

36

Cf. references to the house of Jacob, (Isa 2:5; 48:1), the house of David (2 Sam 7:16),

etc. 37 Cf. W.K. Lacey, Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of a System (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1996), 169–89; also N. Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 122–35. 38 Cf., e.g., L. Fatum, “Christ Domesticated: The Household Theology of the Pastorals as Political Strategy,” in The Formation of the Early Church (ed. J. Ådna; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 175–207. 39 Cf. Macdonald and Osiek who maintain “This constant theme tells us that, in spite of a veneer of male supervision in the household, it was really a system run by women. The

Managing the House

387

by women as, e.g., the term οἰκοδεσποτεῖν (1 Tim 5:14) indicates. What I wish to challenge here is the assumption that the reference to τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προιστάμενον (manage one’s own house) provides explicit or implicit evidence for the accommodation to Roman imperial family ideology in the early Christmovement. In addition to the noted general importance of the “house”/family in societies in antiquity I would like to highlight some further aspects on which my challenge is based: It has been noted that the characteristics which render someone a candidate either for the episcopate or as a διάκονος are for the most part “virtues lauded in the Greco-Roman world”;40 they represent “the ideal of moderation promoted broadly in Greco-Roman moral teaching.”41 Bassler also notes the absence of certain aspects she seems to expect to be mentioned in these lists “There is no theological grounding of these positions, no list of duties associated with them […] no spiritual requirements for them.”42 This may be not so surprising if it is taken into account that inherent to the “house” as the most important social unit was its role as a worshipping group. “The oikos/domus was a center of worship with its male head (kyrios/pater familias) as head of the unit, the wife (kyria/mater familias) also playing an important role.”43 Thus the “religious” dimension was an inherent part of the “house” and there seemed to be no necessity to mention any special aspect in relation to this. However, there is something more remarkable absent from the list, that is, noble birth, wealth, power and education, the characteristics expected from a leader of the Roman elite! 44 If the intention of this list were to introduce Roman imperial values of domination into the assemblies of God it would be strange not to find the most important expectations of a leader according to this ideology mentioned.45 This in my view is an indication that what is intended here is not accommodation to

household was women’s space.” M.Y. MacDonald and C. Osiek, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 152. 40 Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 63, cf. also T. Söding, “1 Timotheus 3: Der Episkopos und die Diakone in der Kirche,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. K. Donfried; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 63–86, here 77–79. 41 Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 67. 42 Ibid., 71. 43 Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 82; cf. also ibid., 83: “Everyone in the familia belonged to the family cult, including children and slaves, and in the Roman religion the whole household gathered daily to invoke the protection of its special deities and ancestors.” 44 S.S. Bartchy, “‘When I am Weak I am Strong’: A Pauline Paradox in Cultural Context,” in Kontexte der Schrift, Band II: Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache, Text. Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. C. Strecker; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 49–60, here 54–55; also Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 114–16. 45 Clarke notes the absence of certain titles (such as ἄρχων, ἀρχηγός, ἡγούμενος) but does not draw conclusions with regard to the potential political implications, cf. Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, 75–6.

388

Chapter 19 Striving for Office

the Roman imperial ideology and domination system but something else. In addition, the reference to the admonition in 2:2 to pray for “kings and all in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” has been perceived to support the argument for accommodation as being the driving issue in 1 Timothy. However, from the perspective of a tiny minority group at the margins and threatened if not by open persecution, nevertheless regarded with suspicion and in danger of being accused of disloyalty at any moment in time, this admonition rather than being an indication for accommodation to imperial values can be seen as a mere survival strategy. It is a possible strategy of minority groups when open resistance and rebellion would merely lead to destruction and bloodshed. 46 The focus on the “house” as a reference to Roman family ideology and thus issues of hierarchical structures within the “church” in my view misses a decisive point made in this passage in the context of the letter as a whole. As mentioned above the introduction of a hierarchical structure and thus accommodation to Roman imperial leadership values cannot be the purpose of the letter as evidence for hierarchical structures can already be found in the undisputed Pauline letters.47

Οἶκος Θεοῦ Οἶκος Θεοῦ

There is a specific focus on the “house” in this passage, but rather than paying special attention to the Greco-Roman “house” it is a focus on the “house of God,” which is further characterized as “the assembly of the living God,” followed by a piece of early hymnic Christ tradition. The significance of this subscript has been noted by Bassler among others: “This brief passage contains two of the most significant theological passages in this letter: the description of the church and the fragmentary Christian hymn.”48 However, Bassler does not attest any significance to this in conjunction with the references to the leadership functions in the immediate context of the passage, and any particular significance to the term “the living God” is dismissed as being irrelevant here.49 Jens Herzer and Thomas Söding in two recent articles attribute high theological significance to 1 Tim 3:15–16 as the decisive part for understanding of

Cf. K.-Y. Lim, “Reading Romans 13:1–7 with Multiple Lenses: Some Reflections from a Multi-Faith Context with Malaysia as a Test Case,” paper presented at the SBL International Meeting, Rome 2009. Also Herzer, “Rearranging the House of God,” 556–8, although he does not see the political implications of this. 47 Cf. also Herzer, “Rearranging the House of God,“ 559. 48 Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 77. 49 Ibid., 74. 46

Οἶκος Θεοῦ

389

1 Timothy 3 (which possibly begins even earlier with chapter 2:1).50 Söding maintains that the key aspect in 3:15–16 is the emphasis on the “house of God” understood as a reference to the temple. The author of 1 Timothy thus not only applies the term metaphorically to the ἐκκλησία but in Söding’s view actually perceives the ἐκκλησία as being the temple of God. In claiming that what is found here is a distinction between the profane (the actual household of 3:4–5) and the sacred, he emphasizes that what is in view in this passage is not the individual congregation but the church as a whole, the una sancta. As such the ἐκκλησία is the temple of the living God and as such represents the divine presence in the world. This temple ecclesiology is perceived as being present throughout the Corpus Paulinum.51 In arguing for such an exclusive identity between the ἐκκλησία and the presence of God, there can hardly be an room for the Jerusalem temple which moves this interpretation close to a replacement ecclesiology. 52 Herzer more cautiously maintains that “with regard to the semantic field […] οἶκος θεοῦ primarily evokes the idea of the congregation as God’s temple.”53 I have some reservations against an interpretation which perceives this reference as invoking God’s temple as directly as Söding, and to some extent also Herzer imply, but I agree that the focus of the passage is on the presence of God in this “house,” and among this “assembly.” 54 The reference to the ἐκκλησία as “temple of God” in 2 Cor 6:16 is already evidence of a metaphorical use of the temple image in relation to the ἐκκλησία in the undisputed Pauline epistles; but rather than being an implicit criticism of the Jerusalem temple this metaphor only makes sense when a positive appreciation of the temple is associated with it.55 It is worth noting that the temple in the Corinthian passage is characterized as the “temple of the living God,” the same characterization found in 1 Tim 3:15 for the ἐκκλησία. The context of the Corinthian passage makes it clear that to be part of an assembly of the “living God” requires the

I.H. Marshall has emphasized the significance of this passage as follows “The theology of the church given in 3.15 is central to the instruction of the letter […]. In connection with vv.14 and 16, it indicates that what has been said in the letter is in effect an instruction about the behaviour in the house of God,” Pastoral Epistles, 498. 51 Söding, “1 Timothy 3,” 80. 52 As is evident in the explanatory note 70 (page 82) in Söding’s article. Donfried also argues that “There is sufficient linguistic evidence in the Pauline letters to suggest that Paul viewed his communities as being replacements for the Temple […]” and claims that this is “the emphasis in 1 Timothy as well,” K.P. Donfried, “Rethinking Scholarly Approaches to 1 Timothy,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered, 177. 53 Herzer, “Rearranging the House of God,” 560. 54 Cf. the convincing references to “house of God” as temple in Söding, “1 Timothy 3,” 81 n.64. 55 Thus I cannot see any “new temple” image used here by the author nor any indication that the temple image which is invoked refers to a new dwelling place of God which would replace the “old” temple. There is no old/new terminology inherent in this passage. 50

390

Chapter 19 Striving for Office

active dissociation of the members from certain practices of the Greco-Roman society they live in. In view of this I share to some extent Herzer’s doubt […] that the lexeme οἶκος θεοῦ in this particular context functions as a metaphor of the community structured according to ancient household codes and that in the semantic framework the common translation of οἶκος as “household” is appropriate at all.56

However, both Söding and Herzer consider the significance of this passage to lie in the clear distinction it draws between the profane and the religious or sacred realm. This is a significant insight but at the same time a rather narrow perception of the passage and it raises the question whether such a distinction actually can be claimed for the period in question given the fact that the “house” was a social as well as a “religious” unit.57 Thus to draw a distinction between the two aspects according to the parameters proposed by Herzer and Söding is problematic in my view. However, their caution against the assumption that οἶκος here primarily invokes the household structures of Greco-Roman society is commendable. It draws attention to the fact that this house is referred to as οἶκος θεοῦ. The two aspects present in this passage, the “house” as the fundamental social unit of society and the “house of God” as a metaphor for the ἐκκλησία of the living God indicate that there is something going on here, which could possibly be described as a process of negotiation between accommodation and resistance. 58 Mary Rose d’Angelo has argued that the distinction between accommodation to the dominating ideological discourse and social structures and dissociation from, or resistance to, these are “mutually dependent reactions.”59 As mentioned above, the fundamental significance of the social unit of the “house,” that is, the “family” throughout societies in antiquity and the “family values campaigns mounted by successive emperors from Augustus to Hadrian”60 cannot be entirely irrelevant with regard to 1 Timothy 3. Thus the emphasis on leadership characteristics which conform to Greco-Roman values could be seen as an accommodating move within the Christ-movement, although I doubt that it actually introduces something entirely new to the movement. But to see this as the emphasis of the passage actually misses the point which the author makes here in my view. The subscription vv. 14–16 explicitly states the purpose of the passage and in my view clearly indicates its key focus – the admonitions (which I think start actually in 2:1ff.) provide guidance for

Herzer, “Rearranging the House of God,” 559. 57 Cf. n. 45 above. 58 M.R. D’Angelo, “Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals,” Biblical Interpretation 11.2 (2003), 139–65, here 163. 59 D’Angelo, “Roman Imperial Family Values,” 164. 60 D’Angelo, “Roman Imperial Family Values,” 162; also J. Glancy, “Protocols of Masculinity in the Pastoral Epistles,” in New Testament Masculinities (ed. S.D. Moore, J.C. Anderson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 235–64, here 240. 56

Οἶκος Θεοῦ

391

the life of “the assembly of the living God” which is actually the “house of God.”61 They provide guidance for life in the realm of the presence of God. Clearly this is not any kind of “house” in Greco-Roman society, despite some shared features with such a “house,” this is actually the “house of God.” The fact that subsequent interpretation and its impact in the history of the church emphasized the aspect of accommodation according to Greco-Roman household codes and thus contributed, as some scholars have argued to the “domestication of faith in Christ,” cannot mean that an alternative reading is not viable, more likely even closer to the historical context. The least that can be asserted is that there is a tension between the more accommodating admonitions and the urge to lead a “quiet and peaceable life” (2:2) and the emphasis on this “house” as the “house of God” followed by a creedal hymn which in no uncertain terms talks of the Epiphany and the justification of someone other than any of the deities or rulers of the empire. The implicit contrast between this “house” and the “house of Caesar” present in the public representation of Roman rule can hardly be incidental.62 This is the “house” not of Caesar or any other power or authority but solely and exclusively the house of God – who is further characterized as the “living God.” In the context of imperial ideology which presented the emperor as the pater patriae and thus implied that the empire was a “house”/family with the emperor as the pater familias, who required loyalty and pietas to himself and the deities of the empire63, this establishes a loyalty claim which constitutes not an open but nevertheless a hidden form of resistance.64 The peculiar term “living God” supports the drive of this argument in that it has been demonstrated that this term specifically occurs in scriptural contexts where a distinction or contrast between the “living God” of Israel and other deities/idols is made.65 This is noted by Bassler, but dismissed as not significant here, and Goodwin, although working out the significance of the concept, considers it only relevant for missionary purposes. The key element of the alternative claim of power, which actually constitutes a hidden transcript of resistance is not in view in Goodwin’s monograph.66 But he clearly notes that the term is used as a marker in the scriptures to distinguish the God of Israel from

Marshall noted this as the key emphasis here as well, cf. Pastorals, 508. 62 N. Elliott makes this claim with regard to Romans – the application of his insights in the Arrogance of Nations has informed my reading of 1 Timothy. Cf. 72. 63 D’Angelo, “Roman Imperial Family Values,” 142. 64 J.C. Scott, Domination and the Art of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts of Power (New Haven, 1990). 65 I am indebted here to Edward Pillar, my former PhD student, who has alerted me to the significance of the term in 1 Thess 1:9b. Cf. his Resurrection as Anti-Imperial Gospel: 1 Thessalonians 1.9b-10 in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 145–76. 66 M.J. Goodwin, Paul: Apostle of the Living God: Kerygma and Conversation in 2 Corinthians (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001), 204–06. 61

392

Chapter 19 Striving for Office

other deities which are thus characterized as dead.67 If it is taken into account that in the passage which immediately follows 1 Tim 3:15–16, the danger of “departing from faith” is addressed, the emphasis on the ἐκκλησία as the “ἐκκλησία of the living God” again is hardly incidental. The passage concluding the guidance on how to live as the ἐκκλησία of the living God (vv.15–16) can be seen as evidence that 1 Timothy 3 is an attempt to negotiate life in the Christ-movement in the “shadow of empire” by arguing for the necessity to try to live in peace as a means to survive in a more or less hostile environment but at the same time to emphasize that this does not mean that the loyalty of this group should be directed to the parameters of the dominating ideology of this society. To keep the peace is a means of protection but not at the expense of accommodation. The hidden transcript of resistance is inscribed into the seemingly accommodating sections in no uncertain terms. And the primary loyalty and parameters of orientation are set in clear distinction from the “powers of this world.” The piety/ἐυσέβεια owed to the empire in the form of pietas/ἐυσἐβεια devoted to the emperor who was presented as the personification of true piety to the deities of Rome was all prevailing in the empire.68 The reference to τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον in v.16 maintains that the loyalty of this “assembly of the living God” is to the one confessed in the subsequent hymn, one who was ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,that is, vindicated, which implies that he had suffered a previous act of injustice against him. From the perspective of imperial ideology and practice these “assemblies of the living God” were impious/ἄσεβης. However, through the consistent emphasis on true ἐυσέβεια/pietas throughout the letter the author insists that the implicit refusal to devote pietas/ἐυσέβεια to the emperor, does not mean that these assemblies are ἀσέβής but to the contrary they are truly pious/ εὐσεβής in their exclusive loyalty to the “living God.”

Conclusion Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that although the passage 1 Timothy 3 does build on the significance of the “house” in societies in antiquity, and resonates with the “family values” campaigns of successive emperors, this does not provide evidence for the introduction of hierarchical structures into the Christ-movement, as such are already evident in the undisputed Pauline letters. Thus the emphasis of the passage cannot be on accommodation to the Greco-Roman ideology, as has often been claimed, nor is it evidence for the institutionalization of a previously charismatic movement. The key to the purpose of the passage is seen

For references see Goodwin, Paul: Apostle of the Living God, 3–5. 68 Cf. Elliott, Arrogance of Nations, 121–28. 67

Conclusion

393

in vv. 14–16 which clarify that the “house” for which some guidance concerning the choice of leaders is given in vv. 1–13 is the house which owes piety/ ἐυσέβεια not to the emperor but to the “living God.” To strive for office or be prepared to serve in a leadership role and exercise power in this movement does not inherently imply to strive for honour and office as understood among the Roman elite of the time. Rather than shaping leadership roles in accordance with ideal leaders of the dominating society, the paradigm for leaders in this movement would come from Jewish scriptural tradition and earliest Jesus traditions. Paul’s reference to the gentleness and humbleness of Christ in 2 Cor 10:1 seems to be such an early Jesus tradition and is probably an indication for the presence of such a paradigm in the early Christ-movement.69 Read in light of the hymn in v. 16, the reference to the danger of departure from faith in 4.1, and the hope to live a life in peace and quiet (2:2), 1 Tim 3:1–16 appears to be a hidden transcript of resistance to the dominating powers rather than a call to accommodate to the ideology of the empire. Read in this vein the passage 1 Tim 3:1–16 provides insight into the attempt of early Christ-followers to negotiate their life as participation in Christ70 “in the shadow of the empire” between accommodation and resistance.

See also Ehrensperger Paul and the Dynamics of Power, 111–14 and 187–91. 70 Cf. W.S. Campbell, “Covenantal Theology and Participation in Christ: Pauline Perspectives on Transformation,” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations (ed. R. Bieriger, D. Pollefeyt; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 41–60. 69















20. Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories According to 1 Timothy Already during his lifetime different images/perceptions of Paul were likely prevalent in the communities he founded and possibly even beyond these.1 In different contexts, and depending on the issue, the relationship to the people with whom he was involved as well as the topic, purpose, and aim under discussion, different people would have experienced him differently. He claims to be an apostle, but this role and title was contested by others (Luke), and not merely those in fundamental disagreement with him, as some in Galatia might have been. He was weak and unimpressive in one sense (2 Cor 11:30) but powerful and authoritative in another (his letters are weighty etc., 2 Cor 10:10); he was a fool but claimed respect (2 Cor 11:16; 12:11). In addition to such divergent impressions or self-presentations he produced among people, there are statements in his undisputed letters which when compared with each other seem contradictory.2 It is thus certainly no surprise that his “afterlife” is multifaceted even among those who claim to represent his legacy as the Pastoral Epistles explicitly do.3 The “afterlife” in the Pastoral Epistles should not be summarized under one image but rather the three letters should be considered in their own right as individual letters with specific aims and purposes.4 Thus I will consider aspects of 1 Timothy here specifically, without drawing on information and aspects of the other Pastorals. It is relevant that the letter to Titus presents a different context by locating the addressee in Crete (Tit 1:5) rather than in Ephesus. Even if this is fictional, the fictional contextualization should be taken into account in the interpretation of each of the three letters as their explicit aim to present a different contextual scenario.

W.S. Campbell, “Divergent Images of Paul and His Mission,” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (ed. C. Grenholm, D. Patte; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 187–211. 2 Ibid. 3 J. Lieu, “The Battle for Paul in the Second Century,” Irish Theological Quarterly 75.1 (2010), 3–14, here 3. 4 M. Engelmann, Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen zum literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2012); J. Herzer, “Abschied vom Konsens? Die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe als Herausforderung an die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 129 (2004), 1267–82. 1

396

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

1 Timothy claims to address Timothy as Paul,5 and Pauline allusions can actually be found throughout. The claim to interpret Paul authoritatively is evident in this letter by lending him a fictive voice and addressing a close coworker in a fictive way.6 Whether the letter is a real letter addressing a specific situation or rather a literary product written more generally for the purpose of preserving and transmitting tradition and establishing normative rules in the Christ-movement at the end of the first or beginning of the second century CE is controversially debated. I cannot add to this debate here.7 The fictional aspect I am focusing on here is not a real letter or literary construct (where exactly is the boundary to be drawn to define the genre?), but the image presented of Paul and the addressee, and some implications this has for interpreting specific passages of 1 Timothy. A key feature of 1 Timothy is the clear depiction of Paul as διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν (1 Tim 2:7). This characterizes the claimed image of Paul in clear succession of Paul’s self-presentation in the undisputed letters as ἀπόστολος ἔθνων (Rom 11:13; cf. also 1:5; 15:18; Gal 1:16; 2:9). Paul is remembered as διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν and as the one who had fully proclaimed the message to the ἔθνη (4:17).8 Thus in 1 Timothy a number of issues are addressed that have to do with the understanding of Pauline guidance to those from the ἔθνη in Christ. This identification of Paul implies that the “fictional” addressee Timothy as the γνησίον τέκνον ἐν πίστει (1:2) is perceived as the loyal and reliable transmitter of precisely this legacy of Paul, namely, of the focus on the ἔθνη in Christ. He is imagined as providing guidance to a gentile assembly in Christ in Ephesus (1:3).9 Like Paul, he himself is Jewish (according to Acts 16:1–2),

On the pseudonymous authorship see the extended discussion in I.H. Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 57–92. 6 Despite the clear authority claims in the Pastorals, the diversity of interpreting Paul is maintained in the New Testament in that other letters which claim such authority in the name of Paul are part of the canon as well, and thus no unified univocal interpretation of Paul is presented. The pragmatic theologizing that I think is prevalent in the undisputed Pauline letters is preserved in the lively differences of his afterlife in Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals. 7 Cf. J. Herzer, “Die Pastoralbriefe im Licht der dokumentarischen Papyri,” in Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur (ed. R. Deines, J. Herzer, K.-W. Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 319–46 (324); also M. Mitchell, “PTEBT 703 and the Genre of 1 Timothy: The Curious Career of a Ptolemaic Papyrus in Pauline Scholarship,” Novum Testamentum 44.4 (2002), 344–70. 8 In view of the discussions concerning the translation of ἔθνη, I will leave the term untranslated where possible, use “nations” if a translation is needed, and resort to “gentiles” if it is grammatically unavoidable. 9 I am not discussing the composition of the assemblies in Ephesus as such here, nor am I contesting that there were Jewish Christ-followers present in Ephesus, or that there were mixed assemblies there. But the focus in this letter is not on Jewish Christ-followers, nor on 5

Jewish Traditions for ἔθνη in Christ

397

thus 1 Timothy creates an image which replicates the relationship of Paul, the Jewish apostle to the ἔθνη, with “Timothy” being the Jewish leader encouraged by “Paul” in his role as a guide of an ἐκκλησία ἐθνῶν or of people from the nations in the assembly.10 Thus the issues addressed are issues concerning ἔθνη in Christ. The advice and guidance are specific rather than universally addressing all who are in Christ. But similar to the undisputed Pauline letters, the guidance provided is clearly envisaged as rooted in Jewish traditions in as much as these are applied to ἔθνη. This is not to deny trajectories of traditions of the ἔθνη in the letter as well.11 Speaking at a different period, 1 Timothy provides insight into the further development of the cultural translation process under way in relation to Christ-followers from the nations.12

Jewish Traditions for ἔθνη in Christ Jewish Traditions for ἔθνη in Christ

Traditionally, so-called opponents are a key focus in the interpretation of the letter. The νομοδιδάσκαλοι are immediately at the center of the discussion as they are mentioned before a proper greeting at the opening of the letter (1:7).13 Interpreters identify them as Jewish opponents, their trajectories subsequently being found throughout the letter, their Jewishness being varied in some cases and they are thus also labeled as Jewish gnostics or gnostic Judaizers. This identification is based on the occurrence of “the falsely called knowledge” (τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως) at the end of the letter.14 Undoubtedly, aspects of Jew-

the interaction between Jewish and non-Jewish Christ-followers, but on guidance for ἔθνη in Christ. On the composition of Christ-following communities generally see P. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 104–54. 10 I am not discussing the identity of the “real” author of 1 Timothy, and whether or not he is Jewish, but merely the fiction presented here. Concerning the “real” author, see, for example, Herzer, “Die Pastoralbriefe,” 322. 11 A.J. Malherbe, “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth 1 Timothy 6:3–19: Part II,” Novum Testamentum 53 (2011), 73–96; C. Hutson, “‘Saved through Childbearing’: The Jewish Context of 1 Timothy 2:15,” NovTest 56 (2014), 392– 410, here 394. 12 K. Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 90–101, here 131–39. 13 Cf. W.D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, World Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 27–29; and J.M.Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 38–41. 14 For a discussion, see J.L. Sumney, ‘Servants of Satan,’ ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 253–302; cf. also J. Herzer, “Was ist falsch an der ‘fälschlich so genannten Gnosis’? Zur Paulusrezeption des Ersten

398

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

ish traditions are under discussion among those whom the addressee is supposed to “instruct” (1:3: παραγγείλῃς) so that they may not teach another gospel. There is no immediate and obvious indication that those who need such instruction are “opponents” who sneaked into the community, rather they are presented as located within the realm to which Timothy is supposed to reach out. Timothy should “instruct” these (1:3: τίνες) who actually would like to be teachers themselves. This means that Timothy is presented here first as a teacher of teachers rather than of the community as a whole! There seems to be some confusion (in “Paul’s” view) concerning the right understanding of the gospel on the part of these teachers (1:4: προσέχειν μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις) – and one aspect which bears the risk of ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν is their understanding of the Torah.15 It is not evident that these θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι (1:7) are actually Jews themselves. There is no reference to “those of the circumcision” as in Tit 1:10, nor to Ἰουδαικοῖς like in Tit 1:14. I also do not consider it helpful to primarily draw analogies to so-called gnostic heretics here and conflate the information that they are inclined to tell myths and genealogies with the ψευδωνύμος γνώσις (6:20). It is rather striking that these Christ-followers are not called νομοδιδάσκαλοι but θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι. In my view this indicates that they aspire to be teachers of the Torah, but are actually not in the eyes of the author. They could either be Jews or gentiles. Interestingly, their wish to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι is not refuted, it is rather their lack of understanding that constitutes the problem (1:7b). They are not (yet) νομοδιδάσκαλοι in the proper sense, they miss the τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας (1:5) and need further instruction and guidance in the appropriate interpretation of the Torah to be provided by Timothy (1:8: Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι καλὸς ὁ νόμος ἐάν τις αὐτῷ νομίμως χρῆται [“We know that the law is good, if one acts towards it/in relation to it appropriately”]).16 The law undoubtedly has a function also for those from the nations who are in Christ but there is no principle controversy discernable here, rather the issue is their accurate understanding of the Torah. That the interpretation of the Torah appears right at the beginning of the letter indicates the relevance of Jewish traditions for the teachers of this group as well as for the group as such. It is not an indication of Judaizers nor to an abrogation of the law. Rather the discussion is about the accurate understanding of the Torah for ἔθνη in Christ. This touches on similar discussions in the undisputed Pauline letters (i.e., Romans 2 and 7, Galatians

Timotheusbriefes im Kontext seiner Gegnerpolemik,” Early Christianity 5 (2014), 68–96, here 69. 15 Note that Timothy is to prevent such ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν from happening – it is a risk, but it is not evident that such ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν has already been established. 16 Cf. Herzer, “Was ist falsch,” 78. Cf. also L.T. Johnson, “First Timothy 1,1–20: The Shape of the Struggle,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. K. Donfried; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 3–39, here 27.

Jewish Traditions for ἔθνη in Christ

399

3). The Torah and its relevance in an accurate understanding on the part of ἔθνη in Christ is part of the symbolic universe they have entered. The Jewish traditions and their accurate understanding remain core to Christ-followers from the nations also in this letter. Further aspects indicate these affinities to Jewish traditions throughout the letter as Christopher Hutson recently has pointed out.17 In addition to the reference to the Torah right at the beginning of the letter, Hutson notes that in the thanksgiving formula in 1:17, the doxology τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων resonates strongly with the doxological expression melekh ha-‘olam, one of the designations for God in later Jewish liturgical tradition. There are antecedents to this designation as in Jer 10:10 and Ps 10:16, in Greek-Jewish traditions like Tob 13:7, 11, as well as in Enoch traditions (1 En 9:4; 12:3; 25:3, 7; 27:3). Of particular interest is the doxology in 1 En 84:2: “Blessed are you, O Great King, you are mighty in your greatness, O Lord of all the creation of heaven, King of kings and God of the whole world.” The formulations in this text strongly resonate and possibly contributed to the statutory synagogue blessing, “Blessed are you O Lord our God, King of the universe.” This indicates that melekh ha-‘olam clearly was a doxological expression already in the Second Temple period. A fragment from the synagogue in Dura Europos (dating from the third century) begins with baruk melech ha-‘olam and thus demonstrates that the formula was firmly established by that time. 1 Tim 1:17 is evidence of the use of this Jewish doxology already in the late first or early second century.18 Not only the designation βασιλεύς τῶν αἰώνων is noteworthy but also the blessing of God (τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ), which is found in close proximity to this passage (1:11), and again in the doxology at the end of the letter in 6:15 (ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης). This is a peculiarly Jewish way of referring to God that, together with other terminology such as the Oneness of God (2:5; 6:15–16), his invisibility, and eternal reign, indicates the Jewish context of the author and the message conveyed. The reference to the Oneness of God obviously is an expression indebted to the Shema (LXX Deut 6:4) and evidently was a standard creedal formulation in the Second Temple period.19

Hutson, “Saved through Childbearing.” 18 Cf. the discussion in Hutson, “Saved through Childbearing,” 395–96. 19 Philo, Op. Mund. 171; cf. Leg. All. 3:105; Cher. 83; Somn. 1:229; Spec. Leg. 1:30; Josephus, Ant. 3:91; 4:01; 5:97. This formulation of course also became a hallmark of later Christian identity. Hence it is found in Jewish and Christian funerary inscriptions (for a list of εἷς θέος inscriptions, cf. E. Peterson, ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, (repr. with appendices ed. C. Markschies; Würzburg: Echter, 1926; repr. 2012), 375–555. Although there are also pagan monotheistic expressions, the context here and in other instances can be identified as clearly Jewish – hence the expression, in combination with other aspects mentioned, undoubtedly refer to the one God acclaimed and confessed in the Shema. For pagan monotheism, see S. Mitchell and P. 17

400

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

These doxological expressions are complemented by references to God as the “living God” (3:15; 4:10). It is also found in three passages of the undisputed Pauline letters (Rom 9:26; 2 Cor 3:3) of which 1 Thess 1:9 is probably the most illuminating in relation to the passages in 1 Timothy. In 1 Thess 1:9 the reference to θεῷ ζῶντι is made in contrast to the εἰδώλα from which the Thessalonians have turned away to “the living and true God.” The juxtaposition set is between idols who are characterized elsewhere by Paul as mute, but certainly ineffective, and God who affirms his presence and power again and again (e.g., in the prophets with reference to himself as being alive: LXX Ezek 5:11; 14:20; 16:48; 17:16). The compound θεός ζῶν is found in LXX Isa 37:4, 11; whereas in LXX Jeremiah the phrase ζῇ κύριος is frequent (5:2; 12:16; 16:14–15; 22:24; 23:7–8; 26:18). Since Paul explicitly refers to the living God in contrast to gentile Christ-followers’ previous loyalties, it might be justified to consider such an emphasis also in 1 Tim 3.15 and 4:10. Added weight to this suggestion comes from the resonance of two further lexemes, namely, ἀληθείαand στρέφ-related terms both in 1 Thess 1:9 and 1 Tim 3:15. While in Thessalonians the addressees are greeted as those who have turned to the living and true God (which implies that they now live according to this orientation), in 1 Tim 3:15 the guidance provided just previously is given so that Timothy may know how those who belong to the assembly of the living God ought to live their lives (ἀναστρέφεσθαι) in that they are now the στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. All of these designations and doxologies of the one God seem to be normal, and the most obvious way to refer to God in light of later Christian self-understanding. But at the end of the first and beginning of the second century CE, this was all but a self-evident way of designating and praising a deity, especially as the one and only One, for Christ-followers who formerly had been used to worship numerous deities. The language of referring to this God and the implications of the commitment to the One were first and foremost a Jewish tradition. The narrative of belonging that evolved in relation to the Christ-event for those from the non-Jewish nations was deeply permeated with the narrative of belonging of the people Israel. To find this theo-poetical language with reference to the one God in 1 Timothy is thus evidence for the continued Jewish indebtedness of “Paul,” “Timothy,” and the ἐκκλησία, which “Timothy” is encouraged to lead and guide.

Van Nufelen, One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); and especially N. Belayche, “Deus deum […] summorum maximus (Apuleius): Ritual Expression of Distinction in the Divine World in the Imperial Period,” in One God: Studies in Pagan Monotheism and Related Religious Ideas in the Roman Empire (ed. S. Mitchell, P. Van Nufelen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 141–66.

Jewish Traditions for ἔθνη in Christ

401

The prayer for kings and rulers in general (2.2), rather than worshipping them, is again modeled on Jewish practice in attempts at securing good relations and political protection in majority societies.20 This was all the more important for the Christ-following gentiles – if they were noted as different from Jews, while abstaining from offering to their traditional deities.21 Further indication of the Jewish context is the exhortation to Timothy to keep paying attention to τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ (4:13). It resonates with the practice peculiar to Jewish synagogue settings of the first century CE as is evident from Philo (Omn. Prob. Lib. 82; Somn. 2:127), Josephus, and also the Mishnah.22 The reading of scriptures and teaching practice is an identity-shaping aspect of Jewish tradition, certainly after the exile, with Ezra being depicted as the paradigmatic public proclaimer and teacher (Neh 8:1–8). This identity-shaping dimension is also found in Deut 31:11–13 and in the narrative of the finding of the “book” that triggered the reform of Josiah (2 Chron 34:18–30). These narratives depict the public reading of the Torah as being performed in the assembly to reaffirm the relationship of the people with their God and remind them of their identity as God’s people. Remembering through hearing constitutes an act of identity performance encompassing all – men, women, and children. This may be an idealized image, but even as an ideal, it certainly had an impact as there is no doubt that this public performance continued and continues to be decisive for the identity of the Jewish people throughout the centuries. The Christ-followers from the nations were being familiarized and socialized into this (Israel’s) narrative of belonging, as

Cf. Josephus, War 2.409–10; Pirke Avot 3.2; Jer 29:7. 21 Hutson, “Saved through Childbearing,” presents a detailed interpretation of 1 Tim 2:13–15 in light of Jewish traditions, although he refers exclusively to later rabbinic traditions. This renders these analogies more tentative in my view than Hutson assumes, but they point to an aspect that certainly requires further research: since former pagan female Christfollowers were obviously not to seek protection in the life-threatening liminal stage of giving birth to a child through the invocation of protective deities, this protection necessarily needed to be sought elsewhere. There can be no doubt that Jewish women adhered to practices that asked and were supposed to grant such protection, although, as far as I am aware, little is actually known in this regard for this period. As with other aspects of everyday life that had to be lived in loyalty to the one God, guidance for former pagan women and men was really only available through Jewish practice. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that Jewish practice and perceptions were guiding parameters for the connection made in 2:15 between being kept safe during the process of giving birth and μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης. It remains unstated, however, that such protection would now also be granted through the one God to those from the nations (Hutson, “Saved through Childbearing,” 399–406). 22 Cf. m. Meg. 4.3: “If there are less than ten present they may not recite the Shema with its benediction, nor may one go before the Ark, nor may they lift up their hands, nor may they read [the prescribed portion] of the law or the readings from the prophets, nor may they observe the stations.” 20

402

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

those from the nations who now also worshipped the one God. How precisely this process is to be envisaged is another question. It is somewhat surprising that most commentators and translations assume that the admonition given to Timothy refers to the public reading of scripture.23 While the string of reading, exhortation, and teaching does actually provide an indication that this is what might be meant, this is far from obvious when it is considered that such public reading would most likely have involved physical access to the scriptures, that is, scrolls of the Torah and the Prophets. Does this imply that Christ-followers from the nations had their own scrolls? Would they have had copies of the LXX? In what form was the LXX present in Jewish communities? Was it different from the Hebrew scrolls? If the gentile Christ-followers had their own copies, who would have financed them? Who would have copied them? And where would they be stored during the week? If they did not have their own copies of the scriptures, where could they get access if not in the context of synagogue communities? Thus the admonition to Timothy to continue with the “reading” raises questions concerning its practicality – which leads to questions concerning the social setting of the addressees. The reading of scriptures had certainly an identity-shaping function in Jewish tradition and this aspect is implicated here for the Christ-followers from the nations as well. In order to learn to relate to the God of Israel through Christ, it was indispensable for them to be inducted into the understanding of the scriptures. But this inherently leads to the question of the social setting in which such teaching and learning would have taken place. If it is assumed that the “reading” refers to the reading of the scriptures, the identity-shaping aspect of teaching and learning through them is thus also applied to the addressees – although not as the people Israel but as those from the nations through Christ.24 The guidance concerning widows and the payment of elders for their teaching and preaching is rooted in Jewish scriptural tradition, although the latter especially is probably also an allusion to Paul’s reference to scripture in his debate with the Corinthians about leadership credentials (1 Cor 9:9). That women should be quiet during the meetings of the assembly (1 Tim 2:11–12) resonates with Paul’s guidance in 1 Cor 14:34–36 (if the latter is not considered an interpolation). I have argued earlier that the guidance might have something to do with the appropriate conduct in a gender-mixed assembly, which is presupposed as the normal way for those in Christ to come together. Nevertheless, gender distinction and hierarchy should be maintained, and although both men and women are envisaged as participating in learning, women

NRSV; cf. P. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 316–20. 24 This does not exclude the possibility that other texts, such as letters, were read as well, as 2 Pet 3:15–16 indicates. 23

Jewish Traditions for ἔθνη in Christ

403

are excluded from a public teaching role.25 There are analogies to this guidance in Philo, indicating that Paul argued from within Jewish tradition now applied to the assemblies of the nations in Christ. The key here is not so much the confirmation of gender hierarchies but the fact that a mixed assembly of men and women is presupposed by Paul, and in 1 Timothy (as in Jewish tradition). Thus the admonition here can easily be seen as indebted to this Pauline advice, although it of course resonates with perceptions of gender hierarchies in Greek and Roman traditions as well. These dimensions indicate implicitly and explicitly that the Jewish context and affiliation remains the context of the message as well as of the implied author and addressee of 1 Timothy. The group concerned, however, is an assembly of people from the nations in Christ – as is the case with the undisputed Pauline letters. Of the numerous topics that are closely related to Pauline topics, the case usually discussed under “ascetic tendencies” is abstinence of some in the community from certain foods and from marriage. Some interpreters consider this to be deviations from Pauline guidance, with those advocating such practices as being in opposition to Pauline tradition.26 However, such practices could be seen as one possible way of understanding Paul’s guidance in 1 Corinthians in particular (1 Cor 7 and 8–10; also Rom 14:1–15:13). The refutation of this genuine understanding of Paul in 1 Tim 4:1–5 is thus merely one among a number of interpretations whereas the Acts of Paul and Tecla, for example, provides yet a different one.27 The fiction of the letter underscores the implicit authority claim to represent the accurate interpretation and application of Pauline guidance in new or later contexts.28 Although the numerous aspects mentioned in this brief survey deserve to be explored in more detail from the perspective proposed here, the aspect I wish to focus on for the remainder of this chapter is the issue concerning widows in 5:3–16.

K. Ehrensperger, “The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul in Relation to Judaism,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (ed. M.D. Nanos, M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 245–76; now chapter 3 of this volume. 26 E.g., I.H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (London, 2004), 51. 27 K. Zamfir, “Asceticism and Otherworlds in the Acts of Paul and Thecla,” in Other Worlds and Their Relation to this World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions (ed. T. Nicklas, J. Verheyden, E. Eynikel, F. García Martínez; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 281– 303. 28 A. Merz, “Amore Pauli. Das Corpus Pastorale und das Ringen um die Interpretationshoheit bezüglich des paulinischen Erbes,” Theologische Quartalschrift 187 (2007), 274–94, here 274–92. With diverse understandings of Paul having been integrated into the canon, absolutist authority claims of particular interpretations are relativized to a certain extent, although through the eventual exclusion of some texts, some boundary was drawn, while the canonization of other texts enhanced their authority claim. 25

404

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

Concerning Widows Concerning Widows

They were a vulnerable group in ancient societies. Due to the significant age difference between husbands and wives in societies in antiquity, women (provided they survived pregnancies and childbirth) often were widowed young. Although refraining from remarriage was the ideal for a virtuous widow in many societies, this ideal could only be adhered to if economic factors allowed. Widows without family support and respective economic means were normally forced to remarry.29 Even the ideal of the virtuous widow was eventually challenged by the Augustan family laws, which required that widows up to the age of 50 and widowers up to the age of 60 should remarry relatively shortly after their spouse’s death.30 These are aspects that certainly impacted 1 Timothy’s guidance concerning widows, but there are others rooted in Jewish traditions that play a role as well. Thus Philo (Spec. Leg. 1:310) recognizes that in the case of orphans and widows (χηρῶν), since they have been deprived of their natural protectors, the one class having lost their parents, and the others their husbands, they have no refuge whatever to which they can fee, no aid which they can hope for from man, being utterly destitute; on which account they are not deprived of the greatest hope of all, the hope of relief from God, who, because of his merciful character, does not refuse to provide and to care for persons so wholly desolate.

The term χήρα designates a woman who is bereft, that is, lacking a male protector. This primarily means being without a husband due to his death, but more generally it can designate a woman who is separated from her husband or left without any male protector for other reasons.31

Advocating Remarriage – Deviating from Paul? Advocating Remarriage – Deviating from Paul?

It is evident that although care for widows is acknowledged as a duty of the ἐκκλησία, the author of 1 Timothy clearly attempts to restrict the understanding of Paul’s guidance in 1 Cor 7:8 concerning this group of women.32 Paul had encouraged women who had lost their husbands that it is “well for them to

S.M. Hübner, The Family in Roman Egypt: A Comparative Approach to Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 92–94. 30 Ibid., 94. 31 Cf. Philo, Spec 3:64: But if anyone should offer violence to a widow after her husband is dead, or afer she has been otherwise divorced from him (ἐὰν δέ τις χήραν ἀποθανόντος ἀνδρὸς ἢ καὶ διαζευχθεῖσαν ἄλλως βιασάμενος αἰσχύνῃ). 32 D. Horrell, “Disciplining Performance and ‘Placing’ the Church: Widows, Elders and Slaves in the Household of God,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. K. Donfried; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 109–34, here 117. 29

Advocating Remarriage – Deviating from Paul?

405

remain as I am” (καλὸν αὐτοῖς ἐὰν μείνωσιν ὡς κἀγώ). If we infer from the fact that an issue is being addressed in a letter, there must be cause for this in the context to which the letter responds (general or specific). The scenario envisaged in 1 Timothy would be that women in Ephesus followed Paul’s guidance. That only χήραι (rather than more generally ἀγάμοι and χήραι as in 1 Cor 7:8) are in view here may indicate that women who had been married before and followed Paul’s advice were especially considered as causing problems. However, more than one problem appears to be addressed here. The reference to an enrollment of widows, on the one hand, and to financial support, on the other, with seemingly contradictory requirements, has led to the proposal that there are actually two separate issues at stake here concerning two different groups of widows.33 While I am not convinced that the passage can be divided into two different cases that would have been later coordinated into one, it is evident that two issues are addressed: financial support (5:1–8, 16) and the “enrollment” of “widows” (5:9–15).34 In light of this there may be more than one purpose that the author pursues. The restriction of the number of widows by various means, including the advice to young widows to remarry, clearly deviates from Paul’s stance on this matter (1 Cor 7:8). Whatever the reasons for this urge to limitation, financial support and enrollment are presented as contingent upon each other in that a χήρα had to conform to a set of characteristics in order to qualify as “real.” If these “qualifications” of a “widow” eligible for enrollment are considered in detail, one must almost come to the possible conclusion that hardly any woman would have qualified. If young widows are to remarry (5:14), yet to qualify for enrollment as widows they would have needed to be married only once, they would be excluded upon the death of a further husband even if they reached the age of 60 with no family member to support them. 35 It is thus doubtful that ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς should be understood in the vein of the Roman ideal of the univira, although it cannot be entirely excluded. More likely is the possibility that this refers to the ideal of a faithful marriage as this would render the demand for young widows to remarry more understandable. Another strange requirement is the care for children, which seems to contradict another statement, namely, that there is nobody to support the widow, which would

J.M. Bassler, “Limits and Differentiation: The Calculus of Widows in 1 Timothy 5.3– 16,” in A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (ed. A.-J. Levine; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 122–46, here 134–36. 34 That widows could have specific roles is presumed in the Tabitha narrative in Acts 9:39; also Lucian, Death of Peregrinus, 12. 35 Deborah Krause pointedly notes, “The writer has accomplished a coup within his community by attempting to eliminate women with social power, physical health and financial means from eligibility for the office of widow in the church” (D. Krause, 1 Timothy [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 100). Cf. also B. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 124. 33

406

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

seem rather unlikely if she had raised children (unless they had all died beforehand, which, of course, cannot be excluded). The additional requirement of having “shown hospitality, washed the saints’ feet, helped the afflicted, and devoted herself to doing good in every way” (5:10b) characterizes her as having embodied the ethos of the movement. With Horrell, I consider this hardly as duties that come with enrollment but rather as the precondition to become enrolled.36 Despite these restrictive requirements, the author attempts to make it look as if he adhered to Paul’s guidance concerning unmarried women. And there is something to it. It is impossible to know whether Paul had considered the practical implications of his wish, especially as far as women are concerned. The author of 1 Timothy tries to provide a practical solution to what in his view was a multitiered problem. That he sees a need to limit the number and possibly the social power of a group of women within the assembly actually indicates that such groups did exist and possibly had some influence and power. They certainly were a noticeable group in terms of its size, which in the author’s eyes constituted a problem. Following Paul’s guidance, there possibly did emerge a way of life for women as an alternative to marriage, as is also evident in the idealized fiction of the Acts of Paul and Thecla.37 The author depicts this alternative way of life in a negative way at least as far as younger women are concerned. The polemical description of young widows as unreliable due to their sexual desires and as spreading teachings the author considers dangerous reflect conflicting views concerning an ascetic lifestyle for women within the movement rather than being actual descriptions of these women.38 Although this looks like a distortion of Paul’s guidance (1 Cor 7:5, 9), it is stylized in a Pauline vein, generalizing the potential desire of young widows to remarry, and thereby providing a reason for not including them in a group that seems to have an established status in the assembly. For the purpose of this chapter the question of any association with opponents is not decisive, but I do not consider such a connection as obvious as is assumed by some interpreters.39

Support for Widows – An Identity Marker Support for Widows – An Identity Marker

The focus of the argument is not only driven by the negative image of young, independent widows as there is also an emphasis on finances. It emerges clearly that the recognition as a “real” χήρα implied that she had to be treated

Horrell, „Disciplining Performance.” 37 Zamfir, “Asceticism.” 38 Krause, 1 Timothy. 39 Mounce, Pastoral Epistles: 299. 36

Support for Widows – An Identity Marker

407

with respect, but additionally it included the right to material as well as financial support. Apparently, Paul in 1 Corinthians did not mention this aspect when advising widows to remain as they were. The assessment of this aspect depends on the translation of τίμα (5:3). Does it only refer to “honor” in terms of showing respect or does it include material and financial support? This is not an either-or question. With a significant number of interpreters I take the imperative (τίμα) to include material and financial support for “real” widows40 (the commandment to honor father and mother is to be understood likewise [Exod 20:12], but this does of course not exclude the dimension of honor and respect). The differentiation between τὰς ὄντως χήρας and others in 5:3–4, 8, and 16 provides guidelines as to who needs the support of the assembly and who should be supported within the wider group of the family. The latter duty is designated as an ἐυσέβεια and those who do not conform to this duty are equated with ἄπιστοι. This qualification of the duty to support a χήρα within the family, if at all possible, is inherently linked to loyalty to the one God (πίστις) and actually conforms to the commandment to honor father and mother. It is not a new ethos but the ethos of the Torah applied and explained to those from the nations in Christ. Thus a χήρα who had family members is not considered to be a “real” χήρα, as she is not without any male protector. This is the distinction between χήρας and τὰς ὄντως χήρας. It serves as one of the guiding parameters in the practical application deriving from a Pauline advice. Paul himself does not give any specific practical advice on how a χήρα ὄντως who had nobody to support her should live, hence the solution that the assembly of 1 Timothy is envisaged to practice seems to be based on their own assessment and conclusions. However, there is an indication in Paul that might be the trajectory that led to this solution of corporate financial support for women who were otherwise entirely destitute. In Gal 2:10 Paul confirms that the mutual recognition of different activity fields between James, Cephas, and John, and Barnabas and himself included the concern for the poor (μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν). This has traditionally been interpreted as referring to the collection.41 However, Bruce Longenecker has argued, that these are two separate tasks, the concern for the poor being a general duty assemblies from the nations should learn to practice as an expression of their loyalty to the one God.42 Without being able to discuss Longenecker’s arguments here in detail, I consider them rather convincing, in that, it would be strange to restrict concern for the poor to the

Cf. Horrell, “Disciplining Performance,” 117, and references in the following footnote. 41 H.-D. Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 99–101; J.L. Martyn, Galatians (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 207; R.A. Horsley, Covenant Economics: A Biblical Vision of Justice for All (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 144. 42 B.W. Longenecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010); esp. 207–19; 279–97. 40

408

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

poor saints in Jerusalem. It is more in keeping with the traditions of the people to whom the Christ-followers from the nations are now associated, that more generally remembering the poor would form part of the ethos of this messianic movement. Concern for the poor is an intrinsic part of the ethos and identity of the people of God (Israel) as is evident in the numerously repeated insistence that “the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, may come and eat their fill so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work that you undertake” (Exod 22:21–22; Deut 10:18; 14:29; and also 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19–21; 26:12–13; Ps 67:5; 145:9; Isa 1:17, 23; 10:2; Jer 7:6; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10). Care for orphans and widows has even also been called an identity marker in Jewish tradition. Michael Sommer has recently argued that the focus on widows in Deuteronomy in particular is not merely about acts of charity and alms giving but represents a perception of the Torah (God’s system of justice) as including all, thus all are entitled to being dealt with justly in the realm of this God.43 Together with orphans and strangers, widows are thus representative for the existence of Israel as the people of God for whom the Torah is constitutive of their life. The widow has a “constitutional” right to be supported in and by this community. Evidence for the continuing relevance of this perception is not only found throughout the scriptures but also in Second Temple literature,44 most prominently in the Testament of Job, where Job emphasizes his unwavering loyalty to God by referring to all that he had done for the poor, and for widows in particular (T. Job 9:5; 10:2; 13:4; 14:2; 53:5). Widows here often occur on their own as those who are being supported by Job, rather than being always paired with orphans and strangers (as mostly in the scriptures). The care and support provided by Job is clearly presented as the credential of his faithfulness to God. It marks his identity as a faithful member of his Jewish people. The Essenes seem to have had some sort of system of poverty support, as the Damascus Rule mentions a monthly collection to be distributed to the “poor and the needy, the aged sick and the homeless, the captives taken by foreign

Michael Sommer argues that “Dtn 10 will eine Gesellschaft nicht nur dadurch etablieren, dass sie in eine Geschichte Gottes mit einbezogen ist, sondern dadurch, dass die Tora zu ihrem verfassungsrechtlichen Kern stilisiert wird. Das Gottesbild des Textes zeigt einen Gott, der seine offenbarten Rechtsgrundsätze, seine ‫ משפט‬jedem Teil der Gesellschaf gleichermaßen zustehen. Witwen, Waisen und Fremde veranschaulichen diesen Gedanken. Witwen sind also hier eine Chifre, um eine ideale, tora-zentrische Gesellschafsordnung zu beschreiben” (M. Sommer, “Witwen in 1 Tim 5. Eine subkulturelle Annäherung aus der Perspektive der Schriften Israels und ihrer Auswirkungen auf das frühe Christentum,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 32.2 [2015], 287–307 [293]); cf. also Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 114. 44 Contra Sommer who is of the view that in the Second Temple period hardly any references to widows can be found (“Witwen,” 297). 43

Support for Widows – An Identity Marker

409

people, the virgin with no near kin, and the maiden for whom no man cares” (CD 14:12-16).45 A later example from the Mishna provides an example of a woman who is a χήρα. The minimum subsistence to be granted to a temporarily defenseless wife through a protector/guardian gives an idea of what was considered a basic need to be covered: He must also give her (once a year) a cap for her head and a girdle for her loins; shoes (he must give her) each major festival; and clothing (of the value) of fifty zuz every year. She is not to be given new (clothes) in the summer or worn-out clothes in the winter, but must be given the clothing (of the value) of fifty zuz during the winter, and she clothes herself with them when they are worn-out during the summer; and the worn-out clothes remain her property. (m. Ketubbot 5:8)

These examples demonstrate that care and concern for those who were (and are) most vulnerable is core to the identity of the people Israel.46 Their support is not an added form of charity expressed at random or to enhance the reputation of the donor but an inherent right and its violation is an expression of disloyalty to God who had called them to be his people.47 Taking this tradition into account, the obligation to remember the poor, to which Paul unreservedly consents is thus more than a side reference to charitable support of those in need in Jerusalem. The obligation in Gal 2:10 resonates with Job’s admonishing of those around him that they should εὐποιήσατε τοῖς πτωχοῖς, μὴ παρίδητε τοὺς ἀδυνάτους· (T.Job 45:2). In analogy to the people Israel, care for the poor and powerless (Rom 15:1) is thus considered as inherent to the relationship to the one God of Israel for Christ-followers from

Interestingly, a specific function for the distribution of this collection (mevakker) is also mentioned. 46 In the words of Seth Schwartz, “The Bible’s elaborate rules are meant to ensure that the charitable donation […]never degenerates into the dependency-generating gif. The pauper, like the priest, is meant to feel no gratitude, at least not toward the donor. Rather charity is a prime expression of Israelite corporate solidarity” (S. Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 18, also 26). Whether these examples demonstrate the existence of institutionalized or organized Jewish charity activities is an open question that is not the focus of my interest here. For a discussion of this aspect, cf. G.E. Gardner, The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 8–26). 47 Cf. G. Hamel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine: The First Three Centuries CE (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 216. 45

410

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

the nations.48 In as much as it was and is an identity-designating aspect of Jewish identity, this obligation is expected of those from the nations in Christ.49 It is relevant that the obligation is passed on specifically to Paul, according to Gal 2:10, the ἀπόστολος ἐθνῶν, with the implicit expectation that this should be part of his activities among the nations. Bruce Longenecker has argued that this needs to be considered in the context of the attitude and perception of poverty in Greek and Roman societies where concern for poor people was not entirely absent but was restricted mainly to temporary support for members of one’s own (mainly elite) group or association who had been so misfortunate as to fall into poverty.50 The system of patronage did not extend to those at the bottom of the poverty scale nor did the practice of hospitality. Thus although it cannot be argued that charitable activity and some concern for the poor were entirely unknown in the GrecoRoman world, it was very limited and any kind of organized poverty relief was actually absent.51 Solidarity with impoverished peers would be considered a noble act among the elite, but it was restricted to a limited period and it was expected that the peer eventually would overcome the predicament. Occasionally, charitable acts could extend beyond one’s own peer group, but again, not on a systematic or life-sustaining level. There is no evidence that poverty was seen as a problem in need to be addressed in a systematic way. Of course, charitable acts were generally considered honorable and commendable. There are also examples where the charitable act is linked to the worshipping of a deity, even regarded as an expression of ἐυσέβεια.52 But these again are rather exceptional and occasional examples, which demonstrate that some concern for poor and links of charitable acts to deities could potentially render the demand to “remember the poor” intelligible to a certain extent also to former pagans. But to be poor and deprived was first and foremost shameful. That

Cf. also Longenecker who emphasizes that “remembering the poor was to lie at the heart of the eschatological identity of communities he had founded, and was itself a practice integral to an embodied proclamation of the good news” (Remember the Poor, 155). 49 For the connection between Jewish poverty relief and Christian practice in Late Antiquity, see P. Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2001). 50 Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 85. 51 The poor as a group or social category were invisible in antiquity. Cf. P. Brown, “Remember the Poor and the Aesthetic of Society,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35 (2005), 513–22); G. Woolf, “Food, Poverty and Patronage: The Significance of the Epigraphy of the Roman Alimentary Schemes in Early Imperial Italy,” Papers of the British School at Rome 58 (1990), 197–228. Woolf demonstrates that alimentary support for children was not a form of poverty relief as the recipients were selected according to their privileged status. 52 Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 96–104. 48

Conclusions

411

poverty was not simply a matter of lack of material possessions and social injustice was acknowledged generally. It implied an inability to participate fully and honorably in social and religious activities.53 The integration of support for those in need into the ethos of a community would have been an innovative practice for former pagans (not for Jewish Christ-followers of course). Although it is unclear to what extent there existed any systematically organized form of poverty relief in the first century, the ideal as such was an integral part of Jewish tradition. 54 Josephus mentions some role of the Temple in the collection of a third or poverty tithe, but it is difficult to determine its precise function and effect (Ant. 4: 240). Synagogues, on the other hand, clearly seemed to have served as centers for charitable activities already in the first century. 55 There are also indications that criteria concerning who would qualify for such support were in existence in synagogue communities in the early centuries.56 The pillars’ obligation to remember the poor which Paul fully embraces is an aspect that necessarily needs to be introduced, implemented, and explained in its core significance to Christ-followers from the nations as part of their “learning to be a gentile.”57

Conclusions Conclusions

The concern for χήραι in 1 Timothy should be seen in this context. It is part of the obligation to “remember the poor” in analogy to contemporary Jewish practice. The guidance presented in 1 Tim 5:3–16 can be seen as an attempt at translating implications of the obligation to “remember the poor,” and of Paul’s advice to widows to remain as they are, into practice. In light of this, the attempt at identifying who specifically is obligated to provide support for the needy could be seen as a practical solution to a practical problem rather than ideologically driven, that is, restricting the social power of χήραι. This is not to deny that this attempt is restrictive as far as support through the ἐκκλησία is concerned. Moreover, it is certainly driven by patriarchal perceptions of gender

G. Hamel, “Poverty and Charity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Palestine (ed. C. Hezser; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 308–24, here 316. 54 Gardner, Origins of Organized Charity, 10–13. 55 L.I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 132–33. Levine notes that in Late Antiquity synagogues actually became the center of communal social welfare systems (372–73). 56 Hamel, Poverty and Charity, 218. 57 S. Fowl, “Learning to be a Gentile,” in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. A. Lincoln, A. Paddison; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 22–40; K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 117–36. 53

412

Chapter 20 Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν: Pauline Trajectories

inequality. From a contemporary perspective, this gender perception is of course problematic to say the least. Nevertheless, the right of χήραι to get support is never doubted in any way. The question addressed is not whether a χήρα, “real,” or otherwise, should be supported. The question concerns who in each case should provide the support, family, future husband, or the ἐκκλησία sharing in this task. I proposed in this essay to consider this passage in light of the obligation to “remember the poor” as the application of Jewish traditions of social justice (‫ )צדקה‬to the ἐκκλησίαι ἐθνῶν. This obligation together with other trajectories of Jewish tradition found in 1 Timothy is part of the identity-shaping ethos that emerges in the ἐκκλησία ἐθνῶν addressed here. Read in this vein, the letter presents significant aspects of an image of Paul, the Jewish apostle, as the ἀπόστολος ἐθνῶν.









Bibliography Bibliography Aageson, J.W., Paul, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). Aasgard, R., “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters”: Christian Siblingship in Paul (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Adams, J.N., S. Swain, “Introduction,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word (ed. J.N. Adams, S. Swain; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Adkins, L., and B. Skeggs, eds., Feminism after Bourdieu (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004). Aitken, J.K., “Outlook,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (ed. E. Bons, R. Brucker, J. Joosten; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 183–94. Alexander, H.A., “God as Teacher: Jewish Reflections on a Theology of Pedagogy,” Journal of Beliefs and Values 22 (2001): 5–17. Alexander, P., “Hellensim and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographic Categories,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/ Hellenism Divide (ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 63–80. Allen, A., The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity (Boulder: Westview, 1999), 126–30. –, “Power, Subjectivity, and Agency: Between Arendt and Foucault,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (2002): 131–49. Alloa E., and M. Fischer, Leib und Sprache – Zur Reflexivität verkörperter Ausdrucksformen (Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, 2013). Alston, R., “Arms and the Man: Soldiers, Masculinity and Power in Republican and Imperial Rome,” in When Men were Men (ed. L. Foxhall, J. Salmon; London: Routledge, 1998) 205–223. Anderson Jr, R.D., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Leuven: Peeters, 1999). Ando, C., The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). –, Law, Language, and Empire in the Roman Tradition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). Anthias, F., M. Cederberg, “Narratives of Ethnicity, Resources and Social Capital,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35 (2009), 901–917. Anthias, F., “Trans-locational Belonging, Identity and Generation: Questions and Problems in Migration and Ethnic Studies,” Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration 4 (2009), 6–16. Arendt, H., The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958). –, Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought (London: Faber & Faber, 1961). –, On Violence (London: Allen Lane, 1970). –, Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft: Antisemitismus, Imperialismus, totale Herrschaft (Munich: Piper, 41986. German Translation of the Origins of Totalitarianism; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1951).

414

Bibliography

Aronowicz, A., “The Little Man with the Burned Thighs: Levinas’s Biblical Hermeneutic,” in Levinas and Biblical Studies (ed. T.C. Eskenazi et al.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 33–48. Arterbury, A., Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in Its Mediterranean Setting (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2005). Ascough, R.S., Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). –, “Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Christian Communities: Overcoming Objections,” in Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (ed. A. Gutsfeld, D.-A. Koch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 146–83. Bachmann-Medick, D., Cultural Turns. Neuorientierung in den Kulturwissenschaften (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 2006). Badiou, A., Saint Paul: Founder of Universalism (trans. R. Brassier; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003). Baker, M., “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul’s Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and Israel’s Yes,” CBQ 67 (2005), 469–84. Balch, D.L., and C. Osiek, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997). Baltrusch, E., Die Juden und das Römische Reich: Geschichte einer konfliktreichen Beziehung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002). Barclay, J.M.G., “‘Do we undermine the Law?’ A Study of Romans 14.1–15.6,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J.D.G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 287–308. –, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996). –, “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (ed. B.W. Longenecker; Louisville: Westminster John Knox 2002), 133–156. –, “The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason, J. Rives; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 315–32. Barreto, E. D., Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Bartchy, S.S., “Who Should be Called Father? Paul of Tarsus between the Jesus Tradition and Patria Potestas,” BTB 33 (2003), 135–47. –, “‘When I am Weak I am Strong’: A Pauline Paradox in Cultural Context,” in Kontexte der Schrift, Band II: Kultur, Politik, Religion, Sprache, Text. Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. C. Strecker; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 49–60. Bartels, A., Der deutsche Verfall (Zeitz: Sis-Verlag, 31919). Barton, C.A., Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001). –, and D. Boyarin, Imagine No Religion: How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities (New York: Fordham University Press, 2016). Barton, S.C., L.T. Stuckenbruck, and B.G. Wold., eds., Memory in the Bible and Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Bassler, J.M., “Divine Impartiality in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984), 43–58. –, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996). –, “Limits and Differentiation: The Calculus of Widows in 1 Timothy 5.3-16,” in A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (ed. A.-J. Levine; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 122–46.

Bibliography

415

Bauckham, R., “Peter, James, and the Gentiles,” in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (ed. B. Chilton, C. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 91–142. –, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Baumgarten, A., “Sages Increase Peace in the World: Reconciliation and Power,” in The Faces of Torah: Studies in Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade (ed. M. Bar-Asher Siegal, T. Novick, C. Hayes; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2017), 221–36. Baur, F.C., “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831), 61–206. –, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings (ed. E. Zeller; trans. A. Menzies; 1873; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003). Beard, M., J. North, and S.R.F. Price, The Religions of Rome: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Becker, E.-M., Schreiben und Verstehen: Paulinische Briefhermeneutik im Zweiten Korintherbrief (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Beker, J.C., Paul, the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980). Belayche, N., “Deus deum .. summorum maximus (Apuleius): Ritual Expression of Distinction in the Divine World in the Imperial Period,” in One God: Studies in Pagan Monotheism and Related Religious Ideas in the Roman Empire (ed. S. Mitchell, P. Van Nufelen; Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 2010), 141–166. Ben Zeev, M., “From Toleration to Destruction: Roman Policy and the Jewish Temple,” in The Temple in Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah. Essays in Honor of Professor Louis H. Feldman (ed. S. Fine; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 57–68. Bendik, I., Paulus in Neuer Sicht? Eine kritische Einführung in die New Perspective on Paul (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010). Bendlin, A., “Purity and Pollution,” in A Companion to Greek Religion (ed. D. Ogden; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 178–81. Benhabib, S., The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996). Berkowitz, B.A., Defining Jewish Difference: From Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 24–59. Bernstein, M.J., “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (ed. H. Najman, J.H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 215–38. Berthelot, K., “Philo’s Perception of the Roman Empire,” JSJ 42 (2011): 166–87. Bettini, M, Anthropology and Roman Culture: Kinship, Time, Images of the Soul (trans. J. van Sickle; Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1991). Betz, H.-D., Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). Bichler, R., Hellenismus: Geschichte und Problematik eines Epochebegriffs (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,1983). Boccaccini, G., C. Segovia (eds.), Paul, the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016). Bodel, J., “Cicero’s Minerva, Penates, and the Mother of the Lares: An Outline of Roman Domestic Religion,” in Houehold and Family Religion in Antiquity (ed. J. Bodel, S.M. Olyan; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 248–75.

416

Bibliography

Boedeker, D., “Family Matters: Domestic Religion in Classical Greece,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity: Contextual and Comparative Perspectives (ed. J. Bodel, S.M. Olyan; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 229–47. Bons, E., “The noun βοήθης as a Divine Title,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (ed. E. Bons, R. Brucker, J. Joosten; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 53–66. Bormann, L., “Griechen und Juden – Skythen und Barbaren: Ethnizität, kulturelle Dominanz und Marginalität im Neuen Testament’, in Alternative Voices: A Plurality Approach to Religious Studies: Essays in Honour of Ulrich Berger (ed. A. Adogame, M. Echtler, O. Freiberger; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2013), 116–33. Bornkamm, G., “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament,” Australian Bible Review 11 (1963), 2–14. Bourdieu, P., The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990). –, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). –, Pascalian Meditations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000). Boyarin, D., A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). –, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). –, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999). –, Borderlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). –, “Judaism as a Free Church: Footnotes to John Howard Yoder’s ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited,’” in CrossCurrents 56.4 (2007), 6–21. –, Judaism: The Genealogy of a Modern Nation (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2019). Brawley, R., “An Alternative Community and an Oral Encomium: Traces of the People in Philippi,” in The People beside Paul: The Philippian Assembly and History from Below (ed. J.A. Marchal; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 223–46. Brayford, S.A., “The Domestication of Sarah: From Jewish Matriarch to Hellenistic Matron,” Studies in Jewish Civilisation 14 (2003): 1–21. Brondos, D.A., Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006). Brooten, B., Women Leaders in Ancient Synagogues: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Chico: Scholars, 1982). Brown, E.B., “What Has Happened Here,” in The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory (ed. L. Nicholson; New York: Routledge, 1997), 272–87. Brown, P., Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2001). –, “Remember the Poor and the Aesthetic of Society,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35 (2005), 513–22. Brubaker, R., Ethnicity without Groups (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004). Buber, M., “Toward a New German Translation of the Scriptures,” now in The Return to Scripture in Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Postcritical Scriptural Interpretation (ed. P. Ochs; New York: Paulist Press, 1993), 334–357. Buell, D.K., “Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-Definition,” HTR 94 (2001), 449–476. –, “Race and Universalism in Early Christianity,” JECS 10 (2002), 432–441.

Bibliography

417

–, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; 2 vols.; New York: Scribner, 1951–1955). Byrskog, S., Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Campbell, W.S., “The Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel,” JSNT 13 (1981), 27–45. –, “Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter,” first published in Novum Testamentum 23 (1981), 22–40. –, “The Place of Romans 9–11 within the Structure and Thought of the Letter,” Studia Evangelica, vol 7, Papers Presented to the 5th International Congress of Biblical Studies, Oxford 1973 (ed. E.A. Livingstone; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982), 90–99. –, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context, Jew and Gentile in The Letter to the Romans (Berlin, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991. Repr. 1992). –, “The Contribution of Traditions to Paul’s Theology,” in Pauline Theology, Vol II,1 & 2 Corinthians (ed. D.M. Hay; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 234–254. –, “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1-15:13: The Obligation of Humble Obedience as the Only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God,” in Pauline Theology Vol III Romans (ed. H.M. David, J.E. Elizabeth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 259–286. –, “Divergent Images of Paul and His Mission,” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (ed. C. Grenholm, D. Patte; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 187–211. –, “Perceptions of Compatibility between Christianity and Judaism in Pauline Interpretation,” BibInt 13.3 (2005), 298–316. –, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2006). –, P.S. Hawkins, B.D. Schildgen (eds.), Medieval Readings of Romans (London: T&T Clark, 2007). –, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House Churches and Synagogues?” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Intepretation of Romans 9–11 (ed. F. Wilk, J.R. Wagners; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 171–195. –, “‘I Rate All Things as Loss’: Paul’s Puzzling Accounting System. Judaism as Loss or the Re-Evaluation of All Things in Christ,” in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy O’Connor and Joseph A. Fitzmyer (ed. P. Spitaler; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2011), 39–61. –, “The Rationale for Gentile Inclusion and Identity in Paul,” Criswell Theological Review 9/2 (2012), 28–32. –, “Covenantal Theology and Participation in Christ: Pauline Perspectives on Transformation,” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the study of Jewish-Christian Relations (ed. R. Bieriger, D. Pollefeyt; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 41– 60. –, “Gentile Identity and Transformation in Christ According to Paul,” in The Making of Christianity: Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions: Essays in Honor of Bengt Holmberg (ed. S. Byrskog, M. Zetterholm; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 22–55. –, “No Distinction or no Discrimination? The Translation of Διαστολή in Romans 3:22 and 10:12,” in Erlesenes Jerusalem: Festschrift für Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed. L. Kundert, C. Tuor-Kurth; Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 2013), 353–71.

418

Bibliography

–, “Ernst Käsemann on Romans: the Way Forward or the End of an Era?” in Modern Interpretations of Romans: Tracking their Hermeneutical/ Theological Trajectory (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 161–89. –, Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context (Eugene: Cascade, 2013). –, The Nations in the Divine Economy: Paul’s Covenantal Hermeneutics and Participation in Christ (Lanham: Lexington/ Fortress, 2018). Canagarajah, S., “Negotiating the Local in English as Lingua Franca,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26 (2006), 197–207. Carr, D.M., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Carter, J.K., Race: A Theological Account (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Chamberlain, H.S., Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts. Vol 2 (Munich: Bruckmann, 1899). Charlesworth, J.H., “Pseudepigrapha,” in Anchor Dictionary of the Bible, Vol 5 (2007), 537– 40. Chester, A, “Jewish Inscriptions and Jewish Life,” in Neues Testament und jüdische Alltagskultur – Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (ed. R. Deines, J. Herzer, and K.-W. Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 383–441. Ciampa, R.E. and B.S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Clarke, A., A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership (London: T&T Clark, 2008). Claussen, C., “Albert Schweitzer’s Understanding of Righteousness by Faith according to Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Modern Interpretations of Romans: Tracking their Hermeneutical/Theological Trajectory (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 87–107. Cogo, A., “English as Lingua Franca: Concepts, Use, and Implications,” ELT Journal 66.1 (2012), 97–105. Cohen, N., Philo Judeaus: His Universe of Discourse (New York: Peter Lang, 1995). –, “Context and Connotation. Greek Words for Jewish Concepts in Philo,” in Shem in the Tents of Japheth (ed. J. Kugel; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 31–61. Cohen, R.A., Ethics, Exegesis, and Philosophy: Interpretation after Levinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Cohen, S.J.D., “Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?,” in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (ed. S.J.D. Cohen; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999), 25– 68. –, “Common Judaism in Greek and Latin Authors,” in Redefining First Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of E.P. Sanders (ed. F. Udoh et al.; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 69–87. Collins, J.J., “The Limits of Hellenization in Judea,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (ed. J.J. Collins; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 21–43. –, “Hellenistic Judaism in Recent Scholarship,” in his Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Conway, C., Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Corbeill, A., Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

Bibliography

419

Corbier, M., “The Broad Bean and the Moray: Social Hierarchies and Food in Rome” in Food: A Culinary History (ed. J.L. Flandrin, M. Montanari; New York: Penguin, 2000), 128–40. Corley, K.E., “Feminist Myths of Christian Origins,” in Reimagining Christian Origins (ed. E.A. Castelli, H. Taussig; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 51–67. –, Maranatha: Women’s Funerary Rituals and Christian Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010). Crenshaw, J.L., Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York: Doubleday, 1998). Crossan, J.D., The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991). Cullman, O., The Earliest Christian Confessions (London: SPCK, 1949). D’Angelo, M.R., “‘Knowing How to Preside over His Own Houshold’: Imperial Masculinity and Christian Asceticism in the Pastorals, Hermas, and Luke-Acts,” in New Testament Masculinities (ed. S.D. Moore, J.C. Anderson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 265–295. –, “Ἑυσέβεια’: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals,” Biblical Interpretation 11.2 (2003), 139–165. Davies, W.D., “Paul and the People of Israel,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies (ed. W.D. Davies; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 153–63. –, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. Some Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1948; 50th anniversary edition Mifflintown: Sigler, 1998) De Maris, R., The New Testament in its Ritual World (London: Routledge, 2008). Deleuze, G., F. Guattari, Rhizome (Paris: Editions du Minuit, 1976). –, F. Guattari, Das Rhizom (Berlin: Merve, 1977). –, F. Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987). Dench, E., Romulus’s Asylum: Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Derrida, J., “Violence and Metaphysics,” in Writing and Difference (ed. J. Derrida; London: Routledge, reprint 2002 of the first edition of 1978). –, Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews 1971–2000 (ed. E. Rottenberg; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002) 20–1. Dewey, J., “Textuality in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions,” Semeia 65 (1994), 37–66. Dmitriev, S., The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Dochhorn, J., “Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit. Eine Studie zu den exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm 16,20a,” ZNW 98 (2007), 189–21. Dodd, C.H., The Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932). Donaldson, T.L., “Riches for the Gentiles,” JBL 112 (1993), 81–98. –, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007). Donfried, K.P., (ed.), 1 Timothy Reconsidered (Leuven: Peeters, 2008). Douglas, M., “Deciphering a Meal,” in Implicit Meanings (ed. M. Douglas; London: Routledge, 1975), 249–75. –, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Dubbnik, J., “Ähnlich und doch ganz anders: Priester und Propheten über die Begriffe Heilig und Unrein” in Communia Viatorum 50/1, (2008), 6–19.

420

Bibliography

Dungan, D.L., Constantine’s Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). Dunn, J.D.G., “The New Perspective on Paul,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 65 (1983), 95–122. –, Commentary on Romans 1–8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988). –, Romans 9-16 (WBC 36b; Dallas: Word, 1988). –, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990). –, “Paul: Apostate or Apostle of Israel?,” ZNW 89 (1998), 256–271. –, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). –, “Paul’s Conversion: A Light to 20th Century Disputes,” in The New Perspective on Paul (ed. J.D.G. Dunn; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 341–59. –, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). DuToit, A. “Paulus Oecumenicus: Interculturality in the Shaping of Paul’s Theology,” NTS 55 (2009), 121–43. Eastman, S., “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 911,” NTS 56 (2010), 147–70. Eckhardt, B., Ethnos und Herrschaft. Politische Figurationen Judäischer Identität von Antiochos III. bis Herodes I (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2013). Eco, U., Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation (London: Phoenix, 2004). Ego, B., “Purity Concepts in Jewish Traditions of the Hellenistic Period,” in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (ed. C. Frevel, C. Nihan; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 477–92. Ehrensperger, K., “Let Everyone be Convinced in his/her Own Mind: Derrida and the Deconstruction of Paulinism” in SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 53–73. –, “‘Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ’: A Hidden Discourse of Power and Domination in Paul?,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 38/4 (2003), 241–261. –, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London, New York: T&T Clark, 2004). –, “Scriptural Reasoning – the Dynamic that Informed Paul’s Theologizing,” Irish Biblical Studies 26.1 (2004), 32–52 (also Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 5.2 [2005], http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/). –, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early ChristMovement (London: T&T Clark, 2007). –, “Reading Romans ‘in the Face of the Other’: Lévinas, the Jewish Philosopher, meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle,” in Reading Romans with Contemporary Philosophers and Theologians. Romans Through History and Cultures Series, vol 7 (ed. D. Odell-Scott; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 115–54. –, “‘Called to be Saints’ – the Identity-Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 90–109. –,“Paulus, sein Volk und die Rasseterminologie. Kritische Anfragen an den “Race”-Diskurs in neuerer englischsprachiger Paulus-Forschung,” Kirche und Israel 27 (2012), 119– 33. –, “Speaking Greek under Rome: Paul, the Power of Language and the Language of Power,” Neotestamentica 46 (2012), 9–28. –, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space Between (London: T&T Clark, 2013).

Bibliography

421

–, “The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15.31): Paul's Hopes and Fears,” in Erlesenes Jerusalem: Festschrift für Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed . L. Kundert and C. Tuor-Kurth; Basel: Reinhardt Verlag, 2013), 338–52. –, “Paul, his People, and Racial Terminology,” JECH 3 (2013), 17–33. –, “The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul in Relation to Judaism,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (ed. M. Nanos, M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 245–76. –, “Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia: The Challenge of Negotiating the Spirit World,” in The First Urban Churches. Volume 2: Roman Corinth (ed. J.R. Harrison, L.L. Welborn; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 105–32. –, “The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι and Images of Community in Early Enoch Traditions in Bi-Cultural Perspective,” in Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (ed. G. Boccaccini; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 183–216. –, “Embodying the Ways in Christ: Paul’s Teaching of the Nations,” in Second Temple Jewish Paideia (ed. J. Zurawski; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2017), 239–53. –, “Paul and Feminism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies (ed. M.V. Novenson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Eisenbaum, P., Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Jew (New York: HarperOne, 2009). Elliott, J.H., “Jesus, the Israelite Was Neither a ‘Jew’ Nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting a Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5 (2007), 119–54. Elliott, N., The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's Dialogue with Judaism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). –, “Paul and the Politics of the Empire,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Essays in Honour of Krister Stendahl (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 17–39. –, “Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities,” in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (ed. R.A. Horsley; SemeiaSt 48; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004). –, “The Apostle’s Self-Presentation as Anti-Imperial Performance” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2004), 67–88. –, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). Elsner, J., “Self in the Language of the Other: Pseudo-Lucian at the Temple of Hierapolis,” in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire (ed. S. Goldhill; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 123– 53. Engberg-Pedersen, T., Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. –, “Introduction,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed. ibid.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 1–16. –, “‘Everything is Clean’ and ‘Everything that is not of faith is sin’: The Logic of Pauline Casuistry in Romans 14.1–15.13,” in Paul, Grace and Freedom: Essays in Honour of John K. Riches (ed. P. Middleton, A. Paddison, K. Wendell; New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 22–38. Engelmann, M., Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen zum literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 192 (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2012). Erbe, W., “Einleitung’, in Was bedeuten uns heute Volk, Nation, Reich? (ed. W. Erbe, et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1961), 3–11.

422

Bibliography

Esler, P.F., Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). Evans, C.A., “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus,” JSHJ 4.1 (2006), 35–54. Faraone, C.A., “Household Religion in Ancient Greece,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity: Contextual and Comparative Perspectives (ed. J. Bodel, S.M. Olyan; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 210–28. Fatum, L., “Christ Domesticated: The Household Theology of the Pastorals as Political Strategy,” in The Formation of the Early Church (ed. J. Adna; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 175–207. Feldman, L.H., Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Fishbane, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). Fitzmyer, J.A., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; London: Doubleday, 1993). Fletcher, K., “Systematic Genealogies in Apollodorus: Bibliotheca and the Exclusion of Rome from Greek Myth,” Classical Antiquity 27 (2008), 59–91. Fögen, T., “Sermo Corporis: Ancient Reflections in gestus, vultus and vox,” in Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (ed. T. Fögen, M. Lee; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2009), 15–44. Ford, D., “Responding to textual reasoning: What might Christians learn?” in Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (ed. P. Ochs, N. Levene; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Foss, P., “Watchful Lares: Roman Household Organization and the Rituals of Cooking and Dining,” in Domestic Space in the Roman World (ed. R. Laurence, A. Wallace-Hadrill; Portsmouth: JRA, 1997), 196–216. Fowl, S., “Learning to be a Gentile: Christ’s Transformation and Redemption of our Past,” in Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (A.T. Lincoln and A. Paddison; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 22–40. Fox, R.L., Pagans and Christians (Hammondsworth: Viking, 1986). Foxhall, L., J. Salmon (eds.), When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1998). –, Studying Gender in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Fraade, S., “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 CE: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. L. Levine, D. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 237–64. Fredriksen, P., Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1999). –, “Paul, Purity and the Ekklesia of the Gentiles,” in The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. R. Pastor, M. Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Tzvi Press, 2005), 205–17. –, Augustine and the Jews:A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 2008). –, “‘Judaizing the Nations’: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010), 232– 52. –, “If it Looks like a Duck, and it Quacks like a Duck: On Not Giving Up the Godfearers,” in A Most Reliable Witness: Essays in Honor of Ross Shepard Kraemer (ed. S. Ashbrook Harvey et al.; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2015), 25–33.

Bibliography

423

–, Paul, the Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017). –, “How Jewish is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology,” JBL 137.1 (2018), 193–212. Frevel, C., C. Nihan (eds.), Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions, in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism (Leiden, 2012). Freyne, S., Jesus: A Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus Story (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Fuller, R.H., The New Testament in Current Study: Some Trends in the Years 1941–1962 (London: SCM, 1963). Furnish, V.P., “The Jesus-Paul Debate from Baur to Bultmann,” in Jesus and Paul: Collected Essays (ed. A.J.M. Wedderburn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 17–50. Gaca, K.L., L.L. Welborn (eds.), Early Patristic Readings of Romans (London: T&T Clark, 2006). Gager, J., Reinventing Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Gardner, G.E., The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). Garnsey, P., Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999). Gaston, L., Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987). Geiger, A., Judaism and its History. In Two Parts. Transl. by Charles Newburgh (New York: Bloch Publishing, 1911), 131. Published in German in Das Judentum und seine Geschichte von der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels bis zum Ende des zwölften Jahrhunderts. Nebst einem Anhange: Renan und Strauß (Breslau: Schlettersche Buchhandlung, 1865). Gerdmar, A., Roots of Theological Antisemitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1961). Gilmore, D., Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Glancy, J., “Protocols of Masculinity in the Pastoral Epistles,” in New Testament Masculinities (ed. S.D. Moore, J.C. Anderson; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 235– 64. –, “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25),” JBL 123.1 (2006), 99–135. –, Corporal Knowledge: Early Christian Bodies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Glatzer, N.N., (ed.), Franz Rosenzweig: His Life and Thought (New York: Schocken Books, 1967). Gleason, M.W., “Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Anicent Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Goodman, M., “The Persecution of Paul by Diaspora Jews,” in Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (ed. M. Goodman; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 145–152. –, “The Temple in First Century Judaism,” in Judaism in the Roman World. Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Goodwin, M.J., Paul: Apostle of the Living God: Kerygma and Conversation in 2 Corinthians (Harrisburg: Trinity International Press, 2001). Graham, W.A., Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1987). Gruen, E.S., “Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity,” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (ed. I. Malkin; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 347–373.

424

Bibliography

–, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011). Grundmann, W., Religion und Rasse: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nationaler Aufbruch und lebendiger Christusglaube (Werdau: Meister, 1933). –, Totale Kirche im totalen Staat: Kirche im Dritten Reich (Dresden: O. Günther, 1934). Gunderson, E., Staging Masculinty: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000). Haacker, K., “Verdienste und Grenzen der ‘neuen Perspektive’ der Paulus-Auslegung,” in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive (ed. M. Bachmann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 3–15. Haas, P. J., Responsa: The Literary History of a Rabbinic Genre (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Habermas, J.,“Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power,” Social Research 44 (1977), 3–24. Haley, S.P., The American Journal of Philology 126/3 (2005), 451–54. Halivni, D.W., Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (London: SCM Press, 2001). Hall, E., “When Is a Myth Not a Myth? Bernal’s ‘Ancient Model,’” in Black Athena Revisited (ed. M.R. Lefkowitz, G.M. Rogers; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 333–348. Hall, J.M., Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). –, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002). Hamel, G., Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine: The First Three Centuries CE (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990). –, “Poverty and Charity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Palestine (ed. C. Hezser; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 308–24. Hansen, G.N., “Door and Passageway: Calvin’s Use of Romans as Hermeneutical and Theological Guide,” in Reformation Readings of Romans, (ed. R.W. Holder, K. Ehrensperger; London: Bloomsbury, 2008), 77–94. Harrison, J.R., Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). –, “Paul and Ancient Civic Ethics: Redefining the Canon of Honour in the Graeco-Roman World,” in Paul’s Greco-Roman Context (ed. C. Breytenbach; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 75–118. –, “Excavating the Urban and Country Life of Roman Philippi,” in The First Urban Churches Vol 4: Roman Philippi (ed. J.R. Harrison, L.L. Welborn; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018), 1–61. Häusser, D., Christusbekenntnis und Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus ( Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Havemann, D., Der „Apostel der Rache“: Nietzsches Paulusdeutung (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2002). Hayes, C., Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). Hays, R.B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). –, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). Heger, P., “1 Enoch – Complementary or Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?,” JSJ 41 (2010), 29–62.

Bibliography

425

Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism, Vol 1 (London: SCM, 1974). –,“Jakobus der Herrenbruder – der erste Papst?“ in Glaube und Eschatologie. FS für W.G. Kümmel (ed. E. Grässer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 71–104. –,“Proseuche und Synagoge,” Judaica and Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Herder, J.G., “Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind’, in Herder on Social and Political Culture (trans. and ed. F.M. Barnard; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). Herzer, J., “Abschied vom Konsens? Die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe als Herausforderung an die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 129 (2004), 1267–82. –, “Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A Perspective on the Pastoral Epistles,” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in antiquity. Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (ed. A. Houtman; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 547–566. –,“Die Pastoralbriefe im Licht der dokumentarischen Papyri,” in Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur, (ed. R. Deines, J. Herzer, K.-W. Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 319–46. –,“Was ist falsch an der ‘fälschlich so genannten Gnosis’? Zur Paulusrezeption des Ersten Timotheusbriefes im Kontext seiner Gegnerpolemik,” Early Christianity 5 (2014), 68– 96. Heschel, S., The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). –,“Rassismus und Christentum. Das Institut zur Beseitigung des jüdischen Einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben,” in Die völkisch-religiöse Bewegung im Nationalsozialismus: Eine Beziehungs-und Konfliktgeschichte (ed. U. Puschner, C. Vollnhals; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Reuprecht, 22012). Hezser, C., (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). –, “Paul’s Fool’s Speech (2 Cor 11:16–32) in the Context of Ancient Jewish and GraceoRoman Culture,” in Second Corinthians in the Perspective of Late Second Temple Judaism (ed. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, P. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 221–44. –, “The Torah versus Homer: Jewish and Graeco-Roman Education in Late Roman Palestine,” in Ancient Education and Early Christianity (ed. M.R. Hauge, A.W. Pitts; London: T&T Clark, 2016), 5–24. Highmore, B., Everyday Life and Cultural Theory (London: Routledge, 2001). –, Ordinary Lives: Studies in the Everyday (London, 2011). Hingley, R., Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire (London: Routledge, 2005). Hirschmann, C.,“The Origins and Demise of the Concept of Race,” Population Development Review 30/3 (2004), 385–415. Hogeterp, A.L.A., Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters, 2006). –,“Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit: Eine Studie zu den exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm.16.20a,” ZNW 98 (2007): 189–212. Holl, K, “Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhältnis zu dem der Urgemeinde,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. II, Der Osten (ed. K. Holl; Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 44–67. Holmes, B., Gender, Antiquity and its Legacy (London: Tauris, 2012).

426

Bibliography

Homolka, W., “Adolf von Harnack und Leo Baeck: Zwei liberale Theologen, ein fiktiver Dialog,“ in Wende-Zeit im Verhältnis von Juden und Christen (ed. S. von Kortzfleisch; Berlin: EB-Verlag, 2009), 189–217. –, Jewish Jesus Research and its Challenge to Christology Today (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Hooker, M.D., “Paul and ‘Covenantal Nomism’,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of CK Barrett (ed. M.D. Hooker, S. G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982), 47–56. Horrell, D., “From ἀδελφοί to οἶκος θεοῦ: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity,” JBL 20/2 (2001), 293–311. –, “Disciplining Performance and ‘Placing’ the Church: Widows, Elders and Slaves in the Household of God,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. K. Donfried; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 109–34. –, “‘Race’, ‘Nation’, ‘People’: Ethnic Identity-Construction in 1 Peter 2.9,” NTS 58.1 (2012), 123–43. –, “Ethnicisation, Marriage, and Early Christian Identity: Critical Reflections on 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Peter 3, and Modern New Testament Scholarship,” NTS 62 (2016), 439–460. Horsley, R.A., Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). –, Covenant Economics: A Biblical Vision of Justice for All (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). Hübenthal, S., Das Markusevangelium als kollektives Gedächtnis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2014). Hübner, S. M., The Family in Roman Egypt: A Comparative Approach to Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Hultgren, A.J., Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). Hutson, C., “‘Saved through Childbearing’: The Jewish Context of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014), 392–410. Ilan, T., Silencing the Queen: The Literary History of Shelomzion and Other Jewish Women (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Isaac, B., The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). Jacobs, A., Christ Circumcised: A Study in Early Christian History and Difference (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2012). Jaffe, M.S., “The Oral-Cultural Context of the Talmud Yerushalmi: Greco-Roman Paideia, Discipleship and the Concept of Oral Torah,” in Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion (ed. Y. Elman, I. Gershoni; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 31–37. Janowitz, N., Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (London: Routledge, 2001). Jennings, W.J., The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). Jewett, R., “Are There Allusions to the Love Feast in Rom 3:8–10?” in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder (ed. J. V. Hills et al.; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1998), 265–78. –, Romans: A Commentary (Herrmeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). Johnson Hodge, C., If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2007). –, “Married to an Unbeliever: Households, Hierarchies, and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 7:1216,” HTR 103 (2010): 1–25.

Bibliography

427

–, “The Question of Identity: Gentiles as Gentiles – but also Not – in Pauline Communities,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (ed. M.D. Nanos, M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 153–173. Johnson-DeBaufre, M., L. Nasrallah, “Beyond the Heroic Paul: Toward a Feminist and Decolonizing Approach to the Letters of Paul,” in The Colonized Apostle: Paul Through Postcolonial Eyes (ed. C.S. Stanley; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 161–74. Johnson, L.T., “First Timothy 1,1–20: The Shape of the Struggle,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. K. Donfried; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 3–39. Jones, C. P., “Ἔθνος and γένος in Herodotus,” CQ 46 (1996), 215–20. –, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). Jones, S. and J.A. McDougall, “Sin – No More? A Feminist Re-Visioning of a Christian Theology of Sin,” Anglican Theological Review 88, no. 2 (2006): 215–35. Joosten, J., “The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and its Historical Context,” in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage, Reception (ed. E. Bons, J. Joosten; Leiden: Brill, 2011). Joseph, J.E., Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). Judge, E.A., “On this Rock I will build my Ekklesia: Counter-cultic Springs of Multiculturalism,” in The First Christians in the Roman World (ed. E.A. Judge; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 619–68. Jüngel, E., Paulus und Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Präzisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962). Kahl, B., Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis. Fortress, 2010). Kaminsky, J.S., Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007). –, “Israel’s Election and the Other in Biblical, Second Temple and Rabbinic Thought,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins (ed. D.C. Harlow et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 17–30. Kant, E., On the Different Races of Man (Von den verschiedenen Racen der Menschen, published 1775). Käsemann, E., “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (ed. E. Käsemann; London: SPCK, 1964), 5–9. –, An die Römer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973). Kearny, R., B. Treanor (eds.), Carnal Hermeneutics (New York: Fordham University Press, 2015). Keck, L.E., Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). Kelley, S., Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology, and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship (London: Routledge, 2002). Kelly, L.C., “Greek Piety in a Roman Context: Aelius Aristides’s Panathenaic Oration,” Digressus 11 (2011), 51–73. Kinzig, W., (ed.), “Der Kaiser und der ‚Evangelist des Rassismus.‘ Houston Stewart Chamberlains Brief an Anne Guthrie über seine erste Begegnung mit Wilhelm II, mit einer Einleitung,” ZNThG/JHMTh 11 (2004), 79–125. –, “Harnack, Houston-Chamberlain and the First World War,” ZNThG/JHMTh 22, no. 2 (2015): 190–230. Kitteredge, C.B., Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the Pauline Tradition (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998). Klawans, J., Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

428

Bibliography

Kloppenborg, J.S., “Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G. Wilson; London: Routledge, 1996), 16–30. Koch, D.-A., Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, C., “Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis,” in Philippi at the Time of Paul and after his Death (ed. C. Bakirtzis, H. Koester; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International 1998), 5–35. Krais, B., “Gender, Sociological Theory and Bourdieu’s Sociology of Practice,” Theory, Culture, Society 23, no. 6 (2006): 119–134. Kraus, W., Das Volk Gottes: Grundlagen der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). Krause, D., 1 Timothy (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004). Krieger, K., (ed.), Der „Berliner Antisemitismusstreit” 1879-1881: Eine Kontroverse über die Zugehörigkeit der deutschen Juden zur Nation. Kommentierte Quellenedition (München: Saur, 2004). Kugel, J.L., The Bible as It Was (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). Lacey, W.K., Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of a System (Leeds: Francis Cairns,1996). LaGarde, P., “Über das Verhältnis des deutschen Staates zu Theologie, Kirche und Religion (1873)” in Schriften für das Deutsche Volk (ed. P. LaGarde; Munich: Lehmann, 1937), 68–70. –,“Über die gegenwärtige Lage des Deutschen Reiches’, in Deutsche Schriften (ed. P. LaGarde; Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1878), 98–167. –, Juden und Indogermanen. Eine Studie nach dem Leben (Göttingen: Dietrichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1887). Lambert, M., Review of B. Isaac, The Intervention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), in The Classical Review New Series 55.2 (2005), 658–662. Lessing, G.E., “Hamburger Dramaturgie’, in Werke, Vol. 4 (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1973). Leutzsch, M, “Karrieren des arischen Jesus zwischen 1918 und 1945,” in Die völkisch-religiöse Bewegung im Nationalsozialismus. Eine Beziehungs-und Konfliktgeschichte (ed. U. Puschner, C. Vollnhals; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht 22012), 195–218. Levinas, E., Otherwise Than Being, Or Beyond Essence (trans. A. Lingis; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981). –, “Ethics as First Philosophy” in The Levinas Reader (ed. S. Hand; Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 75–87. –, Nine Talmudic Readings (trans. A. Aronowicz; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990). – Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism (trans. S. Hand; Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1990). –, Totality and Infinity (trans. A. Lingis; Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1992). –, Vier Talmud-Lesungen (Frankfurt: Verlag Neue Kritik, 1993). –, Zwischen uns: Versuche über das Denken an den Anderen (Munich: Hanser Verlag, 1995), 258ff. German translation of Entre nous: Essais sur le penser-à-l’autre (Paris: Grasset&Fasquelle, 1991). –, Of God Who Comes to Mind (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). –, New Talmudic Readings (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1999.

Bibliography

429

–, “On the Jewish Reading of Scriptures,” in Levinas and Biblical Studies (ed. T.C. Eskenazi et al.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 101–115. Levine, L.I., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Lieu, J., “The Battle for Paul in the Second Century,” Irish Theological Quarterly 75.1 (2010), 3–14. Lightstone, J., The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine among Jews in the Greco-Roman World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006). –, “Roman Diaspora Judaism,” in A Companion to Roman Religion (ed. J. Rüpke; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 345–77. Lim, K.Y., “The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us”: A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Sufferings in 2 Corinthians, (London: T&T Clark, 2009). –, “Reading Romans 13:1–7 with Multiple Lenses: Some Reflections from a Multi-Faith Context with Malaysia as a Test Case,” paper presented at the SBL International Meeting, Rome 2009. Lim, T.H., Holy Scripture in the Qurman Communities and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). Löchte, A., Johann Gottfried Herder, Kulturtheorie und Humanitätsidee der Ideen, Humanitätsbriefe und Adrastea (Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann, 2005). Longenecker, B.W., Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Lopez, D. C., Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008). Lott, J.B., The Neighbourhoods of Augustan Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Lukes, S., Power: A Radical View (Oxford: Blackwell, 22005). Luomanen, P., “The Sociology of Knowledge, the Social Identity Approach, and the Cognitive Science of Religion’, in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contribution to Cognitive and Social Science (ed. P. Luomanen, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 199– 229. MacDonald, M.Y., The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). –, and C. Osiek, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006). Magnes, J., Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). Mairs, R., “Intersecting Identities in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,” in Egypt: Ancient Histories, Modern Archaeologies (ed. R.J. Dann, K. Exell; New York: Cambria Press, 2013), 163–192. Malherbe, A.J., “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth 1 Timothy 6:3-19: Part II,” Novum Testamentum 53 (2011), 73–96. Malitz, J., “‘Auch ein Wort über unser Judenthum‘, Theodor Mommsen und der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit,“ in Theodor Mommsen: Gelehrter, Politiker und Literat (ed. J. Wiesehöfer; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2005). Malkin, I., “Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity,” in Mediterranean Paradigms and Classical Antiquity (ed. I. Malkin; London: Routledge, 2005), 56–74. –, “Between Collective and Ethnic Identities,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne supplément 10 (2014): 283–92.

430

Bibliography

–, “Foreign Founders: Greeks and Hebrews,” in Foundation Myths in Ancient Societies: Dialogues and Discourses (ed. N.M. Sweeney; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 20–40. Marchal, J.A., Hierarchy, Unity, and Imitation: A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis of Power Dynamcis in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). Markschies, C., Hellenisierung des Christentums: Sinn und Unsinn einer historischen Deutungskategorie (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012). Marshall, I.H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999). –, The Pastoral Epistles (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Martin, D. B., Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). –, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). –, “The Promise of Teleology, the Constraints of Epistemology, and the Universal Vision of Paul,” in Paul Among the Philosophers (ed. J.D. Caputo, L.M. Alcott; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 107–8. Martyn, J.L., Galatians (New York: Doubleday, 1997). Matthew, S., Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1-16 (London: T&T Clark, 2013). Mattila, S.L., “Where Women Sat in Ancient Synagogues: The Archeological Evidence in Context,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. J.S. Kloppenborg, S.G. Wilson; London: Routledge, 2011), 266–86. Mattingly, D. J., Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011). McCoskey, M.E., Race: Antiquity and its Legacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). McDowell, M., Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). McNay, L., “Agency and Experience: Gender as Lived Relation,” in Feminism after Bourdieu (ed. L. Adkins, B. Skeggs; Oxford: Blackwell 2004), 175–90. Meeks, W.A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993). –, “Introduction to the Westminster John Knox Edition,” in J.H. Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), xii-xxiv. Merz, A., “Amore Pauli. Das Corpus Pastorale und das Ringen um die Interpretationshoheit bezüglich des paulinischen Erbes,” Theologische Quartalschrift 187 (2007), 274–94. Milikowski, C., “Josephus between Rabbinic Culture and Hellenistic Historiography,” in Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism (ed. J. Kugel; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 159–200. Millar, F., Review of B. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), in The International History Review 27/1 (2005), 85– 89. Misztal, B.A., Theories of Social Remembering (Philadelphia: Open University, 2003). Mitchell S., and P. Van Nufelen (eds.), One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Mitchell, M., “PTEBT 703 and the Genre of 1 Timothy: The Curious Career of a Ptolemaic Papyrus in Pauline Scholarship,” Novum Testamentum 44.4 (2002), 344–370. Moore, G.F., “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921), 197–254.

Bibliography

431

Moore, S., and J.C. Anderson, New Testament Masculinities (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). Mounce, W. D., Pastoral Epistles, World Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000). Mullen, A., and P. James (eds.), Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959). Najman, H., Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Nancy, J.L., Being Singular-Plural (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000). –, Corpus (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008). Nanos, M.D., The Mystery of Romans: the Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). –, “The Jewish Context of the Gentile Audience Addressed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” CBQ 61.2. (1999), 283–304. –, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002). –, “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul's Judaism?” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (ed. M. Given; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), 117–60. –, “‘Broken Branches’: A Pauline Metaphor Gone Awry? (Romans 11:11-24),” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (ed. J.R. Wagner, F. Wilk; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 339–76. –, “‘Callused’ Not ‘Hardened’: Paul’s Revelation of Temporary Protection Until All Israel Can Be Healed,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 52–73. –, “The Churches within the Synagogues of Rome,” in Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (ed. J.L. Sumney; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 11–28. –, “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism? ,” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (ed. M.Given; Peabody: Henrickson, 2010), 117–60. –, “To the Churches within the Synagogues of Rome’, in Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans (ed. J.L. Sumney; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2012), 11–28. –, M. Zetterholm (eds.), Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First Century Context to the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). –, Paul within Judaism. Collected Essays Vol 1 (Eugene; Cascade, 2017). Nickelsburg, G.W.E., 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). Nickelsburg, G.W.E., J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). Nir, R., “‘And Behold Lambs were Born of Those White Sheep’ (1 Enoch 90:6). The Color White and Eschatological Expectation in the Animal Apocalypse,” Henoch 35 (1/2013), 50–69. Nongbri, B., Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). Noy, D., Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Oakes, P., Philippians: From People to Letter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

432

Bibliography

Ochs, P., “The Rules of Scriptural Reasoning,” The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 2.1 (2002), 1–20. –, N. Levene (eds.), Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Oestreich, B., “Leseanweisungen in Briefen als Mittel der Gestaltung von Beziehungen (1 Thess 5:27),” NTS 50 (2004), 224–45. Oestreich, B., Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Öhler, M, “Das ganze Haus: Antike Alltagsreligiosität und die Apostelgeschichte,” ZNW 102 (2011): 201–34. –,“Ethnos und Identität. Landsmannschaftliche Vereinigungen, Synagogen und christliche Gemeinden,” in Kult und Macht: Religion und Herrschaft im syro-palästinensischen Raum (ed. A. Lykke, F. Schipper; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 221–48. Økland, J., Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Space and Sanctuary Space (London: T&T Clark, 2004). –, “Ceres, Kore, and Cultural Complexity: Divine Personality Definitions and Human Worshippers in Roman Corinth,” in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (ed. S. Friesen, D. N. Schowalter, J.C. Walters; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 199–229. Olson, D., A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch: “All Nations Shall Be Blessed” (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Olson‚ T., “Between Humility and Authority: The Interplay of the Judge-Prophet Laws (Deut 16:18–17:13) and the Judge-Prophet Narratives of Moses,” in Character Ethics and the Old Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture (ed. M.D. Carroll R., J.E. Lapsle; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 51–61. Olsson, B., and M. Zetterholm (eds.), The Ancient Synagogue: From Its Origins until 200 C.E. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2004). Olyan, S., Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). Oppenheimer, A., “Havurot in Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period,” in Between Rome and Babylon (ed. N. Oppenheimer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 102–9. Osborn, E., Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Osiek, C., “The Oral World of Early Christianity in Rome: The Case of Hermas,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. K.P. Donfried, P. Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 151–72. Parker, R., Miasma (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). Patte, D., Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (Missoula: Scholars Press 1975). –, and C. Grenholm, “Overture: Receptions, Critical Interpretations and Scriptural Criticism,” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations, ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 1–54. –, “A Post-Holocaust Biblical Critic Responds” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 222–45. –, E. TeSelle (eds.), Engaging Augustine on Romans (London: T&T Clark, 2005). Patterson, L. E., Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010). Pernot, L., “Aelius Aristides and Rome,” in Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods (ed. W.V. Harries, B. Holmes; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 175–200. Peterson, E., ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, repr. with appendices (ed. C. Markschies; Würzburg: Echter, 1926; repr. 2012), 375–555.

Bibliography

433

Pilhofer, P., Philippi I, Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Pillar, E., Resurrection as Anti-Imperial Gospel: 1 Thessalonians 1.9b-10 in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013). Popović, M., Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic Early Roman Period Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007). –, “Networks of Scholars: The Transmission of Astronomical and Astrological Learning between Babylonians, Greeks and Jews,” in Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature (ed. J. Ben-Dov, S.L. Sanders; New York: New York University Press, 2014), 153–93. Portier-Young, A.E., Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) Priester, K., Rassismus und kulturelle Differenz (Münster: Lit Verlag, 1997). Puschner, U., “‘One People, One Reich, One God’, The Völkische Weltanschauung and Movement,” German Historical Institute Bulletin 24, no. 1 (2002), 5–25. Rajak, T., Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 2002). –, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Reed, A.Y., and N.B. Dohrmann, “Introduction: Rethinking Romanness, Provinicializing Christendom,” in Jews, Christians and the Roman Empire: The Poetics of Power in Late Antiquity (ed. A.Y. Reed, N.B. Dohrmann; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 1–22. Rendtorff, R., The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (Leiden: Deo, 2005). Rochberg-Halton, F., “Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts” JCS 36 (1984), 127–44. Rock, I.E., The Implication of Roman Imperial Ideology for an Exegesis of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: An Ideological Literary Analysis of the Exordium, Rom 1:1-17 (PhD Thesis University of Wales Lampeter, 2005). –, “Another Reason for Romans – A Pastoral Response to Augustan Imperial Theology: Paul’s Use of the Song of Moses in Roman 9-11 and 14-15,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 74–89. –, Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Roman Imperialism: An Ideological Analysis of the Exordium (Romans 1:1-17) (Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2012). Roetzel, C., Paul: The Man and the Myth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). Rosa, H., Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2016). Rosen-Zvi, I., “The Rise and Fall of Rabbinic Masculinity,” JSIJ 12 (2013), 1–22. –, and A. Ophir, “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles,” JQR 105 (2015), 1–41. Rosenberg, A., Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts: Eine Wertung der seelisch-geistigen Gestaltungskämpfe unserer Zeit (Munich: Hoheneichen, 1930). Rosner, B.S., Paul, Scripture, and Ethics. A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Roth, J. P., “Distinguishing Jewishness in Antiquity’, in A Tall Order: Writing the Social History of the Ancient World. Essays in Honor of William V. Harris (ed. J.-J. Aubert, Z. Várhelyi; München: Saur, 2005), 37–58. Rowland, C., C. R.A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2009). Rüpke, J., The Religion of the Romans (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007). Sanders, E.P., “Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Holistic Method of Comparison,” HTR 66 (1973), 455–78.

434

Bibliography

–, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). –, “Jesus, Ancient Judaism, and Modern Christianity: The Quest Continues,” in Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust (ed. P. Fredriksen, A. Reinhartz; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 31–55. –, “Paul Between Judaism and Hellenism” in St. Paul Among the Philosophers (ed. J.D. Caputo, L.M. Alcoff; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009), 74–90. Schäfer, P., Judeophobia: Attitudes toward Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). Scheid, J., Romulus et ses frères. Le college des frères arvales, modèle du culte public dans la Rome des empereurs (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1990). –, An Introduction to Roman Religion (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003). –, “Oral Tradition and Written Tradition in the Formation of Sacred Law in Rome,” in Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome (ed. C. Ando, J. Rüpke; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006), 14–33. Schinkel, D., Die himmlische Bürgerschaft: Untersuchungen zu einem urchristlichen Sprachmotiv im Spannungsfeld von religiöser Integration und Abgrenzung im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2007). Schlier, H., “Die Ordnung der Kirche nach den Pastoralbriefen,” in Die Zeit der Kirche. Exegetische Aufsätze und Vorträge (ed. H. Schlier; Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 129–47. Schmidt, A.E., Befragung des Alltags (Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag, 2018). Schnelle, U., Paulus: Leben und Denken (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2003). Schoeps, H.-J., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959). Schorch, S., “The Preemninence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa,Hungary, 18-20 May, 2006 (ed. G.G. Xeravits, J. Zsengellér; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43–54. –, “Which Kind of Authority? The Authority of the Torah during the Hellenistic and the Roman Periods,” in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (ed. I. Kalimi, T. Nicklas, G.G. Xeravits; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2013), 1–15. Schottroff, L., Lydia’s Impatient Sisters (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995). –, Der Erste Brief an die Gemeinde in Korinth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2013). Schüssler Fiorenza, E., In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM Press, 1995). –, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). –,“Paul and the Politics of Interpretation,” in Paul and Politcs: Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (ed. R.A. Horsley; Harrisburg,: Trinity Press International, 2000), 40–57. –, The Power of the Word: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). Schütz, J.H., Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). Schwartz, D., “Sacrifices of Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem,” in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (ed. D. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 102–16. –, “Why Did Antiochus Have to Fall (II Maccabees 9:7),” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. LiDonnici, A. Lieber; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 257–64.

Bibliography

435

–, Z. Weiss (eds.), Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (Leiden: Brill, 2012). Schwartz, S., “Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine,” in Past and Present 148 (1995), 3–47. –, “Hebrew and Imperialism in Jewish Palestine,” in Ancient Judaism in its Hellenistic Context (ed. C. Bakhos; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 53–84. –, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). Schweitzer, A., Die Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1911). Schweizer, E., Church Order in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1961). Scott, J.C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts of Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Scott, J.M., Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Sechrest, L.L., A Former Jew: Paul and the Dialectics of Race (London: T&T Clark, 2009). Segal, A.F., Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986). –, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Seidman, N., Faithful Renderings: Jewish- Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006). Sharifian, F., Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publications, 2011). Sherwood, A., Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Shi, W., Paul’s Message of the Cross as Body Language (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Sin Pan, H.D., Paul and the Creation of a Counter-Cultural Community (London: T&T Clark, 2016). Smith, D.E., From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). Smith, R.R.R., “Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion in Aphrodisias,” JRS 78 (1988), 50–77. Snyder, H. G., Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians (London: Routledge, 2000). Söding, T., “1 Timotheus 3: Der Episkopos und die Diakone in der Kirche,” in 1 Timothy Reconsidered (ed. K. Donfried; Leuven: Peeters 2008), 63–86. Sommer, M., “Witwen in 1 Tim 5. Eine subkulturelle Annäherung aus der Perspektive der Schriften Israels und ihrer Auswirkungen auf das frühe Christentum,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 32.2 (2015), 287–307. Standhartinger, A., “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römischen Denkens in den Pastoralbriefen,” NovTest 48.1 (2006), 51–82. –, “Letter from Prison as Hidden Transcript: What it Tells Us About the People in Philippi,” in The People Beside Paul: The Philippian Assembly and History from Below (ed. J. Marchal; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 107–40. Stanley, C.D., Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). –, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004).

436

Bibliography

–, “The Ethnic Context of Paul’s Letters,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts of the New Testament (ed. S.E. Porter, A.W. Pitts; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 177–202. Stegemann, E.W., and W. Stegemann, The Jesus-Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (trans. O.C. Dean Jr.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). Stegemann, W., “The Emergence of God’s New People: The Beginnings of Christianity Reconsidered,” HTS 62, no. 1 (2006): 23–40. –, Jesus und seine Zeit (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010). Stegemann‚ E., “Der Jude Paulus und seine antijüdische Auslegung,” in Paulus und die Welt. Aufsätze (ed. C. Tuor, P. Wick; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005), 17–40. Stemberger, G., “Mehrheitsbeschlüsse oder Recht auf eigene Meinung? Zur Entscheidungsfindung im Rabbinischen Judentum,” in Literatur im Dialog: Die Faszination von Talmud und Midrasch (ed. S. Plietzsch; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 19–40. Stendahl, K., Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973). –, Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976). Stirewalt, M.L., Paul the Letterwriter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Stolle, V., Luther und Paulus. Die exegetischen und hermeneutischen Grundlagen der lutherischen Rechtfertigungslehre im Paulinismus Luthers (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2002). Stone, M.E., “Three Transformations in Judaism: Scripture, History and Redemption,” Numen 32 (1985): 218–35. Stowers, S.K., The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico: Society of Biblical Literature Series, 1981). –, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). –, “Greeks Who Sacrifice and Those Who Do Not: Toward an Anthropology of Greek Religion,” in The Social World of the First Centuries: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L.M. White, O.L. Yarborough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 293–333. –, “The Concepts of “Religion,” “Political Religion” and the Study of Nazism’, Journal of Contemporary History 42, no. 1 (2007): 9–24. –, “Kinds of Myth, Meals, and Power,” in Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians (ed. R. Cameron, M.P. Miller; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 105–49. Strecker, C., “Fides-Pistis-Glaube. Kontexte und Konturen einer Theologie der ‘Annahme’ bei Paulus,” in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive (ed. M. Bachmann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 223–50. Stuckenbruck, L., 1 Enoch 91-108 (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2007). –, “The Eschatological Worship of God by the Nations: An Inquiry into the Early Enoch Tradition,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. K.D. Dobos, M. Köszeghy; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 189–206. Sumney, J.L., ‘Servants of Satan,’ ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Taifel, H., et al., “Social Categorization and Intergroup behviour,” EJSP 1 (1971), 149–77. –, Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (London: Academic Press, 1978). Tanner, K., Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). Taubes, J., The Political Theology of Paul (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004).

Bibliography

437

Theissen, G., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (trans. J.H. Schütz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982). –, Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2000). Thiessen, M., Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Thiselton, A.C., The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Thomas, R., Literature and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Thorsteinsson, R.M., Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography (Stockholm: Almqvist&Wiksell, 2003). –, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: A Comparative Study of Ancient Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Tomson, P., Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). Tov, E., “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Editions of the Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of the Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L.M. McDonald, J.A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 234–51. Towner, P.H., The Goal of our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). Towner, P., The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). Trebilco, P., The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmas, 2008). –, Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Tucker, J.B., You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1-4 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010). –, Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1– 4 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011). Tuckett, C., “Paul and Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Gospel of Thomas 17,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict (ed. T.J. Burke, J.K. Elliott; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 55–73. Tuor-Kurth, C., “Abraham, Vater aller Glaubenden? Neuere Zugänge zur Frage der Abstammung der Christus-Gläubigen bei Paulus,” Kirche und Israel 31 (2016): 33–49. Turcan, R., The Gods of Ancient Rome (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000). Ulrich, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). Vahrenhorst, M., “Zwischen Alexandria und Tiberias: Berührungen zwischen dem Text der LXX and rabbinischen Traditionen,” in Die Septuaginta: Text, Wirkung, Rezeption (ed. W. Kraus, S. Kreuzer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 484–500. Vahrenhorst, M., Kultische Sprache in den Paulus-Briefen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). van der Horst, P.W., “Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70 CE?” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue (ed. S. Fine; New York: Routledge, 1999), 18–43. –, “‘Only Then Will All Israel Be Saved’: A Short Note on the Meaning of καὶ ὅυτως in Romans 11.26,” JBL 119 (2000), 521–25. Van Nijf, O. M., The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East (DMAHA 17; Amsterdam: Gleben, 1997). Vermes, G., Jesus in His Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

438

Bibliography

von Harnack, A., Das Wesen des Christentums: Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Fakultäten im Wintersemester 1899/1900 am der Universität Berlin gehalten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901). –, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den Ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 41924; repr., Wiesbaden: VMA, 1984). von Kellenbach, K., Anti-Judaism in Feminist Religious Writings (AARCC 1; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994). von Treitschke, H., “Unsere Aussichten’, Preussische Jahrbücher 44 (Berlin: Reimer Verlag, 1879). Wagner, B., “Cultural Translation: A Value or a Tool?,” in Translatio/n. Narration, Media and the Staging of Differences (ed. I. Federico, M. Rössner; Bielefeld: Transcript, 2012), 51–68. Wagner, J.R., Heralds of the Good News. Isaiah and Paul, in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Wallace-Hadrill, A., Rome’s Cultural Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Walters, J.C., “Civic Identity in Roman Corinth and its Impact on Early Christianity,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth (ed. D.N. Schowalter, S.J. Friesen; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 397–417. Wartenberg, T.E., The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990). Waters, K.L., “No Cursing in the Church: Anathema in the Corinthian Congregation (1 Corinthians 12:3) and the Letters of Paul,” paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Rome, 2009. Weber, C., Altes Testament und völkische Frage: Der biblische Volksbegriff in der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft der nationalsozialistischen Zeit, dargestellt am Beispiel von Johannes Hempel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (ed. T. Parsons; Glencoe: Free Press, 1950). –, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Vol.1 (ed. G. Roth, C. Wittich; New York: Bedminster Press, 1968). Wedderburn, A.J.M., “Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity,” in Paul and Jesus (ed. A.Wedderburn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 117–43. Weiss Halivni, D., Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical Responses (London: Taylor&Francis, 1997). Welborn, L., Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (London: T&T Clark, 2005). Wendt, H.H, “Die Lehre des Paulus verglichen mit der Lehre Jesu,” ZTK 4 (1894), 1–78. Wengst, K, “Freut Euch Ihr Völker mit Gottes Volk!”Israel und die Völker als Thema des Paulus – ein Gang durch den Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008). Wenham, D., Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Werbner, P., “Introduction: The Dialectics of Cultural Hybridity,” in Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism (ed. P. Werbner, T. Modood; London: Zed Books, 1997), 1–26. Westerholm, S., Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). Whaley, J., “Reich, Nation, Volk. Early Modern Perspectives’, The Modern Language Review 101, no. 2 (2006), 442–55.

Bibliography

439

Wiegler, M., “Εὐσέβεια et ‘Crainte der Dieu’ dans la Septante,” in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage, Reception (ed. E. Bons, J. Joosten; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 101–56. Wilkins, J.M., S. Hill, Food in the Ancient World (Oxford: Blakwell, 2006). Williams, G. J., The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2009). Wills, H.H., Leviticus (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009). Wimmer, A., “Race-centrism: A Critique and a Research Agenda,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38, no. 13 (2015): 2186–2205. Winter, B., Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Wolff, C., “Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus’ Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul,” in Paul and Jesus (ed. A. Wedderburn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 145–60. Wolter, M., “Ethos und Identität in den paulinischen Gemeinden,” NTS 43.3 (1997), 430– 44. Woods, D., “Ammianus 22.4.6: An Unnoticed Anti-Christian Jibe’, JTS 49 (1998), 145–48. Woolf, G.D., “Food, Poverty and Patronage: The Significance of the Epigraphy of the Roman Alimentary Schemes in Early Imperial Italy,” Papers of the British School at Rome 58 (1990), 197–228. –, Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). –, “Afterword: The Local and the Global in the Graeco-Roman East,” in Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World (ed. T. Whitmarsh; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 189–200. Wrede, W., Paul (trans. E. Lummis; London: Philip Green, 1907). Wright, N.T., The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). –, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). Zamfir, K., “Asceticism and Otherworlds in the Acts of Paul and Tecla,” in Other Worlds and Their Relation to this World: Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions (ed. T. Nicklas, J. Verheyden, E. Eynikel, F. García Martínez; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 281–303. Zetterholm, M., The Formation of Christianity at Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (London: Routledge, 2001), 113–21. –, “Paul and the Missing Messiah,” in The Messiah in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 33–54. Zoccali, C., Whom God Has Called: The Relationship of the Church and Israel, 1920 to the Present (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010).















Acknowledgements All the following essays are published with permission, gratefully acknowledged. “Reading Romans ‘in the Face of the Other’: Lévinas, the Jewish Philosopher, meets Paul, the Jewish Apostle,” in Reading Romans with Contemporary Philosophers and Theologians. Romans Through History and Cultures Series, vol. 7 (ed. D. Odell-Scott; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 115–54. “Paul and the Authority of Scripture: A Feminist Perception,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (ed. S.N. Porter, C.D. Stanley; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 281–308. “‘Called to be Saints’ – the Identity-Shaping Dimension of Paul’s Priestly Discourse in Romans,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell (ed. J.B. Tucker, K. Ehrensperger; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 90– 109. “Striving for Office and the Exercise of Power in the ‘House of God’: Reading 1 Timothy 3.1-17 in Light of 1 Corinthians 4.1,” in The Bible in Academy, Church, and Culture: Essays in Honour of Reverend Dr. John Tudno Williams (ed. A. Sell; Eugene: Wipf&Stock, 2011), 104–123. “Speaking Greek under Rome: Paul, the Power of Language and the Language of Power,” Neotestamentica 46 (2012), 9–28. “The Ministry to Jerusalem (Rom 15.31): Paul's Hopes and Fears,” in Erlesenes Jerusalem: Festschrift für Ekkehard W. Stegemann (ed. L. Kundert and C. Tuor-Kurth; Basel: Reinhardt Verlag, 2013), 338–52. The New Perspective on Paul and Beyond,” in Modern Readings of Romans: Tracking Their Hermeneutical/Theological Trajectory (ed. D. Patte, C. Grenholm; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2013), 191–219. “Paul, his People, and Racial Terminology,” JECH 3 (2013), 17–33. “At the Table: Common Ground between Paul and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus Research. The Second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 531–50. “The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul in Relation to Judaism,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (ed. M. Nanos, M. Zetterholm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 245–76. “Between Polis, Oikos, and Ekklesia: The Challenge of Negotiating the Spirit World,” in The First Urban Churches. Volume 2: Roman Corinth (ed. J.R. Harrison, L.L. Welborn; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 105–32.

442

Acknowledgements

“The Pauline Ἐκκλησίαι and Images of Community in Early Enoch Traditions in Bi-Cultural Perspective,” in Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (ed. G. Boccaccini; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 183–216. “Embodying the Ways in Christ: Paul’s Teaching of the Nations,” in Second Temple Jewish Paideia (ed. J. Zurawski; Berlin: DeGruyter, 2017), 239–53. “Narratives of Belonging: The Role of Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning in Context,” Early Christianity 8/3 (2017), 373–92. “Διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν – Pauline Trajectories according to 1 Timothy,” in The EarlyReception of Paul the Second Temple Jew (ed. O. Isaac; London/New York: Bloomsbury, T&T Clark, 2018), 88–104. “What’s in a name? Ideologies of Volk, Rasse, and Reich in German New Testament Interpretation. Past and Present,” in Ethnicity, Race, and Religion in Early Christian and Jewish Identities (ed. D. Horrell; London/New York: Bloomsbury, T&T Clark, 2018), 92–112.

Ancient Sources Index Hebrew Bible/ Septuagint Genesis 1 2 5 10 11:10–31 12,1–3 15:5 15:18 17:2–6 17:4 17:5 17:7–12 17:8 17:19–21 21:12 22:18 25:1–6 27:1–29 28:13–16 32:28 46:8–27

16 16 236 61, 123, 236 236 241–43 237 237, 243 239, 241 241–42 237 237 243 238–39 238–39 242–43 238 238 238, 241, 243 241 236

Exodus 2:23–25 3:7–9 4:22 20:12 22:21–22 32:16 32:19 34:27

68 68 221 405 406 34 34 34

Leviticus 8:6 10:10 11 11:25–28 12:23 13:34–37 13:59 14:4–19 16:4 16:26–28 18:3–5

114 304 312–13 114 313 114 114 114 114 114 61

19 19:2 19:18 22:6

309 155, 308 156, 308 114

Numbers 31:14

382

Deuteronomy 1:31 6:4 8:5 10:18–19 14:1 14:29 16:11 16:14 24:17–18 24:19–21 26:5 26:12–13 29:10–11 31:11–12

221 397 221 67, 406 221 406 406 406 67, 406 406 235 406 53 53, 399

Joshua 8:35

53

Judges 9:28

382

1 Kings 8:51–53

68

2 Kings 2:15–16

174

Isaiah 1:17 1:18 1:23 2:3 10:2 11:2 14:2–9

406 114 406 62 406 199 125

444 19:20 29:5–8 33:6 34:1–4 37:4 37:11 42:20 43:6 43:20 45:4 49:8 56:6 56:7 59:7 60:11–16 60:17 61:1 65:15 65:19 65:23 66:18–20

Ancient Sources Index 68 125 199 125 398 398 112 221 112 112 44 62 62, 124 119 125 382 174 112 68 112 123

Jeremiah 5:2 7:6 9:23 10:10 10:25 12:16 16:14–15 22:24 23:7–8 25:31–38 26:18 29:7 31:9 36

398 406 67 397 125 398 398 398 398 125 398 399 221 33

Ezekiel 2:8–3:3 5:11 14:20 16:9 16:48 17:16 22:7 22:26 24:13 36:25 36:33 37:23 39:12–16 43:26

33 398 398 114 398 398 406 304 114 114 114 114 114 114

44:23 44:26

304 114

Hosea 2:25 11:1 11:1–4 11:1–11

291 221 207 67

Joel 2:28

174

Micah 4:2

62

Zechariah 2:11–12 7:10 8:22–23

62, 123 406 123

Psalms 3:4 5:9 9:12 10:7 10:16 14:1–3 22:5 25:1 32:7 51:7 67:5 99:6 105:6 105:43 106:5 106:44 145:9 145:19 148:12

68 119 68 119 397 119 68 312 68 114 406 68 112 112 112 68 406 68 55

Proverbs 1:7 13:11 25:21–22

199 199 156

Esther 15:9/ 5:1

307

Ezra 2:65 6:21

55 62

445

Ancient Sources Index

Nehemiah 7:67 8:1–8 8:2–3 9:9 9:11 10:28

55 34, 399 53 68 382 53

2 Chronices 1:1 –2:2 30:17–19 34:18–30

124 115 399

Tobit 13:7 13:11 14:6

397 397 125, 307

Judith 4:13 9:11 11:17–18 15:12–13 15:14–16:17

68 68 55 55 55

1 Maccabees 1:47 1:56–57 1:62 3:48 12:9 12:21

303 32 303 33 32 235, 241

2 Maccabees 5:9 1 Esdras 9:40–41 Wisdom 3:9 4:15 10:16–22 36

235

113 114 397 113 113 113 114 397 397 397 397 111, 196 12 12 68, 12, 114 196 397 129 130 8 130 130 131 62, 113 131–33 114, 127–35 111 112 111 111

2 Bar 72:2–6

62

Jubilees 1:24 15:30–32

221 239

T. Levi 14:4

307

T. Jud. 25:5

62

T. Job 9:5 10:2 13:4 14:2 45:2 47–53 49:1–50:3 53:5

406 406 406 406 407 55 176 406

53 112 112 113 307

Second Temple Jewish Texts 1 Enoch 1–16 1–36 1:64 7:1

8:1 –2 9:1 9:4 10:16–19 10:20 10:22 11:2 12:3 25:3 25:7 27:3 37–71 39:5 47:2 83–90 83–107 84:2 85–90 85:3 86:16ff. 89:9 89:12 90:6 90:30–38 90:32–36 90:37–38 92–107 93:2 100:5 108:13

196 111 111 113

446 Pss Sol 17:28 17:34

Ancient Sources Index

62 307

Pseudo-Philo Liber Ant. Bibl.

55

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 6.8–9 CD 14:12–16

56 407

Josephus Ag. Ap. 2:77 Ag. Ap. 2:170–71 Ag. Ap. 2:175 Ag. Ap. 2:181 Ant. 1:6 Ant. 1:240–41 Ant. 2:152 Ant. 2:274 Ant. 2:346 Ant. 3:49 Ant. 3:91 Ant. 3:181 Ant. 4:01 Ant. 4:213 Ant. 4:240 Ant. 5:97 Ant. 5:237 Ant. 7:267 Ant. 7:269 Ant. 9 Ant. 11–13 Ant. 12:226 Ant. 12:320 Ant. 13:3 Ant. 14:258 Ant. 14:260 Ant. 14:283 Ant. 15 Ant. 16:43 Ant. 16:164 Ant. 18:117 Ant. 20:13 Ant. 20:263 Ant. 20:264 Bell. 1:3 Bell. 1:630–33 Bell. 2:128 Bell. 2:166 Bell. 2:409 Bell. 2:410 Bell. 7:265

347 200–01 54 201 200 235 200 68 305 200 397 305 397 169 409 397 200 200 200 200 200 235 305 305 53 53 200 200 54 347 200 200 195 88 13, 121 200 200 88 347, 399 399 200

Bell. 7:267 Bell. 20:263–64

200 192

Philo Cher. 83 Cong. 15–19 Cont. 75 Cont. 75–80 Cont. 80 Dec. 32 DeJos. 240 Euthyd. 302C Flacc. 46 Flacc. 48 Flacc. 98 Flacc. 103 Hypoth. 7:2 Leg. All. 3:105 Legat. 156 Legat. 311–12 Legat. 333 Mos. 1:86 Mos. 1:180 Mos. 2:43–44 Mos. 2:215–16 Mos. 2:256 Omn. Prob. Lib. Op. Mund. 171 Prob. 160 Quod Deus 17 Sacr. 37 Somn. 1:173 Somn. 1:229 Somn. 2:127 Spec. 1:30 Spec. 1:195 Spec. 1:310 Spec. 2:62 Spec. 3:64 Spec. 4:135 Spec. 4:137–39 Virt. 108

397 181 56 57 56 53 199 165 346 200 200 200 54 397 54 54 200 68 54 62 54, 56 54 56 397 181 200 200 199 397 54, 399 397 346 402 56 402 200 169 75

New Testament Matthew 5:17–19 9:10–11 11:19 12:1–8 14:13–21 20:20–23

101 104 104 101 104 107

447

Ancient Sources Index

Mark 2:15–16 6:2–3 6:33–44 10:35–40

104 37 104 107

Luke 5:17–24 5:27–30 7:34 7:36–50 9:11–17 11:37–54 14:1 14:7–11 14:16–23 15:11–32 22:24–37

38 104 104 38, 104 104 38 104 105 104 105 107

John 6:2–14 6:25–59 12:2 13:3–17

104 37 104 107

Acts 2:1–13 5:33–39 10–11 10:14 16:1 18:6 22:3 23:1–10 24:17

11 38 304 305 220, 394 37 38 38 340

1 Peter 2:9–10

246

2 Peter 3:15–16

400

Romans 1:1 1:1–2 1:2 1:3 1:3–4 1:5 1:7 1:12 1:18–32

156 87 32, 286 242 366 12, 63, 80, 125, 326, 394 196, 246, 297, 318 324 288, 306

1:21 1:24 1:25 2:1–29 2:11 2:12 2:17 2:17–29 3:1–20 3:2 3:3 3:9–18 3:20 3:22–23 3:27–31 4:11–12 4:13–16 4:16f. 4:17 4:24 6:5–11 6:11f. 6:19 6:22 7:12 8:1 8:4–27 8:24–25 8:38–39 9–11 9:1 9:3 9:3–5 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:7 9:15 9:24 9:24–29 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:30–10:4 11:13 11:17–25 11:18 11:19 11:25–36 11:26 11:28 11:29

168 306 168, 343 288 67 129 67 362 359 68 364 119, 129, 286, 288–89, 292 290 359 358 237, 239 243 293 241–42 241 100 293 117, 197 197 32 246 362 100 343 370, 372–73 293 212, 219–21 224, 242 69, 243 242 334 237, 239 291, 294 112, 286, 327 290–92 291 398 334 358 319, 394 106 69 69 17, 318–36 69, 265, 294 69, 327 265

448 11:30–32 11:33ff. 12:1ff. 12:2 12:8 12:10 12:13 12:18 12:20 13:9 14:1 14:1–15:13 14:5 14:6–8 14:13–15 14:14 14:15–21 14:16 14:17 14:18 14:19 14:20 15:1 15:2 15:4 15:4–5 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:9–10 15:9–12 15:9–31 15:10 15:13 15:14 15:15 15:18 15:25 15:25–31 15:27 15:28 15:29 16:1–2 16:1–16 16:3 16:6 16:7 16:11

Ancient Sources Index 293 294 45, 156, 192–93, 293–94, 308–09, 311 106, 157 80 295 315 157, 178, 319 156 156 100 103, 105–06, 126, 296–300, 308, 315, 328, 401 295 314 63, 295 303–08, 312, 314 100 310 105, 107 311, 315 108 303–04, 312–13 407 63 40, 46, 325 80 107 63, 100, 103, 105, 298 241–44 126, 134 340, 348–49 350 108, 198 16, 338–50 17, 326 197, 321 394 339 341, 348 158 350 350 14, 282 51 87 87 87, 212, 220 212, 220

16:12 16:13 16:21

87 111 212, 220

1 Corinthians 1:2 1:9 1:10–17 1:11 1:16 1:18–2:5 1:27–28 1:28–2:2 1:26–28 1:30 1:31 2:4 2:6–16 2:13 2:15 3:1 3:1–2 3:5 4:1 4:6 4:8 4:13 4:15 4:16–17 4:17 6:11 6:12 7:1 7:1–16 7:5 7:8 7:9 7:12–13 7:13 7:14 7:17 7:17–20 7:18–24 7:21 7:22 7:24 8–10 8:5 8:7 8:14–21 9:9 9:11 9:13

116, 155, 197, 246 112 101 14 170 175 189 172 188 197 67 191 172 158 158 158 190 379 329, 377, 379, 382 190 100 80 80 298 80, 181, 191 116, 197 160 17, 52 51 404 402 404 52 170 197 63 61 126 170 112 126 107, 170, 177 159 159 345 400 158 155, 197

449

Ancient Sources Index

9:20–22 9:23–33 10:11 10:14b 10:20b 10:23 10:32 11 11:1 11:2 11:2–16 11:3–16 11:18–26 11:22 11:23 12–14 12:1–11 12:3 12:4–11 12:8–10 12:9–10 12:28–29 13 14 14:19 14:28 14:30–31 14:33–36 14:34–35 14:37 15 15:1 15:3 15:23 16:1–4

100 86 325 160 160 160 218 57, 60 298 56 55, 56 51, 56 101, 105 102–103 97, 104 158 158–60, 177–78 171–72 172–73 175 175–76 379 175–76 57, 176 183 56 56 53, 56, 57 51, 400 158 100 181 181 246 338, 341, 348

2 Corinthians 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:5–11 1:24 2:11 3:1–3 3:3 3:8 4:7–15 4:8–12 5:17 6:1–10 6:16–18 7:1 9:12

155 80 85 43 86, 106 148 43 398 80 43 86 248 43 45, 243, 387 243 340

10 10:1 10:3b–4 10:10 10:17 11 11:4 11:6 11:7 11:16 11:16–18 11:20–21 11:22–30 11:23–28 11:24–25 11:26 11:30 12 12:1–13 12:9 12:10–12 12:11 13 13:4

43, 106 391 86 73, 80, 189 45 43 73 80, 88 80 73, 393 86 80 73 80, 86 80, 328 212, 222 393 43 324–25 85 85 73, 393 43 85

Galatians 1:6 1:12 1:14 1:15–16 1:16 1:18–19 1:22 2:9 2:10 2:11–14 2:11–18 2:16 3:28 3:29 5:2 5:6 5:7–12 5:13 5:24 6:1 6:15 6:16

112 324 11, 212, 223 325 12, 123, 324, 394 99 339 394 338, 405, 407–08 314 100 357 60, 248 237, 241 125 248 73 112 246 158 248 126, 128

Philippians 1:1 1:7 1:13–14

76, 155, 199 86 85

450 1:16 1:21 1:30 2:1–4 2:3–11 3:3 3:5

Ancient Sources Index

3:4–6 3:5–6 3:7–8 3:12–14 4:2–3 4:8 4:9 4:13

86 86 189 87 76 74 40, 148, 150, 212, 223 82, 328 73 76 87 87 192, 312 15, 80, 181, 189–90 87

1 Thessalonians 1:9 2:2 2:12 4 4:1 4:3 –4 4:7 4:16–17 4:18 5:11 5:21 5:23 5:24

63, 309, 398 80, 82 112 116 181 197 112, 197 334 80 80 17, 156, 174, 312 197 112

1 Timothy 1:2 –3 1:3–7 1:8 1:17 2:1–2 2:2 2:7 2:11–15 3:1–16 3:15 4:1–3 4:1–5 4:10 4:13 4:14 4:17 5:3 5:3–16 5:14

394 377, 396 396 397 377, 386, 388–89 398 180, 394 378, 400 377–78, 382–83, 386–88, 390–91 399 377 401 398 399 378 394 405 401, 405, 409 385, 403

5:17 6:15–16

378 397

Titus 1:5 1:10 1:14

393 396 396

Rabbinic Works Mishnah m. Meg. 4:3

399

Babylonian Talmud b. Yebam. 14a–b 38 Tosefta t. Demai 2:16 t. Demai 2:17

54 57

Pirke Avot 3:2

399

Early Christian Writings Augustine Civ. 6:4

207

Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6:5.41 218–19, 257 Gospel of Thomas 114 59 Ignatius Magn. 10:1 Magn. 10:3

5 5

Origen Contra Celsum Hom. Exod.

257 41

Tertullian Nat. 1:20

257

Greek and Roman Literature Aelius Aristides Or. 47:23

160

451

Ancient Sources Index

Ammianus Marcellinus Rerum Gest. 21:16 246 Rerum Gest. 21:18 246 Aristotle Int. 16a. 3–8

30

Horace Epig. 7:30.5 Sat. 1:9.69–7 Sat. 14:99

121 121 121

Livy 29:18.9

205

Augustus Res gestae 21:1 30 26–30

74 68 80

Ovid Fasti 5:569–78 Metam. 185:826 Pont. 3:1.115

74 216 78

Aulus Gellius Attic Nights

138

Plautus Poen. 522–23

185

Cato Agr. 139

204

Cicero De Orat. 1:59 3:56.213–58.217 3:59.222 3:126 3:220 3:223 De Prov. Cons. De Rep. 3:35–37 Div. 1:128 Har. Resp. 19 Leg. 2:19.5 Leg. 2:27 Nat. d. 1:55–56 Nat. d. 1:116 Nat. d. 2:8 Nat. d. 2:166–67 Nat. d. 3:2.5 Off. 1:238–29 Off. 1:131 Pro Flacco 28:69 Tusc. Disp. 1:1

Pliny Ep. 10:96 Nat. 2:145 Nat. 7:26:97 Nat. 28:11

256 184 68 203

185 77 77 185 185 186 81 187 173 185 167 167 173 202 202 162 161 186 184 81 188

Columella Rust. 11:1.19

167

Dio Cassius 50:24.6–25.3 50:27.1

217 217

Herodotus 7:161.3

234

Plutarch De Iside et Osiride 217 Def. orac. 164 Propertius 3:11.33–42

217

Quintillian Inst. Orat. II 3:5 Inst. Orat. II 15:6 Inst. Orat. IX Inst. Orat. XI 3:1

184 185 201 77

Seneca Clem. 1:11.2 122 De Superst. 95:47 169 Epist. 52:12 185 Suetonius Aug. 29:3 Aug. 98 Claudius 25 Nero 16

74 144 347 256

Tacitus Ann. 2:41.4 Ann. 15:44 Dio 60:22.2

78 256 78

452 Valerius Maximus 1:1.8 203 8:14.5 79 Fact. 1:1a–b 161

Ancient Sources Index Virgil Aen. 8:688 Aen. 8:696–700

216 216









Modern Authors Index Aageson, J.W. Aasgard, R. Adams, J.N. Adkins, L. Aitken, J.K. Alexander, H.A. Alexander, P. Allen, A. Alloa, E. Alston, R. Anderson Jr, R.D. Anderson, J.C. Ando, C. Anthias, F. Arendt, H. Aronowicz, A. Arterbury, A. Ascough, R.S.

378, 381, 383 117 142–46 65 200 42 140 25–28 183 78 150 49, 377 192 231 23–27, 39–40, 64, 153, 213, 225, 249, 252 47 101 246, 382

Bachmann-Medick, D. 84 Bachmann, M. 122, 354 Badiou, A. 277 Baker, M. 332, 334 Balch, D.L. 383, 385 Baltrusch, E. 122 Barclay, J.M.G. 14, 150, 277–78, 296–98, 303, 310, 360 Barreto, E. D. 212 Bartchy, S.S. 42, 46, 77, 103, 105, 190, 385 Bartels, A. 254 Barton, C.A. 6–9, 77, 79, 194–96, 331 Barton, S.C. 36 Bassler, J.M. 2 88, 378, 383, 385– 86, 389, 395, 403 Bauckham, R. 36, 92, 96, 97, 303–05 Baumgarten, A. 90 Baur, F.C. 10, 92, 94, 139, 251, 277, 360, 381 Beard, M. 161–62, 171 Becker, E.-M. 280–81 Beker, J.C. 69 Belayche, N. 398

Ben Zeev, M. Bendik, I. Bendlin, A. Benhabib, S. Berkowitz, B.A. Bernstein, M.J. Bettini, M. Betz, H.-D. Bichler, R. Boccaccini, G. Bodel, J. Boedeker, D. Bons, E. Bormann, L. Bornkamm, G. Bourdieu, P. Boyarin, D. Brawley, R. Brayford, S.A. Brondos, D.A. Brooten, B. Brown, E.B. Brown, P. Brubaker, R. Buber, M. Buell, D.K. Bultmann, R. Byrskog, S. Campbell, W.S.

Canagarajah, S. Carr, D.M. Carter, J.K.

346 355–56, 359 113, 300–01 4 61 32, 36, 39 173 405 140–42 84, 265 165–67 165–66 13, 198–200, 203 262–64 278 65–66, 118, 145, 191 8–9, 13, 94, 97, 187, 194–98, 203, 229– 30, 286, 331 75 55 100 54, 58 292 408 246 294 212–15, 217, 230– 31, 236, 248 90, 93, 100, 247, 370 29, 36, 96, 344 8, 44, 53, 60, 63, 67, 69, 94–96, 100, 116, 126–27, 155, 190, 198, 214, 277, 279, 281, 290, 292–93, 295–97, 299, 308, 311, 313, 319–20, 325, 328, 334–35, 344, 352–53, 359– 61, 363–66, 368, 370, 391, 393 197 29, 187 225

454 Cederberg, M. Chamberlain, H.S. Charlesworth, J.H. Chester, A. Ciampa, R.E. Clarke, A. Claussen, C. Cogo, A. Cohen, N. Cohen, R.A. Cohen, S.J.D. Collins, J.J. Conway, C. Corbeill, A. Corbier, M. Corley, K.E. Crenshaw, J.L. Crossan, J.D. Cullman, O. D’Angelo, M.R. Davies, W.D. De Maris, R. Deleuze, G. Dench, E. Derrida, J. Dewey, J. Dmitriev, S. Dochhorn, J. Dodd, C.H. Dohrmann, N.B. Donaldson, T.L. Donfried, K.P. Douglas, M. Dubbnik, J. Dungan, D.L. Dunn, J.D.G.

DuToit, A. Eastman, S. Eckhardt, B. Eco, U. Ego, B. Ehrensperger, K.

Modern Authors Index 231 72, 253, 255–56 285 181 57, 171, 175 380–81, 383, 385 356 198 152 270, 274, 276, 284, 295 260, 300, 302 62, 141, 144 73 183–86 310 94, 97, 382 29 93 171 199, 377, 388–89 6–8, 90, 95, 319, 332–33, 353, 361 300–01 89, 117, 195, 228 215–16, 229 153, 270, 273, 380 29, 281 121 40, 148, 150 95, 291 74, 194 61–62, 124, 181, 242, 245, 318, 332 281, 385, 387, 396, 403 102, 304, 308, 312 304 23, 31 50, 59–60, 100, 106, 230, 288–89, 296, 298, 303, 334, 338, 352–54, 357–61, 364, 365, 370, 372 138 126 264 41, 198 112 9, 11–12, 24, 27–29, 36–37, 39, 41–43,

46, 49–51, 53, 60, 62–64, 67–68, 70, 74, 77, 80, 82–85, 95, 97, 99–100, 103, 106, 116–200, 122, 127, 149, 154–55, 159, 170, 180, 182, 187–88, 190–01, 194, 196, 198, 202–03, 206, 208, 231, 259, 265, 270, 277–79, 283, 293, 295, 297, 298, 315, 319–21, 324, 326, 331, 338, 340, 342–43, 345, 352, 360, 369, 379, 385, 391, 395, 401 Eisenbaum, P. 60, 96, 116, 306, 311, 313, 360 Elliott, J.H. 98 Elliott, K. 99 Elliott, N. 26, 44, 96, 153, 202, 279, 281, 288, 330– 31, 360, 366–68, 384, 389– 90 Elsner, J. 147 Engberg-Peders., T. 69, 126, 140, 297– 99, 308, 311, 313, 315 Engelmann, M. 393 Erbe, W. 249 Esler, P.F. 36, 216, 219, 263, 321 Evans, C.A. 94, 303 Faraone, C.A. Fatum, L. Feldman, L.H. Fischer, M. Fishbane, M. Fitzmyer, J.A. Fletcher, K. Fögen, T. Ford, D. Foss, P. Fowl, S. Fox, R.L. Foxhall, L. Fraade, S. Fredriksen, P.

165 384 30, 346 183 22, 44 105, 219–20, 328, 332, 334 228, 231–33 185–86 285, 292 163 84, 180, 320, 409 301 74, 76, 78 208, 342, 346 9–10, 84, 92, 96, 113, 116, 181–182,

Modern Authors Index

455

Frevel, C. Freyne, S. Fuller, R.H. Furnish, V.P. Gaca, K.L. Gager, J. Gardner, G.E. Garnsey, P. Gaston, L. Geiger, A. Gerdmar, A. Gerhardsson, B. Gilmore, D. Glancy, J. Glatzer, N.N. Gleason, M.W. Goodman, M. Goodwin, M.J. Graham, W.A. Gruen, E.S. Grundmann, W. Guattari, F. Gunderson, E. Haacker, K. Haas, P. J. Habermas, J. Haley, S.P. Halivni, D.W. Hall, E. Hall, J.M. Hamel, G. Hansen, G.N. Harrison, J.R. Häusser, D. Havemann, D. Hayes, C. Hays, R.B. Heger, P. Hengel, M. Herder, J.G. Herzer, J. Heschel, S. Hezser, C.

196, 242, 298, 300, 307, 310, 320, 328, 371 112, 117 98 361 90, 95 352 334, 361 407, 409 102 334, 361 7 247, 250, 252 29 76 49, 65, 78, 81, 183, 186, 388 276 76, 185 343, 346 389–90 35 61, 143, 214–17, 228, 231–32, 235 255 89, 117, 195, 228 82 255 17 25, 27–28 214 270 236 222, 262 407, 409 352 74–76, 125, 203, 207 90 72 88, 304, 306–07, 309 21 110 55, 140–31, 338 225, 249–54, 181, 381, 386–88, 393–96 95, 254 17, 182, 187, 409

Highmore, B. Hill, S. Hills, J.V. Hingley, R. Hirschmann, C. Hogeterp, A.L.A.

Hübenthal, S. Hübner, S. M. Hultgren, A.J. Hutson, C.

17 302 104 120 215 36, 38, 40–41, 99, 150, 341 340 74, 233 7, 10, 247 355 212, 217, 219, 230, 248, 377, 379, 403– 05 26, 29, 44, 139, 279, 330, 405 261 402 69 395, 397, 399

Ilan, T. Isaac, B.

50, 52, 54, 57–58 212–14, 218, 259

Holl, K. Holmes, B. Homolka, W. Hooker, M.D. Horrell, D. Horsley, R.A.

Jacobs, A. Jaffe, M.S. James, P. Janowitz, N. Jennings, W.J. Jewett, R.

121 29, 36 180, 304 164 213, 225 102–05, 220–21, 297–98, 303, 308, 311, 322, 234, 333 Johnson Hodge, C. 58, 212, 217, 230– 32, 237, 241, 261, 371 Johnson-DeBa., M. 50 Johnson, L.T. 396 Jones, C. P. 216, 218, 228, 235 Jones, S. 67 Joosten, J. 13, 198–200 Joseph, J. E. 12 Judge, E.A. 246 Jüngel, E. 93 Kahl, B. Kaminsky, J.S. Kant, E. Käsemann, E. Kearny, R. Keck, L.E. Kelley, S. Kelly, L.C.

125 62, 112, 124 252 8, 297, 311, 353, 365, 377 15 297–98, 303 260, 277 195

456 Kinzig, W. Kitteredge, C.B. Klawans, J. Kloppenborg, J.S. Koch, D.-A. Koukouli, C. Krais, B. Kraus, W. Krause, D. Krieger, K. Kugel, J.L.

Modern Authors Index 253 73 113, 304 52, 54 32 73 65, 66 195, 261 403–04 256 31, 33–34, 36

Lacey, W.K. LaGarde, P. Lambert, M. Lessing, G.E. Leutzsch, M. Levene, N. Levinas, E.

384 7, 72, 252–53 214 251 254 284–85 17, 47, 62–63, 119, 153, 270–95, 325 Levine, A.-J. 403 Levine, L.I. 36, 208, 342, 409 Lieu, J. 393 Lightstone, J. 168–69, 342 Lim, K.Y. 186, 386 Lim, T.H. 148 Löchte, A. 250 Longenecker, B.W. 277, 339, 349, 405– 06, 408 Lopez, D.C. 49, 51, 73, 78, 123, 183, 187, 331 Lott, J.B. 202 Lukes, S. 23 Luomanen, P. 263 MacDonald, M.Y. Magnes, J. Mairs, R. Malherbe, A.J. Malitz, J. Malkin, I. Marchal, J.A. Markschies, C. Marshall, I.H. Martin, D.B. Martyn, J.L. Matthew, S. Mattila, S.L. Mattingly, D.J. McCoskey, M.E. McDougall, J.A.

377, 379, 384–85 17 234 395 256 235, 263 73, 75, 82 180, 397 377–83, 387, 389, 394, 401 174, 176, 214 405 58 54 68, 120, 122, 180, 216 213, 215, 218 67

McDowell, M. McNay, L. Meeks, W.A. Merz, A. Milikowski, C. Millar, F. Misztal, B.A. Mitchell S. Mitchell, M. Moore, G.F. Moore, S. Morray-J., C.R.A. Mounce, W.D. Mullen, A. Munck, J.

75 65 55, 381 401 151 214 97 397 394 7, 353 49, 377, 388 322 395, 404 180 361, 365

Najman, H. Nancy, J.L. Nanos, M.D.

33–34 183, 245 53, 60, 69, 84, 96, 149, 170, 175, 237, 247, 279, 286, 319, 328, 332, 360, 363, 366–69 50 110–12, 128–32 113, 117 114, 131 8, 104, 247 161–62, 171 148

Nasrallah, L. Nickelsburg, G. Nihan, C. Nir, R. Nongbri, B. North, J. Noy, D. Oakes, P. Ochs, P. Oestreich, B. Oestreich, B. Öhler, M. Økland, J. Olson, D. Olsson, B. Olyan, S. Oppenheimer, A. Osborn, E. Osiek, C.

73, 75 270, 283–85, 294 183, 189, 281 183, 189, 281 160, 164, 169, 262 60, 163 86, 110, 127–29, 132 36 304 105 121 281, 383–85

Parker, R. Patte, D. Patterson, L.E. Pernot, L. Peterson, E. Pilhofer, P. Pillar, E. Popović, M.

300–01 6, 286, 352, 373 228 233 397 75 389 183–84

457

Modern Authors Index

Portier-Young, A.E.68, 110, 112, 141, 146, 153, 326, 330 Price, S.R.F. 161–62, 171 Priester, K. 260, 304 Puschner, U. 254 Rajak, T.

84, 115, 151–54, 187, 195–98, 330 Reed, A.Y. 74, 194 Rendtorff, R. 42 Rochberg-Halton, F.34 Rock, I.E. 120, 289, 328, 331, 367 Roetzel, C. 310 Rosa, H. 85 Rosen-Zvi, I. 187, 239 Rosenberg, A. 95 Rosner, B.S. 57, 171, 175, 284 Roth, J.P. 260 Rowland, C. 322, 325, 329 Rüpke, J. 160 Salmon, J. Sanders, E.P.

76, 78 7–8, 10, 149, 150, 152–53, 277, 352– 58, 361, 369–72 Schäfer, P. 30, 301–02 Scheid, J. 203–05 Schinkel, D. 247 Schlier, H. 377 Schmidt, A.E. 16 Schnelle, U. 91 Schoeps, H.-J. 7 Schorch, S. 11–12 Schottroff, L. 56, 321, 378 Schüssler Fior., E. 35, 49, 139, 145, 378 Schütz, J.H. 93, 379, 381 Schwartz, D. 141, 208, 342, 346–47 Schwartz, S. 33, 41, 149, 407 Schweitzer, A. 7, 356, 361 Schweizer, E. 379 Scott, J.C. 26, 389 Scott, J.M. 124 Sechrest, L.L. 61, 212–13, 217, 219, 225, 248 Segal, A.F. 229, 326 Segovia, C. 84, 265 Seidman, N. 30 Sharifian, F. 12, 197 Sherwood, A. 128–30 Shi, W. 183

Sin Pan, H.D. Skeggs, B. Smith, D.E. Smith, R.R.R. Snyder, H.G. Söding, T. Sommer, M. Standhartinger, A. Stanley, C.D.

82 65 101 80 36 385–88 406 82, 201–02 21–23, 32, 40–45, 47, 243, 248, 253, 261, 286 Stegemann, E.W. 102, 338, 340–31 Stegemann, W. 7, 10, 102, 261, 338, 340–41 Stemberger, G. 37 Stendahl, K. 8, 333, 353–54, 361, 370 Stirewalt, M.L. 281 Stolle, V. 353 Stone, M.E. 35, 37 Stowers, S.K. 160, 163, 174, 243, 253–54, 261, 282, 319, 360–63, 368 Strecker, C. 121 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 36, 111, 113–14, 124, 133 Sumney, J.L. 362–63, 395 Swain, S. 142, 145–46 Taifel, H. 321 Tanner, K. 70 Taubes, J. 366 Theissen, G. 93, 229 Thiessen, M. 243 Thiselton, A.C. 173 Thomas, R. 29 Thorsteinsson, R.M.122–23, 286, 288 Tomson, P. 106, 361 Tov, E. 23, 31–32 Towner, P.H. 378, 400 Treanor, B. 15 Trebilco, P. 110–12, 395 Tucker, J.B. 63, 190, 202, 263, 312, 320–21 Tuckett, C. 99 Tuor-Kurth, C. 63, 261–62 Turcan, R. 202 Ulrich, E. Vahrenhorst, M.

24

195–96, 301–02, 340–42 van der Horst, P.W. 33, 332

458

Modern Authors Index

Van Nijf, O.M. Van Nufelen, P. VanderKam, J.C. Vermes, G. von Harnack, A.

102 398 112 98 212, 218–19, 225, 229, 247, 249, 253, 255–59, 262 von Kellenbach, K. 93 von Treitschke, H. 255–56 Wagner, B. 84 Wagner, J.R. 21–22 Wallace-Hadrill, A. 142–44, 146, 163 Walters, J.C. 161 Wartenberg, T.E. 23, 27–28 Waters, K.L. 172 Weber, C. 252 Weber, F. 354 Weber, M. 24, 379, 381 Wedderburn, A. 93, 100 Weiss Halivni, D. 270 Welborn, L.L. 299 Wendt, H.H. 95

Wengst, K. Wenham, D. Werbner, P. Westerholm, S. Whaley, J. Wiegler, M. Wilkins, J.M. Williams, G.J. Wills, H.H. Wimmer, A. Winter, B. Wold, B.G. Wolff, C. Wolter, M. Woods, D. Woolf, G.D. Wrede, W. Wright, N.T.

335 93 143 277–78, 360 251 199–202 302 17 309 259 403 36 98 262 246 144, 161, 408 94 334, 354, 370

Zamfir, K. Zetterholm, M. Zoccali, C.

401, 404 6, 84, 360 333